Options
Zero Working Hours Contracts
occy
Posts: 65,191 Forum Member
✭✭
Apparently most of the country are on Zero hours contract, but doesn't mean no work.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jul/31/nick-clegg-zero-hours-contracts
Do you come under that bracket?
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jul/31/nick-clegg-zero-hours-contracts
Do you come under that bracket?
0
Comments
Yes, I've worked twice for Boots, both times starting on a temporary Christmas full time contract and then going onto a permanent but nil hours contract. The last time I worked for them back in 2003/04 I worked full time hours, this time I'm lucky if I'm getting 15 hours a fortnight which is why I've had to sign on for Jobseeker's Allowance. It's an absolute nightmare, specially since I've worked all my life up until I had my son five years ago.
You don't get paid mate.
The government serious does need to address the issue of these highly exploitative practices by employers.
They are not a scam where I work as they are the choice of the employees as it allows them to work or not when they want and there has usually been work when they have wanted it. Unfortunately that is drying up a bit now
None of them were forced to do it and chose it over a permanent role
The trouble is, many companies take on more staff than they need on these contracts so they can be held to ransom. Also there is no sick pay/holiday pay/pension.
You are effectively on call 24/7 unpaid. Turn down a shift for whatever reason or look at the boss the wrong way and you will never get a shift again. Sound fair?
Absolutely agree. Disgraceful working practice. :mad:
I can't see anything being done about it, can you? The working class of Britain has already been betrayed with Eastern Europeans taking unskilled jobs, then told by their high and mighty masters how bloody lazy they are compared to the immigrants.
Soon all non-management/professionals will be on zero hour contracts. The government don't give a toss about the ordinary worker.
I'd dispute "most of the country" as most public sector staff are certainly not on zero hours contracts, much as the Tories would like us to be
What about the firms offering them the jobs?
You mean the owners of the firms?.
And the Conservatives want to make it easier to sack people, as do UKIP - infact, the latter want no protection for workers at all.
Depends on the way it works I suppose. In my area the zero hours staff had the upper hand and were not expected to come in at short notice. Most are parents with little children so want all the school holidays off. They also had some leave built in dependent on the hours they worked
However, work has now dried up so they are the first to go. I do not think it is fair when that is the only option or zero hours staff were employed instead of perm staff. In my organisation they tended to be used whilst we were waiting to recruit or to cover long term sick
Yes, it is a terrible situation. It is schemes like this that allow the government to bring out statistics that suggest a positive light such as '6 % rise in employment.' However, in reality people are at the mercy of that employers.
Zero Hour contracts are very important for a lot of very small businesses. I need to employ people on some busy Friday and Saturday nights at very short notice.
I have simply no need for them the rest of the time, as we are a business that serves alcohol and it's very quiet during the rest of the week.
I think it's wrong that large companies seem to have large swathes of 'permanent' employees on ZH contracts but small businesses genuinely need the flexibility to recruit people for short periods of time (eg. only 1 or 2 shifts) only without the hassle of worrying about rights that shouldn't really apply with such casual work.
Sounds great for people just looking for some extra money like students, but another thing entirely if one has a mortgage/rent and bills to pay. It's a bloody nightmare.
That's hardly the same situation though. Yours are temporary workers required for a specific time period. You're not tying them into a nil hours which requires them to be available X number of days a week "just in case" they get called in to work, you're asking them to be available Friday and Saturday evenings and compensating accordingly.
Very true, and I do disagree with big companies doing this for convenience so they can just fire people whenever they want - but I was making the point as some have been calling for all forms of ZH/Casual work to be banned.
I think banning such employment opportunities would be the death knell for small businesses.
Bigger companies really should be more responsible though. If they want somebody for 40 hours a week, every week, they should give them a proper contract.
There was a thread about ZH contracts in politics and I explained my OH's employer. She makes good money because of how things are structured.
The reason for the ZH contract is because its events based so semi seasonal and ups and downs. There are very busy months and very quiet months.
But all said and done they all make good money because they are paid well and get allowances; so the good months balance out the bad ones.
Also they are rota'd in advance, they aren't "on call". They are no different really to flexi hour contracts.
She also got maternity pay (based on her last year average with them), gets holiday pay and sick pay based on her average hours.
So it depends on the company and why they are operating ZH contracts.