The gig economy

[R Mutt]

A surprising balance can be found in the media with each case of abuse countered with one of convenient and much needed short term work.

With the insecurity comes flexibility and no one works in McDonalds for the career prospects. We've all done these sort of jobs, and had we not bothered to do something else we'd still be doing them. But of course you have to take all the minimum wage hours Mr Ashley sends, and keep the cash coming to feed the kids, while supplementing this meagre income with bits and bobs on the side.

Is the gig economy the preserve of the unambitious and feckless or does the mere existence of such jobs symbolise the evil of capitalism, seeking to exploit the desperation of migrants and those deprived of the prospects otherwise afforded to the more privileged in society?

And even with COVID-19 you have people on zero pay as a result of their contracts while there's a sudden increased demand for delivery drivers.

[bitchstewie]

Every time this comes up the only thing you can guarantee is that it clearly works really well for some people and varying degrees of badly and out of necessity for others.

[R Mutt]

bhstewie said:

Every time this comes up the only thing you can guarantee is that it clearly works really well for some people and varying degrees of badly and out of necessity for others.

The problem is, it doesn't seem to be the actual staff demanding zero hours contracts be banned.

I keep seeing this statistic being recycled on an ambulances being called to Sports Direct x times in a year, which also comes in the Amazon variant. But most misleadingly, a few weeks ago "An air ambulance landed in Sports Direct carpark' which is in fact shared by several retailers, all of which were closed due to Coronavirus.

So criticism is often out of anti-capitalist sentiment as much as workers rights, most evident where there are smaller scale cases closer to human rights violations which go ignored.

[Shakermaker]

bhstewie said:

Every time this comes up the only thing you can guarantee is that it clearly works really well for some people and varying degrees of badly and out of necessity for others.

Pretty much this

It works well for the staff IF they work for an employer that doesn't then "abuse" the system in place. I say "abuse" because there isn't a definition of how exactly that looks to not be abused but, there is definitely space for it to operate and be as beneficial to the staff and business as is possible - which won't be 100% mutually agreeable, but then a full time job isn't 100% mutually beneficial either.

I've been chatting to my boss about it a bit recently, with the plan to fully discuss it once the CV-19 impact has lessened, because where I work, we use quite a lot of staff on Zero hour/casual contracts and I am keen to ensure that we do not fall into the same bracket as those who are regularly touted in the media as being "bad" at it.

[bitchstewie]

R Mutt said:

The problem is, it doesn't seem to be the actual staff demanding zero hours contracts be banned.

I keep seeing this statistic being recycled on an ambulances being called to Sports Direct x times in a year, which also comes in the Amazon variant. But most misleadingly, a few weeks ago "An air ambulance landed in Sports Direct carpark' which is in fact shared by several retailers, all of which were closed due to Coronavirus.

So criticism is often out of anti-capitalist sentiment as much as workers rights, most evident where there are smaller scale cases closer to human rights violations which go ignored.

I think it's easy to conflate "zero hour" with "stty employer".

Look at some of the practises that some employers pull and I've little doubt they'd do them through any legal means available because it's in their nature.

[R Mutt]

bhstewie said:

I think it's easy to conflate "zero hour" with "stty employer".

Look at some of the practises that some employers pull and I've little doubt they'd do them through any legal means available because it's in their nature.

Indeed. And court action up and down the country will be taken by (ex) employees on decent money. But then that could be another example of how the worse off are disproportionately affected by shady employment practices, as with anything

[scenario8]

I’m certain the downsides of a zero hour contract reveal themselves more sharply during economic downturns. The flexibility (from the perspective of the employee) of “choosing one’s hours” only works when the ability to provide those hours exist.

I expect the likely economic downturn/recession that will follow this pandemic will hit those on zero hours contracts far harder and for far longer than pretty much all other sections.

[Plymo]

Well, it depends!

I've worked for a "good" employer on a ZHC while at university, and it was fine, I didn't (and couldn't commit to) fixed hours.

I've also worked for a "bad" employer on a ZHC, and it was terrible. Bullying and intimidation, unsafe working practices and illegal T&C's... All enabled because of the zero hours nature of the contract, especially bad when you need the work to live off, rather than just beer/bike money.

My current employer does use ZHCs, but very sparingly to fill in occasionally when absences can't be filled internally - the zero hours guys otherwise get the same T&C's as us (+ a bit extra for holiday pay) and quite a few have got permanent posts too.

[R Mutt]

Plymo said:

Well, it depends!

I've worked for a "good" employer on a ZHC while at university, and it was fine, I didn't (and couldn't commit to) fixed hours.

I've also worked for a "bad" employer on a ZHC, and it was terrible. Bullying and intimidation, unsafe working practices and illegal T&C's... All enabled because of the zero hours nature of the contract, especially bad when you need the work to live off, rather than just beer/bike money.

My current employer does use ZHCs, but very sparingly to fill in occasionally when absences can't be filled internally - the zero hours guys otherwise get the same T&C's as us (+ a bit extra for holiday pay) and quite a few have got permanent posts too.

So if ZHC didn't exist those temporary staff would likely be employed by an agency on worse terms?

[Plymo]

R Mutt said:

Plymo said:

Well, it depends!

I've worked for a "good" employer on a ZHC while at university, and it was fine, I didn't (and couldn't commit to) fixed hours.

I've also worked for a "bad" employer on a ZHC, and it was terrible. Bullying and intimidation, unsafe working practices and illegal T&C's... All enabled because of the zero hours nature of the contract, especially bad when you need the work to live off, rather than just beer/bike money.

My current employer does use ZHCs, but very sparingly to fill in occasionally when absences can't be filled internally - the zero hours guys otherwise get the same T&C's as us (+ a bit extra for holiday pay) and quite a few have got permanent posts too.

So if ZHC didn't exist those temporary staff would likely be employed by an agency on worse terms?

We used to use agencies but ended up directly employing temp guys - I think the pay rates were probably about the same but of course the agency costs more overall.
It's about 50/50 semi retired guys coming back/new ones trying to get into the company