Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for these "zero hours" contracts. Either you have a job or you don't. Also some zero hours contracts have an exclusivity clause which means you can't work for anyone else.
Like I said, I don't agree with zero hours contracts, but while they're legal I don't think anyone should be able to choose to stay on benefits rather than take one up. If someone refuses one, the taxpayer foots the full cost of upkeep for that individual or family. If they take the zero hours contract there's a chance the taxpayer will have to contribute less. I'm also not suggesting that would be a long term solution for anyone, but something that could be done until more permanent employment can be found.
Are they doing this on purpose, I can’t believe they are that thick? First thing me and my wife said this morning.
Must think the voters were unhappy the billionaires aren’t paying less tax. Can’t possibly be anything to do with their destruction of public services, ineptness and crooked Covid PPE contracts.
My suspicion is it is simply about votes and not about what is right. There are a lot of people in this country who will vote tory or nothing. The same with Labour, it is labour whatever. The tories are calculating a lot of their tory or nothing voters are voting for nothing and they are going to need them just to avoid perhaps the biggest defeat. I think part of their strategy now is just to lessen the Labour majority and remain at least the recognised opposition. So they are planning policies that get their die hard supporters to the ballot box next year. Just my opinion. Stamp duty and inheritance tax cuts arent a bad move in my opinion though.
And what about the "exclusivity clause" that means they can't take say a temporary agency job so the taxpayer pays for them to sit idle unable to take up work.
Can’t understand why they think looking after 5milion people will win them the next election by ignoring the 40 million in the middle they should be aiming at.
They have then deliberately left permanent employment to go to temporary. Benefits stopped for 6 months when temporary job ends.
Changing the tax threshold would help those who've been bumped into the higher bracket recently, but of course all the ideological zealots here can think about is feeding their frothing jealousy by only considering billionaires.
That wouldn't happen. As long as you can provide good reason for leaving a job no sanction will be applied. In this case the person could demonstrate they left for more secure hours.
The Labour proposal on zero hours contract will men that any job must be offered with a minimum number of hours. If the employee wants the flexibility of a zero hours contract they have to formally request it. This moves the decision on to the employee which seems fair to me.
Students, supply teachers, nurse bank staff. People who want to work when they want to and don’t depend on that work to pay the bills. So a small group.
So people who don't REALLY need the money then. I would suggest that anybody who puts themselves through the hell hole that is the Jobcentre these days NEED the money to keep a roof over their heads and put food in their belly and if Labour bring the guaranteed hours thing in it would be better than no guarantee of any hours at all but they should just ban them full stop.
Students need some money but can’t commit to regular hours across the year, supply teachers in the main will be doing that out of choice the same with nurse bank staff. But in general zero hours contracts should be banned for anybody whose contact is their soul means to pay bills. Hence giving the employee the power to ask. It will need policing to ensure that poor employers don’t exploit the system.
