Labour banging on about zero-hours contracts ...

[pjclarke]

Even at 6% it would be a small number, and that is assuming they're necessarily a bad thing, which they are not. Point being, it's not even much of a vote winner.

I am sure they are a good thing for a minority, but most of those on them would prefer not to be. The point is, employers increasingly use them as a management tool to drive down costs and bypass employment law, at the expense of he workers. The 6% is of the workforce, you can probably double that by adding on family, enough to win enough seats to make a difference, and I believe the back room boys will know a lot better than we do how those votes are distributed, psephologically speaking.

[TheFaQQer]

Shock - politicians from both parties make claims that are unsupported by facts.

https://fullfact.org/factcheck/econo...ts_facts-41165

[Euler]

The point about it being a respected survey company was that the questions and methodology will have been professional, the dubious extrapolation seems to have been done by Unite in a press release and repeated by the Guardian to make a good headline. A bit like 1,000 jobs per day or £3,000 more tax. For the record I don't for a minute believe one in five workers is on 0H.

As I demonstrated upthread the article from which you took the 2.3% number also had another survey which resulted in a 6% answer. Perhaps you like the lower number because it happens to coincide with what you want believe?

I prefer ONS figures - the 1000 jobs a day and the 2.3% figure are ONS statistics.

[pjclarke]

I prefer ONS figures - the 1000 jobs a day and the 2.3% figure are ONS statistics.

Erm, the 1.8m (6%) number is also from the ONS. The low figure is for people who have 0H as their main employment, the second counts anyone who has a 0H contract as part of their employment portfolio. Some people have to work several jobs to make a living, you know. It is the larger group, and their dependents who will benefit from improved employment rights, so I think the higher number is the more relevant.

[sal]

I work on zero hour contracts and it's fine. The client has no obligation to give me any work. If there is no work, then I don't work for them and don't bill them. That flexibility is one of the reasons why I can charge a premium.

YourCo is on ZHC, you on the other hand most likely enjoy a monthly salary no matter what (unless you are PC on JSA).

I would guess that you're at one end of the spectrum, and Labour are more interested in helping the 87% who would prefer not to be on zero hours, struggle to get through the month, cannot get a mortgage or credit and for whom the notion of charging a premium is a joke.

They keep saying that, but don't say how they are going to achieve it. Banning ZHC will only cause the companies to close the jobs entirely as it's not economically viable for them to keep these people on full time employment. Which will result in more people on benefits, more borrowing to pay for that and the losers are the other 97% of the population that have to foot the bill through taxes.

ZHC is not slavery, no one is forcing people under the barrel of a gun to sign them.

Lowest paid portion of the population can't afford a mortgage - boo hoo, who said that 100% of the population needs to be able to afford a mortgage? This kind of mentality led to the events in 2008. What's next, mortgages for people on benefits? Equality? The Communists tried it - it didn't work, it doesn't work, it will not work - this is the human nature.

[NotAllThere]

Yes but the majority of people on a zero hour contract do not command the rates we do

That's prejudiced against rich people that is.

I wouldn't put it past them to come up with some law for the poor people that'll screw us as well.

[pjclarke]

The choice is not between zero hours and full time, its about management doing their job and erm, managing a variable workload without imposing insecurity on their workers. There's been a race to the bottom; the rise in 'flexibility' has been exclusively one-sided, with the workers having to be available at short notice, tolerate wildly fluctuating work and pay, or sent home with no pay when there is a mismatch between supply and demand. In the recent TV debate David Cameron conceded that he could not live on such a contract.

And its not so much that these people cannot afford a mortgage, without proof of regular income, they cannot get any form of credit.

[sal]

No the choice is between ZHC and unemployment. The government can't force businesses to create jobs. The flexibility is not one sided, many people are working in such way by choice. As in any other area of life there are employers who abuse the ZHC but I highly doubt it's a large portion. Labor and the media seem to fixate on the extreme cases of someone having to walk 4h to get to work only to get send back home with no work, but that's hardly the case for all people working on ZHC.

Whatever David Cameron, or you, or me, or anyone else can live on ZHC is irrelevant and the question asked was only aimed and causing sensation. If someone don't like working on ZHC, (s)he should just not sign the contract and look for something else.

[Unix]

Zero hours contracts should be banned, there should be a minimum amount of hours say 10-15. They exploit the poor to make rich company owners richer.

[FatLazyContractor]

Zero hours contracts should be banned, there should be a minimum amount of hours say 10-15. They exploit the poor to make rich company owners richer.

Why? To go off-sick?