More 0 hours workers than ever..

[sgtkate]

I have an enormous problem, on general principle, with people being sent to prison because they cannot prove a negative. As should anybody who believes in natural justice. I don't mind people terribly being fined and such for failing to keep mandated records on employee discipline, but if you want to send them to prison, positive proof of wilful wrongdoing should be shown.

 

I like the idea of handing out government guidance and signing to say you understand. I don't have a problem with throwing the book at employers who take the proverbial.

 

But how do you make the person pay the fine? They don't. They simply declare bankruptcy and walk away to set another crap company, rinse and repeat. Therefore the only solution I can see is for the company director(s) to serve jail time. All of the things I've highlighted above can be proven that they've been done. I'm not asking them to prove a negative, the only contentious one would be around reason for dismissal, but again if they follow their own disciplinary procedures then they are covered.

[Cyclone]

https://www.gov.uk/overtime-your-rights/compulsory-overtime

It is within the law for an employment contract to include a requirement to do overtime work, within reason.

 

As I understand it, Obelix doesn't want to do this to his employees, as the existing arrangements are better for everybody, but if ZHCs are banned or severely inhibited then this is the next best option.

 

I wonder if O's staff really think that ZHCs are better for them.

[sgtkate]

I have an enormous problem, on general principle, with people being sent to prison because they cannot prove a negative. As should anybody who believes in natural justice. I don't mind people terribly being fined and such for failing to keep mandated records on employee discipline, but if you want to send them to prison, positive proof of wilful wrongdoing should be shown.

 

I like the idea of handing out government guidance and signing to say you understand. I don't have a problem with throwing the book at employers who take the proverbial.

 

---------- Post added 08-03-2017 at 10:06 ----------

 

 

I think Obelix has stopped following this thread so I think it best if we stop using him as an example. I have no authority to speak on his behalf.

 

Fair point and I wasn't trying to say he's not being reasonable with his staff either! Just no employer, not even a charity, is doing it out of altruism. They might have ethics that say 'I'm not prepared to make money if I have to crap on someone else to get it', but that's different to doing something that may hurt your business solely because it makes your staff a bit happier...your staff are likely to be happier with a job than if you went bust as an extreme point.

[unbeliever]

But how do you make the person pay the fine? They don't. They simply declare bankruptcy and walk away to set another crap company, rinse and repeat. Therefore the only solution I can see is for the company director(s) to serve jail time. All of the things I've highlighted above can be proven that they've been done. I'm not asking them to prove a negative, the only contentious one would be around reason for dismissal, but again if they follow their own disciplinary procedures then they are covered.

 

People can be disqualified from operating a business. Jail is for people who you can prove have acted in flagrant disregard for the law and the welfare of others.

You always have to consider how this will affect small businesses with a couple of employees, and no specialised training in HR. Unless you're going to exempt them your requirements have to be practical for them as well as larger businesses.

 

---------- Post added 08-03-2017 at 10:12 ----------

 

I wonder if O's staff really think that ZHCs are better for them.

 

I have no reason to doubt him. Nor do you.

2 respectable surveys posted have shown that if they do think so, then they're in the majority. No surveys have been posted showing otherwise.

Edited March 8, 2017 by unbeliever

[sgtkate]

People can be disqualified from operating a business. Jail is for people who've acted in flagrant disregard for the law and the welfare of others.

You always have to consider how this will affect small businesses with a couple of employees, and no specialised training in HR. Unless you're going to exempt them your requirements have practical for them as well as larger businesses.

 

Definitely no exemptions. I'm not being anti-business here, but it's places like your local hand car wash that are almost certainly flouting the rules. However, there should be more free training offered for small business owners to cover areas such as employment law. I'm afraid if you don't understand the basics of employing someone legally then you shouldn't be employing people. Perhaps jail for the first offence is too harsh, first offence (if not serious and for a small company perhaps under 10 people) could simply be a mandatory employment law basics course which the employer pays for (much like the speed awareness courses). Second offence though starts getting much more serious.

[unbeliever]

Definitely no exemptions. I'm not being anti-business here, but it's places like your local hand car wash that are almost certainly flouting the rules. However, there should be more free training offered for small business owners to cover areas such as employment law. I'm afraid if you don't understand the basics of employing someone legally then you shouldn't be employing people. Perhaps jail for the first offence is too harsh, first offence (if not serious and for a small company perhaps under 10 people) could simply be a mandatory employment law basics course which the employer pays for (much like the speed awareness courses). Second offence though starts getting much more serious.

 

That's an awful lot of people you just fired.

I think you may already be greatly underestimating the existing regulatory compliance burden associated with operating a business.

As I say people can be banned from operating a business. Jail is extreme and unnecessary in my view.

[Jacktari]

This is rather off-topic, but:

I'm more than happy to defend your right to join a trade union, provided you defend my right not to and you don't presume to negotiate on my behalf.

 

Yes, I would say you have the right not to be in a trade union, as long as you do not accept any benefits gained from the collective bargaining.

I agree that it sometimes best to negotiate on your own behalf, if you have the clout to be able to pull a good deal.

But many people, especially those on these contracts, do not have that muscle.

[PeteMorris]

I thought 'this' comment posted on the page Unbeliever posted regarding surveys and how happy 63% of ZHC employees were (Meaning 37% were no so happy) was quite interesting and raised some valid points.

 

I also note that CIPD is A Human Resources professional body. I just wonder if such an organisation has a vested interest in the promotion of ZHC's?...Anyway, that's just an observation.

 

A key benefit of ZHC to employers and managers is that they don't have to justify terminating people's contracts as they can just cut or refuse hours. It also means that employees may not refuse extra or unsocial hours for fear or not being offered extra work in the future.They may not be prepared to say this in a survey. Employees will also find it difficult if not impossible to get a mortgage.It would be useful to know:

 

1) While there will be some people who have them who are high paid what is the % split between low paid and high earners?

 

2) It would be interesting to know whether there is a difference of opinion between those who are dependant on ZHC to provide all their income and those such as students and pensioners who are using work to top up pensions or student loans. This may have a bearing on stress levels.

 

3) It would be interesting to find out if ZHC are used extensively in HR or whether permanent part time and full time jobs dominate.

 

4) Whether they are more likely to be found in non or weak unionised employment.

 

While there are clear advantages to employers and some employees surely it would be better for society if people who regularly work 40 hrs a week were put on permanent full time jobs and and those who worked regular part time hours were also made permanent. Overtime or casual work could be used to cover issues of demand e.g. they are used a lot in the hospitality industry but to open a building will require a certain number of staff whether it is busy or not. Then clearly on certain evenings management information would show there will be higher demand and so more staff will be needed. Then of course there maybe fluctuations in demand on other evenings. There may be a need for casual/overtime or ZHC staff to cover these. However what we are often seeing is everyone apart from management are on ZHC.

 

I think any manager or employer who is unable to gauge supply and demand and operate within the above framework should be considering their management skills.

 

Source: http://www2.cipd.co.uk/pm/peoplemanagement/b/weblog/archive/2015/12/04/zero-hours-contract-workers-as-happy-as-permanent-staff.aspx#comments

[unbeliever]

Yes, I would say you have the right not to be in a trade union, as long as you do not accept any benefits gained from the collective bargaining.

I agree that it sometimes best to negotiate on your own behalf, if you have the clout to be able to pull a good deal.

But many people, especially those on these contracts, do not have that muscle.

 

I'm on a contract. I'm not allowed to negotiate on my own behalf because the union has locked down a deal which they require to apply to me as well as their members.

As a result I can only change my circumstances by getting another job, which is what I'm pursuing. My boss would like to pay me more, but then I'd be getting a better deal than the union-negotiated deal allows. They seem to think that, despite my additional skills and the wage they'd command on the market, it would be unfair to my less skilled co-workers to pay me more. So I'm probably leaving a job I like and that I'm good at basically because of the union.

 

So until the unions stop presuming to negotiate for me, I support constraints to limit their power to foul things up for people like me.

[Cyclone]

I have a healthy scepticism towards a business owner telling us how happy his staff are.

 

That said

 

Perhaps this from the CIPD report is what we should remember.

 

This last finding is a reminder that issues such as insecurity, low pay and lack of progression transcend contractual type. Employees with open-ended contracts are often just as likely to be affected as employees with “non-standard” working arrangements. Excessive concentration of fire on zero-hours contracts could divert attention away from a broader need to deliver fair and flexible employment practices that benefit all types of workers.

 

ZHC have become the poster child for poor employment practice, but maybe it's unwise to focus on them too specifically.