I was reading that some employers including some high street names are now using zero hour contracts which do not guarantee hours, or provide holiday pay, sick pay etc.
This appears to be a step backwards and how does someone on one of these contracts claim benefits as they may receive no pay for a week but are not available to work?
I hope that this is not the start of a trend back to Victorian working practices?
(I recall some time ago a fast food franchise only paid their staff when there were customers in the store. Some staff were paid for just a couple of hours even though they were on site all week.)
edited at request of author
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 31 Jul 13 at 12:32
|
ZHC is encouraged by govt. as they can statistically show people as employed and thus claiming grand success on economy.
It is very similar to contract workers where you get paid for only hours worked. However, outside those hours you are not really employed.
With ZHC, you are just like that yet you are technically employed without any benefits of employment like salary, holiday, sickness cover etc.
Edit 1: Before seeing it in the newspapers recently, I didn't even know that ZHC thing exists in UK. So, govt must be very good at hiding facts. One more reason why we shouldn't trust the govt statistics.
Edit 2: Bit unrelated, but this further proves why govt don't like whislte blowers. Anyone reveals how govt. is conning people becomes a traitor (e.g. Snowden, Manning, Assange etc.)
Last edited by: movilogo on Wed 31 Jul 13 at 12:41
|
"ZHC is encouraged by govt. as they can statistically show people as employed and thus claiming grand success on economy."
What evidence have you for this statement or is it just a wild accusation?
I hardly think the treatment of Snowden, Manning and Assange by the US government has anything to do with UK employment legislation.
|
>>
>> "ZHC is encouraged by govt. as they can statistically show people as employed and thus
>> claiming grand success on economy."
>>
>> What evidence have you for this statement or is it just a wild accusation?
>>
I'd call it an intelligent assessment based on the propensity of governments of all colours to massage statistics in a way that shows them in a good light. As in "Crime figures are down..."
|
Yes, what does two people who broke official secret acts (treason?) and a suspected rapist have to do with it?
All of them are knob heads.
|
>> I hardly think the treatment of Snowden, Manning and Assange by the US government has
>> anything to do with UK employment legislation.
That's what they want you to think! ;)
|
>> What evidence have you for this statement or is it just a wild accusation?
By reading several reports on news papers, forums etc.
For example,
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pressure-grows-on-government-to-outlaw-zero-hours-contracts-as-it-is-revealed-parliament-uses-them-too-8631639.html
Conservative ministers have been accused of using the contracts to revive controversial proposals to reduce workers’ rights by Adrian Beecroft, a venture capitalist and Conservative Party donor. Many of his recommendations in a government review, including allowing bosses to fire workers without allowing them to claim unfair dismissal, won the backing of David Cameron and George Osborne but were blocked by Vince Cable, the Business Secretary.
Conservatives already reduced/trying to reduce workers rights and making firing easier.
|
|
A large proportion of EasyJet pilots are "employed" on such contracts.
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Wed 31 Jul 13 at 13:05
|
>> A large proportion of EasyJet pilots are "employed" on such contracts.
The hourly rate is good tho.
|
>> >> A large proportion of EasyJet pilots are "employed" on such contracts.
>>
>> The hourly rate is good tho.
>>
Yeah, but if you only work 5 hours a month in the winter...
|
>> Yeah, but if you only work 5 hours a month in the winter...
Are you saying they only get paid for take off and landing?!
|
>> >> Yeah, but if you only work 5 hours a month in the winter...
>>
>> Are you saying they only get paid for take off and landing?!
>>
Nope, but when they reduce the flying schedule in the winter it makes more sense to give the work to salaried employees than contractors. So a typical winter month might only have one or two flights on the roster, meaning they only get paid for about five or six hours work.
Of course, if they're ill, do you really think they're going to call in sick and earn nothing for the month?
|
There is lobbying by CAB. It's prevalent in the so called "care industry" - I was talking to a client the other day - she does not get paid for travelling time only when at a "service user's" address....we worked out in one two hour time slot she was paid for 45 minutes. So to achieve 16 hours pay in one week she had to work 40. CAB are arguing that minimum wage regs are being circumnavigated.
As the OP asked how do people work out their benefit entitlements - especially Tax Credits. Totally unethical, the care industry is riddled with exploitative practices. I feel for people (mainly women) who work for them - they are treated ruthlessly and cast aside if they become to ill to work.
Last edited by: R.P. on Wed 31 Jul 13 at 21:10
|
|
And nothing extra for Bank Holidays. No wonder they are in a rush to get out of the door.
|
I thought the care industry was learning some lessons from the way they have treated staff?
|
Doubt it Rats. The margins in the industry are paper thin - I have spoken to dozens of their staff over the last couple of years, and the experiences they speak of pain me. The dilution of worker's rights have helped maintain profit levels. There are three priorities in the care industry (in general)
1. Profit,
2. Profit
3. Profit.
|
>> Totally unethical, the care industry is riddled with exploitative practices.
Haulage too. I only get paid for the hours I work - I'm off this week as I have my young lad staying with me. No work = no wages next week. The only upside to this arrangement is that I can pick and choose when I take time off. The work I do is really enjoyable but the employment conditions suck big time.
EDIT: And there isn't anything better out there, in fact there's a queue of drivers willing to do what I do.
Last edited by: Dave_TiD on Wed 31 Jul 13 at 23:28
|
A neighbour of mine has just sold his business and left the care industry. He was making good money, but didn't like the way the industry was heading so maximised his margins and sold out to one of the big boys. Says its becoming increasingly difficult to compete with the big operators with little morals.
Tells me that although hes not quite 40 he doesn't need to work again although probably will for something to do
|
|
Not scientific in anyway but the bigger the company the more chance of problems. I know that the private sector is future and that the private sector is a waste, but at least the public sector complied with basic employment rights - well apart in the case of Pembrokeshire Council that misplaced the Sex Equality Act 1976 for a while - well a long while, like 40 years.
|
>> I know that the private sector is future and that the private sector is a waste,
Well, that's cleared that up.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 1 Aug 13 at 15:17
|
|
doh - public sector is a waste (gospel according to iffy)
|
Re: Private Sector = Future, Public Sector = Waste.
The Public Sector should be there to do stuff which either wouldn't be done, or wouldn't be done appropriately by the Private Sector.
The Private Sector is there to do everything else.
i.e.
The NHS should be public sector.
Cleaning hospitals should be the private sector.
There should be very little, if any, overlap. And no competition or conflict.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 1 Aug 13 at 15:21
|
|
Care homes should stay in the public sector. Protects employees and residents. There are quite a few of these homes working on the margins - one puff of wind and they fall over and taxpayer either local or national has to pick the bill up.
|
>>Care homes should stay in the public sector
Absolutely. But the services they use such as laundry, catering, cleaning, maintenance and similar should be provided by the private sector.
|
>> (gospel according to iffy)
Where is the old curmudgeon? This place is too cosy without him to wind us up.
|
|
Yeah, I'll e-mail him again.
|
The Public Sector only becomes a "waste" when it is doing something that should be left to the private sector.
*BUT*, we have to start targetting the Public Sector on quality and appropriateness of delivery, and only judge them from a financial point of view after those first two have been achieved and can be maintained.
It is ludicrous to think that a primary metric for the Police is how much they cost. The primary objective should be crime levels, comfort and safety and only financial when those have been achieved and can be maintained.
For as long as we measure the NHS, The Police and others on financial metrics to the detriment of performance KPIs then we will forever be destined to have something inefficient, expensive and unsuccessful.
But since the electorate don't understand that, then I don;t hold out any hope of the politicians getting it.
|
>> It is ludicrous to think that a primary metric for the Police is how much
>> they cost. The primary objective should be crime levels, comfort and safety and only financial
>> when those have been achieved and can be maintained.
However we cant "afford" that achievement, unless of course someone was to be bright and consider how much "crime" costs, bit thats not seen as "real" money!
|
Of course the country can afford it, it just doesn't understand, know or like the implication of doing so.
The electorate is quite depressingly stupid. I think it should be shot.
|
|
I think we could afford it from the savings.
|
Zero Hour Contracts - movilogo
