Number on zero hour contracts doubles in a year

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

There is a very clear and obvious correlation between flexible labour markets and average employment levels over time.

Look at average unemployment rates in Italy and France vs the UK. 3 similar sized, open European economies with welfare states. Italy and France normally have unemployment rates of c.10%, the UK 5-6% (yes I know the unemployment rate is higher now).

The difference is flexible labour markets.

Look at what happens in the US vs European economies as GDP falls and unemployment rises. US unemployment quickly rises, sometimes almost to levels considered normal in places like France and then drops back quickly.

Employment protection and regulation costs jobs. You may not like it but the evidence is there.

ILW

Is there mot also an argument that a lack of employment regulation can also lead to increased reliance on benefits and state aid?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Only 59% of children leave school with 5 good (A* - C) GCSE's. It's ridiculous - only a small minority of kids are unable to get these grades. Being in the 41% is a basic declaration to an employer that they're looking at someone who is an underachiever.

My neighbours and I are fine thanks - there's an architect, optician, a few engineers and an accountant near me. None of them are on zero hours contracts - a happy accident maybe?

The majority of people who end up with no choices are usually in that position as a result of other poor choices they've made.

I can't do it for them Graham.

ILW

wotsthat wrote: »

Only 59% of children leave school with 5 good (A* - C) GCSE's. It's ridiculous - only a small minority of kids are unable to get these grades. Being in the 41% is a basic declaration to an employer that they're looking at someone who is an underachiever.

My neighbours and I are fine thanks - there's an architect, optician, a few engineers and an accountant near me. None of them are on zero hours contracts - a happy accident maybe?

The majority of people who end up with no choices are usually in that position as a result of other poor choices they've made.

I can't do it for them Graham.

Are you saying there is no place for less qualified workers in (what I would consider important) sectors such as care? And such people should have no security whatsover due to lack of a levels?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Only 59% of children leave school with 5 good (A* - C) GCSE's. It's ridiculous - only a small minority of kids are unable to get these grades. Being in the 41% is a basic declaration to an employer that they're looking at someone who is an underachiever.

My neighbours and I are fine thanks - there's an architect, optician, a few engineers and an accountant near me. None of them are on zero hours contracts - a happy accident maybe?

The majority of people who end up with no choices are usually in that position as a result of other poor choices they've made.

I can't do it for them Graham.

We appear to be quickly finding ourselves talking of throwing crumbs to those "lesser than" us.

Not having qualifications doesn't simply mean they haven't tried. There could be hundreds of reasons. Mental capacity isn't the same for everyone, neither is upbringing and access to services. The best thing about this country was that we protected people.

You can keep that argument and we'll agree to disagree.

Mr._Pricklepants

wotsthat wrote: »

My neighbours and I are fine thanks - there's an architect, optician, a few engineers and an accountant near me. None of them are on zero hours contracts - a happy accident maybe?

That's amazing. You would think that with these massive numbers (200K, or 0.6% of the workforce) at least a few of your neighbours would be on 0-hour contracts.

bugslet

wotsthat wrote: »

My neighbours and I are fine thanks - there's an architect, optician, a few engineers and an accountant near me. None of them are on zero hours contracts - a happy accident maybe?

The majority of people who end up with no choices are usually in that position as a result of other poor choices they've made.

I can't do it for them Graham.

Whilst on a moral basis I dislike zero hours contracts and think for some of the occupations such as care homes, it's a dangerous option, there's a basic truth in wotsthat's comments.

If you have no specialism to either offer an employer or ability to make your own money, then you get the scraps of work that are on offer. With regard to the courier company and no disrespect to Graham's relative ( I've done that job myself), it's not rocket science and requires a bog standard driving license. As a business there are few barriers to entry so you get companies coming and going, with only price to differentiate them.

If you are someone with limited skills, then your best hope is to get a job where on the job training makes you valuable to your employer. We are a very specialist haulier and it takes us between 6 weeks to 3 months to train up our drivers, so no zero hours for us, we want continuity of employment and pay them even if we have no work. If we were a courier company I'd be unlikely to have a contract from any clients and as soon as a competitor started zero hours, I'd have to follow suit.

I really don't think it would suit that many people though.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

No, that's just completely wrong.

In the vast majority of cases it is not more efficient for businesses to take on 6 people to do one job than to take on 1 person to do one job.

There are increased costs to payroll, administration, recruitment, HR, training, etc etc etc.

What zero hours contracts allow for is an increase in staffing at peak times when businesses need more staff, but cannot afford to carry them for the rest of the week, month or year.

Taking on extra staff to cover the few hours of peak trading a week when they are needed, ON TOP OF the regular staff on 30-40 hours a week.

And this flexibility for businesses to take on more staff, secure in the knowledge that it won't put them into bankruptcy if the demand fails to materialise, is overwhelmingly a good thing.

ILW

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No, that's just completely wrong.

In the vast majority of cases it is not more efficient for businesses to take on 6 people to do one job than to take on 1 person to do one job.

There are increased costs to payroll, administration, recruitment, HR, training, etc etc etc.

What zero hours contracts allow for is an increase in staffing at peak times when businesses need more staff, but cannot afford to carry them for the rest of the week, month or year.

Taking on extra staff to cover the few hours of peak trading a week when they are needed, ON TOP OF the regular staff on 30-40 hours a week.

And this flexibility for businesses to take on more staff, secure in the knowledge that it won't put them into bankruptcy if the demand fails to materialise, is overwhelmingly a good thing.

Trouble is that in some sectors (care, retail etc) nearly all staff are on zero hours contracts.

GhIFA

ILW wrote: »

Trouble is that in some sectors (care, retail etc) nearly all staff are on zero hours contracts.

I'd question that - the retail sector alone employs around 2.5million people in the UK (granted that includes "head office" functions, not just shop floor jobs) - Zero Hours contracts account for 200,000 people across the entire UK workforce. On that basis, I fail to see how "nearly all" staff are on these contracts.