Where is all this money coming from?

[SueEllen]

I am not sure what your problem with zero hours contracts is. Work no matter what sort or how it is paid is a means to step up into a better and more secure job. Employers who use zero hour contracts will find that they are not getting the skills they need and will be forced out of markets.

The danger of course is where monopolies exist and it is these that should be watched and controlled.

The issue I have with current zero hours contracts are:
1. They often lock the employee into working for that sole employer
2. They don't reduce costs to me as a taxpayer and I don't see why I should subsidise big business.

[VectraMan]

So is more expensive employment.

I still don't see the point of people coming out of state benefits to continue subsiding them to roughly the same tune. Except from a politician skewing the numbers of course. This is why even though unemployment is going down, costs remain the same or even increase. It's just moving the costs up or downstream - a particular failing of most change programmes. As long as the cost is out of your domain, it's a success

Even if someone is neutral in terms of paying no more tax and still getting the same benefits when they get a job, they're still contributing to the economy at large, which is better than giving people money to do nothing. I don't disagree with you about how ridiculous it is that people in work have to be subsidised, but it's not accurate to say there's no benefit to having someone work.

[tractor]

Even if someone is neutral in terms of paying no more tax and still getting the same benefits when they get a job, they're still contributing to the economy at large, which is better than giving people money to do nothing. I don't disagree with you about how ridiculous it is that people in work have to be subsidised, but it's not accurate to say there's no benefit to having someone work.

Phew, it's lucky I didn't say it then I think that I said there is no overall saving.

[VectraMan]

Phew, it's lucky I didn't say it then I think that I said there is no overall saving.

There is an overall saving as there's benefit to the economy at large by having more people making and doing useful things, which is good for everyone, and increases tax receipts (if only in Belgium).

[SueEllen]

Phew, it's lucky I didn't say it then I think that I said there is no overall saving.

Least you aren't a passive racist....

[tractor]

...

There is an overall saving as there's benefit to the economy at large by having more people making and doing useful things, which is good for everyone, and increases tax receipts (if only in Belgium).

But not to the taxpayer, which was my point. If I am paying the same or more tax what does it matter that other people are spending more (which is arguable anyway)? It is just massaging the available money.

[tractor]

...

Least you aren't a passive racist....

I hate mange tout and asparagus, does that count?

[NickyBoy]

Zero hour contracts wouldn't be too bad without the exclusions that lock people into a single employer.

Being able to be on the books of a dozen companies and being able to fill in your week with work for any of them would significantly reduce the down side of these contracts.

We really need legislation for low-skilled zero hour contracts that enforce an 'on call' fee if they are exclusive, to encourage the use of non-exclusive contracts that allow flexibility for the employer and the employed.

At the moment, we the tax payers are effectively footing the bill for the 'on call' payments

[VectraMan]

Zero hour contracts wouldn't be too bad without the exclusions that lock people into a single employer.

Agreed, but in reality, employers that hire temps will remember the ones that are available when they're needed and put them to the top of the pile. You can't really stop that.

We really need legislation for low-skilled zero hour contracts that enforce an 'on call' fee if they are exclusive, to encourage the use of non-exclusive contracts that allow flexibility for the employer and the employed.

Cue lots of moaning about people being forced to accept below minimum wage pay for the times they're not needed.

[vetran]

Zero hour contracts wouldn't be too bad without the exclusions that lock people into a single employer.

Being able to be on the books of a dozen companies and being able to fill in your week with work for any of them would significantly reduce the down side of these contracts.

We really need legislation for low-skilled zero hour contracts that enforce an 'on call' fee if they are exclusive, to encourage the use of non-exclusive contracts that allow flexibility for the employer and the employed.

At the moment, we the tax payers are effectively footing the bill for the 'on call' payments

The employers would just discriminate against those people by not offering them work. But it would be a start.

Paying half a day for showing up and getting no work would be another. Not allowing them to force the employee or self employed to pay for protective clothing or overpriced vans or stock might be another.

The solution to Zero hour contracts is to have a shortage of potential employees then companies will treat staff better and pay them better.