More 0 hours workers than ever..

[PeteMorris]

Now you're just making stuff up.

Everybody had conceded without hesitation that sometimes employers treat employees badly.

I find your attempts to link this to problems from 4 decades ago somewhat preposterous.

 

Apparently I'm waging a vendetta...That's preposterous...

 

Why do you think it bears no resemblance to now? I 'do' remembering it (sweatshops) being big news at one time...and the legislation to (try) and prevent it happening was NMW....

 

Ok...Let's list what's agreed (mostly)

 

1: For some workers it suits them very well

2: For 'some' employers, it suits them very well (responsible ones)

3: A lot of people (according to the quoted poll) are happy.

4: A lot of workers (according to the poll) have a good work-life balance.

5: Some employers abuse their employees

6: Some workers it doesn't suit at all, but don't have options.

7: Some workers find it impossible to budget (full time workers)

8: Some workers feel (and are) bullied by some employers.

9: Some employers who abuse probably won't change.

 

 

But according to you...Nothing needs to change...Let's just ignore the bad apples and pretend it doesn't exist.

[Anna B]

I'm still suitably unimpressed with your unrandomised poll sample of one. You can repeat it as much as you like, that's what it is.

 

But it's not a unrandomised poll of one is it?

 

It's a tale you hear frequently if you actually get off your arse and mix with people employed in the 0 hours world. How many do you actually know?

 

Most of the ones I know are good, hardworking people who need a full time job but have found themselves in this situation through no fault of their own. They now find themselves trapped with little or no prospect of being able to get out of the cycle until they can finally retire, and they've even had those goal posts moved years down the line.

 

You can quote statistics till you're blue in the face and make them support any view you want, but you really have no idea of the real world do you?

[PeteMorris]

If you're finding this distressing, I would advise that you either concede or walk away.

If you persist in repeating arguments that have already been demolished and making claims that are demonstrably false, you're going to keep getting demolished and shown up.

 

Sometimes people get things wrong. There's no shame in it, and no need to keep fighting a battle that you've rightfully lost.

 

No I find it ummm...Not distressing, but laughable that I'm on some sort of vendetta.

 

'You' think I have lost an argument (discussion) but I don't. All I get from you is statistics and a notion that legislation to fix your assertion that it's a small problem isn't worth it...So we'll just ignore a problem we know exists.

 

Anna B's post above is entirely correct.

[unbeliever]

But it's not a unrandomised poll of one is it?

 

It's a tale you hear frequently if you actually get off your arse and mix with people employed in the 0 hours world. How many do you actually know?

 

Most of the ones I know are good, hardworking people who need a full time job but have found themselves in this situation through no fault of their own. They now find themselves trapped with little or no prospect of being able to get out of the cycle until they can finally retire, and they've even had those goal posts moved years down the line.

 

You can quote statistics till you're blue in the face and make them support any view you want, but you really have no idea of the real world do you?

 

 

I have hard data.

You've just told me that I should go collect some anecdotal evidence and then seek to overrule my hard data with that.

Well... no. That's stupid.

 

I'm right. You're angry that I'm right. You think I should be wrong, because then I would align better with what your ideology says should be right.

Maybe if you shout enough, organise a demo or something, the universe will agree to change the facts.

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2017 at 12:43 ----------

 

No I find it ummm...Not distressing, but laughable that I'm on some sort of vendetta.

 

'You' think I have lost an argument (discussion) but I don't. All I get from you is statistics and a notion that legislation to fix your assertion that it's a small problem isn't worth it...So we'll just ignore a problem we know exists.

 

Anna B's post above is entirely correct.

 

So you also reject the use of evidence to establish facts.

Well that explains a lot.

[PeteMorris]

I have hard data.

You've just told me that I should go collect some anecdotal evidence and then seek to overrule my hard data with that.

Well... no. That's stupid.

 

I'm right. You're angry that I'm right. You think I should be wrong, because then I would align better with what your ideology says should be right.

Maybe if you shout enough, organise a demo or something, the universe will agree to change the facts.

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2017 at 12:43 ----------

 

 

So you also reject the use of evidence to establish facts.

Well that explains a lot.

 

You deny a problem exists?

 

You say I'm making up stories of 1970's sweatshops?....

 

"But I've got data....Data is king...Anything else isn't true because I've got data"...As Anna says, you're in a different world.

[unbeliever]

You deny a problem exists?

 

You say I'm making up stories of 1970's sweatshops?....

 

"But I've got data....Data is king...Anything else isn't true because I've got data"...As Anna says, you're in a different world.

 

It's not the 1970s.

I'm clearly in a different world from you and Anna. Are you in the 1970s?

 

I do have data. So I win. What is it you don't get?

 

 

Now if you'd like to withdraw your support for a ban on ZHCs and instead propose some far less drastic change to employment regulation then we can talk.

[PeteMorris]

It's not the 1970s.

I'm clearly in a different world from you and Anna. Are you in the 1970s?

 

I do have data. So I win. What is it you don't get?

 

 

Now if you'd like to withdraw your support for a ban on ZHCs and instead propose some far less drastic change to employment regulation then we can talk.

 

I already did, but you choose to ignore it...Predictably

[unbeliever]

I already did, but you choose to ignore it...Predictably

 

And then promptly reversed yourself.

[PeteMorris]

It's not the 1970s.

I'm clearly in a different world from you and Anna. Are you in the 1970s?

 

I do have data. So I win. What is it you don't get?

 

 

Now if you'd like to withdraw your support for a ban on ZHCs and instead propose some far less drastic change to employment regulation then we can talk.

 

Oh, and you still haven't acknowledged there is a problem...

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2017 at 13:12 ----------

 

And then promptly reversed yourself.

 

No...I would get rid of ZHC's or at least have it substantially modified...As I said much earlier..(which you chose to ignore)...I never saw what was wrong with agency employment.

[unbeliever]

Oh, and you still haven't acknowledged there is a problem...

 

Well, that's rather obviously untrue.

Although here I am again using evidence to establish facts. Silly me.

 

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?

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2017 at 13:17 ----------

 

 

No...I would get rid of ZHC's or at least have it substantially modified...As I said much earlier..(which you chose to ignore)...I never saw what was wrong with agency employment.

 

So you still argue for the de facto or de jure removal of ZHCs. Explain to me the difference between your position now and your position when this thread started. You just told me that you weren't arguing to "get rid of ZHCs".

 

I wasn't aware that agency employment had been banned. Which act of parliament banned it?

Edited March 7, 2017 by unbeliever