I hate zero hours contracts but understand that some people want the flexibility they offer. To be honest, I have been on holiday and not read anything for a couple of weeks but that sounds a good idea from Labour.
In the grand scheme of things a handful of fanatics shouting 'Jihad' in a backstreet isn't a big deal. Yes it's illegal but so are lots of protests that get a blind eye from the police, like the destruction of the Edward Colston statue in Bristol. So why is Braverman, and the Government, making such a massive issue of it, calling in the Met police chief and sending out Ministers for TV interviews. If it wouldn't be so tragically clumsy and transparent you'd think it could be a smokescreen for the latest election disasters, the Rwanda scheme collapsing and all the infighting. Surely they have more of Sunak's much promised honesty and integrity
They are so out of touch, time for a change George Osborne, a Tory former chancellor, was also scathing about Sunak’s attempt to position himself as a “change candidate” at the election, saying it would be difficult to pull off when he looks like the “ultimate insider” in Westminster. He said it was not impossible for the Conservatives to win the next election but warned in the Sunday Times: “When the swing is on, the swing is on. The swing is clearly on in Britain. It’s very hard, then, to resist that tide.” https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ench-discontent-a-year-into-his-time-in-no-10
'not a big deal' Then more people feel comfortable doing it openly. And before long you've got everyone doing it. No. This has to be viciously stamped on wherever it's found, no matter how small and no matter who you might 'offend' - I put that because they're never really offended, just unhappy they got caught.
The problem is Zero hour contracts do not allow the person on it to I don't know apply for a loan to get a car or get a mortgage as you are not contracted to the company and have no rights within that company. The government want everybody on pensions paid by employers so they don't have to honour state pensions which will be means tested, they want to allow companies which make huge profits (like sports direct) duck out on giving contracts to save money on pay offs even though that is already worked into wages handed out redundancies. What it is basically saying is these people are in employment but they are not employed. They lose out on holiday pay so can not afford to take time off and all the while claiming tax credits which is a drain on the tax payer and a benefit to the companies, and lets be honest if the companies can afford to pay them then give them a decent contract instead of putting people on 16 hour contracts but asking them to work full time so they can save a few quid on holiday pay. There are some very unscrupulous companies out there who will take every little advantage they can. whilst some companies may need to use these zero hour contracts this should have been closely governed and regulated and not be the free for all that it is.
can someone tell me what 'advantages' zero hour contracts offer to the workers, there are obvious benefits to the employer of course...the working man/woman should know the job is (at least) reasonably safe.
The only benefit I can see is the flexibility to choose your hours and work when you want. It might work for someone as secondary employment to temporarily boost their income or someone wanting to earn pin money, while in education etc. Not ideal as primary source of income for anyone with aspirations to own their own home or make any long term plans.
All very well in "theory", but I know a bloke who was a security guard for G4S on a "zero hours" contract. His boss phoned him up with an hours notice to work a night shift, which he told them he couldn't do because of family commitments. Boss then deigns to give him one shift every 6 weeks out of spite. He went to the Jobcentre to try and claim something as he couldn't live on that. Was told they couldn't help him as he had contract of employment.
That people can choose their attendance isn’t ‘theory’ it’s fact. If that fact doesn't suite everyone on zero hours contracts or employers abuse it, it isn't any less of a fact. Zero hours contracts along with temporary and fixed term contracts are a disgraceful indictment on how the UK workforce are treated, I would never advocate them, I merely responded to a question about their benefit. I think your security guard is being disingenuous. Anyone on zero hours contracts who fail to reach the income threshold have their wages made up by Universal Credit or other in-work benefits. In my opinion zero hours contracts are ****e, and I could give specific examples of the hardship they have caused, but I can also give specific examples of how they benefitted both my daughter and son when they were away at university
The lad in question is not a liar. I have a trade and work temporary contracts for agencies. Never had any bother with them as I can see when a job is about to end so can jump ship or start applying for other jobs within my field. But if anybody offered me a "zero hours" contract my reply would be that I would not work for them. Simple as that. If a business cannot work out how much manpower they need at any given time then they are not very good at their "job" are they? They are simply abusing the benefits system (which is paid for by other workers) to their own end. Benefit fraud on an industrial scale.
you are right in some respects in that it can offer some flexibility but it can also be abused which is why i said it should be a regulated and only used to fill a certain set of circumstances and should be weighted to suit an employee not the employer, as we all know that some employers and employees that will take great pleasure in trying to abuse the system.
I completely agree with you. I advised my kids to only apply for jobs with a full time permanent contract, fortunately they took my advice and are now settled in decent jobs. There are certain circumstances that zero hours contracts are beneficial to individuals. Flexibility for students or childcare etc. In those circumstances tighter regulation is needed to protect the employee.
good answer mate, yeh, i can see some advantage to certain people and i really should have phrased my post better...as others have said they are a perfect opportunity to pick up some badly needed extra cash but should not be offered instead of a full time job. i know plenty of places that 'changed hands' to change contract conditions and none benefitted the work force with a 'take this new contract or try life on the dole' offer.
Years ago, lad I knew worked in a factory and loved his all day sessions on a Sunday. Consequently he had a lot of days off on Monday's. Manager called him into his office and asked "Why are you the only man here who works a four day week?" Lad replied "Cos I can't get by on three days pay". Sacked on the spot. Maybe his employer wasn't being flexible enough
He's been telling you porkies then. Universal Credit is based on income received. For every £1 you earn you lose 45p off your Universal Credit payment. It's an in work benefit, there are literally millions of people in work with contracts of employment who claim it.
Maybe it was before Universal Credit was a while ago. Universal Credit is ****e as well. If you aren't working for 35 hours (say 16 for example) then you have to spend 19 hours "looking for more or better paid work" to reach the magical 35 hours. If the Jobcentre think you haven't done that they can and will stop your Universal Credit payment. How one "proves" they have, or how the jobcentre "proves" you haven't is a mystery to me, but the Jobcentre hold all the cards so basically bye bye top up money on the say so of a Civil Servant who has his sanction target to reach.
Unfortunately zero hours contracts are legal and employers will use them to their advantage. However any shortfall in income is automatically made up to the threshold through Universal Credit
