Sports Direct 90% of staff on 0 hour contracts

[Anna B]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

Technology is going to mean less and less jobs and more unemployment. There's no avoiding it, nor should there be. With less work it does however make more people poor.

 

But remember production increases with technology and therefore so do profits. Shouldn't some of these profits be used to compensate those people who have had their livlihood taken from them?

 

In fact I would like to see all suitable jobs become part time and employ twice as many people with the shortfall in salary made up out of these profits.

 

You could argue that that's what's happening now, except the shortfall is being made up by the taxpayer (the multinationals avoiding tax wherever possible puts an unacceptable burden on the taxpayer)

 

Let's accept the innevitable and work towards a more equitable society by providing work for all and an acceptable standard of living.

 

Would this, no doubt with a bit of tweaking, be an acceptable alternative?

[*_ash_*]

Surely it is an essential aspect of any argument to establish the theme in question in context, to explore the underlying issues and to consider the implications of any attitude assumed by those who engage in the debate?

 

I posted the earlier implications earlier to Anna, see next bit quoting Hillpig, who also understands what I was saying...

 

 

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.

 

Precisely. This was what I said earlier (see above), if a removal of zero contract hours were to happen, it would have to be using rules that apply to everyone [business]. And would be a potential catastrophe for most of our business.

 

Staunton, see here what I said to Anna...

 

Originally Posted by Anna B View Post

If it's what I think is acceptable, then I see no reason why a company cannot operate efficiently with full time and part time staff on regular hours

Some businesses yes, but not all. If you have a plan it would have to be set out clearly. When you try and implement something like this, it will prove inefficient, by the laws of obviousness.

 

 

Originally Posted by Anna B View Post

Any company worth its salt should know when its busy and slack times are and can arrange rotas accordingly. Agency staff can always be used for exceptionally busy times like Christmas or whatever, but still with a guaranteed number of hours.

Yes they could. All would mean fewer people in work.

 

All your suggestions are ones that stifle companies (who you don't like) and everyone else suffers with it. This is what causes other countries to out price us in most industries that employ large numbers of people.

 

-

 

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 has said they are a good thing?

[Staunton]

... if a removal of zero contract hours were to happen, it would have to be using rules that apply to everyone [business]. And would be a potential catastrophe for most of our business.

 

Businesses would not cease trading. The UK is one of the most lucrative markets on earth. However, if zero hour contracts were outlawed, employers would have to find an alternative means of conducting operations. I am proposing that legislation is essential to prevent the continuing exploitation of front-line staff.

 

And I am highlighting the context of the zero hour contract - its integral function within the neoliberal agenda that is impoverishing ordinary people and undermining the basic values of civil society.

[*_ash_*]

Businesses would not cease trading. The UK is one of the most lucrative markets on earth. However, if zero hour contracts were outlawed, employers would have to find an alternative means of conducting operations. I am proposing that legislation is essential to prevent the continuing exploitation of front-line staff.

 

And I am highlighting the context of the zero hour contract - its integral function within the neoliberal agenda that is impoverishing ordinary people and undermining the basic values of civil society.

 

Off course it wouldn't cease trading. I never said it would. But more regulation won't help increase the workforce. More regulation means equal to or fewer workforce. That's got to be obvious.

[Staunton]

Off course it wouldn't cease trading. I never said it would. But more regulation won't help increase the workforce. More regulation means equal to or fewer workforce. That's got to be obvious.

 

It is not at all obvious. This is precisely the kind of argument that neoliberals employ to justify their demands for deregulation, and they couch their claims in similar terms to that which you use, to imply that they are motivated by a sincere concern for the interests of workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Their only interest is profit.

[*_ash_*]

Technology is going to mean less and less jobs and more unemployment. There's no avoiding it, nor should there be. With less work it does however make more people poor.

 

Certainly, we can't stop technological advancement. That alone could kill all our industries. That's what happened in the 1970s when we tried to hold up the sinking ship.

 

However, more and more regulation means it's harder to be competitive in today's market. We should learn from those mistakes.

 

But remember production increases with technology and therefore so do profits. Shouldn't some of these profits be used to compensate those people who have had their livlihood taken from them?

 

You mean higher corporation [type] taxes?

 

In fact I would like to see all suitable jobs become part time and employ twice as many people with the shortfall in salary made up out of these profits.

 

I know what you're saying here. You've said this before so I've thought about it. Again though it falls into high regulation territory. How would you decide what a suitable job is for being made part-time only? This would seriously limit companies to have the best people [in a certain field] working for them.

 

You could argue that that's what's happening now, except the shortfall is being made up by the taxpayer (the multinationals avoiding tax wherever possible puts an unacceptable burden on the taxpayer)

 

There is more part-time work of course. The last government tried to use tax-credits to sort this out... whilst in theory being a decent attempt, I don't think it has worked. I know people work (mainly single females with children) who this causes decisions to be made that mean it isn't WORTH working more hours if they want to earn more money - especially when the child/children reach schooling age.

 

Let's accept the innevitable and work towards a more equitable society by providing work for all and an acceptable standard of living.

 

Ideologies. Good in theory, not so good in practice. You have to suggest something so we can debate it. All of the suggestions in these debates revolve from one side around an ideology.

 

Would this, no doubt with a bit of tweaking, be an acceptable alternative?

 

All things are worth looking at and talking about.

 

---------- Post added 04-08-2013 at 23:15 ----------

 

It is not at all obvious. This is precisely the kind of argument that neoliberals employ to justify their demands for deregulation, and they couch their claims in similar terms to that which you use, to imply that they are motivated by a sincere concern for the interests of workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Their only interest is profit.

 

underlined - I don't fit that bill.

 

I consider myself a realist.

[Anna B]

 

I know what you're saying here. You've said this before so I've thought about it. Again though it falls into high regulation territory. How would you decide what a suitable job is for being made part-time only? This would seriously limit companies to have the best people [in a certain field] working for them.

 

I honestly can't think of any job that couldn't be a job share, can you suggest some?

 

When you think that every job advertised is over subscribed, why not employ the first 2 front runners to do the job between them, rather than just the first one?

 

How they job share maybe needs more creative thinking. Most jobs would probably be shared on a day by day, or week on week off basis, but there's no reason why it couldn't be shared monthly or by splitting it to play to each individual's strengths, or in whatever way suits all concerned best. I've job shared (teaching) and it worked beautifully.

 

The employer also benefits from having a better rested staff who will bring fresh energy to the job, maybe new insights, and be more willing to go the extra mile.

 

I think we all have to accept that in the future we are all going to have to live with less, but there is a difference between that, and not having enough money to provide a roof over your head and enough food to eat etc.

 

I appreciate that it requires a whole new approach to working practices but I don't see it as unrealistic if the will is there to do it.

[Obelix]

I honestly can't think of any job that couldn't be a job share, can you suggest some?

 

When you think that every job advertised is over subscribed, why not employ the first 2 front runner

 

Because that means that those people will onyl get paid half as much, and for some of the highly skilled jobs out there that's a great way to demotivate people.

 

Also whilst you can split repetitive jobs, those involving long term planning or long projects simply cannot be split between people without bringing in error and confusion that you really don't want.

[Anna B]

 

Because that means that those people will onyl get paid half as much, and for some of the highly skilled jobs out there that's a great way to demotivate people.

 

Also whilst you can split repetitive jobs, those involving long term planning or long projects simply cannot be split between people without bringing in error and confusion that you really don't want.

 

 

I talked about the pay aspect in an earlier post.

 

Teaching requires long term planning and long projects. We made it work really well.

[Mecky]

Not Sports Direct but it's said to affect one million people, much wider than thought http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23570345