In praise of Iain Duncan Smith's Welfare Reforms

Zero hours leaves all the power with the employer. I was employed as a "saturday" sales assistant 40 years ago, by a large chain store. I'd stressed at interview, I could only work Saturdays due to child care. I was offered the job, but for the next couple of years subjected to huge pressure via 7.30 am phone calls, to come into work that day. I was lucky, in having a Saturday contract, because I kept my job despite (in the main) refusing to work extra days. I simply couldn't, had no child care. If I'd been zero hours, I feel sure I'd have got no work as a result of not being seen as keen enough.

We gave up on The Big Benefits Row after Edwina and Jack got heated. It stopped being a discussion long before. Why does that man just rile people into a shouting match?
Zero hours can work. When my lot were little I worked zero hours at Norwich Union for several years. The work wasn't onerous and could be left easily in school holidays or if an offspring was sick. No pressure. Got paid for what I did. Gave me a reference and a way back into a 'proper' job when the children were older. Perfect. But now it's being used all the time for jobs which aren't one offs or need full time cover. Employers are taking advantage And so it's got a bad name. Such a shame.

I caught the end on 5+. Edwina Currie was, I thought, incredibly smug and extremely rude.

I thought Jack Monroe was rightly furious when Edwina Currie made sneering remarks about her family. Even if it were the case, which Jack Monroe disputed, that her family had been relatively well off, isn't it a sort of reverse snobbery to suggest that anyone from a fairly comfortable or privileged background could not genuinely care about social justice?

I do think zero hours contracts can work but they are now being offered when in fact the job is full time. Students often used to be given them in retail and that suited both parties.

It does not surprise me that they are being used and possibly abused in the NHS or for Social Workers and, apparently, they are being used for NQTs in schools and colleges. Certainly colleges seem to use the "variable hours" contracts they have employing the same teachers year upon year because these variable hours are paid less than a permanently contracted teacher. This can have the same affect on getting mortgages, etc., as a zero hours contract. The turnover of staff because of these contracts has a detrimental affect on all the staff in a hospital, social services team or college or school.

Having said that IDS is right to look at whether the system is producing the results we want. In a programme on television some time ago they took a "single" mother back to the beginning of the benefits system (1948 I think) A lot of things were worse; she would have been an "unmarried mother" so not entitled to housing or support but they put her into a vicarage as she would probably have charitable help. This was a real shock for her. They then got her into a job - the unemployment office helped with this and she got free nursery care while she worked as it would still have been available just after the war. When they took her "back to today" she could not work as she would not be able to afford nursery care. It would surely be better to pay for nursery care than pay the mums to stay at home.

The other one on Edwina's side was Katie Hopkins, who can shout just as loudly. Ken Livingstone was on to start off with, but left at the first interval. Not surprised with all those shouty women.
Jack Monroe swore first, at Edwina, who was being rude about her background. She works for Oxfam doing research into poverty. She has a very interesting website/blog agirlcalledjack.com

White Dee probably has a better PR agent than Edwina these days.

Anyone else watch The Big Benefits Row on Channel 5?
Edwina Curry telling everyone to get a job.
White Dee had had a very nice haircut. At one point she said that the bookies must have lost a lot tonight, because they would have had a lot of money on her being the first to swear. She was very restrained, more than could be said for Edwina, who was, quite frankly, rude to other panellists.

I believe zero hours contracts were originally used in businesses that are more prone to peaks and troughs in their need for labour, such as seasonal work in the holiday industry, agriculture, etc. Those that entered into these sorts of contracts were, I think, people who had commitments that prevented them from sticking to a rigid work schedule throughout the year (such as students).

I think this type of contract is fine if it works for the benefit of employer and employee in that they both require flexibility.

Now we are seeing all types of workers of all ages, qualifications and skills, being unable to get a job unless they accept being at an employer's beck and call, as well as not being guaranteed a minimum number of hours' work. It seems to me that these contracts are a way of employers side-stepping hard-won workers' rights.

Of course, this sort of system saves money and increases profits for the employers in the short term, but I wonder if, in the long term, it will be counter-productive. These zero hours contracts will, I think, result in demoralised, bitter workers who will have no sense of pride or fulfilment in their work or loyalty towards their employers.

Thanks, Marelli.
Just a bit of information about zero hours contracts. In 2012-13 there were 67000 NHS workers on zero hours contracts.
Last Easter I was in hospital. One night for a few hours there was one male nurse and no female nurses, on the ward of 5 bays with possibly 6 patients in each bay. There were six in the bay I was in and only two of us could get out of bed.
Apparently they could not get any bank nurses to cover for sickness. A nurse who should have been on had fallen down a couple of steps and been sent home as she had twisted her ankle.
In the same report, there were discovered to be 300,000 social care workers on zero hours contracts.
Neither of these two occupations should rely on people who are not on proper contracts.

Signed. Thank you durhamjen.

Which is why there is a need for a public enquiry into it, instead of a secretive one which is the plan at the moment.
That's what the 38 degrees petition is about.

"You are one person, I am another and we both have differing views on this."

Durhamjen I clearly stated that if a company is solely using zero contract hours then there IS a need to address the issue.

I would also say that it is a folly to attribute zero hours contracts to any political party or a political parties time in government. All of the parties have council workers on zero hours contracts in various parts of the country, even the Greens in Brighton. It is hypocritical of any party to make themselves appear to be holier than thou on this matter.

I am however saying that the topic is not necessarily one sided and I think it is fair to raise the point that some people like the choice.

If your zero hours contract is your only contract, you have difficulty getting any mortgage or house rental.
You actually said in your first sentence that it's okay to supplement your income.
People on zero hours contracts do not have NI paid for them, or holiday or sick pay, etc.
Anyway, the government is going to have a secretive enquiry into zero hours contracts. If they need to have one, it should be out in the open. You are one person, I am another, and we both have differing views on this. We need to have a public enquiry. Is Vince Cable employing someone on a zero hours contract in his office? We ought to be told openly and honestly.

There is nothing new about Zero hours contracts, there has always been such employment. Zero hours contracts actually suit some workers who work to supplement their income or work around family ties.

There is maybe a problem with companies who solely use zero hours contracts as a method of employment. In that instance I agree there is a need to address the issue.

I do not however think people who prefer to work as and when they can, or choose to do so, should be forced to work x amount of hours when they will have problems within their family commitments to cover such a contract and may be forced to loose their job.

That would be me, Absent, sewing by candlelight by the dying embers, knitting mufflers from wool gleaned from the hedgerows.

Thanks to all those who have signed.
Iam, there was a Daily Mail article about this over two years ago.
When I want to check up on facts like this, I go on a site called
www.fullfact.org so I checked and their page on statistics for people on grugs is out of date and there are no statistics for this category on the DWP website, according to Fullfacts.
It's the same as the government saying that all workers except the top 10% have seen a rise in their money last year. The government and the opposition use different statistics to back up their claims, but the government will not say where they got their information from so you can check.
IDS gets a lot of his statistics wrong. He seems to always believe the worst case scenario if it fits his ideals.

Signed - thanks jen!

Is my memory right in thinking that people with drug/alcohol problems were put on to the higher/sickness benefit and often DLA in addition by Gordon B's initiative. The argument at the time was the additional money would be used to go to appointments at the drug/alcohol team etc and thus move back into work.
I found it just plain wrong that folks who had become unemployed had to manage on so much less than their drug/alcohol dependent neighbours

By the way, this doesn't mean I support IDS or the benefit changes

duhamjen - thanks, signed

Sounda like a hard-working family – apart from the fact that no one is knitting the children's jerseys or running up the odd skirt or pair of trousers margaretm74. Just for the record – exactly how much do MPs know about hard work?

What is the exact definition of a hardworking family? I have visions of Dad, Mum and several children with caps on and shovels in their hands, marching off to work on Mi'Lord's estate, Granny stirring the cauldron of stew whilst Grandad digs the garden, can't get rid of this, so please re-define it for me someone!

durhamjen. Thanks - signed.

https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/zero-hours-government

To get Vince Cable to have a public enquiry into zero hours contracts.

Plus sanctions lead to loss of Housing Benefit, so eviction is on the cards somewhere down the line! This is happening to people who were wrongly sanctioned, and whose appeals against the sanctions are being upheld at a later date, but it's too late then as the damage has already been done.

One problem is that if you get sanctioned it's for 4 weeks minimum and up to 3 years. The jobcentre staff have to meet their criteria, otherwise they are sanctioned by not being given extra pay.
19% of all jobseeker's allowance claimants from 2008 to March 2012 were sanctioned, 1.4million people/families.
For the DWP to be told that they need to take urgent steps to monitor the extent of financial hardship caused by claimants losing their benefits, it makes me so angry. They bring in rules and do not think of the consequences.