Considering voting Labour?

Grandad, can you not understand that some people do not want to commit to fixed hours, even if its flexi?

Some bank staff work abroad for months of the year then do a run of full time weeks when back visiting the UK.

Some work around commitments that vary.

Some have other full time jobs.

Contracted hours are not best for everyone

notanan2, in regard to your post @16:13 today, "jobshare" is not just straightforward part-time working.

For us, the above means there is a set job to be carried out over the course of a month or even up to three months. The employees sharing that work are employed on a set number of hours but when and how they work those hours over the course of the month is worked out between those they share that work with.

By example with two persons on guaranteed fifteen hours per week contracts, then one can work ten in any single week while the other will work twenty by agreement between the two. The following week can be worked visa verse if required and hours owing or worked in excess of contracts can be rolled over to a maximum of three month

The above is overseen by the office manager and staff are trained to multi-task between jobs which also brings increased salaries to them.

The Assignment Team(s) employees who are "out on the road " almost all of their time all have to commit to a minimum of thirty-seven hours per week but that can very often be much higher. However, even in those rolls sharing those extra hours between team members is voluntarily and worked out between them.

That is reflected in their far higher than average earnings income.

Labour are not propsing improving 0hr contracts to address their missuse.

They are proposing a blanket BAN. They are proposing replacing them with fixed min hr contracts. Which do not offer the full flexibility of O hrs .

"to HAVE to commit.."

Zero hours contracts allows dual registered midwives to stay on both registers.

They do NOT want to half to commit to a second contracted hours contract, but do want to remain able to do both.

Labour's plans will see them all drop off the nurse register.

Labour under Corbyn wants tax rises to penalise success, damaging jobs and businesses.
Conservatives want tax cuts to promote prosperity.

People leave permanant contracts to switch to just bank contracts because of the benefits of zero hours.

People chose to work zero hour bank contracts in trusts that are actively recruiting for permanant contracts.

Explain that if all zero hour contracts are apparently awful for everyone always.

No contract is needed to prove a lengthy period of bank work. It simply needs to be recorded.

Thats fine if you are able to work regularly. But people go through periods where they cant (or just dont want to) and its more ad hoc so wouldnt have weekly pay to prove it.

Listing a bank job from may 2015- November 2016 is easier than explaining 3 weeks in june 2015, then nothing until september 2015, then a gap of a few months in 2016 etc..

When zero hour contracts are offered appropriately they offer full flecibility and the psychological benefit of not being "unemployed" during periods of life when a fixed contract just wont work!

Corbyn doing well

Another day, another great reception for Jeremy Corbyn. The truth is you’re not meant to see this; you’re not meant to see how likeable, friendly and warm he is. How confident. A PM-in-waiting. That’s why you have to be on Twitter & Facebook to see it ?

We find in our business that "jobshare" between two or even three employees can provide all the flexibility we as a business require and provides guaranteed salaries to those employed on such

That only works for people who want to commit to regular pary time hours.

Part time is not the same as fully flexible. It does not offer what 0 hrs offer

It suits some people to maintain the status of "employed" when they are for whatever reason unable to commit to set hours.

For lots of reasons. Sometimes psychological. Sometimes CV. Sometimes home office requirements. Sometimes for letting agent/mortgage applications and so on.

Yeah, its not for people who want to claim benefits. But I mentioned earlier a woman I know with injuries/dusabilities that "flair up": she earns way more doing bank just when she is well than she would on benefits, but it also means she gets to stay in her profession, and can remaim in the team, on her terms (sometimes she works a lot, other times she is off for weeks on end)

No contract is needed to prove a lengthy period of bank work. It simply needs to be recorded.

We find in our business that "jobshare" between two or even three employees can provide all the flexibility we as a business require and provides guaranteed salaries to those employed on such conditions.

So in that case Labour is right in wanting to stop this exploitation.

But zero hours is Unnecessary notanan2 it offers no benefits at all. Casual staff can do exactly the same work. The only difference is they are not classed as employed. What benefits does a zero hours cotract give?

Someone applying for permanant residence in the UK is in a much better position if they were consistantly employed.

Particularly relevant to women who would otherwise have had a gap during early childrearing, but may have maintained a bank contract before going back full time later.

There are lots of reasons who someone may end up with a "gappy" CV that looks bad. However if they managed to maintain a bank contract during a time when it was difficult to maintain contracted hours, it looks better and thus os easier to apply to go back to full time permanant contracts when ready/life eases up

Its not ideal for everyone so should never be the only option, but they are ideal for some.

No one says that they are new, but what I am arguing is that particularly bad employers exploit the staff on these contracts.

Everyone is saying that

But zero hours is Unnecessary notanan2 it offers no benefits at all. Casual staff can do exactly the same work. The only difference is they are not classed as employed. What benefits does a zero hours cotract give?

No one says that they are new, but what I am arguing is that particularly bad employers exploit the staff on these contracts.

It is well documented how the billionaire Mike Ashley exploited his staff on zero hours contracts with the conditions suffered by the staff as “Victorian”

Employees on these contracts typically earn £1000 less pa than staff doing exactly the same job and hours on a proper employment contract.

They must always be available to work, but often find that there is no work for them.

I can remember reading about dock workers were treated exactly the same way but this was before they were unionised and nearly a century ago.

Zero hours workers are discriminated against and evidence shows that these contracts are keeping the average wage lower.

Of course there will be people who argue that they enjoy the flexibility zero hours contracts afford them, but this wouldn’t be argued by the chief breadwinner of a family who is dependent on this employment to feed her family. There will be little opportunity for advancement in these jobs.

Along with the zero hours contract there is zero power to stand up to the boss.

The relationship is one of exploitation of the workers and should not be tolerated in modern workplace.

Actually youre wrong about mortgages Grandad.

Lenders distinguish between good zero hours contracts and bad zero hour cobtracts.

Which is why many lenders DO take NHS zero hour contracts into consideration for mortgage applications!

They are not all alike.

The NHS and many other organisations managed in the past by employing casual staff (some places still do)

The NHS still does this as well
It offers fixed term non bank contracts. Fixed locum posts. Contracted bank. Contracted agency. (Where bank or agency staff join a team on their rota for agreed set hours for a fixed amount of time)

AND zero hours as well

There is a huge recruitment crisis in the NHS. Anyone who thinks this can be improved by offering fewer options to potential employees is bonkers IMO

For anyone in this country to obtain a mortgage or even descent rented accommodation they have to prove they have a stable income.

Therefore those who are trying to support themselves or even families on Zero hours contracts and Gig economy conditions are also the ones who are trapped in poor housing and often reliant on the benefits system to support even that very base standard of living.

Those who state that Zero Hours Contracts and Gig Economy working are a necessary part of Britains economy condemn those working with such standards to an indefinite future of poor living standards.

Prior to the Thacher government legalising agency employment, Britain provided guaranteed hours employment contracts to all workers. Should there be a government with a policy and will to see those conditions restored once more then that would happen to the benefit of ALL who reside in this country.

Many companies operate even in these times without the use of such terms of employment including our own. That I believe demonstrates that where there is a will there is a way.

Guaranteed hours employment contracts are a two-way investment. The employee must undertake a minimum period of time to their employer in exchange for a guaranteed income and that provides large benefits for both parties and society in general.

The NHS already offers full time and reduced hour contracts.

AND zero hours contracts.

Banning 0 hrs just takes them away. It doesnt offer anything new in their place.

The NHS and many other organisations managed in the past by employing casual staff (some places still do) . The big difference between casual staff and staff on zero hours contracts is that because you do not have a permanent job casual staff can register as unemployed particularly if they have a long period with no work. Those on zero hours contracts are classed as employed even when they are not working. This is why the employment figures. have improved dramatically. I think the use of zero hours contracts in the NHS is very worrying with some places increasing their use to highly qualified and important positions. Such as this www.jobs.nhs.uk/xi/vacancy/?vac_ref=915781967
It's for a consultant breast surgeon if you don't want to click on it. I don't think someone having breast surgery should be treated by someone who might not be working in the days after their operation because they haven't been allocated a shift. It shows how a measure introduced at a very basic level can become common practice unless it is stopped. (and yes I know this conflicts with my earlier post about lawyers. I think I failed to realise how difficult things were getting and how important it is something is done)

Do you really think that student nurses, who currently fill a lot of bank shifts, will be able to commit to a minimum contracted hour contract when they have times of the year when they are doing full time on placement while writing essays and studying for exams?

Of course they could exist without zero hours contracted staff.
No they really cant! They dont even have enough permanant bank staff as it is!

We aren’t talking about getting rid of the experienced staff, merely changing their terms of contract - it happens all the time
Its not changing them it is taking them away entirely. Leaving only the option of contracted hours contracts. Which many thousands of people on the NHS staff banks will NOT sign up for!

Say you have a full time contract and a bank contract, which you use when suits you or to helo during a crisis, would you really commit to another fixed hour contract ON TOP of your primary contract? How would that even work if your primary contract was shift work? No! People like that just wont join the bank! Especially patents who may be willing to do bank no and then but will not want to commit to extra hours EVERY MONTH including school holidays etc