More 0 hours workers than ever..

[sgtkate]

I'll pass these thoughts on to the fsb, I'm sure they'll love them.

 

Good for them. I hope they do, unless you think it's all fine and dandy to employee people without understanding the most basic parts of employment law? I'm sure the FSB would like to get rid of all legal requirements so they can pay 50p and hour if they like and sack people for anything at all, doesn't mean they are right does it? Did bringing in NMW cripple all small businesses? Nope.

[unbeliever]

Well...It'a not so much concern for the welfare of others...Although there is a large element of that, as I've seen lives wrecked by it ... Yes I know it's anecdotal.

 

As you are well aware, I personally experience the fallout from very bad practice, and to say I was fuming is putting it mildly.

 

It's kinda like drink driving. We all know it happens and we see tragedies, and how it wrecks lives in the news and media. But until maybe someone we love has direct involvement, we can't know exactly what it feels like to have direct involvement. Then all of a sudden it becomes 'real' and might campaign for stiffer sentences...etc..Be a lot more 'vocal' about it anyway.

 

Perhaps not a great analogy...But you get my drift.

 

This is perfectly understandable.

But whatever your personal experiences, decisions on matters of law and national policy should always be made on the basis of the best data available.

Otherwise we might not have strict drink-driving laws because the minister in charge had never personally had a bad experience on the matter.

[tinfoilhat]

I'm a bit baffled by your view. I'm not asking for reams of paperwork here, just make sure you can prove your staff have a contract, you've given them a copy of their legal employment rights (doesn't exist as of yet but should do), you follow your own disciplinary procedure and staff know what it is. None of this has to be onerous, a disciplinary procedure can be as simple as:

 

- you are expected to follow the rules as stated in your contract and when given by a manager or supervisor or owner etc.

- if you do not then you be subject to disciplinary action which can result in your termination.

- the reasons for disciplinary actions will be written down and given to you so you understand

- you can appeal the decision with ACAS if you do not agree. there is no internal appeal process

 

something basic like that. Small business owners, serious question do you not already have this kind of thing in place? If not, why not? It's a shame obelix has left this thread as I'd be interested in hearing his experiences in this area.

 

---------- Post added 08-03-2017 at 11:04 ----------

 

 

.

 

Templates for this kind of thing are available online or through the fsb. If companies can legitimately get awayith a four bullet points you've put forward I'm sure they would. In reality there are many hoops to jump through if you want to let someone go for disciplinary reasons. I don't mean this in a horrible way but in the same reason I don't know what it's like to work for a large, former state owned corporation, you don't know what it's like to work for a small company with small margins. The bloke running the corner shop is his own accountant 350 days of the year, his own hr manager, buyer, security specialist, it support, tax lawyer etc etc etc and will go for help when they have to. There aren't any 3 day courses with break-out focus groups at a nice hotel about customer satisfaction or staff retention!

 

Maybe you think these companies aren't worthy of your time or money. Maybe they deserve to fail. There are many (the majority?)who don't bother with zhc and are fine employers but dumping another load of red tape won't help anyone.

[PeteMorris]

This is perfectly understandable.

But whatever your personal experiences, decisions on matters of law and national policy should always be made on the basis of the best data available.

Otherwise we might not have strict drink-driving laws because the minister in charge had never personally had a bad experience on the matter.

 

But ....(yes I know it's boring), if the best data available is a survey by a Professional Human Resources organisation, consisting of 350 people 'selected' from a larger sample, and weighted so it's equal equal professional employees and non skilled. Whatever the results, I'm highly skeptical.

[tinfoilhat]

Good for them. I hope they do, unless you think it's all fine and dandy to employee people without understanding the most basic parts of employment law? I'm sure the FSB would like to get rid of all legal requirements so they can pay 50p and hour if they like and sack people for anything at all, doesn't mean they are right does it? Did bringing in NMW cripple all small businesses? Nope.

 

Giz a job sgt.

[sgtkate]

Templates for this kind of thing are available online or through the fsb. If companies can legitimately get awayith a four bullet points you've put forward I'm sure they would. In reality there are many hoops to jump through if you want to let someone go for disciplinary reasons. I don't mean this in a horrible way but in the same reason I don't know what it's like to work for a large, former state owned corporation, you don't know what it's like to work for a small company with small margins. The bloke running the corner shop is his own accountant 350 days of the year, his own hr manager, buyer, security specialist, it support, tax lawyer etc etc etc and will go for help when they have to. There aren't any 3 day courses with break-out focus groups at a nice hotel about customer satisfaction or staff retention!

 

Maybe you think these companies aren't worthy of your time or money. Maybe they deserve to fail. There are many (the majority?)who don't bother with zhc and are fine employers but dumping another load of red tape won't help anyone.

 

My parents ran a business when I was growing up. I helped them do the books when I was a teenager. They had about 8 employees, yet gave them all formal written contracts, had employee handbooks and formal disciplinary procedures. They ran a petrol station so the work was fairly static therefore they could give fixed contracts to people guaranteeing work as they didn't need the flexibility that ZHCs offered. So no it doesn't in anyway make me an expert in the way you and Obelix are but I'm not entirely ignorant either.

 

I've said that more support should be given to small business owners, including free basic employment law courses, as I agree that a lot of employers make mistakes out of ignorance and not malice.

 

I was being highly simplistic over the disciplinary policies but as they appear to be a LEGAL requirement already, I kind hope these businesses the FSB supports have them...https://www.gov.uk/disciplinary-procedures-and-action-at-work/how-disciplinary-procedures-work

 

---------- Post added 08-03-2017 at 11:58 ----------

 

Giz a job sgt.

 

I can offer tea making duties, ZHC of course.

Edited March 8, 2017 by sgtkate

[unbeliever]

But ....(yes I know it's boring), if the best data available is a survey by a Professional Human Resources organisation, consisting of 350 people 'selected' from a larger sample, and weighted so it's equal equal professional employees and non skilled. Whatever the results, I'm highly skeptical.

 

I'm sorry Pete, but we have the results from 2013 and 2015. And a controlled survey of a few hundred still absolutely wipes the floor with your anecdote in terms of reliability.

[PeteMorris]

I'm sorry Pete, but we have the results from 2013 and 2015. And a controlled survey of a few hundred still absolutely wipes the floor with your anecdote in terms of reliability.

 

Ok, we've done this to death...As far as I can tell it's the only survey available, and in my opinion deeply flawed. But still shows 37% unhappy...That's probably about the scale of those abused by these contracts.

 

I wonder if the survey included Sports Direct staff?

[tinfoilhat]

My parents ran a business when I was growing up. I helped them do the books when I was a teenager. They had about 8 employees, yet gave them all formal written contracts, had employee handbooks and formal disciplinary procedures. They ran a petrol station so the work was fairly static therefore they could give fixed contracts to people guaranteeing work as they didn't need the flexibility that ZHCs offered. So no it doesn't in anyway make me an expert in the way you and Obelix are but I'm not entirely ignorant either.

 

I've said that more support should be given to small business owners, including free basic employment law courses, as I agree that a lot of employers make mistakes out of ignorance and not malice.

 

---------- Post added 08-03-2017 at 11:58 ----------

 

 

I can offer tea making duties, ZHC of course.

 

Free course for pensions would have been nice (that was fun) none there, free courses for all sorts of stuff would be nice. Support for small businesses isn't there, but in fairness there's not much support for a lot of things. To be honest I don't really think it's needed. You might make mistakes early doors but most are corrected quickly, certainly wage related. I know of people who work for big companies where their wages aren't right 2 weeks out of 4, regardless of contract.

[unbeliever]

Ok, we've done this to death...As far as I can tell it's the only survey available, and in my opinion deeply flawed. But still shows 37% unhappy...That's probably about the scale of those abused by these contracts.

 

I wonder if the survey included Sports Direct staff?

 

I have a very simple question which as far as I can see is crucial.

If 37% of standard contract employees are unhappy and 37% of zero hours employees are unhappy, how do you conclude that things would be improved by banning zero hours contracts?