Jump to content
rb14

Keir Starmer

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, skend04 said:

It might be difficult to fathom, but there are workers who like zero hour contracts. A TUC poll showed 25% of workers like them. So Angela Rayner is right, it's the exploitation of them that needs to stop, not the contracts themselves.

If a poll showed 25% of workers liked them I'm on the side of the 75% who don't. 

 

I'm not surprised you're the first to defend a practice that makes it easier to exploite low paid workers though, you've got history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like zero hours contracts but in my day they were just called temp contracts, certain industries have always used them such as pubs. I did them for years while I was at uni. I think the problem comes when you want a permanent job and you can't get one, I was only working part time back then but I can't imagine how stressful it must have been doing it full time if you had a family to support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of these zero hour contracts are NOT temp jobs or jobs people most people take passing through before going on to Uni or better things.

 

For most they ARE their job, remember zero hour contracts do not allow sick pay so forcing people to work whilst sick, if you get sacked you'll receive benefit sanctions. They should be outlawed.

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34178412

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

I don't like zero hours contracts but in my day they were just called temp contracts, certain industries have always used them such as pubs. I did them for years while I was at uni. I think the problem comes when you want a permanent job and you can't get one, I was only working part time back then but I can't imagine how stressful it must have been doing it full time if you had a family to support.

Their is a difference between temp and zero hour contracts jobs. With temps the boss is not obliged to offer work but the employee is also not obliged to take the work offered.

 

With zero hour the employee must by terms of contract take any work offered, if they do not they can be legally sacked and then not eligible for benefits. So basically fucked.

 

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/voices/comment/zero-hours-v-casual-contracts#gref

 

 

Edit, theirs a good reason they brought out zero hour contracts and didn't just stick to the old temp/casual system.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

Their is a difference between temp and zero hour contracts jobs. With temps the boss is not obliged to offer work but the employee is also not obliged to take the work offered.

 

With zero hour the employee must by terms of contract take any work offered, if they do not they can be legally sacked and then not eligible for benefits. So basically fucked.

 

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/voices/comment/zero-hours-v-casual-contracts#gref

 

 

 

 

 

That is shit then, it can get fucked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

That is shit then, it can get fucked. 

Yeah it is, if they'd have modified and tweaked the old temp system you describe and done it in a fair and just manner it could have been lived with but as always they just took the complete and utter piss. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

If a poll showed 25% of workers liked them I'm on the side of the 75% who don't. 

 

I'm not surprised you're the first to defend a practice that makes it easier to exploite low paid workers though, you've got history.

You've got history of no comprehension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fith of zero hour contract workers are full time students, I'd guess just looking to earn some extra cash out of term time or gaining some work experience, or they may need the money to pay for their course/books etc. I don't understand why these temp workers can't operate under the old system Section mentioned and the permanent workers given full time contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an alternate universe somewhere, where Corbyn won in 2017 and Laura Pidcock is sorting shit like this out in the newly-created role of Minister of Labour. 

 

Angela Rayner, meanwhile, is busy establishing the National Education Service and Keir Starmer has successfully concluded negotiations with the EU. 

 

I like that universe. This one's a bit shit.

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

With zero hour the employee must by terms of contract take any work offered, if they do not they can be legally sacked and then not eligible for benefits

 

Don't you ever get tired of writing such absolute wham?

 

Zero-hours contracts - Acas

 

Quote

Zero-hours contracts can be a flexible option for both employers and workers. For example, if the work is not constant or is 'as and when'.


If you have a zero-hours contract:

 

  • your employer does not have to give you any minimum working hours
  • you do not have to take any work offered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

Don't you ever get tired of writing such absolute wham?

 

Zero-hours contracts - Acas

 

That's the legal position.  The imbalance of power between bosses and workers means it's usually much more exploitative than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

That's the legal position.  The imbalance of power between bosses and workers means it's usually much more exploitative than that.

Yeah he missed out the bit where if you do refuse they've got the right to sack you, and when the sack you (which they will) it'll make you ineligible to benefits for approx half a lifetime, which means you fall behind on rent and end up homeless. It's the reason a person on a zero hours contract makes it into work at all costs, even if diagnosed with the black death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

That's the legal position.  The imbalance of power between bosses and workers means it's usually much more exploitative than that.

Exactly. Seen it loads when talking to people about jobs opportunities. First thing they would ask is about what contract it was, I’d say a large percentage had that experience. Last minute calls to work and expected to drop everything and if they didn’t they’d either get pushed down the pecking order or binned off. 
 

It’s easy to work around the legal wording as a business, as long as you do your prep work. And you have a good HR department. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Yeah he missed out the bit where if you do refuse they've got the right to sack you, and when the sack you (which they will) it'll make you ineligible to benefits for approx half a lifetime, which means you fall behind on rent and end up homeless. It's the reason a person on a zero hours contract makes it into work at all costs, even if diagnosed with the black death.

A person of convenience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when the 48 hour working time directive was brought in by those nasty EU people. 

Some people wanted to be allowed to work 84 hours a week, they even had a march in London about it. Organised by the countryside alliance if I remember.

 

Certain key industries, mine included, were exempt from the WTD but that didn't stop the campaigns against it. 

 

I see Zero hour contracts as the same, yes they will suit some people but that doesn't mean policy should be directed towards these people. In fact when Tories defend policy because it "helps the poorest", then I know it is a policy I need to oppose.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

I remember when the 48 hour working time directive was brought in by those nasty EU people. 

Some people wanted to be allowed to work 84 hours a week, they even had a march in London about it. Organised by the countryside alliance if I remember.

 

Certain key industries, mine included, were exempt from the WTD but that didn't stop the campaigns against it. 

 

I see Zero hour contracts as the same, yes they will suit some people but that doesn't mean policy should be directed towards these people. In fact when Tories defend policy because it "helps the poorest", then I know it is a policy I need to oppose.

Spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Yeah he missed out the bit where if you do refuse they've got the right to sack you, and when the sack you (which they will) it'll make you ineligible to benefits for approx half a lifetime, which means you fall behind on rent and end up homeless. It's the reason a person on a zero hours contract makes it into work at all costs, even if diagnosed with the black death.

 

Of course it goes without saying that I missed out bits that don't exist.

 

Meanwhile, back in the real world

 

Zero hours workers are as happy as other employees, research shows | The Independent | The Independent

 

Quote

Zero hours workers are as happy as other employees, research shows
Less pressure and better work-life balance supports personal well-being among zero-hours contract employees
 
Zero hours contracts – where employers can hire staff with no guarantee of work – are often associated with low quality of work on unfair terms.

However, UK workers on the controversial contracts achieve similar job satisfaction, better work-life balance and fell less pressure in comparison to their counterparts on permanent, full-time contracts, according to a new survey.

More than 60 per cent of zero hour workers are happy with their work-life balance, while 32 per cent feel under excessive pressure at work several times a week, compared to a much significant 41 per cent of all employees, according to a new research by CIPD, the professional body for HR and people development.

The survey also found the proportion of zero-hours contract workers who are either very satisfied or satisfied with their jobs is 65 per cent, slightly higher to 63 per cent for all employees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Of course it goes without saying that I missed out bits that don't exist.

 

Meanwhile, back in the real world

 

Zero hours workers are as happy as other employees, research shows | The Independent | The Independent

 

What were the number of people surveyed?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

What were the number of people surveyed?

 

Not sure, the data came from a number of places, including the ONS Labour Force Survey and the CIPD’s Employee Outlook survey. I know the ONS surveys involve more than 80,000 people. I suspect the CIPD surveys considerably fewer than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaahhh makes sense now 

 

https://www.citation.co.uk/news/hr-and-employment-law/labour-will-end-zero-hour-contracts/

 

Ed Miliband has stated that he will pass a law that will bring to an end zero hour contracts, if he is elected as Prime Minister at the upcoming general election.

Mr Miliband would bring a law into practice that any employee who works for a business for 12 weeks on regular hours would be entitled to a regular contract.

The Labour leader has said, “We have an epidemic of zero-hours contracts in our country – there’s been a 20% increase in the last year alone – undermining hard work, undermining living standards, undermining family life. Because if you don’t know from one day to the next how many hours you’re going to be doing, how can you have any security for you and your family?”

Opposition parties have disagreed with Labour’s stance on the issue. The Conservative party believe this law would be a threat to jobs for the UK people, whilst the Liberal Democrats feel that Mr Miliband is being “impractical”. Vince Cable, Lib Dem business spokesman has said,

“I just don’t see the Miliband proposals as being practical because we know there are large numbers of companies that don’t have constant work and there are large numbers of people who prefer flexibility.”

Employment groups have also disagreed with Labour’s proposal, CBI director-general John Cridland has said,

“Of course action should be taken to tackle abuses, but demonising flexible contracts is playing with the jobs that many firms and many workers value and need.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch…..

 

Chris Bryant
@RhonddaBryant
Perú is a wonderful country but it’s depressing that voters were left with a choice between Fujimori and Castillo. Sadly the new cabinet looks set to take the country down a failed Marxist route.
 
E7sab6-WUAIgVO3?format=jpg&name=medium
 
 
 

 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bruce Spanner said:


Not me, why?

Just read something on there and could have sworn it was someone from here. Because it had been mentioned, not from any guess work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×