Chance for job at KFC

suki1964

mattcanary wrote: »

Perhaps it suits you.


But surely if the company paid a better rate (if only on temporary contracts), then they would get more interest from people to do the work? Or are the company's profit margins too low?


Perhaps it is a sad indictment of society and everyone wanting to pay as little as they can get away with for everything.


But I can't see this as a very good way to ear a living? Nor is it very good if a company is scraping by in this manner.


How many hours do you normally work a week at the moment?
Or even in such a busy period, does the number of hours you work each week vary considerably?

It suits because living in a rural area,there are very few jobs that are not seasonal (farming and tourism are the biggest employers)

My employer employs 30 staff and keeps them in work all year round and pays us the benefits we are entitled too - sick, holidays and stamp. There are no cash in hand under the counter jobs which many companies have to cut costs

Over a year I average 25 hours a week. Some weeks ( very few) I will get as few as 12,this time of year when people need to take holiday, I'm averaging 30. Same will happen during the Christmas period and will start again from valentines

No different then my husband who is a builder. He won't get much work in at all from Christmas till Easter because of the weather. Then he works every hour he can during the good weather

And no, paying a better rate will not get staff in if the job is for just a two month period. As you say, why would people give up their benefits just for a couple of months? This way there are 30 people in work without having to sign on for jsa In my instance, neither myself nor my husband get a single penny from the gvt, no wtc, hb or anything. We work hard for our money, we take it while it's there, and we save for the times it's not there

mattcanary

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

You clearly know Sweet Fanny Adams about business if you think companies that utilise ZHC's are "scraping by". Nor if you think people wanting to get away with paying as little as possible is a bad thing.

Do you volunteer money out of your pay every week/month to HMRC? No. Nor do I. I want to minimise my financial liability. So do companies. Nowt wrong with that.

The OP has found a job in an economically depressed part of the country, and a few on here try to knock him back and tell him not to take if because it's a ZHC. Good on him. The benefits system is there (as it is designed to) to support him if he can't get enough working hours to support him.

What the job offer does do is get him out there, improving his self esteem and maybe just getting himself noticed. My first job was a ZHC in a call centre. It wasn't great but it was work. I stuck at it and swore it was my "foot in the door" moment. I'm now doing well for myself in a recognised profession earning a hell of a lot more than I did in my first job. And I couldn't have done any of it if I'd turned it down because a ZHC wasn't good enough for me.

Shame on you for knocking the OP for trying to better himself.

I didn't knock him, as I have said more than once already.


The benefits system does not support you if you are on and off benefits, as it should do.


I know that - I had problems when I worked one day in the middle of claiming JSA - even though I kept the DWP promptly informed of what had happened.


The work may help improve his self--esteem. That is a plus point of the job to be balanced against the possible risks to your short-term income, home etc on the negative side.

Firetastic

I've got an interview for a casual/zero hours contract Library Assistant this week. To me this is a foot in the door. Library Assistant jobs come up fairly regularly. Maybe six months down the line a full time Library Asisstant job will come up and I will apply for it.

I'll already have the experience gained from being a casual Library Assistant so it is a step in the right direction.

mattcanary

suki1964 wrote: »

It suits because living in a rural area,there are very few jobs that are not seasonal (farming and tourism are the biggest employers)

My employer employs 30 staff and keeps them in work all year round and pays us the benefits we are entitled too - sick, holidays and stamp. There are no cash in hand under the counter jobs which many companies have to cut costs

Over a year I average 25 hours a week. Some weeks ( very few) I will get as few as 12,this time of year when people need to take holiday, I'm averaging 30. Same will happen during the Christmas period and will start again from valentines

No different then my husband who is a builder. He won't get much work in at all from Christmas till Easter because of the weather. Then he works every hour he can during the good weather

And no, paying a better rate will not get staff in if the job is for just a two month period. As you say, why would people give up their benefits just for a couple of months? This way there are 30 people in work without having to sign on for jsa In my instance, neither myself nor my husband get a single penny from the gvt, no wtc, hb or anything. We work hard for our money, we take it while it's there, and we save for the times it's not there

Do you ever see your husband in the summer?

suki1964

mattcanary wrote: »

Do you ever see your husband in the summer?

Do wives married to soldiers on active duty see theirs when they want?

Do those married to off shore oil workers?

Those who work overseas?


Not every job is 9-5, Monday to Friday

Plenty of different work patterns out there and plenty of people prepared to take them

topaztiger1983

ZHC, 30 hour contract or no bleeding contract I really don't care its a job at the end of the day, isn't it

Also I DID NOT KNOW IT WAS ZHC WHEN I APPLIED, jesus how many more times do you want me to draw you a diagram, Christ almighty

Also for the people that kewp saying him/her, I am a guy and I am 30 years old, not that that matters at all but just so you know

I was having this conversation (about ZHC's) with my manager at the charity shop that I volunteer at on a Saturday, and I was saying that I don't agree with them, but I would not turn down paid work for that reason alone, I don't particularly like them, but work is work

I worked for a company for 3 years once and never had a contract and I was on £10 per hour, climbing radio masts in all weathers so contract are not really a concern of mine, I work for the company and that's that

Thanks to all that have been supportive so far

DCFC79

I wish you luck in the job OP, if you stick it out it could work in your favour if you apply for a job at Tesco or other employers.

I was on JSA before current job so I know where your coming from taking this job to get off job seekers.

topaztiger1983

That's my thinking exactly, it's my foot in the door, at the end of the day I don't expect it to be permanent by any means, but it's a job

DCFC79

topaztiger1983 wrote: »

That's my thinking exactly, it's my foot in the door, at the end of the day I don't expect it to be permanent by any means, but it's a job

Yes exactly, you might even like it.

Is this the new Tesco Store

BillJones

mattcanary wrote: »

How can it suit employees when they don't know what they will be earning from one week to the next.

I'll assume that that us a genuine question, rather than you being facetious.

It benefits the employee as it allows them to be given a job where otherwise the business could not support one. Any practice that lets working hours be matched with demand will allow people to be employed who otherwise could not be.

You are comparing a zero-hours contract with a permanent one on the same hourly wage. For a role that will not support that job, that's a nonsensical comparison. The two choices are zero hours (that is none guaranteed, but possibly plenty done), or no job at all.

You believe no job at all is better, everyone else disagrees with you. Everyone else on here is better placed to discuss work than you. The two facts are not unconnected.

Why can't you accept as long-term unemployed, that your views on employment will necessarily be uninformed?