Osborne's employment miracle!
25 February 2015, 12:20 PM
#2
It represents 2% of uk employment. If you don't like the job get another one that suits you for hours/ pay. Nothing really difficult to grasp. My sister has a zero hours contract. She tells them what hours she is prepared to work and takes more work when she wants it.
25 February 2015, 12:35 PM
#3
My 19yr old daughter is in her gap year and is on a zero hours contract.
She regularly works 30 hours a week and will often do more if asked.
OK, at the moment she lives at home so has no regular outgoings like Mortgage, loans, utilities etc so if the hours dried up it wouldn't be a huge problem.
They suit some people but not all.
She regularly works 30 hours a week and will often do more if asked.
OK, at the moment she lives at home so has no regular outgoings like Mortgage, loans, utilities etc so if the hours dried up it wouldn't be a huge problem.
They suit some people but not all.
Last edited by coupe_20vt; 25 February 2015 at 12:37 PM.
25 February 2015, 12:42 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are terrible, the two examples above are great until they want you to work less hours than you need to 
How long before people wake up and smell the coffee I wonder
How long before people wake up and smell the coffee I wonder
25 February 2015, 02:03 PM
#7
Is that actually possible though? Surely the point of this being a contract is that you're committing to the obligation to be available for work if needed, so even though you might in practice only ever be called on to work in one place at any one time, the fact of committing yourself to potentially be in two at one time would put you in breach?
Trending Topics
25 February 2015, 02:22 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
mmm. i'm not sure on that
but I think some employers are trying to get people to sign "exclusive" Zero contracts
I.e you have to commit to availability - but the employer does not have to commit to any hours
I would imagine it is to stop the above behaviour
all seems so asymmetric to me
but I think some employers are trying to get people to sign "exclusive" Zero contracts
I.e you have to commit to availability - but the employer does not have to commit to any hours
I would imagine it is to stop the above behaviour
all seems so asymmetric to me
25 February 2015, 02:25 PM
#9
Is that actually possible though? Surely the point of this being a contract is that you're committing to the obligation to be available for work if needed, so even though you might in practice only ever be called on to work in one place at any one time, the fact of committing yourself to potentially be in two at one time would put you in breach?
25 February 2015, 05:42 PM
#10
1. Autoclenz v Belcher deals with employers artificially constructing terms of employment to make it seem that employees are self-employed contractors working for them (as a means of avoiding the usual attendant obligations such as sick pay, holiday pay, etc), when in reality they are just conventional employees.
2. Sports Direct v Zahara deals with employers trying to get out of similar obligations on the basis that zero-hour contracted employees aren't covered by the same employment legislation as conventional employees.
3. With regards to exclusivity clauses specifically, these are due to be banned by law in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, which is currently going through its final readings in the Lords.
4. In practice, less than 10% of zero-hour contract employees actually have exclusivity clauses in their contracts.
So that's that then, we can all now go back to watching the footie and raking in the proceeds from our shares and buy-to-let investments
25 February 2015, 06:45 PM
#13
I am not but have family and they're happy to continue in the job, can't be the only person or they wouldn't be so many people actually on these contracts. I haven't worked for years, but then again, I am descended from royalty 
) Saves me answering your thread about privacy online safety.
) Saves me answering your thread about privacy online safety.
25 February 2015, 09:09 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would these zero hour contracts stand when it came to getting a mortgage or something, I doubt the bank would be very kind to someone who could not guarantee steady work or income? Or am I mistaken?
25 February 2015, 09:16 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny enough, guess what I just found on ITV site.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-...-a-good-thing/
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-...-a-good-thing/
25 February 2015, 09:16 PM
#16
I am sure these contracts are good for people who willingly choose them to fit around their lives (kids, not the sole income etc.) not so great for others, many of whom have probably had no choice but to take the jobs, if that was all that was available. It's all well and good saying get another job, but life isn't always as simple as that.
25 February 2015, 09:34 PM
#17
[QUO
Our family has never had problems finding work except my brother who has made a life of claiming benefit, he chose that way and has had very little to show for it.
If you are prepared to work, have a modicum of drive and intelligence, work is available. My mother and sister have had a variety of jobs, some quite well paid and some not. If they didn't want to continue in a job they left, but only when they had a new job to go to.
Just for self esteem alone, it is better to work than claim benefits.
Our family has never had problems finding work except my brother who has made a life of claiming benefit, he chose that way and has had very little to show for it.
If you are prepared to work, have a modicum of drive and intelligence, work is available. My mother and sister have had a variety of jobs, some quite well paid and some not. If they didn't want to continue in a job they left, but only when they had a new job to go to.
Just for self esteem alone, it is better to work than claim benefits.
25 February 2015, 11:26 PM
#18
[QUO
Our family has never had problems finding work except my brother who has made a life of claiming benefit, he chose that way and has had very little to show for it.
If you are prepared to work, have a modicum of drive and intelligence, work is available. My mother and sister have had a variety of jobs, some quite well paid and some not. If they didn't want to continue in a job they left, but only when they had a new job to go to.
Just for self esteem alone, it is better to work than claim benefits.
Our family has never had problems finding work except my brother who has made a life of claiming benefit, he chose that way and has had very little to show for it.
If you are prepared to work, have a modicum of drive and intelligence, work is available. My mother and sister have had a variety of jobs, some quite well paid and some not. If they didn't want to continue in a job they left, but only when they had a new job to go to.
Just for self esteem alone, it is better to work than claim benefits.
When I started work with my company over 15 years ago, they had part time contracts (I think the lowest was a 9hr week), but full time contracts were also available, and many in between. Those days are long gone, and whilst we at least don't have zero hour contracts, yet, all customer service roles are part time now. This appears to be very common within the retail sector, I can't speak for others, but I wouldn't be shocked if other sectors have moved this way.
Times have changed, and I appreciate you are commenting based upon your experience (or that of family), but clearly that is not the experience of all people out there, otherwise, people who want to work more structured (guaranteed) hours, wouldn't be working in the jobs they are in.
Not everyone is destined for high flying careers, and there will always have to be people working in certain roles, and I just personally feel that it's a bit **** that there will be a lot of people out there that are happy to go out and earn an honest days wage, finding themselves having to take a job on with very little structure or security.
26 February 2015, 02:32 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny enough, guess what I just found on ITV site.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-...-a-good-thing/
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-...-a-good-thing/
26 February 2015, 08:40 AM
#20
Out of 100% of Uk employment there are only 2% using zero hours, so it's not like it is a big proportion. I could understand the opinion of others if it was a major problem. There must be many contracted jobs available if people just look for them.
26 February 2015, 09:50 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
here are the official stats - what is interesting is the % increase from 2013, to 2014 - someone better than me can do the math
•Number of people employed on a “zero-hours contract” in their main job was 697,000 for October to December 2014, representing 2.3% of all people in employment. In the same period in 2013, this was 1.9% of all people in employment (586,000).
•The number of people saying they are employed on “zero-hours contracts” depends on whether or not they recognise this term. It is not possible to say how much of the increase between 2013 and 2014 is due to greater recognition rather than new contracts.
•Number of contracts that do not guarantee a minimum number of hours where work was carried out was 1.8 million for the fortnight beginning 11 August 2014. The previously published estimate was 1.4 million for the fortnight beginning 20 January 2014.
•The two estimates of contracts should not be directly compared. They cover different times of year so changes in the numbers may reflect seasonal factors.
•On average, someone on a “zero-hours contract” usually works 25 hours a week.
•Around a third of people on “zero-hours contracts” want more hours, with most wanting them in their current job, compared with 10% of other people in employment.
•People on “zero-hours contracts” are more likely to be women, in full-time education or working part-time. They are also more likely to be aged under 25 or 65 and over.
•Over half of employers in Accommodation and Food Services and a quarter of employers in Education made some use of no guaranteed hours contracts in August 2014
•Number of people employed on a “zero-hours contract” in their main job was 697,000 for October to December 2014, representing 2.3% of all people in employment. In the same period in 2013, this was 1.9% of all people in employment (586,000).
•The number of people saying they are employed on “zero-hours contracts” depends on whether or not they recognise this term. It is not possible to say how much of the increase between 2013 and 2014 is due to greater recognition rather than new contracts.
•Number of contracts that do not guarantee a minimum number of hours where work was carried out was 1.8 million for the fortnight beginning 11 August 2014. The previously published estimate was 1.4 million for the fortnight beginning 20 January 2014.
•The two estimates of contracts should not be directly compared. They cover different times of year so changes in the numbers may reflect seasonal factors.
•On average, someone on a “zero-hours contract” usually works 25 hours a week.
•Around a third of people on “zero-hours contracts” want more hours, with most wanting them in their current job, compared with 10% of other people in employment.
•People on “zero-hours contracts” are more likely to be women, in full-time education or working part-time. They are also more likely to be aged under 25 or 65 and over.
•Over half of employers in Accommodation and Food Services and a quarter of employers in Education made some use of no guaranteed hours contracts in August 2014
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 26 February 2015 at 09:52 AM.
26 February 2015, 10:36 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: I'll check my gps
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the Wright Stuff (day time tv) they've had a few phone ins about zero hour contacts and each time the lines are full of people ON zero hour contracts saying how they work great for them.
Some of the people that have phoned in have said they left a full contract job in order to go zero hours for the flexibility and even a increase of hours in some cases.
(Just what ive seen)
My opinion is that people are choosing to take them over benefits which is a good thing and has helped in the early stages of the down turn but l worry that some employers maybe taking advantage now.
I also think it is another attempt to attack government by people who are not on zero hours contracts, much the same as when people attack the government on behalf of disabled people who could be quietly happy.
The waters get muddy and it's often difficult to get a good understanding of the situation due to people bitching that aren't involved. I'd love to see a poll by ONLY people on zero hours contracts and see what their opinions are.
Some of the people that have phoned in have said they left a full contract job in order to go zero hours for the flexibility and even a increase of hours in some cases.
(Just what ive seen)
My opinion is that people are choosing to take them over benefits which is a good thing and has helped in the early stages of the down turn but l worry that some employers maybe taking advantage now.
I also think it is another attempt to attack government by people who are not on zero hours contracts, much the same as when people attack the government on behalf of disabled people who could be quietly happy.
The waters get muddy and it's often difficult to get a good understanding of the situation due to people bitching that aren't involved. I'd love to see a poll by ONLY people on zero hours contracts and see what their opinions are.
26 February 2015, 10:52 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A survey conducted by Survation for the Fawcett Society looks at women on low-paid zero hours contracts.
We found that:
14% of women who are on the lowest pay are also on zero hours contracts. Nearly a third (32%) of low-paid women in London are on a zero hours contract
Two fifths of women on low-paid zero hours contracts told us it was the only work they could find
Almost half of these women (48%) don’t work the number of hours they would like
61% of women on low-paid zero hours contracts feel that they may miss out on future work if they turn down a shift
A new poll of low-paid women has found that 14% are on a zero hours contract – defined as a contract that requires the worker to be available for work whenever required by the employer, even when there is no guarantee that any work will be provided to them. This figure is almost a third among low-paid women in London.
The results suggest that low pay and zero hours contracts may go hand in hand. In February, our poll of people in employment found that 5% were on zero hours contracts. Women on low pay are therefore almost three times as likely to be on such an unpredictable contract than the workforce as a whole.
We asked respondents the main reason for them being on zero hours contracts. Only a quarter said they wanted such a contract. 40% said it was the only work they could find.
We also asked women on low-paid zero hours contracts whether the shifts/hours they get are more or less than they would like. Over half (52%) said the number of shifts/hours they get is ‘about right’, 20% get more than they want and 28% get less than they want.
Worryingly, 61% of women on low-paid zero hours contracts feel that if they turn down a shift, either they may be less likely to be offered further shifts or they may be offered no further work at all.
We found that:
14% of women who are on the lowest pay are also on zero hours contracts. Nearly a third (32%) of low-paid women in London are on a zero hours contract
Two fifths of women on low-paid zero hours contracts told us it was the only work they could find
Almost half of these women (48%) don’t work the number of hours they would like
61% of women on low-paid zero hours contracts feel that they may miss out on future work if they turn down a shift
A new poll of low-paid women has found that 14% are on a zero hours contract – defined as a contract that requires the worker to be available for work whenever required by the employer, even when there is no guarantee that any work will be provided to them. This figure is almost a third among low-paid women in London.
The results suggest that low pay and zero hours contracts may go hand in hand. In February, our poll of people in employment found that 5% were on zero hours contracts. Women on low pay are therefore almost three times as likely to be on such an unpredictable contract than the workforce as a whole.
We asked respondents the main reason for them being on zero hours contracts. Only a quarter said they wanted such a contract. 40% said it was the only work they could find.
We also asked women on low-paid zero hours contracts whether the shifts/hours they get are more or less than they would like. Over half (52%) said the number of shifts/hours they get is ‘about right’, 20% get more than they want and 28% get less than they want.
Worryingly, 61% of women on low-paid zero hours contracts feel that if they turn down a shift, either they may be less likely to be offered further shifts or they may be offered no further work at all.
26 February 2015, 02:07 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
26 February 2015, 02:18 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would you even say that?
26 February 2015, 02:31 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Cotswolds
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's a higher percentage than that. 1.8M represented as 2% would mean 100% is 90M which is more than the entire population of the UK. I know it probably equates to a minority figure still, so totally get your point, unless I've missed something obvious......in which case I'll take my flaming like a candle.
EDIT. So yeah about that candle......read the article and see what they are on about. The 1.8M figure takes into account of multiple jobs per person. Flame away
EDIT. So yeah about that candle......read the article and see what they are on about. The 1.8M figure takes into account of multiple jobs per person. Flame away
Last edited by daveyj; 26 February 2015 at 02:40 PM.
26 February 2015, 05:21 PM
#28
I think it's a higher percentage than that. 1.8M represented as 2% would mean 100% is 90M which is more than the entire population of the UK. I know it probably equates to a minority figure still, so totally get your point, unless I've missed something obvious......in which case I'll take my flaming like a candle.
EDIT. So yeah about that candle......read the article and see what they are on about. The 1.8M figure takes into account of multiple jobs per person. Flame away
EDIT. So yeah about that candle......read the article and see what they are on about. The 1.8M figure takes into account of multiple jobs per person. Flame away
26 February 2015, 11:17 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: I'll check my gps
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More jobs created in the uk than the rest of Europe put together they say, can't all be zero hours contracts.
I also spent 10mins looking through a jobs site clicking on random jobs, about 20/25 and none was zero hours. Small scale l know but that's what l found.
I also spent 10mins looking through a jobs site clicking on random jobs, about 20/25 and none was zero hours. Small scale l know but that's what l found.
26 February 2015, 11:23 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: I'll check my gps
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like it's at least creating jobs for young people and giving mum's the flexibility to work round school times.