Zero hours contracts

[KT_Hopkins_AnnoysMe]

Not in this situation,but after reading all the news and realising how many firms from council to food outlets are using zero hour contracts, I have a question.

 

For instance. Can you get in trouble benefit wise, if you dont accept a zero hour contract,for the sake that you need to know what you would have in from one week or month to the next?

 

Say work programme provider put you forward for a job or you dont apply to a job when find it is zero hours, I would think this unfair to force a job seeker from pitiful but at least knows will eat benefits to not knowing wether you will pay your rent type contract, if that makes sense:|

[filrobbo]

It's totally wrong and must be stoped but who's going to do it . It just seems the norm to treat workers and the unemployed in this manner.

[Nystagmite]

I'm wondering the same. But I remember being told (going back to 2011 here) that if it's less than 16 hours, you don't have to accept it. I don't know if that's changed.

[filrobbo]

Sorry don't know, but I wouldn't accept that sort of contract, but I am much older and wiser and I would negotiate my terms and conditions for a job, or I wouldn't do it.

[Hacked_Off]

I had a zero hour contract with an agency a while ago. As far as benefits were concerned I had to accept it or be sanctioned. the amount of Hassle i had with it were unreal. Because i was usually working less than 16 hours a week, and the hours varied. The job centre wanted payslips and a form filled in every fortnight so I'd be paid jsa, after my wage was deducted. Because the hours varied I was often under/over paid, the job centre just couldn't handle the varied hours. I had one week were I went over the £71 threshold and my claim was shut down, including housing and council tax benefit. I had to rapid reclaim and hand in documents to the council.but if I had turned down the hours, I would have been sanctioned. In the end I left and took a ten hour a week job, then that way my payments would remain the same and no hassle, well apart from the usual from "advisors".

 

These contracts should be banned.

[filrobbo]

That's what's wrong with the hole system and people need to complain to their MP.

[Mr.P]

The job centre wanted payslips and a form filled in every fortnight so I'd be paid jsa, after my wage was deducted. Because the hours varied I was often under/over paid

 

You will also find that the DWP tell HMRC that they are your primary "employer" so you end up being taxed at 20% on all earnings from a real job. It may well be in your best interest to contact HMRC and ask for a review of tax paid for the years when on a zero hour contract - This is what I did and got a £200 cheque back as a result.

[filrobbo]

Nice well done

[osdset]

Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants are not required to apply for zero hours contract vacancies

and they will not face sanctions for turning down the offer of a zero hours contract.

 

Source https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/166969/response/407562/attach/html/2/FoI.3022.RESPONSE.pdf.html

[Dom86]

READ THIS comment ! ! !

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/they-wont-be-lovin-it-mcdonalds-admits-90-of-employees-are-on-zerohours-contracts-without-guaranteed-work-or-a-stable-income-8747986.html#comment-990138715

 

The biggest S C A M is yet to be revealed. I was "offered" a health and social care course with an offer of a "job" (dependent on suitability, obviously) through the "WORK PROGRAM". Did the "course" (nice DVD). Offered a "job" on zero hours. Never got any hours, although the company got its £thousands bonus from the tax payer for "employing" someone. What a con. Some journo needs to look into this.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Dom86

[Nystagmite]

That's disgusting. Can't really say I'm shocked though.

[Hacked_Off]

You will also find that the DWP tell HMRC that they are your primary "employer" so you end up being taxed at 20% on all earnings from a real job. It may well be in your best interest to contact HMRC and ask for a review of tax paid for the years when on a zero hour contract - This is what I did and got a £200 cheque back as a result.

 

I wasn't taxed at all luckily

[charliesgranny]

My daughter has worked constant nightshift for 7yrs and she has gotten really fed up with it now so she has been looking for a new job and there was not one employer that had a vacancy in our area that was not zero hours. She was shocked and has decided to stay where she is for the time being. She works with disabled teenagers in a sheltered scheme and would like to stay in this type of work but would not take zero hours just to get day shift.

[Mr.P]

Working the night shift doesn't suit everyone and can get depressing at times. Has she asked her employer if it is possible to transfer to daytime working ?

[charliesgranny]

Hi, yes she has asked but, they have no vacancies on days. As I said she has been there 7yrs and she is just fed up with nights but, it could be worse as at least she has a job with good pay and conditions.

[tokenfield]

Isn't there another side to all of this? All we are hearing from are the employees which is tending to skew the whole story.

 

An employer needs to have a built in flexibility with the workforce. With orders and sales being so volatile, it is no good for any business that has a 'fixed' cost ie wages which has to be covered irrespective of what the company/business is earning.

 

There are priorities here, excluding all other and necessary costs. Who should take preference over who should be paid first? The employees, the employer/director or the shareholders.

[sillygirl1]

tokenfield, if the director and shareholders are taking money out of the company which is not in direct relation to the income earned or legally owed 'expenses' such as wages, then their income can be called into doubt and it may end up being deemed that the company is illegally trading under their current situation..... this then opens up a whole can of worms for the shareholders as they can then be held liable if the company goes into liquidation.

 

For a company to put its entire workforce onto zero hours contracts a complaint should be lodged initially with the local Trading Standards people as the company may also be breaching health and safety regulations, working time conditions and other regulations.

[tokenfield]

tokenfield, if the director and shareholders are taking money out of the company which is not in direct relation to the income earned or legally owed 'expenses' such as wages, then their income can be called into doubt and it may end up being deemed that the company is illegally trading under their current situation..... this then opens up a whole can of worms for the shareholders as they can then be held liable if the company goes into liquidation.

 

For a company to put its entire workforce onto zero hours contracts a complaint should be lodged initially with the local Trading Standards people as the company may also be breaching health and safety regulations, working time conditions and other regulations.

 

Your comments have been noted.

But once again you are falling into the same trap!

 

Your whole post is skewed in favour of the employee. You talk about what the directors take out, and then setting the shareholders against the directors.

You then finish off saying that the employee should complain about all and sundry that the employer may not be adhering to some regulations.

 

What I was trying to say is that there are three camps that are all trying to pull in their own direction as to who should get paid the most or suffer the less.

 

I have yet to read of the plight of the directors/business owners or the shareholders. All I seem to read about is 'how hard done by' are the employees.

 

I'm sorry but I have no sympathy with any. They are all out to try to milk the business for as much as they can get.

 

Unfortunately they all lose if the business goes belly up.

 

Let's have a more balanced viewpoint - how do you think the owners/directors feel, what about the shareholders who have invested their money in the business.

[Hacked_Off]

You will also find that the DWP tell HMRC that they are your primary "employer" so you end up being taxed at 20% on all earnings from a real job. It may well be in your best interest to contact HMRC and ask for a review of tax paid for the years when on a zero hour contract - This is what I did and got a £200 cheque back as a result.

 

You were right about this. I have just received my p45 (8 months after leaving!!) and have paid tax I shouldn't of!!!

[filrobbo]

You can claim the tax back

[Hacked_Off]

I shall!

[bigissue]

The issue is nearly everyone need to have an idea of the minimum they will be paid each and every week to ensure they have enough to cover outgoings. I did casual work as a student and it was fine then as I had a grant which covered my basics and well as money saved up from summer jobs. Casual work was just a bit extra. My aunt who is retired works casual and turns down work if she she busy with something else, she has her pension and so what she earns from her zero hour contract is extra and she mainly does it for the social side. However most people who have no other money coming in cannot survive if they don't know what they will be getting week to week.

 

Its a disgrace but businesses feel not guilt about allowing people to work for them with no security, in fact the owner of sports direct was in the press just the other week boasting about how it is the business model of the future.

[osdset]

Zero hour contracts are partly a retaliation for agencies having to comply with holiday/sick pay. The rest have jumped on the bandwagon and seen it as a neat way of employing people with no security and minimal outlay.

 

Firms that insist on zero hour contracts should be boycotted out of existence IMO.

[sillygirl1]

You will never have a balanced viewpoint, it is the same circular argument which fuels the debates on the 'scroungers' who claim benefits legally due to them, and the immigration excuses, and the older employees v younger employees.

 

At the end of the day it is about money, and money wins, whether it be the directors pandering to the shareholders or the shareholders holding the directors responsible should the company loose money.

 

The employee here is at the bottom of the pile whichever way you look at it.

[tokenfield]

You will never have a balanced viewpoint, it is the same circular argument which fuels the debates on the 'scroungers' who claim benefits legally due to them, and the immigration excuses, and the older employees v younger employees.

 

At the end of the day it is about money, and money wins, whether it be the directors pandering to the shareholders or the shareholders holding the directors responsible should the company loose money.

 

The employee here is at the bottom of the pile whichever way you look at it.

 

That is a fact of life.

 

It is far far easier to replace an employee than it is to replace say the Finance Director or all of the shareholders.

 

Employees are expendable always have been. We are all still living in the world of union dominated workplace. We got rid of that years ago - do you remember how they nearly crippled British industry?

 

If an employee is so highly valued for his/her skills than that employee will be 'looked after'. As for the rest of the minions, they are simply there to do a job as instructed by the employer - they certainly shouldn't be given the same rights as the 'core' employees.