You'll work for up to 12 wks, as & when requ'd, no fixed shift or guaranteed hours ?

2sides2everystory

People (generally) need casual jobs like they need a hole in the head, Gordon. People (generally) need proper jobs which have not been reduced to the lowest common denominator and which demonstrate a commitment of investment in people, i.e. in creating jobs in which people can grow and build lives of pride of achievement, of fulfilment and contentment for themselves. One thing people most decidedly do not need is a bunch of employers who exploit a trend gleefully with a mindset that implies another sucker is born every minute and so they can run "businesses" which hire and fire labour at will.

Such business is worthless to us as a people and as a country.

Flyboy152

In the absence of "proper" jobs, what's the alternative?

Gordon_Hose

Wow. You assumed a great deal in your post there.

In this thread alone there have been people come forward saying their casual 0 hour jobs work great for them.

Go figure.

2sides2everystory

I already figured Gordon, and I see where you stand. In the absence of proper jobs Flyboy, we need some good old fashioned finger-pointing at the scum that refuse to create them and call themselves successful.

Gordon_Hose

I don't "stand" anywhere.

If casual jobs help people earn a bit of extra cash, then there's nothing wrong with them IMO. You're assuming people are treating these 0 hour contract jobs as their main income.

dmg24

2sides2everystory wrote: »

People (generally) need casual jobs like they need a hole in the head, Gordon. People (generally) need proper jobs which have not been reduced to the lowest common denominator and which demonstrate a commitment of investment in people, i.e. in creating jobs in which people can grow and build lives of pride of achievement, of fulfilment and contentment for themselves. One thing people most decidedly do not need is a bunch of employers who exploit a trend gleefully with a mindset that implies another sucker is born every minute and so they can run "businesses" which hire and fire labour at will.

Such business is worthless to us as a people and as a country.

The job worked perfectly for me. I enjoyed being able to dictate when I could work, and earned a pretty decent wage from it too, certainly no less than full time staff.

One thing you have missed is that nil hours workers still have the same rights as full time staff. They are entitled to holiday pay and sick pay, proportionate to what they work. They also have the same rights surrounding dismissal.

2sides2everystory

But dmg, you are hardly a typical example, are you? You are a lawyer.

And Gordon, many people do not have a choice but to accept these zero hours jobs as their main income - from young people starting out, to older people who are having to start from scratch following redundancy.

Then how many people have to survive on these jobs and find they have no job at 12 months down the line and have been exploited and messed around generally?

They also have the same rights surrounding dismissal.

I.e. the proverbial no rights at all until you have worked 12 months. And goverment rumblings about changing that to 2 years ...

You see the threads in this section the same as I do. It is an awful picture. Just a few minutes ago I noticed someone was posting that had given up a 20 hour a week part-time job to take a job as a Census Taker for which they had no idea when they started work ! Twenty hours is a substantial part of the working week. It is more than half a standard 37 hour week.

The website where I found the original thread title was of course the Royal Mail "careers" site. They have a preponderance of "jobs" like this and very few others. The fact that they do this creates a two-tier class of worker at Britain's Post Office. How can that be reasonable ?

In read however in another forum section that it is still the law in the UK that a letter posted is assumed to be delivered. How can that still be a reasonable legal presumption with so many "casual staff" on the books ? Contracts like these create a huge turnover of staff (we have had three new postmen on our round already this year).

Gordon_Hose

Sorry, I just don't see your point.

There is a need for these contracts. If people take a job on a 0 hours contract, that's up to them, surely. They do so in full knowledge that in 12 weeks/months, whatever, they'll be out of work.

dmg24

2sides2everystory wrote: »

But dmg, you are hardly a typical example, are you? You are a lawyer.

I don't practice at present, and the job I referred to was from my pre law days.

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

Sorry, I just don't see your point.

There is a need for these contracts. If people take a job on a 0 hours contract, that's up to them, surely. They do so in full knowledge that in 12 weeks/months, whatever, they'll be out of work.

Nor do I. If the OP is arguing that employee protection laws are not perfect, I would agree, but that applies to all workers, not just those on casual/ nil hours contracts.

Russe11

The point here really is that employers don't have to garentee hours, though when you turn down the hours you are not contracted to do in the first place they get in a huff.

It works both ways, but most employers don't like it when it does not suit them.