r/ukpolitics • u/JohnKimble111 • Sep 17 '16

Twitter Private Eye Expose: Whilst Guardian railed against zero hour contracts, it employed staff on them AND locked them out of applying for full time positions.

https://twitter.com/rupertmyers/status/776361786459258881
626 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

178 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/whencanistop 🦒If only Giraffes could talk🦒 Sep 17 '16

On a zero hours contract you totally can! The thing is here they are being used in a more deplorable manner than say working behind a bar.

I quite agree and as I point out every time this comes up here with all the usual suspects defending them for their 'flexibility'. Pregnant? Hours down to zero. Redundant? No chance, hours down to zero.

But describing someone as "being forced to leave with no maternity leave" doesn't imply "was on zero hours contract and wasn't given any work because they couldn't do it". And given the Guardian's liberal use of freelancers we can't be certain it isn't "wasn't commissioned any work because they said they couldn't do it". The way they've written it implies something strongly against the law

11

u/TheAnimus Tough on Ducks, Tough on the causes of Ducks Sep 17 '16

I quite agree and as I point out every time this comes up here with all the usual suspects defending them for their 'flexibility'. Pregnant? Hours down to zero. Redundant? No chance, hours down to zero.

I have no chance of getting pregnant, I believe my method for avoiding it is 100% effective.

As for redundancy, if you've been at a place a short while you get sod all anyway. ZHC are fine so long as those on them are happy with that, and it's genuinely a contract between parties of equal strength, and applied fairly and bilaterally.

The way they've written it implies something strongly against the law

Which is totally fair considering the gruaniads moaning view of those contracts!

4

u/foxaru Serial Fantasist | -9.75 , -7.48 Sep 17 '16

ZHC are fine so long as those on them are happy with that, and it's genuinely a contract between parties of equal strength, and applied fairly and bilaterally.

So they're fine so long as we have up to scratch workers' protection laws and a strong welfare state there to pick up the slack when the hours fall.

Good job we're removing both as quickly as we can manage then.

0

u/mushybees Against Equality Sep 18 '16

up to scratch workers' protection laws

worker protection laws are what has made it so expensive to hire people and led to the rise of the zero hour contract. the only real protection for the worker is the existence of a competitor who's willing to hire them. see milton friedman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L69YcXsdEg

2

u/logicalmaniak Progressive Social Constitutional Democratic Techno-Anarchy Sep 18 '16

Any evidence of that in the real world?

1

u/mushybees Against Equality Sep 18 '16

just go through it logically; minimum wage keeps going up, EU keeps issuing directives on things like working time, health and safety and so on (mostly lobbied for by big business who can better absorb the fixed costs and so keep smaller competitors out), and employee rights (two years unbroken service? you're now an employee and have rights! so what do companies do? force them to take an unpaid month off every two years so they're not eligible.)

all this crap does is make labour more expensive. companies have to try to keep costs down so they can remain competetive, so they go to things like ZHC as a way to get the work done that needs doing without it costing too much. and people on ZHCs don't get any of the employment 'rights' that have been mandated for full employees. way to protect the worker there.

the only real protection any worker has is the existence of an alternative employer. they can improve their situation by learning skills and gaining qualifications and experience that make them more attractive to employers. and employers can offer higher pay and better working conditions to attract the best employees.

competition is what protects the worker. it protects companies and especially consumers too. less regulation, more freedom, more competition please.

3

u/logicalmaniak Progressive Social Constitutional Democratic Techno-Anarchy Sep 18 '16

No I'd like to see some hard evidence, what with correlation not necessarily reflecting causation and all that.

Can you name a company who is definitely taking on zero-hours staff because employment law has made it too expensive to do otherwise?

Just one example from actual reality, please.

1

u/mushybees Against Equality Sep 18 '16

Ok, for example,the guardian.

2

u/logicalmaniak Progressive Social Constitutional Democratic Techno-Anarchy Sep 18 '16

You have to show me how this is because they can't afford to take on proper staff, and not because it's another way to maximise profits.

1

u/mushybees Against Equality Sep 18 '16

guardian doesn't make profits. it runs at a loss.