To be amazed by the amount of people who think the state shouldnt help people?(334 Posts)
I mean with job creation, welfare, regulation of private employers etc.
I hear so many times...its not the state's job to do x, y and z.
So what is the point of gaving a state if it cannot produce conditions for people to thrive?
Of course some take the piss but the state shouldctry to peovide more jobs and less zero hour contracts, they should regulate how the private sector treats employees, they should moderate wages anf provide housing.
Of course, some take the piss but most have a genuine need and the state dosnt want to know.
My DS has worked on zero hours contracts most of the time since he was 18. He has ASD and it has suited him very well to pick and choose when to work, and who to work for. It has also given him the chance to take further courses in his chosen field. He is currently on a four week course which he is financing himself, and working two days a week to help with his expenses.
However he is single, lives at home and his main expense is his car. His hourly rate is between £10 and £12 and he often works more than 12 hours in a day because of the nature of the work.
All that is fine if you are young, single and live with your parents. It also gives him time to de-stress if he needs to by taking days off.
However this would not work for someone with rent to pay, and certainly not for someone with children.
It also depends on the nature of the work and how many others are available for the work.
DS is about to make a career change to an employed role because he can see that continuing to work this way will not work long term.
I did a zero hour contract as a carer. I would turn up for shifts only to find they had been cancelled....so no money. Impossible to budget. My agency owners lived in a very plush house but they were cowboys.
This shift cancellation happened in supply teaching too. Not stable at all.
As a SAHM who can survive on DHs wage a zero hours job might be a practical way to provide us with some pocket money and allow me to cover school holidays but unless either very well paid or in demand it would be a very stressful existence for a breadwinner.
What's concerning is how zero hours jobs are replacing what would have been proper permanent jobs.
Brilliantidiot Actually for some work she does work in hospitality.
But not the type you are describing. You are describing working for a particular business where as Dd works for many actual businesses who book through an agency and dd is on a few of these type of agency books.
If you are rostered on it is for the whole day at a particular event. Whether that be someones wedding or a corporate event.
No one really leaves early unless the clientele have gone home early and the event has finished early and everything has been packed away and your wage is still covered because the agency have taken the booking and the client has booked for and paid for a particular time.
Dd has a business in another completely different area and whilst she is establishing herself then this has been good money and very flexible.
Although she does work with people who do this ft who do have children.
Dd works for many actual businesses who book through an agency and dd is on a few of these type of agency books.
Well there's your difference, a zero hours contract through an agency. I did that, and you are different venues a lot, great for experience and as you say, the wage is always covered.
In business such as I'm referencing, the only agency we employ are chefs, because you need the qualifications/experience. Agencies tend to cover things that need a large amount of staff for a one off. Yes there's several of those one offs. But it's not a feasible life for anyone with a family.
Now other businesses have adopted the zero hours model, ones that used to give contracts for set hours, because they've realised that they can cut costs by passing on the fluctuating business to staff.
This from @Snuggybuggy says it perfectly -
What's concerning is how zero hours jobs are replacing what would have been proper permanent jobs.
Someone who had set hours and therefore a set wage protected by a contract, now doesn't.
But I am saying it is feasible for life with a family because Dd works with people who do have families and are the main or sole bread winner.
Nurses do 12 hour shifts 3 times per week for around £23-24000. Which is then taxed. With very little that can be put against it to reduce the tax bill.
If Dd worked 3x 12 hour shifts each week she would come out with more. Out of that she can put down how much she spent on getting to and from work and parking and gets lunch and dinner provided. A lot of those with families do more shifts per week or do a short shift or don’t have work on the days that they go and see their dc in the school play.
The flexibility is what appeals to a lot of people.
However the only downside is because dd is self employed this would not cover maternity or sickness or pension so she is ploughing her savings into investments that will cover these if and when she needs them.
If you can say a nurse is able to run a family out of their salary then someone earning more is definitely going to.
Zero hours contracts done right have their place.
Take them away and it would mean a lot of people who like them not being able to work.
There have always been seasonal jobs, agencies and temping, it's not inherently bad it's just concerning how widespread it's become.
My DDad was made redundant several years ago now and was actually pretty broad minded about what sort of work he was prepared to do even if it involved training but was pretty disappointed at how many jobs were now zero hours or "employed on a self employed basis" which he referred to as the shit parts of working for someone and the shit parts of working for yourself.
I obviously can only speak for me but the reason I can't do agency work is majorly down to the travel, no where around here uses agency staff, except as I mentioned, chefs. I often travelled miles to reach a venue, and sat at the train station from 4am until the first one at 6am to get home. That was fine when I didn't have childcare to consider. Will be fine again soon when I don't have childcare to consider.
The point is though that that's how agencies work, and what you sign up for. If you need a job with set hours, and therefore a set wage, in hospitality, retail and as it's seen here also in care, they're increasingly unavailable. The option is to take a job where you don't know what you're working or earning from one day to the next. The only winners there are the business, they get to pass on their income shortfall to the staff. Add to that that people have to take these jobs, there's no choice, the jobs are minimum wage too. And the government make up the shortfall. I don't think it's unreasonable to want a job where you know what you're working and going to get paid when you have outgoings that must be paid.
A friend of mine was told to apply for a job recently that offers 4 hours a week, more as the business needs. The 4 hours won't even cover travel, let alone childcare. She'll get help with childcare, and probably end up costing more than she does now, and be counted as employed for statistics. What earthly use is that?
Yes, if you ban them some people will suffer, but there needs to be a level playing field here, people who work ft shouldn't need top ups, but because the cost of living outstrips the wages they do. The people in this situation aren't the ones who can change that. The government and the people paying the wages are the ones that can change that. People who are employed not by an agency should have contracts that promise to fulfill certain hours, and certain wages. Maybe zero hours contracts need to be for agencies only? Then static employers can't take advantage of them.
Brilliantidiot so you can see that not all zero hours contracts are dreadful.
Your experience is so far removed from dds (including taxi if start is before 6am or finish is after I think 3am, I know it is the early hours of the morning because they are aware that trains stop running and want everyone home safe)
This is for everyone from waiting staff to the managers of an event.
Dd knows months in advance where she will be working. I don’t think she has ever had a cancellation. If something comes up and she needs to cancel then as long as she gives 72hours notice so they can readvertise it there is no issue.
Dd only works for various agencies. She did once go to an interview for a company (not hospitality) that said it offered flexible working but during the interview Dd was told that she would have to give up working for any other place.
The wages were terrible and the expectation was when they said jump you ran into work regardless
The interviewer was very surprised when Dd turned the job down because she was earning more elsewhere than this job could ever pay.
Dd was 17 at the time and had been working for years.
She thinks they took a look at her age and thought she was too young and too afraid to say no or be in awe of being offered a job that she would say yes.
Dd likes to book her shifts in advance and has other stuff going on other than hospitality. So prefers to get everything in place then if anything comes up that is for her business then she can drop shifts in good time.
This type of zero hours contracts work well for her.
If they weren’t there then Dd would be probably signing on as would a lot of people she works with as they all prefer the flexibility that these type of zero hours contracts give as they all have either children that they like to be able to go to the Christmas Carol service or be able to drop and collect from school a few day per week or a business they are starting to get off the ground or are actors/singers/dancers who need that sort of flexibility for auditions and work.
For them this type of work suits them.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Get started »
Please login first.