UK Labour Market Stats

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Sports Direct don't spring the surprise of the jobs being zero hours on the first day at work you know. People apply for them.

If someone doesn't want a zero hours job I'd suggest it's a mistake to apply for one. Yet somehow Sports Direct manage to get staff despite no-one wanting to work there, not getting paid enough, not getting enough hours and allegedly having to urinate in the warehouse aisles because they don't get toilet breaks.

Just why do people work there if it's so terrible?

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

Sports Direct don't spring the surprise of the jobs being zero hours on the first day at work you know. People apply for them.

If someone doesn't want a zero hours job I'd suggest it's a mistake to apply for one. Yet somehow Sports Direct manage to get staff despite no-one wanting to work there, not getting paid enough, not getting enough hours and allegedly having to urinate in the warehouse aisles because they don't get toilet breaks.

Just why do people work there if it's so terrible?

Not sure they do whenever I go in there, there is no staff to be seen.

Tromking

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.

Hmm.
You see the role of the state to top up the wages of employees of private companies? Interesting.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Sports Direct don't spring the surprise of the jobs being zero hours on the first day at work you know. People apply for them.

If someone doesn't want a zero hours job I'd suggest it's a mistake to apply for one. Yet somehow Sports Direct manage to get staff despite no-one wanting to work there, not getting paid enough, not getting enough hours and allegedly having to urinate in the warehouse aisles because they don't get toilet breaks.

Just why do people work there if it's so terrible?

While I realise you are somewhat the Sports Direct PR bloke for this forum, I didn't suggests Sports Direct did surprise people....so I just wanted to apply some context there.

Secondly, my statement was regarding bank nursing, and how you cannot really offer yourself up for Bank services without being on a flexible contract.

Third, regarding Sports Direct and your "surprise" statement. As has been reported on, many workers did not really know what they were signing up to as reported by the in depth investigations and also the recent cases against Sports Direct. Some couldn't speak a word of English in the warehouses.

My comment in realation to Sports Direct was to point out that warehouse jobs do not require ZH contracts. Banking, quite clearly, does.

CLAPTON

Tromking wrote: »

Hmm.
You see the role of the state to top up the wages of employees of private companies? Interesting.

I see the role of the state providing some level of benefits to some people in some circumstances.
If a particular person needed benefits, I wouldn't withhold them just because that person worked for the private sector.

Thrugelmir

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.

Such arrogance is why the whole machinery is undergoing reform. The public sector is full of such unemployables from my personal experience.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

While I realise you are somewhat the Sports Direct PR bloke for this forum, I didn't suggests Sports Direct did surprise people....so I just wanted to apply some context there.

Secondly, my statement was regarding bank nursing, and how you cannot really offer yourself up for Bank services without being on a flexible contract.

Third, regarding Sports Direct and your "surprise" statement. As has been reported on, many workers did not really know what they were signing up to as reported by the in depth investigations and also the recent cases against Sports Direct. Some couldn't speak a word of English in the warehouses.

My comment in realation to Sports Direct was to point out that warehouse jobs do not require ZH contracts. Banking, quite clearly, does.

It's not that clear.

My local hospital employs bank nurses every shift every day. I imagine it's the same for every hospital. In fact the daily need for bank nurses is so entirely predictable that hospitals could employ more permanents. Your argument is that if a business could employ more permanents then they should do so and not use zero hours except when you're applying a context known only to yourself.

I've worked in places with agency staff and the cream rises. The good people get offered more hours, leave for better things or get offered permant positions to secure their services. The not so good don't and are closer to unemployment than making a step up the career ladder.

There are good employers and not so good employers and the same goes for employees. I'd say there's a bell curve from rubbish to excellent with most people in the middle. Sports Direct are employing from the left hand side of that curve which is lucky if you're only just employable, don't speak English etc. You're closer to the right hand side of the curve and lucky not to comprehend in the slightest how some people's lives work - not that it stops you knowing what's best for them.

Tromking

CLAPTON wrote: »

I see the role of the state providing some level of benefits to some people in some circumstances.
If a particular person needed benefits, I wouldn't withhold them just because that person worked for the private sector.

Oh OK.
I had you down as a steely-eyed free marketeer, not some state interventionist Corbynista type.

CLAPTON

Tromking wrote: »

Oh OK.
I had you down as a steely-eyed free marketeer, not some state interventionist Corbynista type.

you are amasingly consistently wrong about most things, it seems

Tromking

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Such arrogance is why the whole machinery is undergoing reform. The public sector is full of such unemployables from my personal experience.

No stranger to reform in my area of public service, in fact my entire 29 years of service has been one of constant reform. Perhaps it`s time the likes of Tesco and Sodexo are in need of a bit of reform too. It would appear that their business models rely too much on the State subsidising their employees. In my experience it's not the average public sector worker who`s "unemployable" its the part time toilet cleaner or shelf stacker.