Ludicrous laws for the chop.

[Tony]

That isn't the same as Employers having "far too many rights" though is it? A contract is a two headed document that both parties knowingly sign up to.

 

But on that subject can you show us some examples of employers using these contracts?

[eckerslike]

Why would employers want to lose good, hard-working, reliable employees?

 

But they might be very pleased to get rid of a few loud mouthed trouble makers.

[Alex C.]

That isn't the same as Employers having "far too many rights" though is it? A contract is a two headed document that both parties knowingly sign up to.

 

But on that subject can you show us some examples of employers using these contracts?

 

I was on a zero hours contract in a restaurant, as were all the full time staff, excluding the management. There was an informal arrangement that I'd get x hours per week, which was usually followed.

 

I did come in one week though to be told I had been given no hours at all for two weeks. Luckily, I was living at home so had no rent/mortgage to pay, but I know that some of the staff there were not in such an easy situation.

 

Obviously, because of the nature of the contracts, it makes it very difficult to claim any sort of benefit - if for example, they don't give you any hours for 4 weeks and you resign, the job centre will work on the basis that you've intentionally made yourself unemployed.

[Tony]

That sounds like a flaw in the benefits system rather than employers of casual labour having too many rights.

 

I'm not advocating it as a good or bad employment method but I would like to understand why it is a bad law that gives employers "too many rights". Obviously in your example it seems to have been appropriate and flexible for both parties but the benefits system let you down rather than your zero hours contract.

[ricgem2002]

But on that subject can you show us some examples of employers using these contracts?

agency employers use these all the time:loopy:

[Tony]

That is because they employ casual labour with no fixed hours requirement.

 

Doh. (I hate that slimy, it's so rude and doesn't help you make any point except to say how rude you are. Please accept my apology for using it appropriately)

[James68]

All this site will do is attract those with big agendas to change a law. The fox hunting brigade, for example.

[Guest sibon]

All this site will do is attract those with big agendas to change a law. The fox hunting brigade, for example.

 

It seems ages since we had a brigade.

 

Thank goodness that they still exist.

[Tony]

All this site will do is attract those with big agendas to change a law. The fox hunting brigade, for example.

 

That's true and that's the point of course - to discover what ideas have popular motivation.

 

Fox hunting seems to be pretty evenly split, perhaps underlining that it was a political law rather than one that most people care that Parliament should spend too much time on.

[Wildcat]

That sounds like a flaw in the benefits system rather than employers of casual labour having too many rights.

 

I'm not advocating it as a good or bad employment method but I would like to understand why it is a bad law that gives employers "too many rights". Obviously in your example it seems to have been appropriate and flexible for both parties but the benefits system let you down rather than your zero hours contract.

 

The fact you can be refused work without a reason, the fact you don't enjoy the protections that other employees possess all make the contracts biassed towards the employer and run a horse and cart through the minimum protections society deems appropriate for workers.

 

As a minimum people should expect to be paid a basic rate sufficient to live on. Without that the contract is entirely discretionary on the part of the employer.