Sports Direct 90% of staff on 0 hour contracts

[Staunton]

Get a job.

 

That sounds to me like an acknowledgement that a zero hour contract is not a job.

 

---------- Post added 03-08-2013 at 00:13 ----------

 

I would advise anything to stay there as £350 a month for a 2 bed terrace in Heeley OR Hillsborough is a very good price.

 

Hopefully the universal credit will help people like this. The current benefit system doesn't encourage [most] people to work in any job in that position, let a lone a short term contract or 0 hour one.

 

 

I don't find this notion very satisfactory, I'm afraid. The logical consequences of such a policy seems to be that the state (that's you and me - the taxpayer) ends up subsidising people who are in work, whilst the private companies arrange their employment terms and conditions in such a way that they just take the profit.

[*_ash_*]

 

I don't find this notion very satisfactory, I'm afraid.

 

Which notion? The one that seems better than what we have now?

 

The logical consequences of such a policy seems to be that the state (that's you and me - the taxpayer) ends up subsidising people who are in work, whilst the private companies arrange their employment terms and conditions in such a way that they just take the profit.

 

What's wrong with subsidising people in work (in the short term)? I'm not sure I get which bit you find unsatisfactory, you'll have to explain what you mean for me to answer properly.

 

Universal Benefit [in theory] means that the lengthy hassle of constantly signing on/off again, means people will be able to do short term work to boost their income and gain better prospects of longer term work. As it is now, as has been shown, it's better to stay on benefits and not risk doing any type of work that isn't permanent. And that work now also must be much more highly paid than the benefit received to even contemplate doing it. This is lunacy as it is.

[I1L2T3]

bold - If the people on the C4 section were anything to go by, then is it any surprise?

 

non-bold, which jobs have they destroyed already?

 

I posted a article for you to read.

[Staunton]

Which notion? The one that seems better than what we have now?

 

 

 

What's wrong with subsidising people in work (in the short term)? I'm not sure I get which bit you find unsatisfactory, you'll have to explain what you mean for me to answer properly.

 

Universal Benefit [in theory] means that the lengthy hassle of constantly signing on/off again, means people will be able to do short term work to boost their income and gain better prospects of longer term work. As it is now, as has been shown, it's better to stay on benefits and not risk doing any type of work that isn't permanent. And that work now also must be much more highly paid than the benefit received to even contemplate doing it. This is lunacy as it is.

 

I am suggesting that a private enterprise whose employees remain dependent upon state benefits is exploiting both the worker and the taxpayer - privatising the profit and socialising the costs.

[*_ash_*]

I posted a article for you to read.

 

I read it. It's the way of technology really isn't it?

 

Technology can do the job of people faster and cheaper. It's been that way for hundreds of years (at least 3). It's changing faster now of course. What's the answer?

 

The only answer [for me] is to try and be competitive with the others.

 

Strict rules doesn't seem to work as there is always countries with fewer rules.

 

High taxation leads people to go elsewhere.

 

Free market encourages economic migrants (with a system where benefits out-pay working)

 

The problem is with benefits. We could compete better without so many. You may not like it, nor may I, and it would be political suicide to drastically change it. But the problem lies with this.

 

I am suggesting that a private enterprise whose employees remain dependent upon state benefits is exploiting both the worker and the taxpayer - privatising the profit and socialising the costs.

 

But that is what benefits has always done, but more so in recent years. What is the alternative?

 

In the past and when social welfare was introduced it was a stepping stone, and to make sure no one was poor (I mean really poor, not what the people in here consider poor). It shouldn't be gotten rid of, it's important, but in the modern world, it needs to be moulded into supporting people back into work, rather than a better option than working - which for many, it is. And I don't blame people for not working, when they are better off not. I might perhaps do the same, though I can't be sure of that.

[Staunton]

But that is what benefits has always done, but more so in recent years. What is the alternative?

 

In the past and when social welfare was introduced it was a stepping stone, and to make sure no one was poor (I mean really poor, not what the people in here consider poor). It shouldn't be gotten rid of, it's important, but in the modern world, it needs to be moulded into supporting people back into work, rather than a better option than working - which for many, it is. And I don't blame people for not working, when they are better off not. I might perhaps do the same, though I can't be sure of that.

 

So the taxpayer subsidises the multinationals and the high street brand outlets.

 

And do Amazon pay their taxes? Do Sports Direct pay theirs?

[*_ash_*]

So the taxpayer subsidises the multinationals and the high street brand outlets.

 

Your aren't making yourself clear Are you intoxicated?

 

If someone isn't earning enough to live on then they would be subsidised by the government whether it was a 16 hour contract or a zero one, and whether it was a multi-national or Mr Jones corner shop.

 

And do Amazon pay their taxes? Do Sports Direct pay theirs?

 

Not sure what this has to do with what we were talking about.

[Staunton]

Your aren't making yourself clear.

 

I would like to suggest that there are large private enterprises operating here in the UK who reward their executives with huge salaries and bonuses simultaneously with structuring an employment policy that leaves their front-line staff dependent on state funded subsidies (that means the taxpayer picking up a hefty bill).

 

I am also suggesting that such companies seem to have a habit of avoiding their own tax obligations.

[angos]

I would like to suggest that there are large private enterprises operating here in the UK who reward their executives with huge salaries and bonuses simultaneously with structuring an employment policy that leaves their front-line staff dependent on state funded subsidies (that means the taxpayer picking up a hefty bill).

 

I am also suggesting that such companies seem to have a habit of avoiding their own tax obligations.

 

That's the important part, they are operating in the UK when they could just as easily operate somewhere else, give them enough reasons to leave and they will.

[ricgem2002]

That's the important part, they are operating in the UK when they could just as easily operate somewhere else, give them enough reasons to leave and they will.

no that old chestnut again