ricgem2002 Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 They are really problematic if you need housing benefit. They are incredibly difficult to organise childcare around. They make it really hard to plan ahead - for example when the contracts that me and my OH work on get renewed we can plan ahead for the next few years, loosen the purse strings, spend some money on the house (that we wouldn't have been able to buy if we'd been on ZHCs) because we have guaranteed earnings for a few years. No such luck for people on zero hours contracts who don't know what they will get week to week let alone year to year. We want all these things for ourselves, why would we want to deny them to other people? because some on here thinks its ok for others to live like that and let employers do what they like with the governments help:roll: id also like to see how many landlords on here would be happy renting their houses out to someone on these contracts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Arctor Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 because some on here thinks its ok for others to live like that and let employers do what they like with the governments help:roll: id also like to see how many landlords on here would be happy renting their houses out to someone on these contracts Landlords generally dislike them in my experience and are reluctant to let to people on ZHCs because of the messing about with housing benefit. Universal Credit avoids that particular problem but creates another of landlords having to wait too long for the first payment and they don't like letting to people on UC either. It's like we've decided that we don't want people to have somewhere to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 They can, but since they don't have to they don't. It means more profit for the business if all the risk is pushed onto the staff. NO the can't. Have you ever run a business? Not every business and service requires staff at all times all year round. Shops, restaurants, bars, hotels, leisure attractions and special events have surges and drops in demand and the staff are therefore adjusted to suit. Christmas for example requires a hell of a lot more during its couple of weeks to say mid January and last week in march. We then have special events that happen only a few times a year. Seasonal work in coastal leisure attractions who may only be open limited periods each year and only have high demand during certain holidays. Behind all that will be the factories, producers, distribution and warehousing whose demand will also dramatically fluctuate during the year accordingly. You don't pay for staff to sit their scratching their backside all day. Perhaps all these anti ZHC campaigners would prefer it if employers recruited people on 2 day contracts instead. I'm sure that would improve things greatly. No temporary role is ideal but its work. Those who dont like doing it should look for something else and leave for a more permanent role. Its a fill in - always has been always will be. Its great for those with children and those studying at university. It is never supposed to be equivalent to a full-time career role and people need to stop pretending these jobs should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 NO the can't. Have you ever run a business? Not every business and service requires staff at all times all year round. Shops, restaurants, bars, hotels, leisure attractions and special events have surges and drops in demand and the staff are therefore adjusted to suit. Christmas for example requires a hell of a lot more during its couple of weeks to say mid January and last week in march. We then have special events that happen only a few times a year. Seasonal work in coastal leisure attractions who may only be open limited periods each year and only have high demand during certain holidays. Behind all that will be the factories, producers, distribution and warehousing whose demand will also dramatically fluctuate during the year accordingly. You don't pay for staff to sit their scratching their backside all day. Perhaps all these anti ZHC campaigners would prefer it if employers recruited people on 2 day contracts instead. I'm sure that would improve things greatly. No temporary role is ideal but its work. Those who dont like doing it should look for something else and leave for a more permanent role. Its a fill in - always has been always will be. Its great for those with children and those studying at university. It is never supposed to be equivalent to a full-time career role and people need to stop pretending these jobs should be. so your happy that if fulltime work is available it should be on the books and zhc only be used to fill in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 They can, but since they don't have to they don't. It means more profit for the business if all the risk is pushed onto the staff. No, they can't, certainly not smaller ones all the time. Work/orders can be hugely variable for small businesses. And if you genuinely think all the risk is pushed on the staff I can't take you seriously anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted March 5, 2017 Author Share Posted March 5, 2017 By the way why are people using 0 hours contracts as a political point ? plenty of people are happily employed on these contracts And plenty more are not. What about them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 And plenty more are not. What about them? They can change jobs then.. When was the Govt responsible for people's happiness? There are many people unhappy in 9-5 salaried jobs too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 And plenty more are not. What about them? Are you saying the majority of people on zero hour contracts are not happy with that and would rather be on another type of contract. I've not seen any evidence to support that - do you have any? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 Are you saying the majority of people on zero hour contracts are not happy with that and would rather be on another type of contract. I've not seen any evidence to support that - do you have any? To be honest I'd bet (without any evidence admittedly) that a good chunk of people on zero hours contract don't care as long as the actual hours are pretty consistent. Zero hours doesn't necessarily mean no hours day after day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 They can change jobs then.. When was the Govt responsible for people's happiness? There are many people unhappy in 9-5 salaried jobs too... That's the key to half the debates on here. To what extent are people responsible for themselves rather than the state being responsible? The reality is that at some point in terms of interventionism, for every one person they make happier they hurt two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now