Bolitics The New Condem Government

[TrentVilla]

I don't (despite the accusation to the contrary) have any kind of political affiliation of even particular leaning. I would like to consider I occupy the middle ground, the third way as it was once called. Therefore just as I was critical and supportive of some of the last Governments policies so too am I of the current one.

With this in mind I have to credit the current lot for striking what I think is the right balance in terms of prospective changes to zero hour contracts in the face of much hullabaloo on the topic.

The proposed change to remove the exclusivity clause while retaining zero hour contracts is a measured and sensible move. Such contracts are a necessity for many employers in markets where sales or production fluctuate, indeed a flexible labour market is essential to our economy and one of its biggest advantages over many European counterparts.

However it was clear that something had to change, something had to move to readdress the balance of power between employee and employer and I think this does just that.

I'm sure some will say they should have scrapped zero hour contracts entirely and I can certainly see the arguments for doing so. However this move will empower workers and almost allow them to become freelance temps contracting out to the employer who most desires their labour and who will pay the most for it. As the economy recovers that could be quite the benefit for these workers.

Far more benefit than a large number of these workers losing their income with these contracts being scrapped as employers move a select few to full employment contracts.

The only additional thing I would have liked to see is that these workers have an option to become fully contracted employers after a set qualifying period. Because if they are employed on this basis for a prolonged period they really are full employees in all but name.

[Risso]

Isn't that what the Agency Worker Regs were designed to do?

[drat01]

Another bad day for Cameron. :-) the bloke is a complete and utter joke now, who the hell advises him? Commenting while trial is still active, what a complete tool.

[TrentVilla]

Isn't that what the Agency Worker Regs were designed to do?

 

In short, no.

 

For a start people who are employed on a zero hours contract are unlikely to be agency workers although some agency do employ workers on such contracts but they are few and far between. Most agency workers are employed not by the recruitment agencies but 3rd party payroll providers who operate Umbrella companies but that is another story. Those working on zero hour contracts are normally recruited, controlled and paid directly by a hirer not through an intermediary. 

 

The AWR regulations relate purely to temporary agency workers and are limited to Day 1 rights and Week 12 rights, Day 1 rights are rights in relation to equal treatment in terms of facilities etc so car parking, canteen, breaks etc. And the Week 12 right is the right to equal pay.

 

There is nothing pertaining to fully employment rights or status in AWR purely equal treatment, to put that into context a worker can obtain equal rights at week 12 and the hirer can simply cancel them.

[Risso]

 

Isn't that what the Agency Worker Regs were designed to do?

 

In short, no.

 

For a start people who are employed on a zero hours contract are unlikely to be agency workers although some agency do employ workers on such contracts but they are few and far between. Most agency workers are employed not by the recruitment agencies but 3rd party payroll providers who operate Umbrella companies but that is another story. Those working on zero hour contracts are normally recruited, controlled and paid directly by a hirer not through an intermediary. 

 

The AWR regulations relate purely to temporary agency workers and are limited to Day 1 rights and Week 12 rights, Day 1 rights are rights in relation to equal treatment in terms of facilities etc so car parking, canteen, breaks etc. And the Week 12 right is the right to equal pay.

 

There is nothing pertaining to fully employment rights or status in AWR purely equal treatment, to put that into context a worker can obtain equal rights at week 12 and the hirer can simply cancel them.

 

 

I know all that, I thought you when you said "However this move will empower workers and almost allow them to become freelance temps contracting out to the employer who most desires their labour and who will pay the most for it" that you meant that they would become agency workers.  You don't find many self employed temps.

[TrentVilla]

 

I know all that, I thought you when you said "However this move will empower workers and almost allow them to become freelance temps contracting out to the employer who most desires their labour and who will pay the most for it" that you meant that they would become agency workers.  You don't find many self employed temps.

 

 

No that isn't what I meant, or in my view what I said. Even if I had AWR still wouldn't have achieved that given the scope of that legislation, if you know the scope of that legislation I'm not sure I really understand your original question.

 

The removal of the exclusivity clause of Zero hour contracts would potentially enable, for instance a factory production line worker to be employed on zero hour contracts by two factories in a way they couldn't at the moment. It would then, potentially, become a competition between the two employers to engage the worker in any given week, the worker would be employed and paid through one or both they wouldn't be self employed. They would though as I said almost become freelance temps operating between two or more employers in which potentially the employer that pays the most gets the worker in times of demand. They wouldn't be self employed or agency workers.

 

And there are thousands of self employed contractors/temps up and down the country engaged through agencies but that are paid through their own Limited companies.

[MakemineVanilla]

 

 

I know all that, I thought you when you said "However this move will empower workers and almost allow them to become freelance temps contracting out to the employer who most desires their labour and who will pay the most for it" that you meant that they would become agency workers.  You don't find many self employed temps.

 

 

No that isn't what I meant, or in my view what I said. Even if I had AWR still wouldn't have achieved that given the scope of that legislation, if you know the scope of that legislation I'm not sure I really understand your original question.

 

The removal of the exclusivity clause of Zero hour contracts would potentially enable, for instance a factory production line worker to be employed on zero hour contracts by two factories in a way they couldn't at the moment. It would then, potentially, become a competition between the two employers to engage the worker in any given week, the worker would be employed and paid through one or both they wouldn't be self employed. They would though as I said almost become freelance temps operating between two or more employers in which potentially the employer that pays the most gets the worker in times of demand. They wouldn't be self employed or agency workers.

 

And there are thousands of self employed contractors/temps up and down the country engaged through agencies but that are paid through their own Limited companies.

 

 

I seem to recall that someone working as a freelance, at a number of jobs, for different organisations, is called a portfolio worker.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

lol

 

 

 

 

Sometimes there's nothing to do but sit there and laugh. That's what happened last week while I was reading the Lords debate on the infrastructure bill, and stumbled across

something so amazing that I had to go back over it three times to ensure I'd read it right.

 

The government of the United Kingdom has a legal duty, under the Climate Change Act 2008, to cut greenhouse gases by at least 80% by 2050 (against the 1990 level).

 

This target is threatened, among other issues, by a crashing contradiction: the UK is seeking to reduce demand for fossil fuels, while simultaneously trying to increase supply. Or, as the government puts it, seeking to "maximise economic recovery" of the UK's oil and gas.

 

Almost all states with fossil fuels are trying to do the same thing. Collectively, this makes their promises to prevent climate breakdown impossible to meet. In 2011, Carbon Tracker pointed out that if we are to run a good chance of generating no more than 2C of global warming, we should consume a maximum of 565 gigatonnes of carbon. But the carbon in the world's proven reserves of coal, oil and gas amounts to 2,795 gigatonnes.

 

Preventing climate breakdown means leaving most fossil fuels in the ground. How do governments resolve this contradiction? By ignoring it...

 

... the government had commissioned a report on the future of the oil industry from Sir Ian Wood.

 

Who is Wood? He's a billionaire who made his money from the family company he inherited, the Wood Group. It provides services (engineering, construction, repairs) for the oil and gas industry.

 

This is how government reviews work. You appoint the former head of the National Farmers Union to decide what the future course of farming policy should be, and his report concludes that there should be a bonfire of regulations. You appoint an oil billionaire to decide what the future of the oil industry should be, and his report concludes that the government should develop "a new strategy for maximising economic recovery from the UK Continental Shelf". You appoint Count Dracula to advise on the privatisation of the bloodbank, and ... you get the picture. Then you give due and weighty consideration to their disinterested opinions.

 

In other words, you appoint the person who will provide the answer you want. Then you can claim that the decision you made before the review was commissioned is the outcome of rational enquiry by independent experts.

 

After explaining the results of Wood's review, Kramer revealed that the government had accepted his recommendations in full. Then she dropped her bombshell. The government now plans

"to introduce measures in the bill to put the principle of maximising economic recovery of petroleum in the UK into statute."

 

Into statute. Maximising the production of crude oil will, if the bill is passed, become a legal requirement.

 

 

 

[bickster]

Do you not think the money could be better spent on something else like jobs in the NHS etc?

What money could be better spent on the NHS? A few policemen on overtime making sure that people exorcising their democratic right behave themselves is not going to solve the problems of the NHS.

Your arguments are illogical, I pity you if that really is your thought process

 

I see, like Labour you would prefer to criticise the ideas without giving alterntive solutions. I think you have (purposely) missed the point that I think the time and money could be better spent elsewhere (this is what "etc" means).

 

Its a shame moral high ground seeems to be more important than actually getting out there and trying to improve the community in someway or other. It seems a common trend, lots of "these people need help" rather than "how can I help".

I think you either need to extend your lexicon to include words that actually mean what you think they do e.g. your use of etc is both erroneous and misleading. Maybe you could find some community based "Improve Your English Skills" course aimed at migrant workers to help you in that area as in your original post you certainly didn't convey the message you claimed to have in your subsequent response.

[andyjsg]

Et cetera (in English; /ɛtˈsɛtərə/; Latin pronunciation: [ɛt ˈkeːtɛra]) (rare: etceteros) (abbreviation: etc. or &c.) is a Latin expression that means "and other things", or "and so forth."

[snowychap]

Have the beeb done their budget for Question Time on Prescott alone?

[Risso]

Have the beeb done their budget for Question Time on Prescott alone?

 

It's in Wolverhampton.....!

[snowychap]

 

Have the beeb done their budget for Question Time on Prescott alone?

 

It's in Wolverhampton.....!

 

To be fair to Wolverhampton, the quality of the panel didn't do it justice.

Wallis, Nutty from UKIP, Bob Warman's ex-oppo and the security services shill from 'Quilliam'.

[villaajax]

That Prince Charles is a bit crap at lobbying.

[HanoiVillan]

 

 

I know all that, I thought you when you said "However this move will empower workers and almost allow them to become freelance temps contracting out to the employer who most desires their labour and who will pay the most for it" that you meant that they would become agency workers.  You don't find many self employed temps.

 

 

No that isn't what I meant, or in my view what I said. Even if I had AWR still wouldn't have achieved that given the scope of that legislation, if you know the scope of that legislation I'm not sure I really understand your original question.

 

The removal of the exclusivity clause of Zero hour contracts would potentially enable, for instance a factory production line worker to be employed on zero hour contracts by two factories in a way they couldn't at the moment. It would then, potentially, become a competition between the two employers to engage the worker in any given week, the worker would be employed and paid through one or both they wouldn't be self employed. They would though as I said almost become freelance temps operating between two or more employers in which potentially the employer that pays the most gets the worker in times of demand. They wouldn't be self employed or agency workers.

 

And there are thousands of self employed contractors/temps up and down the country engaged through agencies but that are paid through their own Limited companies.

 

 

I'm more pessimistic about it. It's not that banning exclusivity clauses is wrong - it clearly isn't - but employers won't find it hard to get around. If the employer calls me, and I tell him I'm working for someone else that day, he can simply tell me he won't be calling me again. If I feel that that is likely, then I won't be legally tied down by an exclusivity clause, but there'd be no practical change in my situation. 

[Kingfisher]

Exactly, which is why zero hours contracts should be banned. Too much power to the employer.

[Risso]

 

 

 

I know all that, I thought you when you said "However this move will empower workers and almost allow them to become freelance temps contracting out to the employer who most desires their labour and who will pay the most for it" that you meant that they would become agency workers.  You don't find many self employed temps.

 

 

No that isn't what I meant, or in my view what I said. Even if I had AWR still wouldn't have achieved that given the scope of that legislation, if you know the scope of that legislation I'm not sure I really understand your original question.

 

The removal of the exclusivity clause of Zero hour contracts would potentially enable, for instance a factory production line worker to be employed on zero hour contracts by two factories in a way they couldn't at the moment. It would then, potentially, become a competition between the two employers to engage the worker in any given week, the worker would be employed and paid through one or both they wouldn't be self employed. They would though as I said almost become freelance temps operating between two or more employers in which potentially the employer that pays the most gets the worker in times of demand. They wouldn't be self employed or agency workers.

 

And there are thousands of self employed contractors/temps up and down the country engaged through agencies but that are paid through their own Limited companies.

 

 

I'm more pessimistic about it. It's not that banning exclusivity clauses is wrong - it clearly isn't - but employers won't find it hard to get around. If the employer calls me, and I tell him I'm working for someone else that day, he can simply tell me he won't be calling me again. If I feel that that is likely, then I won't be legally tied down by an exclusivity clause, but there'd be no practical change in my situation. 

 

 

But then, an employer like that is going to lose out when it comes to employing good people to other more reputable firms.  If you have someone who you know does a good job when they do come in and work, why would you cut your nose off to spite your face?  It's possible that they may give the person MORE hours to try to get them to turn down other contracts.  Despite the panic, zero hours works for a lot of people, employers and employees alike.

[drat01]

I think you use of the words "a lot" is very misleading.

 

Zero hours contracts certainly "helps" employers and maybe a few employees but it certainly is the minority of the latter

[Kingfisher]

Of course it's a small minority. If hundreds of people are applying for McDonalds jobs as the 'lucky one' who gets the job you're gonna have zero protection from a zero hour contract and your boss is left free to make your life miserable.

That's the reality of zero hours contracts for 99% of people who need regular full time work.

[Risso]

Of course it's a small minority. If hundreds of people are applying for McDonalds jobs as the 'lucky one' who gets the job you're gonna have zero protection from a zero hour contract and your boss is left free to make your life miserable.

That's the reality of zero hours contracts for 99% of people who need regular full time work.

 

McDonalds having being using zero hours contracts for 40 years, but it's a problem now all of a sudden?