Zero hour contracts

[Tokyo-Saint]

Stand down boys.

 

I have just check and the email address is notdune@gmail.com

 

It ain't him, move along.

[Barry Sanchez]

 

What is that?

[Barry Sanchez]

Stand down boys.

 

I have just check and the email address is notdune@gmail.com

 

It ain't him, move along.

 

 

Cool.

[Lord Duckhunter]

When we were bringing up the Children my Mrs had a bank contract with the NHS set at 0 hours. She told them when she could work around my job and they scheduled her in accordingly.

 

Had this type of contact not been available, she would have had no work and the NHS would have lost a damn fine midwife.

[Barry Sanchez]

When we were bringing up the Children my Mrs had a bank contract with the NHS set at 0 hours. She told them when she could work around my job and they scheduled her in accordingly.

 

Had this type of contact not been available, she would have had no work and the NHS would have lost a damn fine midwife.

 

 

Flexible working hours on a fixed contract are different to this. After my wife goes back into work from maternity leave I will try and do that, its very different.

[Minty]

When we were bringing up the Children my Mrs had a bank contract with the NHS set at 0 hours. She told them when she could work around my job and they scheduled her in accordingly.

 

Had this type of contact not been available, she would have had no work and the NHS would have lost a damn fine midwife.

At the risk of repeating myself, I think everything acknowledges that there are times and places where it is (more) appropriate - the issue is with 20,000 employees at Sports Direct being on them, or all of Cineworld part-time employees, for example...

[Tokyo-Saint]

I think that if it is offered to new employees then that is fine, as it is an offer of employment they can take or leave. They should not be able to (I doubt they can) force existing employees on to this contract though as that is moving the goalposts.

[Barry Sanchez]

I think that if it is offered to new employees then that is fine, as it is an offer of employment they can take or leave. They should not be able to (I doubt they can) force existing employees on to this contract though as that is moving the goalposts.

 

Maybe the older employees were only on a 12 month contract and have been moved over once expired. Why do you care, its cheap labour, cheaper clothes for you mate.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Nothing to do with cheap clothes mate. I am an employer so see it from the other side of the coin.

[Barry Sanchez]

Nothing to do with cheap clothes mate. I am an employer so see it from the other side of the coin.

 

Thats very noble of you.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Maybe the older employees were only on a 12 month contract and have been moved over once expired.

 

They should leave then and work somewhere decent. They have at least 12 months experience on their CV. Another shop will snap up a decent worker like that with experience of trying to up sell big bags and even bigger mugs.

 

Send your CV here baz http://www.waitrosejobs.com/jobs/john-lewis-sales-assistants.htm If you are good, they will take you on.

[Barry Sanchez]

They should leave then and work somewhere decent. They have at least 12 months experience on their CV. Another shop will snap up a decent worker like that with experience of trying to up sell big bags and even bigger mugs.

 

Send your CV here baz http://www.waitrosejobs.com/jobs/john-lewis-sales-assistants.htm If you are good, they will take you on.

 

 

I live in South Liverpool and the nearest Waitrose is in Formby, the travelling expense negates it, not that I require a job mind.

[Tokyo-Saint]

I am not your careers advisors Baz. If I throw a dog a bone, I don't want to know if it tastes good or not

[Barry Sanchez]

I am not your careers advisors Baz. If I throw a dog a bone, I don't want to know if it tastes good or not

Off course Bricktop.

[egg]

There should be a guarantee if you secure employment you will receive guaranteed and assured hours at the rate thats fair for both worker and employer.

This is simply exploitation and offering no assurances to staff to plan for the future.

 

This presumes that the employer has guaranteed income from which to pay a guaranteed wage.

 

We are living in a world where there can't be guarantees for anyone.

 

Employees have to be realistic. A business has to be profitable to be sustainable. If its not there is no business and its worse for everyone.

 

I'd rather see businesses run in a sensible and sustainable manner than businesses held to ransom by unions and employers protected by unrealistic contracts.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Oh shit, Ziggy is saying there is a 98.8% chance that I might actually agree with egg about something. I am quantum leaping out of the lounge for a while.

[solentstars]

In short similar to turning up at the docks in the 30's and seeing if your turn came.

agree i,m amazed in this day and age that we have these regressive contracts in this day and age but not surprised has the great and good over the last 3 decades want us to go back to the old days of Victorian values.

[buctootim]

This presumes that the employer has guaranteed income from which to pay a guaranteed wage.

 

We are living in a world where there can't be guarantees for anyone.

 

Employees have to be realistic. A business has to be profitable to be sustainable. If its not there is no business and its worse for everyone.

 

I'd rather see businesses run in a sensible and sustainable manner than businesses held to ransom by unions and employers protected by unrealistic contracts.

 

It depends.. When I childfree I worked as a contractor - took the risk of lack of security of income and associated benefits in exchange for a higher daily rate and lower tax. Thats the capitalist model, you take the risks and reap the rewards. Now with kids and big mortgage I work as staff for less money and more tax but certainty of income.

 

What you are proposing is that the employees should bear the downside risks with none of the upside benefits - thats wrong.

Edited 31 July, 2013 by buctootim

[Barry Sanchez]

This presumes that the employer has guaranteed income from which to pay a guaranteed wage.

 

We are living in a world where there can't be guarantees for anyone.

 

Employees have to be realistic. A business has to be profitable to be sustainable. If its not there is no business and its worse for everyone.

 

I'd rather see businesses run in a sensible and sustainable manner than businesses held to ransom by unions and employers protected by unrealistic contracts.

 

 

Whilst the gap between the employee and employer wages ever widens, Unions should never hold a business to ransom but employers should never exploit workers, Unions started out to protect the workers, they have done a great deal of good in keeping Victorian working practices out of the working environment.

If businesses can only operate by exploiting the worker and giving paltry wages perhaps they should not be in business.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Whilst the gap between the employee and employer wages ever widens, Unions should never hold a business to ransom but employers should never exploit workers, Unions started out to protect the workers, they have done a great deal of good in keeping Victorian working practices out of the working environment.

If businesses can only operate by exploiting the worker and giving paltry wages perhaps they should not be in business.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23353534

[Barry Sanchez]

What 2,000 out if its 24,000 workforce will receive some shares, what contracts are they on?

[Tokyo-Saint]

Any shop floor staff on any contract that have been with the company for 12 months or longer. Seems like they will pay out shares to loyal staff when they have the money but have to get the money first.

 

As the long serving staff are shareholders themselves, I guess they have voting rights as well? They can vote against the change in contract or they can be the evil company fat cats if they like. Whichever suits them.

[Barry Sanchez]

Its states 2,000 out of the 24,000 shall receive shares does it not?

[Barry Sanchez]

Any shop floor staff on any contract that have been with the company for 12 months or longer. Seems like they will pay out shares to loyal staff when they have the money but have to get the money first.

 

As the long serving staff are shareholders themselves, I guess they have voting rights as well? They can vote against the change in contract or they can be the evil company fat cats if they like. Whichever suits them.

 

Staff share schemes are crap at best like this, probably worth next to nothing.

[Tokyo-Saint]

See you later bazzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

The scheme, for staff who have been with the retailer for a year, has boosted staff retention at Sports Direct. Before its launch, about 30pc of Sports Direct staff left the business each year, but now that figure is 17pc. A second bonus scheme was launched in 2011, which runs to 2015.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/10178210/Pay-day-for-2000-Sports-Direct-staff-as-stores-sales-and-profits-increase.html

[Barry Sanchez]

For 2,000 what about the 22,000 others? Why not give a decent salary as opposed to shares? I concede the amount they are giving is very very good but what are the conditions and how many floor staff are on £20,000?

[egg]

Whilst the gap between the employee and employer wages ever widens, Unions should never hold a business to ransom but employers should never exploit workers, Unions started out to protect the workers, they have done a great deal of good in keeping Victorian working practices out of the working environment.

If businesses can only operate by exploiting the worker and giving paltry wages perhaps they should not be in business.

 

How is it exploitation for an employer to feel unable to guarantee an employer certain hours in circumstances where said employer has no guarantee of the income to pay the employee, or indeed a guaranteed flow of work to keep the employee busy?

 

Telling the employee that he/she can't be assured certain hours is sensible, isn't it?

[bridge too far]

For 2,000 what about the 22,000 others? Why not give a decent salary as opposed to shares? I concede the amount they are giving is very very good but what are the conditions and how many floor staff are on £20,000?

 

Maybe they'd be cute enough to work the zero hours contracts to their advantage by ensuring that employees only worked enough hours to earn £19,999.00? Just saying

[Barry Sanchez]

How is it exploitation for an employer to feel unable to guarantee an employer certain hours in circumstances where said employer has no guarantee of the income to pay the employee, or indeed a guaranteed flow of work to keep the employee busy?

 

Telling the employee that he/she can't be assured certain hours is sensible, isn't it?

 

Only if you have the minimum amount of people on the system, having 1000's is obvious its going to affect workers, what about getting a loan, mortgage?

Ask the staff what they would prefer would be a start to finding out if its correct or not?

[Barry Sanchez]

Maybe they'd be cute enough to work the zero hours contracts to their advantage by ensuring that employees only worked enough hours to earn £19,999.00? Just saying

 

They probably would ha ha.

[JackFrost]

the contracts leave staff without guaranteed hours, sick pay or holiday pay, and make it difficult to get a tenancy agreement, credit card or loan because proving regular income becomes impossible.

 

So no different to a lot of jobs out there

[Whitey Grandad]

Demand may account for a small % of workforce flexibility, but not the majority... that was the point that was made earlier. This wouldn't be the issue it is if it were only a small % of a workforce, but in some places it is a large proportion. 20,000 at Sports Direct, 'all of Cineworlds part-time employees'... those are the major issues.

 

I'm not quite sure how the Fire Service are a relevant example either, but happy to hear more as to why you think so...?

 

Indeed, if these contracts are the norm for a company then I would agree. I mention the Fire Service as an organisation that has very occasional demands for a large number of people but these demands are unpredictable. There are plenty of businesses that cannot afford to have sufficient personnel on fully-paid standby just to meet intermittent peak demands.

[pap]

So no different to a lot of jobs out there

 

Sadly, you're right. However, I always thought that one of the implicit trade-offs of working for a firm and sacrificing the chances for a fortune was being looked after by the large, powerful entity that you produce for.

[Sour Mash]

I always thought that one of the implicit trade-offs of working for a firm and sacrificing the chances for a fortune was being looked after by the large, powerful entity that you produce for.

You were wrong, it's not.

[Viking Warrior]

Pap do you your homework . Zero hours contracts will accrue holiday pay and probably sick pay . An employee who works will accrue holiday from day one whether on a casual contract or zero or what ever variation exists . It will be prorate for the hours worked. They will be entitled to 28 days per year and possibly 20 once clarification has been sought following two cases in Europe the working time regs state 4 weeks holiday but this may be 20 if the normal working week is just five days . But some expert suggest it should be based on a 7 day week .

[Barry Sanchez]

Pap do you your homework . Zero hours contracts will accrue holiday pay and probably sick pay . An employee who works will accrue holiday from day one whether on a casual contract or zero or what ever variation exists . It will be prorate for the hours worked. They will be entitled to 28 days per year and possibly 20 once clarification has been sought following two cases in Europe the working time regs state 4 weeks holiday but this may be 20 if the normal working week is just five days . But some expert suggest it should be based on a 7 day week .

 

 

 

Its 20 plus bank holidays at bigger companies,28 days is the minimum but bank holidays do not have to be included.

[Viking Warrior]

Not strictly true Barry . . 28 days is the norm but it the interpretation of European law that needs to be clarified . It's being questioned on a couple of fronts . One area being looked at is the accrual of holiday if on long term sick for a year plus. Holidays were given to allow workers to rest from work . If they are on long term sick they are not at work so should they be given holidays? Also there is a decision awaited on the 20 day or 28 day ruling re accrued holiday entitlements . It is a very expensive cost to companies.

[Viking Warrior]

I love employment law issues . I'm glad I chose to study this and got an MA in employment law . Case law in recent times has added more questions than answers whether it was the springer case the Gomez case . perada or even the larner case. These are all related to holiday entitlements for one reason or another . I was speaking to an eminent employment lawyer a couple of months back . One Toni maclinden . She has some interesting views on sickness holidays etc and the debate of 20 or 28 days . Suffice to say that clarification is being sought and hopefully the confusion that currently exists on what an employee is entitled to should become clearer in respect of long term sickness absence

[Barry Sanchez]

Not strictly true Barry . . 28 days is the norm but it the interpretation of European law that needs to be clarified . It's being questioned on a couple of fronts . One area being looked at is the accrual of holiday if on long term sick for a year plus. Holidays were given to allow workers to rest from work . If they are on long term sick they are not at work so should they be given holidays? Also there is a decision awaited on the 20 day or 28 day ruling re accrued holiday entitlements . It is a very expensive cost to companies.

But if you are sick how can you be on holiday?

[Barry Sanchez]

I love employment law issues . I'm glad I chose to study this and got an MA in employment law . Case law in recent times has added more questions than answers whether it was the springer case the Gomez case . perada or even the larner case. These are all related to holiday entitlements for one reason or another . I was speaking to an eminent employment lawyer a couple of months back . One Toni maclinden . She has some interesting views on sickness holidays etc and the debate of 20 or 28 days . Suffice to say that clarification is being sought and hopefully the confusion that currently exists on what an employee is entitled to should become clearer in respect of long term sickness absence

 

The Government stat will always be the minimum BUT it better to have a minimum than companies rip off the worker, I know of a situation where by some if staff who worked for a company went sick they were told to take a days holiday, these poor working practices dont happen to the fortunate, they happen to the vunerable who usually have no Union protection or the required skills to work under better conditions.

The fact remains most employers will pay what they can get away with without Unions keeping them in check, terms and conditions of service will nearly always be far lower at a place where the Union is not welcome, there are exceptions, Google, Kelloggs (they have a Union in Trafford/Wrexham factories but not in the admin) , Lush and Zurich.

[saintfully]

I love employment law issues . I'm glad I chose to study this and got an MA in employment law . Case law in recent times has added more questions than answers whether it was the springer case the Gomez case . perada or even the larner case. These are all related to holiday entitlements for one reason or another . I was speaking to an eminent employment lawyer a couple of months back . One Toni maclinden . She has some interesting views on sickness holidays etc and the debate of 20 or 28 days . Suffice to say that clarification is being sought and hopefully the confusion that currently exists on what an employee is entitled to should become clearer in respect of long term sickness absence

 

I very much doubt you got an MA in employment law! You might have got an LLM though... Hmm.

[egg]

I very much doubt you got an MA in employment law! You might have got an LLM though... Hmm.

 

LLM usually needs an LLB. Someone with a non LLB degree (ie BA) but involving a legal element (or conversion) can do a Masters in a legal discipline but usually is awarded MA.

[Clapham Saint]

I have been a member of the Labour party for 20 years and in a Union for the same time, dune is not me, surely the admins can see that from my email?

 

Ah, but do you have the same e-mail address as Stanley?

 

Setting up a new e-mail account for a new log in would be pretty easy. They could/should be able to tell from your IP address though.

[CB Saint]

Staff share schemes are crap at best like this, probably worth next to nothing.

 

That is not true. Between 25% and 75% of base pay according to that article.

 

Using a local example, Skandia. Their employee share scheme in which you can invest up to £250 month over 3 to 5 years will be paying out almost £100k next year to those who chose to invest the full amount over 5 years because the share price has done well. That can hardly be described as crap.

[Barry Sanchez]

Ah, but do you have the same e-mail address as Stanley?

 

Setting up a new e-mail account for a new log in would be pretty easy. They could/should be able to tell from your IP address though.

 

 

Of course they can, I came on here after I got banned off not606 for being to negative last November, this dune guy got banned before so people put 2+2 to make 5, I am typing from my L19 garden not Southampton.

My email address is pretty unique so I doubt that.

[Tokyo-Saint]

You don't seem V. popular over there Baz. After an OK start here, you seem to be trying your best to make Alps seem like a happy go lucky kind of guy. What's the deal with the negativity.

[Barry Sanchez]

That is not true. Between 25% and 75% of base pay according to that article.

 

Using a local example, Skandia. Their employee share scheme in which you can invest up to £250 month over 3 to 5 years will be paying out almost £100k next year to those who chose to invest the full amount over 5 years because the share price has done well. That can hardly be described as crap.

 

Its crap if the shares do not improve or fall, my wife gets her bonus as shares they they are pretty much assured, £100,000 for £15,000 is an amazing return BUT we are talking about people being in a position to do so, money makes money, lower earners simply cant afford that, why not give a better wage or return if the company are doing well, why should the employee prop up/invest in the company they work for?

[Barry Sanchez]

You don't seem V. popular over there Baz. After an OK start here, you seem to be trying your best to make Alps seem like a happy go lucky kind of guy. What's the deal with the negativity.

 

I'm not negative merely like debating and giving my opinion, I am a happy go lucky guy believe it or not.

[Big Bad Bob]

Its crap if the shares do not improve or fall, my wife gets her bonus as shares they they are pretty much assured, £100,000 for £15,000 is an amazing return BUT we are talking about people being in a position to do so, money makes money, lower earners simply cant afford that, why not give a better wage or return if the company are doing well, why should the employee prop up/invest in the company they work for?

 

Because the idea is that by investing in the company you are buying in to the running of the company and therefore it is up to you to do the best you can to make the company profitable, therefore giving you a return on your investment.

 

You wouldn't invest £250 a month (if you could afford it) and just sit on your ass doing nothing would you? If you saw people shirking or failing in their duties you would give them a kick up the backside.

 

£250 a month is a lot but if you'd invested £100 a month you'd still get a £40k return (if you sell the shares) not to be sniffed at!!

[Barry Sanchez]

Because the idea is that by investing in the company you are buying in to the running of the company and therefore it is up to you to do the best you can to make the company profitable, therefore giving you a return on your investment.

 

You wouldn't invest £250 a month (if you could afford it) and just sit on your ass doing nothing would you? If you saw people shirking or failing in their duties you would give them a kick up the backside.

 

£250 a month is a lot but if you'd invested £100 a month you'd still get a £40k return (if you sell the shares) not to be sniffed at!!

 

I understand that and its an amazing return, I know someone who works for them so I shall ask exactly what the scheme is and the conditions are, the Sports Direct scheme seems brilliant if you earn the average or just under wage, what about people on zero hour contracts though?