PeteMorris Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Ok, so let's say zhc we're banned. Your good lady ends up with 12 hours a week spread over 5days. The hotel may well have a bank of staff with overtime that may or may not be available. Better? I'm kinda struggling to see your point?... My 'real' issue is with ZHC for people who 'want' full time work. Maybe the breadwinner in a household. My OH, on occasions worked full time 9 days on the bounce. It was a killer. Then other weeks it was perhaps one day in a seven day period. Then of course were the days she turned up, only to be told she wasn't needed. Following that unfortunate episode in her/my life, whenever I stay in a hotel now, I always leave a tip for the housekeeping staff, as we both know and appreciate how backbreaking it is, and poorly paid. It's only when you've been on the sharp end of things you really appreciate the issues. One one occasion, we stayed in a hotel and when we left, we stripped the beds, wiped down all the surfaces, emptied the rubbish and left it as spick and span as we could, just to lend a hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 I'm kinda struggling to see your point?... My 'real' issue is with ZHC for people who 'want' full time work. Maybe the breadwinner in a household. My OH, on occasions worked full time 9 days on the bounce. It was a killer. Then other weeks it was perhaps one day in a seven day period. Then of course were the days she turned up, only to be told she wasn't needed. Following that unfortunate episode in her/my life, whenever I stay in a hotel now, I always leave a tip for the housekeeping staff, as we both know and appreciate how backbreaking it is, and poorly paid. It's only when you've been on the sharp end of things you really appreciate the issues. One one occasion, we stayed in a hotel and when we left, we stripped the beds, wiped down all the surfaces, emptied the rubbish and left it as spick and span as we could, just to lend a hand. But that might be the compromise if zhc are banned. A lot of businesses don't want people on zhc to mess people about, they will want zhc for flexibility. There was a time when I could do with two more members of staff if I'm honest. They could probably do 35 hours a week plus over time in busy periods. But if one is off ill at a busy time I'm truly borked - whilst what we do isn't life or death it's very much time sensitive and needs two people per job. So I would need more staff available who know what they're doing and I don't have the work, certainly not the money to cover 3. So your wife might have had 5 days (including weekends) out of 7, 40 hours a week and all the trimmings. Would she had been any happier? I'd guess not. But if a colleague was off for a week, those 40 hours need to be covered, at short notice by someone. Would she fancy another 10, 15 hours a week? No? Who does it then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemcewan Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) How does a person on a ZHC provide for a personal pension ? In addition, is a person on a ZHC automatically enrolled onto the personal pension scheme provided by an employer- who they are contracted to ? One more for the discussion. Do ZHC contribute to the problem of income insecurity amongst the available to work population? Edited March 13, 2017 by petemcewan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 But that might be the compromise if zhc are banned. A lot of businesses don't want people on zhc to mess people about, they will want zhc for flexibility. There was a time when I could do with two more members of staff if I'm honest. They could probably do 35 hours a week plus over time in busy periods. But if one is off ill at a busy time I'm truly borked - whilst what we do isn't life or death it's very much time sensitive and needs two people per job. So I would need more staff available who know what they're doing and I don't have the work, certainly not the money to cover 3. So your wife might have had 5 days (including weekends) out of 7, 40 hours a week and all the trimmings. Would she had been any happier? I'd guess not. But if a colleague was off for a week, those 40 hours need to be covered, at short notice by someone. Would she fancy another 10, 15 hours a week? No? Who does it then? Ah, now I see your point. I can see what you're saying, and it does make sense. However, I'm concerned that (as the title of the thread eludes to) with the increase in ZHC's nationwide, it seems to be going in the direction to be something of the 'norm'. I'm pretty sure that the whole of the warehouse staff in Sports Direct are all on ZHC's. That can't be right, surely? Or is it acceptable that we become a nation of part time workers at the beck and call of boss's who have discovered a system that 'works massively in their favour'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 How does a person on a ZHC provide for a personal pension ? In addition, is a person on a ZHC automatically enrolled onto the personal pension scheme provided by an employer- who they are contracted to ? One more for the discussion. Do ZHC contribute to the problem of income insecurity amongst the available to work population? They will be enrolled in the workplace pension and their employer will put in a percentage as well, ZHC or not. ---------- Post added 13-03-2017 at 12:44 ---------- Ah, now I see your point. I can see what you're saying, and it does make sense. However, I'm concerned that (as the title of the thread eludes to) with the increase in ZHC's nationwide, it seems to be going in the direction to be something of the 'norm'. I'm pretty sure that the whole of the warehouse staff in Sports Direct are all on ZHC's. That can't be right, surely? Or is it acceptable that we become a nation of part time workers at the beck and call of boss's who have discovered a system that 'works massively in their favour'. Not much middle ground there Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemcewan Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Tinfoilhat, So they'll be enrolled if they earn less than "£10,000 " ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Tinfoilhat, So they'll be enrolled if they earn less than "£10,000 " ? If they earn more than £192 per week yes. What difference that makes to the pension regulator I dont know. If its not, its another reason why people are zhc - pension costs. Its not a nice reason, but one none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 If they earn more than £192 per week yes. What difference that makes to the pension regulator I dont know. If its not, its another reason why people are zhc - pension costs. Its not a nice reason, but one none the less. No, not nice at all...Which is why I maintain it's all stacked against the employee. Just like if someone declines to work when asked...It's actually illegal for there to be any consequences. But we all know it happens, but it's the devils own game to prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 No, not nice at all...Which is why I maintain it's all stacked against the employee. Just like if someone declines to work when asked...It's actually illegal for there to be any consequences. But we all know it happens, but it's the devils own game to prove it. I don't think many employers signed up to provide pensions either that was dumped on them with very little consultation. The fines for non compliance are substantial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 I don't think many employers signed up to provide pensions either that was dumped on them with very little consultation. The fines for non compliance are substantial. so why you think this was dumped on employers ? i bet theres not many getting fined:roll: 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