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?

CSockOrphanage I wasn't saying that you weren't employing people legally. I was making the point that IF the law changed, then you would probably find a way to employ them that was legal under those new, hypothetical laws iyswim.
Not was I demonising employers in general, or suggesting that you weren't a good employer. I am sure that many employers are really fair about the way they use zhc, and like I said it is a complicated picture, and the risk of exploitation increases when workers are lower skilled and more replaceable. Which is not the situation you describe in your business.

My point was that we should not rely on all employers doing the right thing in order to protect employees. No matter how nice some employers are, you cannot replace good working regulations with blindly trusting employers. Because many will exploit employees, if they can, and many will abuse a loophole, if they can. A few employers (not you) will do whatever they can get away with, and will probably be able to undercut the prices of the good employers in the process. That is why we need working regulations that are fit for purpose in the modern age.

Zero hour contracts suit a tiny minority of people.
Basically it is a way of an employer to maximise their profits at the expense of people who desperately need a job.
I get sick to death of my right wing family members defending this practice.

It is time that this was stopped.

I have a zero hour contract. I get holiday pay included in my monthly pay.

It works for me as I can say no. The only downfall is it isn't great for a mortgage.

Thanks Squishy, . I completely share the concern that unscrupulous employers abuse people who are powerless and have few other choices, and agree that good regulation properly framed would eradicate much of the problem. Permanent work with regular hours or lengthy contracts shouldn't operate on ZHCs, but I'm not optimistic. Tuesday's You and Yours R4 phone-in was on the same topic (why I started the thread) and an IT contractor phoned to say that the certain government departments are just as guilty of treating ZH staff unfairly as private companies. However, with my small business hat on, could I make a plea for a light administrative requirement?

Warehouses and retailers, in particular, seem to exploit their lower-paid lower-skilled staff. I read yesterday about a woman who earned under £200 for 90 hours (happily, she received justice and was awarded compensation and costs).

I don't know if this counts but DH works for a company (magazine) but he is considered freelance so he is paid for what he writes rather than a salary. Some people there are freelance and some have a salary. He gets less than NMW and I hate it.

Like I said earlier on the thread, there will be a way that suits most people, it is much more nuanced than a choice between 100% ban, or allowing the current situation to continue. Trouble is, coming up with a solution that protects vulnerable workers, allows flexibility for those workers who gain from zhc, and does not overload businesses (especiallys SMEs) with an unacceptable administrative burden will require expertise, effort, time and, most importantly, political will.

Zero hour contracts suit a tiny minority of people.

What evidence do you base this on? Based on this thread it seems to suit the majority! I'm not saying that reform isn't needed - it is - but a "ban ZHC completely" is throwing baby out with bathwater. Many employers are crap, but many aren't, and this attitude that employers are by their nature exploitative isn't helpful or accurate.

I should have said "based on this thread alone". Of course, this isn't representative sample, but it's no less valid than simply stating "ZHC only suit a small minority" without any evidence to support it.

elliejjtiny so your husband is self employed and earning less than minimum wage? He needs to put his rates up in that case

He is technically self employed but he works mainly for one company who pay him the amount they decide, same as if he had a job with a salary and contract. He's listed as one of the staff but he and most of the others are registered as self employed so they get the worst of both worlds. Sorry to be a bit cryptic, I don't want to out myself and risk his job.

That's illegal. He can report them and if proven they have to pay him all the missing employee benefits back that they owe him. Happened to a friend of mine, he got thousands from the company because they forced him to be self employed but also enforced enough terms and conditions that made him a de facto employee.

I was a self employed copywriter in a previous existence and must acknowledge that the ground rules have changed completely. It's one of the reasons I'm not now (the other is age). When I was freelancing, I took contracts on the basis of £x to first draft based on an estimate of hours needed; 50% paid upfront as I started, and the client either rejected it or paid me to change and correct until passed for publication. My day rate in the 1990s averaged about £300 per diem plus travel (no sick pay, no holiday, no benefits, no pension contribution, which is why the day rate looks high - I met those costs). I worked flat out (12-16 hours daily sometimes) for eight months a year and took the summer off. Now, I look at what's being offered and £200 per day is regarded as good. Once you factor in inflation, it's not a professional income anymore.

To the poster whose DH is getting ripped off exploited, the rule to charging as a freelance is that you take what you were earning in your last paid job in the same work, work out the day rate, then double it. That's the minimum freelance rate you take. If you have more work than you can do, you put your rate up. Good, talented people choke off the work they don't want, or charge so much it's worth doing.

neither has sick or holiday pay

What does this mean?

People on zero hours contracts are legally employees and are entitled to both of these. Do you understand your obligations under employment law?

I think I clarified upthread that we are in fact fulfilling those obligations, and that I was wrong in the original post, just to save you having to RTFT!

It works for me, although my contact is a bank contract, but its still zero hours.

It means I only have to take work that fits around my other commitments. I feel like I'm in control, which I know is missing in a lot of zero hours contracts.

I think I clarified upthread that we are in fact fulfilling those obligations, and that I was wrong in the original post

No, not that I can see having RTFT for the second time. You said you were going to check though I think?

I checked, and we are. Must have been distracted!

I think that this sort of contract is so easily exploitative that it should be abolished. I do understand the other side of the argument too. However, in most cases it is possible to plan for for many staff you will need and when, therefore you could offer a fixed contract with known hours and pro rater benefits. On the odd occasion you need more cover staff then call around and offers a premium rate. It's a question of what sort of society you want to live in. Low commitment employment types will always proliferate if tolerated, the shop worker without a voice today, you/me and everyone else tomorrow.