More 0 hours workers than ever..

[PeteMorris]

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?

 

No...I find your constant threats amusing...Trying to goad me into saying something 'inappropriate for a mod'...As you've done time and time again previously.

[Mr Bloke]

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

It's no good asking me - you'd better ask at the help desk!

[PeteMorris]

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.

 

What rubbish have I talked....my first post on here explained in graphic detail what happened to my other half, and you tell me it's rubbish...You weren't the one who's shoulder she cried upon, you weren't the one who try to cheer her up...you weren't the one who had to make the best of her being constantly depressed and dreading the next day at work....You weren't the one who wiped her tears.

 

How dare you say I've talked rubbish....Oh...sorry I forgot...you've got data that proves I'm wrong...

 

In your world this forum would consist of 2 post threads...One from the original poster, and yours because it's always right...

[unbeliever]

What rubbish have I talked....my first post on here explained in graphic detail what happened to my other half, and you tell me it's rubbish...You weren't the one who's shoulder she cried upon, you weren't the one who try to cheer her up...you weren't the one who had to make the best of her being constantly depressed and dreading the next day at work....You weren't the one who wiped her tears.

 

How dare you say I've talked rubbish....Oh...sorry I forgot...you've got data that proves I'm wrong...

 

 

Once again you mischaracterise what I've said.

As I have explained, again and again and again. I offer it one last time as I believe you're genuinely upset and I would be as well in your place so I sympathise. Individuals may have had a hard time on ZHCs. Banning ZHCs is a completely inappropriate response because they generally work very well as evidenced.

 

Now as long as you persist in your position that the option of banning all ZHCs should either activated or kept very firmly on the table I shall continue to argue against it. As I have overwhelming evidence that a great many people currently working on ZHCs, not to mention their employers, colleagues, dependents and the wider economy would be hurt by this I strongly object to it.

 

If you would like to discuss specific alternative means of preventing what your wife went through happening to others, I'm all ears. But I reject wholeheartedly the idea that banning ZHCs is an acceptable, or even viable, option.

 

In your world this forum would consist of 2 post threads...One from the original poster, and yours because it's always right...

 

Occasionally yes. Sometimes somebody puts forward a thought, and somebody else has evidence that either confirms or refutes it completely, and that really ought to be the end of it.

Now when there are unknowns in play that's not possible.

But I do rather take against the idea that when we do know something we are justified in rejecting it because it's inconvenient.

 

 

In this case. You have a legitimate grievance against your wife's former employer. For some reason you think this is a basis to ban the specific class of employment contract she worked under. I and others have shown you evidence that such a ban would do an enormous amount of harm. You seem to not like this fact and a dozen pages later you still seek to somehow reject it. This is not constructive.

Edited March 7, 2017 by unbeliever

[PeteMorris]

Once again you mischaracterise what I've said.

As I have explained, again and again and again. I offer it one last time as I believe you're genuinely upset and I would be as well in your place so I sympathise. Individuals may have had a hard time on ZHCs. Banning ZHCs is a completely inappropriate response because they generally work very well as evidenced.

 

Now as long as you persist in your position that the option of banning all ZHCs should either activated or kept very firmly on the table I shall continue to argue against it. As I have overwhelming evidence that a great many people currently working on ZHCs, not to mention their employers, colleagues, dependents and the wider economy would be hurt by this I strongly object to it.

 

If you would like to discuss specific alternative means of preventing what your wife went through happening to others, I'm all ears. But I reject wholeheartedly the idea that banning ZHCs is an acceptable, or even viable, option.

 

 

 

Occasionally yes. Sometimes somebody puts forward a thought, and somebody else has evidence that either confirms or refutes it completely, and that really ought to be the end of it.

Now when there are unknowns in play that's not possible.

But I do rather take against the idea that when we do know something we are justified in rejecting it because it's inconvenient.

 

 

In this case. You have a legitimate grievance against your wife's former employer. For some reason you think this is a basis to ban the specific class of employment contract she worked under. I and others have shown you evidence that such a ban would do an enormous amount of harm. You seem to not like this fact and a dozen pages later you still seek to somehow reject it. This is not constructive.

 

Others have banned ZHC's...So I'm not alone...But your data suggests it's wrong...Yes the NZ parliament outlawed it. Ever wondered why?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/11/zero-hour-contracts-banned-in-new-zealand

[unbeliever]

Others have banned ZHC's...So I'm not alone...But your data suggests it's wrong...Yes the NZ parliament outlawed it. Ever wondered why?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/11/zero-hour-contracts-banned-in-new-zealand

 

So you do still support the banning of ZHCs?

In which case why did you assert previously that you did not?

[sgtkate]

So you do still support the banning of ZHCs?

In which case why did you assert previously that you did not?

 

I would support whichever action leads to better rights for workers at minimum cost to employers. If that's banning ZHCs then go for it. If it's something else then lets do something else. If it's doing nothing then lets do nothing. I'm not advocating one specific course of action, but I feel we do need to stop things like the treatment of Pete's wife and I feel that current legislation or enforcement of them isn't adequate.

[Bob Arctor]

Obelix, you are taking this thread unnecessarily personally! I don't think anyone, especially Pete, is having a go at you for using ZHCs because it seems that you use them as they are MUTUALLY beneficial to both you and your staff. Pretty much everyone on this thread who is bashing ZHCs is saying that they are too easy to be abused if the employer was so inclined and we are therefore saying that maybe ZHCs should be got rid of as the opportunity to abuse your staff is too high a price. You are saying that the problem isn't with ZHCs but with the bad employers, so how do we fix that without removing ZHCs?

 

There is a way of reducing the abuse of zero hours contracts while reducing the amount of regulation and legislation and without banning them, giving staff the choice of retaining them where they want to. Not many of the proponents of zero hours contracts will be interested though.

 

Repeal some of the anti-union laws, then if employees feel strongly enough they can do something about it, where they want to keep zero hours contracts they can carry on as they are.

[PeteMorris]

So you do still support the banning of ZHCs?

In which case why did you assert previously that you did not?

 

I merely pointed out that (with the link) that I'm not the only person who thinks ZHC are bad....And although I don't agree with most of Jeremy Corbyn's ideas...He's also talking about banning them...(Although I think his motives are different to mine).

 

Also, I just noticed your much quoted survey is dated 2013...Is it still relevant? four years later? Given the much documented increase in their use?

 

I'd support any legislation aimed at stamping out practices like my OH had to endure. Be it punitive actions against employers or banning ZHC's...Or any other useful idea.

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2017 at 15:13 ----------

 

There is a way of reducing the abuse of zero hours contracts while reducing the amount of regulation and legislation and without banning them, giving staff the choice of retaining them where they want to. Not many of the proponents of zero hours contracts will be interested though.

 

Repeal some of the anti-union laws, then if employees feel strongly enough they can do something about it, where they want to keep zero hours contracts they can carry on as they are.

 

The problem there Bob, is that anyone who works for a company that routinely abuses ZHC workers, if the the employee baulks at any aspect of it, and tries to stand up for their 'rights'...The job mysteriously vanishes..I've seen it happen. Any dissent results in no contract.

 

Yes, that's entirely illegal, but it happens....

 

I agree with repeal of some of the anti-trade union laws...They are now tied and toothless...The pendulum has swung too far in favour of the employer, and it could do with redressing. Similarly, there are laws to prevent an employer banning unions within their organisation..But we all know that happens too...

[Obelix]

How dare you say I've talked rubbish....

 

Probably from the same reasoning that you dared to say that I was being daft...?

 

Seriously though - if people are attacking your arguments and you cannot find a way of refuting them perhaps you might consider that your arguments are flawed?

 

I'm still waiting for a reasoned argument that ZHC's are inherently bad. Apart from NZ which operates in a different labour market considerably to the UK and EU, I've not seen anything, nor even an explanation of why NZ have banned them....