Sportsdirect; 90% of staff on zero hour contracts

Sampong

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.

In general the consumer will use wherever they can go for price, availability and choice.

You can't expect the consumer to act as employment legislation police.

We should be able to expect that people are treated fairly in jobs and not exploited. This is a job for legislation - not the consumer.

JencParker

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.

Oh, that's all right then, because you know a few people who work zero hour contracts.

They clearly don't need to work if they see it as a bonus - so don't compare with those who need to work to pay the bills.

PS that sort of work has always been casual/self employed type work.

Graham_Devon

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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!

And up pops Hamish almost as if planned

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

No, I'm not avoiding the issue of WHY sport direct do that; I'm asking how the LAW should be changed.

It's not god enough is a country with the rule of law to decide issues based on personal likes and dislikes but it should be based on law.

so I ask again
-how would you change to the law?
-would it apply in the circumstances I outlined (if not why not?)

and the reason I ask is that there may well be the law of unintended consequences make lots and lots of people worse off.

and off topic but I'll mention I have a long list of companies I boycott because I disapprove of their policies but respect their right simply to obey the law (I never buy coffee at starbucks and will boycott sports direct in the future )

Graham_Devon

Sampong wrote: »

In general the consumer will use wherever they can go for price, availability and choice.

You can't expect the consumer to act as employment legislation police.

We should be able to expect that people are treated fairly in jobs and not exploited. This is a job for legislation - not the consumer.

Thing is, wotsthat has, in previous threads blamed the consumer for the demise of the high street by going elsewhere to buy goods.

But now, we shouldn't use the shops such as this in the high street, which, often, these places are the only place in the high street to stock this stuff, as in doing so, we are "supporting" them.

So the consumer is wrong to go elsewhere and are to be blamed if the high street fails, but wrong to shop in the shops that are popping up in the high street.

So seems the answer is, the consumer is always wrong.

My thinking is there has got to be a little more to it than it always being the consumers fault regardless of what they do.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

I have a long list of companies I boycott because I disapprove of their policies but respect their right simply to obey the law (I never buy coffee at starbucks and will boycott sports direct in the future )

Your head must be a complicated place....;)

Sampong

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

Obviously the employer needs maximum flexibility for "appropriate staffing" at busy and slow times.

It can't be that hard to work out though can it?

Mon - Friday - normal. A bit busier in the evenings. A bit busier on market day if you live in a market town.

Sat/Sun - busy.

Mystery solved. My consultancy fee is £25.

Conrad

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

I think the anti camp are dishonest. They shop for cheapest mortgage, insurance, tyre fitters, light bulbs and book sellers, not remotely concerned how their workers are paid, and then feign a high moral fibre on forums.

People en-mass whether rich or poor vote with their feet. If they wanted to support local workers they would still be using the small shoe shop, Woolies, buying UK garments from M&S (that went well didn't it).

If anyone falls for these fakes that do all they can to minimise their own shopping bills........well more fool ya

Conrad

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So seems the answer is, the consumer is always wrong.

Nooo it's far easier to point the finger at nasty business. Gets us off the hook nicely.

C'mon I'll own up to supporting these firms thus supporting their business models, why can't you take a bit of responsibility?

Be the change you want. If enough of you care (millions of ya according to the Guardian) then you can set up alternate more expensive firms and shop till ya drop.

Do you see any threads asking 'I want to pay more for my insurance as long as the firm pays staff well'? Even once?

JencParker

Conrad wrote: »

I think the anti camp are dishonest. They shop for cheapest mortgage, insurance, tyre fitters, light bulbs and book sellers, not remotely concerned how their workers are paid, and then feign a high moral fibre on forums.

People en-mass whether rich or poor vote with their feet. If they wanted to support local workers they would still be using the small shoe shop, Woolies, buying UK garments from M&S (that went well didn't it).

If anyone falls for these fakes that do all they can to minimise their own shopping bills........well more fool ya

You're wrong in this case, at least - and rather sad if that's your argument.