Labour banging on about zero-hours contracts ...

[Euler]

Even the Tories want to make an exclusivity clause illegal.

Which would be sensible rather than banning the whole thing and stopping students, housewives/househusbands and retired people with time on their hands getting some spare cash, eh?

Edited to not be sexist.

[d000hg]

Which would be sensible rather than banning the whole thing and stopping students, housewives and retired people with time on their hands getting some spare cash, eh?

ZHC isn't the only way to work a side-job though, is it?

[pjclarke]

Well reading that, it doesn't really support Labour's case does it, thus proving my point in starting this thread?

Estimates seem to vary from 2.3% (ONS) to 4%(CIPD) and of those it seems quite a large percentage do NOT want more hours i.e. they are using the work for its flexibility.

I'm glad we got there in the end.

ONS

Labour Force Survey

The estimate of 697,000 people employed on “zero-hour contracts” has a 95% confidence interval of ±68,000, which means the true figure is likely to lie between 630,000 and 765,000.

ONS business survey

The estimate of 1.8 million contracts that do not guarantee hours and where work was carried out has a 95% confidence interval of ±384,000, which means the true figure is likely to lie between 1.4 million and 2.2 million.

Once again, that is the number with ZH as their main employment. The true figure of individuals affected has to be higher, unless they have an average of 2.8 contracts each ...

it seems quite a large percentage do NOT want more hours i.e. they are using the work for its flexibility.

52%, just over half, with 10% 'Don't knows'.

[pjclarke]

Which would be sensible rather than banning the whole thing and stopping students, housewives/househusbands and retired people with time on their hands getting some spare cash, eh?

That's not the proposal. After a period, somebody on zero hours will be given the right to request a regular contract.If somebody is actually working regular hours the contract must be amended to reflect this. If both parties are happy with a flexible working hours arrangement, they can continue indefinitely. The student, houseperson or retired person will not be affected.

[Flashman]

deleted

[minestrone]

If truth be told I really could not care less if someone is on a zero hours contract.

Starving people in refugee camps I feel obliged to help, sub Saharan villages who have to drink stagnant water because they can't dig a well I feel obliged to help but zero hour contracts in the UK are a first world problem overplayed by leftist politicians desperate for votes.

We have all had access to a great education system, we have a welfare system that will put an out of work person in the top 10% of the world's highest income bracket and under that system we still provide for low income families.

Honestly, my heart does not bleed.

[vetran]

if the government were forced to stop shipping in cheap labour employers wouldn't be able to force ZHCs on the oppressed. seemples.

[Zero Liability]

That is an element of it.

but zero hour contracts in the UK are a first world problem overplayed by leftist politicians desperate for votes.

Yup, they're a means of dealing with uncertain market conditions, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the recession resulting from the boom the flames of which they helped stoke. Taking on full time employees is often cost prohibitive. Perhaps if Labour wants to whine about something, they could instead focus on the "cost of doing business crisis", which the sort of technocratic (pretence of knowledge), regulatory approach they favour helps worsen, but all common sense seems to have gone with the wind as far as they're concerned and it doesn't jive with their current narrative.

[MicrosoftBob]

If Labour really opposed ZHCs why do Labour MPs and Labour councils use them to employ plebs themselves ?

[VectraMan]

If Labour really opposed ZHCs why do Labour MPs and Labour councils use them to employ plebs themselves ?

Because they can.