Zero hour contracts

[Mr $quandaŁot]

These are nothing new as such. Most agency workers have always been on them I.e. no guarantee of work and no notice period. Equally, agency workers have not had any obligation to accept work when offered.

My biggest worry and disgust now is that many firms increasingly employ staff directly on zero hour contracts, putting districtive clauses such as forbidding staff to work elsewhere and obligation to accept work when offered. This kind of behaviour would never be accepted in most European countries. In the UK firms are now free to exploit as they wish with a full government backing.

Of course, it's up to an individual not to accept such a contract. Even when I was a kid I was told to think very carefully what to sign.

It's looking like I'm off in five months. It truly amazes me a number of people wishing to immigrate here. Yes, there's lots of freedom which we should all appreciate and I certainly do. However, you need to be wealthy to afford to live here and the recent government policies have ensured that the rich are getting even richer but the poor and ordinary people are worse off day by day!

[vanman]

Re: Zero hour contracts

i was unemployed for a few months but was lucky to find full time employment
but i was reading a article in the Guardian.
that i found to be disturbing:fear:

the Guardian revealed that jobseekers could lose their benefits for three months or more if they refused to take :boink:zero-hours contracts
for the first time under the new system. Previously, jobseekers have not faced penalties for refusing to apply for or accept the contracts,
which have been blamed for creating insecurity in the labour force.

read here Guardian

[Mr $quandaŁot]

Re: Zero hour contracts

The government has fully lost it. I'm not sure what they are trying to achieve. As a former member of the Conservative Party I can no longer vote for them, let alone support them!

I was listening to NRJ radio station in Helsinki a few days ago. The Finnish government is now running an interesting radio ad, encouraging everyone to make sure that they have a proper contract of employment and report the cowboys.

Employees are treated rather well in Finland and other Nordic countries - by law.

Unemployment benefit in Finland is 163.30 euros a week. Housing benefit is top of that. Not a day goes here when someone wouldn't go on about 'generous' UK benefits. In most cases, they are not generous at all, but rather increase poverty. The only thing that truly is world class is NHS.

It will be interesting to see how this all is going to end. History indicates not well!

[MissFM]

Re: Zero hour contracts

Hi Mr $, Vanman

It's an interesting paradox, isn't it?

If (as I've mostly been) you're self employed, it's very easy to understand the correlation between effort and remuneration...if you don't produce, then no money appears, which can lead to some brutal realities.

On the other hand, I saw a bit of a television program the other night about people suffering hardship because their benefits are now capped at Ł500 per week. It struck me that to actually go out and earn that, clear, after tax, is not so easy - and the idea that it could be done on minimum wage (or even what is now called, presumably without irony, "living wage") is laughable. There just aren't enough hours in the week.

There was one young woman (a single mother) to whom it was explained that if she worked 16 hours a week on minimum wage, her benefits would not be capped (she was unable to make ends meet on Ł500 pw, because of the astronomic rent) and she would then receive Ł800 (odd) pw in benefits. She clearly found this hard to believe but was assured it would be so.

Which set me to wondering where all that money was actually going. We know where it comes from (the taxpayer) and we know that the unfortunate claimants are the portal through which it travels - but they seem to remain on the breadline.

The program then showed the kind of (outrageously substandard) accommodation that attracts such high rents - the (capped) Ł500 per week being mostly housing benefit towards rent. Which made it very clear that this money, intended to help the poorest amongst us, is in fact fuelling a modern day Rachmanism - ie, once again, the political system is making it easy for exploiters to use the needy to further enrich themselves. If, in addition, you look at the disproportionate sums paid out for "emergency accommodation" - eg "bed-and-breakfast" @ Ł1-200+ per night in a sleazy tip - for dispossessed families it gets even worse.

In other words, (nearly) all that hard-earned money, extracted from taxpayers to help people on low or no incomes, is actually simply being processed through those who are intended to benefit in order to make bigger profits for those with an eye to playing the system.

This does have a relevance, albeit oblique, to the zero hours debate, even if only as a related example of the relentless operation of the law of unintended consequences. :tinysmile_hmm_t2:

[Mr $quandaŁot]

Re: Zero hour contracts

Miss FM, you're largely spot on. Many landlords have been exploiting the system. You may say that many don't like 'social' tenants. However, some time ago I attended a leaseholders meeting (we actually owned the freehold) where I used to live. One of the landlord owners simply said that he would let his property to the council to get a rent guarantee.

Unfortunately, this country is no longer functioning. I'm not sure what the answer is but I for one can see a few more riots that would make the 2011 look like a walk in the park!

[teaboy2]

Re: Zero hour contracts

Regarding zero hour contracts and benefit sanctions, this only applies when their is no clause in the zero hour contract that limits you working elsewhere. If there is such a clause limiting you from working elsewhere, then your free to refuse the contract and not receive sanctions. But you need to provide proof such clause was in the contract, which is not always possible to do.

[bluebottle]

Re: Zero hour contracts

Vince Cable has identified and acknowledged that there is abuse of zero hours contracts by employers. Esther McVey is likely to be suffering from email overload after 38 degrees emailed its members to email he about her plans to force benefit claimants to accept zero hours contracts or be sanctioned.

As for the Tories, if they think they can cling on to power - one reason I call them "The Klingons" - until May 2015, they really do need to get real. There are rumblings in certain circles that could mean a General Election taking place before next May.

Turning to Mr $quandaŁot's comments, you are not alone in turning your back on the Tories. Many other people who have been staunch supporters of the Tory Party and their policies are doing the same. The current lot's policies are hurting their own kind and many are realising that they are hurting those who can least fight back, i.e. the most vulnerable members of society. No-one believes or buy's IDS's "Diss The Disabled" mantra. As for private sector landlords ripping off the taxpayers, a few years ago, 10 private landlords were found to have cheated Plymouth City Council out of Ł2 million in Housing Benefit through phantom tenancies. The 10 had colluded with each other to cheat. It is my understanding that all but one of them repaid their ill-gotten gains. The one that didn't had a number of properties seized. As far as riots go, those that occurred in 2011 were orchestrated by rogue elements within security services and undercover police officers were also found inciting violence. This has come from eye-witness accounts of people who were taking part in peaceful protest marches. There are malevolent forces at work which are behind much of the policies this corrupt and discredited government is wheeling out or trying to wheel out, and people are waking up to these forces and acting to put a stop to them doing any further damage. My gut-feeling is that the main three parties could be in for a major shock at the next General Election that could send a chilling effect through the Square Mile.

[Mr $quandaŁot]

Re: Zero hour contracts

It will be interesting to see how enforceable these zero hour contracts are in court, should an employer decide to take action if an employee is not available for work after a period of no work being offered.

I've seen some contracts being worded 'you will make reasonable endeavours to be available for work when offered by the company...', with no prohibition to work elsewhere. Would that actually mean that an employee would be under no obligation to accept work?

[bluebottle]

Re: Zero hour contracts

It will be interesting to see how enforceable these zero hour contracts are in court, should an employer decide to take action if an employee is not available for work after a period of no work being offered.

I've seen some contracts being worded 'you will make reasonable endeavours to be available for work when offered by the company...', with no prohibition to work elsewhere. Would that actually mean that an employee would be under no obligation to accept work?

My gut-feeling is if these zero hours contracts were put to strict proof under the "reasonableness" test under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (as amended) they would fail. A lot of people who are on low-incomes or benefits are, more than likely, eligible for remission of court fees or pro bono representation. Chris Grayling thought he was being clever making it harder for people to take the government and their vicious supporters to court. As always, the Tories underestimate the resourcefulness of human beings. Crapping on the legal profession may well prove to be the gravest error of judgement the Tories have ever made.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Zero hour contracts

Miss FM, you're largely spot on. Many landlords have been exploiting the system. You may say that many don't like 'social' tenants.

This was the subject of discussion elsewhere some time ago. An experienced landlady said there could be an issue with insurance if you rent to housing benefit recipients, which is not the same as providing social housing (as in letting out your property to the council).

However, some time ago I attended a leaseholders meeting (we actually owned the freehold) where I used to live. One of the landlord owners simply said that he would let his property to the council to get a rent guarantee.

As a landlord, you'd want the security.

This isn't really the landlord's fault as such but, once more, the system's. Once upon a time a PM came up with the 'brilliant' idea of offering council tenants the right to buy, whereby they could buy the properties they occupied, at a substantial discount. Trouble was, they only had to stay put for 3 years before putting the property on the market and moving on, and most did. The discount left them with a substantial amount of instant equity, which they used to put down as deposit on their next property, usually away from council estates. The ex-council properties were largely snapped up by buy-to-let investors who charge market rates as opposed to council rates, so we now have tenants living in the same properties but paying much higher rents. :wof: :wof: :wof:

In some areas, London in particular, private rents are too high even for working families to afford without help from the government, in the shape of HB. The councils are having to pay HB for people to rent privately the same properties they previously owned. :rant: :rant: :rant:

Nowadays most landlords have a mortgage on their properties, and most invest in property for the long term capital gain. Monthly profit on the rent they receive after paying the mortgage, service charges, insurance, etc. tends to be low to non-existent, sometimes there may even be a shortfall. The amounts paid in rent are going back to the lenders in the form of mortgage repayments, in effect, the banks are profiting from taxpayers money. What's new?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Zero hour contracts

On the other hand, I saw a bit of a television program the other night about people suffering hardship because their benefits are now capped at Ł500 per week. It struck me that to actually go out and earn that, clear, after tax, is not so easy - and the idea that it could be done on minimum wage (or even what is now called, presumably without irony, "living wage") is laughable. There just aren't enough hours in the week.

Most of that would be housing benefit, and I can see the problem if you live in London, where rents for a family home can easily exceed that amount, and this refers to the total benefits, not just HB.

The one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work, you'd never have a problem with that cap in, say, Wales, but it IS a big one in the Big $moke!

There was one young woman (a single mother) to whom it was explained that if she worked 16 hours a week on minimum wage, her benefits would not be capped (she was unable to make ends meet on Ł500 pw, because of the astronomic rent) and she would then receive Ł800 (odd) pw in benefits. She clearly found this hard to believe but was assured it would be so.

This is because people working over 16 hours a week are no longer classed as unemployed. In fact, most of the housing benefit payments made by councils go to people who work but need to supplement their income with HB to be able to afford to rent a place suitable for a family to live in, as opposed to a room in a shared house or a bedsit, which is all many could afford without HB in London. :rant: :rant:

Which set me to wondering where all that money was actually going. We know where it comes from (the taxpayer) and we know that the unfortunate claimants are the portal through which it travels - but they seem to remain on the breadline.

Back to the banks, of course (see above), via the landlords. :mad2: :mad2: