Tomorrow's election is important. On Friday, we could start to see the abolition of exploitative zero-hour contracts.
and more people in the dole queue as a result
All the companies currently enforcing zero hour contracts won't suddenly fire all their employees, all those positions will still be filled. All that will happen is employers will have to, by law, offer employees new contracts where hours are guaranteed.
The only people who have a problem with this are those who have never been on a zero hour contract. I have, for 9 years. It's shit. I can be offered anything from 40 hours to 0 in a week. Try living like that.
Wrong.
Like I've said before, I've spent most of my working life on what is in effect zero-hours and I ain't got a problem with doing it, if I thought they were taking the piss and exploiting me, I'd walk.
In all seriousness compared to 2010 this election campaign has been pretty poor. Nothing to match Bigotgate or Cleggmania or Farage crashing a plane into a field. All the action has been largely contained in Scotland. Cameron doesn't have the fire in his belly that he had in 2010 and Miliband has been largely kept off centre stage. Both Labour and the Tories know they aren't going to win a majority but a refusal to admit this or discuss coalition/confidence and supply possibilities basically means we're marching into the polls blindfolded. The voters were galvanised by the financial crisis in 2010 but as we are in a recovery there has been no single killer issue - the NHS, the deficit, Europe, immigration, public services, wages and other issues have been juggled around. The turnout figure will be interesting and I hope, regardless of the result, as many people go out and vote as possible. Good luck to all candidates standing tomorrow. I imagine quite a few of us will stay up into the wee hours to watch the exit polls come in.
In 1997, Labour took office, following Margaret Thatcher and John Major's terms which inflicted two massive recessions, in 1981 and 1990.
In May 2010, David Cameron "inherited" an economy that was growing at 1% per annum, with wages growing faster than inflation. George Osborne increased VAT to 20% and introduced the severe austerity programme.
1) You forgot the bit where Thatcher was having to clean up a country widely denounced as the 'sick man of Europe' and was so poor bins weren't emptied for months and undertakers weren't being paid so bodies were piling up in morgues for weeks on end. The first recession was caused by successful measures to stop runaway inflation, the second recession was caused by global factors. In 1997 the UK had gone from being the sick man of Europe to one of the world's strongest performing economies and Blair and Brown were so impressed with the Tories they even stuck to the Tories' own spending plans up until 2001.
2) To achieve growth of 1% per annum and to keep inflation down in the midst of a global economic catastrophe, Brown had to double the national debt over the course of a few years. Believe me, there is nothing impressive about massive increases in public spending to then boast about growth levels, considering one of the components of the growth function is the level of public spending.
Why has nobody responded to this?? Is it because Fiiish is correct?
I would guess because nobody can be arsed to read his/her posts anymore.
In 1997, Labour took office, following Margaret Thatcher and John Major's terms which inflicted two massive recessions, in 1981 and 1990.
In May 2010, David Cameron "inherited" an economy that was growing at 1% per annum, with wages growing faster than inflation. George Osborne increased VAT to 20% and introduced the severe austerity programme.
1) You forgot the bit where Thatcher was having to clean up a country widely denounced as the 'sick man of Europe' and was so poor bins weren't emptied for months and undertakers weren't being paid so bodies were piling up in morgues for weeks on end. The first recession was caused by successful measures to stop runaway inflation, the second recession was caused by global factors. In 1997 the UK had gone from being the sick man of Europe to one of the world's strongest performing economies and Blair and Brown were so impressed with the Tories they even stuck to the Tories' own spending plans up until 2001.
2) To achieve growth of 1% per annum and to keep inflation down in the midst of a global economic catastrophe, Brown had to double the national debt over the course of a few years. Believe me, there is nothing impressive about massive increases in public spending to then boast about growth levels, considering one of the components of the growth function is the level of public spending.
Why has nobody responded to this?? Is it because Fiiish is correct?
I would guess because nobody can be arsed to read his/her posts anymore.
In 1997, Labour took office, following Margaret Thatcher and John Major's terms which inflicted two massive recessions, in 1981 and 1990.
In May 2010, David Cameron "inherited" an economy that was growing at 1% per annum, with wages growing faster than inflation. George Osborne increased VAT to 20% and introduced the severe austerity programme.
1) You forgot the bit where Thatcher was having to clean up a country widely denounced as the 'sick man of Europe' and was so poor bins weren't emptied for months and undertakers weren't being paid so bodies were piling up in morgues for weeks on end. The first recession was caused by successful measures to stop runaway inflation, the second recession was caused by global factors. In 1997 the UK had gone from being the sick man of Europe to one of the world's strongest performing economies and Blair and Brown were so impressed with the Tories they even stuck to the Tories' own spending plans up until 2001.
2) To achieve growth of 1% per annum and to keep inflation down in the midst of a global economic catastrophe, Brown had to double the national debt over the course of a few years. Believe me, there is nothing impressive about massive increases in public spending to then boast about growth levels, considering one of the components of the growth function is the level of public spending.
I hope even you would concede that in 1997 the Labour government inherited a nation with 19th century schools and hospitals.
Considering I'm young enough to have been in schools and hospitals in the 1990s and old enough at the time to remember it, I cannot concede that '19th century' is an appropriate description of them.
Maybe not where you went to school.......
Unfortunately I didn't go to every school in the country in the 1990s. And those who did, well the police are probably aware of them.
So you can concede that not every kid went to schools fit for purpose?
I don't think every child now goes to a school that's fit for purpose. Or every hospital. I'm pretty sure if you took any sector managed by the public sector you could find one part of it that would fail someone's definition of being fit for purpose. My school buildings weren't new by any means but I still managed to get a decent education on state funding.
Tomorrow's election is important. On Friday, we could start to see the abolition of exploitative zero-hour contracts.
and more people in the dole queue as a result
All the companies currently enforcing zero hour contracts won't suddenly fire all their employees, all those positions will still be filled. All that will happen is employers will have to, by law, offer employees new contracts where hours are guaranteed.
The only people who have a problem with this are those who have never been on a zero hour contract. I have, for 9 years. It's shit. I can be offered anything from 40 hours to 0 in a week. Try living like that.
And what if the companies can't afford to do that?
If it is that shit being on a zero hours contract then there is always the option to do something else....
Is there any reason why the Conservatives have left A&E off their manifesto completely? It's nothing to do with their record on waiting times, surely?
Again, meaningless, unless you add in other factors that have had an effect on those targets. Like, in the last ten years, attendances at A&E have risen by 31% and now stand at a staggering 21.7mn a year. A significant part of that increase arises because of the way Labour screwed up the contracts for GPs, allowing them to opt out of seeing patients outside office hours. Are you sure you can trust Labour to run the NHS properly?
And why have A&E attendances shot up by 31%? Because all the other safety nets have been cut. For all their supposed business acumen the Tories just don't get that sometimes you spend money to save money.
Tomorrow's election is important. On Friday, we could start to see the abolition of exploitative zero-hour contracts.
and more people in the dole queue as a result
All the companies currently enforcing zero hour contracts won't suddenly fire all their employees, all those positions will still be filled. All that will happen is employers will have to, by law, offer employees new contracts where hours are guaranteed.
The only people who have a problem with this are those who have never been on a zero hour contract. I have, for 9 years. It's shit. I can be offered anything from 40 hours to 0 in a week. Try living like that.
And what if the companies can't afford to do that?
If it is that shit being on a zero hours contract then there is always the option to do something else....
I expect most people on zero hour contracts that don't want to be on them have no alternative. That's why their on zero hour contracts.
Tomorrow's election is important. On Friday, we could start to see the abolition of exploitative zero-hour contracts.
and more people in the dole queue as a result
All the companies currently enforcing zero hour contracts won't suddenly fire all their employees, all those positions will still be filled. All that will happen is employers will have to, by law, offer employees new contracts where hours are guaranteed.
The only people who have a problem with this are those who have never been on a zero hour contract. I have, for 9 years. It's shit. I can be offered anything from 40 hours to 0 in a week. Try living like that.
And what if the companies can't afford to do that?
If it is that shit being on a zero hours contract then there is always the option to do something else....
I expect most people on zero hour contracts that don't want to be on them have no alternative. That's why their on zero hour contracts.
So you don't know for sure then.
Didn't I hear that most people on them actaully like being on them?
Tomorrow's election is important. On Friday, we could start to see the abolition of exploitative zero-hour contracts.
and more people in the dole queue as a result
All the companies currently enforcing zero hour contracts won't suddenly fire all their employees, all those positions will still be filled. All that will happen is employers will have to, by law, offer employees new contracts where hours are guaranteed.
The only people who have a problem with this are those who have never been on a zero hour contract. I have, for 9 years. It's shit. I can be offered anything from 40 hours to 0 in a week. Try living like that.
And what if the companies can't afford to do that?
If it is that shit being on a zero hours contract then there is always the option to do something else....
I expect most people on zero hour contracts that don't want to be on them have no alternative. That's why their on zero hour contracts.
I'd love to just walk out. But this is my job, I need it to live. It's not like they're just handing out well paid jobs to anyone. I am looking for other employment right now, but until then I (like many, many others) have no other choice. Work a 0 hour or go on the dole.
Tomorrow's election is important. On Friday, we could start to see the abolition of exploitative zero-hour contracts.
and more people in the dole queue as a result
All the companies currently enforcing zero hour contracts won't suddenly fire all their employees, all those positions will still be filled. All that will happen is employers will have to, by law, offer employees new contracts where hours are guaranteed.
The only people who have a problem with this are those who have never been on a zero hour contract. I have, for 9 years. It's shit. I can be offered anything from 40 hours to 0 in a week. Try living like that.
And what if the companies can't afford to do that?
If it is that shit being on a zero hours contract then there is always the option to do something else....
I expect most people on zero hour contracts that don't want to be on them have no alternative. That's why their on zero hour contracts.
So you don't know for sure then.
Didn't I hear that most people on them actaully like being on them?
Yes I do know that most people on zero hours contracts that don't want to be on them Just like I posted.
We will all soon find out, once the zero hr contracts are gone and the wages increased people will either be so much better off or the cost of everything will go up double the amount of increase and the unemployment figures will rise or fall,
I know where I reckon it will end up
Higher costs, higher unemployment, higher wasted money on reducing the unemployment by creating loads of public sector jobs that don't need doing,
But time will tell hopefully a government that doesn't support that sort of reckless solving of a non issue
I think my definition of why im tory and not labour is from the sarcastic response I got from Chizz a few hours ago on the fact Cameron has found jobs for 2 MILLION people since 2010 (whether they are part time or not)
I can only think of this as a good thing - 2 MILLION people paying taxes and not claiming benefits
Obviously your standard labour voter doesnt.
If and when labour get in tomorrow and I fear they might, it might be time to hide your money under the pillow..
Anyway, must remember, we are all Charlton
A large number of formerly public sector jobs have been re-branded as new private sector jobs when health and social care agencies have been taken over by private companies, are outsourced or when an organisation becomes a social enterprise. This might be the same for schools that become academies too.
A report from the charity Citizens UK last month claimed that five million low paid workers have to claim up to eleven billion pounds in benefits to reach a living income. How can it be right that the British taxpayer has to make up the shortfall when it is often large corporations simply getting their labour on the cheap because profits are more important than human beings? Why does our government accept this situation?
Zero-hours contracts yes, it's up to the person signing em if they think they're exploitative or not.
Hence my original post. About ending exploitative zero-hours contracts. Simple.
So, how would that be enforced then?
You do four things.
1. You create new employee rights including, for example, the right for a full-time contract for anyone working a regular number of hours over a set period of weeks. If you work, say, 16 hours a week, for eight weeks, you get a sixteen hour a week contract.
2. You ban employers from requiring that zero-hour employees are available on the "off chance" they will be required for work. If you take on staff, you compensate and incentivise them when they are working. You don't have rights over them, when they're not.
3. You prevent zero-hours workers from having to work exclusively for one firm. If you accept that it suits an employer to have someone on a zero-hours contract, you have to accept that the employee might want to offer his time to more than one employer. As an employer, if you don't like that, you simply offer the employee a fixed-hour contract.
4. You create laws to ensure that employees who have shifts cancelled at the last minute receive some kind of compensation/payment for the shift anyway. Business owners should not put the risk onto their employees. Or at the very least, they should trade risk for reward.
Four, painless, easy, simple-to-implement steps which, in a very short timespan, end exploitative zero-hours contracts. But, at the same time, allow zero-hours contracts where they are necessary, convenient and appropriate. Good employers will still be able to recruit, train, motivate and compensate good staff. What's not to like?
A report from the charity Citizens UK last month claimed that five million low paid workers have to claim up to eleven billion pounds in benefits to reach a living income. How can it be right that the British taxpayer has to make up the shortfall when it is often large corporations simply getting their labour on the cheap because profits are more important than human beings? Why does our government accept this situation?
Wish I knew about those benefits when I was on the bones of my arse
A report from the charity Citizens UK last month claimed that five million low paid workers have to claim up to eleven billion pounds in benefits to reach a living income. How can it be right that the British taxpayer has to make up the shortfall when it is often large corporations simply getting their labour on the cheap because profits are more important than human beings? Why does our government accept this situation?
Wish I knew about those benefits when I was on the bones of my arse
I'd be lost if I ever had to claim, I wouldn't have a clue. Paid in since I left college at eighteen and have never claimed a penny for myself since. Didn't even bother with working family tax credit.
A report from the charity Citizens UK last month claimed that five million low paid workers have to claim up to eleven billion pounds in benefits to reach a living income. How can it be right that the British taxpayer has to make up the shortfall when it is often large corporations simply getting their labour on the cheap because profits are more important than human beings? Why does our government accept this situation?
Wish I knew about those benefits when I was on the bones of my arse
I'd be lost if I ever had to claim, I wouldn't have a clue. Paid in since I left college at eighteen and have never claimed a penny for myself since. Didn't even bother with working family tax credit.
Same, tried for disability once after about 5 visits to citizens advice telling me how, but I was told I weren't entitled to any money, just that they would pay the interest on me mortgage, so I worked through chronic gout and fucked me kidneys up.
If no one took a zero hours contract then companies would stop offering them.
It is why jobs that used to be better paid and require training in the sector you were working in, such as sales or administration, are now minimum wage and require no skills - employers realised that people were willing to work for less than the current employees and they could plug the gaps in knowledge thanks to technology or innovations. You think any time you go into a shop, the person in there has had any training on the products they're selling, when their till basically doubles as a Wikipedia for their stock range?
If zero-hours contracts were banned, employers wouldn't offer all zero-hours employees better contracts or better pay/benefits. They would have to, to a certain number of employees. The rest would be handed their notice.
I don't like zero-hours contracts but I also recognise that they're a side-effect of the labour market - someone is willing to work a ZHC so an employer is willing to offer one. If you don't want to work one, someone else will. And if ZHCs are banned, there will just be another minimum-pay, minimum-benefits contract offered in its place.
The government cannot force an employer to employ a certain number of workers for a certain number of hours on a certain salary. At least not in any market that can be described as free.
Your opening sentence is as astonishing as it is insensitive. People sometimes have no choice but to take any job on offer. They need the money. Any money. They don't have the luxury to pick and choose. Infecting believable. Because they are desperate , many are exploited.
Your opening sentence is as astonishing as it is insensitive. People sometimes have no choice but to take any job on offer. They need the money. Any money. They don't have the luxury to pick and choose. Infecting believable. Because they are desperate , many are exploited.
It is an economic fact though. I'm not trying to be insensitive, but the reason employers offer these contracts isn't because they are heartless bastards (although a lot of them are) but because someone is willing to supply a job at that value and they are seen as the best value to the employer. If people were willing to work for free, then employers would offer jobs without a wage whatsoever.
Your opening sentence is as astonishing as it is insensitive. People sometimes have no choice but to take any job on offer. They need the money. Any money. They don't have the luxury to pick and choose. Infecting believable. Because they are desperate , many are exploited.
It is an economic fact though. I'm not trying to be insensitive, but the reason employers offer these contracts isn't because they are heartless bastards (although a lot of them are) but because someone is willing to supply a job at that value and they are seen as the best value to the employer. If people were willing to work for free, then employers would offer jobs without a wage whatsoever.
Your opening sentence is as astonishing as it is insensitive. People sometimes have no choice but to take any job on offer. They need the money. Any money. They don't have the luxury to pick and choose. Infecting believable. Because they are desperate , many are exploited.
It is an economic fact though. I'm not trying to be insensitive, but the reason employers offer these contracts isn't because they are heartless bastards (although a lot of them are) but because someone is willing to supply a job at that value and they are seen as the best value to the employer. If people were willing to work for free, then employers would offer jobs without a wage whatsoever.
Erm..... Exactly. It's called exploitation. It's wrong and should be legislated against.
Exploitation is taking the passports off illegal immigrants then forcing them to work in horrible conditions.
If you willingly sign a contract, you are consenting to the T&Cs of the job.
The fact is I totally agree that it is completely wrong that people, in order to make ends meet, have to take up employment that is neither steady nor well-paid but ZHCs only exist because people are forced to take them in these circumstances. Employers and ZHCs aren't at fault though, the two problems that turn ZHCs into an issue are:
1) High unemployment 2) Inadequate benefits/welfare
High unemployment fuels the supply of labour that allows ZHCs to be a viable option for employers to offer.
The benefits system is inadequate because ideally it should offer a basic standard of living when people are unable to find steady, well-paid work, at the moment it doesn't.
Touching on an earlier point AUN made, the current benefits system actually encourages employers to offer low wages, as people take them even though the money isn't enough to live on and rely on benefits to top up their wages. Effectively, the taxpayer is subsidising low-paid and horribly contracted employment. The government cannot directly affect the unemployment level, it can only help encourage an environment where businesses can grow or self-starters to get on their feet. It can fix the benefits system though and ensure that people do not have to take up work that is inappropriate or inadequate to live on. Whatever party gets in, it would pay in the long run to ensure people don't need to rely on shit work to get by, as then employers will find the labour supply dwindling.
Banning ZHCs won't help, as another form of shit contract will appear, or else employers will just stop taking on workers and let them languish in the welfare trap.
I'l be voting Labour tomorrow. They will slow down the process of denying healthcare and welfare to the poorest in our society, on principle the tories will speed that process up. They say they wont but they are lying. Their central principle is that society needs the poor to support the wealthy. The central principle of labour is thar wealth should, at least to some extent be shared. The idea that a few highly gifted entrepreneurs 'create' wealth for the rest of us is, to quote from another thread "beyond parody". Vote with your heart people.
I'l be voting Labour tomorrow. They will slow down the process of denying healthcare and welfare to the poorest in our society, on principle the tories will speed that process up. They say they wont but they are lying. Their central principle is that society needs the poor to support the wealthy. The central principle of labour is thar wealth should, at least to some extent be shared. The idea that a few highly gifted entrepreneurs 'create' wealth for the rest of us is, to quote from another thread "beyond parody". Vote with your heart people.
Ha. I might grimace. But as a 55 yr old, when I need medication from my GP that keeps me healthy and that in the US I would have to put myself into debt to pay for, or just quietly die, I'll pay it! :0)
In all seriousness compared to 2010 this election campaign has been pretty poor. Nothing to match Bigotgate or Cleggmania or Farage crashing a plane into a field. All the action has been largely contained in Scotland. Cameron doesn't have the fire in his belly that he had in 2010 and Miliband has been largely kept off centre stage. Both Labour and the Tories know they aren't going to win a majority but a refusal to admit this or discuss coalition/confidence and supply possibilities basically means we're marching into the polls blindfolded. The voters were galvanised by the financial crisis in 2010 but as we are in a recovery there has been no single killer issue - the NHS, the deficit, Europe, immigration, public services, wages and other issues have been juggled around. The turnout figure will be interesting and I hope, regardless of the result, as many people go out and vote as possible. Good luck to all candidates standing tomorrow. I imagine quite a few of us will stay up into the wee hours to watch the exit polls come in.
I think we could probably end the thread on this post. Reminiscent of the children of Narnia being told they are too old to return. Perhaps AFKA, LookOut, Stig or WSS can play the role of Aslan the lion, we've achieved what we set out to achieve......
Comments
Like I've said before, I've spent most of my working life on what is in effect zero-hours and I ain't got a problem with doing it, if I thought they were taking the piss and exploiting me, I'd walk.
If it is that shit being on a zero hours contract then there is always the option to do something else....
Didn't I hear that most people on them actaully like being on them?
I am looking for other employment right now, but until then I (like many, many others) have no other choice.
Work a 0 hour or go on the dole.
I know where I reckon it will end up
Higher costs, higher unemployment, higher wasted money on reducing the unemployment by creating loads of public sector jobs that don't need doing,
But time will tell hopefully a government that doesn't support that sort of reckless solving of a non issue
1. You create new employee rights including, for example, the right for a full-time contract for anyone working a regular number of hours over a set period of weeks. If you work, say, 16 hours a week, for eight weeks, you get a sixteen hour a week contract.
2. You ban employers from requiring that zero-hour employees are available on the "off chance" they will be required for work. If you take on staff, you compensate and incentivise them when they are working. You don't have rights over them, when they're not.
3. You prevent zero-hours workers from having to work exclusively for one firm. If you accept that it suits an employer to have someone on a zero-hours contract, you have to accept that the employee might want to offer his time to more than one employer. As an employer, if you don't like that, you simply offer the employee a fixed-hour contract.
4. You create laws to ensure that employees who have shifts cancelled at the last minute receive some kind of compensation/payment for the shift anyway. Business owners should not put the risk onto their employees. Or at the very least, they should trade risk for reward.
Four, painless, easy, simple-to-implement steps which, in a very short timespan, end exploitative zero-hours contracts. But, at the same time, allow zero-hours contracts where they are necessary, convenient and appropriate. Good employers will still be able to recruit, train, motivate and compensate good staff. What's not to like?
I'd be lost if I ever had to claim, I wouldn't have a clue. Paid in since I left college at eighteen and have never claimed a penny for myself since. Didn't even bother with working family tax credit.
It is why jobs that used to be better paid and require training in the sector you were working in, such as sales or administration, are now minimum wage and require no skills - employers realised that people were willing to work for less than the current employees and they could plug the gaps in knowledge thanks to technology or innovations. You think any time you go into a shop, the person in there has had any training on the products they're selling, when their till basically doubles as a Wikipedia for their stock range?
If zero-hours contracts were banned, employers wouldn't offer all zero-hours employees better contracts or better pay/benefits. They would have to, to a certain number of employees. The rest would be handed their notice.
I don't like zero-hours contracts but I also recognise that they're a side-effect of the labour market - someone is willing to work a ZHC so an employer is willing to offer one. If you don't want to work one, someone else will. And if ZHCs are banned, there will just be another minimum-pay, minimum-benefits contract offered in its place.
The government cannot force an employer to employ a certain number of workers for a certain number of hours on a certain salary. At least not in any market that can be described as free.
Oh wait, some employers already offer unpaid employment! What bastards!
If you willingly sign a contract, you are consenting to the T&Cs of the job.
The fact is I totally agree that it is completely wrong that people, in order to make ends meet, have to take up employment that is neither steady nor well-paid but ZHCs only exist because people are forced to take them in these circumstances. Employers and ZHCs aren't at fault though, the two problems that turn ZHCs into an issue are:
1) High unemployment
2) Inadequate benefits/welfare
High unemployment fuels the supply of labour that allows ZHCs to be a viable option for employers to offer.
The benefits system is inadequate because ideally it should offer a basic standard of living when people are unable to find steady, well-paid work, at the moment it doesn't.
Touching on an earlier point AUN made, the current benefits system actually encourages employers to offer low wages, as people take them even though the money isn't enough to live on and rely on benefits to top up their wages. Effectively, the taxpayer is subsidising low-paid and horribly contracted employment. The government cannot directly affect the unemployment level, it can only help encourage an environment where businesses can grow or self-starters to get on their feet. It can fix the benefits system though and ensure that people do not have to take up work that is inappropriate or inadequate to live on. Whatever party gets in, it would pay in the long run to ensure people don't need to rely on shit work to get by, as then employers will find the labour supply dwindling.
Banning ZHCs won't help, as another form of shit contract will appear, or else employers will just stop taking on workers and let them languish in the welfare trap.
; )