The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[mrs the esk]

even if the employees are not members of a union should the employer negotiate with that union even if that union have not got permission to do so by the employee?

I think it depends upon whether the Union is recognised or not, but I'm not an expert, sorry.

 

[davek]

In a bygone era it may well have been the case that people were exploited at work, I'm just not sure it's the case any more, and certainly not in the public sector.

Staggering.

We live in the age of zero hour contracts. Almost 5 million people in the UK earn below minimum wage (£7.45 ph).

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Staggering.

We live in the age of zero hour contracts. Almost 5 million people in the UK earn below minimum wage (£7.45 ph).

I work on zero hour contracts. It's hardly as Dickensian as you're making out.

 

[The Cowboy]

Staggering.

We live in the age of zero hour contracts. Almost 5 million people in the UK earn below minimum wage (£7.45 ph).

Is a zero-hour contract 'exploitation' though? I know it creates uncertainty for the employee, but they don't have to take that job if they don't want to work on such a contract (unless of course its so widespread that its impossible to get work not on a zero-hour contract).

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

In a bygone era it may well have been the case that people were exploited at work, I'm just not sure it's the case any more, and certainly not in the public sector.

Myself and my colleagues are all exploited at work.

That is, unless you have another word for working on poor contracts for a minimum wage below the living wage, being docked a few quid for being a minute late but often earning nothing for some of the overtime we do. We also have our hours taken off us at a moments notice, health and safety policy can't be being taken seriously and we are all expected to appear at a moments notice if they need us for whatever shift they choose.

Oh and the good old fashioned 'only so many of you can take your holidays at once', and then there are not enough opportunities to take them so we lose them!

And some are far worse.

 

[edge]

I think it depends upon whether the Union is recognised or not, but I'm not an expert, sorry.

if they are recognised, they are responsable for the the workforce as a whole for the stuff he is on about, and the non union people have the benifit of any union dues and get gains without having to take any action for any benifits there colleages may get.
On Bob Crowe he was more intrested in himself than his members like myself, who arnt on mega wages as some think, the average is about £22.000 a year, cleaners ect are on a lot less, the only members of the RMT on anything more are some signal box workers and management who have stayed in the union, they are on mid thirty thousand a year, Oh and the full time union reps who are on a decent wage.
The only decent money in the rail industry is with the drivers, who arnt in the RMT but ASLEF, and as for holding the public to ransom they havnt been on strike up here for over a decade.

 

[edge]

Is a zero-hour contract 'exploitation' though? I know it creates uncertainty for the employee, but they don't have to take that job if they don't want to work on such a contract (unless of course its so widespread that its impossible to get work not on a zero-hour contract).

my three kids are or have been working on these contracts while at uni, they are the norm out there at the moment, there mates are all in the same boat, if there was anything else they would be one hell of a scramble for them.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Myself and my colleagues are all exploited at work.

That is, unless you have another word for working on poor contracts for a minimum wage below the living wage, being docked a few quid for being a minute late but often earning nothing for some of the overtime we do. We also have our hours taken off us at a moments notice, health and safety policy can't be being taken seriously and we are all expected to appear at a moments notice if they need us for whatever shift they choose.

And some are far worse.

Who do you work for, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[davek]

Is a zero-hour contract 'exploitation' though? I know it creates uncertainty for the employee, but they don't have to take that job if they don't want to work on such a contract (unless of course its so widespread that its impossible to get work not on a zero-hour contract).

Zero hours covers (though not exclusively) casual employment. Half of workers in sectors like leisure and catering etc have to endure them. If they have a more marketable skill I'd guess they wouldn't be looking for work there. So, in answer to your question, yes, they do have to accept them. Added to that that benefit sanctions can be made by Job Centres on claimant refusing a zero hour job and the situation looks like an enforcement.

 

[donalmclean]

if they are recognised, they are responsable for the the workforce as a whole for the stuff he is on about, and the non union people have the benifit of any union dues and get gains without having to take any action for any benifits there colleages may get.
On Bob Crowe he was more intrested in himself than his members like myself, who arnt on mega wages as some think, the average is about £22.000 a year, cleaners ect are on a lot less, the only members of the RMT on anything more are some signal box workers and management who have stayed in the union, they are on mid thirty thousand a year, Oh and the full time union reps who are on a decent wage.
The only decent money in the rail industry is with the drivers, who arnt in the RMT but ASLEF, and as for holding the public to ransom they havnt been on strike up here for over a decade.

so even if the employee, who the union have taken it upon themselves to negotiate on behalf off, doesn't agree the changes to terms and conditions then they are forced to accept them ? is this right?
recognised by who? the employer? The non member employee is therefore forced to have them negotiate on their behalf eventhough they do not want to be represented by them? Democracy?

 

[The Cowboy]

Zero hours covers (though not exclusively) casual employment. Half of workers in sectors like leisure and catering etc have to endure them. If they have a more marketable skill I'd guess they wouldn't be looking for work there. So, in answer to your question, yes, they do have to accept them. Added to that that benefit sanctions can be made by Job Centres on claimant refusing a zero hour job and the situation looks like an enforcement.

Ok, I accept that the bit about benefit sanctions does make it a bit of a tricky one, but surely this sort of contract has been round for years - isn't this how all bar staff work? It makes sense for casual employment to have the flexibility to cover your lean and peak hours effectively rather than having a period where staff are heavily overworked or sat twiddling their thumbs?

I say this from the comfort of my cushy office job, so I must confess that it is a stretch of my imagination to try and sympathise with zero-hours workers. Sorry about that.

 

[donalmclean]

Zero hours covers (though not exclusively) casual employment. Half of workers in sectors like leisure and catering etc have to endure them. If they have a more marketable skill I'd guess they wouldn't be looking for work there. So, in answer to your question, yes, they do have to accept them. Added to that that benefit sanctions can be made by Job Centres on claimant refusing a zero hour job and the situation looks like an enforcement.

what stops them obtaining more marketable skills?

 

[mrs the esk]

Ok, I accept that the bit about benefit sanctions does make it a bit of a tricky one, but surely this sort of contract has been round for years - isn't this how all bar staff work? It makes sense for casual employment to have the flexibility to cover your lean and peak hours effectively rather than having a period where staff are heavily overworked or sat twiddling their thumbs?

I say this from the comfort of my cushy office job, so I must confess that it is a stretch of my imagination to try and sympathise with zero-hours workers. Sorry about that.

The biggest problem remains the exclusivity provisions, so you could effectively offer someone no work but stop them from working for someone else by virtue of the exclusivity. This has been outlawed, but the legislation around it was very weak and could easily be got around by making "zero hour" contracts "1 hour" contracts, ie an employer guarantees an hour a week but no more, and retains the exclusivity agreement with the "employee".

Correction, it has not been outlawed yet, the Government are looking at ways of doing so.

 

[donalmclean]

The biggest problem remains the exclusivity provisions, so you could effectively offer someone no work but stop them from working for someone else by virtue of the exclusivity. This has been outlawed, but the legislation around it was very weak and could easily be got around by making "zero hour" contracts "1 hour" contracts, ie an employer guarantees an hour a week but no more, and retains the exclusivity agreement with the "employee".

have you a source for the info regarding this sort of 'loop hole' I wouldnt mind reading up on it.

 

[mrs the esk]

have you a source for the info regarding this sort of 'loop hole' I wouldnt mind reading up on it.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...nt-contracts-exclusivity-clause-ban-avoidance