Considering voting Labour?

What we keep hearing like a mantra is ‘Labour want the best choices for people’.It’s meaningless.
Any political party can trot that one out.The way in which people want the best choice will certainly not be delivered by a Corbyn/McDonnell/Momentum government in any case.
They want to ‘soak the rich’ ( another mantra) to pay for all the mad cap policies such as free tuition at Uni’s, but the truth is that amount of money is simply not forthcoming from the 5% ( if that) of the population that earn big salaries. What they would do to big businesses in the UK is anyones guess, but they view them as evil ( instead of seeing them as huge employers and generators of money.)
They would seek to privatise as much as possible, again with what results? Corbyn and McDonnell have followed a Marxist path all their lives, they aren’t going to stop now.

But wait 5 mins and we'll be told (again) that we don't care about these things if we don't vote labour.

Yes Pant. Choice to go with an independant small landlord rather than the big souless large portfolio one with the landlord licence (having a team to tick boxes does NOT = better properties for renter!). That choice was lost in areas that trialed labours proposed housing policy!

Yet interestingly, the labour voters I know are happy to chose air bnb for their holidays. I dont because of what it had done to our local rental market. One of the big labour canvasers near me owns a second property which is on airbnb rather than let out properly! You couldnt make it up!
But of course only labour supporters care about gig economy isssues...

Labour voting colleagues and friends also cant believe that I dont have the uber app and will wait 10mins longer for my taxi....

This isn’t selling the Labour Party to anyone who believes in choice!

And labours proposal to replace the banned 0hr contracts with minhr contracts, how is that more enforcable than changing 0hr contracts to enshrine employee rights?

And how come we have rights for permanant contract employees if its so pointless and unenforcable?

If a zero hours contract is illegal it will be an offence to even offer one, so no discussion, no onus upon the employee to prove the contract is a bad one, no question of the action to be taken. Prosecution easy.
I agree employers will flout the law which is why improving zero hours contracts is an impossibility. Only stopping them will work.

The ones who want to completely flout the law will flout it anyway.

The ones looking for legal loopholes will be the ones that change

Lets suppose someone tried to implement that shall we notanan2. How do you propose to monitor it?

The exact same way you impliment it on permanant contracts.

The exact same way you would monitor and impliment a ban

Lets suppose someone tried to implement that shall we notanan2. How do you propose to monitor it? Who will report the offending firm? The zero hours contracted worker who desperately needs the job? Who will investigate the offence? And what will happen to an employer who offends? How much will it all cost and who pays?

Casual worker would NOT go down as well at a letting agent as "employed by the NHS"

People like their NHS bank contracts. They are probably the biggest employer of 0hr staff in the country because they are the biggest overall employer in the country. So this ban will affect more NHS staff and services than anybody else.

The NHS contracts are not problematic. Sort out the problematic ones.

If all zero hr contracts were IMPROVED by having to work like the NHS ones do, then there would be less incentive for the firms that use them for the wrong reasons to not offer permanant contracts too as they would have to treat their 0hr staff well. THEN 0hrs becomes a CHOICE again.

Carrot works better than stick.
Labour is stick.

And the stick will also beat the countries biggest employer who is using them appropriately

Casual workers have exactly the same benefits under law and may have more if they re classed as employees and not workers.
There are NO benefits to zero hours contracts.

With the amount of unpaid overtime salaried teachers work (more than even doctors do) I can see how an hourly rate rather than a set salary could appeal TBH.

employers NI & pension contributions, holiday pay, sick pay etc

Well NHS zero hr staff get all of that except sick pay. (But can apply for statutory sick pay).

So improve all 0 hr contracts by bringing them in line with the good ones like NHS. Wouldnt that be better than blanket banning them?

Student loan repayments are taken out monthly rather than annually. You get holiday pay added to your hourly rate.

3 in the audience spoke of their experiences 2 enjoyed working that way 1 didn't. Another audience member who ran a state school said it worked well for them too.

I had to laugh a bit at your last sentence, tooting. Of course someone who 'ran' a state school would love zero hours contracts. With school budgets cut to the bone zero hours saves a packet in 'on costs' (employers NI & pension contributions, holiday pay, sick pay etc). What's not to like for a cash strapped Head teacher or school admin officer?

When you are employed by the NHS. As 0 hours bank staff are. You are covered by their indemnity insurance. You have access to free training and the training department keeps track of it for you. You have access to staff benefits e.g. the free councilling service. You are part of the pension scheme. Tax is done for you by payroll. You are supplied with a uniform. Mortgage lenders and letting agents consider you "employed"

People WANT to be employed on their zero hours bank contracts.

Pantglas2 if someone wants to work zero hours anytime they are quiet free to do so. It's called casual work and it has been around for years. It doesn't need a contract. It doesn't conflict with any agency or Bank work. You simply accept the work when you want to. If you sign a contract it should involve some benefit for you and some commitment by the employer, so minimum hours contracts are best for those looking for some security. I agree not everyone is but a zero hours contract is not necessary and does nothing for anyone apart from scaring employees and manipulating the employment figures.

Well said, Pantglas2!

But they don’t want better chances ie zero hours for those who are happy to work them, do they trisher?

That’s why some people don’t vote Labour - the one size fits all thinking like funding nursing care for all and free university for all. People who can afford to pay should pay so that those who can’t can benefit.

Bank is much more flexible like that. You dont adjust your own hours another administer in your team has to do it for you but its easily done. They just change the end time. THEN the shift is locked. AFTER you've done it.

Overtime has to be locked in before the shift starts as it has to be pre-approved.

Salaried staff, who can't claim the money for ending up going late, sometimes have the option of claiming "hours oweing" and leaving early another time to make up for it. But in reality there is rarely a quiet day to leave early. So they just suck it up. And patients never know when they're seeing a Consultant in clinic or on the wards that they actually stopped being paid an hour ago!

GracesGranMK3 just saying on the small selection there is a difference in opinion for those who work under those types of contracts. Trying to unpick whether all zero contract are bad, if for some people they allow flexibility and work life balance and for employers who use them and potential advantages in having a flexible workforce. I am not really qualified to comment on this but trying to keep a balanced view.

GG13 your post Friday re the rich moving their money. That doesn't necessarily result in job losses. Few people will be able to move their businesses (except for the Dysons of this world) to another country although they may be able to move their personal wealth.

I remember the last time claims were made that the rich would leave this country. Some did go but they came crawling back because, for example, their families didn't like the lifestyle of the country they chose. Generally the UK is a good place to live, especially if you are rich. Wonderful culture, many Michelin starred restaurants, fabulous clothes shops. What's not to like?

Cheers Dinahmo and thanks for bringing the discussion back to the real subject which is that Labour wants better chances for everyone.

Sorry I don't believe that notanan2 If you accept 3 shifts working 12-3pm on consecutive days you cannot then fill in your sheet and say you worked until 5pm one day and 4pm on the other two-Well you could but you would only get paid for 3 hours 12-3pm. Otherwise what'st he point of booking shifts? you might as well say come in that day and stay as long as you are needed.