Great British Recovery?

www.labour.org.uk/ending-the-abuse-of-zero-hours-contracts

All of which means he wants to get rid of zero hours contracts, POGS, and make sure that workers get a regular contract for regular hours, not a zero hours contract.

'He (Ed Miliband)will promise some key measures:

Ensuring workers can demand a fixed-hours contract when they've worked regular hours over six months for the same employer

That they receive a fixed-hours contract automatically when they've worked regular hours for more than a year - unless they chose to opt out

Protection from employers forcing them to be available all hours and insisting they can't work for others or cancelling shifts at short notice - for no money.'

Durhamjen

On zero hours contracts there are no shifts to be compensated for.

You'd better tell Ed Miliband then. It is the Labour Party who has made the statement.

On zero hours contracts there are no shifts to be compensated for.
There are 1.4m workers on zero hours contracts.
Zoe Williams quoted an advert for Costa in Hampshire where the person had to be available from 6 am to 9 pm five days a week plus the occasional weekend. This was for 20 hours a week.
She also spoke to one person in Starbucks in Newcastle train station who had come in for a one hour shift.
This sounds silly to me, and I would have refused, but I would have had the option to refuse. People on jobseekers alllowance will have their JSA stopped if they refuse even zero hours contracts. That is immoral in this country.

I don't think Labour are going to 'make them illegal'.

Labour are promoting the following, if I am correct?

Stopping workers being forced to be available at all hours

Being barred from working elsewhere.

After 6 months the worker would have the right to 'ask' for a fixed hour contract. These would become automatic after 12 months.

Workers would be compensated for shifts cancelled by employers at short notice.

I don't think they should be made illegal. There are, in fairness, circumstances in which they suit employers and employees. The trouble is they are getting out of hand and for some companies becoming a lazy way of employing staff.
The notion though that people should be forced to come off benefits to take up such a contract is utterly ludicrous.

I haven't said it does compare nor have I at any time tried to compare the two scenarios.

No he did not have a zero hour contract before he retired, what does that have to do with my saying zero hours contracts are suited to some people?

As I asked, did he have a zero hours contract before he retired, i.e., when he was working to pay the mortgage, etc.?
It does not compare with people on their own or single parents who need to get jobs to feed their kids, or with working age people who are going to be made to accept zero hours contracts ot lose benefits.

Why am I being unfair.?

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/06/zero-hour-jobseekers-employee-rights-poverty-contracts&sa=U&ei=s7VqU93vLcOwO727gdgF&ved=0CAoQFjAD&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNG9Wwm_fz__WRNCWVkKSanSzPG8hA

Interesting article by Zoe Williams about zero hours contracts.
Read about the examples of workers she has met. That's why zero hours contracts should be illegal. I ran two catering businesses and never saw the need for them. I saw it as most unfair to women. You can have flexible working without having zero hours contracts.

Hardly fair, POGS, using your husband's retirement income as an example to justify what you think. Did he ever have a zero hours contract before he retired?

falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/most-workers-on-zero-hours-contracts-earn-less-than-the-living-wage

IDS's universal credit scheme is used as a reason for zero hours contracts being viable, because it is supposed to be flexible enough to change the benefits from week to week. However, it hasn't come into use yet even though it should have done two years ago. Slight problem with the computer software, I believe.

Silverfish

I will try to respond in a civilised manner.

Yes there are people who have a second earner in their family. Yes there are student's who work between lectures or during their summer vacation. Don't a lot of us GN's have our own kids or grandchildren who did or are doing the same? Why souldn't they, does that mean in your view they are not entitled to to do so.

I stick to my view that zero hours do work for some people but I did say in paragraph 2 of my previous post this has become a problem in more and more cases and does need looking into.

My husband had a zero hour contract when he retired, he drove lorries for a haulage company. He did not want a contracted job as he wanted to pick and choose if and when he worked. It suited him and his employer knew they could ring and ask him to see if he was free, rather than use an agency driver who was not as good.

My father had wonderful care assistants. Some of the girls did not want to be contracted to hours of work as they wanted to work around their family commitments. The company were always asking them to take on more hours. If they had been forced to take on a contracted hour job they probably would have jacked the job in and the company would have struggled even more to get good staff and meet it's commitments to those in their care.

I have never ran a business but I am not so stupid as to know wages have to be taken into account for a business survive. The cafe in Dawlish, the Pub in Weymouth etc. have a footfall in the summer months but then trade vanishes for months on end, it has to be able to employ staff accordingly. If pressure was put on them then yes I do think a lot of businesses will opt for closing.

Zero hours contracts are not knew. Most councils have had zero contracts for years, even the Green's in Brighton, they have been called hypocrites for saying one thing but doing another.

I am not making light of your employment problems I assure you. I do not disagree with what you say. I am however playing devils advocate and pointing out that there are circumstances and people who want to continue to make their own decision as to when they work. Now that may be frustrating to you and your circumstances, not having that luxury but is that a reason to stop other's working under conditions they are happy with.

Well said Silverfish they are horrible if your only source of income because by their very nature not a reliable and steady income. My neighbour wanted to work - got her toddler a place in nursery, but because the work was unpredictable she couldn't even cover the nursery fees and chucked it in. (she has a partner with a good job)

That's Bollocks, POGS. The only way zero hours work is for there to be another wage earner in the household. For example many market researchers I know are really well off, they brag about second homes, new conservatories etc and yet they have zero hours but what they all have is a husband at home with a very good income so if their zero hours are nil one week its not a problem. The same with students, they are usually living at home and not responsible for bills, they can live off their parents until they get more work. However if you are a single person and on zero hours it is very hard. How can casual seasonal jobs disappear, it is only the mean employers who think they can get something for nothing to blame. Years ago zero hours were not heard of and you got a job with a few hours but you knew what times you were working and so could get another job alongside. Im trying to juggle 2 zero hours jobs and I end up lying to both bosses telling them im ill or something when they both want me to work the same day. On days when neither want me Im sitting at home wasting time when I want to work.You don't know what its like until you try it. My income is shit too

That's Bollocks, POGS. The only way zero hours work is for there to be another wage earner in the household. For example many market researchers I know are really well off, they brag about second homes, new conservatories etc and yet they have zero hours but what they all have is a husband at home with a very good income so if their zero hours are nil one week its not a problem. The same with students, they are usually living at home and not responsible for bills, they can live off their parents until they get more work. However if you are a single person and on zero hours it is very hard. How can casual seasonal jobs disappear, it is only the mean employers who think they can get something for nothing to blame. Years ago zero hours were not heard of and you got a job with a few hours but you knew what times you were working and so could get another job alongside. Im trying to juggle 2 zero hours jobs and I end up lying to both bosses telling them im ill or something when they both want me to work the same day. On days when neither want me Im sitting at home wasting time when I want to work.You don't know what its like until you try it. My income is shit too

It is the case zero hour contracts can and do work very well for both the employer and the employee.

It is ridiculous to believe this is a new thing. It is however correct to say this has become a problem in more and more cases and it is right for them to be looked at seriously.

It is defining when zero hour contracts work for both employee and employer and when they are obviously being used in a way that is tantamount to a company avoiding it's responsibilities to it's staff and paying taxes and entitlements associated with employment law.

It would not be in the interest of neither a worker or employer on zero hours to make it impossible to maintain zero hours employment. Not only will many people loose extra income, seasonal vacancies will disappear, the care services etc. will suffer badly and it could cause more harm to more workers, so be careful what you wish for.

So much for better standards of living for all!

I remember asking my Dad:
'What are all those men doing?'
This was whilst driving thro Birkenhead ( probably in the 50s,on our way to the annual shopping for new winter coats at Owen Owens(?) in Liverpool).
They were queueing up to be taken on/rejected at the Docks. I suppose that was the zero hour equivalent.

It's quite scandalous how as a country we've come to accept that these contracts are just a fact of the world of employment and a price to be paid to aid an economic recovery.

I remember when it was headline news that Burger King was making its employees clock-out during quiet times ...... that now seems not such a big deal in comparison!

The realities for most people on benefits are that taking a zero hours contract could be an even bigger disaster than unemployment. Once you come off a benefit, getting back on them is not an instant thing. There can be an administrative delay, or one that is built into the rules (I think). If you resign from the "job" that could affect your right to benefits (?)
If you have kids you cannot make any reasonable plans for childcare unless you have a fully flexible free family member at hand. The companies have absolutely no interest in giving someone consistent and predictable shifts - that is why they like them.

That's what I've just written to Esther McVey, sliverfish, that people on zero hours contracts cannot plan.
38 degrees has a petition to try to stop them stopping people's benefits if they refuse a zero hours contract. Last week they said it was voluntary, but it does not sound that way to me.

I have now taken on another zero hours contract and have bosses ringing me regularly asking if I can work tomorrow etc. but in a few weeks there could be no work. Its the uncertainty that is the problem, you cant save, cant plan for the future. The people who spend are those on benefits, yes aryse and grannynot people do get benefits for working, I don't as I don't get enough hours. if you have kids you need to work 16 hours if you have not you need to work 30. I only get about 25hrs even with 2 jobs.

Was talking to a woman on benefits who gets 90.00 a month from dwp for her addiction, she is a compulsive spender. her house is immaculate, rent paid by dwp, all new furniture and carpets. She goes to replace everything every 2 years and takes on loans etc that she knows she cannot pay and as she's ll some agency takes over and helps her to make small payments to avoid the courts. I like this woman very much,a lovely person but how easy is it to work the system, she just calls her social worker everytime she is overspent. I wish I had all her benefits plus £90 spending money a month.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/30/zero-hours-contracts-uk-over-one-million-people
This is worrying, that 1.4 million people can be on standby with no work on any day. At the same time the government says that the number of people in employment has gone up. It's just a way of massaging the employment statistics.
Yes, you're right, Ayse, there is no benefit to the employee, particularly if they are now saying that if you do not accept a zero hours contract your benefits can be withdrawn for three months.
Following on from iam64, the multinationals can then pay big sums to their shareholders which they have in effect taken from the taxpayer.

Yes Grannyknot, those in low paid work get tax credits, housing benefit it. This policy aimed to make it financially worthwhile to work. The upside is that many people with young children for example, can work a limited number of hours a week without losing benefits. The downside is that huge multinationals, making equally huge profits, can continue to pay the minimum wage. Think of places like Starbucks, who avoid paying tax in this country, pay their staff the minimum wage and allow tax payers to top up wages that folks can't live on.

Mad or what!

Durhamjen - Re Zero hours contracts. I don't know a great deal about them so forgive my ignorance but it seems to me that with zero hours the only benefit is to the employer. My understanding is that the employee is on call whenever the employer wants them, so what about planning for leisure, taking a part time course, time with family and most importantly job insecurity together with the rates of pay. I'm all for unemployed people (of which I have been one) taking a job rather than not taking a job. Working with the unemployed I suggest 95% of ordinary unemployed people will take a job that they can do. I can't speak for executives generally, but I have met a number who have been unable to find work in their chosen field and refuse to take a 'filler'. That is even if an employer would employ them.

As to the 'Recovery'. My understanding is that it is based on an increase in consumer spending. Isn't this just going back to earlier problems rather than concentrating on engineering and manufacturing, that produce and create wealth? The Brits are apparently innovative but little investment seems to be made in the right place as the right time.