More 0 hours workers than ever..

[Obelix]

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?

 

Have you read the relevant legislation? Stopping people from unionising is quite illegal and if they didn't have a job the enxt day they'd bankrupt him and the company in an employment tribunal.

[unbeliever]

Perhaps people proposing major changes to employment law should have a vague understanding of what the existing law is. Just a thought.

[sgtkate]

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

 

Sacking someone for joining a trade union is indeed illegal. Giving them no hours of work isn't. Nor is sacking them because you don't like their nose even though you've really sacked them because they joined a union.

[PeteMorris]

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?

 

With respect, you cited a BBC survey, carried out by Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Where 2000 people were questioned. Hardly a comprehensive survey...There's more than a million people on ZHC, and this is irrefutable evidence backing your claim I speak for a tiny minority?

 

How do you know they didn't just only question people like Obelix's ZHC workers? Is an employer who is ducking below the radar going to agree to completing such a survey?

 

How do you know the circumstances of the 'poll'...How do you know there wouldn't be repercussions had the recipients of the poll said anything negative?....Because it's reported by the BBC?

 

In the grand scheme of things it's impossible to know 'just' how many families are negatively affected...But it's ok, cos it's just a tiny minority.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 15:20 ----------

 

Have you read the relevant legislation? Stopping people from unionising is quite illegal and if they didn't have a job the enxt day they'd bankrupt him and the company in an employment tribunal.

 

You gotta be kidding?

 

Yes we all know it's illegal to ban unions...But there are 'ways' to prevent them. But of course I'm talking rubbish...You need to open your eyes a bit more...

[Obelix]

Do you know how a representative survey is carried out and what the margin of error is on a sample size of 1000? or 2000?

 

So you'd jump up and down and get worried about a tiny minority and throw the bathtub out. When that results in a much larger number of people who cannot or will not use ZHC's and they are adversely affected will that be OK?

[unbeliever]

With respect, you cited a BBC survey, carried out by Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Where 2000 people were questioned. Hardly a comprehensive survey...There's more than a million people on ZHC, and this is irrefutable evidence backing your claim I speak for a tiny minority?

 

How do you know they didn't just only question people like Obelix's ZHC workers? Is an employer who is ducking below the radar going to agree to completing such a survey?

 

How do you know the circumstances of the 'poll'...How do you know there wouldn't be repercussions had the recipients of the poll said anything negative?....Because it's reported by the BBC?

 

In the grand scheme of things it's impossible to know 'just' how many families are negatively affected...But it's ok, cos it's just a tiny minority.

 

 

What?!?

So it doesn't count because the survey didn't question every single ZHC employee in the nation?

Or you now expect me to prove it's not a conspiracy?

You think your couple of anecdotes beats my actual data?

Did you fall and hit your head or something?

 

It's not okay when people are mistreated by their employer. Straw man. Again! In fact the same straw man as before in a different hat. But banning ZHCs is a deeply damaging and ineffective way of preventing it.

If you keep misrepresenting what I say, moderator or not, I will report your post.

[PeteMorris]

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.

 

Ouch...Yes my partner in a previous job had authorisation to spend £3,000,000...at the drop of a hat...So very trusted and high up in the organisation she worked for...So to be reduced to a ZHC on min wage doing hard menial graft was in itself a bit soul destroying.

 

She lived in South Africa for 30 years, and said even though SA has virtually no employment protection laws whatsoever, that job she had on ZHC was by far the worst conditions she had ever had the misfortune to endure. She was never treated as badly in SA.

[cgksheff]

It isn't hard to find facts before ranting:

 

"The CIPD has commissioned a twice-yearly survey among UK employees (including sole traders) to identify their opinions of and attitudes towards working life today.

YouGov conducted the latest survey for the CIPD of 2,029 UK employees in February and March 2016. This survey was administered to members of the YouGov Plc UK panel of more than 350,000 individuals who have agreed to take part in surveys.

The sample was selected and weighted to be representative of the UK workforce in relation to sector and size (private, public, voluntary), industry type and full-time/parttime working by gender. Size of organisation was classified in the following way: sole trader (oneperson

business), micro business (2–9), small business (10–49), medium (50–249) and large (more than 250).

 

Emails were sent to panellists selected at random from the base sample. The email invited them to take part in a survey and provided a generic survey link. Once a panel member clicked on the link, they were sent to the survey that they were most required for, according to the sample definition and quotas.

 

The sample profile is normally derived from census data or, if not available from the census, from industry-accepted data.

 

Net scores refer to the proportion of people agreeing with a statement minus those disagreeing."

 

https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/employee-outlook-spring-2016_tcm18-10903.pdf

[unbeliever]

It isn't hard to find facts before ranting:

 

"The CIPD has commissioned a twice-yearly survey among UK employees (including sole traders) to identify their opinions of and attitudes towards working life today.

YouGov conducted the latest survey for the CIPD of 2,029 UK employees in February and March 2016. This survey was administered to members of the YouGov Plc UK panel of more than 350,000 individuals who have agreed to take part in surveys.

The sample was selected and weighted to be representative of the UK workforce in relation to sector and size (private, public, voluntary), industry type and full-time/parttime working by gender. Size of organisation was classified in the following way: sole trader (oneperson

business), micro business (2–9), small business (10–49), medium (50–249) and large (more than 250).

 

Emails were sent to panellists selected at random from the base sample. The email invited them to take part in a survey and provided a generic survey link. Once a panel member clicked on the link, they were sent to the survey that they were most required for, according to the sample definition and quotas.

 

The sample profile is normally derived from census data or, if not available from the census, from industry-accepted data.

 

Net scores refer to the proportion of people agreeing with a statement minus those disagreeing."

 

https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/employee-outlook-spring-2016_tcm18-10903.pdf

 

 

That's the same data I linked to in post #191, only you've skipped the explanatory BBC news article.

[PeteMorris]

What?!?

So it doesn't count because the survey didn't question every single ZHC employee in the nation?

Or you now expect me to prove it's not a conspiracy?

You think your couple of anecdotes beats my actual data?

Did you fall and hit your head or something?

 

It's not okay when people are mistreated by their employer. Straw man. Again! In fact the same straw man as before in a different hat. But banning ZHCs is a deeply damaging and ineffective way of preventing it.

If you keep misrepresenting what I say, moderator or not, I will report your post.

 

Please don't threaten me. It's most unbecoming.

 

No, I said your survey was unrepresentative. And gave possible reasons why...It's like any 'survey'...Only gives the results of the people questioned, which isn't comprehensive, or necessarily accurate. Haven't you noticed other 'polls' which were plain wrong in the last year or so?