Campaign to end zero hours contracts
Discussion
Julian Richer, him of Richer Sounds fame and fortune is backing a campaign to give free legal advice to people on zero hours contracts.
The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/19/ri...
Personally, having seen how some businesses use their power over workers, I approve. I am sure there are a great many zero hours setups which are mutually beneficial, but I've seen many examples of them being totally one-sided.
The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/19/ri...
Personally, having seen how some businesses use their power over workers, I approve. I am sure there are a great many zero hours setups which are mutually beneficial, but I've seen many examples of them being totally one-sided.
I always roll my eyes a bit when politicians promise to end zero hours contracts in the NHS, when we are one of the main pioneers of them - our bank staff that we use to fill gaps in the rota are all on ZHC, most have a substantive post as well but there are some doing it as their only gig, a hospital is big enough that people can do that and still do full time hours.
I agree that they are abused in some sectors and some regulation is needed, but the NHS that some people want to 'protect' from them actually relies on them very heavily.
I agree that they are abused in some sectors and some regulation is needed, but the NHS that some people want to 'protect' from them actually relies on them very heavily.
A nephew was working in housekeeping for one of the big hotel chains. It became pretty clear that they had enough potential workers to a.) never give anyone enough hours that they got any full time benefits and b.) they always had plenty of willing workers to cover shifts.
The shift notice/planning was not chaotic (which some are) but was never much more than a week or so ahead.
The shift notice/planning was not chaotic (which some are) but was never much more than a week or so ahead.
D-Angle said:
I always roll my eyes a bit when politicians promise to end zero hours contracts in the NHS, when we are one of the main pioneers of them - our bank staff that we use to fill gaps in the rota are all on ZHC, most have a substantive post as well but there are some doing it as their only gig, a hospital is big enough that people can do that and still do full time hours.
I agree that they are abused in some sectors and some regulation is needed, but the NHS that some people want to 'protect' from them actually relies on them very heavily.
but those people aren't on ZHCs, are they? They're just doing overtime away from their substantive post. I agree that they are abused in some sectors and some regulation is needed, but the NHS that some people want to 'protect' from them actually relies on them very heavily.
As with the stuff about freelancing/contractors, a one-size-fits-all blanket response is probably a bad idea, but plays well to the peanut gallery.
I'm all for a flexible, mutually beneficial agreement between workers and employers - an agile workforce is a positive thing. So 'banning' it because it is abused in some areas would be an extreme response. Equally, just conferring all of the rights and responsibilities of full time employment would negate a lot of the benefits both parties can enjoy from a zero hours contract.
There should be a middle ground, and perhaps some thought applied to a clear definition of a 'responsible employer' that maintains the benefits for those that can show common sense around employment.
..this ties in with the 'Why can't we build things as fast a China thread' - because employing people to do a job is actually a heavyweight process due to layers of protection and accumulated requirements designed to restrain those who abuse the system. Very rarely do such protections get rolled back or simplified, just added on layer after layer.
I'm all for a flexible, mutually beneficial agreement between workers and employers - an agile workforce is a positive thing. So 'banning' it because it is abused in some areas would be an extreme response. Equally, just conferring all of the rights and responsibilities of full time employment would negate a lot of the benefits both parties can enjoy from a zero hours contract.
There should be a middle ground, and perhaps some thought applied to a clear definition of a 'responsible employer' that maintains the benefits for those that can show common sense around employment.
..this ties in with the 'Why can't we build things as fast a China thread' - because employing people to do a job is actually a heavyweight process due to layers of protection and accumulated requirements designed to restrain those who abuse the system. Very rarely do such protections get rolled back or simplified, just added on layer after layer.
Digga said:
A nephew was working in housekeeping for one of the big hotel chains. It became pretty clear that they had enough potential workers to a.) never give anyone enough hours that they got any full time benefits and b.) they always had plenty of willing workers to cover shifts.
The shift notice/planning was not chaotic (which some are) but was never much more than a week or so ahead.
I'm struggling to see the perceived issue here Digga.The shift notice/planning was not chaotic (which some are) but was never much more than a week or so ahead.
(b)... Willing workers. Assuming of the right calibre you'd take that every day of the week.
As long as mutuality of commitment exists, I don't see an issue. You want more hours, go and seek them out
Murph7355 said:
I'm struggling to see the perceived issue here Digga.
(b)... Willing workers. Assuming of the right calibre you'd take that every day of the week.
As long as mutuality of commitment exists, I don't see an issue. You want more hours, go and seek them out
They are taken on with the promise of more hours than they ever get and they are not always 'available' for other work because, as the article in the OP says, they are often on exceedingly short notice 'call' with their zero hour employer.(b)... Willing workers. Assuming of the right calibre you'd take that every day of the week.
As long as mutuality of commitment exists, I don't see an issue. You want more hours, go and seek them out
I am totally sure the wrong thing to do would be to ban the zero hours contracts - it suits a good many employers and employees alike. However, at the same time, giving workers the ability to seek advice is probably the best balance, because there's no doubt some employers are taking advantage of workers.
Murph7355 said:
They are taken on with the promise of more hours than they ever get and they are not always 'available' for other work because, as the article in the OP says, they are often on exceedingly short notice 'call' with their zero hour employer.
I am totally sure the wrong thing to do would be to ban the zero hours contracts - it suits a good many employers and employees alike. However, at the same time, giving workers the ability to seek advice is probably the best balance, because there's no doubt some employers are taking advantage of workers.
Indeed, there are a lot of employers who basically expect you to be on call 24/7 at short notice (for nothing) and of course if you don't take the shifts, you don't get the next lot offered and so on. But that doesn't stop them sending you home early, or cancelling at short notice. I am totally sure the wrong thing to do would be to ban the zero hours contracts - it suits a good many employers and employees alike. However, at the same time, giving workers the ability to seek advice is probably the best balance, because there's no doubt some employers are taking advantage of workers.
After all, the worst abuses of it are at the bottom end of the market, where there's always someone else to take your place.
Higher up the scale, people on ZHC do get treated much better, and it suits some people very well.
IIRC Ireland has some very sensible rules about them, mostly about cancellation at short notice or being sent home soon after arriving - these sort of regulations would deal with the worst employers while not really affecting employers who are using ZHCs well
slow_poke said:
D-Angle said:
I always roll my eyes a bit when politicians promise to end zero hours contracts in the NHS, when we are one of the main pioneers of them - our bank staff that we use to fill gaps in the rota are all on ZHC, most have a substantive post as well but there are some doing it as their only gig, a hospital is big enough that people can do that and still do full time hours.
I agree that they are abused in some sectors and some regulation is needed, but the NHS that some people want to 'protect' from them actually relies on them very heavily.
but those people aren't on ZHCs, are they? They're just doing overtime away from their substantive post. I agree that they are abused in some sectors and some regulation is needed, but the NHS that some people want to 'protect' from them actually relies on them very heavily.
Digga said:
Agammemnon said:
Digga said:
a campaign to give free legal advice.
Are the solicitors doing this pro bono? If not, who exactly is paying for this "free" service?I'd definitely be against banning them altogether as well. As many have said, they can work in a mutually beneficial way, giving staff the option to work when they are available, and business the opportunity to cut the workforce when it is quiet (or rather, only have to build it up in peaks)
However, as others have alluded, some business do appear to be abusing this system by solely using ZHCs for contracts which almost certainly have a base amount of hours available that probably should be filled by staff on proper full time or part time contracts.
Others also seem to use the fact that as soon as a worker says "no" to an available shift, they are somehow blacklisted for any shifts at all for the rest of the week, as if somehow you're expected to keep all your time not at work available just in case you get called. And that isn't on, because if you can't work Tuesday, you suddenly are not allowed to work Thursday, and then you don't have any actual money to spend, and then we end up in a poor situation such as those we've heard of before. That isn't fair to the workers, but the business gets away with it, and will do so, because it is cheaper for them to have lots of below-hours staff who they then don't have to pay lots of extra benefits to as they would for a full time person.
Certainly as a staff member who was on a zero-hours contract, I did so when I was at uni, and could drop in and pick up some shifts during the holiday or the odd weekend just to keep myself earning a few pennies. And then later, in the same company but as a resource manager, there was never any "ban" on staff being blacklisted from work, and this was only used as backup for a near-full, full-time roster anyway to cover sickness/absence and due to the nature of the work, labour-intensive busy periods where many more people were required than could be sustained full time.
However, as others have alluded, some business do appear to be abusing this system by solely using ZHCs for contracts which almost certainly have a base amount of hours available that probably should be filled by staff on proper full time or part time contracts.
Others also seem to use the fact that as soon as a worker says "no" to an available shift, they are somehow blacklisted for any shifts at all for the rest of the week, as if somehow you're expected to keep all your time not at work available just in case you get called. And that isn't on, because if you can't work Tuesday, you suddenly are not allowed to work Thursday, and then you don't have any actual money to spend, and then we end up in a poor situation such as those we've heard of before. That isn't fair to the workers, but the business gets away with it, and will do so, because it is cheaper for them to have lots of below-hours staff who they then don't have to pay lots of extra benefits to as they would for a full time person.
Certainly as a staff member who was on a zero-hours contract, I did so when I was at uni, and could drop in and pick up some shifts during the holiday or the odd weekend just to keep myself earning a few pennies. And then later, in the same company but as a resource manager, there was never any "ban" on staff being blacklisted from work, and this was only used as backup for a near-full, full-time roster anyway to cover sickness/absence and due to the nature of the work, labour-intensive busy periods where many more people were required than could be sustained full time.
Plymo said:
Murph7355 said:
They are taken on with the promise of more hours than they ever get and they are not always 'available' for other work because, as the article in the OP says, they are often on exceedingly short notice 'call' with their zero hour employer.
I am totally sure the wrong thing to do would be to ban the zero hours contracts - it suits a good many employers and employees alike. However, at the same time, giving workers the ability to seek advice is probably the best balance, because there's no doubt some employers are taking advantage of workers.
Indeed, there are a lot of employers who basically expect you to be on call 24/7 at short notice (for nothing) and of course if you don't take the shifts, you don't get the next lot offered and so on. But that doesn't stop them sending you home early, or cancelling at short notice. I am totally sure the wrong thing to do would be to ban the zero hours contracts - it suits a good many employers and employees alike. However, at the same time, giving workers the ability to seek advice is probably the best balance, because there's no doubt some employers are taking advantage of workers.
After all, the worst abuses of it are at the bottom end of the market, where there's always someone else to take your place.
Higher up the scale, people on ZHC do get treated much better, and it suits some people very well.
IIRC Ireland has some very sensible rules about them, mostly about cancellation at short notice or being sent home soon after arriving - these sort of regulations would deal with the worst employers while not really affecting employers who are using ZHCs well
It's very likely they cannot earn for the rest of that day with it being such short notice.
moanthebairns said:
My ex used to have a big problem when she worked in a kids soft play. The owner would open up and decide I don't need x amount of staff as its quiet, etc. After the first hour or so some were sent home, in most cases its minimum wage and would just cover their transport to and from work. So what's the point.
It's very likely they cannot earn for the rest of that day with it being such short notice.
Quite.It's very likely they cannot earn for the rest of that day with it being such short notice.
This is a very, very different scenario from the employee electing to take a day off, unpaid, at relatively short notice to go cycling/fishing or whatever.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff