Zero hours contracts. Do they work for you?

[OCSockOrphanage]

lk/amibeing_unreasonable?call=NewConversationPage

I hope the link works. I am posting because our business has a couple of people on zero hours contracts. One is retired with two pensions but still likes to top up (it pays for extras) and the other has another zero hours job but wants the flexibility to be able to travel to kickstart his second (art-related) career. Both are being paid the full going rate (well over nmw) for the hours they give us, and we value their work, but neither has sick or holiday pay. Where do you all believe exploitation begins?

I travelled to a meeting with a guy at my old workplace and we chatted about his zero hours contract. He was really happy with it. He had his own business and my firm used him as a consultant on an ad-hoc basis, so he couldn't have been a traditional employee. I suppose there are a million ways to have that kind of flexible relationship but he was certainly happy with the zero hours set-up.

He wasn't in a vulnerable position though, and would have been fine if we had stopped using his services. I think that makes all the difference.

I think it totally depends on what the hourly rate actually is. I'm a lawyer. Much of my work is on an hourly rate and when on hourly rate, my clients could discontinue use of my services at any time without notice. Rates in my area though aren't just "above"NMW, they are well above. So minimum hour contracts cover a huge range....

I have a zero hour contract I specifically requested.

But I only want to work a few hours a week maximum around my disabled children's needs to satisfy my own need to work and don't mind not having any work some weeks. It also allows me the freedom to freelance alittle on the side, for my hobbie turned income, and I have no guilt if my children's medical needs mean I cancel shifts at the last minute.

I expect I am the rare exception and for most people zero hour contracts are exploitation but this genuinely suits my current life circumstances.

I am on a zero-hours contract. I'm a student midwife so my hours are all over the place (I'm expected to follow my mentor's hours when on placement so I do long days, nights, weekends with no pattern) and I get a bursary - the money I make in my job just tops me up.

I have a husband, kids and mortgage.

I love my zero-hours contract, genuinely. I suppose I'm another rare exception. I earn over double minimum wage for what I do, and can stop whenever I like. There's more work available which my employer would like me to do, but I can't fit any more hours in, and they're fine with that.

If zero hours contracts are essentially the equivalent of somebody being self employed, then they are not necessarily exploitative (although the rise in their use means that many people who would prefer the security of regular employment are being forced into this situation rather than choosing it).

However, I think they definitely cross the line into being exploitative when they prevent somebody from using their skills to earn money from another job or client, because s/he is expected to be available at the whim of the zero hours contract employer even though there is no guarantee of work.

I don't think they should be banned completely, but in the situation you describe those jobs wouldn't really be lost, would they? If you need those workers, you would find a way to employ them legally.

The contract with them is legal already. This week is quiet, everyone employed FT has been sent off early, on full pay, to play golf or do whatever they fancy. Next week, new contracts get started.

None of our regular people are "vulnerable" and none are abused or bullied into doing work they don't want. We deal with other companies whose staff are treated less fairly, and they do backdoor deals. For example, on off-site contracts one firm's staff agree accommodation prices with their landlords to grant themselves a hotel rate that includes all their bevvies, and piss it up while they are away. Our staff don't take advantage although at the end of the job, we expect them to have a few, especially if it's been hard or hot. We provide vehicles and a fuel allowance card service which they can use for commuting and their own use, within reason.

The more I read on here, the more I think we overdo our efforts to play it fair and square. I know some posters think all employers are abusive; can no one accept that some work hard too and are fair? It may be rare. I am not dripping diamonds and minks!

I have a job with a zero hours contract. It enables me to work more in the winter when there's nothing to do and work less in the summer when I can persur my hobby. My employer has never said no to any requests to not work (I word it like this "I'm not free on x date so you will have to get someone else to work that day".

Everyone who is self-employed is effectively working zero guaranteed hrs. They seem to manage. I suppose they get better tax breaks (NI etc) than conventional ZH contractors.

I had a zero-hrs contract for 4+ yrs when I was a student at university (abroad). It suited me perfectly.

I think I'd be fine with one now, too (much older, family, etc, but do have a partner on similar employment terms).

Everyone who is self-employed is effectively working zero guaranteed hrs. They seem to manage.

It's nothing like being self employed. The self employed can work when they want, on 0 hours you arent guarenteed any work.

(and I'm a fan of 0hrs contacts, they allowed me to keep a foot in the workplace while my babies were young without having to go back to work FT, and helped me keep my CV looking pretty!)

My ZH contract was not exclusive & didn't tie me down to hrs I didn't agree to. I agree that ZH contract that don't let you work for anyone else or require someone to always say yes to whatever they are offered are a bad thing. But I don't see why they should be required to offer specific no. of hrs, either.

I do come from another country where ZH set ups have been normal since start of time.

If your business needs zero hours contracts to make money then your business model requires improvement.

If your business needs zero hours contracts to make money then your business model requires improvement.

If your business needs zero hours contracts to make money then your business model requires improvement

Not all businesses are a steady stream of work, the very nature of some fields is that work can come in bursts then be quieter for a while

Some places only use their 0 hours staff for sickness cover etc

It's a good model, it's just been abused by too many firms who are using it in place of FT contracts instead of as well as

Groupie it doesn't. If you had bothered to RTFT you would see that.

Or even a small section of the thread. Please don't post because your knee jerks, unless you have a thought to offer to the debate.

It seems there are plenty of people on ZH contracts who prefer them for all sorts of reasons... To brand them as purely exploitative and needing banning is wrong.

It would be a bit like banning night shifts because some people legitimately can't manage them because they have families.

The answer is surely to stop excesses and provide protections, and develop an economy that supports stable employment, not that ZHC should be banned entirely!

To those who believe they should be banned, what would be acceptable... minimum hours contracts? (Eg min of 10 hours per week). Is part-time work ok? Even if it's only for a few hours?

I loved my 0 hours contract when at uni. I certainly don't think they should be outlawed, I could pick up shifts when I wanted and not work when I didn't. But I can see how they get abused.

I'm on zero hours and I like it,
But, it's a second job,
First job is a set 22hours, second job is zero hours
I get to pick and choose any shifts I want or need, gives me extra money or time off when I need it, I do earn holiday pay.
I enjoy doing 2 different jobs, works for me

My thought as someone who gave business advice for years, is that zero hours contracts should never be used on a permanent basis. There are alternatives. Business clan even sums them up quite nicely here www.businessclan.com/blog/zero-hours-contracts

The microbusinesses I still work with distinguish their services in a number of ways but ethics is one of the biggest reasons why their customers choose them over big name alternatives. Term time contracts, weekend contracts, fixed hours contracts (with overtime for hours worked beyond), can all used. But I guess you know all of this already as you bitched me out.

PROPERLY used, ZH can work for lots of people as well as the businesses that employ them.

No malign intention here, hand on heart. Sometimes, an almost forgotten trick from an old buffer can be the solution to a very live issue. Preserving skills is seriously valuable, Loss of institutional memory is going to be much harder in the future for manufacturing when no one knows how a problem used to be overcome.

coco this forum is hardly representative of society. I haven't noticed many warehouse or retail workers etc on nmw posting about how well they fit in with paid childcare, tax credits, housing benefit, paying for food and bills etc when they have no steady income coming in too.

Zero hours are responsible for a lot of misery at the bottom end of the market.

It's a bit like brexit really. The better off gain, the worst off take the negative impact. Whilst having their reasoning ignored and labeled as racists. With zh it's the same thing, except they're called lazy benefit scroungers whilst conveniently ignoring why exactly they can't/won't just get a job. So just like the problems with Eu membership were ignored till it became either/or, I can see zh becoming a choice between the status quo and an outright ban.

I have worked for a company on a zero hours contract. They were a business that was very heavy on hours in the summer (staffed from 7 or 8am to 10 or 11 pm) and very few in the winter (6 till 10 or 11 pm). Some weeks there would be virtually no hours.

If the business had employed staff during the winter it would have had to put prices up and it was already an expensive place to go. Having seen the P&L sheets I know that it would have hit the business.

The business was open and honest. If there was no customer paying business in the winter they would try and find jobs around the place for the 6-8 staff that needed full time hours. The staff all
got holiday and sick pay,

It was flexible and no-one ever seemed to have a problem with it.

My thought as someone who gave business advice for years, is that zero hours contracts should never be used on a permanent basis

Had the place I worked on a 0 hours contract when my babies were little tried to put me on a permanant contract after X months, I would have left!

One of the benefits for me was working less (sometimes not at all for a few weeks) during the sleepless nights phases (teething, bugs, separation anxiety) and working more when it suited me

I had a 0 hours contract with them for years, sometimes doing full time hours, at other times working only once a month.

I kept up to date, and now that it suits me I've chosen to go onto a permanent contract with them.

They wouldn't have retained me had I not been allowed a long term 0 hours contract.

I didn't replace any permanant posts, I covered extra pressures and sickness.

The self employed can work when they want, on 0 hours you arent guarenteed any work

Well, self employed people can actually only work when they have the contracts - that doesn't necessarily equate to "when they want". They are often very unwilling to turn down work even when they are overwhelmed as they can't afford to risk losing not only that contract, but the recommendations or repeat business. It's not so straight forward, just as ZHCs aren't.

this forum is hardly representative of society. I haven't noticed many warehouse or retail workers etc on nmw posting about how well they fit in with paid childcare, tax credits, housing benefit, paying for food and bills etc when they have no steady income coming in too

That's very true - I think this thought on many a thread about all sorts of topics on here, however, I will also add that those who are least qualified / most in need of work are also those that are most likely to be treated poorly by unscrupulous employers whether zero hours contracts are a 'thing' or not.

As I said before, the problem isn't ZHCs, it is unscrupulous employers.