Number on zero hour contracts doubles in a year

Graham_Devon

Really don't like this personally. Feels like companies are really taking advantage, and with the near doubling in a single year of zero hour contracts, that only add's to my thoughts that companies are taking advantage of the tough climate for workers.

The number of workers in jobs without any guarantee of regular hours or pay nearly doubled during last year to reach 200,000, according to data from the Office for National Statistics.

The contracts – now used by almost a quarter of Britain's major employers - legally allow firms to employ staff, often in low paid jobs, without any guarantee of actual work, or income.

In turn workers are able to turn down work and go for other jobs as they are not contracted to work any hours.

Last month, Government figures showed the number of people in work had risen to 29.73 million - the highest level since records began in 1971 - during the three months to the end of December.

During the same period 200,000 people were employed on zero hours contracts.

One worker, who asked not to be named, told ITV News that she was promised plenty of hours but the reality was very different, and on occasion she had been called in then sent home again without a shift.

She said: "It's difficult....sometimes they make you wait around for an hour to see if there are any positions available. If there aren't you have to go home and that's a day's wage lost.”

Nice to know the ethical Co-Op uses them too!

This also effects jobless figures, as in some cases people will have jobs on paper, but little in terms of paid employment.

Couriers use them too, as a member of the family is currently doing it as a secondary job. However, he has to go in, sit there for 2 hours. If in that 2 hours a job comes up, he gets paid for his time so far and the corresponding job. Otherwise, he and the other drivers are sent home without any pay. If a job does come up it's often quite well paid as it's same day courier stuff, so it's a case of winning some and losing some.

Easyjet apparently are in on the act too, dubing it "flexicrew" where you become self employed. Apparently the average hours are 40 per month at £43 an hour for a pilot. May sound good, but not when you have a pilot licence debt to pay back. You don't even break even for the month.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9968124/Number-of-Britons-on-zero-hours-contracts-hits-record-high.html

wymondham

I'm one of these - self employed! ;-/

grizzly1911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Really don't like this personally. Feels like companies are really taking advantage, and with the near doubling in a single year of zero hour contracts, that only add's to my thoughts that companies are taking advantage of the tough climate for workers.

Nice to know the ethical Co-Op uses them too!

This also effects jobless figures, as in some cases people will have jobs on paper, but little in terms of paid employment.

Couriers use them too, as a member of the family is currently doing it as a secondary job. However, he has to go in, sit there for 2 hours. If in that 2 hours a job comes up, he gets paid for his time so far and the corresponding job. Otherwise, he and the other drivers are sent home without any pay. If a job does come up it's often quite well paid as it's same day courier stuff, so it's a case of winning some and losing some.

Easyjet apparently are in on the act too, dubing it "flexicrew" where you become self employed. Apparently the average hours are 40 per month at £43 an hour for a pilot. May sound good, but not when you have a pilot licence debt to pay back. You don't even break even for the month.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9968124/Number-of-Britons-on-zero-hours-contracts-hits-record-high.html

I wonder how "bank" contracts such medical staff would be classified?

Not that I am fan anyway but further turns me of squeezy jet.

joolsybools

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Really don't like this personally. Feels like companies are really taking advantage, and with the near doubling in a single year of zero hour contracts, that only add's to my thoughts that companies are taking advantage of the tough climate for workers.

Nice to know the ethical Co-Op uses them too!

This also effects jobless figures, as in some cases people will have jobs on paper, but little in terms of paid employment.

Couriers use them too, as a member of the family is currently doing it as a secondary job. However, he has to go in, sit there for 2 hours. If in that 2 hours a job comes up, he gets paid for his time so far and the corresponding job. Otherwise, he and the other drivers are sent home without any pay. If a job does come up it's often quite well paid as it's same day courier stuff, so it's a case of winning some and losing some.

Easyjet apparently are in on the act too, dubing it "flexicrew" where you become self employed. Apparently the average hours are 40 per month at £43 an hour for a pilot. May sound good, but not when you have a pilot licence debt to pay back. You don't even break even for the month.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9968124/Number-of-Britons-on-zero-hours-contracts-hits-record-high.html

I'd imagine the Tax man would take a dim view of Easyjet for that - not sure they can really do it tbh.

Graham_Devon

joolsybools wrote: »

I'd imagine the Tax man would take a dim view of Easyjet for that - not sure they can really do it tbh.

It's something called CTC flexicrew. I assume the person works freelance for CTC and Easyjet use their services.

Can't say too much and I may be terribly wrong, just heard it on the radio!

wotsthat

Isn't this a sign that British workers are becoming more competitive?

We hear that the cost of essentials is rising faster than inflation - so maybe zero hour contracts work for people looking for extra money but not a full time job.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Isn't this a sign that British workers are becoming more competitive?

We hear that the cost of essentials is rising faster than inflation - so maybe zero hour contracts work for people looking for extra money but not a full time job.

Well that would be the uber optimistic view.

We could also take the same view and assume that the unemployed are mostly made up of well off people with little need to work.

There are, of course, some that zero hour contracts will work for. But the explosion in the rate they are increasing suggests otherwise in todays economic climate.

Thrugelmir

Maybe a downside of the minimum wage. If there's no productive work i.e. like a courier. Then a company cannot afford to pay a wage.

Back to the days when dockers turned up at the dock gates every day to see if there was work.

Similar to the way Chinese factories employing unskilled labour work today as well.

wymondham

Is it really such a bad thing?

One thing I've learnt whilst working for myself is you have to work hard, take a long term view and treat people well. I see many who are employed in offices who are 'stale' in their view of working practices and are far too 'comfortable', especially once in management.

Could this be the way people are employed in the future? Is it as bad as depicted?

Thrugelmir

Employment is a two way relationship. Depending on the nature of the business employees are valuable assets. They are the visible face of the company to the outside world. Companies spend a fortune building their image over the a long period. Very easy to destroy the perception in a matter of minutes.

Going4TheDream

wymondham wrote: »

Is it really such a bad thing?

One thing I've learnt whilst working for myself is you have to work hard, take a long term view and treat people well. I see many who are employed in offices who are 'stale' in their view of working practices and are far too 'comfortable', especially once in management.

Could this be the way people are employed in the future? Is it as bad as depicted?

Depends whether you value your employee rights - seems to me to be a 'legal way' for companies to avoid the agency worker regulations/directive

A directive (which how ever well intentioned?) that seems to be doing more harm than good to the very people it sought to protect, as now companies cut out the agencies and do it direct?