Budget 2015

[Bold Seagull]

Thanks for finding these figures. It's utterly shocking that in 2015 the UK has over half a million workers tied into these bonded slavery deals.

The updated ONS figures now have that as 700,000 workers, given some of those have more than one contract it is some 1.5m contracts. This is now over 2.3% of the employed work force.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The updated ONS figures now have that as 700,000 workers, given some of those have more than one contract it is some 1.5m contracts. This is now over 2.3% of the employed work force.

Depressing stuff.

 

[Bold Seagull]

What do you mean by them working well for some people? Who? Corporations who can exploit the work force? I really don't buy the idea they work well for employees. I'm sure they'd rather have the guarantee of work.

I think the confusion is that people see ZHC as the only option for a flexible working contract. Of course it isn't the only option for those wanting to vary their hours or have flexibility in their employment. Completely agree with you, a ZHC only really suits one party to the contract, the employer. It practically removes all rights for the employee.

Take the example of the Stewards at Brighton. There has to be flexibility in their contract because fixtures might changes, there is a variation of fixtures depending on cup runs, and only a limited number of hours. However, there can be some assurance of min hours given, notice to work required etc. without it being a ZHC.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I don't know why the government don't introduce a new zero hour contract themselves, put all remaining unemployed on it and hey presto - zero unemployment

It would be as meaningful as the figures they currently publish

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I think the confusion is that people see ZHC as the only option for a flexible working contract. Of course it isn't the only option for those wanting to vary their hours or have flexibility in their employment. Completely agree with you, a ZHC only really suits one party to the contract, the employer. It practically removes all rights for the employee.

Take the example of the Stewards at Brighton. There has to be flexibility in their contract because fixtures might changes, there is a variation of fixtures depending on cup runs, and only a limited number of hours. However, there can be some assurance of min hours given, notice to work required etc. without it being a ZHC.

Totally agree. And these contracts typically are for the minimum or low waged so it's hardly going to break the bank especially at the Albion where they're happy to pay Kemy eye-watering amounts to do sod all.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I wasn't talking about you, although I can see how it could be taken as such. There are many on here, on both sides, who have a complete blind-spot when it comes to their opposites and can seemingly never acknowledge positives achieved by their political opponents. It's playground stuff.

I hear you. But you're going to have to help us here and point out the positives from the current government.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Take the example of the Stewards at Brighton. There has to be flexibility in their contract because fixtures might changes, there is a variation of fixtures depending on cup runs, and only a limited number of hours. However, there can be some assurance of min hours given, notice to work required etc. without it being a ZHC.

But you can turn that around as well, some people ( and yes I will use my student days as an example ) want a ZHC because it doesn't tie them to working a minimum number of hours - they can say no. When I was studying I didn't want to be tied to doing at least a minimum number of hours - some weeks I didn't want to work at all and others I'd like to work dozens of hours. IMHO just as long as there are safe guards - as an example signing one ZHC with one employer doesn't prevent you from signing one with another employer - then they can benefit both parties.

Regards the stewards, you have to undertake the basic training for which you are paid but after that the club, in your contract, don't guarantee any hours at all. In fact they can tell you at a match that they already have too many stewards on duty and send you home. That said I doubt it would ever happen although it nearly did at two matches at Withdean.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Like my feeling about the living wage*, if you cannot resource a business on non-ZHCs then you shouldn't be running a business.

* if your business can't pay the living wage it's an unviable business.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

But you can turn that around as well, some people ( and yes I will use my student days as an example ) want a ZHC because it doesn't tie them to working a minimum number of hours - they can say no. When I was studying I didn't want to be tied to doing at least a minimum number of hours - some weeks I didn't want to work at all and others I'd like to work dozens of hours. IMHO just as long as there are safe guards - as an example signing one ZHC with one employer doesn't prevent you from signing one with another employer - then they can benefit both parties.

Regards the stewards, you have to undertake the basic training for which you are paid but after that the club, in your contract, don't guarantee any hours at all. In fact they can tell you at a match that they already have too many stewards on duty and send you home. That said I doubt it would ever happen although it nearly did at two matches at Withdean.

They must want to work some hours though, otherwise they wouldn't be wanting a job.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

They must want to work some hours though, otherwise they wouldn't be wanting a job.

But surely the flexibility is a good thing .... work when you like to a certain extent. Some months I worked hundreds of hours ( Poly holidays for example ) and other months not at all ( exam time ). If I'd had a contract with minimum hours I couldn't have done that.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

But you can turn that around as well, some people ( and yes I will use my student days as an example ) want a ZHC because it doesn't tie them to working a minimum number of hours - they can say no. When I was studying I didn't want to be tied to doing at least a minimum number of hours - some weeks I didn't want to work at all and others I'd like to work dozens of hours. IMHO just as long as there are safe guards - as an example signing one ZHC with one employer doesn't prevent you from signing one with another employer - then they can benefit both parties.

Regards the stewards, you have to undertake the basic training for which you are paid but after that the club, in your contract, don't guarantee any hours at all. In fact they can tell you at a match that they already have too many stewards on duty and send you home. That said I doubt it would ever happen although it nearly did at two matches at Withdean.

I was going to type most of that in response to HT. They're not without their faults, but they're not as evil as everyone likes to make out. Some people really don't want to commit to working regularly or for a set amount of hours per week.

 

[LamieRobertson]

and also in the budget ........

 

[Bold Seagull]

But you can turn that around as well, some people ( and yes I will use my student days as an example ) want a ZHC because it doesn't tie them to working a minimum number of hours - they can say no. When I was studying I didn't want to be tied to doing at least a minimum number of hours - some weeks I didn't want to work at all and others I'd like to work dozens of hours. IMHO just as long as there are safe guards - as an example signing one ZHC with one employer doesn't prevent you from signing one with another employer - then they can benefit both parties.

Regards the stewards, you have to undertake the basic training for which you are paid but after that the club, in your contract, don't guarantee any hours at all. In fact they can tell you at a match that they already have too many stewards on duty and send you home. That said I doubt it would ever happen although it nearly did at two matches at Withdean.

I think you are looking at this through rose tinted glasses. In a lot of cases, you either turn up for work when asked, or you're out. This notion of you being able to turn around and say 'actually, I don't fancy working this week' is a notion that I don't think exists in the vase majority of these contracts.

 

[beorhthelm]

What do you mean by them working well for some people? Who? Corporations who can exploit the work force? I really don't buy the idea they work well for employees. I'm sure they'd rather have the guarantee of work.

exploitative corporations like the NHS, Dept. of Education, councils? one of the unions employed security staff on zero hours until very recently.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I think you are looking at this through rose tinted glasses. In a lot of cases, you either turn up for work when asked, or you're out. This notion of you being able to turn around and say 'actually, I don't fancy working this week' is a notion that I don't think exists in the vast majority of these contracts.

'think' ....is this through talking to friends etc ..?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I think you are looking at this through rose tinted glasses. In a lot of cases, you either turn up for work when asked, or you're out. This notion of you being able to turn around and say 'actually, I don't fancy working this week' is a notion that I don't think exists in the vase majority of these contracts.

I can assure that in hospitality that option does exist - in nearly every hotel and bar in this city. I just object to the daft notion that if something is considered bad by SOME people that the automatic response is "Ban it". No, alter it, put in safe guards. Banning is generally the first call of the stupid.

 

[Bold Seagull]

'think' ....is this through talking to friends etc ..?

No, clearly the rise of these contracts is a relatively new thing and the statistics and surveys are still lagging behind. So the information we have is forming a picture of what actually these contracts are about, but the picture is by no means definitive. My 'think' is no more doubtful than yours or Westdene's fanciful notion of students being able to pick and choose when they want to work at their leisure as a meaningful example of what these contracts mean to the employee.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

No, clearly the rise of these contracts is a relatively new thing and the statistics and surveys are still lagging behind. So the information we have is forming a picture of what actually these contracts are about, but the picture is by no means definitive. My 'think' is no more doubtful than yours or Westdene's fanciful notion of students being able to pick and choose when they want to work at their leisure as a meaningful example of what these contracts mean to the employee.

If I hadn't had experience of it then yes it might be fanciful. But I have experienced it and I still have many friends in the hospitality industry who use these types of contracts quite happily ( and willingly ).

 

[Bold Seagull]

I can assure that in hospitality that option does exist - in nearly every hotel and bar in this city. I just object to the daft notion that if something is considered bad by SOME people that the automatic response is "Ban it". No, alter it, put in safe guards. Banning is generally the first call of the stupid.

So where have I said ban them?

You've just said they need altering and safe guards - why do they need those if you're seemingly so happy with them?

 

[Bold Seagull]

If I hadn't had experience of it then yes it might be fanciful. But I have experienced it and I still have many friends in the hospitality industry who use these types of contracts quite happily ( and willingly ).

I was a student 20 years ago, and worked various bar and service jobs, in similar flexible terms but none were on zero hour contracts.