JSA and Zero Hours Offer

Masomnia

I think he should consider taking the job. He doesn't have to do it forever; he can keep job searching while he's doing it. It'll be easier to find work while he's in work.

sangie595

Doshwaster wrote: »

In which case they would just be replaced by "One Hour Contracts"

Casual working without fixed hours has existed since the year dot. All ZHCs do is provide a legal framework for them. For students, those with caring responsibilities and the semi-retired who don't want a job with regular hours they can be ideal.

They do have a place in some sectors that have variable work demand and have to bring in extra staff occasionally but there is no doubt they have been abused by some employers. An outright ban would be going too far but they certainly need to be better regulated.

Absolutely any contact can be abused if an employer decides to go for it. Zero hours contracts are, arguably, now more regulated than so called "permanent" ones. You cannot, for example, right in a talent for unpaid overtime into a zero hours contract - all time worked must be paid. That is not so for an employee contracted relationship.

beckysheffield

hollie.weimeraner wrote: »

I think there is a place for them as they definitely suit some people but companies are exploiting them.

There is no place for them. The control for casual jobs should always be with the employee - not the employer only giving a limited number of hours and never fulfilling. There are very few people who don’t need hours at a job, because that’s the point of a job, capitalism.

beckysheffield

Doshwaster wrote: »

In which case they would just be replaced by "One Hour Contracts"

Casual working without fixed hours has existed since the year dot. All ZHCs do is provide a legal framework for them. For students, those with caring responsibilities and the semi-retired who don't want a job with regular hours they can be ideal.

They do have a place in some sectors that have variable work demand and have to bring in extra staff occasionally but there is no doubt they have been abused by some employers. An outright ban would be going too far but they certainly need to be better regulated.

At least you are still getting £8 a week.

Casual workers and zero contract hours are completely different. The person who applied for this job about thought he was getting a job, went through the training, only to be told its zero hours and you are mercy of an employer who owes you nothing, weekly.

Everyone including students need some form of income. Students might not be able to work the same hours every week, but they would be looking for money. Ditto for everyone else.

Wait until your job is a zero hours job.... because it’s going to happen and it’s espically hard for those working in low paid jobs, which are often offered as “zero hours”.

beckysheffield

Masomnia wrote: »

I think he should consider taking the job. He doesn't have to do it forever; he can keep job searching while he's doing it. It'll be easier to find work while he's in work.

He doesn’t get the job seekers money and benefits

Rosemary7391

beckysheffield wrote: »

At least you are still getting £8 a week.

Casual workers and zero contract hours are completely different. The person who applied for this job about thought he was getting a job, went through the training, only to be told its zero hours and you are mercy of an employer who owes you nothing, weekly.

Everyone including students need some form of income. Students might not be able to work the same hours every week, but they would be looking for money. Ditto for everyone else.

Wait until your job is a zero hours job.... because it’s going to happen and it’s espically hard for those working in low paid jobs, which are often offered as “zero hours”.

I can see three problems here, neither of which is the existence of zero hours contracts.
1. Some people who would prefer steady work are unable to find it and therefore take casual/zero hours contracts.
2. Some employers are not straightforward about the nature of the job on offer.
3. Some employers prefer the use of ZHC to avoid (perceived) obligations of other types of contract.


I've had casual work and it suited me great at the time, but it was just a bit of extra pocket money, not my living. A ZHC would be a better solution for the current scrap of invigilating I do here and there as well - but because everyone flaps about "ZHC are evil" they work out how many hours I'm needed, give me a "Guaranteed hours contract" then make me claim hours against it, then my employment ends after a couple of weeks and we start again next exam session (meantime I have fun with the SLC due to my supposed change of status). Net result is way more paperwork and no change in conditions.

beckysheffield

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

I can see three problems here, neither of which is the existence of zero hours contracts.
1. Some people who would prefer steady work are unable to find it and therefore take casual/zero hours contracts.
2. Some employers are not straightforward about the nature of the job on offer.
3. Some employers prefer the use of ZHC to avoid (perceived) obligations of other types of contract.


I've had casual work and it suited me great at the time, but it was just a bit of extra pocket money, not my living. A ZHC would be a better solution for the current scrap of invigilating I do here and there as well - but because everyone flaps about "ZHC are evil" they work out how many hours I'm needed, give me a "Guaranteed hours contract" then make me claim hours against it, then my employment ends after a couple of weeks and we start again next exam session (meantime I have fun with the SLC due to my supposed change of status). Net result is way more paperwork and no change in conditions.

Casual work was great, because it suited you and me. However these low paid jobs today are generally ZHC. This creates a big power imbalance. The invigilating is contract work - they know what they need doing and although there may need to be a degree of flexibility you know you will be working.

A company should be able to employ a person for a certain number of hours a week, or else a job doesn’t exist.

Rosemary7391

beckysheffield wrote: »

A company should be able to employ a person for a certain number of hours a week, or else a job doesn’t exist.

That's just not true. One of my casual jobs was to be an extra pair of hands on open days a few times a year. It's a job, sure, but it isn't a regular 2 hrs/ week.



I guess what I'm saying is that there are valid uses for casual or ZHC, but there are also inappropriate uses and people stuck on them because they've not got any better options.

beckysheffield

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

That's just not true. One of my casual jobs was to be an extra pair of hands on open days a few times a year. It's a job, sure, but it isn't a regular 2 hrs/ week.



I guess what I'm saying is that there are valid uses for casual or ZHC, but there are also inappropriate uses and people stuck on them because they've not got any better options.

That!!!8217;s a casual/short term/temp job. You knew you would be working for a set period of time and the company knew they would be needing someone for a short period of time.

Zero Contract hours are just that.... nothing. Surely a company would know when they need staff.

sangie595

beckysheffield wrote: »

... This creates a big power imbalance.....

I'm surprised, since you are the person that mentioned capitalism, that you are this naive. Employment, any form of employment, is a big power imbalance. A big power imbalance is the definition of capitalism! So why do you think that anyone is going to do anything that remotely changes that situation. You could get rid of zero hour contracts tomorrow, and introduce a Labour government of the reddest hue, and the power imbalance would continue to be just as big. The law serves the interest of employers, and "rights" simply mediate the worst excesses in order to convince workers that there's some justice in the world, and that they aren't powerless.