How did companies and service cope before zero hours?

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

No, but then I didn't suggest that as a solution and I don't think it would be an effective one either

Probably the simplest solution would be to structure tax, NI, minimum wages etc in such a way that companies pay a small premium for zero-hour labour vs employed labour. Even if the premium was only 4-5% then it would discourage people using zero-hour labour where there is no, or negligible, benefit being gained from the flexibility.

I'd also be tempted to try a soft touch approach. Employ some employment auditors who would audit zero-hour use at some of the largest users (including councils). If they find that zero-hour contracts are be used where there isn't need they could advise on this and request that changes are made. If companies continually ignore those requests then maybe stronger sanctions could be considered.

I'd also like to see considerably more research done into how many people are actually on genuine zero-hour contracts and how many of those are working in roles with considerable variation in demand. It could be that this is a non-issue.

I don't want to see zero-hour contracts stopped because they can be used to benefit businesses and provide good employment. What we're seeing reported is that zero-hour contracts are becoming an easy option for employing into all sorts of roles that don't need to use them, if that's true then we should act.

I would see the major employment related problems as being
-unemployment in general
-long term unemployed
-involuntary part time (including zero hours)


Now one wonders if having a system of 'fines', expensive audits, presumably an (expensive) appeals process, new government inspectorate etc. with hinder or help to increase employment?


If the outcome is to increase the hours of some but sack others then many may consider this a poor outcome.

There are many ways of spending money, is this increase in bureaucracy the best way?

wotsthat

N1AK wrote: »

The issue with that view is that you could make the same case for the NMW, workplace safety, product safety, polluting, discrimination, animal welfare etc. Let's just get rid of all of those rules because even though a company could let employees handle unsafe chemicals while making food that is toxic for £2 per hour it won't happen because consumers will demand it stops

It's a nice theory to think that somehow legislation is wasteful and that the population will efficiently and effectively control this via how they spend their money but it's a pleasant fiction at best. I've, honestly, seen people buying cage eggs which cost more than barn or free range eggs that are on offer. Unless those consumers were actively supporting lower welfare standards it's not a great example of consumer action.

If it turns out that zero-hour contracts are being used in decent numbers in roles where the benefit to the company is negligible I believe the downsides to society and the employees outweigh that negligible benefit and intervention is necessary.

Don't get me wrong here. I despair at the hand-wringing hypocrites we've become as consumers in the UK.

IF there's a problem to be solved then costs have to increase - assuming zero hour contracts are commercially favourable to companies then there's no other way. The consumer can choose to pay more, a company can voluntary choose to charge more (or reduce margin) or the government can legislate to increase costs and just allow the market to decide who pays.

There might be companies using zero hour contracts where the benefit to them is negligible and there wouldn't be a cost to use an alternative (per your third paragraph). I wouldn't expect these companies to be typical of most companies using zero hours.

It doesn't really matter if someone is for or against these contracts. If zero hour contracts are to be reduced then costs will increase. The only question is how this would be administered and who would pay.

N1AK

wotsthat wrote: »

IF there's a problem to be solved then costs have to increase - assuming zero hour contracts are commercially favourable to companies then there's no other way. The consumer can choose to pay more, a company can voluntary choose to charge more (or reduce margin) or the government can legislate to increase costs and just allow the market to decide who pays.

There might be companies using zero hour contracts where the benefit to them is negligible and there wouldn't be a cost to use an alternative (per your third paragraph). I wouldn't expect these companies to be typical of most companies using zero hours.

Nor do I. In fact I'm not even saying there is an issue because most examples I seem to be hearing about of abuse aren't people on zero-hour contracts. I do think more research to find out would be a good idea.

Zero-hour contracts aren't beneficial to most employees. Almost anyone would prefer a fixed 10 hours a week with variable overtime than no fixed hours. However I appreciate that their is work out there which needs zero-hour labour to be done efficiently and am willing to tolerate it on that basis.
What I don't want to see is major retailers moving most of their staff onto zero-hour contracts because it saves them a tiny amount of money at the cost of stability to a vast number of workers.

There are a lot of things that could lower costs in the short term:

• Remove the right to holiday from workers (like the US)
• Allow companies to fire without cause
• Remove NMW

However, I think these, are worth keeping regardless. The short term benefit doesn't make up for the long term costs. In the case of zero-hour contracts the downsides relate to the effect on the lives of people working on them (especially managing finances).

Loughton_Monkey

N1AK wrote: »

The issue with that view is that you could make the same case for the NMW, workplace safety, product safety, polluting, discrimination, animal welfare etc. Let's just get rid of all of those rules because even though a company could let employees handle unsafe chemicals while making food that is toxic for £2 per hour it won't happen because consumers will demand it stops
.......

Whilst most of us would agree the sentiment, what riles me is the way this country has a habit of setting up very expensive 'watchdogs', 'bodies', 'departments', legislation, rules, guidelines, most of which cost us an absolute fortune racking up huge costs but don't actually do anything.

What good were the food standards agencies in the 'horsemeat' scandal? How does Offwat 'regulate' monopoly water companies? [They don't! they just sit there burning more money and publicise a few things, letting them avoid tax and exploit their monopoly position..]

Simple and cheap legislation is the best way, I think, but only if they enforce it. But they tend not to. As came out with Murdoch, many people think we wouldn't be thinking of 'press regulation' if only illegal hacking, and breaches of Data Protection etc. were enforced.

Why, for example, does Cameron want to impose huge costs on 99% of the public in the form of minimum alcohol prices aimed at the 'yoof' culture of tanking up, going to a club, and then spewing all over the streets, fighting, assaulting, swearing. murdering, raping..... Why, instead, can he not just ask the police to enforce existing 'drunk and disorderly' legislation? Raise the penalties in as many chunks as it takes to eliminate this behaviour? When the person spews up, swears at the policeman, and kicks the bouncer in the goolies, then a week in jail, a fine of 6 months wages, notification to employer might stop it...

BobQ

ZHC exist in some cases by mutual agreement. But because we have an economic downturn, there is a large number of ZHCs because employers can exploit a pool of unemployed potential workers.

But when the upturn does occur, these same potential workers will remember being treated like dirt and gravitate to the better employers who failed to take the easy option. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

ZHC exist in some cases by mutual agreement. But because we have an economic downturn, there is a large number of ZHCs because employers can exploit a pool of unemployed potential workers.

But when the upturn does occur, these same potential workers will remember being treated like dirt and gravitate to the better employers who failed to take the easy option. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

of course they will


just as people would have preferred that people had been sacked in larger numbers rather than offered short time working whilst retaining more staff

just makes complete sense

toby3000

N1AK wrote: »

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.

That's not true at all. I was on a zero-hours contract, and we were obliged to be available for work whenever the company wanted us. You can't turn down shifts, technically. Most ZHC also require that you get written permission before taking on another job, as far as I know. Again, ours required it. And I wasn't working for a huge, evil corporation, I was working in a museum.

I'm in Australia now, where you have 'casual' staff, which is the same thing. Not only do you have far more rights around refusing shifts/notice periods (I had one job which required an hours notice period!), but you also get paid more to compensate for the lack of rights/security. They also have a minimum legal shift (4 hours) which is a bonus.

I know Australia is famously expensive, but actually in terms of wages vs cost it's probably cheaper than the UK.

[Deleted User]

Companies using zero hour contracts are just benefit scroungers. They won't pay a living wage or even guarantee income each week. They rely on the benefits system to top up their employee's earnings and provide all the things a full time employer normally has to.

CLAPTON

DELETED USER wrote:

Companies using zero hour contracts are just benefit scroungers. They won't pay a living wage or even guarantee income each week. They rely on the benefits system to top up their employee's earnings and provide all the things a full time employer normally has to.

nonsense

you know absolutely nothing about the situation

toby3000

To a degree that's true. I literally couldn't have done the last job I did in the UK without Tax Credits, and everyone there received some form of social security, apart from one girl who instead relied on her parents sending her food parcels and occasionally paying her rent.