UK Labour Market Stats

Graham_Devon

antrobus wrote: »

Err, no. It was the House of Lords that kiboshed that little proposal.



So, you are not aware of the fact that the use of ZHC is more prevalent in the public rather than the private sector?:rotfl:

Need to be careful here.

It's not that the public sector are using ZHC to employ staff by a greater number. It's that the staff that are employed by the private sector are then sent into the public sector to carry out contracts.

Such as cleaning hospitals, refuge services etc.

So whilst it's probably true to say that there are a greater number of ZHC workers carrying out public sector contracts, that's not the same as suggesting, as you appear to have done, that the public sector employ more people on ZHC.

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

I'd agree with you.

But that might be because you were simply repeating what I'd already said in post #83 above.:)

I think we agree on the figure and are just emphasising different points. For what it's worth I don't think the picture is as rosy as some people try to paint, but then I don't think it's as bad as others do.

Tromking

antrobus wrote: »

Err, no. It was the House of Lords that kiboshed that little proposal.

Really?
I thought Gideon abandoned his plan on Tax Credits when he found (rather conveniently) £25 billion he did`nt know he had in the Autumn Statement. I do remember more than one Tory MP bemoaning Gideon`s plans in the House and you ignore the inbuilt Tory majority in the Lords also.

antrobus wrote: »

So, you are not aware of the fact that the use of ZHC is more prevalent in the public rather than the private sector?:rotfl:

I think Graham has answered that particular point rather well. Most Public Sector roles are more skilled and better paid than the sh*tty little jobs so beloved of Gideon and his crew. You are right though to flag up another group of multi-national companies that can`t seem to employ anyone without them being eligible for tax payer funded in-work benefits. For Tesco, read Aramark and Sodexo as well I suppose. Private Sector led recovery my backside!

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Need to be careful here.

It's not that the public sector are using ZHC to employ staff by a greater number. It's that the staff that are employed by the private sector are then sent into the public sector to carry out contracts.

Such as cleaning hospitals, refuge services etc.

So whilst it's probably true to say that there are a greater number of ZHC workers carrying out public sector contracts, that's not the same as suggesting, as you appear to have done, that the public sector employ more people on ZHC.

I am being careful.

The use of zero-hours contracts is most prevalent in the public (28%), and the non-profit sectors (42%), with private sector organisations least likely to report they use them (19%).

Private sector employers (75%) are more likely than public sector employers (58%) to rule out the use of zero-hours workers.

The use of casual workers and agency workers is more prevalent in the public than the private sector.

http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/zero-hours-contracts_2013-myth-reality.pdf

Have you not heard of nursing banks and supply teachers?

antrobus

Tromking wrote: »

Really?....

Yes.

For example.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/10/house-lords-defeats-government-over-tax-credit-cuts
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/29/the-tax-credits-defeat-and-a-chance-to-reimagine-the-house-of-lords

Tromking wrote: »

...I think Graham has answered that particular point rather well. ....

Only trouble is that he was wrong.

Tromking wrote: »

..Most Public Sector roles are more skilled and better paid than the sh*tty little jobs so beloved of Gideon and his crew. You are right though to flag up another group of multi-national companies that can`t seem to employ anyone without them being eligible for tax payer funded in-work benefits. For Tesco, read Aramark and Sodexo as well I suppose. Private Sector led recovery my backside!

And yet the available evidence says otherwise.

CLAPTON

Tromking wrote: »

Most Public Sector roles are more skilled and better paid than the sh*tty little jobs so beloved of Gideon and his crew.

you really do despise ordinary people doing worthwhile but low paid work: does it make you feel good mocking poor people making an honest living?

Tromking

antrobus wrote: »

I am being careful.

The use of zero-hours contracts is most prevalent in the public (28%), and the non-profit sectors (42%), with private sector organisations least likely to report they use them (19%).

Private sector employers (75%) are more likely than public sector employers (58%) to rule out the use of zero-hours workers.

The use of casual workers and agency workers is more prevalent in the public than the private sector.

http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/zero-hours-contracts_2013-myth-reality.pdf

Have you not heard of nursing banks and supply teachers?

You seemed to ignore the stat that said the private sector have twice as many employees on ZHC`s as the public sector. Besides that report has no information (I think!) on how many of those workers are in receipt of in-work benefits, which was my point. There are of course plenty of workers on part time contracts that are getting benefits not just those on ZHC`s.

Tromking

CLAPTON wrote: »

you really do despise ordinary people doing worthwhile but low paid work: does it make you feel good mocking poor people making an honest living?

I note you haven't answered my question a couple of pages back. Private Sector employers and their part time workers shouldn't be relying on tax payers money in order to get by should they?

Graham_Devon

antrobus wrote: »

I am being careful.

The use of zero-hours contracts is most prevalent in the public (28%), and the non-profit sectors (42%), with private sector organisations least likely to report they use them (19%).

Private sector employers (75%) are more likely than public sector employers (58%) to rule out the use of zero-hours workers.

The use of casual workers and agency workers is more prevalent in the public than the private sector.

http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/zero-hours-contracts_2013-myth-reality.pdf

Have you not heard of nursing banks and supply teachers?

You are not being that careful, as you hadn't even hinted that you were using figures as a percentage of the workforce.

To be honest, I assumed you were using head counts.

As for banking and supply teachers, I think care needs to be taken here too before the context is lost. The very nature of the job demands zero hour contracts and everyone taking part in such a role will understand that. You can't really sign up to bank nursing and offer your services without being on such a contract. Pretty much the same as retained firemen. Not having a job is part of the course. Unlike Sports Direct, for example.

CLAPTON

Tromking wrote: »

I note you haven't answered my question a couple of pages back. Private Sector employers and their part time workers shouldn't be relying on tax payers money in order to get by should they?

I didn't take it as a serious question.
No idea what you mean 'should be relying' on tax payers money.

The system is how it is and so people respond to the law of the land and the incentives that government provide : would you want it otherwise?
If a worker generates insufficient value to justify payment do you want them to starve? You have already rubbished low paid workers and belittled the value of their labour : now you want to kill them off?

But for the record I believe that government does indeed have a roll in distributing income so as to provide a minimum level of income.
The mechanisms are important and the current benefit rules are not fit for purpose as they provide perverse incentives and reward inappropriate behaviour.