I1L2T3 Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Surely in a business like sports direct where there is a fixed number of shops with known opening hours then the core staff required is always known. Can anybody seriously argue that the shops run on 10% of the staff and the other 90% are just brought in for busy times. It doesn't stack up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Surely in a business like sports direct where there is a fixed number of shops with known opening hours then the core staff required is always known. Can anybody seriously argue that the shops run on 10% of the staff and the other 90% are just brought in for busy times. It doesn't stack up. Say it was 60/40, or even 80/20, then would the people on the thread who are saying how disgusting 0 hour contracts are still complain? If so what is the cut off point? What is acceptable? If they are arguing for 100%, then the simple truth would be that companies would have to employ fewer people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Surely in a business like sports direct where there is a fixed number of shops with known opening hours then the core staff required is always known. Can anybody seriously argue that the shops run on 10% of the staff and the other 90% are just brought in for busy times. It doesn't stack up. any business that doesnt tackle its wage bill by selective rotas will run into trouble, even if sports direct know the number of shops etc different equations need different staffing and the flexibility to send staff off at quiet times. our till programme tells us when we need staff at busy times and visa versa quiet ones we may need 4 or 5 for 3 hrs and only 2 for 6 or 8 hrs throughout the day, why would we have all six on for 8 hrs?? staff are one of the biggest overheads and unfortunately the easiest to cut.....thats business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 any business that doesnt tackle its wage bill by selective rotas will run into trouble, even if sports direct know the number of shops etc different equations need different staffing and the flexibility to send staff off at quiet times. our till programme tells us when we need staff at busy times and visa versa quiet ones we may need 4 or 5 for 3 hrs and only 2 for 6 or 8 hrs throughout the day, why would we have all six on for 8 hrs?? staff are one of the biggest overheads and unfortunately the easiest to cut.....thats business That doesn't explain why the vast majority of the staff need to be on zero hours contracts. If anything you've described exactly why not - footfall and staff demand can be pretty accurately predicted. I know this - I worked on demand planning systems for a major retailer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 That doesn't explain why the vast majority of the staff need to be on zero hours contracts. If anything you've described exactly why not - footfall and staff demand can be pretty accurately predicted. I know this - I worked on demand planning systems for a major retailer. Buckingham Palace employs summer staff on 'zero-hours' contracts Part-time staff are not guaranteed any hours but have to agree not to work for anyone else. The NHS is using an increasing number of zero hour contracts with almost 70,000 NHS staff employed using such contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Say it was 60/40, or even 80/20, then would the people on the thread who are saying how disgusting 0 hour contracts are still complain? If so what is the cut off point? What is acceptable? If they are arguing for 100%, then the simple truth would be that companies would have to employ fewer people. Personally I'd say it becomes unacceptable when it is not used by operational need, but as a means of circumventing employees rights. The default posistion should be to aim to employ people full time, if their are operational gaps within the structure that those employees cannot fill then it's fine to use agency or zero hour staff to fill them until load balancing removes the need for them. For a large company it should be a maximum of a couple of people at a location at any one time, otherwise it's not opperational need that's driving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Buckingham Palace employs summer staff on 'zero-hours' contracts Part-time staff are not guaranteed any hours but have to agree not to work for anyone else. The NHS is using an increasing number of zero hour contracts with almost 70,000 NHS staff employed using such contracts. If you read my posts earlier in the thread I support the idea that in some circumstances these contracts are a good idea. The examples you give will have the vast majority of staff not on zero hours contracts. The fact they may be understandably have some is not a good justification for what sports direct do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Did anybody see Channel 4 news this evening. It featured a report on the Amazon warehouse in the east Midlands. Not only do they operate zero hour contracts; but their employment practices are Dickensian (and illegal). It's certainly an eye opener, watch it here: http://www.channel4.com/news/anger-at-amazon-working-conditions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Did anybody see Channel 4 news this evening. It featured a report on the Amazon warehouse in the east Midlands. Not only do they operate zero hour contracts; but their employment practices are Dickensian (and illegal). It's certainly an eye opener, watch it here: Yes it was a bit of an eye opener, but will it stop me buying cheap stuff from amazon, probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Yes it was a bit of an eye opener, but will it stop me buying cheap stuff from amazon, probably not. I've made a personal decision not to buy anything from Amazon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.