Zero-hours contracts have been banned in New Zealand

[Bold Seagull]

I completely agree with this. Not everybody loses out with a zero hours contract, there are some people who need one, for their circumstances. It's too broad a subject to call for a blanket ban on zero hours contracts but if there are employers who are abusing the system, that should be what is investigated and stopped.

As someone who relies on full time employment, I couldn't live with a zero hours contract and there are many people who are in a similar position, but there are many people who these contracts suit and that is the point so far as I am concerned. One policy doesn't fit all circumstances.

Do people really think a zero hour contract is the only arrangement between an employer and employee that can allow flexible, varied working arrangements? There are many employment contracts that can set the parameters of that employment.

You are completely right that one policy doesn't fit all circumstances, but that is no more true of zero hour contracts which appear to give employers the opportunity of awarding an employment contract in their favour to cover a huge range of employment types using this one blanket contract.

 

[alfredmizen]

Both the German and French socio-political systems are undoubtedly very different to ours.

Much of what you refer to concerning less obvious consumerism and profiteering (Americanisation?) seems to be extremely attractive and apparently evident in both France and Germany.

I think Americanisation sums it up,.

 

[swindonseagull]

My wife has a zero hours contract and it suits her, shes worked on average 35 hours a week, she can say no when she wants and can have as much holiday as she wants,
Also gets to leave at 2pm on a weekday when we play at the AMEX. so banning zero hours is not the solution.

 

[studio150]

all the chain stores closed on the sunday ( they do radical things like spend time with family)
we really dont NEED to buy clothes on a sunday afternoon,

If we dont need to but them why shop on a Sunday, and if we didn/t shop on a Sunday the shops wouldn't open.

You could quite easily argue that we dont need to buy clothes on a Monday or a Tuesday.

If you want to turn the clocks back to the 50s or 60s when all shops were closed and it was dress up in your Sunday best and go to church before returning for a roast dinner feel free to do it yourself, and I assume you will be giving up your Amex seat for any Sunday games so you can sit at home chatting to your family and passing the tea and biscuits around.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

They work well, but for employers only. I see very few benefits and plenty of abuse for employees.

Rubbish - for around 7 years I worked in hotels on zero hours contracts ..... worked perfectly for me ..... gave me flexibility and freedom that I needed. They DO work if both parties need them to. They have become demonised by those that have no understanding of them.

 

[alfredmizen]

If we dont need to but them why shop on a Sunday, and if we didn/t shop on a Sunday the shops wouldn't open.

You could quite easily argue that we dont need to buy clothes on a Monday or a Tuesday.

If you want to turn the clocks back to the 50s or 60s when all shops were closed and it was dress up in your Sunday best and go to church before returning for a roast dinner feel free to do it yourself, and I assume you will be giving up your Amex seat for any Sunday games so you can sit at home chatting to your family and passing the tea and biscuits around.

I didnt endorse any of the points you've made , I simply passed comment on a different way of living , so take your condescending , but ineffective sarcasm and poke it up your so obviously intellectually challenged, arse

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Yes, you're correct. The wide spread abuse of these bonded slavery deals is wiped out because it works for one person. My bad.

I've worked with hundreds of people they work for - a few more than your ONE !

 

[Bold Seagull]

Rubbish - for around 7 years I worked in hotels on zero hours contracts ..... worked perfectly for me ..... gave me flexibility and freedom that I needed. They DO work if both parties need them to. They have become demonised by those that have no understanding of them.

Demonised by their application to roles that they shouldn't be applied to. As I have said before on this thread, there are alternatives to Zero Hour contracts for flexible working and freedom, but these contracts are being used for so many roles now that they simply shouldn't be and to that end exploiting one side of the contract i.e. the employee.

 

[GT49er]

"Politicians from across the spectrum voted to outlaw the practice of hiring worker with no guarantee of minimum hours" - why can't the UK do this?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...have-been-banned-in-new-zealand-a6925246.html

Anything to do with us being tied down to not doing anything unless the EU lets us, while New Zealand are not in the EU and can pass sensible legislation whenever they want?



Perhaps after Brexit we will do it.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Demonised by their application to roles that they shouldn't be applied to. As I have said before on this thread, there are alternatives to Zero Hour contracts for flexible working and freedom, but these contracts are being used for so many roles now that they simply shouldn't be and to that end exploiting one side of the contract i.e. the employee.

Indeed, but in that case restrict their use not ban them. I've always considered people that call for bans to be rather lacking in intellect .... they can't think enough for a good way to resolve a problem so just ban something .... utter morons.

 

[Bold Seagull]

My wife has a zero hours contract and it suits her, shes worked on average 35 hours a week, she can say no when she wants and can have as much holiday as she wants,
Also gets to leave at 2pm on a weekday when we play at the AMEX. so banning zero hours is not the solution.

The trouble is, for every one employee that is empowered by this arrangement such as your wife or [MENTION=1365]Westdene Seagull[/MENTION], many more are exploited by it. Employers able to demand when an employee is available, if not they can terminate their contract, keeping those desperately in need of earnings effectively hanging on the whim of the employer who can have as many people as they like hanging on the same arrangement. This isn't a progressive employment choice, it is regressive taking away rights most of us take for granted. The application of this contract to a few specific arrangements that suit both parties has had far too widespread application across too many opportunities for employers to unscrupulously exploit their workforce.

 

[beorhthelm]

Do people really think a zero hour contract is the only arrangement between an employer and employee that can allow flexible, varied working arrangements? There are many employment contracts that can set the parameters of that employment.

it is not the only arrangement but it is the most flexible possible. i think there's a misunderstanding of what defines a zero hour contract, its is simply one that does not specify minimum hours. there can be a whole range of other clause to the determent of the employee, clauses that could be in part-time, minimum hours contract too. agency work is one area that benefits from zero hours, you take the work as it is available, where it is available, with no obligations. is this so worrisome when its widespread for pool nurses and teachers?

the security industry uses them heavily too, to have a pool of workers available to call upon, that may or may not be available for work that week. an employee may be on a zero hour contract with several firms, taking the best offer on their terms. then there's zero hours contracts to avoid unnecessary paper work when starting/ending casual short term jobs (details are already on record), used in hospitality, entertainment and tourism industry. freelancers and some contractors get swept up in the zero hours contract statistics because they don't have fixed hours. i'd be interested to see how the NZ banning zero hours impacts on them.

banning one type of contract doesn't deal with poor contracts, while removing the benefits to many on both sides. we should have, and do now have, legislation to prevent poor terms that are a severe imposition on employees. you can no longer impose restriction on second/third jobs, or demand standby availability and so on.

 

[GT49er]

I completely agree with this. Not everybody loses out with a zero hours contract, there are some people who need one, for their circumstances. It's too broad a subject to call for a blanket ban on zero hours contracts but if there are employers who are abusing the system, that should be what is investigated and stopped.

As someone who relies on full time employment, I couldn't live with a zero hours contract and there are many people who are in a similar position, but there are many people who these contracts suit and that is the point so far as I am concerned. One policy doesn't fit all circumstances.

True. Obviously the problem is employers abusing them to the detriment of employees, not necessarily with zero hours contracts themselves.

A few years ago I had a zero hours contract for several years, which suited me well. Unlike many zero hours contracts, however, the work was there, and I could go and do it whenever I wanted. I usually did between 24 and 30 hours a week, which kept the job ticking over nicely. They'd have probably started asking questions if I'd suddenly started doing silly hours - like fifty hours a week or something; there wasn't the need for fifty hours a week on that job. As it was, I just went into the office most days, but if I didn't feel like it, I just didn't; at the end of the month I submitted my timesheets and they paid up. It was an excellent situation for someone recovering from a stroke.

 

[studio150]

I didnt endorse any of the points you've made , I simply passed comment on a different way of living , so take your condescending , but ineffective sarcasm and poke it up your so obviously intellectually challenged, arse

Ah the intellectual comeback never fails, well done

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Indeed, but in that case restrict their use not ban them. I've always considered people that call for bans to be rather lacking in intellect .... they can't think enough for a good way to resolve a problem so just ban something .... utter morons.

I fully understand they can and do work in some cases. My issue is that if they are available then they will always be abused by some employers, and often used as the standard employment contact, which is what we are currently seeing. They are incredibly loaded in favour of the employee. And let's remember these are generally used at the lower end/minimum wage of wages.

The NZ parliament has listened to its people and voted them out. This vote is from right across their political spectrum. Are you really saying that the NZ population and the vast majority of their parliament are all lacking in intellect"?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Ah the intellectual comeback never fails, well done

It was certainly better than this limp retort.

 

[Megazone]

Zero hours are great. Who needs redundancy payments when we have JSA?

 

[Half Time Pies]

I own a business where the business model relies on zero hours contracts. We support older people to live independently in their own homes.

We match our caregivers with our clients and keep the consistency of the same caregiver to ensure that a companionship based relationship develops. However by the nature of our business our clients needs change regularly in line with their physical and mental wellbeing. Zero hours contracts allows us to flex our caregivers hours in line with this.

Last month we lost a client who went in to a home and had 32 hours of care a week. The two caregivers that were supporting him we moved on to other clients however it did take a couple of weeks to find the right clients for them and for them to build up their hours again. If there were no zero hours contracts rather than reducing their hours for a couple of weeks we would have to pass this cost on to all of our other clients by increasing the costs of care. So pensioners across the country would bear the costs of banning zero hours and/ or the already stretched social care budget that as a nation we are already struggling to fund.

Our caregivers are not exploited, they enter in to zero hours contracts as it suits them as well. Most of them have other jobs or responsibilities such as children/ grandchildren and like this type of work as it allows them to fit it around their lives. They are rarely dependent on the hours and are mainly doing the work due to a desire to do something of value in the community supporting older people. They like the fact that they are also not tied down and can change their availability around with a couple of weeks notice, at the same time they benefit from holiday pay and other benefits available through their contract with us.

Banning zero hours sounds on the face of it like a great idea in practice it would be catastrophic for social care in this country.

 

[Eeyore]

My wife has a zero hours contract and it suits her, shes worked on average 35 hours a week, she can say no when she wants and can have as much holiday as she wants,
Also gets to leave at 2pm on a weekday when we play at the AMEX. so banning zero hours is not the solution.

Agreed, although I'm sure you agree we have to stop blatant exploitation.

 

[bobby baxter]

Rubbish - for around 7 years I worked in hotels on zero hours contracts ..... worked perfectly for me ..... gave me flexibility and freedom that I needed. They DO work if both parties need them to. They have become demonised by those that have no understanding of them.

My experience of zero hours contracts is that there is no flexibility or freedom with them, you work when the employer says you work.
The employee is completely controlled by the employer.