Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

Alain Quay wrote:

[quote="
If Labour banned them the likely result would be more unemployment and less people with the flexibility that they need.

So long as it's other people on zero hour contracts, eh.

If that damn Abraham Lincoln bans slavery, the likely result would be more unemployment and less people with the flexibility that the employers need.[/quote]
You seem to be ignoring the point that 2/3 of those on these contracts are happy with the hours that they wor - ike I said above. To compare it with slavery is just lazy leftiebollox.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

The issue is when zero hour contracts are used by firms to shirk responsibilities to employees who they are employing as a full time employee for all intent and purpose.

No one has an issue with people wanting to work flexi.

The issue is when it's not used as it was intended.

Most things can be used in ways not intended. The answer is not to ban them.

rick_chasey

And there are a million of people who are employed on them.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.newsta ... acts%3Famp

A ZHC is a contract where a person is not contracted to work any certain number of hours, and is only paid for the number of hours they actually work. In this situation, the employer has the discretion to vary employee’s working hours from anywhere between full-time to zero hours, giving a trade-off between flexibility and uncertainty of hours. This is why Professor Kim Hoque, Professor of Human Resource Management at the University of Warwick, says: “A significant degree of the benefits of these contracts are geared towards employers. The number of people on these contracts on a lifestyle choice is not that great.”

For University of Cambridge Lecturer, Dr Brenan Burchell, who specialises in the effects of labour market experiences, the appeal of these contracts to companies is apparent: “Companies are exploiting the current economic situation for their profit driven interests. If people could get better jobs with secure hours, they wouldn’t take these jobs.”

“A lot of people describe very harrowing situations that are driving them to tears, always worrying about their hours and work conditions. This can lead to a number of psychological problems including symptoms of anxiety and depression.”

I'm familiar with the argument of more regulation around minimum pay = higher unemployment, but I don't always buy that.

Evidence from the minimum wage suggests that employment sensitivity at that bottom end is relatively low.

On a more humane level, we shouldn't really be aiming for Victorian styles of employment. There was shock and outrage when they banned children from working in factories, claiming Britain would go bust, blah blah blah, but we all seem fairly happy with that regulation now.

I can't see why it's so bad firms are made to provide a certain level of standard in their contracts.

I think if the sole breadwinner is on ZHC, the flexibility you as the emoloyee has to have can be very challenging and stressful - last minute calls at inconvenient times etc. That article illustrates it quite well.

If Stevo doesn't want them banned, how does he propose firms stop exploiting people?

Stevo_666

As I said above, less than 3% of the workforce are these contracts and 2/3 seem to be saying it suits them so this is apparently an issue for less than 1% of the workforce. Just to get it into perspective. I know a lot of people who think they have a raw deal on conventional employment contracts so it isn't restricted this this relatively small percentage of overall work contracts.

Question is is whether you can stop the minority of the situations where some employers take advantage without making it so inflexible and onerous on employers that they drop them and reduce opportunities for employment. Sometimes you need to allow some flexibility.

Or - shock horror - if an employee really finds the terms and conditions offered to them unacceptable/objectionable, they could decline the offer :roll: Unemployment is at a record low so seem as if the market is not too bad for job seekers currently. Possibly partly due to flexible work contracts?

rjsterry

Although if you are on a ZHC and your employer decides they don't need you for more than a couple of hours a week, you're really employed in name only.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Although if you are on a ZHC and your employer decides they don't need you for more than a couple of hours a week, you're really employed in name only.

Which is why you shouldn't accept a contract like that if that's not a possibility that you want. ZHCs have their merits but the arrangement needs to suit both parties. Simple common sense.

There is some scope here to meet both business and employee needs - for example a certain minimum number of hours with the possibility of more. Seem to recall there was a recent example of this type of arrangement being agreed in response to employee requests.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Although if you are on a ZHC and your employer decides they don't need you for more than a couple of hours a week, you're really employed in name only.

Which is why you shouldn't accept a contract like that if that's not a possibility that you want. ZHCs have their merits but the arrangement needs to suit both parties. Simple common sense.

There is some scope here to meet both business and employee needs - for example a certain minimum number of hours with the possibility of more. Seem to recall there was a recent example of this type of arrangement being agreed in response to employee requests.

you cant refuse jobs or you lose any entitlement to benefits, leave a job voluntarily and you ll get nothing, this is why i Q the employment figures.... they are just not calc the way most people would expect them to be.

Folk i know who are trying to find jobs or move, are still finding it very hard, still in interview pools of 50 plus applicants! in my field of IT, we arent employing new staff and work is tight, as always stats can be made to portray any pic you like.

So, almost a 1 miilion on zhc, so if 2/3 rd are ok with them, that leaves 300k ish who are not - i understand the need to be flexible, however that should 'nt be exploitative either, these people should be self employed and free to work when and for whom they like.
Tribunal after tribunal is finding in favour of the workers, though they union backing as DC made the fees unacceptably high , so clearly employers are not abiding by the law are they?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Although if you are on a ZHC and your employer decides they don't need you for more than a couple of hours a week, you're really employed in name only.

Which is why you shouldn't accept a contract like that if that's not a possibility that you want. ZHCs have their merits but the arrangement needs to suit both parties. Simple common sense.

There is some scope here to meet both business and employee needs - for example a certain minimum number of hours with the possibility of more. Seem to recall there was a recent example of this type of arrangement being agreed in response to employee requests.

you cant refuse jobs or you lose any entitlement to benefits, leave a job voluntarily and you ll get nothing, this is why i Q the employment figures.... they are just not calc the way most people would expect them to be.

Folk i know who are trying to find jobs or move, are still finding it very hard, still in interview pools of 50 plus applicants! in my field of IT, we arent employing new staff and work is tight, as always stats can be made to portray any pic you like.

So, almost a 1 miilion on zhc, so if 2/3 rd are ok with them, that leaves 300k ish who are not - i understand the need to be flexible, however that should 'nt be exploitative either, these people should be self employed and free to work when and for whom they like.
Tribunal after tribunal is finding in favour of the workers, though they union backing as DC made the fees unacceptably high , so clearly employers are not abiding by the law are they?

Sounds to.me that employers are acting reasonably in the vast majority of cases given we have a labour pool of what 25-30 million.

So if you accept that there is a place for ZHCs, how would you change the rules to avoid the problems that you point out but without banning ZHCs or making rhe arrangement unworkable or non cost effective?

tangled_metal

Why are ZHC needed if the employer plans it's resources efficiently? What I mean is an employer who does not know what manpower it needs such that it has to vary employee's hours at short notice seems incompetent to me. Any company that operates with ZHC could operate without them.

As far as flexibility goes that's something I agree with but IMHO there are better ways to do it than ZHC. I've worked in companies which had a good approach to requests for more flexible working. Parents could reduce hours on school holidays or even in some cases the employee stopped working during school holidays. Reduced hours to allow employers to take kids to school and collect them. The employer keeps the skills of the employee and the goodwill certainly pays with improved productivity.

I guess I've been very lucky with my employment history and it has coloured my view of ZHC companies. A similar company as my last one operates with ZHC. The two companies had totally different approaches and both were doing well. The one with ZHC had a boom and near bust way of operating. The one I worked in was able to plan. Unfortunately it meant short term contracts when busy but those employees were clear in that and took the job. Often getting longer work periods.

My point is there's other ways of operating flexibly. ZHC gives the employer an imbalance in the workforce. Other ways are able to be effective so IMHO ZHC are a conscious, and perhaps lazy, operating decision. I think they need the balance shifting towards a more equal balance between the employer and the employees. If not possible then regulate out of existence. Guess I'm not completely right wing like stevo, there is a little socialism in me to my shame!

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

My point is there's other ways of operating flexibly. ZHC gives the employer an imbalance in the workforce. Other ways are able to be effective so IMHO ZHC are a conscious, and perhaps lazy, operating decision. I think they need the balance shifting towards a more equal balance between the employer and the employees. If not possible then regulate out of existence. Guess I'm not completely right wing like stevo, there is a little socialism in me to my shame!

Of course there are other ways - ZHCs are one way. That's why ZHCs only make up 2.8% of all employment contracts. And yet people are banging on about them like they are the most important issue in employment law.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

you cant refuse jobs or you lose any entitlement to benefits, leave a job voluntarily and you ll get nothing, this is why i Q the employment figures.... they are just not calc the way most people would expect them to be.

I can't see a massive issue with that. If the choice is between a zero hours contract paid for by the private sector where you get paid for what you do; and a zero hours contract paid for by the state (aka the dole) where you may not get paid for doing nothing, which option do you think is better?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Although if you are on a ZHC and your employer decides they don't need you for more than a couple of hours a week, you're really employed in name only.

Which is why you shouldn't accept a contract like that if that's not a possibility that you want. ZHCs have their merits but the arrangement needs to suit both parties. Simple common sense.

There is some scope here to meet both business and employee needs - for example a certain minimum number of hours with the possibility of more. Seem to recall there was a recent example of this type of arrangement being agreed in response to employee requests.

you cant refuse jobs or you lose any entitlement to benefits, leave a job voluntarily and you ll get nothing, this is why i Q the employment figures.... they are just not calc the way most people would expect them to be.

Folk i know who are trying to find jobs or move, are still finding it very hard, still in interview pools of 50 plus applicants! in my field of IT, we arent employing new staff and work is tight, as always stats can be made to portray any pic you like.

So, almost a 1 miilion on zhc, so if 2/3 rd are ok with them, that leaves 300k ish who are not - i understand the need to be flexible, however that should 'nt be exploitative either, these people should be self employed and free to work when and for whom they like.
Tribunal after tribunal is finding in favour of the workers, though they union backing as DC made the fees unacceptably high , so clearly employers are not abiding by the law are they?

Sounds to.me that employers are acting reasonably in the vast majority of cases given we have a labour pool of what 25-30 million.

So if you accept that there is a place for ZHCs, how would you change the rules to avoid the problems that you point out but without banning ZHCs or making rhe arrangement unworkable or non cost effective?

given it costs 1000's to bring a case now, so v few cases but the employees have won most it not all, i m not sure you can say that!

i would change the rules so that they get min wage, pro rata hols and sick pay etc and can work for other organisations, the hourly side of things can stay, so no need for a standby wage or min number of hours, i think this would still give employers flexibility, though at greater cost, yet also give some protection to employees too.

If this makes ZHC not cost effective, to the exploitative employer so be it, its not the employees job to manage the companies work patterns/force is it?

Pross

As I said earlier, my daughter has recently opted for a ZHC over a 16 hour contract. For her, as a student, it is beneficial as she's not obliged to work at times when she might need to be studying for exams or completing essays. The job is in the care sector where you need to have a pool of readily available staff to cover shifts if people call in ill etc. but may not be able to guarantee hours (margins in that sector are tiny due to budget cuts). The same can be the case in other sectors such as driving. This type of work has been around for years, call it agency or bank work and no-one bats an eyelid. What there needs to be is legislation to prevent people being fired if they cannot cover shifts as the flexibility has to be a two way thing. Likewise, companies using it to prevent payment of the usual employee rights need to be hit hard.

Pross

The Shadow Education Secretary is on Breakfast at the moment. Do Labour seriously want someone in charge of education who can barely string together a coherent sentence?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

you cant refuse jobs or you lose any entitlement to benefits, leave a job voluntarily and you ll get nothing, this is why i Q the employment figures.... they are just not calc the way most people would expect them to be.

I can't see a massive issue with that. If the choice is between a zero hours contract paid for by the private sector where you get paid for what you do; and a zero hours contract paid for by the state (aka the dole) where you may not get paid for doing nothing, which option do you think is better?

It was in response to you saying that if you dont like it, either dont take the work OR leave the job.... its just not an option.

of course (most) work is preferable to dole, once in work this can lead to further opportunities.

rick_chasey

You didn't read the article, did you Stevo?

The rise of zero-hours contracts (ZHC) in the UK is no insignificant economic phenomenon: although it only represents a relatively small proportion of the labour market – at around 3 per cent there is currently estimated to be over a million zero-hours workers – they have been on the rise since before the recession, indicating a structural shift in the jobs market.

And this bit

n fact, surveys conducted by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development suggest that around 40 per cent of people find that ZHCs suit them, while another 40 per cent state they would rather have regular contracts. As Brinkley suggests, “If you’re looking at both employees and companies, if people are doing it out of choice and it helps them work more flexibility, then that is a good thing.”


Professor Hoque agrees, stating, “there’s nothing wrong with zero-hours if both sides agree to it. If employees need the flexibility to manage their lives, and there is an understanding on the parts of employers of that need it is beneficial.”

Whether good or bad, Professor Hoque explains these contracts are here to stay: “Once you’ve put people on zero-hours you’re not going to take them off them. They become embedded; it becomes a norm in the workplace. The problem is they shouldn’t become the norm. Thinking about McDonald's, Sports Direct and others: they have just become the standard, despite the fact the companies could just put people on more conventional contracts.”

So you have 40% of people taking on jobs (without alternatives, presumably), with ZHC, who would like proper employment.

fenix

I went to see Corbyn at the weekend - very impressive speech. Hundreds of people came to see him - perhaps a thousand maybe - I'm not an expert. Very passionate speech - very eloquent. He's convinced me to join up anyway.

I can't bear the thought of the Theresa May getting elected. <shudder>

Lookyhere

Fenix wrote:

I went to see Corbyn at the weekend - very impressive speech. Hundreds of people came to see him - perhaps a thousand maybe - I'm not an expert. Very passionate speech - very eloquent. He's convinced me to join up anyway.

I can't bear the thought of the Theresa May getting elected. <shudder>

As brexit started to become a reality, i was thinking that sticking with the tories might be the right thing to do (in fact i did answer a Mori poll to that affect!) BUT as the campaign has gone on, it obvious the Tories have no real policies, their pitch is Strong and stable eh??? airy fairy promises on the just managing, without anything specific, like her speech on mental health! and being very negative toward Labour, who seem to have some very good ideas and i believe will get us a better deal on brexit, as they are more aligned with European politics and less confrontational.

May seems to be saying how risky the brexit talks are (this begs the question - why are we leaving then???? ) and we need Strong and Stable again and again but then tries her hardest to p1ss off the EU for electoral gain, not good for UK plc and v weak government, as seen by the stopping of the budget tax rises and now looking like social care row backs even as i write this!

May is just banging about how everyone should vote for President May or the country will revert to chaos... come on, we deserve to know what you stand for.... complains that Labour are exploiting the elderly... at least they dont plan on taking away from the strivers this country needs from almost everything they own, a 100k is nothing now-a-days.

ha ha now they ll be a limit, what a joker of a party lol!!! weak weak and more weak!

mrfpb

For all the reservations I have about Corbyn's politics, the more the election coverage goes on, the better he looks compared to May. Just more human and approachable. May's aloofness is a disaster when she is pinning her whole campaign on her personality, "Stong and Stable" leadership, while putting out ever more unpalatable policy announcements.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

I assumed that you didn't read the article?

FTFY.

I'm sure most of us want things to be better for us personally but sometimes it isn't going to happen because that's life. As I said, ZHCs have their purpose and everything can be misused if you try hard enough. Most people are shying away from banning them as far as I can see so there is not complete disagreement on that.

So what's your solution to the issue as you see it? (Without making ZHCs so costly or impractical they they are effectively banned as they will no longer be offered, thereby reducing employment opportunities for those employees that find them convenient).

fenix

May won't be able to negotiate - from her comments I don't believe she's been in one before - she's just setting it up for a shouting match.

If anyone is in doubt about Labour - make an effort to get out to see Corbyn in action - I really think he's getting a bad press. Far more impressive in the flesh than you see from most of the press.

Stevo_666

Fenix wrote:

May won't be able to negotiate - from her comments I don't believe she's been in one before - she's just setting it up for a shouting match.

If anyone is in doubt about Labour - make an effort to get out to see Corbyn in action - I really think he's getting a bad press. Far more impressive in the flesh than you see from most of the press.

Do you honestly think his policies will be good for this country? (Even assuming they could put together enough competent MPs to run the show).

tangled_metal

Tories peaked too early. Still they'll win a majority. For all your comments about how.impressive Corbyn is in the flesh.

Having seen a Labour rally recently I can quite see how impressive he is in the flesh with a load of bused in activists like at that rally I saw. Full of people wearing strap id things with unite on and other unions. Yes very impressive. Of course that's the same with all parties. Image has become more important.

BTW I actually rate May over Corbyn. IMHO I have no problem with any policy I've read about from the Tories. However the same is not true about Corbyn. I could just about vote LibDems but Labour under Corbyn has nothing I can support that I have read.

BTW I think LibDems are a bit worried about their leader's election chances. They're putting out desperate full page cover ads in the local constituency newspaper. Real desperate scaremongering ads. He won it from Tory I think a few terms ago. It would be a shame to decapitate the LibDems. Labour I'd enjoy completely. Celebrating for a week!

mrfpb

I'm assuming that the manifesto that was "universally agreed" by the party has enough compromises in it (eg Trident) for the PLP to get behind Corbyn and deliver it. The Tories have had an awful week policy-wise, it makes the Labour manifesto look ever more attractive.

Remember Labour won the 1945 election on the promise of a spending spree on the welfare state, despite the country being bankrupted by war. I would argue that the resulting spending spree was good for the country in the long term. A spending spree after 7 years of austerity looks like a vote winner to me.

rick_chasey

Yes, things looking sh!tter by the day for LDs.

fenix

Stevo 666 wrote:

Fenix wrote:

May won't be able to negotiate - from her comments I don't believe she's been in one before - she's just setting it up for a shouting match.

If anyone is in doubt about Labour - make an effort to get out to see Corbyn in action - I really think he's getting a bad press. Far more impressive in the flesh than you see from most of the press.

Do you honestly think his policies will be good for this country? (Even assuming they could put together enough competent MPs to run the show).

Honestly ? Yes. As far as I can see the Tories are just in it for the ride - hive things off to their pals in the private sector and make money off of the nation. May didn't even believe in leaving the EU. She can't seriously negotiate now. She has no friends in the EU and is making enemies by the day. She can't even appear human on the TV. Her public appearances are so stage managed as to be reminescent of a North Korean dictator. She's not a person of belief or of the people. I really don't even think she's enjoying the job but is stuck in it with circumstances. As soon as she falters she'll have Boris bumbling into town.

The NHS can't take another term of Conservative rule. It'll kill it off - and with the Conservatives playing the UKIP light card - you really can't believe a word they say. They're thriving off a climate of hate and fear. Awful.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yes, things looking sh!tter by the day for LDs.

Even I thought that they would pick up more support than they have done from their anti-Brexit stance.

coopster_the_1st

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yes, things looking sh!tter by the day for LDs.

Even I thought that they would pick up more support than they have done from their anti-Brexit stance.

Demonstrates what happens when you don't respect democracy.

Will hopefully demonstrate in the future how political parties should respect democracy

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yes, things looking sh!tter by the day for LDs.

Even I thought that they would pick up more support than they have done from their anti-Brexit stance.

I was quite unhappy with the Farron appointment.

I was also quite unhappy with the leftwards lurch; Clegg's position on the spectrum was more popular, and would be a sharper antidote to the retro politics of the moment ('70s labour, '50s Tories).

kingstongraham

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yes, things looking sh!tter by the day for LDs.

Even I thought that they would pick up more support than they have done from their anti-Brexit stance.

Demonstrates what happens when you don't respect democracy.

Will hopefully demonstrate in the future how political parties should respect democracy

I don't see how proposing another vote is not respecting democracy.

Ignoring the result would be ignoring democracy.