With the amount of job center threads on this site I would have thought you would have learnt something.
What gives you the monopoly? I was unemployed for over two years until 18 months ago, I been subjected to all sorts of bully boy tactics and hardship and I know that they don't expect you to travel more than 3 hrs per day nor do they expect you to take a job where the cost of travel takes more salary than you need to live.
I know someone who is a carer on zero hours contract. She visits several clients in each day, and only gets paid for the time she is at the client's home - not for the travelling time - and she has to pay for the travel expense out of her own pocket.
Any firm being put out of business by this would be an excellent result, the work will still be there and may end being done by a firm that does do better by its employees. Firms that tend to cheat their staff will cheat their customers as well and given a chance probably the tax office. They are no loss to the economy.
I think these zero hours arrangements have their place - especially in regard to getting a business up and running, and also offering part time work to people who for one reason or other can't commit to 37 hours.... but some firms are really milking it and taking the piss out of people.
What gives you the monopoly? I was unemployed for over two years until 18 months ago, I been subjected to all sorts of bully boy tactics and hardship and I know that they don't expect you to travel more than 3 hrs per day nor do they expect you to take a job where the cost of travel takes more salary than you need to live.
Get over yourself!
The topic is about a fairer society and reducing disadvantage for all, that's all I'm saying.
Why don't you man up and assume responsibility for your nonsense?
I think these zero hours arrangements have their place - especially in regard to getting a business up and running, and also offering part time work to people who for one reason or other can't commit to 37 hours.... but some firms are really milking it and taking the piss out of people.
One of the big issues with care firms is that they have people on zero hour contracts in perpetuity, yet working full time, often regular hours. In these cases it isn't an arrangement of mutual convenience but a way to dodge legislation and rights. There doesn't seem to be anything stopping employers hiring staff to work a 40 hour week, Monday to Friday, 9-5, on zero hour contracts. If the employee falls out of favour or has a grievance, goodbye hours.
One of the big issues with care firms is that they have people on zero hour contracts in perpetuity, yet working full time, often regular hours. In these cases it isn't an arrangement of mutual convenience but a way to dodge legislation and rights. There doesn't seem to be anything stopping employers hiring staff to work a 40 hour week, Monday to Friday, 9-5, on zero hour contracts. If the employee falls out of favour or has a grievance, goodbye hours.
Yep.
Also no sick pay, no holiday pay - and worst of all for the person AND the treasury in the long term - no pension.
The topic is about a fairer society and reducing disadvantage for all, that's all I'm saying.
Why don't you man up and assume responsibility for your nonsense?
Eh? Is that the topic, is it really?? :D:D
Responsibility, for what, your huge Whoosh moment back up the thread, your massive brain fart that is ALL people should be paid to go to and from work!
Very good news but should be available to all jobs.
I live the furthest in my work place, I spend £150 oyster a month to and from work plus I live alone while most of my work colleagues live walking distance and live with mum and dad.
Employers should consider all this.
It's not fair.>:(
It's called ordinary commuting. What's not particularly fair is that those who could potentially benefit from this new rule, -those currently without a permanent workplace and who go from home to their fist appointment and then straight home after their last job- may now faced with being allocated a permanent base where they will be required to attend before their first job and then after their last job of the day, making their journey to and from work an ordinary commute.
Very good news but should be available to all jobs.
I live the furthest in my work place, I spend £150 oyster a month to and from work plus I live alone while most of my work colleagues live walking distance and live with mum and dad.
Employers should consider all this.
It's not fair.>:(
So you think people should get paid for the time they spend commuting to the office? That would be good news if your train breaks down or there is a traffic jam.
I live a 20 minute drive from work but I have colleagues who travel for 2 or 3 hours each way. I don't see why they should be paid more than me for doing the same job. They knew what the commute would be when then accepted the job offer.
I don't really have a problem with this judgement as I'd be annoyed if I was in their situation but extending it to all jobs would be ludicrous.
It's called ordinary commuting. What's not particularly fair is that those who could potentially benefit from this new rule, -those currently without a permanent workplace and who go from home to their fist appointment and then straight home after their last job- may now faced with being allocated a permanent base where they will be required to attend before their first job and then after their last job of the day, making their journey to and from work an ordinary commute.
But a lot of the businesses that will be impacted by this (including the Spanish company this judgment was about) got rid of their permanent bases to save money. I can't see organisations buying/renting/building sites (all around the country in some cases) for workers to 'touch base' just to get around having to pay a relatively small amount of travel time.
But a lot of the businesses that will be impacted by this (including the Spanish company this judgment was about) got rid of their permanent bases to save money. I can't see organisations buying/renting/building sites (all around the country in some cases) for workers to 'touch base' just to get around having to pay a relatively small amount of travel time.
Most UK employers do have at least one permanent base though. I can certainly understand small to mid size businesses possibly going along with the new rules if they can absorb the additional cost - although not necessarily; a small business on a tight budget covering a smallish local area might now require employees to report to the permanent base. For large employers with locations nationwide and hundreds of regular mobile employees the extra cost could be fairly significant. It may be more convenient for them to introduce new processes. Ultimately it will depend on several factors such as geography, staff numbers, the size of the business, etc. what may be right for one employer may not be right for another.
But who says it will force employers out of buisness, we had all these scare stories when the NMW was being brought in.
Plenty of examples given this week, including the social care company whose payroll will increase by £5m next year and every year after that. Maybe it won't put them out of business, but we can look forward to increased inflation and then increased interest rates to control the inflation, leaving a lot of people back where they started.
Because it won't force employers out of business. Haven't we been through this already?
Why stop at wages? If a business can't afford it, let's get the taxpayer to pay for stock, maybe even the utility bills the office runs up, some equipment here and there. I mean, if you can't afford to run your business you just get somebody else to pay, right?
Why stop at wages? If a business can't afford it, let's get the taxpayer to pay for stock, maybe even the utility bills the office runs up, some equipment here and there. I mean, if you can't afford to run your business you just get somebody else to pay, right?
Plenty of examples given this week, including the social care company whose payroll will increase by £5m next year and every year after that. Maybe it won't put them out of business, but we can look forward to increased inflation and then increased interest rates to control the inflation, leaving a lot of people back where they started.
Comments
Last I heard, the Job Centre take both into consideration.
Now you really do need to wake up.
With the amount of job center threads on this site I would have thought you would have learnt something.
What gives you the monopoly? I was unemployed for over two years until 18 months ago, I been subjected to all sorts of bully boy tactics and hardship and I know that they don't expect you to travel more than 3 hrs per day nor do they expect you to take a job where the cost of travel takes more salary than you need to live.
Get over yourself!
Terrible.
It is.
I think these zero hours arrangements have their place - especially in regard to getting a business up and running, and also offering part time work to people who for one reason or other can't commit to 37 hours.... but some firms are really milking it and taking the piss out of people.
The topic is about a fairer society and reducing disadvantage for all, that's all I'm saying.
Why don't you man up and assume responsibility for your nonsense?
One of the big issues with care firms is that they have people on zero hour contracts in perpetuity, yet working full time, often regular hours. In these cases it isn't an arrangement of mutual convenience but a way to dodge legislation and rights. There doesn't seem to be anything stopping employers hiring staff to work a 40 hour week, Monday to Friday, 9-5, on zero hour contracts. If the employee falls out of favour or has a grievance, goodbye hours.
Yep.
Also no sick pay, no holiday pay - and worst of all for the person AND the treasury in the long term - no pension.
Eh? Is that the topic, is it really??
Responsibility, for what, your huge Whoosh moment back up the thread, your massive brain fart that is ALL people should be paid to go to and from work!
Roger that, cant argue, carry on!
It's called ordinary commuting. What's not particularly fair is that those who could potentially benefit from this new rule, -those currently without a permanent workplace and who go from home to their fist appointment and then straight home after their last job- may now faced with being allocated a permanent base where they will be required to attend before their first job and then after their last job of the day, making their journey to and from work an ordinary commute.
So you think people should get paid for the time they spend commuting to the office? That would be good news if your train breaks down or there is a traffic jam.
I live a 20 minute drive from work but I have colleagues who travel for 2 or 3 hours each way. I don't see why they should be paid more than me for doing the same job. They knew what the commute would be when then accepted the job offer.
I don't really have a problem with this judgement as I'd be annoyed if I was in their situation but extending it to all jobs would be ludicrous.
If you think that then you really have no idea about how the economy works.
But a lot of the businesses that will be impacted by this (including the Spanish company this judgment was about) got rid of their permanent bases to save money. I can't see organisations buying/renting/building sites (all around the country in some cases) for workers to 'touch base' just to get around having to pay a relatively small amount of travel time.
Most UK employers do have at least one permanent base though. I can certainly understand small to mid size businesses possibly going along with the new rules if they can absorb the additional cost - although not necessarily; a small business on a tight budget covering a smallish local area might now require employees to report to the permanent base. For large employers with locations nationwide and hundreds of regular mobile employees the extra cost could be fairly significant. It may be more convenient for them to introduce new processes. Ultimately it will depend on several factors such as geography, staff numbers, the size of the business, etc. what may be right for one employer may not be right for another.
Yes I would.
Why ?
Because it won't force employers out of business. Haven't we been through this already?
But who says it will force employers out of buisness, we had all these scare stories when the NMW was being brought in.
Plenty of examples given this week, including the social care company whose payroll will increase by £5m next year and every year after that. Maybe it won't put them out of business, but we can look forward to increased inflation and then increased interest rates to control the inflation, leaving a lot of people back where they started.
Why stop at wages? If a business can't afford it, let's get the taxpayer to pay for stock, maybe even the utility bills the office runs up, some equipment here and there. I mean, if you can't afford to run your business you just get somebody else to pay, right?
Now you're just being ridiculous.
You mean the same soical care companies that have been under paying the NMW. The same sector that has the highest turn over of staff because of poor wages and bad working conditions, which has a knock negitive knock on effect for people recieving and needing the care. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFwQFjAIahUKEwisy8aLk_HHAhWD2xoKHQB3AOg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Flife-style%2Fhealth-and-families%2Fmihomecare-one-of-uks-biggest-care-agencies-being-sued-for-paying-below-minimum-wage-10450780.html&usg=AFQjCNHeYQpNB1FA7iHL9NxNjLJuAyPGMg
As ridiculous as the taxpayer paying staff wages because a business can't afford it.