Labour banging on about zero-hours contracts ...

[Ticktock]

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.

Help! Help! That huddled mass is being oppressed by the bourgeoisie elite.

[pjclarke]

If someone don't like working on ZHC, (s)he should just not sign the contract and look for something else.

What colour is the sky on your world?

[sal]

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.

Applying your logic, the filthy rich company owners will be faced with a choice:

a) Get the ZHC amended to allow for 10-15h minimum which will cost them the current amount they pay for ZHC £Y+£X the additional amount to cover the imposed minimum
b) Bin all the ZHC and make everyone else work a bit harder during peek times maybe paying them bonuses to the amount of £Y
c) Bin all the ZHC and make everyone else work a bit harder during peek times maybe paying them bonuses to the amount of £Y-£Z where the Z will be added to the bonus of the execs attributed to cost savings

Guess which one the greedy corporates will choice...

What colour is the sky on your world?

You mean the free world, where slavery is illegal and no one can force your hand to sign a contract? A bit grayish today, hope it gets better for the holiday weekend.

[d000hg]

No the choice is between ZHC and unemployment.

At the moment it is, and that's the problem... if you don't take a ZHC someone else will be. If you're desperate for work, you'll take whatever is available because you cannot afford to do otherwise.

But if companies need the work doing, they will hire staff within the legal rules. ZHC gained popularity only quite recently, companies managed before that. If your business can't figure out how many hours' work it needs from one week to the next, it isn't being run very well. When I had a summer job on the tills at Tesco 15 years ago they told me how many hours they expected to provide me each week.

[sal]

At the moment it is, and that's the problem... if you don't take a ZHC someone else will be. If you're desperate for work, you'll take whatever is available because you cannot afford to do otherwise.

But if companies need the work doing, they will hire staff within the legal rules. ZHC gained popularity only quite recently, companies managed before that. If your business can't figure out how many hours' work it needs from one week to the next, it isn't being run very well. When I had a summer job on the tills at Tesco 15 years ago they told me how many hours they expected to provide me each week.

But then surely if the ZHC can earn you more than you can get on benefits it's not as bad as the media is trying to paint them?

I'm not sure which one is the truth, the fact that the use of ZHC gained popularity only recently, or the fact that ZHC gained popularity only recently because of the elections, i believe they have been there all along and are only being blown out of proportion for populism.

[NotAllThere]

"peek times" sounds like it's a bonus all by itself.

[sal]

"peek times" sounds like it's a bonus all by itself.

Depends on who is peeking where

[pjclarke]

I'm not sure which one is the truth, the fact that the use of ZHC gained popularity only recently, or the fact that ZHC gained popularity only recently because of the elections, i believe they have been there all along and are only being blown out of proportion for populism.

No. The ONS figures are 134,000 in 2006, 637,000 last year, most of the increase happening after 2008.


http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/upload...NAL_240414.pdf
http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/agenda...?download=true

[Ticktock]

No. The ONS figures are 134,000 in 2006, 637,000 last year, most of the increase happening after 2008.


http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/upload...NAL_240414.pdf
http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/agenda...?download=true

Yes... but a point that has been identified is that there may well have been a great deal more ZHC back in ye olden days, it's just that people didn't realise that what they were doing was a ZHC, and so it wasn't reported as such. I think the phrase used was "There are more ZHC now, because we talk about ZHC more now".

[d000hg]

But then surely if the ZHC can earn you more than you can get on benefits it's not as bad as the media is trying to paint them?

15 hours a week - fine. Turn up each day for work not knowing how many hours there are, or having it fluctuate massively each week - not fine. It also makes claiming benefits much more complicated if you're in the overlap where you get some benefits but are working.

I'm not sure which one is the truth, the fact that the use of ZHC gained popularity only recently, or the fact that ZHC gained popularity only recently because of the elections, i believe they have been there all along and are only being blown out of proportion for populism.

As already stated, they have been around but are much more widely used now. It's now pretty standard that if you go looking for work anywhere that uses shifts, you'll be on ZHC.