Sportsdirect; 90% of staff on zero hour contracts

CLAPTON

dori2o wrote: »

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

and what do you suggest should be done?

dori2o

CLAPTON wrote: »

and what you suggest should be done?

I've already made suggestions if you care to read the thread

N1AK

What I don't understand about the 'jobs a job quit whining' brigade on here is why the think allowing a race to the bottom in employment terms is to be desired.

We have loads of laws protecting employees already and doing something to make it more financially attractive to use normal contracts for relatively stable work isn't going to bring the economy to its knees any more than the NMW or holiday allowances have.

Yes it might increase Sports Direct (and others) costs slightly if they considerably decreased the use of zero-hours contracts; although I doubt with remotely decent management they need more than 20-40% zero-hours to get all the flex they need. However in return for that their would be more stable jobs in the economy and that has a value to everyone.

JencParker

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

"It's a company legally employing people in a cost effective manner to
minimise costs and thus maximise profits."

There are plenty of things that are legal in business and taxation, that doesn't mean they are right.

The current trend of putting money and maximising profit before anything else has meant that those who are driven by money will rise to the top and use any method they can. That is why regulation is necessary. We have regulation in most areas of life - it is the only way those with less power can be protected from those with power.

JencParker

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.

A job is not a job if you get 0 hours work and no pay! There has always been casual labour and will no doubt, always be a need for casual labour, but those doing casual labour do not have a contract of employment. They have the right to refuse work if other work becomes available, something those on 0 hour contracts cannot do. They have to make themselves available in there are any hours available. Neither can they claim JSA because they are not available for work.

It is exploitation to maximise profit, nothing more.

dotdash79

I feel for the staff that get told to go into work, pay transport\ childcare arrive and get sent home after an hour.

Conrad

JencParker wrote: »

It is exploitation to maximise profit, nothing more.

Bit by bit consumers chose to turn backs on individual local retailers and the not so value chains and instead chose to spend money at the value end.

Blaming big business is the very worst argument. Personally I prefer owning up to being part of the value ecosystem.

I trust you do not shop around for value with firms that use these contracts:rotfl:

N1AK

JencParker wrote: »

"It's a company legally employing people in a cost effective manner to
minimise costs and thus maximise profits."

There are plenty of things that are legal in business and taxation, that doesn't mean they are right.

You talk about it as though maximising profit and decreasing costs don't go hand in hand in an effective capitalist system. Companies cut costs to increase margin, the companies that do it best survive and make a decent profit, those who don't fail and get replaced by more effective competitors and prices quickly fall to account for those savings. We work on a model that basically assumes that we need to find at least 2% cost savings each year just to maintain our margin.

If we believe a business practice is wrong then we should ask our representatives to do something about it. It is particularly annoying to see MPs telling companies off for following the incompetently written rules that they wrote to their advantage.

JencParker

Conrad wrote: »

Bit by bit consumers chose to turn backs on individual local retailers and the not so value chains and instead chose to spend money at the value end.

Blaming big business is the very worst argument. Personally I prefer owning up to being part of the value ecosystem.

I trust you do not shop around for value with firms that use these contracts:rotfl:

What has shopping around for value got to do with it - typical schoolboy argument :rotfl:

I have no doubt you are part of the 'value ecosystem', but value does not require exploitation. Oh and your assumption that it is big business to blame is way off the mark. Big businesses do take advantage with 0 hour contracts, but so do small businesses, just as there are many big businesses AND small businesses that do not.

CLAPTON

dori2o wrote: »

I've already made suggestions if you care to read the thread

presumably

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.

what exactly are you outlawing?

zero hours contracts?

minimum hours contracts even if people don't want them?

'bank' style contracts?

people working only 4 hours per week?

do you think that this would lead to redundancies at sport direct

do you think that these proposals would increase employment generally or reduce?