Zero Hours Contracts - Pleased or Not

[Guest sibon]

So which zero hours contract jobs have you been forced to accept against your will?

 

 

I didn't say that I had.

 

It is nice to see you applying your usual, high level of analytical skills, to this thread.

[RonJeremy 10]

I may be wrong and might have been hearing things...But I thought I heard them (him..Milliband) say, if you've been working full time hours for a period of 12 weeks, then you should be entitled to ask for a proper contract.

 

Asking isn't exactly the same as being enshrined in law.....So it seems to me, it's a bit of a fudge anyway.

 

And of course the workaround (for the unscrupulous) will be to lay you off for a few days or a week or something, so that you don't have the requisite 12 weeks uninterrupted employment.

I seem to have heard it would be after so many weeks you get the right to ask and then after so many more weeks you get the right to a job.

Absolutely barmy he is. He has never had to make ends meet in a business, and cant have listened to many people who run a business. He lives in la la land when the pay comes in whether he performs or not.

[Guest sibon]

From the article:

 

By gender:

Women make up a bigger proportion of those that reporting working on zero-hours contracts (55%) compared with other people in employment (47%).

 

It doesn't add up. Unless I've missed something.

 

It is a weird one. It might be explained by some people having more than one ZHC.

[poppet2 13]

The answer is he could. Of course he could, but you get used to the income you receive.

 

We could all live on £70 per week - it wouldn't be much fun, but we could.

 

Not according to this poster

 

The PM probably also couldn't live on £10 an hour for a 40 hour working week.

 

They are always mutually acceptable because no one is forced to take one.

 

Absolute Twaddle

Edited April 3, 2015 by poppet2

[RonJeremy 10]

It is a weird one. It might be explained by some people having more than one ZHC.

 

I think you've got it there. Or.... it could be a typical Grauniad Typo

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2015 at 11:58 ----------

 

Not according to this poster

 

Then Cameron is wrong - he could live on a ZHC. We all could.

[psynuk 10]

zhc's are fine if it works both ways - if it's not held against the employee when they don't want to work. I've worked many, many agency jobs and only one zhc (there pretty much the same thing) but the zhc was combined with or used as a way to skimp on hours, to pay only for time spent 'at the coal face'. This was annoying as the employer essentially was using the zhc to unburden themselves of any part of the job that didn't earn money.

 

 

So in answer to your question Ron, There's nothing wrong with zhc as long as it isn't used as a weapon or a threat. I'm not sure what business yours is, but if you had a machine break and the staff were left idle would you stop paying them?

How long would you keep contacting someone for when they don't want the offered shifts?

[poppet2 13]

They are always mutually acceptable because no one is forced to take one.

 

If you are offered ZOC work at the Job centre and refuse, your benefit is stopped.

You have obviously never been in this situation.

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2015 at 12:05 ----------

 

There is always a choice, and we read about the people that choose not to work every day.

 

Every Day?!!!

Do you by any chance read The Daily Mail, the paper that supported Hitler's fascist Nazi party?

 

They are always mutually acceptable because no one is forced to take one.

 

It is true, a job is advertised as a zero hours contract job, the people that apply must be happy with the contract or they wouldn't apply.

 

What planet are you on?

Edited April 3, 2015 by poppet2

[RonJeremy 10]

zhc's are fine if it works both ways - if it's not held against the employee when they don't want to work. I've worked many, many agency jobs and only one zhc (there pretty much the same thing) but the zhc was combined with or used as a way to skimp on hours, to pay only for time spent 'at the coal face'. This was annoying as the employer essentially was using the zhc to unburden themselves of any part of the job that didn't earn money.

 

 

So in answer to your question Ron, There's nothing wrong with zhc as long as it isn't used as a weapon or a threat. I'm not sure what business yours is, but if you had a machine break and the staff were left idle would you stop paying them?

How long would you keep contacting someone for when they don't want the offered shifts?

 

No they'd still be paid - but not if I'd not agreed for them to work.

I keep contacting people until they say they want to stop. I obviously try to call the people who usually say yes first, because it's less hassle. I sometimes get calls from people asking if they can work a specific day or two and I usually agree if we need someone.

[Detetcive 10]

I would like to hear the views of people on here who are on ZHCs.

I employ plenty of people on full and part time contracts. I also have a few on ZHCs who are perfectly happy with the arrangements. They can tell us when they want to work, we can tell them when we want them for seasonal work particularly during the summer and at busy times. It suits us and it suits them.

 

Nothing wrong with zero-hours contracts per se. They have been around for years. The problems arise when these are the only contracts available with an employer who uses them to exploit workers by denying them sick and holiday pay etc. and coercing them into working when they don't want to and then dumping them when they want and need the work. If being on such a contract is a genuine free choice, then fine - they can offer great flexibility to people with young families for example.

[psynuk 10]

Most zero hours contract jobs would cease to exist if the employer was forced to offer a full time job. So the alternative is to survive on the dole.

 

Thats simply not true,

zhc does not equal full time.

 

It's about a contracted set of hours, take sports direct they need to be staffed whilst the stores are open but they don't need to be staffed by full timers, it could be a mix of any contract hours.

the problem with zhc is it's not a reliable job prospect, often in jobs that should be reliable, if your shops open 9-5 7days a week why can't you provide a fixed hours contract?

The reasons? A sceptical person might say are; the ability to deny sick, holiday, maternity and redundancy pay and to keep about 80% of the work force out of the company bonus scheme.

 

obviously, some jobs really cant give any sort of guarantee of hours but these are few and far between.

[ricgem2002 11]

I may be wrong and might have been hearing things...But I thought I heard them (him..Milliband) say, if you've been working full time hours for a period of 12 weeks, then you should be entitled to ask for a proper contract.

 

Asking isn't exactly the same as being enshrined in law.....So it seems to me, it's a bit of a fudge anyway.

 

And of course the workaround (for the unscrupulous) will be to lay you off for a few days or a week or something, so that you don't have the requisite 12 weeks uninterrupted employment.

I worked on a zhc for 3 years until I found my current full time job (permanent). I worked on council house repairs for one of the biggest private companies in this country. if it snowed/ rained we were sent home with no pay. the (agency) didn't supply us with ppe ( we had to supply our own) the client told us it was the agencies that should supply us with the ppe (fell on deaf ears )and the 12 week period don't make me laugh

[RonJeremy 10]

Thats simply not true,

zhc does not equal full time.

 

It's about a contracted set of hours, take sports direct they need to be staffed whilst the stores are open but they don't need to be staffed by full timers, it could be a mix of any contract hours.

the problem with zhc is it's not a reliable job prospect, often in jobs that should be reliable, if your shops open 9-5 7days a week why can't you provide a fixed hours contract?

The reasons? A sceptical person might say are; the ability to deny sick, holiday, maternity and redundancy pay and to keep about 80% of the work force out of the company bonus scheme.

 

obviously, some jobs really cant give any sort of guarantee of hours but these are few and far between.

 

And so are ZHCs. There have been Zero people post on here who are on a ZHC. and it's only about 2% of the working population from what people have said.

 

Ha ha - proved wrong - we have one..

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2015 at 12:29 ----------

 

I worked on a zhc for 3 years until I found my current full time job (permanent). I worked on council house repairs for one of the biggest private companies in this country. if it snowed/ rained we were sent home with no pay. the (agency) didn't supply us with ppe ( we had to supply our own) the client told us it was the agencies that should supply us with the ppe (fell on deaf ears )and the 12 week period don't make me laugh

 

How long have you been in this permanent job?