Re: Zero hours contracts : Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:43 pm  

How zero-hours workers who work zero hours are still classed as "employed"

How zero-hours workers who work zero hours are still classed as "employed"

Re: Zero hours contracts : Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:06 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

As it happens, I don't own anything made by Apple.
But that's not really the issue ... you too are using the Louise Mensch argument, when she sweepingly included anyone who bought a coffee at Starbucks as "buying into everything capitalism provides" whilst at the same time protesting in St Paul's Churchyard as being hypocritical.
That's what we call polarised thinking, Sal.

If someone says that they are opposed to some issue of the capitalist world, they are (in your view, it seems) automatically a raving communist.
It doesn't work like that, there's a whole range of positions between the two extremes, and objecting to aspects of laissez-faire neoliberal economics does not make one a Stalinist.

Just to demonstrate the utter vacuousness of polarised thinking .. do you own anything made in China? ... it is, after all, still a Communist country and has built-up enormous reserves that unbalance the world's markets and balance of payments.
Surely a committed laissez-faire capitalist like you wouldn't buy into that?

If I may apply your style of polarisation to that comment, do you think, therefore, that everyone should be on zero-hours contracts ... and, if not, why not?
By the way, agency work varies quite widely, I personally worked as a self-employed contractor for 15 years, never once on a zero-hours contract, the contracts always included agreed likely length of contract, notice periods, hours per week, times of hours etc etc.

I personally don't think anyone should be on zero hours contracts, that is just lazy management. Flexible labour enables employees to earn a known regular salary for a known number of hours over a year. The flexibility is in the hours consummed at certain demand periods. Any deviation over and above their contractual hours to be paid at an agreed rate, the minimum of which should be basic rate.

We will never agree regarding our political views - I find it pretty hypocritical that all the lefties on here spout caring sharing but don't really sacrifice much for their fellow participant in the struggle!! They want greater a spread of wealth as long as it doesn't impact them!!

Re: Zero hours contracts : Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:02 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

... We will never agree regarding our political views - I find it pretty hypocritical that all the lefties on here spout caring sharing but don't really sacrifice much for their fellow participant in the struggle!! They want greater a spread of wealth as long as it doesn't impact them!!

Really?

And you know this, err, how, precisely?

The reality is that you know absolutely nothing about what anyone here has 'sacrificed' or not. And don't pretend that you do, because it would be a downright lie.

And how would you even measure it, FFS? That might give all those 'hypocritical lefties' a chance to see what hoops you expect us to jump through to conform to what you expect of people that you happily lump a whopping big label on, even when you've had it explained to you in fairly simple terms that such a practice is not only stupid but howlingly inaccurate.

And that's before we come on to the point that a fairer society for all should not and would not require individuals to "sacrifice" something or other (of the things you don't even bother to mention).

Further, it's noted that you have completely swerved in your response to El Barbudo's points.

Did you not understand them? Or did you simply decide that you're only interested in simplistic labels because it helps to avoid you having to possibly engage with rather more serious arguments?

Don't worry – I don't expect any answers. You'll run away as usual at the sign of such direct questions.

Re: Zero hours contracts : Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:53 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I personally don't think anyone should be on zero hours contracts, that is just lazy management. Flexible labour enables employees to earn a known regular salary for a known number of hours over a year. The flexibility is in the hours consummed at certain demand periods. Any deviation over and above their contractual hours to be paid at an agreed rate, the minimum of which should be basic rate.

Agreed.

Sal Paradise wrote:

We will never agree regarding our political views - I find it pretty hypocritical that all the lefties on here spout caring sharing but don't really sacrifice much for their fellow participant in the struggle!! They want greater a spread of wealth as long as it doesn't impact them!!

Ah, your old (but meaningless) Champagne Socialists argument.

It's difficult to explain to someone whose political leanings are towards the right because I have found that explanations to them usually result in a retort of "why should I ... etc etc ".
Nonetheless, I'll give it a go.

Putting aside the fact that you don't know what I do or don't do for "fellow participants in the struggle", I believe that I pay too little in tax.

I'm betting that you will immediately think "Well, donate more if that's what you want" ... and that is exactly my point about trying to explain to right-wingers, everything is seen in terms of self.

Back in the olden days, when I was a young adult, there was a general consensus across both Labour and Tory that everyone paid into the system and those who needed it got help.
There was usually a disagreement about exactly how much but, in general, the principle was agreed.

Since 1979, that has changed, tax is now a dirty word across all three main parties (if we still include Lib Dems as a "main" party anymore) as they compete between them to at least appear to reduce tax.
Reducing the tax-take means we can't afford the services we have taken for granted since the late 1940's, suddenly it's unaffordable.
But, in reality, it IS affordable ... what has changed is the widespread nature of the willingness to help others, the willingness to pay the group insurance premium when we might not need the pay-back in times of stress.
i.e. Too many people now think "I'm all right, why should I help you?".

I, for one, don't want to get to the end of my life and think, "Well, what a selfish bstrad I was".

[DaveO]

Re: Zero hours contracts : Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:44 pm  

Dally wrote: As I keep saying part of the reason why zero hours or short-hour contracts have come about is due to the stealth tax of employers NI - Labour had a part in whacking that up. Much better, IMO< to abolish it and increase corporation tax to comepenstate. That way companies would have a greater incentive to emplo people full-time and securely, the big, profitable corporations would get tax relief on the wages anyway and marginally profitable companies would be able to employ people without the 13.5% additional costs of so doing. What stops this? Politicians - massaging the employment figures in effect. This would not work. Even if you abolished NI why would an employer employ a permanent employee which would make them liable for sick pay, holiday pay, redundancy payments and other benefits full time employees are entitled to when they could still employ someone on a zero hours contract and have none of this to cover? You solution would end up with end up with no NI contributions from the employer with the employees still on zero hours contracts. As pointed out corporation tax is easily avoided by companies such as McDonalds so you can't get it back form that route either. The only solution is regulation against zero hours contracts where they are clearly being used to employ a permanent workforce. As to where is Labour on this from your previous post, you don't think their opposition is going to get much coverage on the BBC or in the right wing media do you? They are opposed to them and indeed one Labour MP, Andy Sawford, has submitted a bill to abolish them: http://andysawford.wordpress.com/2013/06/22/my-zero-hours-bill-to-protect-lowest-paid-and-most-vulnerable-workers/ I bet you were not aware of this as it's hardly something the Daily Mail would report is it? nor this: http://www.alisonmcgovern.org.uk/merseyside-mps-launch-investigation-into-exploitative-zero-hour-contracts/

Dally wrote: As I keep saying part of the reason why zero hours or short-hour contracts have come about is due to the stealth tax of employers NI - Labour had a part in whacking that up. Much better, IMO< to abolish it and increase corporation tax to comepenstate. That way companies would have a greater incentive to emplo people full-time and securely, the big, profitable corporations would get tax relief on the wages anyway and marginally profitable companies would be able to employ people without the 13.5% additional costs of so doing. What stops this? Politicians - massaging the employment figures in effect. This would not work. Even if you abolished NI why would an employer employ a permanent employee which would make them liable for sick pay, holiday pay, redundancy payments and other benefits full time employees are entitled to when they could still employ someone on a zero hours contract and have none of this to cover? You solution would end up with end up with no NI contributions from the employer with the employees still on zero hours contracts. As pointed out corporation tax is easily avoided by companies such as McDonalds so you can't get it back form that route either. The only solution is regulation against zero hours contracts where they are clearly being used to employ a permanent workforce. As to where is Labour on this from your previous post, you don't think their opposition is going to get much coverage on the BBC or in the right wing media do you? They are opposed to them and indeed one Labour MP, Andy Sawford, has submitted a bill to abolish them: http://andysawford.wordpress.com/2013/06/22/my-zero-hours-bill-to-protect-lowest-paid-and-most-vulnerable-workers/ I bet you were not aware of this as it's hardly something the Daily Mail would report is it? nor this: http://www.alisonmcgovern.org.uk/merseyside-mps-launch-investigation-into-exploitative-zero-hour-contracts/

Re: Zero hours contracts : Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:38 am  

DaveO wrote: This would not work. Even if you abolished NI why would an employer employ a permanent employee which would make them liable for sick pay, holiday pay, redundancy payments and other benefits full time employees are entitled to when they could still employ someone on a zero hours contract and have none of this to cover? You solution would end up with end up with no NI contributions from the employer with the employees still on zero hours contracts. As pointed out corporation tax is easily avoided by companies such as McDonalds so you can't get it back form that route either. The only solution is regulation against zero hours contracts where they are clearly being used to employ a permanent workforce. As to where is Labour on this from your previous post, you don't think their opposition is going to get much coverage on the BBC or in the right wing media do you? They are opposed to them and indeed one Labour MP, Andy Sawford, has submitted a bill to abolish them: http://andysawford.wordpress.com/2013/06/22/my-zero-hours-bill-to-protect-lowest-paid-and-most-vulnerable-workers/ I bet you were not aware of this as it's hardly something the Daily Mail would report is it? nor this: http://www.alisonmcgovern.org.uk/merseyside-mps-launch-investigation-into-exploitative-zero-hour-contracts/ Not bothered looking at your links re Labour as they don't appear to represent the leaderships stance? If you abolished zero-hours contracts there'd be alot more people unemployed in the current climate as companies unsure of demand took a prudent view on their cost bases. That in turn may reduce overall economic activity as they would be unable to meet demand when its there.

DaveO wrote: This would not work. Even if you abolished NI why would an employer employ a permanent employee which would make them liable for sick pay, holiday pay, redundancy payments and other benefits full time employees are entitled to when they could still employ someone on a zero hours contract and have none of this to cover? You solution would end up with end up with no NI contributions from the employer with the employees still on zero hours contracts. As pointed out corporation tax is easily avoided by companies such as McDonalds so you can't get it back form that route either. The only solution is regulation against zero hours contracts where they are clearly being used to employ a permanent workforce. As to where is Labour on this from your previous post, you don't think their opposition is going to get much coverage on the BBC or in the right wing media do you? They are opposed to them and indeed one Labour MP, Andy Sawford, has submitted a bill to abolish them: http://andysawford.wordpress.com/2013/06/22/my-zero-hours-bill-to-protect-lowest-paid-and-most-vulnerable-workers/ I bet you were not aware of this as it's hardly something the Daily Mail would report is it? nor this: http://www.alisonmcgovern.org.uk/merseyside-mps-launch-investigation-into-exploitative-zero-hour-contracts/ Not bothered looking at your links re Labour as they don't appear to represent the leaderships stance? If you abolished zero-hours contracts there'd be alot more people unemployed in the current climate as companies unsure of demand took a prudent view on their cost bases. That in turn may reduce overall economic activity as they would be unable to meet demand when its there.

Re: Zero hours contracts : Thu Aug 08, 2013 12:02 pm  

Dally wrote:

...If you abolished zero-hours contracts there'd be alot more people unemployed in the current climate as companies unsure of demand took a prudent view on their cost bases. That in turn may reduce overall economic activity as they would be unable to meet demand when its there.

Basically, that's saying that the hours-required get shared between a larger number of people at the moment than if the management could work out how many they really need.
Then you're saying that, if they couldn't fall back on zero-hours contracts, management would underestimate and lose business accordingly.

So, effectively, zero-hours are a way that ineffectual management can offload the risk onto employees.

Re: Zero hours contracts : Thu Aug 08, 2013 12:09 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

So, effectively, zero-hours are a way that ineffectual management can offload the risk onto employees.

And cost onto the taxpayer

Re: Zero hours contracts : Thu Aug 08, 2013 12:30 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

And cost onto the taxpayer

That too, via tax credits and non-payment of NI.

Re: Zero hours contracts : Thu Aug 08, 2013 12:32 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Basically, that's saying that the hours-required get shared between a larger number of people at the moment than if the management could work out how many they really need.
Then you're saying that, if they couldn't fall back on zero-hours contracts, management would underestimate and lose business accordingly.

So, effectively, zero-hours are a way that ineffectual management can offload the risk onto employees.

No. If demand suddenly spikes - eg a warm spell can create demand in many retail / service businesses then such contracts enable a business to meet demand without add a layer of costs they don't need most of the time.