Ludicrous laws for the chop.

[Wildcat]

They could get rid of Zero hours contracts and stop employers using agencies to sidestep the laws protecting workers, like those against blacklisting a practice employed against anyone that raises a H&S concern in the notoriously dangerous construction industry.

 

http://www.labournet.net/ukunion/1003/blacklist1.html

[Alex C.]

You need a more concrete plan than 'get rid of zero hours contracts' - all that will happen is they start employing people on '1 hour contracts' or '1 shift contracts', but expecting them to do additional work as required (as is included in most employment contracts).

 

Most low paid employees are glad of the ability to quickly earn money by doing overtime (at normal pay rates) when available, so banning overtime, or forcing employers to pay overtime rates isn't an option either.

 

Is there a solution?

 

edit: possibly making sure zero hours contracts are two sided - ie if they give me a rota including friday night, and I want to go out, I can turn down the work is an option - but I'd presume they'd just find a way around it, or sack those who refuse to work following the rota...

[RonJeremy]

You really don't like democracy do you?

yes i do, why wouldn't I. It is you who seems not to like democracy - all that bit about disobedience at the bottom of your posts?

 

The exclusion of the law that prevents employers being criminally liable for their decisions. Would be removal of a law, or at least the simplificiation of the law by the removal of an exemption.

is that a double negative or a treble or a quadruple negative - sorry I can't work it out. Either way it looks like you're trying to tell people what to do again.

 

Workers have every right to demand a meaningful contract with an employer that provides them same protections as other workers against exploitation. The invention of zero hours contracts and their expansion runs contrary to all the legal protections workers have, it is the exploitation of a loophole that should be closed.

Two people usually sign a contract. If people aren't happy to work for an employer, they can go and work for someone else - or start their own business up.

 

Employer's rights to prevent worker's talking about their working conditions is a right that interferes with a legitimate need for freedom of expression and honesty about what is going on in the workplace. Employer's should welcome the ruling unless they have something to hide, in which case it is better for other employer's, as well as staff that the information is out in the open.

More rules telling people what to do

 

Employer's have far to many rights, whilst we are scrapping laws we should get rid of some of their exemptions from the law

yet more laws!

[Alex C.]

The problem is that there are a massive amount of unskilled workers who are needed, working in food preparation, care, cleaning and so on. We need them as a society, not everyone can be a managing director. Because they are unskilled, they are basically expendable.

 

One of my previous employers had a huge staff turnover rate, but never kept anyone, regardless of how good they were, because they didn't care about losing people when there are hundreds more applying for every vacancy. They basically worked as if their staff were disposable.

 

These workers need protections - I feel most of the protection there already is adequate, but I don't think we should be removing worker protections, other than those that are mainly just red tape. Otherwise, it would be a race to the bottom, with companies knowing they could pay £3 an hour and still get staff.

[Tony]

They could get rid of Zero hours contracts and stop employers using agencies to sidestep the laws protecting workers, like those against blacklisting a practice employed against anyone that raises a H&S concern in the notoriously dangerous construction industry.

 

http://www.labournet.net/ukunion/1003/blacklist1.html

 

Your claim rather demonstrates how little you know about the construction industry while passing pronouncement, I onthe other hand do know something about it. For sure there are many potential dangers on building sites - they are inherently dangerous places - but there are immense efforts made to improve safety throughout the industry that exceed pretty much any other industry. But, building sites are still dangerous environments by their very nature.

 

The blacklisting affair was dealt with precisely because it was isolated and identifiable, proving that it is not a practice employed by the construction industry. While there are always issues to address there is no change in legislation needed as you suggest to specifically protect zero hours contract workers.

[Wildcat]

Your claim rather demonstrates how little you know about the construction industry while passing pronouncement, I onthe other hand do know something about it. For sure there are many potential dangers on building sites - they are inherently dangerous places - but there are immense efforts made to improve safety throughout the industry that exceed pretty much any other industry. But, building sites are still dangerous environments by their very nature.

 

The blacklisting affair was dealt with precisely because it was isolated and identifiable, proving that it is not a practice employed by the construction industry. While there are always issues to address there is no change in legislation needed as you suggest to specifically protect zero hours contract workers.

 

All the major contsrtuction agencies were involved:

 

Amec Building Ltd

Amec Construction Ltd

Amec Facilities Ltd

Amec Ind Div

Amec Process & Energy Ltd

Amey Construction – Ex Member

B Sunley & Sons – Ex Member

Balfour Beatty

Balfour Kilpatrick

Ballast (Wiltshire) PLc – Ex Member

Bam Construction (HBC Construction)

Bam Nuttall (Edmund Nutall Ltd)

C B & I

Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd

Costain UK Ltd

Crown House Technologies

(Carillion/Tarmac Const)

Diamond M & E Services

Dudley Bower & Co Ltd – Ex Member

Emcor (Drake & Scull) - ‘Ex Ref’

Emcor Rail

G Wimpey Ltd – Ex Member

Haden Young

Kier Ltd

John Mowlem Ltd -Ex Member

Laing O’Rourk (Laing Ltd)

Lovell Construction (UK) Ltd – Ex Member

Miller Construction Limited – Ex Member

Morgan Ashurst

Morgan Est

Morrison Construction Group – Ex Member

N G Bailey

Shepherd Engineering Services

Sias Building Services

Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd

Skanska (Kaverna/Trafalgar

House Plc)

SPIE (Matthew Hall) - Ex Member

Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd – Ex Member

Turriff Construction Ltd –Ex Member

Tysons Contractors – Ex Member

Walter Llewellyn & Sons Ltd - Ex Member

Whessoe Oil & Gas

Willmott Dixon – Ex Member

Vinci PLC (Norwest Holst Group)

 

thousands of people blacklisted since the seventies is an isolated example?

 

 

If these companies cared about H&S of their workers they wouldn't be victimising those that have raised their concerns.

[andyofborg]

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.

 

the minimum wage regulations apply, h&s and discrimination legislation applies, holiday pay rules apply, ssp rules should do as well.

 

zero hour contracts tend not to give you unfair dismissal protection or redundancy protection, but no one is going to stick around in a job that only gives them an hour or two here and there for more than a few months, so these probably wouldn't apply anyway.

 

but if a worker on a zero hour contract ends up working regular hours for a decent period of time then a tribunal is likely to adjudge any dispute on the basis that they are real employees rather than the wording of the contract.

[Tony]

Wildcat, you still don't have the first clue what you're talking about. The construction industry takes safety very seriously. Exceptions always prove the rule and your story is about industrial relations, not industry safety. There is always room for improvement but that does not prove that the industry does not take safety seriously or that zero hour contracts are responsible for low safety standards.

 

You need to get your point sorted out more clearly if you want to make it properly.

[Wildcat]

the minimum wage regulations apply, h&s and discrimination legislation applies, holiday pay rules apply, ssp rules should do as well.

 

zero hour contracts tend not to give you unfair dismissal protection or redundancy protection, but no one is going to stick around in a job that only gives them an hour or two here and there for more than a few months, so these probably wouldn't apply anyway.

 

but if a worker on a zero hour contract ends up working regular hours for a decent period of time then a tribunal is likely to adjudge any dispute on the basis that they are real employees rather than the wording of the contract.

 

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.

[Wildcat]

Wildcat, you still don't have the first clue what you're talking about. The construction industry takes safety very seriously. Exceptions always prove the rule and your story is about industrial relations, not industry safety. There is always room for improvement but that does not prove that the industry does not take safety seriously or that zero hour contracts are responsible for low safety standards.

 

You need to get your point sorted out more clearly if you want to make it properly.

 

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.