Work ethics and todays youth

Personally am pretty neutral, I was just answering your question. However, in theory as a staunch capitalist I think that in the long term ZHCs harm the economy, that is beyond doubt.

 

For capitalism to work people need to feel secure enough to spend, and ZHCs do not offer that security.

 

I would certainly agree with that. How anyone can budget when they are on 0 hours is beyond me.

 

I also understand that 0 hour contracts is leading to a dearth of suitably qualified people to take up skilled jobs, as firms no longer train their own people. It's expensive and not cost effective when they can pick up workers already trained elsewhere in the EU.

 

Some apprenticeships might be good, but most do not match the lengthy, on-the-job training once undertaken by the big companies. And many of the government apprenticeships/training come into the same quality catagory as the reviled A4e...

 

We have a serious skills shortage in this country, and it's getting worse.

Personally am pretty neutral, I was just answering your question. However, in theory as a staunch capitalist I think that in the long term ZHCs harm the economy, that is beyond doubt.

 

For capitalism to work people need to feel secure enough to spend, and ZHCs do not offer that security.

 

Do you think that if employees were given proper contracts employers will get increased productivity? People talk about jobs for life not being around but people don't want them - it's a rare event when I visit certain sorts of business to find the same person in charge 12 months later. They've not been sacked just looking for a slightly bigger salary etc.

Yeah, we probably won't. But paying someone a decent wage is surely what we both think is right?

 

Here, the key word is 'decent'. You can't use this word in law really (or rules if you prefer).

 

That's where we won't agree, and the others won't get why.

 

Personally am pretty neutral, I was just answering your question. However, in theory as a staunch capitalist I think that in the long term ZHCs harm the economy, that is beyond doubt.

 

bold, they have been around for ever. It's only now this buzzword term, leftist propaganda is flapping its wings in the name of an election because they've picked up on something to try and win votes and because the first time they used it, it got applause they are continuing with it, much like 'living standards' and 'living wage'.

 

For capitalism to work people need to feel secure enough to spend, and ZHCs do not offer that security.

 

I think you're mixing two things up here JFK if I may say. I've never looked for security in ZHCs. BUT, you're talking houses etc. here, big spends. I've lived comfortably on ZHCs for years. In fact, I never even noticed I was on them, I just took work when I was out of it, and have never claimed benefit.

 

-

 

I would certainly agree with that. How anyone can budget when they are on 0 hours is beyond me.

 

You won't answer me anyway, so I might as well be blunt; it's because you don't live in the real world

Edited March 3, 2015 by *_ash_*
altered, because my last response seemed a bit rude.

I'd like to know how old you are ashe, to be claiming that I don't live in the real world. I wonder if you've ever had to budget for a family and all that entails.

 

Certainly 0 hours have been around for years, from hiring fairs to my Grandad having to go and stand at the dock gates for a chit to get a day's work. The point is workers together with unions have tried very hard to see such practices become a thing of the past because of the very insecurity they bring. All that effort is now being rapidly undermined.

 

I'm glad they worked for you, and I know certain people like them for the relative freedom they bring, but I can assure you that the majority who have to work for a living and have regular bills to pay need regular money coming in.

Zero hours contracts have been around for eternity. Their recent proliferation are a direct result of the one-sided iniquitous employment laws. The inability to get rid of lazy incompetent and sometimes dishonest employees without fear of a tribunal, lawyers' fees consultancy compromises etc etc. Some Employers are fed up with being told what to do by the government when they are actually providing jobs for people.

The ZHC are a terrific way round the draconian laws. You don't work in the way I want you to work then you're not coming in next week.

Zero hours contracts have been around for eternity. Their recent proliferation are a direct result of the one-sided iniquitous employment laws. The inability to get rid of lazy incompetent and sometimes dishonest employees without fear of a tribunal, lawyers' fees consultancy compromises etc etc. Some Employers are fed up with being told what to do by the government when they are actually providing jobs for people.

The ZHC are a terrific way round the draconian laws. You don't work in the way I want you to work then you're not coming in next week.

 

Can't you just write a probationary person into their contract?

I also understand that 0 hour contracts is leading to a dearth of suitably qualified people to take up skilled jobs, as firms no longer train their own people. It's expensive and not cost effective when they can pick up workers already trained elsewhere in the EU.

 

Some apprenticeships might be good, but most do not match the lengthy, on-the-job training once undertaken by the big companies. And many of the government apprenticeships/training come into the same quality catagory as the reviled A4e...

 

We have a serious skills shortage in this country, and it's getting worse.

Our experience (as employers in Sheffield, providing full-time positions on 'standard' terms) is that the above is substantially incorrect.

 

Our apprentice has turned out to be a shining addition to our support team. To the extent that we've put her on NMW (look up what the going rate is for under-18 apprentices). But she's now decided she's not into our game, and will be leaving. Bummer, 12 months' worth of training down the plughole. Hey-ho. It's not as if she couldn't walk into a £30+k job inside 3 years aged 21 or thereabouts (with us or the competition, anywhere nationally) if she stuck with it. But takes all sorts I suppose, can't win them all.

 

Several of our newer (read: younger) support staff, who are being extensively trained (inside and outside, with a professional qualification to show for it and eventually a protected title if they last the distance, all at our costs and expenses), have revealed a sense of entitlement well and truly beyond sense. Notwithstanding top pay and perks (locally) for their skillset and the training, turns out we're asking too much/not being nice enough/don't make them feel valued (that's after their constant moaning, bitching and tittle-tattle of some that have now cost us yet another recruit)

 

Now, I've been in our game 15 years, in 3 different private practices, and I can tell you hand on heart that ours is the cushiest slot out of them (and the other ones I know of), by some distance. I'd have never thought it would prove that hard to find a decent, competent and motivated secretary in Sheffield. But there ya go: the problem is not so much that young ones don't want to be (high-level, top-drawer) secretaries, it's that they either want to be on MP's salaries and perks or be the top secretary managing all the other secretaries. And telling company directors how it is.

Edited March 3, 2015 by L00b

It's not like employing them on 0 hours contracts would somehow improve the situation for either you or them though l00b. It would almost certainly make it worse for both parties.

It's not like employing them on 0 hours contracts would somehow improve the situation for either you or them though l00b. It would almost certainly make it worse for both parties.

Of course. But the point of my anecdotal post was to moderate Anna's points that ZHCs are stripping skills from the job market and that apprenticeships are unfit for purpose: we find (empirically, at the coal face) that skills and work ethics are increasingly lacking in younger people we employ on relatively generous terms on a full-time basis, and who are by-and-large uninterested in bettering themselves as consideration for obtaining still better employment terms.

 

The core problem we find with apprenticeships is that they fail to take into account the fact that 16-somethings rarely ever know what they want to do with their life at that age, never mind with their professional life: you can't blame employers or schemes, if and when it's the kids themselves who just want to move on and experience something else.

 

If ZHCs and dearth of quality contracts were such a problem, we'd expect applicants to batter the door down every time we advertise a full-time well-paid job, and successful applicants to stick with the job and work constructively about any grievances (whether real and meritorious, or not - doesn't matter). That is not what we're seeing at all.

Edited March 3, 2015 by L00b

True, I can't really see how ZHC can be removing skills, they just make the jobs hiring on ZHC less attractive than more traditionally contracted work.

Can't you just write a probationary person into their contract?

 

Ok give them a month, no 3 month trial. Then a 40 hour a week contract. Then the lateness starts, then it's rudeness to clients then it's straight forward "I'm doing that" - it's a very very difficult job getting rid. I stopped reading the fsb mag that I get every quarter, it was just horror story after horror story of costs small businsesses have to bear if they want to get rid of a bad employee. Yes, a bad employee. They exist. When Ive worked for other people I've worked with some - one actually, in my view anyway, practically brought down a company on his own. Others, when I was much younger literally hid for shift and slept off a good night out.

 

Threads like these assume all employees want to put a shift in and take pride in their job. That's not the case at all.

I'd like to know how old you are ashe, to be claiming that I don't live in the real world. I wonder if you've ever had to budget for a family and all that entails.

 

Certainly 0 hours have been around for years, from hiring fairs to my Grandad having to go and stand at the dock gates for a chit to get a day's work. The point is workers together with unions have tried very hard to see such practices become a thing of the past because of the very insecurity they bring. All that effort is now being rapidly undermined.

 

I'm glad they worked for you, and I know certain people like them for the relative freedom they bring, but I can assure you that the majority who have to work for a living and have regular bills to pay need regular money coming in.

 

In a report on the beeb it said that 2.3%of workers were on ZHC..only one third of these wanted to work more hours than they got...looks like ZHC's work for some people..