I know this is causing a bit of furore, but on the other hand can suit some people. Quick question as I know some on here have signed up to them, but if you do, does it affect benefits like JSA?
I know this is causing a bit of furore, but on the other hand can suit some people.
Yeah. Like M.D's and shareholders. Not so good if you've got a house and family to support and don't know how much you'll earn from one week to the next. Every union in the country should join together and get these abolished.
Exactly right. Every time I hear some c*** in the CIPD or some other mouthpiece try and justify this most despicable of employment practices as a 'benefit' to people in the workforce it makes my shit itch.
Sadly Carly, most unions in this country are irrelevant nowadays, and those that aren't, aren't worth a wank collectively.
Sadly Carly, most unions in this country are irrelevant nowadays, and those that aren't, aren't worth a wank collectively.
Only to Milliband and Co...
Unfortunately the unions fecked themselves. Even someone like myself who is slightly to the right of Genghis Khan can understand the importance and history of the Trade Union movement.
I know this is causing a bit of furore, but on the other hand can suit some people.
Yeah. Like M.D's and shareholders. Not so good if you've got a house and family to support and don't know how much you'll earn from one week to the next. Every union in the country should join together and get these abolished.
Exactly right. Every time I hear some c*** in the CIPD or some other mouthpiece try and justify this most despicable of employment practices as a 'benefit' to people in the workforce it makes my shit itch.
Sadly Carly, most unions in this country are irrelevant nowadays, and those that aren't, aren't worth a wank collectively.
spot on its morally wrong and everyone should fight it as ultimately it will cost people on contracts their jobs
Pretty much every bartender/waiter/service industry worker is on one of these and has been for years. I've been working for 8 years for 4 different companies and haven't been on any other contract type.
The care sector cut costs even more as care workers very often only get paid for the time spent in homes and the time spent driving between homes receives no pay at all. The problem in this particular case is that social services pay pitiful amounts to care providers.
Absolutely disgraceful way of employing people if you can call it that. My partners friend is on a zero hour contract as that is all she can find atm. Last week, half way through a 8 hour shift, her boss came up to her and told her to go home as its quiet. So she only got 3 hours for the day. She needs the money desperately. Argued her case and her boss said you are on a zero hour contract your lucky to get the three hours.
Absolutely disgusting practice bought in to rid workers of even more rights.
Yep, that's the contract my younger son has just signed. Hope he doesn't want to get a mortgage anytime soon.
As conditions get worse unions will return, but maybe not quite how they were before. It's a different world. There has always been a place for an organisation which helps individuals so they don't get completely shafted.
Had one in sports direct as a teenager it's a good way to reward hard workers I would get 40 hours a week and the guy who turned up half hour late would get 4 for the next week, but then work hard for 3 weeks to get it back up to 40. Turn up late, UA's, being shit all cut the hours you work right down.
I've been on a zero hours contract and was absolutely fine with it. In fact it was me that asked my employer if I could do it.
Now I'm self employed and along with all the other self employed people, am still effectively on a zero hours contract.
A zero hours contract works both ways - an employee can effectively get as many of these as they like. If the employer wants them to work and they're busy doing another job then it's tough luck on the employer - they should have pinned them down.
Holiday pay and redundancy pay are calculated according to average hours worked, not contracted.
The biggest cost to any business is wages, so anything a business can do to have a more fluid work force has to be good - more businesses will get set up which in the longer term means a bigger economy and more work for everyone.
It would only affect JSA if over 16 hours are worked in a week, although you could probably do more and just not declare it.
For every £ you earn, you lose a £ from your JSA.
Wrong. You get the same amount for working under 16 hours. For over 16 hours you have to sign off and you can't claim it.
When you work part time, you declare the hours worked when you sign on, on a B7 form. This allows you to show what you have done each day over the last 2 weeks. You also will be asked to produce payslips for any wages you have received in the 2 week period that you have signed on for.
Some weeks this may be NIL, some weeks 3 hours, some 10 hours etc. You just declare what you have done.
Averaging the pay is more complicated.
JSA isn't reduced until you receive pay. Averaging is done over a longer period when wages fluctuate. Sometimes this may be on a 13 week average if no pattern of earnings can be established.
If you don't tell them, you will get done for benefit fraud.
I was told that pay is the same amount regardless of how much you earn on it.
But then again, who does know what the rules are regulations are apart from the Job Centre themselves.
If you work more than 16 hours per week (24 hours if part of a couple), you won't be entitled to any JSA at all. If you work fewer than 16 hours, how much you're entitled to (if anything at all) depends on how much you earn.
As stated above, you have to declare any income to the Jobcentre. If you don't, and you receive too much JSA as a result, then you have to pay back the excess, and could face prosecution if it's deemed fraudulent.
As for who knows what the rules are, there are lots of organisations providing benefits information and advice, such as the CAB:
I have an infinite hours contract. I have to work for as long as it takes to make sure I have a business that can pay people for the work they do.
I wouldn't employ people on a zero hours contract because I don't have to, but some businesses don't know what demand for their product or service will be from week to week. It has its place and shouldn't be demonised out of hand.
What is morally wrong is employers using zero hours contracts where it is unnecessary and is used to boosts profits, rather than it being necessary to be competitive in a global market.
Union leaders with their own snouts in the trough aren't going to revive any trades union movement, it needs to be shareholders and consumers who apply pressure to force companies to follow ethical policies. The pressure on Starbucks and Amazon shows how corporates need to defend their reputation and positive consumer perception. All quoted companies have statements on ethical practice and this should be extended to explain and justify the use of zero hours contracts, to weed out the ones who are abusing the labour market and give an opportunity for challenge at AGMs. If everyone with concern wrote to their MP and the manager of their pension fund it might make a few companies take notice. Consumers are the strongest lobby group if they can act in unison and threaten a company's bottom line by withdrawing support for its products and services and leave the door open for ethical employers to thrive.
Dippenhall Sorry but that's a fairly rash statement to suggest union leaders have their snouts in the trough. I could respond saying shareholders are not going to pressure companies to be ethical as they are only shareholders to make money and want to maximise profit. Trade union membership is on the increase and slagging them off is just a classic divide and conquer technique to stop the public asking difficult questions of them. Who do you think was at the forefront of the pressure on Starbucks and Amazon? Who raised the issue of zero hours contracts? The problem is the public wont en masse write to their MPs, they need to be organised and supported into taking action. There will be no public-led action, and no peasants revolt any time soon. In the meantime the unions will work on behalf of their members to do the lobbying that their members have no time to do. To slag them off for doing so helps no one and advances only the 'greed agenda'.
I have an infinite hours contract. I have to work for as long as it takes to make sure I have a business that can pay people for the work they do.
I wouldn't employ people on a zero hours contract because I don't have to, but some businesses don't know what demand for their product or service will be from week to week. It has its place and shouldn't be demonised out of hand.
What is morally wrong is employers using zero hours contracts where it is unnecessary and is used to boosts profits, rather than it being necessary to be competitive in a global market.
Union leaders with their own snouts in the trough aren't going to revive any trades union movement, it needs to be shareholders and consumers who apply pressure to force companies to follow ethical policies. The pressure on Starbucks and Amazon shows how corporates need to defend their reputation and positive consumer perception. All quoted companies have statements on ethical practice and this should be extended to explain and justify the use of zero hours contracts, to weed out the ones who are abusing the labour market and give an opportunity for challenge at AGMs. If everyone with concern wrote to their MP and the manager of their pension fund it might make a few companies take notice. Consumers are the strongest lobby group if they can act in unison and threaten a company's bottom line by withdrawing support for its products and services and leave the door open for ethical employers to thrive.
So the employee, who generally is already in the weaker bargaining position of the two, should also take on all the associated risks of his employer ? Yet if its a success the only benefit he gains from the (considerable) risk he's taken is that he'll just get paid for the hours he's worked. That's appalling.
I have an infinite hours contract. I have to work for as long as it takes to make sure I have a business that can pay people for the work they do.
I wouldn't employ people on a zero hours contract because I don't have to, but some businesses don't know what demand for their product or service will be from week to week. It has its place and shouldn't be demonised out of hand.
What is morally wrong is employers using zero hours contracts where it is unnecessary and is used to boosts profits, rather than it being necessary to be competitive in a global market.
Union leaders with their own snouts in the trough aren't going to revive any trades union movement, it needs to be shareholders and consumers who apply pressure to force companies to follow ethical policies. The pressure on Starbucks and Amazon shows how corporates need to defend their reputation and positive consumer perception. All quoted companies have statements on ethical practice and this should be extended to explain and justify the use of zero hours contracts, to weed out the ones who are abusing the labour market and give an opportunity for challenge at AGMs. If everyone with concern wrote to their MP and the manager of their pension fund it might make a few companies take notice. Consumers are the strongest lobby group if they can act in unison and threaten a company's bottom line by withdrawing support for its products and services and leave the door open for ethical employers to thrive.
So the employee, who generally is already in the weaker bargaining position of the two, should also take on all the associated risks of his employer ? Yet if its a success the only benefit he gains from the (considerable) risk he's taken is that he'll just get paid for the hours he's worked. That's capitalism.
Was on a zero hour contract 16 years ago and the only problem I had was being given to many hours. Was working 60+ hours a week and you don't want to get on the wrong side of the boss and turn work down. I wasn't unhappy getting the work but unfortunately it coincided with my eldest daughters birth and other commitments.
Essentially I have come full circle and am on a different kind of zero hour contract. I am now contracted to be in a staff pool. When work is not available I obviously earn nothing. When a job comes up, I go for an interview and if successful work for the length of the contract (A week, month, 6 months etc)
The first 6 months brought a few interviews but no work. At the last interview I got lucky and have a job with an indefinite end date, hours that fit perfectly with childcare commitments (my youngest daughter is 4), can walk to work in 5 minutes etc. I also earn leave , can apply for internal jobs and have access to discounts on all kinds of products).
I have an infinite hours contract. I have to work for as long as it takes to make sure I have a business that can pay people for the work they do.
I wouldn't employ people on a zero hours contract because I don't have to, but some businesses don't know what demand for their product or service will be from week to week. It has its place and shouldn't be demonised out of hand.
What is morally wrong is employers using zero hours contracts where it is unnecessary and is used to boosts profits, rather than it being necessary to be competitive in a global market.
Union leaders with their own snouts in the trough aren't going to revive any trades union movement, it needs to be shareholders and consumers who apply pressure to force companies to follow ethical policies. The pressure on Starbucks and Amazon shows how corporates need to defend their reputation and positive consumer perception. All quoted companies have statements on ethical practice and this should be extended to explain and justify the use of zero hours contracts, to weed out the ones who are abusing the labour market and give an opportunity for challenge at AGMs. If everyone with concern wrote to their MP and the manager of their pension fund it might make a few companies take notice. Consumers are the strongest lobby group if they can act in unison and threaten a company's bottom line by withdrawing support for its products and services and leave the door open for ethical employers to thrive.
So the employee, who generally is already in the weaker bargaining position of the two, should also take on all the associated risks of his employer ? Yet if its a success the only benefit he gains from the (considerable) risk he's taken is that he'll just get paid for the hours he's worked. That's capitalism.
It was capitalism that shoved kids up chimneys, it was capitalism that forced workers to toil for 70+ hours a week for as little as they could get away with. It was capitalism that fought tooth and nail to block every attempt to make workers jobs as least dangerous as was possible. I could go on.
Capitalism is the only system that works but unscrupulous employers need checks and balances in place to keep us sliding back to where the worker was 100 years ago. The is no one else leading that fight othe than he trade unions.
So the employee, who generally is already in the weaker bargaining position of the two, should also take on all the associated risks of his employer ? Yet if its a success the only benefit he gains from the (considerable) risk he's taken is that he'll just get paid for the hours he's worked. That's appalling.
I've said some employers are abusing the labour market, and have suggested how consumers have a role to play, not sure what se9's issue is so I will try and explain why zero rate hours might be justified.
Some businesses need to meet the demands of customers who want delivery immediately and don't order until the last minute to avoid tying up capital. If you staff on a basis that you can always meet demand, the cost of labour means that you will not be able to price your service to compete in the market. Result - no business no employer and no jobs - That's appalling. What would the unemployment figures look like if there were no zero rate hours jobs?
The self righteous who see no room for zero rate hours need to ask what has caused it. To make a difference just stop using online shopping, shop before 6pm at your local shops, don't eat out during the day and don't pop out to Tesco at 11pm for your groceries. Let's go back to the 1950s where shops were open between just 9am and 5pm and closed half day on Thursday, bars and restaurants were closed for most of the day, you bought fresh food which might have been on the shelves for two weeks. Going back to 1950 working practices and jobs for life sounds good but try selling the 1950s lifestyle to the internet generation. Don't moan about businesses trying to keep costs down to meet demand from consumers without recognising the part consumers play in developing the workings of society.
I think there is a place for these contracts. I have worked in too many places where employees sit around with nothing to do, or they mess about and don't work as hard as they can and then at 4:59 they pack up and leave with work left undone. Their answer is "I'm paid to work from 9 to 5". What they often, really, mean is that they are paid to attend the place of work from 9 to 5 and often don't work for all of it.
In the end the employers decide that the cost of these type of people (including the cost of removing them from the payroll) is too great so they change their contracts.
No one has to take one of these zero hour contracts and for everyone that only gets paid for a few hours a week, let's remember that they are only working a few hours a week. The market will take care of it. If an employer only offering zero hours contracts can't get anyone to work for them then they will change pretty quickly.
What I often find is that those that complain about not getting paid for sickness, for example, are those that seem to be off sick the most often. I've even known people that have worked through their probation with ailments then on the first day of their 7th month been signed off sick for two weeks with back problems/stress and not been back to work for months. I know these are isolated cases but they never, ever, seem to happen in situations without paid sickness.
I'm sorry if that offends, but it just happens to be true!
Comments
Sadly Carly, most unions in this country are irrelevant nowadays, and those that aren't, aren't worth a wank collectively.
I thought Thatcher killed them off
Unfortunately the unions fecked themselves. Even someone like myself who is slightly to the right of Genghis Khan can understand the importance and history of the Trade Union movement.
spot on its morally wrong and everyone should fight it as ultimately it will cost people on contracts their jobs
I've been working for 8 years for 4 different companies and haven't been on any other contract type.
I'm sure nobody on here would even contemplate doing that ;-)
My partners friend is on a zero hour contract as that is all she can find atm. Last week, half way through a 8 hour shift, her boss came up to her and told her to go home as its quiet. So she only got 3 hours for the day. She needs the money desperately. Argued her case and her boss said you are on a zero hour contract your lucky to get the three hours.
Absolutely disgusting practice bought in to rid workers of even more rights.
Basically exploiting people out of work that are desperately looking for employment.
As conditions get worse unions will return, but maybe not quite how they were before. It's a different world. There has always been a place for an organisation which helps individuals so they don't get completely shafted.
Now I'm self employed and along with all the other self employed people, am still effectively on a zero hours contract.
A zero hours contract works both ways - an employee can effectively get as many of these as they like. If the employer wants them to work and they're busy doing another job then it's tough luck on the employer - they should have pinned them down.
Holiday pay and redundancy pay are calculated according to average hours worked, not contracted.
The biggest cost to any business is wages, so anything a business can do to have a more fluid work force has to be good - more businesses will get set up which in the longer term means a bigger economy and more work for everyone.
Some weeks this may be NIL, some weeks 3 hours, some 10 hours etc. You just declare what you have done.
Averaging the pay is more complicated.
JSA isn't reduced until you receive pay. Averaging is done over a longer period when wages fluctuate. Sometimes this may be on a 13 week average if no pattern of earnings can be established.
If you don't tell them, you will get done for benefit fraud.
I was told that pay is the same amount regardless of how much you earn on it.
But then again, who does know what the rules are regulations are apart from the Job Centre themselves.
As stated above, you have to declare any income to the Jobcentre. If you don't, and you receive too much JSA as a result, then you have to pay back the excess, and could face prosecution if it's deemed fraudulent.
As for who knows what the rules are, there are lots of organisations providing benefits information and advice, such as the CAB:
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/benefits_e/benefits_benefits_in_work_or_looking_for_work_ew/benefits_for_people_looking_for_work.htm#who_can_get_jobseekers_allowance.
I'm not having a dig, just wouldn't want anyone to end up in a bit of a mess because of misinformation.
I wouldn't employ people on a zero hours contract because I don't have to, but some businesses don't know what demand for their product or service will be from week to week. It has its place and shouldn't be demonised out of hand.
What is morally wrong is employers using zero hours contracts where it is unnecessary and is used to boosts profits, rather than it being necessary to be competitive in a global market.
Union leaders with their own snouts in the trough aren't going to revive any trades union movement, it needs to be shareholders and consumers who apply pressure to force companies to follow ethical policies. The pressure on Starbucks and Amazon shows how corporates need to defend their reputation and positive consumer perception. All quoted companies have statements on ethical practice and this should be extended to explain and justify the use of zero hours contracts, to weed out the ones who are abusing the labour market and give an opportunity for challenge at AGMs. If everyone with concern wrote to their MP and the manager of their pension fund it might make a few companies take notice. Consumers are the strongest lobby group if they can act in unison and threaten a company's bottom line by withdrawing support for its products and services and leave the door open for ethical employers to thrive.
Sorry but that's a fairly rash statement to suggest union leaders have their snouts in the trough. I could respond saying shareholders are not going to pressure companies to be ethical as they are only shareholders to make money and want to maximise profit.
Trade union membership is on the increase and slagging them off is just a classic divide and conquer technique to stop the public asking difficult questions of them.
Who do you think was at the forefront of the pressure on Starbucks and Amazon? Who raised the issue of zero hours contracts?
The problem is the public wont en masse write to their MPs, they need to be organised and supported into taking action. There will be no public-led action, and no peasants revolt any time soon. In the meantime the unions will work on behalf of their members to do the lobbying that their members have no time to do.
To slag them off for doing so helps no one and advances only the 'greed agenda'.
Essentially I have come full circle and am on a different kind of zero hour contract. I am now contracted to be in a staff pool. When work is not available I obviously earn nothing. When a job comes up, I go for an interview and if successful work for the length of the contract (A week, month, 6 months etc)
The first 6 months brought a few interviews but no work. At the last interview I got lucky and have a job with an indefinite end date, hours that fit perfectly with childcare commitments (my youngest daughter is 4), can walk to work in 5 minutes etc. I also earn leave , can apply for internal jobs and have access to discounts on all kinds of products).
So personally my experiences have been good.
Capitalism is the only system that works but unscrupulous employers need checks and balances in place to keep us sliding back to where the worker was 100 years ago. The is no one else leading that fight othe than he trade unions.
So the employee, who generally is already in the weaker bargaining position of the two, should also take on all the associated risks of his employer ? Yet if its a success the only benefit he gains from the (considerable) risk he's taken is that he'll just get paid for the hours he's worked. That's appalling.
I've said some employers are abusing the labour market, and have suggested how consumers have a role to play, not sure what se9's issue is so I will try and explain why zero rate hours might be justified.
Some businesses need to meet the demands of customers who want delivery immediately and don't order until the last minute to avoid tying up capital. If you staff on a basis that you can always meet demand, the cost of labour means that you will not be able to price your service to compete in the market. Result - no business no employer and no jobs - That's appalling. What would the unemployment figures look like if there were no zero rate hours jobs?
The self righteous who see no room for zero rate hours need to ask what has caused it. To make a difference just stop using online shopping, shop before 6pm at your local shops, don't eat out during the day and don't pop out to Tesco at 11pm for your groceries. Let's go back to the 1950s where shops were open between just 9am and 5pm and closed half day on Thursday, bars and restaurants were closed for most of the day, you bought fresh food which might have been on the shelves for two weeks. Going back to 1950 working practices and jobs for life sounds good but try selling the 1950s lifestyle to the internet generation. Don't moan about businesses trying to keep costs down to meet demand from consumers without recognising the part consumers play in developing the workings of society.
In the end the employers decide that the cost of these type of people (including the cost of removing them from the payroll) is too great so they change their contracts.
No one has to take one of these zero hour contracts and for everyone that only gets paid for a few hours a week, let's remember that they are only working a few hours a week. The market will take care of it. If an employer only offering zero hours contracts can't get anyone to work for them then they will change pretty quickly.
What I often find is that those that complain about not getting paid for sickness, for example, are those that seem to be off sick the most often. I've even known people that have worked through their probation with ailments then on the first day of their 7th month been signed off sick for two weeks with back problems/stress and not been back to work for months. I know these are isolated cases but they never, ever, seem to happen in situations without paid sickness.
I'm sorry if that offends, but it just happens to be true!