Zero hours contracts

My OH is on zero hours, he's 67, the nature of the job means he's not needed every day and if he wants time off he gets it albeit unpaid. Suits us!

The link between Zero hours contracts and a poor tenant not paying rent and trashing a house is co-incidental, not cause and affect. I had two Irish lads, lovely guys, new graduates, first job, who didn't deliberately trash my flat, but came from a culture where boys are idolised and while at home never did a thing for themselves. As a result had no idea how to look after themselves or a property. They left the grill on overnight and melted the cooker knobs and, as I discovered too late, damaged the electricity control board. then there were the bed side lamps, bedding, I had to get professional cleaners in to deep clean, etc etc etc.

I can see no use for zero hour contacts. DFiL worked in the car industry when it was seasonal, work all winter laid off in the summer. I know how destabilising it was. the car workers fought long and hard in the 1950s & 60s for a Guarenteed Week. It is a tragedy to see this basic foundation of a fair society undermined.

There are jobs where people do work off and on and that is understood and accepted. My cousin, now retired, delivers cars as a extra earner. He is happy to work on an ad-hoc basis - and have the right to turn down work if it is inconvenient. But this can be catered for by contract without it being a zero hours contract.

I can see no use for zero hour contacts

But, surprisingly to me, there are lots of posters on here who are saying that they like them.

But this can be catered for by contract without it being a zero hours contract.
Yes, it is called a zero hours contract.

An employee has to have a contract with his employer, if the employer cannot guarantee set working hours, then it must be a zero hours contract.
I don't see a problem with this, the employee is aware of the conditions. What was wrong was exclusivity, but that is now illegal.

No, they were not zero hours contracts, before zero hour contracts existed. The people doing these one off occasional jobs were freelancers, much as DH has been working as a self-employed/freelance consultant engineer since reirement

Because zero hours contracts suit some people doesn't make them acceptable in principle. Good post Flick. The real issue is what should be proper jobs being dressed up as zero hours to let employers off the hook - there is and was real exploitation and not just the exclusivity aspect.

I think there are significant differences between zero hours and self employed - don't ask me what, but I'm sure there are legal/tax implications. I was self employed as an IT consultant for a while, paperwork was a pain in the butt.

Yes I work as self employed/ freelance. As I suspect is the case with Flick's DH, this is not our only source of income and we do not have to worry about getting a mortgage or a rental contract or bringing up our children

I think there are significant differences between zero hours and self employed

One you are working for someone. In the other, you are working for yourself.
And probably less paperwork.
Different things really.

Because zero hours contracts suit some people doesn't make them acceptable in principle

Been pondering this. They seem to have their place.
But not good if you have to rely on them when you want to be employed full time. Best to avoid them in that case if you can.

For the record, I have offered this woman the tenancy. Fingers crossed – I hope it works for her and for me.

True, soontobe, true. . .

I also hope it works out absent, frankly don't see the difference from your point of view from freelance or even waged but unreliable. If you like the sound of the tenant, go with your instinct. I suppose one could always ask for a guarantor if one had reservations.

Well done, absent.
When my husband and I sold the guest house in York, we rented two different bungalows in two different place for six months each.
We had no references, because we had not rented for a long time, and we had new bank accounts. My husband was on benefits.
We were lucky because we had enough money to pay six months rent in advance for the first rental and the second was the same landlady as our son. I do not know what we would have done if we had not made any money on selling the guest house.

When, the universal credit is supposed to sort out that problem. Unfortunately, when it comes in, it is paid monthly in arrears, so many people have to get an emergency loan for the first month.

There is quite a lot of paperwork involved in being self-employed, especially if you are VAT registered.

It was the uncertainty of work that I could not cope with after 43 years of contractual employment. I always got as much work as I needed but never certain.

I have worked on lots of other jobs and have a part time self employed job, being zero hours means you don't have to accept work if you don't want to, it means that on summers days you can drive to the country and have a picnic or sit in the garden, the downside is that you may have to do extra hours on a weekend to make up but I like the variety, yes I would love a regular income but I am now used to this lifestyle and it suits many of us.

zero hours "means that on summers days you can drive to the country and have a picnic or sit in the garden" - tell that to the people struggling to put food on the table, never mind run a car!

You're all heart, ethel.

www.citizensuk.org/

While you continue to think that's okay, we are prpping up companies like Next and Tesco, who continue to pay peanuts to their workers and loads of money to their shareholders.
I do not wish to live in that sort of society.

My DD and her other half are both on contracted hours, she has a university degree, two children, pay their rent on time (as far as I know) but have trashed the lovely two bed flat that they have and the furniture inside it too (they have let the eldest boy wreck the leather settee which is the landlady's). The landlady lives in London and she will have a fit when she sees it, but I reckon they will have done a runner by then. I have not brought her up this way, I have no idea how she has got like this. But just because on paper they looked responsible doesn't necessarily make them so.

I would give this girl a short contract and then if she didn't pay, you could ask her to leave. Could you give her a month to month contract?

ethelt you obviously have an excellent employer. The big drawback to zero hours contracts is that workers are entirely at the mercy of the employer, in spite of having a contract. They have employment rights but the employer can simply not offer them work. I think exclusive contracts are no longer legal, but if workers turn down work, the employer may stop offering any. You can't judge the system based on your personal experience.

When I was on zero hours there was a lady that did extra hours for free/voluntary and if there were any extra hrs she would always be asked in. Eventually she was offered a perm job

ethelbags From the This is Money website:

"This [zero hours] type of contract would almost certainly affect your ability to gain confidence of a lender to secure a mortgage on a property.

"Let’s say you have no financial worries. You’ve been working 40 or 50 hours a week and you have been for years so your financial situation is good. No missed payments and no red marks on your credit report.


"You’ve saved hard for a deposit and decided the time is right to move out of rented accommodation and buy something of your own.

"Except, when you get to the bank you’re told they won’t give you a mortgage or a loan. Yes, they can see that you have the deposit and you’ve never missed a payment in your life but the problem is… you have a zero-hour contract.

"Those hours you’re working could dry up tomorrow and then how will you make the repayments? This makes grim reading for you and it may be time to reassess employment opportunities with a view to a more secure position."

I don't know when you bought your home but you previously said that you did so under the Right to Buy scheme - so presumably you got a reasonable discount. Provided the valuation placed on the property is considerably higher than the amount owing in mortgage, I think that may be acceptable to some lenders because, should you fall behind with repayments, they can re-possess your home, sell it and recoup what they are owed. I believe also that people who are considered to be a "higher risk" may also have to get a guarantor, pay some sort of indemnity insurance and/or pay a higher rate of interest.

A zero hours contract is referred to as having "no mutuality of obligation" - that is to say that the employer has no obligation to offer a minimum number of hours' work and the "worker" (people on zero hours contracts are not defined as "employees") has - in theory - no obligation to work the hours offered. In reality, though, workers have found that if they refuse to work the hours requested - even if they have received very little notice, have had to spend time and money travelling to get to work and are only required for 3 or 4 hours - it affects their chances of being offered future work. There is therefore a significant imbalance of power, weighted in favour of the employer.

Even if someone on a zero hours contract has worked for several years for an employer, they are not entitled to a written notice of terms and conditions of their employment and no statutory minimum notice period.

It is true that students and retired people may find this arrangement suits them, but for those people who have rent and bills to pay and no other means of financial support it must be very stressful.

Just heard on Newsnight that the number of people using food banks will reach a million this week. How many of those are on zero hours contracts?

I don't know, durhamjen. Do you?