Sportsdirect; 90% of staff on zero hour contracts

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

There is a big difference between what is clearly desirable and what the LAW should be.

If there were lots of better jobs around, then people would choose not to work for sport direct.

I question whether it is better to be employed part time or be unemployed fulltime. I would prefer the people decided for themselves rather than you.

Your sarcastic comments about Bangkok working conditions merely show your breath taking ignorance of the realities of conditions in many parts of the world.

I suspect people would prefer to work part time that be unemployed a lot would prefer to work full time than part time. But I thought we were talking about zero hours contracts.

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

If zero hour contracts are so terrible how come Sports Direct manage to get staff at all? Why don't they go and get a full time job with a company car and private health insurance
.

Lack of choice

Sampong

wotsthat wrote: »

My impression of Sports Direct is a company operating on small margins marketing to the more chavvy part of the market.

I don't have access to their accounts or any figures, but I am surprised you have come to that conclusion. Their gross margins on the products are huge, they cost pennies to make by exploited illegal workers in the far east (see link I posted further up in this thread). Their retail locations are not in high cost town centres but tend to be in purpose built retail parks which will provide a much lower price per m2 of retail space. And, as this news story highlights, they pay staff low wages, and in addition 90% of the staff don't get holiday pay, sick pay.......

How on earth do you conclude they operate on tiny margins? Because it looks like a racket to me........

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

I suspect people would prefer to work part time that be unemployed a lot would prefer to work full time than part time. But I thought we were talking about zero hours contracts.

Indeed so

zero hours contracts cater for a range of working hours.
I considered the discussion wasn't about those that worked fulltime equivalent but about people who worked low numbers of hours (sometime even zero); I referred to these as 'part time'.

Clearly some people prefer to work zero hour contracts that being totally unemployed: the issue is should it be regulated and if so what sort of regulation.

Jennifer_Jane

I was astonished when I returned to the UK to find that most people couldn't just find permanent full-time jobs. It was heartbreaking to look for work in the field I was in, sending off huge application forms and a good CV, never to hear anything back.

The week I arrived I went to a Temp Admin Agency and they gave me a job for the following week (4 days), the next week I was off to a different place, and so on. Eventually, the temp work led to more temp work in the one company, then short-term contracts (a fortnight; a month; 3 months etc. Then open-ended, and finally to a permanent job.

So, I'm with Clapton here. Everyone who can should be working and paying taxes etc. Contributing. Zero hours are not ideal, but I see them as temporary anyway. If the economy gets better, the good employees at Sports Direct will find other jobs with better conditions, Sports Direct will see that they are losing their good employees, and the conditions will change.

It's just temporary and at least gets people into the workplace. What happens then is up to them. People have been "temping" for decades. You have to start somewhere.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

If there were lots of better jobs around, then people would choose not to work for sport direct.

And this is the very reason companies like sports direct can exploit them.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

Indeed so

zero hours contracts cater for a range of working hours.
I considered the discussion wasn't about those that worked fulltime equivalent but about people who worked low numbers of hours (sometime even zero); I referred to these as 'part time'.

Clearly some people prefer to work zero hour contracts that being totally unemployed: the issue is should it be regulated and if so what sort of regulation.

I'm sure some people prefer to work zero hours contract but I bet the majority of people on them don't. I'm sure it would be nice to pick and choose the hours you work but that is not the way it works in most cases and if you refuse to work hours you are offered you find the amount of work being offered soon falls to zero.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

Lack of choice

Their other choices led to the current lack of choice. If you make wrong choices then doors close; make a lot of them and few doors remain open.

I don't know what staff turnover is like but I bet this experience of the world of work leads a number of people to try and improve their options.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

Your sarcastic comments about Bangkok working conditions merely show your breath taking ignorance of the realities of conditions in many parts of the world.

I wasn't really being sarcastic I was asking whether you believe poor terms of employment and low pay are something we should aspire too?

It suits retailers to have zero hours contracts with very limited benefits.

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

Sports Direct staff and their Thai suppliers staff are a world apart so it's a nonsense to try and imply the direction of travel is from UK standards to South-East Asian standards. Just the opposite is happening.

I guess we will meet somewhere in the middle. Until that point conditions here will slowly deteriorate for many.

wotsthat wrote: »

Sports Direct staff made a number of choices which led them there. South-East Asian workers didn't have the luxury of so many choices.

In both cases the alternative is worse. If there was a better alternative they'd be doing it.

Working for an Apple or a Walmart supplier maybe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23486638

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/20121213101550661598.html