The Zero Hour Contract

kabayiri

StevieJ wrote: »

I think that has been the cry for over 60 years

I admit to pinning my colours to the robotics future by choosing it at Uni in the 80s.

My first industrial robot was far removed from the picture above. Poor thing was blind; utilisation was limited to a small percentage of the day. It did have the unerring ability to put in a £200 chip in the right way round though, something the manual operators failed at when their attention diminished.

Modern robots have come on, but they are still relatively limited in ultimate capability.

But...it's just a matter of time isn't it? A century ago we could not have imagined standing in the middle of a field and being able to ring and speak to someone on the other side of the globe.

Technology will advance, but will society advance with it? That's a tricky one to answer...

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I saw the interview....BBC News.

I'm not going to disagree there are people who are self employed through lack of choice. It would be silly for me to do so.

However, to compare the self employed as a whole to the people on zero hour contracts as a whole is silly too. They are quite obviously worlds apart in how they work and how the person may or may not benefit.

The local news for instance had a piece of tourism, zero hour contracts and part time jobs. Business leaders were suggesting it's good for us, as the flexibility means we can spend more time with our families. They suggested they wouldn't have a job at all if it wasn't for the generous flexibility of the business's. One councellor stood up and suggested it's flexibility for the business, not for the employee, and it's all gone too far with people unable to make ends meet and many many more turning to benefits.

To my mind (dependant on sector, I am talking tourism, entertainment, restaurants etc) it's simply preying on people in need of money. There is no way at all this benefits people in these sectors.

I agree with you for a change.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I saw the interview....BBC News.

I'm not going to disagree there are people who are self employed through lack of choice. It would be silly for me to do so.

However, to compare the self employed as a whole to the people on zero hour contracts as a whole is silly too. They are quite obviously worlds apart in how they work and how the person may or may not benefit.

The local news for instance had a piece of tourism, zero hour contracts and part time jobs. Business leaders were suggesting it's good for us, as the flexibility means we can spend more time with our families. They suggested they wouldn't have a job at all if it wasn't for the generous flexibility of the business's. One councellor stood up and suggested it's flexibility for the business, not for the employee, and it's all gone too far with people unable to make ends meet and many many more turning to benefits.

To my mind (dependant on sector, I am talking tourism, entertainment, restaurants etc) it's simply preying on people in need of money. There is no way at all this benefits people in these sectors.

For the record let me say that I too would like to live in a world were everyone has a generous salary and prices are cheap and there is no unemployment.

The issue is whether zero hours contacts are unreasonable (or immoral in your view) given the existing likely alternatives;

zero hours suite some employees in some circumstances
zero hours contracts are used by some employers to reduce their costs

yes some people will be 'exploited' by some employers but the alternative is unemployment and benefits

we will probably disagree on the relative merits of these alternatives.

of course consumers can opt to only shop in places that pay good wages and where employers don't 'prey on people in need of money'

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

For the record let me say that I too would like to live in a world were everyone has a generous salary and prices are cheap and there is no unemployment.

Forget the generous salary. We no longer work hard enough to earn it.

I would propose a liveable wage. With greater equality.

The cake can only be cut so many ways. Bankers are merely a reflection of the society we have become.

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Forget the generous salary. We no longer work hard enough to earn it.

I would propose a liveable wage. With greater equality.

The cake can only be cut so many ways. Bankers are merely a reflection of the society we have become.

You are indeed correct in the first para. It is one of those things which no politician of any colour would admit though.

Some bloke called "John" on Radio 5 was on an hour or so ago (sorry...that's as accurate as my name recollection gets!).

Anyway, he had done his research and some sobering conclusions -

- 500m people in the West earning an average of $135 a day
- 2500m people in the East earning 2 averages $12 a day / $1 a day (industrial/non-industrial split)
- China and India embrace capitalism only 2 decades ago, and the balance of economic power was forever set to change from then onwards

His suggestion was a 5% inflation rate surpassing wage rises year on year for the next decade would be a silent way of redressing this earnings imbalance. On the other side some of China is experiencing 24% wage inflation.

Where is this new liveable wage for the West? Do we meet in the middle of the above figures and come out with $65 a day, or is that too pessimistic?

MacMickster

N1AK wrote: »

We have quiet a high turnover of 0-hour workers.

Surely this will be the problem for an employer with zero hours contracts.

Most people will naturally want a fixed hours job where they know that they will have the money coming in to pay the rent, buy food etc.

A zero hour contract is only likely to be taken as a stop-gap whilst looking for something else. I would also imagine that workers on these contracts will feel absolutely no loyalty towards the employer and would happily walk out without notice if offered something better.

Most employers value the knowledge, commitment and reliability of good employees. I doubt that zero hours contracts actually benefit many in the long run.

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

Where is this new liveable wage for the West? Do we meet in the middle of the above figures and come out with $65 a day, or is that too pessimistic?

In China 7 to 8 million people are joining the labour market every year. So China's communist rulers have a major problem on their hands themselves.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To my mind (dependant on sector, I am talking tourism, entertainment, restaurants etc) it's simply preying on people in need of money. There is no way at all this benefits people in these sectors.

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree with you for a change.

And now, the other side of the coin....

Take the example of a retail or hospitality business where a very large percentage of the takings are in a very small number of hours per week. There are some nightclubs and bars that take 80% of their takings in a week in just 3 hours on Friday and Saturday nights, for example.

Now add in the vagaries of seasonal differences in takings, where a hospitality business for example might take £25,000 a week in December, and only £6,000 a week in Jan and Feb.

Now add in other factors, such as weather, sports tournaments where it's impossible to predict the outcomes and so scheduling needs, etc etc etc....

It's obvious that such a business cannot justify keeping the 35 staff it needs in December on the books for Jan and Feb, and equally obvious that it cannot justify keeping 35 staff working for 40 hours per week when it only needs most of them for 4 or 6 hours per week.

A zero hours contract allows the company to schedule staff when it needs them, and not schedule them when it doesn't, including for weeks where it may not need them at all thanks to the seasonal nature of these types of businesses.

The majority of these businesses will schedule staff a week or so in advance, and the majority of staff working in these jobs will work several jobs of this type. Perhaps a shop in the daytime, a cafe in the evenings, a nightclub on Friday and Saturday nights, for example. This has been the case for many years, and it offers employees and employers the flexibility they require.

Where I would agree that this is a bad thing is if this type of contract is now progressing to employer sectors where the business conditions which require such flexibility don't exist....

If that were to become the case, I could see it being abused.

ukcarper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And now, the other side of the coin....

Take the example of a retail or hospitality business where a very large percentage of the takings are in a very small number of hours per week. There are some nightclubs and bars that take 80% of their takings in a week in just 3 hours on Friday and Saturday nights, for example.

Now add in the vagaries of seasonal differences in takings, where a hospitality business for example might take £25,000 a week in December, and only £6,000 a week in Jan and Feb.

Now add in other factors, such as weather, sports tournaments where it's impossible to predict the outcomes and so scheduling needs, etc etc etc....

It's obvious that such a business cannot justify keeping the 35 staff it needs in December on the books for Jan and Feb, and equally obvious that it cannot justify keeping 35 staff working for 40 hours per week when it only needs most of them for 4 or 6 hours per week.

A zero hours contract allows the company to schedule staff when it needs them, and not schedule them when it doesn't, including for weeks where it may not need them at all thanks to the seasonal nature of these types of businesses.

The majority of these businesses will schedule staff a week or so in advance, and the majority of staff working in these jobs will work several jobs of this type. Perhaps a shop in the daytime, a cafe in the evenings, a nightclub on Friday and Saturday nights, for example. This has been the case for many years, and it offers employees and employers the flexibility they require.

Where I would agree that this is a bad thing is if this type of contract is now progressing to employer sectors where the business conditions which require such flexibility don't exist....

If that were to become the case, I could see it being abused.

I can see the business case for it and I can see that it might suite some people but for the majority of people 0 hour contracts are a very poor option and if this what is being offered I would not blame people for staying on benefits.

　

I wonder how many takers they would get for these jobs if more full time jobs were available.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ukcarper wrote: »

I can see the business case for it

Indeed.

There are numerous businesses that would not be viable without it.

and I can see that it might suite some people

Students, people looking for part time second-jobs, people looking for occasional work, events work, etc etc etc.....

You might be surprised how many people want this type of work to top up their income.

but for the majority of people 0 hour contracts are a very poor option and if this what is being offered I would not blame people for staying on benefits.

I agree completely.

Zero hour contracts are a very poor option for people looking for full time work.... ie, the majority of people.

They're also not designed to be attractive to those people. By definition, they are for people looking for occasional and part time work. And for those people, they work well.

If they're being rolled out wider than the specialist employers that genuinely have a need for them, I'd agree it's a problem.

But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.....

A significant minority of businesses really do need the flexibility they offer to remain viable, and a significant minority of employees like the flexibility they offer as well.