Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Kingfisher]

Offices need cleaning, burgers need flipping, hotel beds need making. While there may be fluctuations in demand they're not so extreme that employers can't (with a modicum of foresight and planning) have better arrangements than having a group of people at their beck and call only to be paid when they are deemed necessary. Part time work, short term contracts and the like give workers at least a degree of certainty of income so they can plan their lives and their spending, try to improve their lot, get a better job, arrange childcare, sort out collecting kids from school and all the things which we would want.

Exactly. A modicum of foresight and planning trumps an exploited workforce. Therefore no need for a fudge, a total ban on zero hours should be brought in, no real losers, plenty to gain.

[snowychap]

Exactly. A modicum of foresight and planning trumps an exploited workforce. Therefore no need for a fudge, a total ban on zero hours should be brought in, no real losers, plenty to gain.

I have a great deal of sympathy for your view on the imbalance of power relationships in the labour market but the above is just a number of segues from soundbite to soundbite.

[Kingfisher]

Exactly. A modicum of foresight and planning trumps an exploited workforce. Therefore no need for a fudge, a total ban on zero hours should be brought in, no real losers, plenty to gain.

I have a great deal of sympathy for your view on the imbalance of power relationships in the labour market but the above is just a number of segues from soundbite to soundbite.

Ive not heard an alternative to a blanket ban, other than, 'it's fine - keep the status quo'. I'd like to hear a scenario where a zero hour contract is so unavoidable and vital to the greater good that it justifies the continued and potential exploitation of increasing numbers of workers. Edited July 1, 2014 by Kingfisher

[snowychap]

Ive not heard an alternative to a blanket ban, other than, 'it's fine - keep the status quo'.

Exactly. Get people into sustainable, meaningful and secure employment.

I think there's a problem with this - mainly that the 1950s and 1960s are behind us.

Zero hour contracts only work if both parties are flexible. If the flexibility is not viable for the employee then it's an unequal deal. The danger then is that employers start exploiting that situation, which I think will happen.

Zero hour contracts should be banned.

I very much agree with your first line but disagree with the second.

Introduce a basic income and the labour market could be based mostly on zero hours contracts as far as I'm concerned (indeed there may be an argument that those contracts may then largely favour the existing/potential employee - or, rather, the owner and supplier of the labour power).

Now, pooh-pooh it if you will, write it off as bonkers if you wish. come out with some cock about the 'real world' if you want but don't claim that you haven't heard of an alternative unless you want to suggest that you aren't paying the slightest **** little bit of attention to what other people also post in this thread.

[Kingfisher]

Ok, I propose if we all got paid in magic beans and planted them that we'd all live happily ever after, but as we're not let's see if we can find an alternative to zero hour contracts without going into fairy tales about basic incomes.

[TrentVilla]

Another policy from the Green Party manifesto?

[Kingfisher]

No theirs is to ban zh contracts.

The NHS is 66 on the 5th. It's a shame that the last 30+ years of government have been intent on destroying the envy of the world.

Without treatment, my prognosis is grim. We need to stop our politicians selling of our health to profiteering businessmen.

[bickster]

Exactly. A modicum of foresight and planning trumps an exploited workforce. Therefore no need for a fudge, a total ban on zero hours should be brought in, no real losers, plenty to gain.

I have a great deal of sympathy for your view on the imbalance of power relationships in the labour market but the above is just a number of segues from soundbite to soundbite.

Ive not heard an alternative to a blanket ban, other than, 'it's fine - keep the status quo'. I'd like to hear a scenario where a zero hour contract is so unavoidable and vital to the greater good that it justifies the continued and potential exploitation of increasing numbers of workers.

My missus is on a zero hours contract with the NHS, she works in a trusts "job bank", It suits her because she can pick and choose where and when she wants to work. Because she works in an organisation where there needs to be in-house training before you can do any job e.g. safeguarding of children, specific software plus CRB checks are required, they just can't hire anyone off the street, they need a pool of people to call on to cover holidays and sickness. It works for her and the organisation. Without zero hours contracts, those jobs wouldn't exist, they couldn't, people would just be off sick and those people on full time contracts would just have to cover for their colleagues when they were off, meaning work gets backlogged and eventually the trust begins to grind to a halt.

Prior to this the only alternative would be to hire agency staff, who the trust don't get to vet at short notice, for the clinical jobs, which costs the NHS a small fortune and the admin jobs don't get hired because no one has the checks or the training to be taken on at short notice.

Zero hours contracts can be a good thing. My missus was out of work for years due to illness and her new job has given her a great start back into the workplace, they can and do work well in certain circumstances for both parties. She's been doing this about 4 months and is already getting hints from management that she should consider applying for this job and that job or that a job thats right up her street for more money will be coming up in a few months etc.

It isn't zero hours contracts that are the problem, its the way certain companies use them to exploit their staff. Other companies and organisations use them to good effect for themselves AND the workforce.

A blanket ban on ZHC's would be wrong imo.

[bickster]

No theirs is to ban zh contracts.

The NHS is 66 on the 5th. It's a shame that the last 30+ years of government have been intent on destroying the envy of the world.

Without treatment, my prognosis is grim. We need to stop our politicians selling of our health to profiteering businessmen.

See my previous post above, the zhc's in the NHS actually create jobs and reduce the financial burden on the NHS of employing agency staff (who get paid more than those doing the same job and have agency fees on top). There is nothing to stop people being in more than one NHS job bank, people often are, the figures won't reflect that though because they will have one zhc for each trust they work for. In the nhs they do work for everyone's benefit

[Kingfisher]

Would a say, 10 hour contract not do the job? The only thing the hospital have to do is guarantee her her 10 hours. The only thing she has to do is work those 10 hours. Is that unworkable?

Edit- I see your point more clearly now. They need to bring qualified staff in for perhaps a day or a week.

Within the NHS are there no qualified staff available to cover from other depts?

Edited July 2, 2014 by Kingfisher

[ender4]

My wife effectively works with a zero-hours contract, as a locum.

 

The company sends out a list of days/hours available at different sites, my wife scans down the list and picks the odd day here and there that she'd like to work (based on childcare considerations).

Some weeks she'll work 3 days in a week, other weeks zero days.

 

It gives us great flexibility and works very well for her and us as a family with 2 small kids. 

[TrentVilla]

My missus is on a zero hours contract with the NHS, she works in a trusts "job bank", It suits her because she can pick and choose where and when she wants to work. Because she works in an organisation where there needs to be in-house training before you can do any job e.g. safeguarding of children, specific software plus CRB checks are required, they just can't hire anyone off the street, they need a pool of people to call on to cover holidays and sickness. It works for her and the organisation. Without zero hours contracts, those jobs wouldn't exist, they couldn't, people would just be off sick and those people on full time contracts would just have to cover for their colleagues when they were off, meaning work gets backlogged and eventually the trust begins to grind to a halt.

Prior to this the only alternative would be to hire agency staff, who the trust don't get to vet at short notice, for the clinical jobs, which costs the NHS a small fortune and the admin jobs don't get hired because no one has the checks or the training to be taken on at short notice.

Zero hours contracts can be a good thing. My missus was out of work for years due to illness and her new job has given her a great start back into the workplace, they can and do work well in certain circumstances for both parties. She's been doing this about 4 months and is already getting hints from management that she should consider applying for this job and that job or that a job thats right up her street for more money will be coming up in a few months etc.

It isn't zero hours contracts that are the problem, its the way certain companies use them to exploit their staff. Other companies and organisations use them to good effect for themselves AND the workforce.

A blanket ban on ZHC's would be wrong imo.

 

 

Excellent post.

[Kingfisher]

Of course, you'll get the odd example of how it works for some, but the downside is all too great a price to pay. Most of aren't in a position where they can pick or choose how many hours they want. Oh I don't think I'll work this week, I wish!! Most zero hour contracts are for low pay jobs.

[snowychap]

Ok, I propose if we all got paid in magic beans and planted them that we'd all live happily ever after, but as we're not let's see if we can find an alternative to zero hour contracts without going into fairy tales about basic incomes.

I am not surprised that you chose the some cock about the 'real world' option.

Don't half (or more) of your political broadcasts on here suggest you have a leaning towards supporting the green party?

They seem to be very interested in basic income/citizens' income schemes.

 

link

The following is a transcription of a speech Barb Jacobson gave at the Green Party Conference in Liverpool, on 1st March, 2014.

Barb Jacobson, Basic Income UK

First of all I’d like to give my thanks to Keith Taylor for inviting me to speak at this meeting, and my congratulations to the Green Party for deciding to put more emphasis on its commitment to citizens income. It could not come at a better time.

The European Citizens Initiative for Unconditional Basic Income ran from 14 January 2013 to 14 January 2014. Despite problems at the beginning, to do with how ECIs have been set up by the EC, which meant that we couldn’t start collecting signatures until over two months later; despite the fact that there was no funded organisation behind it – the countries involved went from 13 to 25, and we collected the support of over 287,000 people throughout Europe. As momentum built, in the two last months the Europe-wide signatures doubled, and we doubled the number of signatures from the UK over the last two weeks of the ECI. I’m also happy to say that 34 MEPs, including both UK Green MEPs: Keith, here, and Jean Lambert, signed a statement in support of this ECI last November.

...

Yadda yadda...I'm not listening...magic beans...Tories cleaning up the mess.

Edited July 2, 2014 by snowychap

[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. 

 

 

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.

 

 

Sorry for raising an old conversation, hadn't seen the reply. That situation doesn't seem likely to me. Zero hours contracts, of the kind that are affecting 'factory production line workers', exist because of the balance of power in the labour market. Capital is radically stronger than labour in the current western economy. Kingfisher has a slight point about the reality of life for many on zero-hours contracts being one of total job insecurity. The problem is that, as evidenced above, those who are educated to a level higher than unskilled or semi-skilled manual labour are often quite happy with zero-hours contracts, as is entirely their right. 

 

The bottom line is that attacking zero hours contracts is ultimately a technocratic attempt to micromanage a bigger problem. It's attacking the symptom, not the cause. 

[snowychap]

The thing that finally broke feudal serfdom in this country was the black death.

I'm not so sure that various different incarnations of feudalism and serfdom don't still exist today.

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

The thing that finally broke feudal serfdom in this country was the black death.

I'm not so sure that various different incarnations of feudalism and serfdom don't still exist today.

 

spot on serfs and slaves are expensive to keep and look after, far better to tell them they are free and introduce a system where they effectively to all intent are still slaves or serfs but are now responsible for meeting the cost of their own upkeep. Some may do quite well relatively under this system, they will even self regulate to quiet any voice that questions the system, the best slave or serf after all would be one who not only believes he is free, but will vehemently argue against any one who questions the belief they hold in their freedom.

[lp_villa830]

What is freedom?

[mockingbird_franklin]

What is freedom?

currently, an illusion?

Edited July 6, 2014 by mockingbird_franklin

[lp_villa830]

That may be true but without a definition what are you comparing the current too.

 

In your ideal world how would freedom work/what would it be?