Ed M has spoken out against them and Andy Burnham who is in the shadow cabinet has said he'd like them banned. These mirror comments made by those MP's in the links I gave and as I said one of them actually introduced a bill on the subject.

So it seems to me there is pretty uniform agreement from top to bottom in Labour these contracts are not good things.



Rubbish. The idea whenever Ed M voices his opposition to something it has to be backed up by being official Labour policy to carry any weight is ludicrous. The Opposition has every right to pressure the government on the issues of the day without having to set its position down in stone beforehand. That is how our democracy works and is one of the few luxuries of opposition.

Policy in political parties is set after due consideration (with in fact the notable exception of the coalition given the number of u-turns its had to make since coming to office) and if he said the instant this issue hit the headlines "its official Labour policy to ban zero hours contracts" he'd be accused of popularism.

Like it or not this is politics and Labour needs to work out how to deal with zero hours by coming up with sensible legislation that doesn't get them labelled anti-business but at the same time addresses the issue of firms like McDonalds. They aren't going to make this up on the hoof but in the meantime its quite legitimate for them to harangue the government over this issue.

Personally I'd like zero hours contracts banned but the politics unfortunately probably won't let Labour go as far as Burnham would like.



The government as in Vince Cable [ido[/i supposedly see it as an issue. Labour's job is to make sure they see it as a big enough issue and if they come up with any limp wristed excuses as to why they aren't tackling it then Labour can have a go at them. Labour is not in power and so as with all opposition parties must wait and see what the governments hand is. In the meantime voicing strong opposition to zero hours contracts puts pressure on Cable and it doesn't need to be official policy to do that.

Looks like it's going to court!

rlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/legal-challenge-to-zero-hours-contracts-launched-against-sports-direct-8750104.htmlrl

You can support the case. 38degrees are backing it, and asking for £1 Over £10.000 raised so far https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/co ... a#petition

You can support the case. 38degrees are backing it, and asking for £1 Over £10.000 raised so far https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/co ... a#petition

If Cable is involved we can expect swift and forceful supine inaction.

He is the go-to man for all answers on all problems but has never had to test any of his solutions in reality.

I know and that is why Labour should be on the case. The scale of zero hours contracts used by the likes of McDonalds can't be allowed to continue but I'm expecting Cable to end up doing no more than issue a few guidelines which will be studiously ignored by business.

I am also under no illusions as to the complicity of Labour on other issues you might expect them to oppose and for example Liam Byrne ought to just cross the house, admit he's a Tory and go and sit in IDS'S lap. Hopefully some serious arguments as to why zero hours contracts are bad will be put forward by Labour to counter the inevitable "it's bad for business" nonsense.

Agreed.
Also agree with your earlier comparison with the introduction of the minimum wage.

The major problem we are experiencing is while businesses are using zero-hours contracts to reduce their costs and increase their profits, the employees they are screwing over in order to reduce those costs, have no bloody money to spend on anything other than a roof over their heads.

As a service-centred economy, we need consumer stimulus. We must have people spending, they are not, simply because they've got buggerall to spend.

I could probably be persuaded that there is a place for ZHCs in limited circumstnaces but when a national company employs practically the whole of its workforce on ZHCs, and their businesses are staffed for known numbers of hours on an annual basis, and nothing much changes, then it's clear (to me anyway) that ZHCs are nothing more than a device to deprive the employees of what rights they would otherwise have under the normal employment protection that we have strived for so many decades to achieve.

How can anyone seriously argue that having a huge workforce permanently working and operating huge numbers of businesses should still be able to evade all their usual obligations through this device?

If people feel strongly they should simply boycott McD's, Sports Direct, et al. That way they'll change pretty quickly.

If only people gave flip.

Exactly.

What kind of contracts did we used to have for temporary work?

Many moons ago when I was a student I worked one summer at Turner Brothers in Hindley Green near Wigan as a labourer over the long summer break.

I have no idea what sort of contract I was on but I do know I was employed for a full 40 hour week every week I worked there. I wasn't on any kind of contract that said they would call me in when the maintenance fitter needed a bit of help that day.

As an aside when I was at Uni I did a year in industry and was paid a graduate level wage. The way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if current students were expected to do the same for free as an Intern.

Interships, zero hours contracts are out of the same exploitative mould in my opinion.

Will you be leading the charge? Or are you in favour of zero hours contracts?

I am trying. I signed up for at Ethical Consumer and use it to find alternatives to Amazon for example.

I do.
They haven't noticed yet though.

Dally is also trying.
Very.

I'll take a look at Ethical Consumer.