Sports Direct 90% of staff on 0 hour contracts

[Fudbeer]

To me its about balance as an employee you should work hard and do your job whatever it is to the best of your ability and achieve the objectives you are set

 

In return your employer should provide you with reasonable working conditions and a fair contract which includes knowing roughly how many hours you will be expected to work each week.

 

Or is that me being naïve?

[iansheff]

I read this morning that Buck House uses zero hours contracts, also says that Boots does and you could be sent to any shop to work.

[tinfoilhat]

To me its about balance as an employee you should work hard and do your job whatever it is to the best of your ability and achieve the objectives you are set

 

In return your employer should provide you with reasonable working conditions and a fair contract which includes knowing roughly how many hours you will be expected to work each week.

 

Or is that me being naïve?

 

It is a bit. Some companies, particularly small and/or specialist companies can see work increase and decrease massively in a staggeringly short period of time. That clearly isn't the case with sports direct.

 

---------- Post added 04-08-2013 at 12:10 ----------

 

I read this morning that Buck House uses zero hours contracts, also says that Boots does and you could be sent to any shop to work.

 

Doesn't surprise me with boots at all. If as a company you supply boots they expect a discount if they pay you within a month (might be three months, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt) and if not be prepared for a very very long wait. Don't think for a second it's just your average joe getting shafted by the big boys its small (and not so small) businesses taking one too.

[Hillpig]

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.

 

No one should subsidised for working, they should receive a living wage. The employer should be forced to pay it. At the same time benefits should be halved.

 

By reducing the benefit payments taxation would be reduced. Employers would be recompensed. Everyone wins.

 

Except those too idle to work.

 

---------- Post added 04-08-2013 at 15:41 ----------

 

The examples given relate to very big companies. The prosperity of this country is not due to such businesses it is down to the small and medium sized ones.

 

There is already far too much employment legislation holding these companies back. The zero hours contract can be quite important to small employers. It should be left alone.

 

---------- Post added 04-08-2013 at 15:43 ----------

 

i just cant understand why some people on here, who argue that such things llike zero contract hours/agency workers/workfare for tesco and such companies/tax avoidance/a4e/etc (add more to the list if you like)is good for the working man/women of this country:loopy: a lot of people praised thatcher for defeating the unions maybe its time the tide is turned and the people of this country defeat all these practises that came from that

 

Who will lead your revolution, Bob Crowe?

[Staunton]

The examples given relate to very big companies. The prosperity of this country is not due to such businesses it is down to the small and medium sized ones.

 

I agree fully.

 

---------- Post added 04-08-2013 at 16:10 ----------

 

There is already far too much employment legislation holding these companies back.

 

Also agreed!

[iansheff]

Even the charities are at it. Turning Point – which adopted Princes William and Harry’s mother as patron in 1985 – has terminated 2,400 employees’ contracts and issued new ones – including 300 zero-hour agreements.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/princess-diana-charity-axes-2400-2122744

[Staunton]

In due deference to Fudbeer and the entirely valid consideration of Sports Direct and their zero-hour contract policy, I propose to begin a new thread entitled 'A fair contract of employment', and warmly invite anyone who wishes to join in such a discussion to do so. I think that such a theme is important and interesting in its own right and might generate some interesting debate.

[ricgem2002]

Who will lead your revolution, Bob Crowe?

anyone but you .

[BEDROCK]

To be fair, anyone who desires to work there want their head sorting out.

[Snapshot]

To be fair, anyone who desires to work there want their head sorting out.

 

Many people don't work because they want to. It's an income at the end of the day. If everyone refused to work unless they got a free golden ticket to their dream job, I would imagine employment would be around 5%, maybe less.