How did companies and service cope before zero hours?

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

obviously so; but no point in joining the equally smug 'it won't happen to me'

My comments were directed at the people who imply there is no problem with them which there clearly is.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

My comments were directed at the people who imply there is no problem with them which there clearly is.

Is there an issue that requires a solution?

elsien

The company I work for has started using zero hour contracts in some areas because the nature of the business had changed from long term block contracts to more individual contracts which can be moved elsewhere at very short notice, and it is not affordable to pay people when the work has gone elsewhere. However with the time it takes to recruit new staff with enhanced CRB's and the need for new business to be up and running immediately, from a business if not from a personal level, zero hour contracts make sense.
We managed without them before because we didn't need them.
I wouldn't do it but the MD says its more younger people with fewer commitments who appreciate the flexibity. Not convinced by that one myself, as unless you're living at home, there's still rent to pay etc....

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How did any of these business using them ever cope?

During the last recession there wasn't a minimum wage, that's the difference.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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?

By spending more and maybe using agencies. Before we used zero-hour contracts we had more employed drivers and when we didn't have enough work they ended up doing work that required no skill but still being paid a premium licensed lorry driver's wage. We also used considerable agency drivers, the agency received a considerable premium for providing the workers.

Spending more is fine, except we're constantly trying to avoid increasing prices while still making a profit.

If councils are using zero-hours it will be to manage costs again. I'm sure if any council was told they could increase council tax by enough to cover the cost of stopping using zero-hours then they'd be happy to do so. Zero-hours staffing comes with a number of downsides so organisations don't use them for fun.

You can debate council board member wages and value for money all you like. However if the board are over-paid they'd still be over-paid if the council didn't use zero-hours so it's hardly relevant.

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

Is there an issue that requires a solution?

I think there is. I'm against allowing employment to become a race to the bottom. Zero-hour contracts are a useful way to manage flexible labour, it shouldn't in my opinion become a standard way of employing people working in relatively stable demand roles.

It's a bit like the minimum wage, which I used to oppose. In theory allowing people to work for less than minimum wage would lower unemployment, however it comes with downsides and doesn't solve the underlying problem:

• Someone earning £2ph isn't paying tax and is still receiving benefits.
• Allowing wages that low expands the already worrying gap in earnings betweent he haves and have nots.
• The underlying issue is that you can't support a first world life-style on sub-NMW. We need to expect more and provide more support and training so that people can get jobs paying more than NMW.

IronWolf

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.

I think the agency model is far better for the workers, they are available to a much greater number of employers and so can get more reliable work. They also have the agency to manage their workload for them

N1AK

IronWolf wrote: »

I think the agency model is far better for the workers, they are available to a much greater number of employers and so can get more reliable work. They also have the agency to manage their workload for them

If it is zero-hour work then they can sign up with as many firms as they want and accept, or refuse, work as they wish. We pay our zero-hour drivers better than they were paid by agencies and because the small group of them are our first backup they get considerably more work per driver now.

If the firm doesn't allow the worker to work for other firms, or requires them to be available at specific times then it isn't a zero-hour contract.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

I think there is. I'm against allowing employment to become a race to the bottom. Zero-hour contracts are a useful way to manage flexible labour, it shouldn't in my opinion become a standard way of employing people working in relatively stable demand roles.

It's a bit like the minimum wage, which I used to oppose. In theory allowing people to work for less than minimum wage would lower unemployment, however it comes with downsides and doesn't solve the underlying problem:

• Someone earning £2ph isn't paying tax and is still receiving benefits.
• Allowing wages that low expands the already worrying gap in earnings betweent he haves and have nots.
• The underlying issue is that you can't support a first world life-style on sub-NMW. We need to expect more and provide more support and training so that people can get jobs paying more than NMW.

There probably is a link between the minimum wage and so called zero hours contract but is it a problem we need to solve?

Do you really believe that we need a legal definition of 'standard demand roll'?
Lots of money for lawyers but would it help the unemployed or under employed?

The issue is what should be done if anything?
Will it actually help?
Will it actually reduce the gap between haves and have nots?


Just to be clear, I would love every single person who wants a job to be able to get one preferably earning more than the average wage.
However, I have no significant ideas of how that can be done.

Conrad

Many of us warned that Labours employments rights culture would have unintended consequences.

Anyone heard Jo Swinsome lately? Still rattling on about introducing ever more employment rights. She ought to be ashamed of the way folk like her slowly kill off permanent employment, but of course she's a classic out of touch academic type that is utterly unaware of the damage she wreaks.