PeteMorris Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 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? I'm afraid I don't have any magic answers. However, over the course of the thread it's been established that laws exist to 'try' to prevent abuse which clearly don't work, where the employer 'chooses' to work around them. I'm really only talking about the min wage, menial type jobs (non-skilled), where people 'want' full time work. There needs to be a distinction between those jobs and 'others'. Have you ever seen one of these contracts? I think I've still got the one my OH had to sign. It's pretty comprehensive and to all intents and purpose, you sign away any rights you might have anyway, and it's long and written in jargon a good percentage of people wouldn't understand anyway. You'll note I wrote 'had' to sign. You don't sign it, you don't work!...Very simple. If I can find it, I'll scan it and post a copy. Anyway...I'd be tempted to say, full time work shouldn't be subject to a ZHC contract...As they could simply employ you full time...However, an obvious workaround would be to never offer full time... Maybe there should be an independent ombudsman, who employees could easily contact for free and anonymously, who would be obliged to investigate. The problem being, time is of the essence. Any delay would be useless. Of course the Ombudsman would need 'teeth'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_bloke Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 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. Did you look at the ONS data I linked in my reply a few pages ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Did you look at the ONS data I linked in my reply a few pages ago? No, I must have missed it, and you didn't make any comment upon it. I've just had a quick look although not trawled through every spreadsheet. It's all a bit disjointed and difficult to disseminate what it's actually telling me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_bloke Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) No, I must have missed it, and you didn't make any comment upon it. I've just had a quick look although not trawled through every spreadsheet. It's all a bit disjointed and difficult to disseminate what it's actually telling me. The bit you want is probably this: (I've reformatted it for the forum) On a Zero Hours Contract Wants additional job 4% Wants replacement job with longer hours 8% Wants more hours in current job 19% Does not want more hours 69% Not on a Zero Hours Contract Wants additional job 1% Wants replacement job with longer hours 1% Wants more hours in current job 8% Does not want more hours 90% There is no 'happy' question in the survey though so no direct comparison the other survey linked in the thread Edited March 8, 2017 by the_bloke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemcewan Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) Mr Morris, You are spot on. In my opinion, Zero Hours Contracts are an example of deviance becoming normalised. Deviant employers looking to normalise a form of employment ,that reduces the individual to a vassal at the beck and call of his/her lord and master. . Ban the damn things. A zero hours contract might be attractive to a teenager just sacked from his or her paper round. But as far as raising a family, buying a house with a mortgage, putting the kids through school forget it. The contracts are a particularly repugnant form of relationship between worker and employer. Edited March 8, 2017 by petemcewan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 The bit you want is probably this: (I've reformatted it for the forum) On a Zero Hours Contract Wants additional job 4% Wants replacement job with longer hours 8% Wants more hours in current job 19% Does not want more hours 69% Not on a Zero Hours Contract Wants additional job 1% Wants replacement job with longer hours 1% Wants more hours in current job 8% Does not want more hours 90% There is no 'happy' question in the survey though so no direct comparison the other survey linked in the thread Thanks for making a bit more sense of it. But as you say, it's just 'numbers of'...In the context of the discussion thus far it's probably not all that helpful...The devil is in the detail of course, as with every type of statistic. As the old adage goes...There's lies, damn lies and statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Are we all ignoring the evidence of the Scottish Citizens Advice centre? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Mr Morris, You are spot on. In my opinion, Zero Hours Contracts are an example of deviance becoming normalised. Deviant employers looking to normalise a form of employment ,that reduces the individual to a vassal at the beck and call of his/her lord and master. . Ban the damn things. A zero hours contract might be attractive to a teenager just sacked from his or her paper round. But as far as raising a family, buying a house with a mortgage, putting the kids through school forget it. The contracts are a particularly repugnant form of relationship between worker and employer. That's hit the nub of the problem...It's where a breadwinner tries to manage on min wage on a ZHC...it's not possible. Or someone who genuinely 'wants' to work full time. The pocket money scenario is fine for those who want that. ---------- Post added 08-03-2017 at 15:12 ---------- Are we all ignoring the evidence of the Scottish Citizens Advice centre? I did see your post in regard to that, and yes, I daresay it's not peculiar to Scotland. The problem with Citizens advice centres is, it takes a long time to get an appointment...Sometimes weeks (most likely due to funding cuts). If you're stuck in a ZHC working full time, and something goes wrong, you simply can't wait for that appointment, and even if you could, you'd have to have time off. It's all very well saying there are laws to protect people. But getting access to implement those laws is another matter entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 I wasn't suggesting that people should use CA. If you have a look they provide a lot of evidence about the problems of ZHC, evidence that Unbeliever was saying hadn't been provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 I wasn't suggesting that people should use CA. If you have a look they provide a lot of evidence about the problems of ZHC, evidence that Unbeliever was saying hadn't been provided. Well in fairness, CA is 'one' avenue of possible redress, or at least some form of help. Yes I see your point in posting it...it 'does' show there are indeed issues. But I 'think' unbeliever has conceded this is the case now. Although it seems he's reluctant to agree with actions to resolve what he sees as a minor issue. (apologies if I'm wrong there) 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