Considering voting Labour?

"to HAVE to commit.."

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 .

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.

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

Gosh, Grandad......jobshare, I had forgotten that even existed.

Surely that would be a fairer way for all these women to keep their hand in.

A lot of the bank hours done in the NHS are by people who have full time jobs or study as well. A min hr commitment would not work for them.

There are job shares in the NHS too.

They do not offer the same thing as 0 hrs.
Some suit one. Some suit the other.

How does that work notonan, how can somebody have a full time job and be a bank nurse?

It works because its zero hours!

Would anybody like to address the points I raised about the Care Industry......no union, no colleagues, possibly in debt, certainly bills to pay, predominantly female?

Surely a properly trained and valued, salaried workforce would be better for all concerned

notanan2, I do understand that not all persons wish to commit to any minimum hours of working, but we find that far more wish for such guaranteed work hours and employer commitment to them.

If a prospective employee cannot commit to a minimum of six hours per week (which is the minimum we have ever offered anyone) then they are not for our employ.

We have found over the years that for the one who would not wish to give that commitment there are always several others who will.

Simple as that, and in employment that is what the vast majority want.

Well thats the thing grandad. Many business structures cannot offer work to someone who wants to work no hours for 6 weeks, then 40 hours for 2 weeks for example. In the NHS it is mutually beneficial, for the bank staff and the organisation. And it will suffer greatly if this ban goes ahead. All ward's budgets will be blown. Safety will suffer.

25 million working hours. In the NHS alone, is not a small minority grandad, if it is a minority at all

I have a limited experience of people working zero hours contracts, so I could be wrong here.

My understanding is that nurses who work "on the bank" or supply teachers (or similar) choose the hours they want to work, provided work is available. They are not required to be available for work at a moment's notice.

People with zero hours contracts are often required to work whenever the employer needs them. Occasionally, they are paid a retainer for being available, but more often or not they are left in the situation of not being able to seek work elsewhere with another employer.

If you're correct notanan2 (and I have no reason to believe you're not), that's an absolute disgrace. There's a place for bank staff in the NHS, but better planning of staffing could avoid many of those hours. Bank staff do not receive adequate training and can never be part of a team and there have been cases where inadequate communication with non-permanent staff has led to compromising patient safety.

Of course they can be part of the team growstuff

Most of the time you would never know when you have a bank nurse.

You could have the same nurse 2 days in a row: yesterday they did a shift on their permanant contract & today they have picked up a bank shift on their day off!

The benefit of bank (over agency etc) is they are trained by the trust and have the same induction and manditory training as permanant staff.

Some people only ever do bank on one ward, others like to move around.

No, it is not poor staff management. There simply are not enough permanant staff! There are vacancies in almost every trust! How would you bridge that gap?

Errrmmm … yes I would notanan2. Unfortunately, I had a reason to know when I bank midwife was nearly responsible for the death of my unborn baby and me. I did eventually receive an explanation and apology from the hospital. Both my sisters were senior nurses and it was a long-standing grievance of theirs that bank staff just not understand routines and patients as well as regular staff. Budgets have been cut, so permanent staff can't be employed, which works out to be a false economy.

By making more effort to retain permanent staff.

notanan2, it is not the case that some businesses cannot commit to zero-hours contracts, it is a case that many businesses do not wish to employ on such contracts.

I wish to see commitment in those who wish to work for us, and undoubtedly those prospective employees wish the same in return.

Having such assurance in employees make our training of those employees much more straightforward which gives both us and them ongoing benefits into the future.

We find ongoing training is the requirement that the vast majority of employees wish for even above an annual salary increase. That is the matter that never seems to be discussed on this forum even when employment is the topic of a thread.

Anyway, we are now out for the evening, so signing off for now.

Budgets have been cut, so permanent staff can't be employed

Almost all trusts have vacancies outstanding. Which there IS funding for but dont get filled. Many of these vacancies are "rolling" which means they go on unfilled for months.

The vacancies are there. The funding is approved. They remain unfilled!

Let's face it, whatever walk of life , we like familiarity and safety. We like to hang out coats up, find the toilet, have a coffee, contact with colleagues.
Humans like continuity.

I am very sorry for your loss growstuff

As for your sisters, you do find that wards that dont have that sort of attitude from the permanant staff will usually have a "little black book" of regular bank staff (usually made up of ex students and ex staff from that ward) who know the ward well, are part of the team and are happy to go there on a semi regular basis. But yes there are a minority of ward nurses who have "us and them" attitudes so no bank staff go there regularly so they dont get to know the ward and end up with "randoms". Its is a minority though as most places look after their regular bank staff as theyre glad to have them & invite them to staff dos etc.

Besides which, a lot of those bank hours are done on people's own wards! Where they work or study anyway. Most bank will be offered to the permanant staff first and they often pick it up! So there really is no difference in care in most cases.

noanan2 I still don't understand why anyone would want to have a zero hours contract if they are not actually working. If as you suggest it is to show a sustained period of employment well actually that in my opinion constitutes a fraud. If someone has not been active but has been on extended leave that needs to be clearly shown in their CV, otherwise it could be assumed that as they have been "working"they are up to date and knowledgeable about the latest training and information their job requires. So actually your argument for zero hours contracts is a reason to get rid of them as they give no indication of the amount of work actually undertaken or experience gained which in the cases of some professions could be downright dangerous.

noanan2 I still don't understand why anyone would want to have a zero hours contract if they are not actually working. If as you suggest it is to show a sustained period of employment well actually that in my opinion constitutes a fraud

No it doesnt. You cant keep a bank contract if you never work. The NHS does deactivate peope who never work. But their bank staff are not committed to minimum hours

You can keep a bank contract if you work in fits and starts.

That is still working!

E.g. the person I mentioned before whose injuries flair up. She may not work for weeks. Then she'll do lots of hours when she is well. She does work. She wont have a payslip from every single week!