Sportsdirect; 90% of staff on zero hour contracts

Sampong

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jul/28/sports-direct-staff-zero-hour-contracts

Another company expecting the taxpayer to subsidize it's staff's wages.

Sampong

SAVING_IS_DEAD_MONEY wrote: »

To be honest these yoof should be thankful that they have jobs and get on with it. I remeber starting out as paperboy in my youth which drilled a solid work ethic and commitment into me. I see nothing different here. Work is certainly about more than the wage.

Sportsdirect isn't a paperboy round it's a major retailer. If 90% of the staff are on zero hour contracts that means less confidence from those people for the economy, and a greater burden on the taxpayer to top up their income through welfare payments.

Meanwhile the company and directors will have plenty of creative tax advice - meaning even less money in the economy.

A stable job is more likely to instill a work ethic.

Zero hour contracts are nothing more than exploitation - hardly likely to instill any kind of work ethic.

grizzly1911

SAVING_IS_DEAD_MONEY wrote: »

To be honest these yoof should be thankful that they have jobs and get on with it. I remeber starting out as paperboy in my youth which drilled a solid work ethic and commitment into me. I see nothing different here. Work is certainly about more than the wage.

When did you finish your paperboy job - there is a clue in there for you.

I was 15.

Graham_Devon

Worse in this case is that they have no holiday or sick pay.

Pure exploitation.

Zero hours are often defended on here, I'd be astonished if anyone could defend this example.

grizzly1911

It doesn't need to be sports direct any zero hour contract just shows up the how perilous life in the zero hour zone is.

From that article:-


While I don't dislike the work, the zero-hour contract isn't ideal. Recently, I spent almost two weeks with no shifts at all and with no idea when I'd next be earning..... In some cases people are sent home after only an hour or two of work. I never know how much I'm going to earn because I never know when or how much I'm going to be working, making monthly expenses like bills and rent hard to manage.

I can understand how works for certain roles in say couriers/building were there may or may not be work. When it gets applied to something like retail/services then it just shows up poor management and scheduling.

Never mind helps the employment figures.

dori2o

Yet another example of why this practice needs to be outlawed.

if you are employed, then by rights you should be entitled to work a minimum number of hours per week. Certainly it should be at least 5 hours a week (1 hour per working day) if not more.

Why should employers be allowed to get away with not providing an employees statutory rights.

JencParker

It's scandalous that this is allowed. It's one thing being self employed, but if you are employed you are employed for a certain number of hours. Even that is open to abuse - heard a case on the radio today where a care worker is employed on a 4 hours a week contract despite working full time. However, her hours were never guaranteed and she didn't know how many hours she would be given from week to week and her sick pay and holiday entitlement was pro rata according to a 4 hour a week contract.

JencParker

dori2o wrote: »

Yet another example of why this practice needs to be outlawed.

if you are employed, then by rights you should be entitled to work a minimum number of hours per week. Certainly it should be at least 5 hours a week (1 hour per working day) if not more.

Why should employers be allowed to get away with not providing an employees statutory rights.

So that they can become billionaires like the Sportsdirect owner?

grizzly1911

JencParker wrote: »

So that they can become billionaires like the Sportsdirect owner?

Not sure he is billionaire yet - is he?

I think it is a dreadful store but I guess loads more don't.

Don't Wonga advertise on the NU strip - says it all really.

CLAPTON

so we are all agreed that a small number of full employed people is much much better that a large number of part time workers

and such should be enshrined in law

dori2o

CLAPTON wrote: »

so we are all agreed that a small number of full employed people is much much better that a large number of part time workers

and such should be enshrined in law

It's not about full time or part time workers, it's about fairness and ensuring everyone, including employers and big businesses are acting fairly, and more to the point, acting morally.

In theory you could be one of these employees on a 0 hours contract and not have any work for 4/5/6/7+ weeks.

This person is classed as being employed despite not earning so would not be able to claim JSA. They won't be paying enough contributions to guarantee being able to claim benefits in the future.

Abolishing 0 hours contracts may lead to fewer people being employed by the company, but at least those who are employed will have a guaranteed income, guraranteed hours, will be able to plan their outgoings from week to week, will be less likely to get into debt with rent, CT, utilities etc as they will actually have money to pay them with.

0 hours contracts are wrong in so many ways, but I fear the Govt will do nothing about them as they help to fudge the unemployment figures even more.

IMO another thing that needs abolishing from employment contracts is the clause that says employees must be available as and when required to work even at short notice. This should be voluntary, not mandatory.

This prevents part time employees from working 2nd jobs during the hours they don't work for their current employer. If an employer has staffing problems they should resolve that by hiring more staff, not trying to cover up the issue by making other people work the hours.