Sportsdirect; 90% of staff on zero hour contracts

Graham_Devon

The are quite a few problems with zero hour contracts. While they may suit some, I think it's fair to say they won't suit the majority.

I think it's also fair to say that there is absolutely no need for sports direct to be employing these people under zero hour contracts. It's not as if they require such flexibility. They know when they are open, they know their peaks and troughs, they know how many staff they need, so just liek any other conventional business, they could offer proper part time employment.

The only reason they are not is because it's advantageous to the business not to.

The BBC asked zero hour employees about holidays and such like, and they don't take them as if they do, in a lot of cases, there is no work to return to as they are simply dispatched of. There is nothing to stop the companies doing this, they literally offer zero hours until the person goes elsewhere. Same for sickness and maternity. The company simply goes elsewhere.

Zero hours themselves are not wrong. This kind of use (abuse) of them is morally and ethically wrong and very exploitative.

It's ok for some of you to sit there suggesting they will get holiday, but just ask those on the ground doing these jobs. Put simply actually taking the holiday may well result in no hours from there on. That is one of the very reasons companies use these contracts, they can do whatever they like with no comeback.

It needs to be stopped and soon. If those on zero hour contracts had to be paid a retainer fee (which would be fair IMO), then companies like this would soon stop using them and would employ people using conventional routes again. It's all simply a way of exploiting the workforce for company gain in this scenario.

Frankly I fail to see why sports direct would have to put the prices up should they stop using zero contract hours. They need to employ people regardless. They just find themselves regulated a bit more. This "they will have to put costs up" argument just seems a convinient way of sitting behind the idea of the race to the bottom convention that many sitting pretty at the moment appear to applaud...mainly because they don't have to suffer.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The are quite a few problems with zero hour contracts. While they may suit some, I think it's fair to say they won't suit the majority.

I think it's also fair to say that there is absolutely no need for sports direct to be employing these people under zero hour contracts. It's not as if they require such flexibility. They know when they are open, they know their peaks and troughs, they know how many staff they need, so just liek any other conventional business, they could offer proper part time employment.

The only reason they are not is because it's advantageous to the business not to.

The BBC asked zero hour employees about holidays and such like, and they don't take them as if they do, in a lot of cases, there is no work to return to as they are simply dispatched of. There is nothing to stop the companies doing this, they literally offer zero hours until the person goes elsewhere. Same for sickness and maternity. The company simply goes elsewhere.

Zero hours themselves are not wrong. This kind of use (abuse) of them is morally and ethically wrong and very exploitative.

It's ok for some of you to sit there suggesting they will get holiday, but just ask those on the ground doing these jobs. Put simply actually taking the holiday may well result in no hours from there on. That is one of the very reasons companies use these contracts, they can do whatever they like with no comeback.

It needs to be stopped and soon. If those on zero hour contracts had to be paid a retainer fee (which would be fair IMO), then companies like this would soon stop using them and would employ people using conventional routes again. It's all simply a way of exploiting the workforce for company gain in this scenario.

so your solution is a simple retainer fee?
how much would be appropriate do you think?

wotsthat

JencParker wrote: »

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.

Sports Direct have no power at all - they don't drag people into their shops and force them to buy.

The consumer has all the power. They could put Sports Direct out of business in a fortnight. It's not as if they're selling stuff we can't live without.

We do have some recent experience of similar outrages - I believe Starbucks et al continue to thrive.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

so your solution is a simple retainer fee?
how much would be appropriate do you think?

A retainer fee would be a start.

A start because it would never actually happen. As stated, if they were required to do this they would simply offer part time again.

For those cases where companies still use zero hour contracts, the employee would benefit. The company would have to use them and make use of the retainer (effectively giving them employment instead of just paying a retainer), or they would cut them lose and the person could then go back to benefits or find another job.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Sports Direct have no power at all - they don't drag people into their shops and force them to buy.

The consumer has all the power. They could put Sports Direct out of business in a fortnight. It's not as if they're selling stuff we can't live without.

We do have some recent experience of similar outrages - I believe Starbucks et al continue to thrive.

Blaming the consumer is poor. Very poor.

This is when the race to the bottom REALLY starts, as where do you end? Blaming the consumer for wanting safe pavements? Blaming the consumer for wanting consumer protection? Blaming the consumer for using the warranty and therefore the company having to spend time and money dealing with it?

You would never end. They all add costs, but they are there for good reason. If the companies can't survive due to these cost pressures, then they are dead ducks and will be replaced.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A retainer fee would be a start.

A start because it would never actually happen. As stated, if they were required to do this they would simply offer part time again.

For those cases where companies still use zero hour contracts, the employee would benefit. The company would have to use them and make use of the retainer (effectively giving them employment instead of just paying a retainer), or they would cut them lose and the person could then go back to benefits or find another job.

I know people who work zero hour contracts.
The job involved exhibitions and shows.

If there are no shows or exhibitions then no work and no pay; equally they have no obligation to work if they don't want to.

They are very happy with this work as they see it as a nice little bonus and actually like meeting all the people.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

They are very happy with this work as they see it as a nice little bonus and actually like meeting all the people.

Yes, nice bonus, so obviously they are not relying on it to raise kids and pay the bills.

I know people who do charity work. They enjoy it. It doesn't mean everyone should do it.

One key point you have avoided since the start of this thread is the necessity of sports direct to do this.

We are coming from different angles. You are describing people who enjoy something and obviously don't require the money. What you don't appear able to grasp is that's NOT what is being discussed.

JencParker

wotsthat wrote: »

Sports Direct have no power at all - they don't drag people into their shops and force them to buy.

The consumer has all the power. They could put Sports Direct out of business in a fortnight. It's not as if they're selling stuff we can't live without.

We do have some recent experience of similar outrages - I believe Starbucks et al continue to thrive.

Well, as someone who has refused to enter Starbucks long before their tax exploits were revealed, I agree to a certain extent, although I would suggest that those who endorse such businesses don't care and are not struggling financially - probably the very same that make some of the comments on this forum. However, the consumer does not have ALL the power, the government also has power - or do you think that businesses would have willingly introduced a minimum wage?

Graham_Devon

Interesting that this thread should seperate the two camps again though, with all those wishing for higher HPI supporting sports direct using such exploitative practices.

Just gotta figure out the link now!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

The hype around these contracts is well overblown.

Some employers, particularly in the leisure and hospitality industries such as functions and events where staffing needs can be immensely variable and unpredictable, couldn't really function without them.

Other employers, such as retail, use them in order to allow for maximum flexibility and appropriate staffing at busy and slow times, but this also benefits consumers.

Doesn't seem to be an issue, except in very rare cases of abuse.