pandarilla Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 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. Quite a massive disadvantage - especially if you have some sort of a chronic illness or something. But hey, Reynard says 'jog on' and get a different job so that's alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 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 Ten months is the longest a Temporary worker can expect in our place.They are then laid off for six weeks and then asked back to repeat the cycle.It is a horrible way to treat people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabinoban Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Anyhow oil. http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/clair-ridge-and-scotlands-new-oil-boom/ I happen to know a BP oceanographer who confirms this, and that if and when a No vote comes there will be an unprecedented level of exploration in the Scottish offshore region. If that is indeed the case I hope all that lined Westminster's pockets to squander on WMDs and illegal wars choke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I happen to know a BP oceanographer who confirms this, and that if and when a No vote comes there will be an unprecedented level of exploration in the Scottish offshore region. If that is indeed the case I hope all that lined Westminster's pockets to squander on WMDs and illegal wars choke. Any vote will see unprecedented levels of exploration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 How big a hole in the ground would £4.5 billion make if you owned a gold or diamond mine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 How big a hole in the ground would £4.5 billion make if you owned a gold or diamond mine? Simplest ive ever heard is,you put in a lada to get a fleet of rolls royces Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Ten months is the longest a Temporary worker can expect in our place.They are then laid off for six weeks and then asked back to repeat the cycle.It is a horrible way to treat people. The contractors in that workplace weren't fussed at all really. It's just part of the job and they all got paid a fortune. I appreciate that they weren't representative of all short-term or contract workers though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Thought this thread was aboot oil. Scotlands oil. Some great deflection going on in here from unionists. Understandable considering their "oil is running out" scare is in the process of being blown oot the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/987/worlds-a-oil-field-not-found-the-mystery-surrounding-the-prime-ministers-shetland-visit/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joozy Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/987/worlds-a-oil-field-not-found-the-mystery-surrounding-the-prime-ministers-shetland-visit/ Does anyone actually believe this shite? I mean really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/987/worlds-a-oil-field-not-found-the-mystery-surrounding-the-prime-ministers-shetland-visit/ To be honest I don't believe too much should be made of the whole shady Cameron aspect to this story. To easy to deny. The important thing is that the oil is present in by all accounts large quantities and extractable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Does anyone actually believe this shite? I mean really... That's my opinion on about 90 PERCENT of what the NO camp come out with!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Does anyone actually believe this shite? I mean really... Not really i just put it for a bit of fun but i do believe http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/clair-ridge-and-scotlands-new-oil-boom/ And what im being told by people in the know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Does anyone actually believe this shite? I mean really... Only those who think that oil finds on the Firth of Clyde have been suppressed for 30 years by The MOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 mmm http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN0F10MQ20140626?irpc=932 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Lets see what Bp say http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/careers/working-at-bp/our-projects/clair.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Only those who think that oil finds on the Firth of Clyde have been suppressed for 30 years by The MOD. Aye Kinky, I mean the UK government would never suppress positive information about Scotland's Oil, would they? * cough - McCrone - cough * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Aye Kinky, I mean the UK government would never suppress positive information about Scotland's Oil, would they? * cough - McCrone - cough * Oh FFs Bud. Not like you to compare apples and pears. So talk me through how The MOD suppressed the oil potential of the Firth of Clyde/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 No voters only believe what they read on the BT website. The only oil that Scotland owns in in their millions of chippies. amahrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.