Ludicrous laws for the chop.

[andyofborg]

Have you ever tried bringing cases on those grounds where the person is on a zero hour contract? their employer isn't necessarily the one determining the conditions of employment. The legal advice we got through was to take duplicate claims out against more than one of the companies involved (there was also a sepearte company paying him which made matter even more confused), Case law is inconsistent on who is liable. When we got the legal advice through the person understandably decided to give up, despite having been victimised for having exercised their protected whistleblowing rights, because the cost to them in hassle was worth more than anything they would gain in compensation, and it would increase the chances of them being blacklisted with other agencies.

 

The law on zero hours contracts is a mess and stinks, effectively removing rights we expect as employees.

 

most of the employment law relating to non full time employees is a mess.

 

its a shame that the party of the working man spent almost no effort during its 13 year reign attempting to sort it out.

 

most of the protections non full time employees do have are a result of action by the EU.

 

your example seems to be more to do with protecting whistle blowers rather than zero hour contracts.

[Wildcat]

most of the employment law relating to non full time employees is a mess.

 

its a shame that the party of the working man spent almost no effort during its 13 year reign attempting to sort it out.

 

most of the protections non full time employees do have are a result of action by the EU.

 

your example seems to be more to do with protecting whistle blowers rather than zero hour contracts.

 

If they had been on a proper contract we could have gone for unfair dismissal, but he wasn't (because the Agency continued to employ him they just took away what work he had and didn't give him any more) the option on an employment tribunal wasn't open to him.

[Tony]

So seriously they blacklist people that complain about H&S? so seriously that 50+ people die every year because of dodgy working practices and countless more are injured.... and like in the case of someone I know recorded as injured later goes on to die from the medical procedures trying to fix his broken back.

 

My point has been made clearly.

 

No it hasn't because you clearly don't understand that accidents that occur on building sites are in the majority of cases due to the working practices of the individual not the company.

 

That is not to say that training and procedures doesn't play a large part in maintaining and improving safety but there is a point at which somebody has to actually do some work to build a building. The lengths that the industry goes to to avoid accidents is extraordinary, yet more can always be done. It is a never ending task.

 

The blacklist affair was shameful but many of the people on the blacklist seemed to prefer the battle with the site manager rather than anonymously picking up the phone to the HSE or employer. That doesn't improve safety, it just delays progress and costs scarce money.

 

And I'm still struggling to see any connection whatsoever with zero hour contracts.

[llamatron]

At the risk of sounding quite abrupt, you are totally wrong. Politicians have not always listened to people - they just like to give that impression they do because people get the feeling that they are involved and have the power to change things that might benefit them directly.

 

I am not bitter; I am slighly annoyed because we have an unelected PM who got in through the back door by promising a little power to a man (puppet) who has rejected his party principles and the views of his party's supporters.

 

In that case it was only possible to have an unelected pm, so what, democracy won. They have to work together.

 

I am not wrong, they do try and listen to the people so that they can make the noises people want to hear even if its complete rubbish because they have to be the most popular!