The Zero Hour Contract

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

a zero hour contract is a contract you choose to sign

it suits some people who have several jobs and so select which ones they choose to do.

You wouldn't be able to have several jobs, thats the point been made a couple of times now. You need to be ready to work as per the contract, when you are required. Obviously it depends on the employer as to if you can stipulate days, but those days still have to be retained for the employer, with no retention payment.

Sure, it's something you choose to sign. But we could say that about every contract out there and do away with any employee protection. You'd still choose to sign it, as people in general, have the respondibility of mouths to feed.

You do what you can at the time. If that was all that was available, I'd take it too...little choice. But I wouldn't expect to simply be exploited by the contract, which appears there is mounting evidence suggesting that could well be the case.

I'm no lefty, but this in my mind is wrong on so many levels. They should get a retaining pauyment at the very least. The employer still has flexibility. Right now it swings right into the employers hands.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You wouldn't be able to have several jobs, thats the point been made a couple of times now. You need to be ready to work as per the contract, when you are required. Obviously it depends on the employer as to if you can stipulate days, but those days still have to be retained for the employer, with no retention payment.

Sure, it's something you choose to sign. But we could say that about every contract out there and do away with any employee protection. You'd still choose to sign it, as people in general, have the respondibility of mouths to feed.

You do what you can at the time. If that was all that was available, I'd take it too...little choice. But I wouldn't expect to simply be exploited by the contract, which appears there is mounting evidence suggesting that could well be the case.

I'm no lefty, but this in my mind is wrong on so many levels. They should get a retaining pauyment at the very least. The employer still has flexibility. Right now it swings right into the employers hands.

you are simply wrong

because the BBC chose to give an example of ONE contract that forbad you to accept other jobs that doesn't mean that ALL do.

I know many people who have zero hour contracts with several employers; they can choose to accept or reject the hours offered.

why is that a bad thing?

if you want the concept banned then that will have all the usual unintended consequences of ill informed people making knee jerk reactions.

Graham_Devon

I'm not saying I want it banned at all. I haven't said that anywhere.

A retention payment however is something I would like to see if this is going to be carried forward and become a bigger part of the workforce.

chewmylegoff

CLAPTON wrote: »

you are simply wrong

because the BBC chose to give an example of ONE contract that forbad you to accept other jobs that doesn't mean that ALL do.

I know many people who have zero hour contracts with several employers; they can choose to accept or reject the hours offered.

why is that a bad thing?

if you want the concept banned then that will have all the usual unintended consequences of ill informed people making knee jerk reactions.

as usual with this sort of stuff it depends who holds the "power" in the relationship. if you are personally in a position whereby your skills are in significant demand and you can sign zero hour contracts with various employers and then pick and choose the work that they offer to you to suit yourself then it sounds like a great situation.

if on the other hand, a large employer decides that it will create a large pool of zero-hour employees which it will use to staff itself at very short notice to the employees and minimal cost to itself (i.e. doesn't have to pay them, has a large pool so can just sack them if they don't comply with unreasonable terms, keeps you outside any pension arrangements by making sure you don't earn more than the LEL on a regular basis etc) then it doesn't sound that great to me. if you're going to pay someone minimum wage to put things on shelves or flip burgers, it seems to me that in return you could at least guarantee them enough hours so that they can feed themselves.

PasturesNew

It happens a lot in tourism. Hire a bunch of people at the start of the season... and have them all on standby. Get them in if it's sunny; get none in if it's wet/miserable and the tourists don't come. Send them home if the day starts fine, then 2 hours later the weather's turned and there are no customers.

Then, at the end of the season, lay them all off again.... until 2 weeks over Xmas... then repeat the next year.

I heard an Employment 'expert' on the telly recently say "There is no problem with getting a job in Cornwall. None at all. Indeed .... the people here get jobs 3x a year" as he pointed out, the real problem was getting a proper job.

Pennywise

Binding and overly restrictive zero hours contracts are clearly wrong - it's a good thing that people have the choice whether or not to accept them in the first place, and also have the choice to terminate the contract. Firms will realise that they will get a more flexible and more highly skilled workforce if they are flexible themselves, i.e. by allowing workers to be "on call" for several employers.

But I don't think it's deregulation that's caused zero-hours contracts. It's probably more like the excessive regulation, cost and risk of taking on "permanent" staff that's encouraged employers to take on people with few/no rights in preference to permanents who aren't as easy to sack, reduce hours, lay off, etc.

It's all just the way that life is going. We're many decades past the old days of "jobs for life". These days, people move around a lot more and zero hour contracts are just one of many options available for workers and employers.

Wheezy_2

Pennywise wrote: »

... It's probably more like the excessive regulation, cost and risk of taking on "permanent" staff that's encouraged employers to take on people with few/no rights in preference to permanents who aren't as easy to sack, reduce hours, lay off, etc....

According to OECD data, the UK already has one of the lowest levels of employee protection in the developed world.
http://www.oecd.org/employment/employmentpoliciesanddata/oecdindicatorsofemploymentprotection.htm




(2008 data, couldn't find anything more recent)

CLAPTON

chewmylegoff wrote: »

as usual with this sort of stuff it depends who holds the "power" in the relationship. if you are personally in a position whereby your skills are in significant demand and you can sign zero hour contracts with various employers and then pick and choose the work that they offer to you to suit yourself then it sounds like a great situation.

if on the other hand, a large employer decides that it will create a large pool of zero-hour employees which it will use to staff itself at very short notice to the employees and minimal cost to itself (i.e. doesn't have to pay them, has a large pool so can just sack them if they don't comply with unreasonable terms, keeps you outside any pension arrangements by making sure you don't earn more than the LEL on a regular basis etc) then it doesn't sound that great to me. if you're going to pay someone minimum wage to put things on shelves or flip burgers, it seems to me that in return you could at least guarantee them enough hours so that they can feed themselves.

yes of course that's true; just as it's true for full time jobs

the issue is what is the alternative; simply not employ them at all?

CLAPTON

Wheezy wrote: »

According to OECD data, the UK already has one of the lowest levels of employee protection in the developed world.
http://www.oecd.org/employment/employmentpoliciesanddata/oecdindicatorsofemploymentprotection.htm




(2008 data, couldn't find anything more recent)

good to see that Greece, Spain, Portugal (and Luxembourg) do so well in the employee protection stakes.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes of course that's true; just as it's true for full time jobs

the issue is what is the alternative; simply not employ them at all?

Were into moral hazard here, but the alternative would bt to emply and pay for them on an hourly basis. If there is no work on a particular day, that's not the employees fault.

My cousin works for a delivery firm on a saturday. Basically his job entails 50% sitting in a portacabin playing cards and 50% driving. The company offers same day deliveries. In order to carry them out, they need drivers. The drivers sit in the portacabin and drive if required.

Without the drivers, the company wouldn't be able to function. The drivers get paid (allbeit a low wage) regardless of if they actually deliver something or not. The employer, I would presume recognises the need to have the manpower ready should a customer make an order. The employees are expected to work through until Sunday if they are required (long distance driving).

That seems absolutely fair to me. The employer needs them to be flexible, and treats them with respect, and pays them for their time.

Employing people but only paying people for actualy doing a job at the discretion of the company, but requiring them to wait around just incase is pretty immoral practice if you ask me.

I'm actually surprised anyone finds it fair to be honest.