More 0 hours workers than ever..

[PeteMorris]

It's not the 1970s.

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

 

Nope I'm not in the 70's but I can remember them very well...Can you?

 

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

 

Now that probably 'has' to take the first prize for a childish playground quote of the week!...Really?

 

 

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.

 

Does this mean you win and I should just be quiet?...Because I'm not changing my opinions based on your precious 'data'.

[unbeliever]

Nope I'm not in the 70's but I can remember them very well...Can you?

 

 

Nope. Maybe a couple of fragments from 1979. How is this in any way relevant to the matter at hand.

 

 

Does this mean you win and I should just be quiet?...Because I'm not changing my opinions based on your precious 'data'.

 

This has become very clear.

I made my point earlier. You asked Obelix to "give it a rest". I pointed out that as long as you continue to repeat things which we know to be rubbish and can prove are rubbish, we're going to keep posting back that they're rubbish and pointing to the evidence that they're rubbish. I further added that if you find this process distressing then you should perhaps choose to remove yourself from the conversation.

[Mr Bloke]

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

:hihi:

Well done... you've won! (or at least it's probably better for us all to let you think you have)

 

I've not had the pleasure of reading such childish rants in a long time... probably because had it not been Mr Pete that was the target of your pettiness then the thread would have already had several mod warnings for bickering and probably now be long gone.

 

But no, because Mr Pete appears to be the target then someone is turning a blind eye and not doing their job... maybe the mods are all on ZHC's?

[the_bloke]

Agency staff are either paid more and/or DO get holiday and pensions.

 

The NHS hire locum doctors to fill gaps. These are effectively agency staff. I doubt they're complaining though, because like me they charge a premium.

 

You are thinking of agency staff performing jobs at the middle and upper reaches of the pay scale. SCC for example have to use agency staff to cover night care work (the bottom end of the pay scale) in the event they have no one else available. These people are not paid the same as the council workers, far from it. Yet to get these people in, SCC is paying a considerably higher figure than they would pay their own staff to do the same job. This is why social care in the council has a pool of flexible workers who are care workers on secondary zero hour contracts, to save money and avoid using agency staff.

 

If that pool was no longer available because ZHCs were banned, what would be the way forward? More agency staff, or paying staff the minimum hours the removal of ZHCs required in case they are needed? Either scenario costs more money yet brings no changes to the job.

[Obelix]

Oh do give it a rest...

 

Why? Because you find it annoying?

 

I find it quite aggravating that despite having shown you why it works for my employees and why it works well for most people (see the survey amongst others already referenced) Is till have you barking off that it's bad.

 

So why do you keep going on about how bad it is all the time? Why don't YOU give it a rest?

[PeteMorris]

Well, that's rather obviously untrue.

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

 

No you said it's not worth legislating for..Effectively saying ignore it, it's inconsequential. That's your proposal.

 

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 have no idea what was said when the thread started. I didn't contribute then. You know very well my point of view...I've repeated it umpteenth times...What is it you don't 'get'?

 

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

 

No, you're absolutely right...although I suspect it was meant sarcastically...There is no act of parliament banning agencies...But there is legislation allowing companies to use, or abuse zero hour contracts, which effectively take the agencies out of the loop.

[unbeliever]

:hihi:

Well done... you've won! (or at least it's probably better for us all to let you think you have)

 

I've not had the pleasure of reading such childish rants in a long time... probably because had it not been Mr Pete that was the target of your pettiness then the thread would have already had several mod warnings for bickering and probably now be long gone.

 

But no, because Mr Pete appears to be the target then someone is turning a blind eye and not doing their job... maybe the mods are all on ZHC's?

 

What forum rule is it that I have supposedly not obeyed?

[Obelix]

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.

 

Anna's post is entirely made up of anecdotes. They have the same worth as your anecdote when put up against the reality.

 

As for your list, you do realise that the list you have made has a number of internal inconsistencies - 1 is not congruent with 3 and 4 being true for example - that make it utterly flawed as an argument.

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2017 at 13:29 ----------

 

:hihi:

Well done... you've won! (or at least it's probably better for us all to let you think you have)

 

I've not had the pleasure of reading such childish rants in a long time... probably because had it not been Mr Pete that was the target of your pettiness then the thread would have already had several mod warnings for bickering and probably now be long gone.

 

But no, because Mr Pete appears to be the target then someone is turning a blind eye and not doing their job... maybe the mods are all on ZHC's?

 

How is providing hard data and facts considered bickering then? Serious question.

[unbeliever]

No you said it's not worth legislating for..Effectively saying ignore it, it's inconsequential. That's your proposal.

 

 

That's not what I said. That's your inference.

 

I have no idea what was said when the thread started. I didn't contribute then. You know very well my point of view...I've repeated it umpteenth times...What is it you don't 'get'?

 

You bounce back and forth in the space of a few posts between saying that you do and do not support a ban on ZHCs. Which is it?

 

No, you're absolutely right...although I suspect it was meant sarcastically...There is no act of parliament banning agencies...But there is legislation allowing companies to use, or abuse zero hour contracts, which effectively take the agencies out of the loop.

 

Really? I wasn't aware that employment agencies had disappeared.

[Obelix]

What forum rule is it that I have supposedly not obeyed?

 

You've failed to agree with the groupthink and are being punished accordingly.

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2017 at 13:31 ----------

 

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

 

Have you proved there is a problem with ZHC yet?