Reply to: Labour banging on about zero-hours contracts ...

[VectraMan]

Can imagine if they force employers to can this and take someone on guaranteed hours then employers are going to say stuff that I cant do that I wont bother then. One more person on benefits.

I was against minimum wage for that reason, and with hindsight I think I was wrong. In a way any rights for workers (including minimum wage) guarantee a certain amount of unemployment, as do benefits, but it probably is a good thing overall. The greater issue is the number of people with no skills; if you're chasing unskilled minimum wage jobs then you're never going to have a good time.

[psychocandy]

So what happens if your employer phones you on a monday and says sorry no work this week? Do you get benfits for the week?

They had a few people on the radio yesterday. One of them liked the way it worked - one didnt.

I can see how it might not be the best job in the world when you've got bills to pay and I guess it depends on your employer being fair. i.e. not expecting you to work at the drop of a hat then giving you nothing other weeks. Maybe its just got to be better controlled so employers dont take the piss?

But then its better than benefits surely? If you dont like a 0 hours contract then get something else.

Can imagine if they force employers to can this and take someone on guaranteed hours then employers are going to say stuff that I cant do that I wont bother then. One more person on benefits.

[VectraMan]

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

Because they can.

[MicrosoftBob]

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

[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.

[vetran]

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

[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.

[Flashman]

deleted

[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.

[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'.

[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?

[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.

[sal]

Even the Tories want to make an exclusivity clause illegal.

I thought they already did

[pjclarke]

Zero hours contracts are good for some, but pretty evil for others. A ZHC basically keeps someone off the jobs market, at the beck and call of one "employer", who may or may not give them any work. It is like saying "I won't employ you, but sign this to say you won't look for another job, just in case I want to employ you at short notice". They want to exclusively book someone's time without paying for it, which is clearly immoral in my view. I am a Tory voter but Labour are right here (and nowhere else)

Even the Tories want to make an exclusivity clause illegal.

[sal]

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.

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.

Is there any evidence to suggest that most of the ZHC are fluctuating massively each week? Of course we are very well aware of the extreme cases thanks to the sensation hungry media, but how many are actually like that?

As per the quote above even ONS warns that the sudden statistical increase might be due to the fact that many employers were not aware that the contracts they use are actually considered ZHC and might not represent the actual level if increase of ZHC