Was setting up an event today in bham and was talking to seven owners of companies that do the same or similar to us for huge corporate companies the same as our main contract, all have said of zero hour goes then their staff will either have to go self employed which many don't want to do or tell them to join an agency, their guys like mine constantly ask what will it mean what will they do, I'd say in a room of 100 staff that equated to 60 guys, seems I ain't alone in my fear, all the employees not employers can't believe that something that works for them will be removed and possibly during the busiest period of our years the spring summer events season,
If it was only to impact on this category in the market place it could be 1000s
I didn't think that I was alone in the feeling to ban it is insane, but I had started to research and understand what the issues are and it is simply companies who have to know their demand due to the sector and industries they sit in, you need the visiblty to see your demand to supply your product it will be easy to control their abuse of the system by putting things in place
I can only speak for my industry where even on the day you install the demand can change hugely, tonight we are still in bham on a job that should have taken 8 hrs including driving, we have worked 12 not including driving are going to a hotel returning tomorrow and have just got five more jobs next week from it, now my boys get a set amount per job if they do 4 hrs or 20, but they get that based on a job basis of the five jobs next week 4 can be doubled as the start and finish times allow it are not big jobs and will be home within 10 hrs of leaving but will earn double the money, if I put them on a wage that is for the year based on my projection of this year but have to be sensible enough to make sure I put in a safety net in case the projection is wrong they will lose out 9 times out of ten either because they will be paid for jobs that are only 4-6 hrs long or the amount I can offer as a guarantee wage will be less due to the contingency
Erm NLA, if you're paying them piece rate, you need to make sure that you're paying them at least minimum wage for the hours they actually do (doesn't have to be per job but averaged out over the month). At present you'll probably only get named and shamed by the HMRC, but there are proposals to start taking employers to court if they don't make sure they're paying minimum wage.
Israel has already pre-emptively struck against Syrian reactor - Operation Orchard - to slow down N Korea/Syria joint weapon manufacture. At the time I remember hearing it was also a warning to Iran.
N Korea is estimated to have 10 warheads - not currently viable but they exist.
There is absolutely fuckall we can do about this ...so no point being concerned
Was setting up an event today in bham and was talking to seven owners of companies that do the same or similar to us for huge corporate companies the same as our main contract, all have said of zero hour goes then their staff will either have to go self employed which many don't want to do or tell them to join an agency, their guys like mine constantly ask what will it mean what will they do, I'd say in a room of 100 staff that equated to 60 guys, seems I ain't alone in my fear, all the employees not employers can't believe that something that works for them will be removed and possibly during the busiest period of our years the spring summer events season,
If it was only to impact on this category in the market place it could be 1000s
I own my own company ...even I don't get paid until invoices are settled ...zero hours no doubt sound negative but for small companies they are a lifeline.
I didn't think that I was alone in the feeling to ban it is insane, but I had started to research and understand what the issues are and it is simply companies who have to know their demand due to the sector and industries they sit in, you need the visiblty to see your demand to supply your product it will be easy to control their abuse of the system by putting things in place
I can only speak for my industry where even on the day you install the demand can change hugely, tonight we are still in bham on a job that should have taken 8 hrs including driving, we have worked 12 not including driving are going to a hotel returning tomorrow and have just got five more jobs next week from it, now my boys get a set amount per job if they do 4 hrs or 20, but they get that based on a job basis of the five jobs next week 4 can be doubled as the start and finish times allow it are not big jobs and will be home within 10 hrs of leaving but will earn double the money, if I put them on a wage that is for the year based on my projection of this year but have to be sensible enough to make sure I put in a safety net in case the projection is wrong they will lose out 9 times out of ten either because they will be paid for jobs that are only 4-6 hrs long or the amount I can offer as a guarantee wage will be less due to the contingency
No gripe with you putting staff on zero hours. A relatively small company and it appears to suit both parties. It's when the larger companies in the land start to plead poverty and force people on them with absolutely no justification whatsoever.
I suppose zero hours contact workers, with the Conservative proposed subsidy to buy their housing association properties, would even then not get a mortgage.
Well above when averaged out mate and if it falls below they are intitled to a bonus payment to make up the short fall within that month, so far I'd say every person earns way above average and no where near working time directive due to the gaps in demand we have for our service, my admin and accountant makes sure we comply, but we can only do this because when we have no demand I have no Obligation to pay them, however I do understand that within that time I could lose them, but the lifestyle and actual job are very interesting and enjoyable that the guys don't look elsewhere, and I do reward them after a tough week or month if there's no down time of demand with nights out and the same for their partners or wives, not all people abuse it I know most in our game work hard play hard but understand that there are days weeks where you need to budget for those times, especially Xmas as it dies after week 1 in Dec
I didn't think that I was alone in the feeling to ban it is insane, but I had started to research and understand what the issues are and it is simply companies who have to know their demand due to the sector and industries they sit in, you need the visiblty to see your demand to supply your product it will be easy to control their abuse of the system by putting things in place
I can only speak for my industry where even on the day you install the demand can change hugely, tonight we are still in bham on a job that should have taken 8 hrs including driving, we have worked 12 not including driving are going to a hotel returning tomorrow and have just got five more jobs next week from it, now my boys get a set amount per job if they do 4 hrs or 20, but they get that based on a job basis of the five jobs next week 4 can be doubled as the start and finish times allow it are not big jobs and will be home within 10 hrs of leaving but will earn double the money, if I put them on a wage that is for the year based on my projection of this year but have to be sensible enough to make sure I put in a safety net in case the projection is wrong they will lose out 9 times out of ten either because they will be paid for jobs that are only 4-6 hrs long or the amount I can offer as a guarantee wage will be less due to the contingency
No gripe with you putting staff on zero hours. A relatively small company and it appears to suit both parties. It's when the larger companies in the land start to plead poverty and force people on them with absolutely no justification whatsoever.
Yes, there is a difference between small companies and the larger ones. Many small companies struggle because of the larger ones. Labour are very pro small businesses. You look at a lot of big companies and they have no standards. They legally steal money in many cases. They say, trust us but they show no reason for us to. Of course Large companies are important, but it is also important they are not allowed to get away with crap because they give money to politicians etc...
Well above when averaged out mate and if it falls below they are intitled to a bonus payment to make up the short fall within that month, so far I'd say every person earns way above average and no where near working time directive due to the gaps in demand we have for our service, my admin and accountant makes sure we comply
Oh good. Wasn't meaning to imply you were taking the piss, just pointing out you could be in for a nasty shock if you weren't keeping track properly, but sounds like you're OK on that score :-)
I suppose zero hours contact workers, with the Conservative proposed subsidy to buy their housing association properties, would even then not get a mortgage.
I do get that bit, and I don't have the answer, but the solution or other option for people like me is to use the guys via agency labour, I have said this so many times its repeating on me like a dodgy kebab, they then can only work 11 weeks at the same place doing the same job, and they will earn less and be in the same position in getting a mortgage as there is no guarantee of work or its deemed that by the mortgage provider, or they go into self employment proving that they are not solely working for me and are available to work for others, they need to provide their own insurance public liability and provide their own vehicle to attend the job, all adding cost to them greater than I will save removing them from mine, I won't pay them a great deal more than they are on now as my costs would not reduce enough to cover theirs, of the five guys who have zero hr contracts 4 of them would really struggle to manage their tax national insurance and their other legal requirements just due to them being who they are, They would be worse off or not better as they still would be a higher risk for a lender and probably still not get what you suggest,
The answer is to put in tougher more stringent regulations with higher fines for those that abuse it to aid cover the costs, put in a reasonable levy that is based on profit of the individual company that doesn't risk it's viability,
You would not accept that your child was punished for something that he or she didn't do
You wouldn't accept 3 points on your licence if you were a passenger in a car that was speeding
Banning something because some abuse it some don't like it is not an answer to a problem it's another problem you create instead
No, they're not. This is yet another piece of incorrect information you have posted over the last few days.
Also, as much as Labour whine about zero hours contracts, most of their MPs employ some of their staff on zero hours contracts. Maybe they should lead by example?
In the end the zero hours contract issue comes down to morals and knowing if something is right or wrong. I am certain there are many employer / employee situations ( nla for one) where this works well for both parties. On the other hand their are employers who are without doubt abusing the situation in order to maximise profits at the expense of their workers with no moral compass involved whatsoever. It seems a shame to throw the baby out with the bath water but until unscrupulous employers are brought to heel it would seem that like most things in life you won't make everyone happy.
Don't really know these industries, but has zero hours contracts replaced and proved a massive step forward for employees In industries that would typically have been cash in hand jobs?
No, they're not. This is yet another piece of incorrect information you have posted over the last few days.
Also, as much as Labour whine about zero hours contracts, most of their MPs employ some of their staff on zero hours contracts. Maybe they should lead by example?
Just for the record, which Labour MPs employ staff on zero hours? I'm sure you're using the point as a counter-argument to "incorrect information" and therefore you'd be certain of your facts and be able to source them. If it's true that "most" Labour MPs employ some of their staff on zero hours, it's scandalous and should be brought to wider attention. So, who are they?
They haven't been individually named, but the The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority revealed the figures. MPs employ 151 on these contracts, including 77 Conservative, 62 Labour, 5 Libs
I've spent most of my working life on what is, in effect, zero hours contracts.
same here .. I have worked through agencies off and on since the 1960s .. no guarantee of work, no guarantee of set hours when work was available: 'you won't be needed today but come in on friday' .. admittedly, I have also had the benefit of well paid long contracts with severance pay, holiday pay and most of the benefits of a permanent job, though permanency over the past 30 years has watered down to ' not being made redundant this week' .. Zero Hours Contract is just another slogan to bandy around criticising the employment practices of 'the rich and uncaring', i.e. those who actually provide jobs and pay NI and taxes .. In the ideal world, everyone should have secure employment for life, a tenancy for life, free healthcare and education .. BUT .. This just is not the ideal world .. all we all can do is work and plan for a better future, especially for the disadvantaged (in my opinion) English youngsters of this era .. a '0 hours job' with the promise of better things to come is a far better prospect than zero jobs because employing people is far too expensive and too much trouble
Don't really know these industries, but has zero hours contracts replaced and proved a massive step forward for employees In industries that would typically have been cash in hand jobs?
I doubt the direct connection. There will always be cash in hand jobs. Where zero hour contracts are not moral is where an employer ties in a worker to "a contract" yet guarantees no hours in return. Some employees are under this contract not even allowed to take work elsewhere. Stories of workers going into work only to be told go home after one hour. No security. No way to plan your finances and no way to live.
I've spent most of my working life on what is, in effect, zero hours contracts.
same here .. I have worked through agencies off and on since the 1960s .. no guarantee of work, no guarantee of set hours when work was available: 'you won't be needed today but come in on friday' .. admittedly, I have also had the benefit of well paid long contracts with severance pay, holiday pay and most of the benefits of a permanent job, though permanency over the past 30 years has watered down to ' not being made redundant this week' .. Zero Hours Contract is just another slogan to bandy around criticising the employment practices of 'the rich and uncaring', i.e. those who actually provide jobs and pay NI and taxes .. In the ideal world, everyone should have secure employment for life, a tenancy for life, free healthcare and education .. BUT .. This just is not the ideal world .. all we all can do is work and plan for a better future, especially for the disadvantaged (in my opinion) English youngsters of this era .. a '0 hours job' with the promise of better things to come is a far better prospect than zero jobs because employing people is far too expensive and too much trouble
Great having people offended on Our behalf ain't it Lincs!
Zero-hours workers earn £300 a week less, on average, than staff on permanent contracts.
Two in five zero-hours workers are paid less than £111 a week and do not qualify for statutory sick pay.
Short-term and insecure working patterns mean many zero-hours workers do not work continuously with one employer for two years. As a result, many miss out on statutory redundancy pay, the right to return to their job after maternity leave and protection from unfair dismissal.
Zero-hours workers earn £300 a week less, on average, than staff on permanent contracts.
Two in five zero-hours workers are paid less than £111 a week and do not qualify for statutory sick pay.
Short-term and insecure working patterns mean many zero-hours workers do not work continuously with one employer for two years. As a result, many miss out on statutory redundancy pay, the right to return to their job after maternity leave and protection from unfair dismissal.
If the Tories are keen to promote home ownership the system makes it nearly impossible to do for zero hours contract workers, but they are, to say the least, very unenthusiastic about social housing. This will drive a lot of workers into the private rented sector (where you still need proof of income) or to goodness knows where. I suspect buy to let landlords are likely to be free market Conservatives and be loving this skewed situation. Incidentally to tell people to 'live with their parents' does not help the 10,000 children who leave care each year, and the housing association right to buy might help (if they can get a mortgage) 27000 people, or households. I can't help feeling deep down that the Conservatives really don't give much of a damn about the present housing crisis, as there's too much money in it to be made from the poor. It almost becomes a question of political philosophy with peoples homes as the battleground. I was in the care of Southwark council as a child, and previously was a child homeless on the streets, and have also worked as a volunteer for St Mungo's, so housing is an area I take a great deal of interest in. Sometimes I believe the Bullenden Club fascists think everybody lives in Downtown Abbey.
Zero-hours workers earn £300 a week less, on average, than staff on permanent contracts.
Two in five zero-hours workers are paid less than £111 a week and do not qualify for statutory sick pay.
Short-term and insecure working patterns mean many zero-hours workers do not work continuously with one employer for two years. As a result, many miss out on statutory redundancy pay, the right to return to their job after maternity leave and protection from unfair dismissal.
Yeah that's right, I fall under most of the above. We were on a better hourly/day rate than our full-time employed oppos, but I missed out on statutory redundancy pay, the right to return to my job after maternity leave and never had any 'official' protection from unfair dismissal; but if I never got the work offered on those terms I wouldn't have had any graft and been out of work.
Comments
If it was only to impact on this category in the market place it could be 1000s
I can only speak for my industry where even on the day you install the demand can change hugely, tonight we are still in bham on a job that should have taken 8 hrs including driving, we have worked 12 not including driving are going to a hotel returning tomorrow and have just got five more jobs next week from it, now my boys get a set amount per job if they do 4 hrs or 20, but they get that based on a job basis of the five jobs next week 4 can be doubled as the start and finish times allow it are not big jobs and will be home within 10 hrs of leaving but will earn double the money, if I put them on a wage that is for the year based on my projection of this year but have to be sensible enough to make sure I put in a safety net in case the projection is wrong they will lose out 9 times out of ten either because they will be paid for jobs that are only 4-6 hrs long or the amount I can offer as a guarantee wage will be less due to the contingency
It's when the larger companies in the land start to plead poverty and force people on them with absolutely no justification whatsoever.
I do get that bit, and I don't have the answer, but the solution or other option for people like me is to use the guys via agency labour, I have said this so many times its repeating on me like a dodgy kebab, they then can only work 11 weeks at the same place doing the same job, and they will earn less and be in the same position in getting a mortgage as there is no guarantee of work or its deemed that by the mortgage provider, or they go into self employment proving that they are not solely working for me and are available to work for others, they need to provide their own insurance public liability and provide their own vehicle to attend the job, all adding cost to them greater than I will save removing them from mine, I won't pay them a great deal more than they are on now as my costs would not reduce enough to cover theirs, of the five guys who have zero hr contracts 4 of them would really struggle to manage their tax national insurance and their other legal requirements just due to them being who they are, They would be worse off or not better as they still would be a higher risk for a lender and probably still not get what you suggest,
The answer is to put in tougher more stringent regulations with higher fines for those that abuse it to aid cover the costs, put in a reasonable levy that is based on profit of the individual company that doesn't risk it's viability,
You would not accept that your child was punished for something that he or she didn't do
You wouldn't accept 3 points on your licence if you were a passenger in a car that was speeding
Banning something because some abuse it some don't like it is not an answer to a problem it's another problem you create instead
Also, as much as Labour whine about zero hours contracts, most of their MPs employ some of their staff on zero hours contracts. Maybe they should lead by example?
Or did I hear that wrong?
Shocking if true.
; )
Zero-hours workers earn £300 a week less, on average, than staff on permanent contracts.
Two in five zero-hours workers are paid less than £111 a week and do not qualify for statutory sick pay.
Short-term and insecure working patterns mean many zero-hours workers do not work continuously with one employer for two years. As a result, many miss out on statutory redundancy pay, the right to return to their job after maternity leave and protection from unfair dismissal.
This will drive a lot of workers into the private rented sector (where you still need proof of income) or to goodness knows where. I suspect buy to let landlords are likely to be free market Conservatives and be loving this skewed situation.
Incidentally to tell people to 'live with their parents' does not help the 10,000 children who leave care each year, and the housing association right to buy might help (if they can get a mortgage) 27000 people, or households. I can't help feeling deep down that the Conservatives really don't give much of a damn about the present housing crisis, as there's too much money in it to be made from the poor.
It almost becomes a question of political philosophy with peoples homes as the battleground.
I was in the care of Southwark council as a child, and previously was a child homeless on the streets, and have also worked as a volunteer for St Mungo's, so housing is an area I take a great deal of interest in. Sometimes I believe the Bullenden Club fascists think everybody lives in Downtown Abbey.