any hope zero hour contracts will end soon?

ellanutella

anamenottaken wrote: »

Zero hours actually means that paid holiday accrues with all worked hours. (Worse is where contractual hours are low but the worker regularly does overtime because overtime does not necessarily accrue paid holiday, only the low contracted hours.)

It was stated in my contract that accrued holiday would be zero. I'm writing a letter toHR anyway as I think it's an incredibly short sighted way to run a business and including my contracts from 2008-9 and 2009-10 to illustrate how they used to provide fair temporary contracts. Not that it'll make a difference but I want to do something.

anamenottaken

ellanutella wrote: »

It was stated in my contract that accrued holiday would be zero. I'm writing a letter toHR anyway as I think it's an incredibly short sighted way to run a business and including my contracts from 2008-9 and 2009-10 to illustrate how they used to provide fair temporary contracts. Not that it'll make a difference but I want to do something.

The written contract cannot override statute where this would adversely affect the employee.

They may try to say that the hourly rate includes a payment for holiday. This is known as rolled up holiday pay. It is not lawful to do this without specifying what amount is holiday - they can't suddenly decide it now and try back-dating the effect.

Statutory (therefore minimum) holiday would be 12.07% of hours worked. Of course, holiday would be zero if you actually worked zero hours but as you have worked, they have to give you paid leave.

Also watch out for the holiday year. If they haven't given you information about the start of the holiday year, then you will have a personal holiday year starting on the first day of your employment.

bartelbe

They're bad and exploitative. The problem is, the people who make the rules are pretty clueless about the reality for many workers. They are MPs who come from well off backgrounds, the same with most commentators in the media, and most of those running the country in London.

For them zero hours is like working as a freelance for a newspaper, or a way of getting casual money when you're a student. A wonderful way to work when you feel like it and take time off when you don't.

They simply don't understand the reality of people needing a minimum number of hours to cover the rent, pay for heating and fuel. They don't understand the power imbalance between workers and employers. That makes employees very vunerable to exploitation.

The worst aspect of these contracts is the exclusive clause that many of them have. If you want someone to work exclusively for you, then they are an employee, and must be guaranteed reasonable hours.

If we must have zero hours, then there should be massive fines, even jail time for any employer that tries to force an employee to be exclusive to them. Can't guarantee hours? Then your workers should have the right to take hours from another employer. At the moment we have a one way flexible labour market, employers are in no way flexible, while employees have to be like limbo dancers.

sniggings

bartelbe wrote: »

They're bad and exploitative. The problem is, the people who make the rules are pretty clueless about the reality for many workers. They are MPs who come from well off backgrounds, the same with most commentators in the media, and most of those running the country in London.

For them zero hours is like working as a freelance for a newspaper, or a way of getting casual money when you're a student. A wonderful way to work when you feel like it and take time off when you don't.

They simply don't understand the reality of people needing a minimum number of hours to cover the rent, pay for heating and fuel. They don't understand the power imbalance between workers and employers. That makes employees very vunerable to exploitation.

The worst aspect of these contracts is the exclusive clause that many of them have. If you want someone to work exclusively for you, then they are an employee, and must be guaranteed reasonable hours.

If we must have zero hours, then there should be massive fines, even jail time for any employer that tries to force an employee to be exclusive to them. Can't guarantee hours? Then your workers should have the right to take hours from another employer. At the moment we have a one way flexible labour market, employers are in no way flexible, while employees have to be like limbo dancers.

well said 100% agree :beer:

As you say, when ever you hear zero hours talked about by MPs and the like, you always hear how useful there are etc etc useful for the student and someone that wants a bit of extra pocket money! well fine but don't let them be used for people that are the main bread winner in the family then.

I just applied for another job yeasterday, this one doesn't sounds as bad, it's for 44 hours a week, no wage stated mon-sat and they want you to be flexible on overtime...why don't I just move in, 44 hours over 6 days and they want more :eek:

getmore4less

bartelbe wrote: »

They're bad and exploitative. The problem is, the people who make the rules are pretty clueless about the reality for many workers. They are MPs who come from well off backgrounds, the same with most commentators in the media, and most of those running the country in London.

For them zero hours is like working as a freelance for a newspaper, or a way of getting casual money when you're a student. A wonderful way to work when you feel like it and take time off when you don't.

They simply don't understand the reality of people needing a minimum number of hours to cover the rent, pay for heating and fuel. They don't understand the power imbalance between workers and employers. That makes employees very vunerable to exploitation.

The worst aspect of these contracts is the exclusive clause that many of them have. If you want someone to work exclusively for you, then they are an employee, and must be guaranteed reasonable hours.

If we must have zero hours, then there should be massive fines, even jail time for any employer that tries to force an employee to be exclusive to them. Can't guarantee hours? Then your workers should have the right to take hours from another employer. At the moment we have a one way flexible labour market, employers are in no way flexible, while employees have to be like limbo dancers.

An employer cannot reasonably refuse you working elsewhere.

As an zero hours must allow you to turn down work they can't use the must be available.

sniggings

getmore4less wrote: »

An employer cannot reasonably refuse you working elsewhere.

As an zero hours must allow you to turn down work they can't use the must be available.

employers can and they do, it's in a lot of contracts.

yes on zero hours they can't, but as this thread shows they abuse zero hour contracts anyway so why would they stick to the rule of letting you work else where? you get asked the question, will you be flexible, which means will you sit at home and wait for us to call you if we need you, god forbid they should ring and you are earning some money elsewhere.

What is meant to happen and what the reality is are two totally different things, tbh you sound like an MP, claiming the rules are in place but then not doing anything about it when they are broken.

moneyistooshorttomention

Aquamania wrote: »

No one is really guaranteed work, no matter what contract they have. Near enough guaranteed is about the most anyone can hope for.

All the jobs I've ever had (ie full-time Proper Jobs) the work was "guaranteed". I either had the job (ie as full-time) or I didn't (ie because I had been declared redundant from it).

Up till retirement last year I knew I had my job (bar them finding a way to sack me).

ellanutella

anamenottaken wrote: »

The written contract cannot override statute where this would adversely affect the employee.

They may try to say that the hourly rate includes a payment for holiday. This is known as rolled up holiday pay. It is not lawful to do this without specifying what amount is holiday - they can't suddenly decide it now and try back-dating the effect.

Statutory (therefore minimum) holiday would be 12.07% of hours worked. Of course, holiday would be zero if you actually worked zero hours but as you have worked, they have to give you paid leave.

Also watch out for the holiday year. If they haven't given you information about the start of the holiday year, then you will have a personal holiday year starting on the first day of your employment.

Thanks for this I will have another look at my contract!

auldblerk

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

All the jobs I've ever had (ie full-time Proper Jobs) the work was "guaranteed". I either had the job (ie as full-time) or I didn't (ie because I had been declared redundant from it).

Up till retirement last year I knew I had my job (bar them finding a way to sack me).

Same here up until early November but these zero hours 'jobs' seem to exploitative of the normal / full time work ethic.
I agree with a lot of what bartelbe mentioned earlier, the government are making light of the zero hours policy and that it is benefitting everybody; you only have to read posts on this Forum about this subject to realise they are not.