To think Jeremy Paxton

[Iliveinalighthousewiththeghost]

Is a nasty piece of work. Didn't see the necessity in him saying to Ed Miliband people see you as a Geek! What's that got to do with him running the country. Hate personal insults
I thought Ed did very well. He already has my vote as I am strong labour supporter.

But why use zero hours if you have permanent work? Also I don't think all employers recognise the emolument rights are acquired. My dp had a hell of a job and this is a big company with a reputation as a good employer to uphold. My question is, if you have permanent work why not give permanent contracts? (genuine question)

If a politician can't cope with Paxo how is (s)he going to cope with world leaders?

In the case of the company I worked for we used them because the business was heavily weather/school holidays/bank holiday dependent and we found it better for everyone than the other practice of sending people home when the business levels weren't there.

Exactly Silverfinger.

Can you imagine Ed sitting at a table with Barack Obama and thrashing out foreign policy?

That's my point. Your business needed a flexible workforce. But Companies use them when they don't need to as in my examples. But why? There has to be a benefit to the employer. It did allow companies to subvert employment rights. As in my dp's case, the employer kept repeating you are zero hours you don't have those rights. He had to keep pushing and researched case law on the web. He has no qualifications but luckily he is quite clever and was able to do it.

Its the subject of a separate thread really Stillearnin but there may be some situations where people are told they have no employment rights when they do. But this is the same as those people who are on fixed term contracts for more than two years who are told that when it comes to an end they have no employment rights and those people who are told they must retire at 60. There will always be some employers who don't do things properly. But the issue isn't the zero hours contracts, its the fact that the employment rights of the individuals are to clear.

I suspect the workforce of somewhere like wetherspoons has a high turnover because its made up of students and younger people etc. In which case the company probably wants a big bank of employees to draw upon because not everyone will be free all the time to take the shift. Wetherspoons could operate a bank of workers or they could use agency workers, they will prefer a bank so that they stand more chance of some degree of regularity with the staff.

The issue is that some people don't seem to be clear that they are just in a bank of casuals. If they are good and reliable they will get called a lot and given shifts, if not then they won't. But they are always free to work elsewhere. If the contract is such that it doesn't guarantee any hours but also says you can't work elsewhere then that's a contract nobody should be entering into - you'd be foolish to restrict yourself like that with no guarantee of work whether its via an agency or directly with the business.

Removing zero hours contracts would simply push everyone through agencies (in which case they'll earn less) plus it will cause real issues for the agencies themselves.

And I completely disagree with Laurie regarding judging a party on the figureheads.

The figureheads are hugely important and regardless of policies, the strength of any organisation is influenced by the strength of the leader. Perception of our Government counts for a LOT where other Countries are concerned.

And dear old Ed is not a strong man.

"are not clear"

Sorry to bang on! It's the use of zero hours people object to. And talking as if they are all used to meet fluctuating business demands or as if all people easily have rights recognised does not help. This is what Cameron did last night. He talked about employees wanting flexibility. But ignored that people are saying that mostly they don't - they want proper contracts.

As we learnt from last night there is no need to personalise it Dawn, particularly when you have no idea of my circumstances. I have no job security, I am not an employee. As a former partner of a law firm I had zero employment rights since I was not an employee. I am now self employed so have not one jot of job security. If my clients all up and leave tomorrow I have no income.

Besides - what "would be nice' has never and will never match what is realistic and achievable in a society with limited resources - but again that is a different thread about utopian society.

No still, not all employers are good employers, not all employers even know the law themselves (in fact many don't) but again, the ability to use casual workers is not the problem in itself, that's about employers not knowing the law.

I agree with ComposHatComesBack I think this overly aggressive adversarial style of interview just feeds into the problem where politicians come out with nothing but banal platitudes and you never get anything more than superficial bickering. No probing into the complexities of the situation and actually probing a politician's views.

It's certainly satisfying to see a politician you dislike getting ripped to shreds but it stifles intelligent debate.

atticusclaw, the problem is (mainly) exclusive zero hours contracts, whether stated explicitly in the contract or de facto - ie if you can't start a random shift with a couple of hours notice, you get sacked.

The benefit to the employer is that the employee takes the financial hit, not them, in slow periods, and has to figure out how to pay their bills and eat on a fraction of the money they would normally earn.

And, obviously, the benefits system isn't set up to deal with this sort of thing.

I understand boulevard but unfortunately thats the nature of casual work. If you can't do the casual shift when you're asked to do it, the company (in some cases) is less likely to use you again and is more likely to use that person who is always available.

Part of the problem is people don't realise they are just casual workers. The other part is bad employers. But you will always get bad employers.

If the political issue was "misuse of exclusivity clauses in zero hours contracts" then I suspect the political stance might be different from all parties since you could easily make it unlawful to have an exclusivity clause in a casual/zero hours contract (well as easily as you can pass any other bit of legislation!) but the media has hyped it up into "zero hours contracts are all bad nobody knows what their hours will be" which leaves many going .

I think people do realise they are casual workers, don't they? It's the insecurity that can cause issues if one would prefer stability.

I can't stand him.

I really don't like that over aggressive style of interviewing. I was watching something a little while ago, he kept interrupting and shrieking "just answer the question", except every time the person opened their mouth he kept interrupting. Shut up for 2 minutes and let them speak.

I hate him on university Challenge too. He sounds so imperious when they get the answer wrong. Yeah, clever dick, who's got the answer written on a card in front of them?

Paxman is a twat.

I haven't forgotten his question to Gordon Brown last time, "Why does nobody like you?" -well he was wrong-I know quite a lot of people who like Gordon Brown-including me.
Also to Cameron "You're a man on a roll"-well he didn't win an outright majority.
Main thing though is that Paxman shuts down any proper debate that may reveal something to the electorate by his over aggressive interruptions.
We are more interested in policies and how they will affect us than whether someone looks like a geek.
Paxman did poor interviews of both Cameron and Milliband.

Realising your part of a casual workforce does not help when that is predominantly what is on offer though (in your area or sector). It also allows all governments to massage the figures (as they always have I know). Job creation meaning lots of piddly contracts that stuff your welfare support up is not good for the population (but it's only certain parts of the population)

EM did keep trying to dodge the question by changing the question though. Every time he would say "I'm not going to answer x but if you're asking me y" "No I'm not asking you y - so your position is that you won't answer x?"

He was pushed and he couldn't deliver answers other than "I have some ideas but I'm not in power and so I don't have to know the detail of how I'll deliver."

He's being badly advised, he has a very poor public image and so would be better off reverting to "we" and bringing this back to "what will labour do" rather than "is Ed weak, untrustworthy (even as regards his own family) and ineffectual"

I agree drudge (and also enjoying your nn). I like paxman generally but then he comes out with stupid questions generalising what 'people' think. I always think 'how do you know that?'.

I'm not a labour supporter but hated seeing millliband laughed at over paxman's gratuitous insults, very shabby.

Atticusclaw that is bullshit for so many jobs.
Often places offer 0 hours contracts only! It's not that they don't have permanent roles for anyone it's that they want all their staff disposable.
And then they give you full time hours most of the time which you do have to accept or they'll find ways to get rid of you! In practice it's entirely one way beneficial to the company and the employee has no security.

Jeremy Paxton is a nasty piece of work
and
Hate personal insults

These two statements in the same post, OP?

Well I love a bit of Paxman. Nice to see a politician blanch and quake.

I quite fancy him. Although he does look a bit like a proboscis monkey.