More 0 hours workers than ever..

[unbeliever]

How about some facts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984

 

UK workers on zero-hours contracts are more likely to be happy with their work-life balance than other staff, a survey suggests.

 

By all means let's ban ZHCs so these people can be forced to take full-time work with a single employer, that they don't want. We'll explain to them as we do so that it's for their own good as unbeknownst to them they're actually very unhappy and being underpaid and exploited.

 

Similarly:

https://www.ft.com/content/ac067b7c-99b1-11e5-987b-d6cdef1b205c

 

Oh and I checked, exclusivity is illegal in the UK for ZHCs and has been for a couple of years.

 

A bunch of happy, protected and productive people. Let's see how we can wreck it by spraying it with some well-intentioned statist intervention shall we.

 

Is this all because they don't join unions? There must some ulterior motive for this push against ZHCs. It makes naff all sense otherwise.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 14:52 ----------

 

 

So do you think it's perfectly acceptable for a system to be abused? Casualty of war?

 

Mike Ashley only got found out and exposed because of undercover reporting.

 

That's perfectly acceptable?

 

Straw man.

Mike Ashley broke the law and got caught. You don't have to change the law to stop Mike Ashley's as the law already forbids what he did.

Edited March 6, 2017 by unbeliever

[Obelix]

I'm not apologising for 'my opinion' It is what it is.

 

And it's my opinion that your opinion is based out of ignorance on what the situation actually is, and that your desire for removal of ZHC's is based entirely on a false premise because you are acting out of emotion and not reason.

 

I'm still waiting for the answers to the reasonable points I have raised. Are you going to consider answering them?

[TORONTONY]

Ok, here's my 'take' on ZHC's.

 

My OH was struggling to find 'any' sort of work, although she's very experienced in office administration. She ended up getting a job with a well known hotelier as a housekeeper on a ZHC.

 

She only had the misfortune to work there for around six months, during which time, there were 3 occasions when (having to be there for 7:30am), We arrived on the car park only for her to get a message on her phone not to bother today, we don't need you.

 

She had to work all the unsociable days, Saturdays, Sundays, Christmas Day, Boxing day...etc....Complain?...Workers are ten a penny, you don't get offered 'any' work. Like it or lump it. Also, you don't get paid any 'premium' rate for working Christmas, or new year. Just flat minimum wage. It might sound a very lowly sort of job, but I assure you it's hard physical work, back breaking and draining. I used to pick her up some days and she'd be in tears. It was heartbreaking.

 

Budgeting? That was an impossibility. We had no clue from one week to the next (paid monthly), how much money she would be earning. Especially in the 'off' season, winter.

 

Benefits?...Nope...Nothing because I work.

 

So you can probably guess my attitude about ZHC. It's used by employers in entirely the wrong way. It doesn't 'help' people, it restricts their lifestyle and social life.

 

I'll accept, 'some' people may like it. But spare a thought. If you're not 'available' 24/7, or say I don't want to work this Saturday...Or whatever, this 'is' used against you in the form of not being offered other days. It's little short of being bullied and abused.

 

Thankfully, she now has a full time job, not the best (but that's another story) and a full time 'proper' contract, and we know exactly how much money is coming into the household and can manage our money accordingly.

 

I believe you can only appreciate how subversive these ZHC's are, if you've experienced it first hand.

 

So no lectures please.

Although I am not involved, I can see your point of view and from what I have read this ZHC is a real crock of **** that would only benefit school leavers , university students in summer and well off, bored housewives. How anybody else would want to sign that type of contract, is beyond me.

Also I can identify with your own situation. My wife was a secretary to a vice president of a major corporation when she had a nervous breakdown through dealing with our eldest daughter's schizophrenia diagnosis. After several months off she was offered a deal to basically resign. When she wanted to contribute to our household income later, she signed with an agency . This was where the similarity to your wife's experience show up. She was only working for two companies via the agency, and was messed around like your wife. This too was physical work. Later on I found out that the owner of the agency was also the owner of the two companies she was sent too. All quite legal too. The guy was getting a double dose of the cream, whilst treating workers like depression era rabble.

[Obelix]

Is this all because they don't join unions? There must some ulterior motive for this push against ZHCs.

 

I've never understood why Sports direct staff don't unionise. It would seem to be the ideal situation where a union would actually help.

[unbeliever]

I've never understood why Sports direct staff don't unionise. It would seem to be the ideal situation where a union would actually help.

 

Well I've never known a union to be helpful, but I suppose its worth a try.

[PeteMorris]

How about some facts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984

 

 

 

By all means let's ban ZHCs so these people can be forced to take full-time work with a single employer, that they don't want. We'll explain to them as we do so that it's for their own good as unbeknownst to them they're actually very unhappy and being underpaid and exploited.

 

Similarly:

https://www.ft.com/content/ac067b7c-99b1-11e5-987b-d6cdef1b205c

 

Oh and I checked, exclusivity is illegal in the UK for ZHCs and has been for a couple of years.

 

A bunch of happy, protected and productive. Let's see how we can wreck it by spraying it with some well-intentioned statist intervention shall we.

 

Is this all because they don't join unions? There must some ulterior motive for this push against ZHCs. It makes naff all sense otherwise.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 14:52 ----------

 

 

Straw man.

Mike Ashley broke the law and got caught. You don't have to change the law to stop Mike Ashley's as the law already forbids what he did.

 

What utter guff....People on zero hour contract have a better work - life balance. A survey?

 

Do you think it was happy times for me and my OH?...Weekends wrecked? Unable to budget?...Days she did have off were spent recuperating from the previous day's graft? Leaving work utterly depressed, drained and exhausted and crying?...yeah, that was a real bundle of fun.

 

I'll be happy to recount your concern for those abused...

 

I've said...and for the umpteenth time...Yes some people are happy with it, some employers use it correctly...But sadly there's a lot that don't. Unless you've been on the sharp end of it, you can't possibly appreciate how bad it can be.

[unbeliever]

What utter guff....People on zero hour contract have a better work - life balance. A survey?

 

Do you think it was happy times for me and my OH?...Weekends wrecked? Unable to budget?...Days she did have off were spent recuperating from the previous day's graft? Leaving work utterly depressed, drained and exhausted and crying?...yeah, that was a real bundle of fun.

 

I'll be happy to recount your concern for those abused...

 

I've said...and for the umpteenth time...Yes some people are happy with it, some employers use it correctly...But sadly there's a lot that don't. Unless you've been on the sharp end of it, you can't possibly appreciate how bad it can be.

 

Actually two surveys. I expect there are more.

 

I'm aware that people have had bad experiences. You repeatedly refuse to address the key point against you.

I've now provided you with data to show that the even slightly negative experiences of ZHCs are a minority and the very bad experiences a minority of those.

 

So for the hypothetical benefit of a small minority or people on ZHCs, who may or may not have been exploited by an unscrupulous employer if ZHCs were banned, you propose to ban ZHCs. You want to hurt a great many people, not to mention the economic damage, in order to maybe contribute to the protection of a relatively small number of people who would probably be better helped by other means anyway.

 

Can you see why some of us are not enamoured of your baby+bathwater plan?

Edited March 6, 2017 by unbeliever

[PeteMorris]

I've never understood why Sports direct staff don't unionise. It would seem to be the ideal situation where a union would actually help.

 

Well unless I'm mistaken, a lot of the staff were / are migrant workers who maybe thought it was the 'norm'. Rightly or wrongly.

 

Do you think given the culture there, had someone said we're all joining a union, they would have work the following day...or ever?

[Obelix]

So you are putting an anecdote against real evidence?

 

It doesn't work like that. Whilst I'm sure it was bad for you and your wife, that doesn't mean everything is like that. You certainly cannot extrapolate from that that a large majority of ZHC are bad, just because you have one case yourself, and a boss acting like a complete knob (and I bet his permanent staff are not happy either).

 

What about the dozen or so people I have who seem very happy with it? I've got more than you so by extension you must be wrong and all ZHC are fulfilled by happy bunnies? Of course that's not the case - so it follows that you cannot claim conversely.

 

Me - I'd look at a respectable labour market survey for the real situation.

[unbeliever]

 

Do you think given the culture there, had someone said we're all joining a union, they would have work the following day...or ever?

 

That would also illegal under existing law. Joining a trade union is protected.