More 0 hours workers than ever..

[unbeliever]

So how come 'polls' of recent times have been so horribly wrong?...Or didn't you notice?

 

Brexit, Trump, General Election to name just a few of the most obvious ones.

 

What the hell!

Those opinion polls were out by a couple of percent. It was enough to change the result in these very close elections. If we changed the result the the polls I linked to by 5% or even 10% the conclusions would be the same.

[tinfoilhat]

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?

 

If the same poll supported your view, would you have used it as evidence?

[PeteMorris]

There is a limited margin for error in all such surveys. Far smaller than you are suggesting. Usually the 99% confidence limit is a few percent.

 

The margin for error on your anecdote, a survey of one with no control sample, and subject to reporting bias, is basically 100%.

 

Yep...Ok...I hold my hands up, I am somewhat biased because of my bad experience...So I'm the only person in the land...I'm a victim...Whaaaaa!

 

Why have other polls been so spectacularly 'wrong'...Care to explain?

[unbeliever]

Yep...Ok...I hold my hands up, I am somewhat biased because of my bad experience...So I'm the only person in the land...I'm a victim...Whaaaaa!

 

Why have other polls been so spectacularly 'wrong'...Care to explain?

 

I just did. Post #221.

[Obelix]

So how come 'polls' of recent times have been so horribly wrong?...Or didn't you notice?

 

Brexit, Trump, General Election to name just a few of the most obvious ones.

 

Do you understand how they are done, and what the margin of error is and how it comes about?

 

It's a really simple question with an equally simple answer. once we progress past this seemingly huge molehill for you I will address the rest of the questions.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 15:50 ----------

 

What the hell!

Those opinion polls were out by a couple of percent. It was enough to change the result in these very close elections. If we changed the result the the polls I linked to by 5% or even 10% the conclusions would be the same.

 

Hey guess what the margine of error on a sample size of 1000 people is in a typical election poll.

 

 

It's 3%.

 

Wonder why Pete hasn't answered the most simple of questions that I've posed.

[Mister M]

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?

 

Although to be fair, I raised the point that those on ZHC who do the same work as those on permanent contracts get paid less per hour, and that disparity gets wider the further down the income scale you go.

No-one pro ZHC on here acknowledged those findings:

 

Fair point.

 

The Resolution Foundation study highlights a 93p per hour pay penalty for zero-hour workers doing the same work as those on permanent contracts

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/30/zero-hours-workers-1000-worse-off-a-year-than-employees

 

The pay penalty directly associated with zero-hours work amounted to 6.6% or 93p an hour. For a typical zero-hours worker doing 21 hours a week, it amounts to £1,000 a year. An examination of workers in low-paid roles revealed a bigger penalty of 9.5%

[PeteMorris]

If the same poll supported your view, would you have used it as evidence?

 

I can't say really....In my first post on this subject, I said 'Here's my take on ZHC'...My view, my opinion...

 

My opinion is it wreaks of the ability to be abused...And no polls about how happy people are happy with this wonderful invention of ZHC will change my mind.

 

It 'can' be abused, so it always will be by those who choose to.

 

I don't know what the answer to it is....But as sgt kate say's maybe there should be an overhaul of employment law? Quite what that might take, I'm not sure.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 15:55 ----------

 

I just did. Post #221.

 

Yes, I saw...only after I posted...Sorry

[Obelix]

No I don't but I fail to see the relevance. Even if you'd asked every single person in the UK which way they'd vote in the referendum you'd still likely have got the wrong answer.

 

Most polls that are done anonymously where the questionee knows the poll is anonymous, and trusts the questioner to be fair and unbiased show that the results are remarkably candid and accurate. Companies like Ipsos Mori etc are well regarded and people do trust them when the poll isn't obviously skewed.

 

In a sample size of 1000 people you will expect at 95% confident that deviation of 3.15% from true in a simple binary poll where people are roughly equal on the yes/no side of the question. For contrast a 50 person poll has a 14% error rate, and a 2000 person poll is 2.05% error. 1000 person polls are run because they are almost as accurate as a much larger poll and cheaper, and faster to do.

 

Most of the "close" polls are within this unavoidable error bracket and the close ones that you have identified fall within the margin of this error.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 15:57 ----------

 

Although to be fair, I raised the point that those on ZHC who do the same work as those on permanent contracts get paid less per hour, and that disparity gets wider the further down the income scale you go.

No-one pro ZHC on here acknowledged those findings:

 

I've not had chance to dig through that yet although I think I can guess why that number appears and what the cause is. I need to do a bit more reading to see though.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 15:58 ----------

 

If the same poll supported your view, would you have used it as evidence?

 

I think we all know the true answer to that....

[PeteMorris]

Do you understand how they are done, and what the margin of error is and how it comes about?

 

It's a really simple question with an equally simple answer. once we progress past this seemingly huge molehill for you I will address the rest of the questions.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 15:50 ----------

 

 

Hey guess what the margine of error on a sample size of 1000 people is in a typical election poll.

 

 

It's 3%.

 

Wonder why Pete hasn't answered the most simple of questions that I've posed.

 

Mainly because you choose 'selective' bits of my posts and try hard to portray me as some kind of power mad idiot...Asking the same questions over and over in an attempt to belittle me...It's a very familiar ploy of yours.

 

Election polls were wrong...Not just once...But many times...But of course they were within the margin of error for 1000 people...So that's ok...

 

Is it any wonder I don't have too much confidence in 'polls'

[Obelix]

No, im trying to figure out what you know and so can tailor my answer to you. otherwise you accuse me of belittling or talking over the top of you as you've done in the past before.

 

It was a simple question. If you choose not to answer it that's no skin off my nose.

 

Now you have the answer, you can see why the survey that Unbeliever linked to is useful and why it doesn not show that ZHC are the big bad boogeyman you claim. So if you continue to attack them on such a basis the only logical conclusion is that you are doing so in order to attack me which would not be conduct I'd expect from any user of this forum. Sadly though there are plenty of such people on here.