All part-time Sports Direct staff employed on zero-hours contracts

[Snokio]

20,000 part time staff - no holiday or sick pay, bonus to only the 3,000 full time employees - should be ashamed of themselves! :ranting2:

Makes me Angry!

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/part-time-sports-direct-staff-103026959.html

[Blunt]

Apparently this is how capitalism works.

[OldBloke]

That's disgraceful. I didn't know there were such things as zero hour contracts. It must incredibly difficult for anyone on such a contract to organise their lives when they don't know from one day to the next how many hours (if any) they'll be working and therefore getting paid for. IMHO, these 'contracts' have no place in the modern era.

[smilodon]

A fair bit of the work I do is effectively paid like this. I start working for a client on a project and they give me a few days one week and a few days another. Then nothing for a while and then it starts again. However I am self employed and have other clients as well so it suits me fine. But if you work exclusively for one company and do so as a full or part time employee then this shouldn't be an option for employers.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[T-Bag]

The government needs to solve the zero hour contract problem ASAP. Would be incredibly easy. If you work more than double your contract hours your hourly rate goes up. If you're on a zero hour contract then your minimum wage value would be higher than the normal value.

Pros: Contracts would be closer to actual working hours. Workers get all the benefits they deserve.

Cons: Employers could be more likely to hire twice as many staff working half the amount. Employers could try and hire less staff.

A company will not hire an employee that it doesn't need to, so I don't think the latter "con" is too realistic...but hiring more staff could be serious concern for companies where minimal training is required (Particularly Retail). It would be very hard to make do on minimum wage part time hours. Especially if you try and get a juggle those hours with a second job...trying not to have clashing hours. Generally speaking the benefit would out weigh the cons I believe.

[Tutonic]

It seems to me that they are taking advantage of people's desperation to work.

No wonder sitting on benefits seems like an attractive option :eyebrow:

[Lameduck]

Slaves were at least given accommodation and sustenance. I don't understand why anybody would be so desperate as to agree to those these draconian terms.
This week also sees the introduction of high fees payable to employment tribunals prior to the hearing of cases for wrongful dismissal.
The noose tightens, that's why THEY have weakened the unions, divide and rule.:taz:
End of rant.

[Benny]

The rules for laying people off in this country are a pain in the ass, that said, I'm greatful for them .

To get rid of zero hours would it be acceptable to reduce the number of zero hours employed and increase the full-time contracts? So less employed, but lower zero hour contracts. We have temps here as my workloads don't justify a full head count all the time. How should we handle it?

[Ranualf]

I worked like this as a contractor for many years, but that was in the construction industry where work was very fluid.

To see retail outlets resorting to this type of contract is nothing short of capital profit maximums, while exploiting the poor worker, as the report stated, on low income, or minimum pay.

The question is how are they getting round the 12 week rule.
As when i was working, if you worked for the company continuously for three months, they had to treat you as a employee

yes, yes companies tried to issue 3 month contracts to their employees, but the government soon got wind of this, and implemented an additional six week ruling to the contract.

Basically you could work for 3 months for the company, but if you left after that, and returned to the company within six weeks, it was classified as continuous employment, and the employer had to pay you (regardless if you had worked elsewhere). This was basically because dodgy employers were hacking thousands of pounds from the tax man.

One thing in life you learn, don't mess with the tax man, as he Always gets his pennies, and EVERY penny is counted!

I know recently that have made changes to the working regulations, on what is classified as "casual labour" and the question of when an employee becomes "staff"... seems there is no hard answer for this, and as such companies are taking advantage of the "legal grey area" aka loop hole....

[TeaLeaf]

Certainly from a pensions perspective, my understanding of the rules is that zero hour contracts do not exempt an employer from that part of their obligations (can't talk for the rest of their terms and conditions).  Certainly I would not advise a corporate client of mine to do it this way.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[Blunt]

Why am I not surprised?
LINK

[DannagE]

I've seen this a lot at work with agency staff. They normally wait for them to travel into work for an 8 hour morning shift at 6am. Once they get there they are told that they are not needed that day and they have to go home. Terrible treatment :/

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[TeaLeaf]

Why am I not surprised?
LINK

I think that's another example of a headline implying more than the article delivers.  Journalism at it's worst, again. :sad:

Personally I'd categorise a 'permanent zero hours contract' as somewhat different to a temporary summer job where the work is scheduled on a rota a month in advance.  But why let the facts get in the way of a good headline?

[Blunt]

They may be temporary or summer jobs but jobs are scarce and many people have to get by with a couple of part-time jobs.

An 'exclusive' part-time contract that forbids another Part-time job.
No sick-pay.
No holiday pay.
No definite hours.

Try getting a tenancy or a mortgage or a loan or a credit-card.

Zero hours should be sent back to the past where it belongs.

[Ranualf]

Zero hours should be sent back to the past where it belongs.

Alas if its good enough for the queen, its goods enough for the rest of her kingdom...
But yes, they should scrap this thing, but then where would all the agency workers go to.. hmm big question, one which is not easy to nail down :/