Reply to: Zero Zero Society

[sal]

I think it's worth noting that not all employers abuse the zero hour contracts. Some of them are using them in order to offer genuinely flexible terms for their employees and the employees are happy with those terms. Nevertheless they are included in the statistics that paints all zero hour contracts black.

Work force abuse has always been there in one form or another and i agree that the growing concern about zero hours contracts needs addressing/regulation. But by the love of god can we stop with the carpet "bombing" in legislation and start using more targeted and precise approach that only eliminates the existing problem and is not creating more issues and red tape elsewhere.

[vetran]

Now who's being obtuse?

not sure I called you obtuse but lets run with it anyway.

1. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"
difficult to understand, especially deliberately so.
"some of the lyrics are a bit obtuse"
2.(of an angle) more than 90° and less than 180°.

The legal difference between a zero hour employee and a ltd company providing services (not of service) is quite marked. The level of opportunity is dramatically different. So comparing a contractor selling their skills to someone stuck on a zero hours contract with a supemarket or chicken plucking farm it is fairly easy to see the difference.

The financial impact of being on NMW versus £20 - £100 an hour is huge and changes your options dramatically.

I suppose I could physically be at 92 degrees from you.

[Platypus]

This is interesting reading,
Zero-hour contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Project Monkey]

You are on a Zero hour contract of employment ?

Or is your Ltd in a contract for services with your client?

these are very different things.

Now who's being obtuse?

[VectraMan]

I suspect they were allowed, the problem as you say is that they are now being institutionally exploited as there are more people than jobs at the bottom end and that is most definitely down to New Lie.

I suspect you'd find there were more such jobs in the past, and that there's nothing new in this story other than the fact it's become one of Labour's tactics for painting the Tories' slow-but-getting-there economic recovery as negative.

[vetran]

I don't know, that's rather what I was asking! Were those things not allowed before the turn of the century or were they merely not commonly exploited (as I agree they are today)?

I suspect they were allowed, the problem as you say is that they are now being institutionally exploited as there are more people than jobs at the bottom end and that is most definitely down to New Lie.

[d000hg]

you were not guaranteed a minimum number of hours a week?

You were required to pay for your own uniform?

You had to pay for your own van leased from the employer at a premium?

etc.

I don't know, that's rather what I was asking! Were those things not allowed before the turn of the century or were they merely not commonly exploited (as I agree they are today)?

[vetran]

That doesn't answer my question (unless I looked at the wrong link). I did shift work on NMW or similar during my holidays, as did others for whom it was a full-time job. Specifically I worked on a supermarket till.

My question is how that is different from today? Were the "career shelf stackers" who got handed their shifts each week in the same boat as today's zero-hours workers but without the catchy terminology, or were the rules different somehow for them 15, 20, 25 years ago? Not having done that work as a full-time job I have no idea.

you were not guaranteed a minimum number of hours a week?

You were required to pay for your own uniform?

You had to pay for your own van leased from the employer at a premium?

etc.

its gone from a loose employment to a planned abuse of labour.

yes I worked as a temp in various restaurants but I got a 20-30% premium for being temp. Now you get NMW and your days messed up, you turn up for a planned shift and they send you home without pay..

[d000hg]

have a look at the links I posted.

this is happening at NMW level not contractor level, if you are paid £50 an hour and in demand then its not a real problem if a client messes you about, on NMW level its a disaster.

That doesn't answer my question (unless I looked at the wrong link). I did shift work on NMW or similar during my holidays, as did others for whom it was a full-time job. Specifically I worked on a supermarket till.

My question is how that is different from today? Were the "career shelf stackers" who got handed their shifts each week in the same boat as today's zero-hours workers but without the catchy terminology, or were the rules different somehow for them 15, 20, 25 years ago? Not having done that work as a full-time job I have no idea.

[vetran]

So what was different back in those days, before all the zero hours furore? I did temporary/holiday shift-work too around 2000 and quite a lot of people did shift-base work as their long-term job. So were they on identical zero-hours contracts and it's got more publicity, or has something changed? A permanent job where you work shifts seems fine to me, as does expecting that even if your job is crap your employer commits to a certain number of hours a week.

have a look at the links I posted.

this is happening at NMW level not contractor level, if you are paid £50 an hour and in demand then its not a real problem if a client messes you about, on NMW level its a disaster.

[vetran]

Never worked in recruitment have you!

Where is dodgy when you need him?

The good people you find quickly get snapped up and offered full time work because they can be relied on to turn up when they say they will.

Not saying it right or wrong just commenting on my experiences of this sort of thing.

Actually I have its one of the family businesses and we retained a group of people that were reliable and made sure we got them work, but then we were 'reassuringly expensive'.

Some people like being temps and are willing to work with the agency to make themselves more reliable but they are rarer and need careful management, you also need to sell the benefits of your staff being 10-20% more expensive than the cheaper agencies.

Pile em high and sell them cheap is not the only business model.

[d000hg]

When I was a student I was quite happy to do temp work, especially over the summer when it was typically covering for people taking holidays. If you start making it too difficult to employ anyone like this then all that happens is both sides lose out: the temps don't get the work and the company has to be short staffed.

It's crap for anyone having to work like this long term, but then there will always be crap jobs for people that can't do better for whatever reason. Better education, or just the economy doing generally better is what will make the difference. Bleating about it, or trying to legislate against it won't help anyone.

So what was different back in those days, before all the zero hours furore? I did temporary/holiday shift-work too around 2000 and quite a lot of people did shift-base work as their long-term job. So were they on identical zero-hours contracts and it's got more publicity, or has something changed? A permanent job where you work shifts seems fine to me, as does expecting that even if your job is crap your employer commits to a certain number of hours a week.

[original PM]

Two wrongs don't make a right. A wrong by a person in near poverty is not balanced by a rich multinational exploiting desperate workers.

If you had people not turning up then that was the Agency's problem, they should concentrate on those that are reliable and make sure they pay a premium for such people.

fairly good overview of why they are a bad idea.

BBC News - Zero-hours contracts: What is it like living on one?

Never worked in recruitment have you!

Where is dodgy when you need him?

The good people you find quickly get snapped up and offered full time work because they can be relied on to turn up when they say they will.

Not saying it right or wrong just commenting on my experiences of this sort of thing.

[vetran]

I do not have a huge issue with the zero hours contracts if you are giving people a few hours notice they are not working so they do not need to spend money to get to the place of work.

However sadly back in the day when I worked in recruitment if I wanted to guarantee 5 people would turn up for work I would have to send 6 or 7 as you can 100% guarantee that 1 or 2 would simply not bother getting out of bed.

All these people who offer zero hours contracts are covering their arses because the staff who are employed to turn up do not and so the shop is short staffed, customers get poor service and so no repeat business.

It would seem 1 is a defence against the other and I think people not bothering to get out of bed came before zero hours contracts (in the modern world!)

Two wrongs don't make a right. A wrong by a person in near poverty is not balanced by a rich multinational exploiting desperate workers.

If you had people not turning up then that was the Agency's problem, they should concentrate on those that are reliable and make sure they pay a premium for such people.

fairly good overview of why they are a bad idea.

BBC News - Zero-hours contracts: What is it like living on one?

[jmo21]

I do not have a huge issue with the zero hours contracts if you are giving people a few hours notice they are not working so they do not need to spend money to get to the place of work.

Easy to say when you are not working under a zero hour contract.