More 0 hours workers than ever..

[Obelix]

Oh no I'm taking it exactly as it is. It's quite hilarious watching all the people champing at the bit thinking they can get to put the boot in to someone for some perceived ills and then watching the backpeddaling.

 

"If O describes how he uses them then I bet we can suggest an alternative"

 

No assumption that I might be using them responsibly no it's assumed that I'm screwing up and can do better

 

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. ."

 

Assumption is that there are other better alternatives and I'm wrong or stupid for using ZHC. Despite pointing out already why they are used.

 

"Yes I do think ZHC are Baaaad....IMO it's merely a tool to get cheap labour (min wage) with an endless supply of people who have no choice but to work within that system"

 

Not much wiggle room there. I confess, Im obviously a slave driver paying my ZHC people a minimum wage of £24 an hour for the work they produce... I'm so bad.

 

People are bashing ZHC none stop because they must be evil and people employing them are obvious doing so to exploit. Then they change their tunes but there's nothing in the hint of an apology forthcoming is there...

Edited March 7, 2017 by Obelix

[alchresearch]

The bad publicity may hurt his profits though - as Starbucks found out to their cost.

 

Nah, there's nobody really competing with him on price, my trainers are £20 cheaper there (and in stock) compared to JD and the other sports shops.

 

Starbucks have Costa and loads of indies competing for their business.

[sgtkate]

Oh no I'm taking it exactly as it is. It's quite hilarious watching all the people champing at the bit thinking they can get to put the boot in to someone for some perceived ills and then watching the backpeddaling.

 

"If O describes how he uses them then I bet we can suggest an alternative"

 

No assumption that I might be using them responsibly no it's assumed that I'm screwing up and can do better

 

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. ."

 

Assumption is that there are other better alternatives and I'm wrong or stupid for using ZHC. Despite pointing out already why they are used.

 

"Yes I do think ZHC are Baaaad....IMO it's merely a tool to get cheap labour (min wage) with an endless supply of people who have no choice but to work within that system"

 

Not much wiggle room there. I confess, Im obviously a slave driver paying my ZHC people a minimum wage of £24 an hour for the work they produce... I'm so bad.

 

People are bashing ZHC none stop because they must be evil and people employing them are obvious doing so to exploit. Then they change their tunes but there's nothing in the hint of an apology forthcoming is there...

 

If that's how you want to read it then <shrugs>

[Obelix]

I don't really see any other way of reading it. The whole thread has been a continual way of finding some means - however you can of assuming I'm doing something wrong and a staunch refusal to even think otherwise.

[sgtkate]

I don't really see any other way of reading it. The whole thread has been a continual way of finding some means - however you can of assuming I'm doing something wrong and a staunch refusal to even think otherwise.

 

Well, I've been trying to discuss the issue with someone who uses them in a positive manner. My initial reaction to ZHCs was simply to ban them as I couldn't really see why employees would want them and that they were solely being used to maximise profits for employers whilst giving bare minimum rights to staff. You have given a valid example of why maybe we shouldn't ban them but perhaps still need to find a way to stop the bad apples using them in less than positive ways. I think a lot of people on this thread have done similar, all of us had only experienced the negative side of ZHC so understandable that skews your initial thinking.

[unbeliever]

Has anybody heard any comment from the Labour front bench which is consistent with a blanket ban on ZHCs and not with an unspecified change in the regulation of them?

I always hear them say "end exploitative zero hours contracts". Now this can be read in 2 ways.

1. That a subset of ZHCs are exploitative and they wish to end them. Of course they've not explained how.

2. That ZHCs are exploitative and therefore they need to be ended.

 

This is a flaw in the way that sentences are constructed in English which is often exploited by people wishing to say 2 things to 2 different audiences and then decide which one to actually implement later.

 

So who's been reading Labour policy as ending all ZHCs as they're exploitative and who's been reading it as ending the subset of ZHCs which are exploitative?

Edited March 7, 2017 by unbeliever

[sgtkate]

Has anybody heard any commont from the Labour front bench which is consistent with a blanket ban on ZHCs and not with an unspecified change in the regulation of them?

I always hear them say "end exploitative zero hours contracts". Now this can be read in 2 ways.

1. That a subset of ZHCs are exploitative and they wish to end them. Of course they've not explained how.

2. That ZHCs are exploitative and therefore they need to be ended.

 

This is a flaw in the way that sentences are constructed in English which is often exploited by people wishing to say 2 things to 2 different audiences and then decide which one to actually implement later.

 

So who's been reading Labour policy as ending all ZHCs as they're exploitative and who's been reading it as ending the subset of ZHCs which are exploitative?

 

Having learned a bit more through this thread and going off and looking into them in more detail I hope it's the former.

[unbeliever]

Having learned a bit more through this thread and going off and looking into them in more detail I hope it's the former.

 

Good luck with that. They've gone out of their way to sustain the ambiguity.

[Robin-H]

Students always managed before anyone had ever heard of a ZHC...

 

But the biggest problem isn't for the people who it suits, it's for the people who it doesn't suit, who are unable to budget because they can't be sure of the income, who have benefits messed about constantly, who can't get a mortgage and can't even be sure they can pay the rent.

For someone who wants to work, a ZHC is practically useless.

 

Are you saying that students managed before anyone had heard of ZHC or before anyone used ZHC. One of the reasons why the number of people reported to be on ZHC has increased is because there is a much greater awareness. Looking back, I was on a zero hours contract yonks ago, but wouldn't have said I was at the time because I wasn't aware of them.

 

If you are saying the latter, then what was the alternative to such having flexible employment at the time? And was it better than now?

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2017 at 10:48 ----------

 

Good luck with that. They've gone out of their way to sustain the ambiguity.

 

Well Tony Blair said he was going to 'end zero hour contracts' in about 1995 I think, so there wasn't much room for ambiguity there. Perhaps he realised that they aren't all bad..

 

It is a shame it took until the coalition government for exclusive ZHCs to be banned, which were exploitative.

[unbeliever]

 

It is a shame it took until the coalition government for exclusive ZHCs to be banned, which were exploitative.

 

Quite. And now that they're gone I'm not convinced that we have a problem requiring legislation to address.