Scotland's Oil

[pandarilla]

Zero hours contracts are actually more prevelant in the voluntary and public sector than in the private.

I don't really understand why it would matter that a ZHC isn't possible for every job. Not every job has the same requirements.

I stand corrected. It allows arsehole councils to shaft workers, as well as some companies.

[Mr Bairn]

Zero hours contracts are actually more prevelant in the voluntary and public sector than in the private.

I don't really understand why it would matter that a ZHC isn't possible for every job. Not every job has the same requirements.

Surely every contract is zero hours in the voluntary sector? Charities can't force people to volunteer with them can they? I'd have thought they'd have taken all the help they're offered.

[Confidemus]

Surely every contract is zero hours in the voluntary sector? Charities can't force people to volunteer with them can they? I'd have thought they'd have taken all the help they're offered.

Are you really this stupid? Surely not.

[Mr Bairn]

Are you really this stupid? Surely not.

What?

[ICTChris]

I stand corrected. It allows arsehole councils to shaft workers, as well as some companies.

I think you've said on here that you are a teacher. Have you ever done supply work? That is effectively on a zero hour contract. A few years ago my wife worked as a supply teacher at the same time as doing shifts in another job. There are a lot of teachers for whom supply works well. I don't think it's difficult to imagine similar scenarios where it's better for people not to have set hours. Similarly, it's obvious the benefits employers get from zero hours contracts, being able to manage their staff better to face demand etc.

Mr Bairn, a better description of the 'voluntary' sector would perhaps be 'not for profit'. Either way, voluntary organisations and charities employ many people, on zero hours contracts or not.

[pandarilla]

I think you've said on here that you are a teacher. Have you ever done supply work? That is effectively on a zero hour contract. A few years ago my wife worked as a supply teacher at the same time as doing shifts in another job. There are a lot of teachers for whom supply works well. I don't think it's difficult to imagine similar scenarios where it's better for people not to have set hours. Similarly, it's obvious the benefits employers get from zero hours contracts, being able to manage their staff better to face demand etc.

Mr Bairn, a better description of the 'voluntary' sector would perhaps be 'not for profit'. Either way, voluntary organisations and charities employ many people, on zero hours contracts or not.

Surely the supply system worked the same way before ZHCs were brought in? I've been fortunate enough to never need supply work but obviously know a lot of folk who have used it. I don't see how ZHCs work better for the teacher in this instance - as opposed to how it was before.

There's no doubt they help employers - that's the point of them. But if we're going down that route then there are a lot of other things we could introduce - or get rid of.

[invergowrie arab]

What?

The voluntary sector means anybody employed by a voluntary organisation. for the sake of a simple definition that is any organisaton who has a voluntary management board and who tend to be non-profit.

So anybody employed by Shelter, Barnardos, Red Cross right down to the manager of your local charity shop if they draw a wage. Hundreds of voluntary organisations across Scotland have service level agreements with local authorities to provide services that LA's do not have the expertise to provide, especially around disability, mental health, support services to communities etc

Tens of thousands of people in Scotland have paid jobs in the voluntary sector.

I think Confi is implying that by not knowing this you are thick. I disagree, i just think you are staggeringly ignorant abut the society that you live in.

[Blaven]

Did zero hour contracts arrive on these shores at the same time as Atos?

[ICTChris]

Surely the supply system worked the same way before ZHCs were brought in? I've been fortunate enough to never need supply work but obviously know a lot of folk who have used it. I don't see how ZHCs work better for the teacher in this instance - as opposed to how it was before.

There's no doubt they help employers - that's the point of them. But if we're going down that route then there are a lot of other things we could introduce - or get rid of.

How was supply teaching run before? Supply teachers (in the public sector) are registered with their local council, if there's a need for them the council gives them work, if there isn't they don't work and don't get paid. That's a zero hour contract.

If you want to be able to work flexibly and not have a set pattern then zero hour contracts are ideal. I'm sure lots of people who work in that way are satisfied with them.

[pandarilla]

How was supply teaching run before? Supply teachers (in the public sector) are registered with their local council, if there's a need for them the council gives them work, if there isn't they don't work and don't get paid. That's a zero hour contract.

If you want to be able to work flexibly and not have a set pattern then zero hour contracts are ideal. I'm sure lots of people who work in that way are satisfied with them.

My point is that the introduction of ZHCs in recent years has not helped supply teachers.

I'm not arguing that ZHCs are bad for everyone. I just don't see any employee who has been helped by them. There are instances (like supply teaching) where this kind of practice has always existed - but the recent spread of them seems to have been entirely disadvantageous for workers.

[Confidemus]

The voluntary sector means anybody employed by a voluntary organisation. for the sake of a simple definition that is any organisaton who has a voluntary management board and who tend to be non-profit.

So anybody employed by Shelter, Barnardos, Red Cross right down to the manager of your local charity shop if they draw a wage. Hundreds of voluntary organisations across Scotland have service level agreements with local authorities to provide services that LA's do not have the expertise to provide, especially around disability, mental health, support services to communities etc

Tens of thousands of people in Scotland have paid jobs in the voluntary sector.

I think Confi is implying that by not knowing this you are thick. I disagree, i just think you are staggeringly ignorant abut the society that you live in.

That is indeed what I was implying, but I maintain that he is as thick as a whale shite.

[Desert Nomad]

Anyhow oil. http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/clair-ridge-and-scotlands-new-oil-boom/

[ICTChris]

My point is that the introduction of ZHCs in recent years has not helped supply teachers.

I'm not arguing that ZHCs are bad for everyone. I just don't see any employee who has been helped by them. There are instances (like supply teaching) where this kind of practice has always existed - but the recent spread of them seems to have been entirely disadvantageous for workers.

I don't think the current arrangement for supply teachers is new. My wife worked as a supply teacher seven years ago. I've got other relatives who did the same job in the same fashion 15-20 years ago. You seem to be saying that this is a new practice, it isn't.

You say that you don't know anyone who has benefitted and that the recent spread of these contacts has been entirely disadvantageous but there's research that indicates otherwise. According to research the majority of people on zero hour contracts are satisfied with their job and circumstances. Lots of people don't want to work 9-5, they might not like work, they might have health problems that mean they can't work regular hours, they might have child care responsibilities. For employers whose businesses are heavily driven by demand it's a good way to keep costs down, both by not having staff sitting around doing nothing when things are quiet and by avoiding agency fees for short-term staff.

It clearly wouldn't suit everyone but it's fairly obvious that there are benefits on both sides.

[Guest]

Then you'd be wrong Karl.

We may be a neutered country that should hide its face when meeting up with all the other countries of the world, but we'd still be a country.

Aye, officially, I know we'd still be a country.

I'd just find it difficult identifying Scotland as a country from a personal point of view. In the event of a No vote, that is.

[Reynard]

How was supply teaching run before? Supply teachers (in the public sector) are registered with their local council, if there's a need for them the council gives them work, if there isn't they don't work and don't get paid. That's a zero hour contract.

If you want to be able to work flexibly and not have a set pattern then zero hour contracts are ideal. I'm sure lots of people who work in that way are satisfied with them.

My old boss was a physics teacher who did a bit of supply teaching so he could have ridiculous holidays abroad for months on end. This was back in the late 80s. As you say he registered with whatever local authority he could reach in time if they gave him a call and that was that. He generally never knocked anything back. He worked for two years full time at Prestwick Academy but as a supply teacher. He was paid the full whack and then was taxed on it every six months like any other self employed person is. He eventually took a full time job because he had previously worked in teaching and had worked out he would get the full pension if he did a certain number of years. He did this and then took a package to retire at 59, loaded. His wife also did supply as a primary teacher in a similar fashion. All ZHC. Think she still does it. To suggest its a bad thing all round is drivel, it definitely suits plenty of people. They provide the labour, the employer coughs up, they all f**k off home. Rinse, repeat. Dont like it, find something else.

[Confidemus]

My old boss was a physics teacher who did a bit of supply teaching so he could have ridiculous holidays abroad for months on end. This was back in the late 80s. As you say he registered with whatever local authority he could reach in time if they gave him a call and that was that. He generally never knocked anything back. He worked for two years full time at Prestwick Academy but as a supply teacher. He was paid the full whack and then was taxed on it every six months like any other self employed person is. He eventually took a full time job because he had previously worked in teaching and had worked out he would get the full pension if he did a certain number of years. He did this and then took a package to retire at 59, loaded. His wife also did supply as a primary teacher in a similar fashion. All ZHC. Think she still does it. To suggest its a bad thing all round is drivel, it definitely suits plenty of people. They provide the labour, the employer coughs up, they all f**k off home. Rinse, repeat. Dont like it, find something else.

I'll condense the above down to a single word. Pish.

[pandarilla]

I don't think the current arrangement for supply teachers is new. My wife worked as a supply teacher seven years ago. I've got other relatives who did the same job in the same fashion 15-20 years ago. You seem to be saying that this is a new practice, it isn't.

You say that you don't know anyone who has benefitted and that the recent spread of these contacts has been entirely disadvantageous but there's research that indicates otherwise. According to research the majority of people on zero hour contracts are satisfied with their job and circumstances. Lots of people don't want to work 9-5, they might not like work, they might have health problems that mean they can't work regular hours, they might have child care responsibilities. For employers whose businesses are heavily driven by demand it's a good way to keep costs down, both by not having staff sitting around doing nothing when things are quiet and by avoiding agency fees for short-term staff.

It clearly wouldn't suit everyone but it's fairly obvious that there are benefits on both sides.

My old boss was a physics teacher who did a bit of supply teaching so he could have ridiculous holidays abroad for months on end. This was back in the late 80s. As you say he registered with whatever local authority he could reach in time if they gave him a call and that was that. He generally never knocked anything back. He worked for two years full time at Prestwick Academy but as a supply teacher. He was paid the full whack and then was taxed on it every six months like any other self employed person is. He eventually took a full time job because he had previously worked in teaching and had worked out he would get the full pension if he did a certain number of years. He did this and then took a package to retire at 59, loaded. His wife also did supply as a primary teacher in a similar fashion. All ZHC. Think she still does it. To suggest its a bad thing all round is drivel, it definitely suits plenty of people. They provide the labour, the employer coughs up, they all f**k off home. Rinse, repeat. Dont like it, find something else.

Yeah my point has been misunderstood.

I'm definitely not saying that supply teachers working in this manner is a new thing - it obviously isn't. There will be other examples where this has been the case because it suited all sorts of folk.

My point is that there has been a recent trend in Britain to introduce more ZHCs. This recent trend has not benefitted workers at all (as far as I've read). Those workers you suggest (like supply teachers) were always engaged in this kind of work - because it suited everyone.

The recent trend however has been introduced to save companies (or cash-strapped local authorities) from giving workers rights - and offering ZHCs where before there would've been more traditional arrangements. Now in some cases the employees have not been disadvantaged (because it suited them) - but these cases would've existed anyway when it was appropriate. Plenty of folk are being shafted in a way that I, and many others (but most certainly not Reynard), find unacceptable.

The only benefit of this recent trend is to the employers. I therefore believe that they are a fairly archaic development in Britain - and the recent trend should come to an end (but obviously on the occasions where it has always been the case - this will continue (so that if I ever get the chance to retire early I can fund my 6 month holiday in northern Italy).

[ICTChris]

Yeah my point has been misunderstood.

I'm definitely not saying that supply teachers working in this manner is a new thing - it obviously isn't. There will be other examples where this has been the case because it suited all sorts of folk.

My point is that there has been a recent trend in Britain to introduce more ZHCs. This recent trend has not benefitted workers at all (as far as I've read). Those workers you suggest (like supply teachers) were always engaged in this kind of work - because it suited everyone.

The recent trend however has been introduced to save companies (or cash-strapped local authorities) from giving workers rights - and offering ZHCs where before there would've been more traditional arrangements. Now in some cases the employees have not been disadvantaged (because it suited them) - but these cases would've existed anyway when it was appropriate. Plenty of folk are being shafted in a way that I, and many others (but most certainly not Reynard), find unacceptable.

The only benefit of this recent trend is to the employers. I therefore believe that they are a fairly archaic development in Britain - and the recent trend should come to an end (but obviously on the occasions where it has always been the case - this will continue (so that if I ever get the chance to retire early I can fund my 6 month holiday in northern Italy).

You say that the recent trend has been introduced to save companies from giving workers rights - you don't have to have people on a zero hour contract to avoid having to pay sick pay, maternity etc. It's standard practice in a lot of places to avoid employing contracters for a full year to prevent them becoming eligible for redundancy etc. One of my former employers regularly terminated all contracters to avoid them being employed for more than a year and thus getting access to redundancy, holiday pay etc.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development produced a survey on zero hour contracts, questioning both employers and people on ZHCs. It's an interesting read. According to this survey the main motivation for employers using ZHC is to be able to respond to changes in demand. It also covers that people on the contracts have a broadly similar level of job satisfaction to those that are on 'normal' contracts and that far more are satisified with having no contracted hours than are dissatisifed with this.

http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/zero-hours-contracts_2013-myth-reality.pdf

[Mr Bairn]

I suppose that's my one disadvantage to my ZHC. If I call in sick I don't get paid. In my old job I got sick pay.

[pandarilla]

You say that the recent trend has been introduced to save companies from giving workers rights - you don't have to have people on a zero hour contract to avoid having to pay sick pay, maternity etc. It's standard practice in a lot of places to avoid employing contracters for a full year to prevent them becoming eligible for redundancy etc. One of my former employers regularly terminated all contracters to avoid them being employed for more than a year and thus getting access to redundancy, holiday pay etc.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development produced a survey on zero hour contracts, questioning both employers and people on ZHCs. It's an interesting read. According to this survey the main motivation for employers using ZHC is to be able to respond to changes in demand. It also covers that people on the contracts have a broadly similar level of job satisfaction to those that are on 'normal' contracts and that far more are satisified with having no contracted hours than are dissatisifed with this.

http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/zero-hours-contracts_2013-myth-reality.pdf

That was quite an interesting read (ish).

I'm a tad dubious about who cipd are, and they're level of trustworthiness on this issue. They represent HR, and in my view are therefore more likely to support ZHCs.

Their findings are at odds with the Resolution Foundation's previous study:

'Research by the Resolution Foundation (Pennycook et al 2013) on the use of zero-hours contracts concludes that while zero-hours working may suit some groups of workers, for the majority of people employed on these types of contract, the freedom and choice they potentially offer is more ‘apparent than real’'. (from the cipd report)

I also think employers are less likely to answer the question 'why do you use ZHCs' in an honest manner, and would therefore be more likely to choose something like - 'to cope with the flexible levels of blah blah blah'. It sounds much more right on than 'we'd rather save money any which way we can'.

Anyway I still reckon that the increase in ZHCs over the last few years is an unhealthy development for society. Those circumstances where it suited both employers and employees were already using them - and therefore now they are being introduced for those that don't necessarily want them (but beggars can't be choosers eh).

Then again I am naturally suspicious of employers who try to side-step regulations - a clear left-wing bias.