Sportsdirect; 90% of staff on zero hour contracts

Frugalsod

An economy with loads of staff on zero hours contracts will not grow robustly. I fully expect another slump within a year. All this does is subsidise employers at the tax payers expense. All those staff will need to be in and out of benefit offices to get top up benefits just to cope.

Running_Horse

I worked for an national company that experimented with zero hours contracts a few years ago. The result? Just try recruiting committed and skilled staff on that basis. Maybe it doesn't matter who they get in at SD, but for us it was a disaster.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Buckingham Palace hires on zero hours contracts....

But notes they're not really "zero hours" at all, with rotas being drawn up a month in advance so staff have plenty of notice when they're working.

Buckingham Palace opened its doors to the public earlier this week, but all the temporary staff hired to run the State Rooms attraction, which includes a Diamond Jubilee exhibition, are forced to sign contracts which give them no guarantee of any work. However, although the contract leaves staff with no promise of work, they are not allowed to work for any other employee without written permission from the palace.

A copy of a staff contract seen by the Guardian, dated 2009, says: "Your hours of work will be advised by the visitor manager and will be dependent upon the requirements for retail assistants at Buckingham Palace as and when required.

"You are employed to work exclusively for Royal Collection Enterprises Limited [a Palace subsidiary] and if you wish to seek secondary employment you must first obtain the written consent of your Head of Department."

A spokeswoman for the palace said the contracts did not guarantee any amount of work, but said rotas were drawn up a month in advance for staff to plan their hours.

But she declined to characterise them as zero-hours contracts: "All temporary staff employed during the summer opening of Buckingham Palace are issued with fixed-term employment contracts for a three-or four-month period. These are not zero-hours contracts."

The palace argues that because the staff are entitled to certain benefits on days when they are called in, such as a free hot or cold lunch, holiday pay and uniforms, amongst other benefits, they cannot be described as zero-hours.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jul/30/buckingham-palace-zero-hours-contracts

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Buckingham Palace hires on zero hours contracts....

No, temporary contracts.

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote:

If however, one wants to propose changing the law then it's important to make proposals that actually address the problem and don't disadvantage other people with unintended consequences.

Exactly this. Unless you take the view that ALL zero-hour work should be stopped then you need to, in some way, allow for zero-hour work in some cases. Changing the law to discourage it in cases like Sports Directs, but not for companies with genuinely variable staffing needs, won't be easy.

Ultimately Sports Direct are using zero-hours because it saves them money. Either we need to change the costs (Bring in a zero-hour NI premium, higher NMW for ZH etc) or try and regulate it (require firms report zero-hour hours worked by week etc and make unnecessary use of zero-hour contracts a fine-able offence).

In some ways the later makes sense, but it also adds even more employment law complexity.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, temporary contracts.

:beer:

And here is the problem. I bet 3/4ths or more of 'zero-hour' stories on here, in the news etc aren't about actual zero-hour contracts.

vman

My wife is on zero hour shifts, there was a period when she got about 2 shifts in 12 months! It doesn't work for everybody but in her case she just gets multiple jobs. Typically you don't make yourself available for 40 hours a week, whoever rings first gets your time. If you don't fancy working that shift you just turn it down. Ok, its not great if you are trying to support yourself but we don't really on her income so it works for us. I think she quite likes the flexibility.

Tax codes are a bit of a mess, but we have to do tax returns anyway.

vman

wotsthat wrote: »

Businesses go bust all the time due to consumer action. If the consumer is anywhere as near bothered about this as they were about, say, PPI, Sports Direct will be bust within a month.

Do they! pretty much everybody shops on price, very few people shop entirely on ethics. Ok, you may able to drum up a middle class boycott of a coffee shop in camden but you will struggle to close down sportsdirect, their consumer is far more interested in getting their replica hoodies a couple of quid cheaper.

Was the public bothered by PPI? The only reason it became a big deal was because of the relentless hard sell from those awful ambulance chasing legal companies. My wife wanted me to pursue a ppi claim on her behalf, I refused to on the grounds that she shouldn't have been so stupid to sign up for it in the first place, it was clearly inappropriate for her. I also refused because the idea of lining the pockets of those awful 'legal' companies is far worse than anything the banks have (supposedly) done wrong. I'm digressing but if somebody sells me a bag of fresh air why is the person selling at fault? I bought a bag of fresh air, I'm an idiot, I should be honest about it and take responsibility for my actions. I get fed up of this trend of people not taking responsibility for their actions and blaming others all the time. Rant, rant rant! Sorry, the PPI reference seems to have triggered a random rant from me!

wotsthat

vman wrote: »

Do they! pretty much everybody shops on price, very few people shop entirely on ethics. Ok, you may able to drum up a middle class boycott of a coffee shop in camden but you will struggle to close down sportsdirect, their consumer is far more interested in getting their replica hoodies a couple of quid cheaper.

Choosing to buy on price IS consumer action and I'd agree with you that very few people shop on ethical views alone.

I was being slightly ironic - for all the fuss that's made in the media then as long as the company sells the right thing at the right price the consumer will forgive most things.

vman wrote: »

Was the public bothered by PPI? The only reason it became a big deal was because of the relentless hard sell from those awful ambulance chasing legal companies. My wife wanted me to pursue a ppi claim on her behalf, I refused to on the grounds that she shouldn't have been so stupid to sign up for it in the first place, it was clearly inappropriate for her. I also refused because the idea of lining the pockets of those awful 'legal' companies is far worse than anything the banks have (supposedly) done wrong. I'm digressing but if somebody sells me a bag of fresh air why is the person selling at fault? I bought a bag of fresh air, I'm an idiot, I should be honest about it and take responsibility for my actions. I get fed up of this trend of people not taking responsibility for their actions and blaming others all the time. Rant, rant rant! Sorry, the PPI reference seems to have triggered a random rant from me!

I really was being ironic about PPI. Apparently the public were very bothered about it and decided the banks had to be punished. As with Sports Direct I think the decsion comes down to the effect on the back pocket rather than ethics.

Similar thing happening now in the US by the looks of it with BP where a government turns a blind eye to wholesale fraud.

vman

wotsthat wrote: »

Choosing to buy on price IS consumer action and I'd agree with you that very few people shop on ethical views alone.

I was being slightly ironic - for all the fuss that's made in the media then as long as the company sells the right thing at the right price the consumer will forgive most things.



I really was being ironic about PPI. Apparently the public were very bothered about it and decided the banks had to be punished. As with Sports Direct I think the decision comes down to the effect on the back pocket rather than ethics.

Similar thing happening now in the US by the looks of it with BP where a government turns a blind eye to wholesale fraud.

Apologies, your ironies swooshed me by! I don't think people were particularly up in arms about PPI per say, it was more a mass movement of "wu hoo - free money".