Sportsdirect; 90% of staff on zero hour contracts

grizzly1911

Conrad wrote: »

Because consumers demand low low prices and vote for this model with their feet.

It seems some of you guys want your cake and eat it.

C'mon grizzly we all use Amazon, Netto, JD and the rest largely based on price.

If people genuinely are against zero hours terms, then firms that employ them will go pop.:rotfl:

We have had the discussion before (that you even thanked). If disposable income is falling and wages not increasing then you end up shopping around.

There is a link there too.

CLAPTON

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

It's laughable that anyone thinks there are anything other than a tiny, tiny minority of sports direct workers who prefer zero hour contracts.

Many will however want part time work, but almost all would want a guarantee of a certain number of hours (often at least 16 hours a week) and predictable shift patterns.

To have such a high % of people on zero contracts is exploitation of the worst kind, it fosters discrimination and fear in the workplace, and seemingly avoids reasonable employment law and protection.

Its shameful.

The issue isn't whether it is desirable but what you want to do about it?

Would you make 16 hours a legal minimum?

Whilst is may or may not be laughable to suggest that many refer zero hour contracts isn't equally so to suggest they would prefer unemployment

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

Of course people should grasp the opportunities available to them but the fact they don't has a lot to do with the things and people around them.

I'm guilty of the 'well if I did it why can't they' attitude and plenty of others are too.

It's off-topic but what are the things that, frustratingly, prevent people taking the opportunities staring them in the face? Why is it that some people from less than ideal environments thrive in spite of them?

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm guilty of the 'well if I did it why can't they' attitude and plenty of others are too.

It's off-topic but what are the things that, frustratingly, prevent people taking the opportunities staring them in the face? Why is it that some people from less than ideal environments thrive in spite of them?

Nothing is preventing them but various things can influence them such as parents attitude peer pressure their own personality to mention a few. There will always be people who do well but people who fail could quite easily have succeeded if there circumstances were different.

Herzlos

I'd hate to be on a zero hour contract with any sort of financial commitment; it just isn't practical. It might suit students or those living at home to get some extra funds, but for anyone who has bills to pay it's no use; you need to be able to guarantee you've got enough income to cover your expenditure.

It's essentially locking people into casual work. Especially since it's generally only voluntary on the employer with short notice, it makes it almost impossible for 0-hour staff to have another job because they've got contractual obligations to turn up to the 0-hour job at short notice.

I'd be all for 0-hour jobs if the staff had complete freedom to decline shifts and had at least a weeks notice of rotas so that they could manage to have other employment as well.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

It's a company legally employing people in a cost effective manner to minimise costs and thus prices. There's nothing to defend.

That said, it does seem to me that this is an example of zero-hour contracts becoming effectively standard operating procedure and actually being used for more than just providing additional flexibility to the employer.

I think there is a risk that zero-hour contracts might become a way employers 'race to the bottom' when it comes to employment terms and I wouldn't be averse to some changes to rules to discourage that.

Zero-hours contracts should be a way for employers to internalise agency style employment and increase flexibility. If the rules currently make zero-hours a more appealing option to a store with relatively stable demand than standard part-time contracts then that is an issue.

So for example: Zero-hour contracts don't include holiday etc allowances. The minimum wage for zero-hours should be increased to account for this (by about ~12-15%).

N1AK

Herzlos wrote: »

it makes it almost impossible for 0-hour staff to have another job because they've got contractual obligations to turn up to the 0-hour job at short notice.

We employ some zero-hour drivers (instead of using agencies) and we aren't able to contractually oblige them to work at short notice. We are allowed to stop using people who are consistently unavailable when we need them.

It may be that the rules have changed, or that we took a softer position than we are legally obliged to, however I think it is more likely that most people who haven't operated zero-hour contracts don't actually understand the rules for them.

CLAPTON

do zero hours workers get no holiday pay?

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

do zero hours workers get no holiday pay?

It's a bit of a mess to explain because many people on 'zero-hour' contracts are actually on 'flexible-contracts' not genuine zero-hours. Zero-hour employees are entitled to holiday, but just about nothing else. I got confused because we roll up the pay equivalent of their holiday allowance into their payment and they are responsible for managing it.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

do zero hours workers get no holiday pay?

All the articles about Sports Direct say not.

Just shows people need to be careful about allowing journalists to help form opinion.

EDIT: AIUI although most zero hours employers do build in holiday pay it cannot be shown on a payslip as such and must clearly differentiated to show pay (>minimum wage) and holiday pay (>pro rata of statutory minimum).

Of course I only googled this - for the average journalist this would count as in-depth research.