Considering voting Labour?

Also trisher registered health professionals are required by their registering bodies to do a minimum amount of practice hours to say regiatered.

They are not required however do spread those hours evenly each month. They can do them bunched together if they like.

I refer again to dual registered midwives, they dont want to commit to X no of extra hours doing nursing every month on top of their full time midwifery job. But they may want to do a bunch of nursing shifts all together every few weeks to keep up to date.

Zero hours allows them to do their nursing hours when it SUITS them, not every month no matter how busy their midwifery job is at that time!

Young nurses who want to travel and nurse abroad can come back for a month and do a run of bank to keep up their bank contract and UK registration without having to jump through hoops to prove their overseas hours. So their bank job is there waiting for them when they come home to hop straight back into when they return. They wont want to come back every month to do their X hours.

But they are working.

I know another lady whose child suffers a lot in winter with breathing issues. Someone like her could work more in warm weather and less in winter on a zero hours contract. They're not not working at all! But still employed and keeping up to date. Just without a monthly/weekly commitment they have to meet every month/week.

If your partner works away you might just want to work when theyre home. Maybe in a 2 months off one month on pattern.

Working full time 4 months of the year is still the same amount of work that someone who works every week on a .33 part time contract does! So why should you appear less "employed" on your CV?

So why not list it as employment. Rather than:
Unemployed March 2017-April 2017
Employed May 1 - May 31
Unemployed June 1- July 31
Employed August 1 - August 31

And so on

Does that answer your queation Trisher?

Also re training and experience:

Many of the NHS zero hours contracts are second jobs. So doing one or two bank shifts every 6 months for those people does not make them unsafe if they also work there on a permanant contract!

Besides which there are professional bodies that take care of fitness to practice issues so it does not need to be enforced by taking away 0 hrs contracta

You can say on your CV that you worked for X years as bank staff, doing an average of Y hrs a week.

Thats not fraud.

You might not want to say in interview that you did 20 hrs some weeks then 0 hrs other weeks because you were sharing care duties for a dying rellie etc.

Or that that year you had 2 months off and worked the other 10 months. On 0hrs you dont have to list yourself as unemployed those 2 months. You may have done extra in the 10 months to make up for it!

No because you are now saying that the person is unemployed when according to a zero hours contract they are employed. As asked before what benefit does a zero hours contract provide that casual work doesn't? I have yet to see anything.
I really cannot believe that anyone thinks someone in a profession working full time for 4 months of the year is equivalent to someone working part time for the whole year. It's just ridiculous.

I'm NOT saying they are unemployed! That is the point!

With zero hours your working hours can average out, and dont have to be evenly spread over every single week/month. That suits SOME people.

Do you agree that dual registered midwives should lose their nursing registration if they prefer to go and do a full week of nursing now and then, instead of half days evenly spread every few weeks? If its the same amount of practice hours AND their patients get more continuity if they bunch their nursing shifts together!

Sorry misread that. But you do post so much. Repeating the same things doesn't make it true you know. If someone is employed on a zero hours contract but not working that needs to be made absolutely clear and the easiest way to do that is get rid of them. They aren't necessary to Bank work which is basically casual They offer absolutely no benefits and in fact obscure the reality of the work being done.

That is already the case Trisher

Working in an irregular pattern does not = not working!

Having gaps where you sonetimes dont work, then you do a run of working more to balance it out does not = not working

Repeating the same things doesn't make it true you know.

What have I posted that isn't true?

I understand the zero hours because a friend has worked them for the last ten years. It suits her because her partner is retired and she’s only 63 so has another 3 years to go before getting her state pension (full amount due to 35 years NI paid in other employment)

She loves her job and works the hours she wants to in any given week and declines work when she needs time for looking after grandchildren or her elderly mother on an irregular basis. She also takes her holidays when she chooses.

She has no mortgage or other financial commitments so can afford do all this and does not want a job share or part time job with a weekly/monthly hours contract.

I think notanan2 has summed it up brilliantly - there’s room for all types of working and Labour need to look again at banning an option that suits many.

Pantglas2 perhaps you can explain exactly why your friend couldn't do exactly the same work but without a contract. What benefits does she gain from a contract?

You are all jumping ahead of yourselves making the assumption that zero hour contracts are going to be totally banned.

So far all Labour has said that zero hours contracts must guarantee a minimum level of weekly hours to ensure a level of security and stability

Whitewavemark2 which is something a contract really should do and those who do not wish to committ to a certain number of hours would still have the option to take up casual work when they wanted to. Providing security for those who need it and flexibility for those who don't.

I’ll check that out trisher when I next see her but I know she uses an accountant for her tax return which suggests to me that she’s self employed and pays her own NI.

As I said, she’s perfectly happy with the status quo and the last thing she needs is the government of the day banning it because it would be bad for most people.

How about some honesty here? If your little bit of pocket money from your zero hours is all you want, this is possibly tolerable.

If your back is against the wall , and you are are delivering pizza on a bike for minimum wage, basically it stinks.

I can answer that if I may?. In the NHS employees including bank are covered by some corporate insurances which contracted in self employed people are not.

Employed bank staff are under the sane training department and eligible for their manditary training regardless of hour many bank hours they are or arent doing at the time. They can access occupational health & staff benefits and support.

As posted above, mortgage lenders DO consider NHS bank staff to be "employed". They will have to quantify that with their p60s so twice a year wont do but it DOES count as employed for lenders and home office etc. Which is a benefit. Pentglas2 may not need to access credits or visas etc right now but you never know what life'll throw at you.

There is also the psychological benefit of still being actively employed in your profession. Being able to say "yes, I work at X". That really means a lot to some people. Some peoples identities are intertwined with their profession, end even if they are winding down how much work they are willing or able to do, it keeps them involved!

a "little black book" of regular bank staff

how to gain entry into this hollowed gang/clique.....?

Of course that’s true grapefruitpip! Not sure anyone has suggested otherwise, have they? One size never fits all and government needs to recognise that.

Back on the ground, how to get into the book.....a comment, a look, being late because the carpark was full, ignoring what you know to be an issue....it's a game and not a pleasant one.

How about some honesty here? If your little bit of pocket money from your zero hours is all you want, this is possibly tolerable.

But that is not the only type of happy zero hours worker. That would not be honest!

There's the student nurses who do full time when not on placement and no hours when on placement who really do not want contracted hours, but DO rely on their bank income

There are people using bank as their main job/source of income who do it because they make more on bank as they can only work the "high value" shifts.

The people who do it as a second income as it is one of the very few second jobs that you can actually mould around shift work

There are so many different ways that bank works for people, not just people doing pocket money/hobby jobs, that it's impossible to list them all, and thats the point. Its fully flexible which means it suits many kinds of people who all have very different lives!

Abuse of zero hr workers is wrong.
But it is also just plain untrue to say that nobody but hobby jobbers want one!

a "little black book" of regular bank staff

how to gain entry into this hollowed gang/clique.....?

Um, by saying "I had a good shift here and would like to come back, can I leave my number?"

Its not a clique. Wards generally want their bank shifts to fill. The alternatives are nobody or maybe expensive agency.

Ok I am defeated by this onslaught. I give up. I think it's an absolute disgrace.

How does it work out with Universal Credit ?

This is such a typical labour thread.

Nobody is denying that there are people who are unhappy to be forced onto zero hours cobtracts when they dont want them and would rather a fixed contract.

But that does not mean that the people who DO want to chose them dont exist or matter!