Use of zero hour contracts "surges"

stator

danothy wrote: »

I'm sure I've asked before, but I'll ask again ... People on zero hour contracts, they do usually work more than zero hours, don't they? It seems like it'd be somewhat pointless not to for both employer and employee.

Depends. The point is they can be doing 16hrs a week, then they annoy the manager some how and suddenly they are doing 0hrs a week with no pay.
The worst contracts also have exclusivity clauses, requiring employees to be available for work even if they aren't given any for weeks.

Loughton_Monkey

The flexibility of zero hour contracts to both business and to casual workers who want total freedom to work if and when they want is the best thing since sliced bread.

The negative attitudes promulgated by some are already having a negative effect on UK business prospects.

I refer in particular to two very able, experienced, and valuable potential ZHC employees - Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw. Here we have able people who, despite having jobs already, still have time on their hands and are willing to add to the economy by putting in an extra day here and there.

Why should a potential Hong Kong enterprise coming to UK be 'forced' to dole out annual employment contracts when all they want is the odd bit of casual labour for a very reasonable £5K for a morning's work?

It's all perfectly legal and convenient all round. Doesn't matter if the money is paid into the old offshore tax free bank account since it's overseas earnings and never enters the UK. Perfectly legitimate. The added advantage being that when such a ZH employee takes a well earned luxury holiday in the Seychelles, he can pay for it with this 'tax free hard-earned' rather than take money out of the UK which could otherwise be oiling the wheels of the UK economy.

.... large gin & tonics all round.... :rotfl: