Zero hour contracts should go! :(

[FlamingParrot]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...orking-4724709

People are better off being unemployed than working on zero hours contracts.
A cost of living study found the unemployed have Ł174 left after paying for all essentials each month, while those on zero hours have Ł130.

I've never understood why such contracts are allowed in the first place.

The DWP takes a dim view of people leaving their jobs or getting sacked, understandably so, however, that puts those working under those infamous contracts in an impossible position. They're not very likely to be made redundant when they can just not be given any hours if there's no work and they can't quit their jobs and claim benefits. Of course they could try and find another job but how easy is that, especially when those infamous contracts are so prevalent in certain industries?

[Mr $quandaŁot]

Re: Zero hour contracts should go!

Thankfully leaving this island soon!

[teaboy2]

Re: Zero hour contracts should go!

Simple reason DWP likes them, it means those on them have to sign off, they can not sign back on as unemployed, though may get income support instead. Basically keeps the unemployed rates down and makes the government look good! To me they need to be banned, as whats the benefit for the employee in a zero hour contract!

[Mr $quandaŁot]

Re: Zero hour contracts should go!

Ironically, zero hour contracts aren't new. They have been used by temping agencies as long as I can remember; the only difference being that most agencies just offer a contracr for services.

I think the main reason why these are used by employers to this extent now is Agency Workers Regulations 2010. AWR was meant to 'protect' agency workers but, instead, have made things worse.

If people really want them banned there's a simple solution: don't accept them. Stay on the Social instead, like the article suggests!

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Zero hour contracts should go!

Simple reason DWP likes them, it means those on them have to sign off, they can not sign back on as unemployed, though may get income support instead. Basically keeps the unemployed rates down and makes the government look good! To me they need to be banned, as whats the benefit for the employee in a zero hour contract!

Indeed that was precisely my point! They are completely a one way street where the employers can get people to work when they want them to, otherwise they have to rely on public funds to survive. There are many people out there who are against benefits claimants and regard them as 'scroungers', however, the officially unemployed are just the tip of the iceberg. There are lots of people who work and rely on benefits to supplement their income, particularly families with children. The government is effectively using public funds to subsidize a number of profit-making companies. A great deal of the overall welfare bill goes towards working families as opposed to the long-term 'scroungers' everyone talks about.

Ironically, zero hour contracts aren't new. They have been used by temping agencies as long as I can remember; the only difference being that most agencies just offer a contracr for services.

Which makes little practical difference as has been shown in cases like this one: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/430.html

The contract was entitled "Self-employed subcontractor's CONTRACT FOR SERVICES"

Obligations: The Subcontractor shall provide Services on an ad-hoc and casual basis from the Date as required by Consistent. While Consistent will try to give the Subcontractor as much notice as possible when offering work, there is no obligation upon Consistent to provide such work, nor upon the Subcontractor to accept any work so offered, and Consistent may use the services of the Subcontractor only when mutually agreed, with no obligation by either party other than to honour a specific, pre-agreed period of engagement. The Subcontractor is not an employee of Consistent and is not entitled to any fringe benefits such as sick pay, holiday pay or pension rights.

In paragraph 5.9 the Chairman rounded things up by saying that the contract was one of employment, the claimants were bound to work, and Consistent had "sufficient control" over the claimants "even though in the nature of the work much had to be disposed of to [WCF]". He said there "was no term that I found to have formed part of the contract inconsistent with the existence of a contract of service."

I think the main reason why these are used by employers to this extent now is Agency Workers Regulations 2010. AWR was meant to 'protect' agency workers but, instead, have made things worse.

Agency temp contracts have always been 'zero hours' because there was no obligation to provide work, however, the contracts in question here refer to people who are employed by one specific company and not by agencies supplying temps to a number of different companies.

[Mr $quandaŁot]

Re: Zero hour contracts should go!

My assumption is that many companies now hire long-term casual staff directly on zero hour contracts rather than using agency temps. As an agency temp, the AWR 2010 now gives you some rights regarding to pay and working conditions after three month service. This makes hiring long-term temps more costly.

I may be wrong but the recent rise of zero hour contracts after the AWR came into force in October 2011 is a bit of a co-incident?

[Mr $quandaŁot]

Re: Zero hour contracts should go!

Some interesting points here.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkin...rohours-contra

[teaboy2]

Re: Zero hour contracts should go!

Personally i think zero hour contracts should be allowed only for those still in or in education (including mature students). However for those not in education they should be banned and a law should be brought in where by the minimum hours offered to employees/workers not in education, should be at least 14hrs a week. That way those twenty and over earn more or less the same they would be paid in job seekers entitlement. Whilst at the same time the the NWM for under 18's should be abolished and those under 18 should be on the same rate as those between 18-20 years old, even if your on an apprenticeship.

[Mr $quandaŁot]

Re: Zero hour contracts should go!

The current government will never abolish zero hour contracts. Many of their funders and supporters are big business owners who would not like it. Moreover, many MPs (especially Tory) have personal interests in businesses 'employing' staff on zero hour contracts.

IDS tries to be clever, calling them 'flexible working contracts'.

Under Universal Credit, people risk losing benefits if they turn down zero hour work. This is because Universal Credit automatically adjusts when claimants earnings change. The Social (DWP) get earnings information from HMRC, hence claimants are no longer required to report earnings, just more major changes in circumstances. This is according to Capita, DWP's partner. Time will tell how accurately this is going to work.