Sportsdirect; 90% of staff on zero hour contracts

Prothet_of_Doom

As I'm self employed, I effectively have a zero-hours contract, but I charge enough per hour to cover the odd gap between contracts, to cover a few weeks holiday, and have been able to build a small 'buffer' in case of emergencies.

I liken a zero hours contract to the Dock workers, who would queue every morning to be chosen, by the Overseer.

Have we got a time machine and gone back 150 years ?

CLAPTON

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

As I'm self employed, I effectively have a zero-hours contract, but I charge enough per hour to cover the odd gap between contracts, to cover a few weeks holiday, and have been able to build a small 'buffer' in case of emergencies.

I liken a zero hours contract to the Dock workers, who would queue every morning to be chosen, by the Overseer.

Have we got a time machine and gone back 150 years ?

yes, but what would you propose?

Kennyboy66

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

But that's a false choice - sports direct need to procur a certain number of hours labour, most of which will be predictable (at least 85%).

It's employers like this that game the system so that in the end, legislation is enacted so that everyone suffers.

Should zero hours workers be excluded from maternity pay ?

They should be paid holiday pay, and it should not be rolled into current pay (this is existing legislation, even for zero hour contracts.)

I'd start by making all employers other than those currently classed as small businesses, pay full employers national insurance.

There is a perverse incentive to take on part time workers, saving on employers national insurance. Those very workers then get working tax credit because they don't have sufficient income.

Kennyboy66

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes, but what would you propose?

After a suitable qualifying period (say 13 weeks), a zero employee would have to be guaranteed 50% of their average hours from a 13 week rolling period.

Surely not hugely onerous - if it is, then expand the rolling period to 26 weeks, which removes most of the seasonal risk.

Plus, something similar to the agency workers directive, no discrimination on holiday, maternity, pension rights.

CLAPTON

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

After a suitable qualifying period (say 13 weeks), a zero employee would have to be guaranteed 50% of their average hours from a 13 week rolling period.

Surely not hugely onerous - if it is, then expand the rolling period to 26 weeks, which removes most of the seasonal risk.

Plus, something similar to the agency workers directive, no discrimination on holiday, maternity, pension rights.

would this apply to 'bank' type workers?

do you think full employer's NI would discourage part time employment ?
e.g. when the recession hit many companies reduced hours rather than lay people off; would this measure not penalise employers trying to preserve jobs and help those simply sacking people?


so if I understand correctly, if some-one say worked 260 hours over 13 weeks, they would be guaranteed 130 over the next 13 weeks whether or not there was any work?


and in the particular situation at sport direct then many would become unemployed?

dori2o

SAVING_IS_DEAD_MONEY wrote: »

I don't get all the hand-wringing over this, because at the end of the day a job is a job is a job. It doesn't matter how fluffy or dirty you want to make it sound but to make it in life you need to start at the bottom rung. Be that the employment or housing ladder. We all began at the bottom with lowly paid unrespected jobs and 1 bedroom slum boxes. Just what is it about this generation of yoof that makes them think they can start midway up with a mid-management career or house in a respectable area.

You've completely missed the point.

These people are not looking for a midway upm the ladder job, they just want 'a' job.

that means they want to get up, go to work, come home and get paid at the end of the week/month.

What they don't want in the majority of cases is to be 'employed' but have no work to do and have no money at the end of the week/month.

A retail business like Sports direct has no need to have a majority of employees on 0 hours contracts.

They are now the biggest sports retailer on the high street, they know within reason what their expected footfall is, and therefore they have no excuse to not be able to staff their stores/warehouses correctly.

Sure, have a small number of people on 0 hours contracts to cover for peak sales periods, holidays, maternity etc, but the vast majority of staff should have a set number of contracted hours, with the opportunity to extend those hours should they want to if the opportunity is there.

ukcarper

SAVING_IS_DEAD_MONEY wrote: »

I don't get all the hand-wringing over this, because at the end of the day a job is a job is a job. It doesn't matter how fluffy or dirty you want to make it sound but to make it in life you need to start at the bottom rung. Be that the employment or housing ladder. We all began at the bottom with lowly paid unrespected jobs and 1 bedroom slum boxes. Just what is it about this generation of yoof that makes them think they can start midway up with a mid-management career or house in a respectable area.

I'm far from a yoof but I consider a job to be where you work and get paid for it not where you are on a list a might get some work if you are lucky.

ukcarper

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm far from a yoof but I consider a job to be where you work and get paid for it not where you are on a list a might get some work if you are lucky.

I suppose we shouldn't forget you are a troll

dori2o

SAVING_IS_DEAD_MONEY wrote: »

I'm sorry but if they are the biggest sports retailer on the high street then they must be doing something right. And these kids DO have jobs. They just need to knuckle down get on with it and work their way up into more hours, and better pay/positions.

What good is having a job if you don't actually do anything and don't receive any income from it.

Kennyboy66

CLAPTON wrote: »

do you think full employer's NI would discourage part time employment ?
e.g. when the recession hit many companies reduced hours rather than lay people off; would this measure not penalise employers trying to preserve jobs and help those simply sacking people?


so if I understand correctly, if some-one say worked 260 hours over 13 weeks, they would be guaranteed 130 over the next 13 weeks whether or not there was any work?


and in the particular situation at sport direct then many would become unemployed?

You talk as if retail was some kind of 19th century sector prone to disasters such as the Manchester cotton famine.

It's not. Retailers are amazingly good at predicting sales volumes and footfall. The idea I put forward allows such a retailer to reduce its paid hours by 50% to cope with a fall in demand. I'm struggling to see circumstances how this may happen, but I'm sure you can come up with some hypothetical.

As far as discouraging part time work goes, then arguably at the moment we favour part time work over full time work in 2 ways at the moment. It can favour the employer due to NI rules and we subsidise the worker through benefits.

This despite the fact that there are 3 million people working part time, who want more hours or full time jobs.