How did companies and service cope before zero hours?

Graham_Devon

It's just been announced that a fifth of those working for Torbay Council are on zero hour contracts.

Apparently this means that the council can offer workers flexibility, though the workers appear to disagree. The council also state it enables them to target key priorities at a lower cost to the local council tax payer.

However, staffing costs have gone up, mainly due to board member pay. Any savings have simply been swallowed by those at the top, and then some.

So, while the council say they abide by all employment laws when it comes to zero hour contracts, how did they ever cope before the zero hour trend as a result of the recession? How did any of these business using them ever cope?

It's really starting to effect people when it comes to loans and mortgages.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's really starting to effect people when it comes to loans and mortgages.

Crocodile tears Graham.

We all know you've been celebrating the mass exclusion of millions of people from the mortgage market for the last 5 years and cheering on mortgage rationing.

No point trying to convince us that you now care when people can't get mortgages.

wymondham

If you are on zero hours you're effectively self-employed, but with someone else deciding on how much/little you work, so worst of both worlds!

I can see both sides. I can see how an employer would love it, as people only get paid when they are actually working/required. (as an aside I saw some figures recently about how much time 9-5 people are actually productive, and it's not much!)

I can see how some people would like it and it's flexibility. Most I suspect don't and have no/little choice. Flexibility is always pushed as a pro from an employers point of view!

The danger is you are on zero hours, so lose your benefits, then don't get any work, so end up with nothing at all??

chewmylegoff

I expect they hired agency temps when there was need for them and then sacked them when there was no work. Probably more expensive and less efficient in terms of corporate memory. Not that much better for the staff as they still wouldn't have been getting mortgages although at least they could have worked for other employers if there was work elsewhere.

CLAPTON

zero hours contracts were invented about 2000 years ago but there is no adequate documentation so it might have been earlier.

the newspaper/politician awareness is, as always, a mystery but probably due to the silly (summer) season and an absence of sufficient picture of young George

but it's growth is partly the unintended consequences of well intended changes in employment legislation

Thrugelmir

Use of temps was very common in years gone by. Often temps were terminated without notice. Now temps have far more rights.

I know of one large German owned Company that recycled it's temps by terminating contracts automatically after 18 months ( if they lasted that long!).

Loughton_Monkey

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I expect they hired agency temps when there was need for them and then sacked them when there was no work. Probably more expensive and less efficient in terms of corporate memory. Not that much better for the staff as they still wouldn't have been getting mortgages although at least they could have worked for other employers if there was work elsewhere.

In the early years of my career, my employer moved me around every 3 years or so. My wife was (then) in the habit of signing up with a temp agency, while looking for a more permanent job.

Not a lot of difference, really, in principle.

A former colleague of mine is approaching retirement, and chooses to work on an "Interim Management" basis. Similar sort of thing. He's on the books, and when needed (say for 2 months) he's approached and can say yes or no.....

We are far more modern these days. 24/7 and all that. Flexibility is key. If my requirements, as an employer, fluctuated a lot I would much rather have a panel of pre-trained, pre-vetted, people I know who I could call on.

Take councils, for example. They never know when it's going to snow, and their 'customers' expect the gritting lorries to be around don't they? Look at all the bank holidays these days. You still want your bin to be emptied every week don't you?

Similarly, if I were unemployed, I would much prefer to be on such a panel that could give me work - albeit sporadically. It would look better on my CV, I earn a bit more than benefits, and it may well lead to a more permanent position anyway.

Everyone's a winner.....

... large gin & tonics all round...

noisla

I am on a zero hours contract, as an accountant. Didn't realise this was what it was until all this fuss in the media. Personally, I love the flexibility and I have turned down perm jobs to stay where I am. As there are a lot of us is the same boat (head office won't sanction permanent increases in headcount in the current economic climate), we actually have quite a lot of power, as we could leave anytime, leaving the company short staffed and losing vital skills/knowledge. This actually makes management work hard to ensure we are valued and won't leave - I feel far more valued now than I ever did in a perm role.

Zero hours also contracts make perfect economic sense at a time when there are more potential workers than vacancies, and when employers need flexibility. Demanding more workers rights will just lead to companies not hiring people at all e.g. managing with less staff, perhaps getting people to do overtime. This in particular harms the young, who cannot prove skills and experience - just look to France and even Germany in recent years, to see what onerous rules on hiring and firing do.

I have also been in the process of applying for mortgages. Having contacted loads of banks, building societies and mortgage brokers, and very few actually understand my contractual situation, even now (only Nationwide, that I found). In fact I've posted on these forums in frustration in the past. Mostly there is not a box on their computer screen, and it is just luck as to whether they class you as self employed (so mortgage is unlikely and they go into meltdown when you try to produce PAYE payslips) or employed (in which case they only want the last 3 months' payslips and wonder why I even bothered to talk them through the fineprint of my contract). The last couple of banks I've spoken to (Barclays, Natwest) said I was employed, no question, and just to say that when asked. In summary, banks do not yet have "zero hours contract" in the selection criteria so you will find some that you can get through their system.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How did companies and service cope before zero hours?

The consumer paid more for the labour part of the product/ service cost?

When zero hour contracts came along they craftily passed some savings to the consumer. It's inspired because companies know that for all the faux outrage consumers chase the lowest price. They realised the consumer is a hypocrite a long time ago.

ukcarper

I wonder how many of the people saying how good zero hours contracts are would change their tune if they were on one with rent and bills to pay.

I can see they would be OK for someone who wasn't relying on the money but if you are they must be a nightmare.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Crocodile tears Graham.

We all know you've been celebrating the mass exclusion of millions of people from the mortgage market for the last 5 years and cheering on mortgage rationing.

No point trying to convince us that you now care when people can't get mortgages.

You do make a load of utter tripe up Hamish.

Show me one of my 46k posts where I'm celebrating the fact that people can't get mortgages...

Shouldn't be too hard if you are not making things up, should it? It's a bit "attack, attack" around here at the moment, isn't it?