More 0 hours workers than ever..

[Obelix]

Because many other employers and employees are getting screwed. So as I asked, how do we let the legit ones carry on with the flexibility while stopping the bad ones? Noone seems willing to give suggestions.

 

How do we stop all the bad employers who are screwing people on regular salaried contracts? Whilst letting the good ones carry on?

 

ZHC are not the problem. Go after the bad employers not the means of employment...

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 12:45 ----------

 

For me (and yes I'm probably biased), I'd do away with ZHC.

 

I can't see the difference for responsible employers who have a bit of unexpected work available, to have a list of willing people who they offer work to on an ad-hoc basis. .

 

That would be because you don't employ people I guess....

 

If you want to employ someone ad hoc, they are not part of PAYE. They have to make their own NI payments. If you are in any field that deals with regulated work you have to do a DBS check and due diligence each time you employ them.

 

That costs time and money, and means that the contractor has to get involved perhaps with IR35 and have their own accountant. Stupid. They just don't want the work.

 

Keep them on the books as ZHC you can do all that - it's just part of regular payroll. Easier for them easier for me and the taxman is happy.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 12:46 ----------

 

Yes, I think I agree with you in principle, but Obelix is fairly strong that he needs the ZHCs so be interesting to find out why he needs to use them and not just do it how you say.

 

I've already detailed how and why I use them. Theres really nothing more that can be said really.

[unbeliever]

Perhaps, but the things is that there will always be low skilled jobs regardless of the level of education. Someone will always need to empty the bins, clean the toilets, work a checkout and increasing Better education degree would make the people more aware of their rights in employment and therefore more able to suss out when an employer is abusing them which can only be a good thing. Sadly though there will always be desperate people who will be willing to sacrifice their rights for just some money coming in, and it's those people we need to help by hitting the businesses who do abuse employees with some proper penalties, and not just financial ones, I'm talking things like jail time...

 

Not always, but I agree for some years yet. That's only a problem if there are a great many more people wanting that sort of work than there is work of that sort to do.

Training addresses imbalance in supply and demand and means that employers have to compete for the people they need to do the work which needs doing.

[Anna B]

Why should he? He's happy, his business is productive, and his employees (zero hours and otherwise) are all happy with this arrangement. What on earth would we meddle for?

 

His employees all happy? Wasn't multi-millionaire Mike Ashley the git who was hauled before a government committee to account for himself because of the huge number of complaints from his employees, (most of which were on 0 hours?)

[PeteMorris]

Yes, I think I agree with you in principle, but Obelix is fairly strong that he needs the ZHCs so be interesting to find out why he needs to use them and not just do it how you say. I'm not an employment lawyer so there might be reasons why you can't just offer the work to someone like that, maybe things like national insurance and so on would make it complicated?

 

Sorry I misread your post, I thought you said do away with ZHCs and give ad-hoc contracts, not have no contracts at all...as Robin says, that's probably even worse!

 

I'm not sure I expressed myself properly...Yes I'd do away with ZHC and for people who 'want' ad-hoc work can consider themselves self employed. Then there wouldn't be any 'sharp practice', as they would have control. Not the employer.

[unbeliever]

Obviously exclusivity on ZHCs is unacceptable.

Obelix has already explained the advantages of ZHCs over simple self-employment.

 

If there are people on ZHCs who want regular work then they need to gain the training and/or experience to be offered it. Nothing else will work.

[tinfoilhat]

How long does that work last for? Could you not hire people on a jobbing basis? So at least then they'd have guaranteed hours or income and you'd have the flexibility of the staff? The thing is that for every 'you' out there there's a Mike Ashley and that's the issue. How can we allow you to continue your ethical usage of ZHC which seems to work for both your staff and you (taking at your word as I've no reason to believe you'd lie about this given your other posts on here) but stop tossers like Mike Ashley using it as a way to stop staff complaining about work issues. He's not breaking the law by not sacking someone for complaining, but he can give them no work...and it's that type of behaviour we need to stop whilst not making it so people who do benefit for ZHCs can.

 

He could do that. He could instead ship off a load of jobs to India and then sometime in the future invest £1.2bn in an overpriced sport. Admittedly it's quite a specific expansion plan, but you never know

[Obelix]

His employees all happy?

 

Yes. Why on earth does that surprise you?

[tinfoilhat]

I'm not sure I expressed myself properly...Yes I'd do away with ZHC and for people who 'want' ad-hoc work can consider themselves self employed. Then there wouldn't be any 'sharp practice', as they would have control. Not the employer.

 

No they wouldn't. To use your good lady's example, there still a fair chance you'd be told you aren't needed as you drive into the car park. The myth is that if your self employed you're your own boss. Only to a point, I've found the reality(at the sharp end, low skill and other people's mileage may vary) is that you've lots of bosses with conflicting needs and issues. And they all want to be put first.

[Obelix]

I'm not sure I expressed myself properly...Yes I'd do away with ZHC and for people who 'want' ad-hoc work can consider themselves self employed.

 

Have you read my post above about why that simply doesnt work?

[PeteMorris]

Obviously exclusivity on ZHCs is unacceptable.

Obelix has already explained the advantages of ZHCs over simple self-employment.

 

If there are people on ZHCs who want regular work then they need to gain the training and/or experience to be offered it. Nothing else will work.

 

Oh?..That's a nice Utopia...

 

I'm sorry, I don't want to be blunt. But comments like that come from people who have never been on the nasty end of a ZHC...

 

I accept my experience isn't universal and there are some good applications of it. But where there is room for it's abuse then there will be people very keen to use it that way.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 13:26 ----------

 

No they wouldn't. To use your good lady's example, there still a fair chance you'd be told you aren't needed as you drive into the car park. The myth is that if your self employed you're your own boss. Only to a point, I've found the reality(at the sharp end, low skill and other people's mileage may vary) is that you've lots of bosses with conflicting needs and issues. And they all want to be put first.

 

How did it work before the advent of ZHC's?

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 13:28 ----------

 

Have you read my post above about why that simply doesnt work?

 

Yes I read your example, but with respect, that applies to your particular niche. Not universally applicable.