The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[The Cowboy]

This is the disgraceful bit. There is no reason why anyone should be paid more than say £1M per year and certainly no reason why anyone could amass £1000M.....but of course we allow footballers to earn £6-10M per year and boxers and racing drivers to earn even more........the crap about they would move away doesn't wash with me.....let them go and let someone else earn what they would have got..........

In many cases, the person goes and the job goes too. A fund manager will simply continue to be a fund manager elsewhere, with the same clients.

Frankly I find it more abhorrent seeing Lewis Hamilton and his boorish ilk spraying champagne everywhere than I do city bankers taking bonuses.

 

[The Esk]

Whilst I accept that all figures can be massaged to make them sound good, surely more people in employment, regardless of the contractual conditions, is a good thing? For the sake of people's self worth and future prospects, I'd rather see 2 people getting 15 hours a week on a ZHC than one person on a full time contract.

How can people's self worth be determined by their employment status more so than the terms of their employment?

In my experience of employing a considerable number of people over many years the terms of employment (or contractual conditions as you put it) are critical to their sense of self worth. People's self worth improve enormously when as employer you demonstrate how you value the employees contribution to your business. I've said previously that people are the most important assets of any business and as such require proper care and attention and recognition of value. Zero hour contracts demonstrate none of this.

 

[Seanjd]

I'm not suggesting for a second that you can't have an opinion, I'm simply saying that if you want the government to ban something, at least have a reason for it based on evidence... I'm sure could find a load of frenzied UKIP members who think that Unions are evil and a drain on society - should we ban them too? Likewise, I'm sure I could find a sizeable amount of people who would like to ban immigrants - does that make it okay to ban them?

Policy should be based on fact, not prejudice.

I've no doubt that there are many people on zero hour contracts who would kill for a full-time contract, in the same way that there are many on part-time contracts who would like a full-time contract, but does that mean the government should ban them? Of course not.

If there are people out there who are being forced to sign up to zero hour contracts, the government has a mandate to step in and stop that, but the government has no mandate to go around banning things simply because a small minority of the population ideologically disagree with them.

I haven't suggested that they should be banned. Like I said earlier, I think they have their place. Most zero hour contracts are held by students and elderly, for obvious reasons. My concerns are firstly the increase in zero hour contracts over the last few years, and secondly the often exploitative nature of them in some contexts.

Labour, by the way, are not calling for an out-right ban on zero hour contracts. They have announced that they will ban 'exploitative zero hour contracts', ie;
- exclusivity clauses
- requiring zero hour contracts employees to be available without guarentee of work
- regular work after specified period of regular hours
- a right to compensation when shifts are cancelled.

These are the only zero hour contracts which will be banned. It is more a clean up on how zero hour contracts can be exploited rather than banning them altogether.

 

[The Cowboy]

How can people's self worth be determined by their employment status more so than the terms of their employment?

In my experience of employing a considerable number of people over many years the terms of employment (or contractual conditions as you put it) are critical to their sense of self worth. People's self worth improve enormously when as employer you demonstrate how you value the employees contribution to you business. I've said previously that people are the most important assets of any business and as such require proper care and attention and recognition of value. Zero hour contracts demonstrate none of this.

I'd say that being unemployed is pretty critical to someone's self worth. Many people feel completely worthless when unemployed. The terms of your employment may alter your feelings of self worth, but at least you've got a job.

I'm not arguing in favour of zero hours contracts, merely the existence of job placements.

 

[chewee]

This government favours big business over workers. They've already slashed legal aid, bumped up costs for tribunals and reduced the amount of redundancy pay people are entitled to. The rapid rise of ZHC another sign of this.

ZHC reduce costs to the employer whilst further eroding the rights of the worker - no sick pay, no holiday pay, no redundnacy pay. Companies now instead of using traditional contract jobs offers will opt for ZHC, staff turnover may be high but if it boosts profit they dont care.

As for 'more people in work so it is a good thing' - it's not as simple as that. An economy built on ZHC is an economy built on sand. They kill any aspiration, how does someone get credit for a car or mortgage? They cant. So they go on the social housing waiting list along with the millions of others and add to an already crippling problem. Can they afford to rent from a private landlord with no steady income? No

A strong economy needs middle to high skilled jobs with a decent wage and a steady contract. ZHC plug a gap but long term they create much bigger problems, the inequality gap with grow and grow if these are allowed to continue.

 

[Seanjd]

How can people's self worth be determined by their employment status more so than the terms of their employment?

In my experience of employing a considerable number of people over many years the terms of employment (or contractual conditions as you put it) are critical to their sense of self worth. People's self worth improve enormously when as employer you demonstrate how you value the employees contribution to your business. I've said previously that people are the most important assets of any business and as such require proper care and attention and recognition of value. Zero hour contracts demonstrate none of this.

100% agree, which is why Labour are attempting to clean the terms of zero hour contracts up.

 

[The Esk]

This government favours big business over workers. They've already slashed legal aid, bumped up costs for tribunals and reduced the amount of redundancy pay people are entitled to. The rapid rise of ZHC another sign of this.

ZHC reduce costs to the employer whilst further eroding the rights of the worker - no sick pay, no holiday pay, no redundnacy pay. Companies now instead of using traditional contract jobs offers will opt for ZHC, staff turnover may be high but if it boosts profit they dont care.

As for 'more people in work so it is a good thing' - it's not as simple as that. An economy built on ZHC is an economy built on sand. They kill any aspiration, how does someone get credit for a car or mortgage? They cant. So they go on the social housing waiting list along with the millions of others and add to an already crippling problem. Can they afford to rent from a private landlord with no steady income? No

A strong economy needs middle to high skilled jobs with a decent wage and a steady contract. ZHC plug a gap but long term they create much bigger problems, the inequality gap with grow and grow if these are allowed to continue.

I'd add also that it is an extremely short sighted strategy from the Company to offer such contracts. How companies expect to create loyal, effective workforces that demonstrate their company's values and brand on ZHCs I really do not know. How can you expect high levels of productivity and quality if you offer nothing in return?

 

[The Cowboy]

I'd add also that it is an extremely short sighted strategy from the Company to offer such contracts. How companies expect to create loyal, effective workforces that demonstrate their company's values and brand on ZHCs I really do not know. How can you expect high levels of productivity and quality if you offer nothing in return?

How common are ZHC in skilled occupations? I genuinely thought they were just for shop workers and bar staff.

 

[Seanjd]

How common are ZHC in skilled occupations? I genuinely thought they were just for shop workers and bar staff.

60% of Universities employ lecturers on zero hour contracts.

 

[The Esk]

How common are ZHC in skilled occupations? I genuinely thought they were just for shop workers and bar staff.

Probably not common, however I believe that all workers can be encouraged to higher levels of productivity and quality, not just skilled positions. In doing so you strengthen the company's branding and positioning, but more importantly can maintain and increase profitability without exploitation.

(I am not theorising here, this is how I run my businesses)

 

[chewee]

The scums front page tomorrow. Playing the class card of all things.

 

[Seanjd]

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/sep/16/zero-hours-contracts-at-universities

Quite interesting

 

[SNova]

This is the disgraceful bit. There is no reason why anyone should be paid more than say £1M per year and certainly no reason why anyone could amass £1000M.....but of course we allow footballers to earn £6-10M per year and boxers and racing drivers to earn even more........the crap about they would move away doesn't wash with me.....let them go and let someone else earn what they would have got..........

I don't think it's disgraceful. It's just how much money is in football these days. It's not like the government pays them.

 

[Jags]

Not too sure about the details but I have a cousin in the care profession, and she said that zero hour contracts are key to this. Thin the labour idea is to keep these one, but try and get rid of the ones where it is clear the contract is being used to abuse the worker.

 

[The Mighty Quint]

But again, that is no reason for them to be banned.

You could conceivably make the case that all employment is exploitative in one way or another - doesn't mean we should ban people from having jobs.

Nobody is banning people from having jobs, the companies need the staff, ZHC or not, they would just have to employ people on full and part time contracts with proper employee benefits and law making sure they have their rights protected.

There are many many people working fulltime hours on ZHC, it's wrong, and favours the employer in all the wrong ways IMO.