Jump to content

More 0 hours workers than ever..


Recommended Posts

Who benefits most from ZHC's? In most cases? It's the employer..Not the employee.

 

That's an opinion.

 

Did you read Petemcewans link?

 

Yes. It's an opinion piece. The only data it cites is the CIPD survey you've been trying to undermine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an opinion.

 

 

 

Yes. It's an opinion piece. The only data it cites is the CIPD survey you've been trying to undermine.

 

Hahaha..Yes I noticed that too..But hey-ho...It seems it's the only data.

 

Hey, what about if I stand outside the hotel my OH worked at and survey all the ZHC housekeeping staff?...I wonder what results I'd get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Pete is arguing for a ban. Has been throughout. Sometimes he claims to have stepped back from that position only to argue for it again a couple of posts later.

If the ban is off the table, we can move on.

 

It was never on the table for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahaha...Touche!

 

Which coincidentally explains my point entirely. It depends what you ask and who you ask!

 

 

I'm pretty sure that if you design such a survey, and it's reasonably neutral, Obelix will act on it.

Perhaps this thread's followers in general would like to contribute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there an 'issue' with continuity of employment, and therefore the ability to take a company to a tribunal? Which is now not free but 'costs'...So it's therefore a closed option to many with little to no income?

 

Possibly, yes. Is that linked to ZHCs specifically?

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2017 at 13:35 ----------

 

Part of the problem is that ZHCs facilitate bad deals- as well as the options for hitting the employee available with both forms of contract, ZHCs have the additional one of simply denying hours to the employee.

 

Fact is, that if the workers got to work, the employer can harm him/her equally well with both types of contract, but ZHCs carry the additional stress of being given insufficient hours to cover the workers living requirements.

 

They also bypass dismissal safeguards, as the employer can simply give so few hours that the worker has to quit.

 

That's a fair point. Perhaps a clause could be added that if no hours were offered to the employee for a period of say 3 months and the employee had requested to be given hours and made themselves available for work then that employee is treated as if they have been summarily dismissed and they can claim unfair dismissal under standard employment law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.