Number on zero hour contracts doubles in a year

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Exactly right.

Indeed.

Labour flexibility is an overwhelmingly good thing, and without it we'd just have less people working, not more.

Can you explain how please?

At the end of the day you need to decide whether splitting 20 hours up over 5 people and giving them 4 hours each is better than offering 1 person work.

You then need to look at who it's better for.

Better for the employer? Most certainly, so long as it's menial stuff with no continuity required.

Better for the worker? Almost certainly not.

Better for society? Almost cetainly not. We just have more people with less money, but with healthy statistics.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So what's the alternative?

Companies going bankrupt.

How does that help more people work longer hours?

If a care company cannot afford to run it's key service, care, then yes, it should go bust.

What's your alternative? Constant subsidy? If so, why have private companies running it at all?

ukcarper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Take an example of a restaurant or bar close to a large University.

Most of their staff will be on zero hour contracts, as the business will need to flex it's labour costs with some large swings in demand. They may have 25 staff on a Monday night in Freshers week, but only 5 staff on a Monday night in August.

Likewise a seasonal hotel in a seaside town. They may have 20 or 30 staff on between March and October, and again in December, but only 5 or 10 on during November, January and February.

Some businesses have large differences in their staffing needs at different times of the month, season, or year. For them, zero hours contracts are absolutely necessary, and indeed if they had to carry a full staffing load year round they'd go out of business.

As with anything in life, there will be occasional abuses, but in general they're a good thing and lead to more people working than otherwise would be the case.

I can see the benefit for employer and some employees but not for the majority of employees who really want fixed hours.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So what's the alternative?

Companies going bankrupt.

How does that help more people work longer hours?

That's the bit people miss. The choice isn't between a zero hour contract and a well paid full time job. If it was then only an idiot would argue for them.

The reality is that the choice is between a zero hour contract and zero contract.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It seems very good for the employer. But for someone trying to earn a crust, seems very little in it for them.

They'll be ideal for some people who just need a little extra money and can be flexible with working hours i.e. students, mothers with kids just starting school etc.

However I'd imagine that most people employed on zero hour contracts tend to be lower skilled and less well educated (a combination which limits life choices). It is a low risk step into the world of work for employee and employer. The zero hour route at least provides some experience and a demonstrable history of reliability - quite valuable if you are otherwise lacking in skills & qualifications.

ILW

When I started work in the late 70s, these sort of contracts did not exist. Most people could just walk into 35 or 40 hour pw jobs. Are things any better now is some ways or was that just a golden age?

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

The reality is that the choice is between a zero hour contract and zero contract.

No no no no no.

Wrong.

Zero contracts can take on say 6 people to do 1 job.

Therefore, this theory that without zero contracts theres no job is a nonsense.

It's just instead of one person having a job with longer hours, more people have fewer hours.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

They'll be ideal for some people who just need a little extra money and can be flexible with working hours i.e. students, mothers with kids just starting school etc.

However I'd imagine that most people employed on zero hour contracts tend to be lower skilled and less well educated (a combination which limits life choices). It is a low risk step into the world of work for employee and employer. The zero hour route at least provides some experience and a demonstrable history of reliability - quite valuable if you are otherwise lacking in skills & qualifications.

I feel you are trying to put the best possible spin possible on this.

People need money at the end of the day. They need to budget. They have bills to pay.

Yes, as I said before you did it will suit some. But for the majority, it won't. For the majority they will be doing it because they have little other choice, and thats where these sorts of contracts can exploit, and no doubt do.

Theres always been seasonal and temporary jobs. So theres no excuse for these contracts even from that angle. What happened pre-2005 when these didn't exists? No one employed on a temporary basis? Of course they were.

This isn't progression. It's a race to the bottom. It's another one of those situations where as long as it's your neighbour working on the zero hour contract and not you, it's fine.

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

That's the bit people miss. The choice isn't between a zero hour contract and a well paid full time job. If it was then only an idiot would argue for them.

The reality is that the choice is between a zero hour contract and zero contract.

In a lot of cases. Although in a market like care it won't always be quite so simple. If someone requires care then in most cases a nominal increase in cost isn't going to change demand; additionally it is location specific so the risk of 'outsourcing' isn't as high.

The reason why a specific company says it will go out of business without zero hour is likely because its competitors would then have a competitive advantage; however if what companies were allowed to do with zero hour staff was slightly restricted then that wouldn't be true and instead one or both of the following would happen:

1. Prices would rise
2. Profit margins would decrease

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No no no no no.

Wrong.

Zero contracts can take on say 6 people to do 1 job.

Actually, yes; correct.

If you were to ban zero hour contracts then invariably the cost of providing some services that use zero hour staff would increase. In many cases that would lead to the service not being used and thus no one being employed to do it.

In the example of a courier. If the cost of same day courier services increased by 50% when zero hour contracts were banned then many companies may consolidate loads or go with slower delivery services leading to less courier jobs. It might also lead to people choosing cost over convenience and ordering a good produced in a foreign country for slow delivery when they were willing to pay for a local product if they could get swift 'affordable' delivery.

All employee protections tend to have some limiting influence on job creation and employment levels but that doesn't mean the benefits don't outweigh the costs.