Use of zero hour contracts "surges"

Graham_Devon

The ONS have released some figures which "lay bare" the use of zero hour contracts.

It makes some sense of lower unemployment figures, but, it doesn't speak for the complete fall in the unemployed.

1.8m jobs are now undertaken on zero hour contracts. Of those 700,000 people have a zero hour contract as their main job.

The use of such contracts has risen 545% in the last decade, with the majority of that increase coming from the years 2012/14.



Seems this might be a hot topic with the election coming up. The tories suggest its better for people to be in work than have no work at all. Labour are hitting out suggesting this is exploitation.

David Freeman, of the ONS, said that some of the greater awareness of zero-hours contracts was among people who had been in these types of jobs for more than a year.

On average, someone on a zero-hours contract usually worked 25 hours a week, the ONS said. The majority were women and students, often aged under 25 or 65 and over.

About a third of them wanted more hours, primarily in their current job, compared with 10% of other people in employment.

Whatever it is, I'd suggest it's masking other issues. The increase over the last couple of years has been pretty dramatic. It's not even as if it relates to the crash of 2008. Any increase as sharp as that should be questioned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31619639

stator

That's capitalism for you. Tories would have you believe it's a good thing. Another way to keep the poor under the thumb I suppose.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Excellent news.

Just 2% of all employment, mostly giving flexible part time hours to students and housewives, and two thirds of those on them don't want any more hours.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Excellent news.

Just 2% of all employment, mostly giving flexible part time hours to students and housewives, and two thirds of those on them don't want any more hours.

Hehe. It was "excellent news" when it was just 0.5% of the working population

In any case, you assume that these jobs never existed befoe zero hour contracts. Which would beg the question, who carried out these duties in shops before zero hour contracts exploded?

It's quite some stretch of the imagination to assume that if zero hour contracts were curtailed, the need for workers would simply cease and therefore the duties they carry out would somehow be fulfilled without the labour.

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Whatever it is, I'd suggest it's masking other issues. The increase over the last couple of years has been pretty dramatic. It's not even as if it relates to the crash of 2008. Any increase as sharp as that should be questioned.

Having a flexible workforce may explain why the UK is recovering better than other EU countries. In particular France and Italy which are moribound due to inflexible labour policies and practices.

On average, someone on a zero-hours contract usually worked 25 hours a week, the ONS said. The majority were women and students, often aged under 25 or 65 and over.

Many pensioners are still burdened with mortgage and other debts.

Graham_Devon

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Having a flexible workforce may explain why the UK is recovering better than other EU countries. In particular France and Italy which are moribound due to inflexible labour policies and practices.

And whether this is good news or not depends on your viewpoint. The UK, or should we say, big business recovering is great....but at the expense of the labour force?

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And whether this is good news or not depends on your viewpoint. The UK, or should we say, big business recovering is great....but at the expense of the labour force?

Vast majority of people in this country work for employers with less than 50 employees. Burdening SME's with additional pay costs won't help in creating new jobs.

As the unemployment count falls. Then employers will be forced to compete in the market.

What are the causes of zero hours contracts. Over generous welfare benefits, open door immigration and minimum wage all spring to mind. None of which were around 15 years ago.

Graham_Devon

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Vast majority of people in this country work for employers with less than 50 employees. Burdening SME's with additional pay costs won't help in creating new jobs.

Maybe, but again, I'm not sure how zero hour contracts provide less pay costs, unless the business operating said contracts is using them in a way that so many dispute they are used in.

The other problem is that lower pay costs for business just means increased costs for the state in tax credits etc.

IMO, we should not be celebrating the race to the bottom and the "recovery" that is based on such practices. It's damaging not only to families, but by that end, society, but also the tax payer.

If an employer cannot survive without using contracts that leave the worker with very few rights...and if you are right, and they can reduce their pay using these contracts enabling them to stay afloat....then is that business really viable?

The business surviving however, does not appear to be the issue, as it seems to be the bigger companies using these contracts en large....the reason usually being to increase their profits and the payouts to shareholders.....which is fantastic for the company and the shareholders, but not so much for the taxpayer shelling out the benefits.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And whether this is good news or not depends on your viewpoint. The UK, or should we say, big business recovering is great....but at the expense of the labour force?

At the expense of "the labour force".

If I've told you once, I've told you a million times not to exaggerate!

Even if you have a point that it is at the 'expense' af anybody, then presumably you mean at the expense of the 0.77% of the workforce who are both on zero hour contracts and wanting more hours. Even then, some of these might wish to remain 'flexible' but simply wish for more hours.

But more generally, you have a rather insular view of how business works. Take Tesco. Market cap £20 billion? So business 'recovers' and shares go up 5%. That's £1 billion added to the value of ISA's, and Pension Funds, owned by who? Mainly employees or 'the labour force'.

Yes, of course, a few directors might get a fraction in the form of higher bonus or dividends on their own shares, but it is literally a fraction.

You seem to perceive, like the common man in the street, that every extra penny made by big business goes into the pocket of a fat cat CEO. It doesn't. Nowehere near. It makes all of us richer. Even the unemployed because a lot of the extra profit goes into our "taxpayer pocket" [Amazon excepted maybe!] enabling us to throw the occasional shilling towards the unemployed or single parent family.

..... or to throw the odd £200 towards vulnerable and deserving pensioners like me to keep me a little bit warmer in the winter.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And whether this is good news or not depends on your viewpoint. The UK, or should we say, big business recovering is great....but at the expense of the labour force?

What if 'big business' wasn't doing great? How do you think that would work out for the labour force?

In my experience what's good for employers is usually good for employees too.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Maybe, but again, I'm not sure how zero hour contracts provide less pay costs, unless the business operating said contracts is using them in a way that so many dispute they are used in.

The other problem is that lower pay costs for business just means increased costs for the state in tax credits etc.

IMO, we should not be celebrating the race to the bottom and the "recovery" that is based on such practices. It's damaging not only to families, but by that end, society, but also the tax payer.

If an employer cannot survive without using contracts that leave the worker with very few rights...and if you are right, and they can reduce their pay using these contracts enabling them to stay afloat....then is that business really viable?

The business surviving however, does not appear to be the issue, as it seems to be the bigger companies using these contracts en large....the reason usually being to increase their profits and the payouts to shareholders.....which is fantastic for the company and the shareholders, but not so much for the taxpayer shelling out the benefits.

basically you are saying ;

better be unemployed than on a zero hours contract

have you asked the actual people affected for their opinion?