You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Zero Hour contracts what do people think?
So I have heard things about getting rid of zero hour contracts again and as someone who has had quite a few of these I thought I would say my thoughts on this.
Zero hour contracts where I have worked or seen them have typically been sports stadiums, entertainment venues, restaurants, warehouses, and cleaning jobs.
These all make sense sports stadiums will be busy during games conferences and other entertainment events they put on but other times no work needed.
entertainment venues can have a singer or comedian or some other form of entertainment come to town and need the workers for this but when none of this is going on they do not need the work.
restaurants sometimes people book weddings or company dinners etc at these and this involves significantly more workers then would normally be needed. or sometimes they have workers take/fake sick or quit and need to have these shifts covered.
warehouses can have packing jobs or need extra hands during busy season or for the odd order/delivery but be quite the rest of the time.
Cleaning jobs can come up as and when for different reasons for different businesses etc.
In all these cases there is a need for temporary work they could not afford to have these workers on, full time or part time contracts because work is if and when. One way round this is temping agencies who could then in theory provide regular wage to workers and just send them to different places. There are a number of issues with that though the main two I see is that the temping agencies wont be able to give everyone regular work like that because some periods they get a lot more business then others, further sending people to different places would not work like this because as is the case at the moment the worker can turn down any and all jobs and accept what works for them. If they have to have 20 hours a week this may not be available but if it is it may be in areas inconvenient to the worker. Further the agencies take a fee which means higher wage cost for the businesses.
Myself I have found zero hour contract work convenient for my life style it allowed me to focus more or less on study or poker and to be able to take more hours when I needed them and less hours when I did not.
I think if you have zero hour contracts it should be zero hour on both sides, the worker should be able to say no. I had a mutual zero hour contract where by they told me they are my primary employer and had a go at me for not accepting shifts when they put me on the rota without running it by me. I had taken shifts elsewhere and expecting me to wait around on them when some weeks they give me zero hours is not really fair. Also its for me to decide if they are my primarily employer not them if they put me on a zero hour contract.
This is the issue if people are on zero hour contracts which limits or restricts their opportunities to work elsewhere whilst offering them no assurances of work this wrong it has the potential to put desperate people in a poverty trap and is unfair on the worker.
However many businesses do need temporary workers and some people such as students or parents or people with other commitments which may or may not vary might prefer this work because it arguably offers more flexibility. Also some people who may have difficulty getting work, can still potentially get some income from this and have some work to look better to a perspective employer.
my feeling is that people have been abused by these and they do have the potential to be restrictive/exploitative/abusive to the worker. I do see the utility in them for both workers and companies who have the right circumstances. I therefore believe rather then banning zero hour contracts they should be regulated more and rules in place to stop exploitative behaviours.
Zero hour contracts where I have worked or seen them have typically been sports stadiums, entertainment venues, restaurants, warehouses, and cleaning jobs.
These all make sense sports stadiums will be busy during games conferences and other entertainment events they put on but other times no work needed.
entertainment venues can have a singer or comedian or some other form of entertainment come to town and need the workers for this but when none of this is going on they do not need the work.
restaurants sometimes people book weddings or company dinners etc at these and this involves significantly more workers then would normally be needed. or sometimes they have workers take/fake sick or quit and need to have these shifts covered.
warehouses can have packing jobs or need extra hands during busy season or for the odd order/delivery but be quite the rest of the time.
Cleaning jobs can come up as and when for different reasons for different businesses etc.
In all these cases there is a need for temporary work they could not afford to have these workers on, full time or part time contracts because work is if and when. One way round this is temping agencies who could then in theory provide regular wage to workers and just send them to different places. There are a number of issues with that though the main two I see is that the temping agencies wont be able to give everyone regular work like that because some periods they get a lot more business then others, further sending people to different places would not work like this because as is the case at the moment the worker can turn down any and all jobs and accept what works for them. If they have to have 20 hours a week this may not be available but if it is it may be in areas inconvenient to the worker. Further the agencies take a fee which means higher wage cost for the businesses.
Myself I have found zero hour contract work convenient for my life style it allowed me to focus more or less on study or poker and to be able to take more hours when I needed them and less hours when I did not.
I think if you have zero hour contracts it should be zero hour on both sides, the worker should be able to say no. I had a mutual zero hour contract where by they told me they are my primary employer and had a go at me for not accepting shifts when they put me on the rota without running it by me. I had taken shifts elsewhere and expecting me to wait around on them when some weeks they give me zero hours is not really fair. Also its for me to decide if they are my primarily employer not them if they put me on a zero hour contract.
This is the issue if people are on zero hour contracts which limits or restricts their opportunities to work elsewhere whilst offering them no assurances of work this wrong it has the potential to put desperate people in a poverty trap and is unfair on the worker.
However many businesses do need temporary workers and some people such as students or parents or people with other commitments which may or may not vary might prefer this work because it arguably offers more flexibility. Also some people who may have difficulty getting work, can still potentially get some income from this and have some work to look better to a perspective employer.
my feeling is that people have been abused by these and they do have the potential to be restrictive/exploitative/abusive to the worker. I do see the utility in them for both workers and companies who have the right circumstances. I therefore believe rather then banning zero hour contracts they should be regulated more and rules in place to stop exploitative behaviours.