rlHow zero-hours workers who work zero hours are still classed as "employed"rl

I personally don't think anyone should be on zero hours contracts, that is just lazy management. Flexible labour enables employees to earn a known regular salary for a known number of hours over a year. The flexibility is in the hours consummed at certain demand periods. Any deviation over and above their contractual hours to be paid at an agreed rate, the minimum of which should be basic rate.

We will never agree regarding our political views - I find it pretty hypocritical that all the lefties on here spout caring sharing but don't really sacrifice much for their fellow participant in the struggle!! They want greater a spread of wealth as long as it doesn't impact them!!

Really?

And you know this, err, how, precisely?

The reality is that you know absolutely nothing about what anyone here has 'sacrificed' or not. And don't pretend that you do, because it would be a downright lie.

And how would you even measure it, FFS? That might give all those 'hypocritical lefties' a chance to see what hoops you expect us to jump through to conform to what [iyou[/i expect of people that you happily lump a whopping big label on, even when you've had it explained to you in fairly simple terms that such a practice is not only stupid but howlingly inaccurate.

And that's before we come on to the point that a fairer society [ifor all[/i should not and would not require individuals to "sacrifice" something or other (of the things you don't even bother to mention).

Further, it's noted that you have completely swerved in your response to El Barbudo's points.

Did you not understand them? Or did you simply decide that you're only interested in simplistic labels because it helps to avoid you having to possibly engage with rather more serious arguments?

Don't worry – I don't expect any answers. You'll run away as usual at the sign of such direct questions.

Agreed.


Ah, your old (but meaningless) Champagne Socialists argument.

It's difficult to explain to someone whose political leanings are towards the right because I have found that explanations to them usually result in a retort of "why should I ... etc etc ".
Nonetheless, I'll give it a go.

Putting aside the fact that you don't know what I do or don't do for "fellow participants in the struggle", I believe that I pay too little in tax.

I'm betting that you will immediately think "Well, donate more if that's what you want" ... and that is exactly my point about trying to explain to right-wingers, everything is seen in terms of self.

Back in the olden days, when I was a young adult, there was a general consensus across both Labour and Tory that everyone paid into the system and those who needed it got help.
There was usually a disagreement about exactly how much but, in general, the principle was agreed.

Since 1979, that has changed, tax is now a dirty word across all three main parties (if we still include Lib Dems as a "main" party anymore) as they compete between them to at least appear to reduce tax.
Reducing the tax-take means we can't afford the services we have taken for granted since the late 1940's, suddenly it's unaffordable.
But, in reality, it IS affordable ... what has changed is the widespread nature of the willingness to help others, the willingness to pay the group insurance premium when we might not need the pay-back in times of stress.
i.e. Too many people now think "I'm all right, why should I help you?".

I, for one, don't want to get to the end of my life and think, "Well, what a selfish bstrad I was".

This would not work. Even if you abolished NI why would an employer employ a permanent employee which would make them liable for sick pay, holiday pay, redundancy payments and other benefits full time employees are entitled to when they could still employ someone on a zero hours contract and have none of this to cover?

You solution would end up with end up with no NI contributions from the employer with the employees still on zero hours contracts.

As pointed out corporation tax is easily avoided by companies such as McDonalds so you can't get it back form that route either.

The only solution is regulation against zero hours contracts where they are clearly being used to employ a permanent workforce.

As to where is Labour on this from your previous post, you don't think their opposition is going to get much coverage on the BBC or in the right wing media do you? They are opposed to them and indeed one Labour MP, Andy Sawford, has submitted a bill to abolish themhttp://andysawford.wordpress.com/2013/06/22/my-zero-hours-bill-to-protect-lowest-paid-and-most-vulnerable-workers/rl

I bet you were not aware of this as it's hardly something the Daily Mail would report is it?

nor thishttp://www.alisonmcgovern.org.uk/merseyside-mps-launch-investigation-into-exploitative-zero-hour-contracts/rl

Not bothered looking at your links re Labour as they don't appear to represent the leaderships stance?

If you abolished zero-hours contracts there'd be alot more people unemployed in the current climate as companies unsure of demand took a prudent view on their cost bases. That in turn may reduce overall economic activity as they would be unable to meet demand when its there.

Basically, that's saying that the hours-required get shared between a larger number of people at the moment than if the management could work out how many they really need.
Then you're saying that, if they couldn't fall back on zero-hours contracts, management would underestimate and lose business accordingly.

So, effectively, zero-hours are a way that ineffectual management can offload the risk onto employees.

And cost onto the taxpayer

That too, via tax credits and non-payment of NI.

No. If demand suddenly spikes - eg a warm spell can create demand in many retail / service businesses then such contracts enable a business to meet demand without add a layer of costs they don't need most of the time.

They do but you know very well employers are not using zero hours contracts just to deal with seasonal variations.

Employers like McDonalds have no excuse for employing the vast majority of their outlet staff on zero hours contracts and certainly not the excuse of seasonal variations. The McDonalds in Chester and surrounding areas are open 7 days a week and at least one is open 24 hours. It's blindingly obvious they need permanent staff to run these outlets.

If employers behave in this clearly exploitative manner they should expect legislation to be forthcoming to stop it. If that means they lose some flexibility with curbs on zero hours contracts that would be their fault for abusing the system in the first place.

McDonalds won't shut up shop if they were forced into taking staff on permanently just as large corporations won't cease trading here if we closed the tax avoidance loopholes and it ought to be possible to devise legislation to allow seasonal workers such as students to get a temporary job which would suit both parties to cater for seasonal variations.

It's just like the minimum wage. There wouldn't be any need for that if employers would not exploit the fact they could pay next to nothing and it's the same here. If employers were only using zero hours contracts to employ seasonal workers to cover peaks or students looking for a Saturday job there wouldn't be a problem.

Nonsense.
They don't have to be zero-hours contracts, they simply need more hours worked in that rare circumstance, a flexibility easily accommodated in a contract, let's call it .... let me see ... how about occasional overtime?

How do you know if you haven't followed the links? FWIW they mirror what Ed M has had to say about zero hours contracts recently.

So Ed M has spoken. What is Labour's official policy on the matter? Has is been stated categorically bearing in mind that this is apparently (see people's comments above) not an issue that needs to await the next election campaign to see what "the books" look like then. If there is no policy that whatever he has said is soundbite nonsense. If they have a strong policy why aren't they banging the drum now and offering proper opposition to a government who don't see it as an issue? Is it because Ed and Labour are pathetic and scared; dishonest; hypocritical; self-serving; or what?

Truth is that if that were the case then the fall-off in direct employment on zero hours would simply be taken up by Staff Agencies providing bodies on demand to those same companies, matching demand literally on a day to day basis.

And that is not actually such a bad thing as it sounds.

Part of my job involves visiting some of the country's largest agencies and most of the various account managers that I meet and eavesdrop on while in their premises spend most of their day ringing around employees on their books asking them if they are available tomorrow, or even this afternoon, and the pressure for those offices to retain their best and most available employees is high especially in some trades - I've been in an office that specialises in booking HGV drivers into clients and those drivers with certain types of experience can pick and choose which contracts they work on and how many hours they work.

Its an extremely competitive business, probably the most competitive that I have ever been involved with and when demand is high then the most valued employees can start to ask for certain inducements like guaranteed hours etc - certainly more so than if they were tied to just one employer.