help! staff driving me mad

Mudd14

We employ 1200 people on a zero contracted hours basis and have no issues with moral or ethical ways, it is how the hotel industry works! They work in certain sectors where staff turnover is high due to the nature of the work. If you try to retain employees then zero contracted hours would not be advisable.

rupee99

ohreally wrote: »

This is an utterly despicable practise and no employer with a shred of moral or ethical decency would impose this on their staff. This is perhaps a reason why this type of employer will ultimately end up with the type of staff which they don't particularly wish to attract into their business.

It is neither despicable or immoral, it is industry standard for the type of staff involved. Some staff will have x hours per week and only be given those hours, others will be contracted for zero hours and be given the number of they require. If people do not wish to work under either of those conditions they should find other types of work where a "standard" working week is the norm.

DVardysShadow

rupee99 wrote: »

It is neither despicable or immoral, it is industry standard for the type of staff involved. Some staff will have x hours per week and only be given those hours, others will be contracted for zero hours and be given the number of they require. If people do not wish to work under either of those conditions they should find other types of work where a "standard" working week is the norm.

I think for the business we are talking about here, the zero hour option would cause all members of staff to think through these issues. It looks like 3 of them you would not want to start reviewing their own position in the business, so in this situation, besides agreeing that zero hour contracts lean towards despicable, especially if there is any coercion about it, I would also think that they would be a quick own goal.

Effectively we have one rogue employee. Zero hours would punish them all. The idea is to solve the problem you do have, not create new problems you never had.

ohreally

rupee99 wrote: »

It is neither despicable or immoral

In your opinion.

It only becomes an industry norm when downtrodden employees are denied a voice and are discouraged from becoming organised with a view to improving their working environment thus finding zero hours contracts imposed upon them.

Perhaps as a point of interest others could throw their opinion into the ring - i suspect only parties with a vested interest in denying stability and continuity for their employees will support such an offensive employment practice.

DVardysShadow

ohreally wrote: »

In your opinion.

It only becomes an industry norm when downtrodden employees are denied a voice and are discouraged from becoming organised with a view to improving their working environment thus finding zero hours contracts imposed upon them.

Perhaps as a point of interest others could throw their opinion into the ring - i suspect only parties with a vested interest in denying stability and continuity for their employees will support such an offensive employment practice.

I think you are right. But I have a small reservation that some employees might actually be happy with the situation if they can equitably turn down some of the shifts offered.

custardy

ohreally wrote: »

This is an utterly despicable practise and no employer with a shred of moral or ethical decency would impose this on their staff. This is perhaps a reason why this type of employer will ultimately end up with the type of staff which they don't particularly wish to attract into their business.

thats royal mails favourite contract you are slating

Snakeeyes21

ohreally wrote: »

In your opinion.

It only becomes an industry norm when downtrodden employees are denied a voice and are discouraged from becoming organised with a view to improving their working environment thus finding zero hours contracts imposed upon them.

Perhaps as a point of interest others could throw their opinion into the ring - i suspect only parties with a vested interest in denying stability and continuity for their employees will support such an offensive employment practice.

You may see it as offensive but the majority of employees in this industry see it as flexible working.

Unless you are a high ranking chef or manager then your position isnt really essential, not that lower positions arent important, they are, but if a kp, comis chef or waiter doesnt turn up or walks out then its not the end of the world.

On the other hand if the head chef of floor manager walks out then the business wont open, that is why higher positions have better contracts and better conditions, just as in any other industry.

No place where ive worked have people felt downtrodden or been denied a voice, people seem perfectly happy with the practice, students can work as and when they want, single parents can work just lunches etc everybody is treated as an equal except on slow days where us at the top are given first choice on wether we want to work or not.

Having zero hours rarely has an impact on anybody because most places have a fairly constant stream of customers, with enough work to go around.

paulwf

julie8314dave wrote: »

but the staff in question works the longest hours, i think that by cutting her hours and giving more to the others would build up a resentment, although the other staff feel the same as us.

I know this isn't easy but with all due respect you really need to toughen up. This member of staff is dragging your business down, don't let her force a good business to close.

Get contracts in place and give the problem member of staff as little hours as possible. Never give them overtime. Give them all the worst jobs, perhaps stick them on washing up and cleaning duty all day every day. Basically do everything you can to make them want to leave without risking being guilty of constructive dismissal.

You owe it to all the other staff as much as anything. If the business is profitable they can get extra hours and you can afford to give them a pay rise, they will thank you for being tough.

rupee99

ohreally wrote: »

In your opinion.

True, just as the contrary is yours. At the end of the day most people, as evidenced by their actions, would prefer to have a job and the associated income than the luxury, and associated poverty, of claiming some hypothetical high moral ground.

Forris

custardy wrote: »

thats royal mails favourite contract you are slating

I hope that wasn't intended as a recommendation, Custardy:D