PeteMorris Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Then forgive me but I am not sure what point you were making (specifically the comment "..students always managed before anyone had ever heard of a ZHC..") I asked what alternative should be in place for the people on ZHCs who benefit from the flexible working hours and (more importantly) the ability to turn down work offered without any repercussions. This is a genuine question, it may well be the case there there is a better alternative that doesn't have any of the bad consequences of ZHCs, but I have not yet seen anymore propose what that should be. Your clarification that you indeed meant 'heard' and not 'before they existed' makes it seem like you are suggesting it was OK that they were managing on ZHCs when they didn't know what ZHCs were, and now we do know, it's not OK. I can't see the logic in that argument, and so I assume that is not what you mean? But that's not what happens! With rogue employers We know it's the law that this can't happen, but it does...All too frequently... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Then forgive me but I am not sure what point you were making (specifically the comment "..students always managed before anyone had ever heard of a ZHC..") I asked what alternative should be in place for the people on ZHCs who benefit from the flexible working hours and (more importantly) the ability to turn down work offered without any repercussions. This is a genuine question, it may well be the case there there is a better alternative that doesn't have any of the bad consequences of ZHCs, but I have not yet seen anymore propose what that should be. Your clarification that you indeed meant 'heard' and not 'before they existed' makes it seem like you are suggesting it was OK that they were managing on ZHCs when they didn't know what ZHCs were, and now we do know, it's not OK. I can't see the logic in that argument, and so I assume that is not what you mean? I haven't suggested that ZHCs should be banned. They should be more carefully policed/have tighter legislation though. Perhaps an employer should need to demonstrate why they can't offer a fixed hours contract before they can offer zero hours (just an idea). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) Here's the irrefutable 'data' that's been used against me throughout. Not very conclusive as it's 4 years old! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984 Oh look. More data from December 2015. http://www2.cipd.co.uk/pm/peoplemanagement/b/weblog/archive/2015/12/04/zero-hours-contract-workers-as-happy-as-permanent-staff.aspx 16 months old this time. I suppose now you'll tell us that it's invalid on account of the font or something. ...the percentage of ZHC employees who are either very satisfied or satisfied with their jobs is 65 per cent, compared to 63 per cent for all employees. What our report highlights is that the contract type isn’t usually the main factor driving someone’s job satisfaction. How people are managed, the workload they are under and their relationship with their line manager are usually more important. Who'd have thought it. Oh wait me. And Obelix. Edited March 7, 2017 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 As I said several pages ago, they may not be inherently wrong, but they make it much easier for staff to be abused. They reduce the power of staff in the employee/employer equation. Whilst they might be appropriate for some people, they aren't a good way to work for most non student adults. Personally..As I've seen first hand, it's mostly a problem for people wanting full time work....Not the people who are maybe students, people like Obelix's ZHC employees, women just wanting some 'pin' money, and people wanting to claim benefits by working 16 hours to get various state handouts. Anyone genuinely wanting to work full time, it doesn't work for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 I haven't suggested that ZHCs should be banned. They should be more carefully policed/have tighter legislation though. Perhaps an employer should need to demonstrate why they can't offer a fixed hours contract before they can offer zero hours (just an idea). But again it is not just employers that can benefit from ZHC. Many students (as an example, this is also true across the board, but is particularly the case with students) would not want a fixed hours contract. Would employers saying that the people they are hiring don't want to be on a fixed hours contract be a good enough reason for them to demonstrate why they can't offer fixed hour contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 I haven't suggested that ZHCs should be banned. They should be more carefully policed/have tighter legislation though. Perhaps an employer should need to demonstrate why they can't offer a fixed hours contract before they can offer zero hours (just an idea). Oh great. more red tape. All that will happen is that the work wont get offered out and staff will have to do it on enforced overtime which is never good for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 "Enforced"? ---------- Post added 07-03-2017 at 18:57 ---------- But again it is not just employers that can benefit from ZHC. Many students (as an example, this is also true across the board, but is particularly the case with students) would not want a fixed hours contract. Indeed. But the vast majority of adults won't benefit from the inability to budget and the interference with benefits. Students could of course manage fine with fixed hours, be they 2, 4, 6 or 8 for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Oh look. More data from December 2015. http://www2.cipd.co.uk/pm/peoplemanagement/b/weblog/archive/2015/12/04/zero-hours-contract-workers-as-happy-as-permanent-staff.aspx 16 months old this time. I suppose now you'll tell us that it's invalid on account of the font or something. Who'd have thought it. Oh wait me. And Obelix. A survey from a biased source....It's ok, you live in your little bubble..It's cosy there... For your premise to hold (bath) water, the figures need to be 100%...and clearly they aren't...You just ignore the figures of the unhappy people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) A survey from a biased source....It's ok, you live in your little bubble..It's cosy there... For your premise to hold (bath) water, the figures need to be 100%...and clearly they aren't...You just ignore the figures of the unhappy people. Ah an unfounded allegation of bias. Not a shred of reason or evidence to back it up of course. Naughty data just doesn't say what you want it to. Damn facts! Edited March 7, 2017 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Oh great. more red tape. All that will happen is that the work wont get offered out and staff will have to do it on enforced overtime which is never good for anyone. So think of another solution to the obvious and demonstrated problems with ZHC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now