Have you ever been asked to work an unpaid trial shift?

GingerSte

I would actually take it a little further, beyond the "interview" stage. I would consider a law stating that if a job didn't have at least (say) 12 guaranteed/regular hours per week, then it should be paid at a premium to minimum wage. Say 30, 40 or even 50% over minimum wage.


This is more coming from the zero-hours contract side, but for me it addresses the issue of employees being stuck in low-paid ZHCs without affecting those who want to work them too much. (A common argument against restricting ZHCs is "what about those who just want to work on a casual basis?") If enacted, this law would also include work trials.


This would give employers a choice. If they want to pay the absolute minimum for staff (ie the current minimum wage), then they can guarantee at least 12 hours. If the hours required are so small, or if the need for flexibility is so great, then the employer can pay the premium for it.

Comms69

GingerSte wrote: »

I would actually take it a little further, beyond the "interview" stage. I would consider a law stating that if a job didn't have at least (say) 12 guaranteed/regular hours per week, then it should be paid at a premium to minimum wage. Say 30, 40 or even 50% over minimum wage.


This is more coming from the zero-hours contract side, but for me it addresses the issue of employees being stuck in low-paid ZHCs without affecting those who want to work them too much. (A common argument against restricting ZHCs is "what about those who just want to work on a casual basis?") If enacted, this law would also include work trials.


This would give employers a choice. If they want to pay the absolute minimum for staff (ie the current minimum wage), then they can guarantee at least 12 hours. If the hours required are so small, or if the need for flexibility is so great, then the employer can pay the premium for it.

Great i'll take 4 11 hour jobs at the premium rate


Sorry but the minimum wage doesn't actually support people. It just sets a benchmark that all business try to reach.


Labour is a resource, like any other. The government is setting a rate at which it can be acquired and people accept it. If they didn't, wages would rise.

GingerSte

Comms69 wrote: »

Great i'll take 4 11 hour jobs at the premium rate

Great! Go for it! There's nothing stopping you!

Of course, if the employer would save money by guaranteeing you one extra hour per week, which would they want to do?

Comms69 wrote: »

Sorry but the minimum wage doesn't actually support people. It just sets a benchmark that all business try to reach..

I never said the minimum wage actually supports people. However, some people are stuck on (or very close) to minimum wage, with the insecurity of non-guaranteed hours on top. That is what this would address.

Comms69 wrote: »

Labour is a resource, like any other. The government is setting a rate at which it can be acquired and people accept it. If they didn't, wages would rise.

A lot of people are forced to accept it, as they have few other options. This is just redressing the balance a little bit.

I would note that this wouldn't affect me personally, as I work full time and earn more than the minimum wage. However, I do know people that are stuck in that precarious position.

Comms69

GingerSte wrote: »

Great! Go for it! There's nothing stopping you!

Of course, if the employer would save money by guaranteeing you one extra hour per week, which would they want to do? - Nope it's 11 hours or nothing.



I never said the minimum wage actually supports people. However, some people are stuck on (or very close) to minimum wage, with the insecurity of non-guaranteed hours on top. That is what this would address. - They're not stuck, no-one is holding them hostage. Perhaps they've had bad luck, perhaps they didn't study hard enough, perhaps they're not motivated, I don't know. But anyone can better themselves, if they choose to



A lot of people are forced to accept it, as they have few other options. This is just redressing the balance a little bit. - They choose to accept it. And perhaps in the short term that's not the choice they want. But long term employment on ZHC is down to lack of personal development.

I would note that this wouldn't affect me personally, as I work full time and earn more than the minimum wage. However, I do know people that are stuck in that precarious position.

Indeed, me too. But I've done ZHC on the side for a few extra quid.

GingerSte

Comms69 wrote: »

Indeed, me too. But I've done ZHC on the side for a few extra quid.

I suspect that in this case, a 50% premium on minimum wage would not have affected you, as you would have been on more than that anyway. (This is not a criticism - far from it!)

That is exactly the sort of thing I'm trying not to affect: those that are doing it on the side for a few extra quid. What I'm trying to help is those who are stuck on low wages with few guarantees. I think that if this became law, a lot of employers would suddenly realise that they could give people regular (and dependable) hours after all.

I think you and I are going to have to disagree on how stuck we believe these people are.

bugslet

GingerSte wrote: »

I suspect that in this case, a 50% premium on minimum wage would not have affected you, as you would have been on more than that anyway. (This is not a criticism - far from it!)

That is exactly the sort of thing I'm trying not to affect: those that are doing it on the side for a few extra quid. What I'm trying to help is those who are stuck on low wages with few guarantees. I think that if this became law, a lot of employers would suddenly realise that they could give people regular (and dependable) hours after all.

I think you and I are going to have to disagree on how stuck we believe these people are.

One of my drivers was thinking of retiring as he came up to his 70th birthday. He was a lovely man and a good worker and he enjoyed the work, what he didn't want to do was to stop completely. So we had started discussing doing what would essentially be a ZHC with him, it would have been he first we had ever done had it gone ahead.

But we cannot plan the work. Three weeks ago, I had not one of my tractor units out, this week I have sub contractors out - there is no way we can predict how busy we are going to be. That quiet/busy irregular pattern happens throughout the year. Had the driver in question done that role, he would have known that sometimes we have too much work and sometimes too little.

We have always paid our staff all through the quiet times.

When it suits both parties, it works well.

bertiewhite

My stepdaughter was required to carry out a "training" unpaid shift at a care home which she did. She decided she didn't want to work there after all so regarded it as a lucky escape and took the view that she had actually gained some experience from it.

GingerSte

Exactly, Bugslet. I don't want to ban ZHCs because in some situations they can suit both parties very well. I can see myself wanting to work on an ad-hoc basis some time in the future (to keep my hand in, to earn a little extra money, but enjoy a lot more free time).


ZHCs are not inherently bad, but I think they are being misused in a lot of cases at the moment. My proposal above is an attempt to address that, along with the abuse of work trials (getting back to the original topic!).

Comms69

GingerSte wrote: »

I suspect that in this case, a 50% premium on minimum wage would not have affected you, as you would have been on more than that anyway. (This is not a criticism - far from it!)

That is exactly the sort of thing I'm trying not to affect: those that are doing it on the side for a few extra quid. What I'm trying to help is those who are stuck on low wages with few guarantees. I think that if this became law, a lot of employers would suddenly realise that they could give people regular (and dependable) hours after all.

I think you and I are going to have to disagree on how stuck we believe these people are.

I think we might, because to my mind there are jobs and there are careers. Jobs are something you do whilst working towards developing something better. e.g. working behind the tills whilst studying for a qualification. (ofcourse some people are happy with those kinds of jobs and that's ok too, but I'm speaking about the ones who aren't happy but doing nothing about it)

pmduk

Personally I welcome the opportunity to sit in on the work being done during an interview, (not necessarily carry out any work.) it can help rule out those jobs which do not match the job description and helps the employer by reducing the number of people leaving during the training period.