Number on zero hour contracts doubles in a year

Thrugelmir

lemonjelly wrote: »

Also, as highlighted earlier in the thread, a person on a zero hours contract is not an employee. Therefore, no entitlement to redundancy pay, no employment rights, no rights of redress via an employment tribunal. The erosion of such rights is dangerous & open to exploitation.

The "hours" that an individual is contracted to work in no way disbars them from their employment rights. Employment law is very specific as to rights. Something that zero hours in itself does not circumnavigate.

ILW

wymondham wrote: »

How about their care is assessed closely, this would make a nice change and also improve care standards?

Problem is that the client (usually local authority) are only interested in getting the service for the lowest possible fee. Care take time and there is no budget for it.

N1AK

ILW wrote: »

How would you do that for someone like a care home worker?

I don't work in the field but I imagine something along the lines of:

• Workload - Number of patients and level of care required
• Quality - How well there patients fare compared to others of similar care levels
• Dignity - How their patients and families rate them vs the ratings of their peers

Add in some random spot checks conducted shortly after care visits and you should be able to build a reasonably good picture of how well a care worker is doing their job.

If someone can offer good quality care, be rated highly by patients and look after 10% more clients than average why shouldn't they get paid better for it; especially if the money to do so is freed up by getting rid of staff who do a poor job.

N1AK

ILW wrote: »

Problem is that the client (usually local authority) are only interested in getting the service for the lowest possible fee. Care take time and there is no budget for it.

There's a budget but like everything we need to prioritise it. The problem is that with things like elderly care and medical treatment most people don't want to consider how much 'should' be spent on someone.

Considering the following thought experiment:

If someone came up with a miracle drug that kept people alive but in their current physical condition but it cost £1,000 a day should it be given to everyone who would die? Most people will accept that we couldn't afford to no matter how much we might want to; however that isn't a determination most people want to make with normal medical treatment.

If someone is 85 and would die without a £500,000 heart operation which is expected to extend their life for 6-8 years I would argue that it isn't an effective way to spend the money; that £500,000 could be used to provide far more benefit elsewhere.

If we could be more rational and open about costs and our choice of priorities we could have a much better system but these issues are so emotive that I can't see that happening.

Graham_Devon

N1AK wrote: »

If someone can offer good quality care, be rated highly by patients and look after 10% more clients than average why shouldn't they get paid better for it; especially if the money to do so is freed up by getting rid of staff who do a poor job.

Thing is, it wouldn't work like this. Care is paid for on a tarrif type arrangement.

To pay someone higher amounts, you'd have to pay another person lower amounts as the income itself is fixed per patient dependant upon needs and the tarrifs those needs bring.

Would be quite difficult to control.

It would be impossble to implement fairly as each patient would have differing needs, so could take a lot longer to see to one persons needs and your colleage has seen to 3 in that time making you look bad. It's not like piece work where the company makes higher profits on each item chucked out of the factory, and you can't exactly provide incentive payments for signing customers up either!

It is however interesting that some appear to believe this kind of payment for results would provide satisfation to the worker. We have just been through one massive shock on the back of paid by results work on a grand scale.

On the flip side, you have companies like Google who strive to offer just the opposite, and appear to have one of the healthiest work environments in the world.

lemonjelly

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The "hours" that an individual is contracted to work in no way disbars them from their employment rights. Employment law is very specific as to rights. Something that zero hours in itself does not circumnavigate.

Incorrect my dear friend. You are not an employee, you are a worker.
Therefore you do not qualify under employment law as an employee. Therefore none of the rights of an employee.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/overview

N1AK

wotsthat wrote: »

Not having qualifications in the majority of cases is a clear indication that someone hasn't tried.

Sure some kids don't have the mental capacity - not 41% of them though.

One issue with our education system is that your maturity/priorities at 14-16 years old can massively limit your ability to take advantage of it.

I definitely wasn't mature enough at that age. Although I got good GCSEs I scrapped through A-Levels and the first couple of years of University. I only 'got it' in my final year and even with a genuinely immense amount of time and effort only managed to pull my overall degree up to a 2.2; fortunately that was enough in the vibrant job market of 2005 and I've done fine since.

If someone is too lazy, or doesn't see the point, at GCSE age then it is self-defeating as a nation to write them off at that point. People's ethics, attitudes towards study etc can change incredibly between 15 and 20 so it makes little sense not to help them help themselves.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It would be impossble to implement fairly as each patient would have differing needs, so could take a lot longer to see to one persons needs and your colleage has seen to 3 in that time making you look bad.

Your inability to manage it isn't the same thing as it being impossible. If you hadn't used an example that I specifically covered in my post where I referred to numbers and levels of care required I'd be more inclined to provide greater detail but if you're going to refute things you either haven't read or bothered to understand then it's a waste of time.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

On the flip side, you have companies like Google who strive to offer just the opposite, and appear to have one of the healthiest work environments in the world.

A company that made all employee bonuses directly related to the success of Google+. I'd pick a better example next time because this one was incredibly bad.

Graham_Devon

lemonjelly wrote: »

Incorrect my dear friend. You are not an employee, you are a worker.
Therefore you do not qualify under employment law as an employee. Therefore none of the rights of an employee.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/overview

The employment rights thing isn't as simple as that and it's been tested in court.

It all hinges on whether there is an "employment relationship".

If there is an employment relationship, an employee on a zero hours contract will acquire thesame comparative rights as other employees e.g. rights of unfair dismissal, redundancy payments and annual leave. Entitlement will be based on the average number of hours worked and years of service (if applicable) prior to the event in question.

Employees on zero hours contracts may also acquire other entitlementsin relation to pay or other benefits on a pro rata basis when compared to full time employees.

Whether any specific zero hours proposal meets the requirements of mutuality of obligation has to be assessed on a case by case basis, so please refer to your regional officer for advice.

noh

lemonjelly wrote: »

Incorrect my dear friend. You are not an employee, you are a worker.
Therefore you do not qualify under employment law as an employee. Therefore none of the rights of an employee.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/overview

Not correct either. The link you gave explains that employees have additional rights to those of a worker. Both classes have a common set of rights.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/employee

I currently have two zero hour contracts with different employers. The arrangement suits me. The one I have been working for since Nov 2007 originally wanted to offer me a full time job but it was me that suggested the zero hour contract simply because it gave me more control over when and if I wanted to work.