The Politics Thread

[Bruce Rioja]

Because they don't have any choice?

Really? So you think that everyone on a zero hour contract doesn't have a choice? You don't think that they actually suit the circumstances of some? It's not North Korea you know?!

[thebish]

Because they don't have any choice?

Really? So you think that everyone on a zero hour contract doesn't have a choice? You don't think that they actually suit the circumstances of some? It's not North Korea you know?!

i think BWFCi did allow that zero hour contracts do suit some...

[BWFC_Insane]

Because they don't have any choice?

Really? So you think that everyone on a zero hour contract doesn't have a choice? You don't think that they actually suit the circumstances of some? It's not North Korea you know?!

As I said they suit some.

So why doesn't an employer give their staff a choice? You can have a fixed hours contract or a zero hours one depending upon your situation.

Then they aren't exploiting those who have little or no choice and the discussion goes away.

[Bruce Rioja]

Because they don't have any choice?

Really? So you think that everyone on a zero hour contract doesn't have a choice? You don't think that they actually suit the circumstances of some? It's not North Korea you know?!

As I said they suit some.

So why doesn't an employer give their staff a choice? You can have a fixed hours contract or a zero hours one depending upon your situation.

Then they aren't exploiting those who have little or no choice and the discussion goes away.

And as I said, it remains the right of the individual to sell their skill set to the highest bidder. Gaining experience in retail, catering or whatever makes these individuals more attractive to others. You keep using this term 'exploiting', completely disregarding the fact that no-one's being forced to do anything here.

[BWFC_Insane]

Because they don't have any choice?

Really? So you think that everyone on a zero hour contract doesn't have a choice? You don't think that they actually suit the circumstances of some? It's not North Korea you know?!

As I said they suit some.

So why doesn't an employer give their staff a choice? You can have a fixed hours contract or a zero hours one depending upon your situation.

Then they aren't exploiting those who have little or no choice and the discussion goes away.

And as I said, it remains the right of the individual to sell their skill set to the highest bidder. Gaining experience in retail, catering or whatever makes these individuals more attractive to others. You keep using this term 'exploiting', completely disregarding the fact that no-one's being forced to do anything here.

Which is a nice theory but doesn't work at the level we're discussing.

If that truly worked then there wouldn't be unhappy people on zero hours contracts. Or loads of people who want full time employment working part time as it's all they can get.

Not everyone has the freedom, or the skills set to hold power over their employer. In fact I'd say most don't. And in many cases they are in a job because it's all they can get and they need to make the rent payments to keep their kids in a house.

[Bruce Rioja]

OK, so if that's the case then what's your solution? Offer full time contracts to some and sod the rest?

[BWFC_Insane]

OK, so if that's the case then what's your solution? Offer full time contracts to some and sod the rest?

Offer fixed hours contracts rather than zero hours. Or offer both with the choice being there for the worker.

I don't see how that would be anything other than fair.

And as an absolute minimum and must ban the practice of companies taking on "zero hour workers" and then not allowing them to take up other jobs on a part time basis.

[Bruce Rioja]

And to fund these contracts?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The solution is to have an anarcho-socialist state. Always has been, I don't know why we haven't got one yet.

[Athers]

Someone I know works for TicketMaster (I know, evil) and he says they have them because by nature the workloads for the people on the phones, stuffing the envelopes etc. are up and down when there are major events. Most people get plenty work but they pare it back when there are quieter times of the year. Certainly suits the employer as they don't have staff hanging around doing nothing, but the points about suiting the employee are mentioned in my previous post.

I'm not sure this applies to McDonalds or SportsDirect when you can probably get a predictable stream of customers throughout the week, every single week.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

OK, so if that's the case then what's your solution? Offer full time contracts to some and sod the rest?

That would be my solution, yes.

Sports Direct's business model does not require the flexibility of having 90% of its staff on zero hour contracts.

[BWFC_Insane]

And to fund these contracts?

Why would it cost them significantly more? Or any more?

Surely they actually give hours out now as it is. A decent business should be able to convert that into full and part time contracts? And they can still offer zero hours contracts to those who they actually suit thus retaining their flexibility in their business model.

I don't see the issue?

[Bruce Rioja]

And to fund these contracts?

Why would it cost them significantly more? Or any more?

Surely they actually give hours out now as it is. A decent business should be able to convert that into full and part time contracts? And they can still offer zero hours contracts to those who they actually suit thus retaining their flexibility in their business model.

I don't see the issue?

No, that's right. You don't. You can either give zero hour contracts to many, or full time contracts to fewer.

[BWFC_Insane]

And to fund these contracts?

Why would it cost them significantly more? Or any more?

Surely they actually give hours out now as it is. A decent business should be able to convert that into full and part time contracts? And they can still offer zero hours contracts to those who they actually suit thus retaining their flexibility in their business model.

I don't see the issue?

No, that's right. You don't. You can either give zero hour contracts to many, or full time contracts to fewer.

You've still got the same hours to give out either way.

Lets say you employ 5 people to cover 10 hours. They all get 2 hours each.

Works the same giving them a part time fixed 2 hours contract as it does zero hours. Same hours worked. Same number of people employed jobs a good 'un.

If you employ everyone on zero hours or everyone on fixed hours, it makes no difference as an employer. You still have the same hours to fill.

And if flexibility is an issue offer zero hours to all those who it actually benefits. Then that problem is sorted.

So I don't think there is any issue.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

And to fund these contracts?

Why would it cost them significantly more? Or any more?

Surely they actually give hours out now as it is. A decent business should be able to convert that into full and part time contracts? And they can still offer zero hours contracts to those who they actually suit thus retaining their flexibility in their business model.

I don't see the issue?

No, that's right. You don't. You can either give zero hour contracts to many, or full time contracts to fewer.

I agree - so I'd rather have a few people with some stability and employment rights, rather than nobody.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23632096" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Has anyone discussed this on here?

I can't actually believe these adverts are not parody of something....

[thebish]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23632096

Has anyone discussed this on here?

I can't actually believe these adverts are not parody of something....

can't think it's anything more than what people nowadays seem to call "dog whistling" to the UKIP voters tories are so worried about... we've had lots of this..

there was the spate of announcements that the gov was about to do something significant about homeowners being able to kill burglars - yet - a year or so later - we've seen no actual change to the law at all

there were these vans - skating just this side of the line that distinguishes them from the "go home" graffiti of the old national front

we've seen very high-profile announcements about chasing down tax evaders with a top-ten list (or was it top twenty) - yet only one has been chased down...

yesterday there was a load of empty vacuous tosh about coming down hard on Travelers on illegal sites...

we'll see a lot more of it...

it's government by posturing and announcement with nothing actually changing in reality...

thing is - it works - just because the government has SAID something - people remember the news bulletins that reported it being said - and confuse that for something having been done...

[Harry Genshaw]

Immigration is a hot potato everywhere. The Australian Sarah Palin speaks out

http://au.news.yahoo.com/election/a/-/a ... rah-palin/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hoboh]

Immigration is a hot potato everywhere. The Australian Sarah Palin speaks out

http://au.news.yahoo.com/election/a/-/a ... rah-palin/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No chance! Where's the gun and GI Jane outfit?

[malcd1]

How about this method of getting peoples opinion. Can you see David Cameron as a taxi driver?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23655675" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;