Zero hour contracts

[NewRug]

Sorry because this is going to be very provocative I know, but what's the deal with the hatred towards zero hours contracts?

I can post some links to support this but I think it's quite well known, it's only the MPs that are falling out other this, in fact most people WANT zero hours?

As much as 80% of the zero hour workforce..

Surely it would be much better to campaign for the right to choose a fixed weekly hours alongside zero hour contractors. And if you need more hours work, you have what's left over after the zeros have been considered?

I asked my OH (we are polar opposites on the politics spectrum) and in a nutshell he said that zero hours is wrong for people, and most people don't know what they want.

I am perplexed by the whole argument. I understand that 20% might want fixed hours, but to say zero hours is shit, considering it's what most people want is not helpful!

Are you on zero hours yourself?

No I am self employed

My university student son is on a zero hours contract. It works really well for him. He's at a local university although he lives in student accommodation during term time but he comes home on Friday afternoons and works a shift, works on Saturday and then goes back to his halls after work. During university holidays he's able to increase his hours to full time.

I can see why people would want fixed hours but for students they can work brilliantly.

I think they suit people like students, those looking for casual work etc - but what about people with families/bills to pay? You have no concept of how much income you'll make week to week, month to month etc. One week you might work 45 hours, but the next 1-2. Not exactly ideal when it comes to paying bills/supporting DC.

Additionally because you don't know how much you'll make, you can't turn down shifts as you dont know when your next one will be. This means its almost impossible to make plans outside of work.

Also, landlords/banks want proof of income to secure tenancies/mortgages etc - how can you do that when you're income isn't fixed/guaranteed?

Finally, those type of contracts often mean you aren't eligible for holiday/sick pay/pensions etc from your employer. Great for them, not so much for the employee.

In theory it's nice for those who only need the jobs for extra cash etc, but a nightmare for anyone with wider responsibilities.

Thw issue is that you don't know what you're doing one week till the next so you struggle with childcare, appointments, budgeting. It's especially bad where employers put you on a rota without checking your availability then expect you to find someone else to cover your shift.

Is rather have job security. I'm lucky to have a regular set off hours and decent boss but know it could just stop next week and I'd rather it didn't.

We've just applied for a remortgage and I couldn't include my income, only DH's.

The problem with zero hour contracts is that some companies abuse them in order to reduce workers rights.

But I agree, in a previous workplace we struggled to move zero hour workers onto contracted hours. A very small percentage of the workers wanted them.

Nightmare unless you're happy with casual hours. You can work 40 hours one week,10 the next. Not great as most are minimum wage, meaning it's hard to put money aside for a lean week. Can't take on another part time job, as you've not got set hours. I work alongside local gov't benefits department. If you're claiming UC, tax credits, housing benefit or council tax support it's difficult to stay on top of entitlement as it's changes constantly.

If you have any responsibilities at all, they're a terrible idea. They're also part of the increased casualisation of labour, where all the onus of flexibility is on the employee. Bloody 'gig economy'.

I found mine useful, but they were understaffed and I had childcare at 2 weeks notice so every couple of months we worked out the days I was happy to work over the next few weeks. If none of the bank staff coukd work then one of the regulars did overtime, but they get exhausted doing too much. Possibly worked well for me as there seemed to be lots of sickness...And, like other people said we were used to paying bills without me having any income and so mine was 'extra money.' It wouldn't have been great long term, but most bank staff move on to contacts when one becomes available or find something else, it's a way of getting a foot in the door!

I like my zero hours contact, but I do have another part time job as well so I'm not relying on the extra hours.

It works well for me - as a result of my previous career, we're reasonably financially secure and we now have DH's regular, secure income, so any money I earn from my zero hours job is a very welcome extra. I can choose my hours on a week by week basis so can still do most of the school runs and assemblies and also don't have to work during the school holidays.

However, I imagine that a lot of zero hours contracts are not as flexible as mine! If we relied on benefit top-ups, I guess that would be quite difficult? Can you be made to take a zero hours contract or have your JSA cut if you refuse it?

In short, if it's a 'non-essential to rent/eating/heating, and you can always choose your hours' type job, they're great. If you need a regular wage to get a mortgage/rental agreement and your manager chooses when you work, they're pretty crap.

Thread here from earlier in the week, with loads of replies.
Some people hate them on principle, but loads also saying why they work.

Like a lot of things, it depends on the employer, and people's opinions are formed by how they have been treated.

I had a few friends on zero hour contracts. They'd get rang at 6am and told to be in by 8 or 9. If they went out drinking and were called up the next day, they were treated as though they'd done something wrong.

That's not possible to manage if you have kids, or another part time job, or appointments, or people to care for. The rest of the world doesn't function on that sort of notice. It's like being on call 24/7.

People hate zero hours contracts because although they are legally employees it is impossible to enforce any employment rights.

What use is the right to holiday pay when your employer can just say 'well I'm not obliged to give you any hours in any particular week so I'll just put down no hours for your well-earned fortnight off and pay you accordingly'?

What use are maternity rights when your employer can just say 'I'm not sacking you, I'm just not giving you any hours'?

What use is 'flexibility' when it all goes one way? Zero hours workers are expected to be flexible to suit their employer's needs but they are not able to exercise the same flexibility for themselves. 'I recognise your legal right to turn down these ludicrously unsociable hours I have suddenly offered you for tomorrow even though you have no hope of finding childcare. I also recognise my own legal right to just not offer you any hours. I'll keep you on the payroll though. I'm not sacking you because that would be breach of contract.'

'I know there's been a change in the law and it's now illegal for us to insist you don't take up employment elsewhere while working for us, but if you do try to fit another job around the paltry hours we are offering we might find ourselves restricted in the hours we can offer you in the future.'

Employers have read the small print and know they are fairly safe at tribunal because zero hours contracts comply with employees' statutory rights on paper and they are not doing anything that breaches the contract.

Not that many people on a zero hours contract could afford to go to tribunal anyway. The vast majority of these jobs are min wage or thereabouts. Sometimes less through various semi-legal loopholes. And tribunal fees have rocketed. It now costs £390 to bring a simple case of unpaid wages, £1,200 for anything involving discrimination, unfair dismissal or whistleblowing. Someone on average 16 hrs/week at min wage (which is typical for these sorts of contracts) earns about £120/week. They would have to spend over 3 weeks' wages to pursue a claim for unpaid wages and 10 weeks' wages to pursue unfair dismissal or discrimination claims.

Zero hours might be lovely for our clever children who are off to uni and want some shifts to fit round their course. Not so great for people who need to cover their rent and bills and feed their kids. You never know how much work you're going to get. Wages are low so you don't have a cushion. The benefit system copes very badly with fluctuating income.

People end up going to food banks because they run out of money.

That's why.

Great post, PencilsInSpace.

I know two people on zero hours contracts.

One in her fifties, no kids, paid off the mortgage a while ago, low outgoings. Her skills are in demand too so if she doesn't want the work and turns it down it's no big deal she's not blacklisted. For her it works great.

I know another (my sister), in her late twenties, trying to save for a house, boss calls her with practically no notice and she's scared to turn hours down. Just found out she's pregnant and not sure of her rights and if they'll try to screw her over.

It's not as simple as them being good or bad.

I work a second job in a zero hours contract. It works for me as a second income. I can pick and chose my hours as and when and can drop it for a few weeks if I have loads on or up my hours if I need a bit of extra money. I probably wouldn't do it if I had to take a contract. But I do have the stability of a permanent contract too so I wouldn't like to be reliant on it as my main income.

I'm on zero hours and I hate it.

There's no flexibility - rota is posted and if you can't do those hours then tough. Sometimes I get 30, sometimes 6. Arranging childcare is awful.

It's used as a stick to beat us. If you raise an issue or speak up you lose hours.

They work well for some people in specific circumstances, but for most people who rely on their wage to pay bills, who need to arrange childcare, who would like to be able to plan ahead, they're awful. I imagine they make claiming tax credits etc very difficult due to variable income and not doing minimum hours some weeks.

Lots of universities are using them. Are people really happy to pay such high fees for lecturers to be on zero hours contracts? It means they can leave anytime in the course and leave students without tutors, even in the middle of projects.

I hate zero hours. No stability: one week you could full time, the next no work and no money coming in. No protection. No sick pay.

YY PencilsinSpace. Women being sexually discriminated against at work or sexually harassed at work are going to end up keeping quiet because they wont be able to afford to stand up for themselves.

I don't believe that most people want zero hours contracts, yes they might suit students but not most people with a mortgage or rent to pay. Plus there is no sick pay and employers can just choose to get rid of you if your face doesn't fit, they don't have to go through the hassle of dismissal, they just don't use you again. Its too much in favour of big businesses.

Zero hours contracts are shit IMO.