Zero hours contract, but no shifts for two weeks........

LittleVoice

Jayt1987 wrote: »

Then you might find that the DWP might not allow you to claim JSA as the extra premium is supposed to be used for time off.

Depends on how many shifts the OP does in a "normal" week.
If they don't do the equivalent of a full-time (37.5 hours/week) job then the holiday pay received with each payment can be used as holiday pay for the days they are not working.

Galaxy1987

For as much as it is not he best model, zero hour contracts are how people manage to have some income. Without them there would be more unemployment, because companies may not be able to commit themselves to set hours per week but use the staff member when busy or to cover leave etc.

paddedjohn

An employer cannot “roll up” holiday pay, that is, say that the pay they are paying their worker includes holiday – unless they meet with certain strict “guidelines”: (1) it is clearly set out in the contract that holiday pay is being rolled up and what percentage represents holiday pay, (2) the payslips clearly show how much pay is for holiday pay, and (3) the employer does all that is practicable to ensure the worker takes that time off.
Rolled up holiday is illegal but this can be circumvented if strict guidelines as above are followed

Galaxy1987

LittleVoice wrote: »

Depends on how many shifts the OP does in a "normal" week.
If they don't do the equivalent of a full-time (37.5 hours/week) job then the holiday pay received with each payment can be used as holiday pay for the days they are not working.

Not as far as i was aware, it not like someone who works part -time could use there annual leave entitlement to make up a full week, then take unpaid annual leave and claim JSA. The whole point in the annual leave is to cover the time you would be usually at work. That is why it is usual for an average to be gained over the previous 12 weeks worked.

Southend1

Jayt1987 wrote: »

For as much as it is not he best model, zero hour contracts are how people manage to have some income. Without them there would be more unemployment, because companies may not be able to commit themselves to set hours per week but use the staff member when busy or to cover leave etc.

This kind of attitude has pretty much taken this country back to the dark ages. Countless working poor now tied to one employer but begging each day for a day's work, no certainty in life. How many times these days do you hear employers justifying poor practise by saying "you should be grateful to have any kind of job"? Britain should be better than that.

LittleVoice

Southend1 wrote: »

Zero hours contracts should really be banned, or at least significantly restricted by law.

OP I feel for you. I can imagine the stress and uncertainty that your employer is causing for you here.

Are you a union member? If so, ask your rep to help you campaign against the use of zero hours contracts in your trust. If not, join today!

Probably "bank" staff - like the Trust's own temp agency.

Not with the NHS but I'm on a minimum hours contract (think it is something like a minimum of 7 hours a year) guaranteed. So that is easily achieved and, if it ever looked as though I wouldn't achieve it in a year, I expect my contract would be terminated before they had to pay for hours not actually worked.

SailorSam

They were talking on the news last night about a possible Fire Brigade strike. They said 'cos of a change in the law we wouldn't this time have the Army with their Green Goddess vans but the cover would have to come from members of the public. They would be offered zero hours jobs only called in when there was work.
What's going to happen, will people be called up at home to say there's a fire and could they come.

Galaxy1987

Southend1 wrote: »

This kind of attitude has pretty much taken this country back to the dark ages. Countless working poor now tied to one employer but begging each day for a day's work, no certainty in life. How many times these days do you hear employers justifying poor practise by saying "you should be grateful to have any kind of job"? Britain should be better than that.

But they are not really tied to one employer they are just employed with no hours, they can leave, work other places. The whole point is having people on your books to cover the shortfall. Rather than me having 15 people who average 30 hours per week I will cut them down to 10 with 30 hour contracts with average 15 hours per week OT. That means 5 people with no income potential.

Galaxy1987

SailorSam wrote: »

They were talking on the news last night about a possible Fire Brigade strike. They said 'cos of a change in the law we wouldn't this time have the Army with their Green Goddess vans but the cover would have to come from members of the public. They would be offered zero hours jobs only called in when there was work.
What's going to happen, will people be called up at home to say there's a fire and could they come.

Thats probably not the best model of staffing in that situation, they should make use of temp posts to cover the time required.

pelirocco

paddedjohn wrote: »

It's a serious suggestion, you are entitled to holidays by law so whoever told you otherwise is wrong.

Unless their pay reflects the no holiday bit .........We employ casuals in the summer and they get paid extra per hour instead of holiday entitlement ........not sure if this is the same for people on zero contracts ..probably the same thing