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

[TeaLeaf]

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

Two out of those three are wrong.  
Holiday pay is given.
They get the same statutory sick pay as 90% of the working people in the UK.
The exclusive bit is kind of understandable if you are dealing with peak demands in a tourism-related job, but at least they know a month in advance what their hours will be and have the opportunity for additional cover work.

The palace argues that because the staff are entitled to certain benefits on days when they are called in, such as a free hot or cold lunch, holiday pay and uniforms, amongst other benefits, they cannot be described as zero-hours

I'm not arguing that zero hours contracts are good or the right thing to do, but I am objecting to journalists who pick an 'insert your choice of well-known institution' and then compare SD's full-time  zero-hour contract (which falls into the legal definition of full-time employment) with a temporary summer job which is so very similar to 99% of summer jobs in the UK.  

I think that's poor journalism that does nothing but grab your attention with the headline and then delivers a slightly different story in the article to the one implied in the headline.  People get left with the impression of the headline, not of the facts in the article.  

Just for info, a temporary job won't get you a mortgage or a credit card, however a full-time zero hours contract CAN and does get you a mortgage or a credit card.   Is it as ideal as a 'proper' full-time job no.

Apples with apples please.

[Snokio]

With regards to this particular case, there is a loophole SD use to not provide holiday or sick

Sent from my LG-P880 using Tapatalk 2

[Milli]

Yeah the missus was on a zero hour contract working for allied home care.  I never liked the idea of it.  Thankfully she's moved on to working with the nhs.

[TeaLeaf]

Yeah the missus was on a zero hour contract working for allied home care.  I never liked the idea of it.  

And that sums up where I stand too.   Glad she's off it.   Unlike most employed people in the UK, in the NHS she's getting a decent pension scheme, sick pay over and above the statutory minimum, death in service cover, widow/er's pension benefits, holidays etc.   All in all it's not a bad place to work from a benefits perspective! :thumbsup:

[T-Bag]

TeaLeaf is right on this one. Some journalist has been told "that zero hours contract story got lots of publicity, see if you can find more", and they went scouting out summer-time jobs (cinema, tourist attractions) thinking that those jobs amount to the same thing. If you're only employed for 3 months, you're not going to expect a 2 week holiday in the middle.

Forbidding other jobs seems particularly harsh, however so does the whole idea of not knowing if you'll be working next week. But in principle, part-time jobs should, by nature, pay better to cover their more flexible nature. Just as a temp teacher earns more than a salaried one per hour. If they're paying minimum wage whilst not giving any guarantee of work, that's a different level of disgusting, somewhat unrelated to zero-hour contracts. It's exploitation of temp workers.

[TheDvEight]

I currently work for my local council and they are introducing zero based budgets which basically means instead of a service user getting the same lump sum of money to attend our service, day centers etc the council are going to asses the individuals need (level of support) based on a social workers assessment which is often out of date by 1year +/contains fictional narrative about the service user and is just generally not fit for purpose, they base the lump sum of money on that, which would be variable depending on changing support needs as the service user grows more independent.

Now while I agree that this is a good idea in theory it can only spell trouble for staff, where I currently work if our occupancy was full (5 tenants) it would mean that 3 1/2 staff members would need to work per day (where I work currently has x1 team leader x5 Seniors x4 support workers and x2 flexible support workers (which is what I am) because of the contract I'm on my contracted hours are currently 37hrs p/w, this is soon due to change in October back down to "Flexible support 7 hours per week" which basically means I'm not a permanent member of staff and my hours are variable depending on the needs of the service while I still get pay rises and all the other benefits but less holiday for some reason (pay rise of1% this year amounts to around £6 before tax) I have no job security what so ever (in my opinion) no route to progress in my chosen field (only permanent members of staff can progress and further their knowledge/undertake a QCF/NVQ).


This is the idea of saving money "keeping staff in the cupboard until there needed and their hours will be variable going up and down depending on the needs of the service".


I cant really see many people wanting to be "kept in the cupboard until there needed" when they have lively hoods to think of.

^^ is the situation I've been in for a year and 4 months and growing increasingly fed up doing a job I love for little/no security.

[TheDvEight]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23570345

[smilodon]

I'm with TL on this in that I wonder how much the press are creating a story and how much is reality. It's clear that there are people in this country being royally shafted by greedy employers. It wouldn't be wrong for their to be new legislation to protect them and punish those who exploit the system i.e. Sports Direct. However the percentages don't really mean anything. After my mother retired she helped at an elderly care home. She was only part qualified and so was basically on call to help out as and when full time staff were on holiday, off sick or just needed extra hands to help with new residents arriving. Some weeks she worked five days and some none. It suited my mum fine but she'd be on the list of underpaid people and part of the 14% quoted. If the practice was stopped my mother wouldn't have been able to work at all as she wasn't able to work full time, the care home would have remained understaffed and the quality of care would have suffered.

Less hysterics and more facts please, although for the BBc the article above wasn't as warped and jaundiced as it might have been.

[DrunkenZombiee]

I think unfortunately that this is one of the symptoms of the world that we live in and the way society has gone. Unskilled workers on minimum wage can sometimes have the same levels of responsibility, work as long hours and as hard to those who are many orders of magnitude more money. Its an odd time we live in!

I do not agree with these type of contracts however I think most people have it pretty rough these days with most employers expecting more and more from their staff for the same levels of pay, particularly in bigger companies and corporations. Something does need to be done to stop this kind of exploitation of the workforce.

I think a lot of the cushy jobs and days of job security are well over even if you are experienced and qualified.

The company division I work for sells mine and other consultants time as a means to make money. You would have thought that as this is their only means to make money they would look after their staff as the peoples expertise/knowledge they employ are their only source of income. Sadly this is not always the case and from time to time people do tend to get a pretty poor deal.

The world is pretty broken at the moment =(.

DZ

[T-Bag]

I think unfortunately that this is one of the symptoms of the world that we live in and the way society has gone. Unskilled workers on minimum wage can sometimes have the same levels of responsibility, work as long hours and as hard to those who are many orders of magnitude more money. Its an odd time we live in!
DZ

I think that's essentially it. We live in a time where you're very unlikely to be working for the shop run by Mr & Mrs Smith down the road. Odds are you'll be working for a company with hundreds if not thousands of employees. When that's the case you've likely got a person working for that company focused entirely on reducing staff costs. Zero hour contracts are a symptom of that. If you cancel them, they'll find the next cheapest way of doing thing (usually at the expense of the staff...they try not to hinder customers), and so on.

I'm not suggesting we don't try and fix it. I'm suggesting it's a continuous battle trying kill these practices one at a time, and for every change there will be thousands of people dedicated to working around it or finding the next loop hole. As such, it'd probably be more efficient to bring together a few think tanks and listen to what they have to say, rather than just make it illegal. Have business and unions work together to draft the best solution.

I'm sure the government will just completely ignore it. Both conservatives and Labour have a track record of getting good, sensible advice...and then announcing the opposite. Decriminalisation of drugs is a classic example.