Bolitics The New Condem Government

[snowychap]

Zero hours contract employees are employees - casual workers are workers...

Isn't the status of the individual one of the things that appears to be a big problem with what is being reported of these contracts?

It comes across like a lot of these contracts are affording the individual the rights of a worker whilst expecting them to honour the obligations of an employee and that becomes a bit of a one-sided bet because only a tribunal can definitively say in a specific case whether or not the person's status is that of a worker or an employee.

Edited August 7, 2013 by snowychap

[Risso]

It's worth pointing out at this stage that the introduction of the dismal and completely unnecessary AWR was driven entirely by the EU, and has had no discernible effect other than pissing off both employers and contractors/agency workers alike, and leading in part to this whole "zero hours" situation.

[peterms]

 

Zero hours contract employees are employees - casual workers are workers...

Isn't the status of the individual one of the things that appears to be a big problem with what is being reported of these contracts?

It comes across like a lot of these contracts are affording the individual the rights of a worker whilst expecting them to honour the obligations of an employee and that becomes a bit of a one-sided bet because only a tribunal can definitively say in a specific case whether or not the person's status is that of a worker or an employee.

 

 

Though there will be much less chance of tribunals poking their nose in, with the recent changes.

[snowychap]

Indeed.

[tonyh29]

 

isn't that the case everywhere though ?  does anyone in the country only work the 37.5 (or whatever)  dead that is required of them and not a second more ?

I didn't mean the odd bit of unpaid overtime or the sensible flexibility that may have someone doing a bit more one day/week and being forgiven for coming in ten minutes late when the bus is late but rather regular unpaid 'shifts' of work (or regularly being expected to work an 8 hour day but only being paid for a 7.5 hour day).

 

 

 I suspect if you speak to anyone that works in IT they will tell you they regularly work extra unpaid shifts of hours each week  , that's the nature of the job  ... heck you can't just clock off  a customers site at 17:30 with their file server down and say see you tomorrow  .. I never used to get paid for it back in my IT days , i'd be surprised if your IT guys do now either

 

yer typical investment banker  , least the ones I worked for , were at the desk at around 7am and left around 7pm , 5 days a week ... what do you think their contract of employment hours were ?

 

now , I know it's a bad example as they got paid a shit load more money than a care worker , but it was expected of them pretty much every day regardless of what was on their contract   ...

 

 

care workers aren't the only ones is all I'm saying ....

[snowychap]

I suspect if you speak to anyone that works in IT they will tell you they regularly work extra unpaid shifts of hours each week  , that's the nature of the job  ... heck you can't just clock off  a customers site at 17:30 with their file server down and say see you tomorrow  .. I never used to get paid for it back in my IT days , i'd be surprised if your IT guys do now either

 

yer typical investment banker  , least the ones I worked for , were at the desk at around 7am and left around 7pm , 5 days a week ... what do you think their contract of employment hours were ?

 

now , I know it's a bad example as they got paid a shit load more money than a care worker , but it was expected of them pretty much every day regardless of what was on their contract   ...

I think you've muddied the waters with your investment banker example, haven't you? The work over and above their 'normal hours would likely have some direct financial impact on the remuneration they received (or at least they would hope that their exertions might improve bonuses and wotnot, surely?)

I know there are large numbers of people doing what may be classed as 'upaid' work if one were to compare the actual hours worked against their normal contractual hours and if it is expected by an employer or not fully of an employee's volition then I do think it is appalling. I don't think it matters quite how much someone is getting paid but how someone is getting paid.

There may be any number of reasons why an employee would want to do that work (and I've often done 'unpaid' stuff myself) but if they are waged, i.e. being paid an hourly rate for a particular number of hours, then I think it's out of order for an employer (other than as mentioned above, e.g. as part of a good employee/employer relationship based upon mutual flexibility) to expect an employee to work for free and, frankly, it's utterly daft for an employee to accede.

Going back to the care worker thing - it wasn't to single them out as the only set of workers exploited by their employers (as we all know, exploitation is the basis of any employment relationship ) but to support the question I posed about how your nan's care home is able to convey the appearance it does to you.

 

I think it's also quite interesting that the discussion has moved off at a tangent in to this because if we bring it back to casual contracts (and/or the zero-hours ones), the implicit understanding ought to be that the worker/employee is paid for every single moment of work that they carry out, no?

Edited August 7, 2013 by snowychap

[Risso]

"Bank of England governor Mark Carney has said the Bank will not consider raising interest rates until the jobless rate has fallen to 7% or below."

 

Right, who can I sack?

[bickster]

yer typical investment banker  , least the ones I worked for , were at the desk at around 7am and left around 7pm , 5 days a week ... what do you think their contract of employment hours were ?

Investment bankers are salaried with huge bonuses. Most of us would gladly work extra hours to secure those brucies

[tonyh29]

 

yer typical investment banker  , least the ones I worked for , were at the desk at around 7am and left around 7pm , 5 days a week ... what do you think their contract of employment hours were ?

Investment bankers are salaried with huge bonuses. Most of us would gladly work extra hours to secure those brucies

 

 

selective quoting FTL  , I even pretty much said as much  in my post that you cut  ..still at least it kept the 3 stooges happy

 

 

I'm sure most of us would work those hours to secure to secure the big bucks , once we've spent our younger years socking it to the establishment with our long hair and Che GuevaraT-shirt  on the streets of London

[tonyh29]

"Bank of England governor Mark Carney has said the Bank will not consider raising interest rates until the jobless rate has fallen to 7% or below."

 

Right, who can I sack?

Drats joke writer ....

[Risso]

That's low man, really low.

[peterms]

 

"Bank of England governor Mark Carney has said the Bank will not consider raising interest rates until the jobless rate has fallen to 7% or below."

 

Right, who can I sack?

Drats joke writer ....

 

 

Now that's someone who really is on zero hours.

[meregreen]

The day anyone defending these zero hour contracts requests that their employer puts them on one, is the day I might take their callous reasoning seriously. I don't expect any takers.

[markavfc40]

£500 million having to be pumped into struggling A and E units. Its an open admission of failure isn't it. It will only paper over the cracks though. A and E units are at breaking point but the problems go much deeper. Massive cuts to community care mean that beds are being taken up on wards as people that could go home won't have the care in the community they will need so have to stay in hospital. This means that people are spending longer in A and E as there are no beds on wards for them to go to.

When you put this 500 million figure against the 20 billion in savings that are having to be found across the NHS and the billions that have been cut from local government funding meaning inevitable cuts in community care then you can see this 500 million really will have a tiny very short term impact.

The NHS will simply not survive under the Tories.

[villaajax]

They have been against the NHS right from the start to be fair.

 

 

Why should poor people have access to healthcare?

[drat01]

£500 million having to be pumped into struggling A and E units. Its an open admission of failure isn't it. It will only paper over the cracks though. A and E units are at breaking point but the problems go much deeper. Massive cuts to community care mean that beds are being taken up on wards as people that could go home won't have the care in the community they will need so have to stay in hospital. This means that people are spending longer in A and E as there are no beds on wards for them to go to.

When you put this 500 million figure against the 20 billion in savings that are having to be found across the NHS and the billions that have been cut from local government funding meaning inevitable cuts in community care then you can see this 500 million really will have a tiny very short term impact.

The NHS will simply not survive under the Tories.

even Cameron admitted that A&E numbers have risen recently. This is because other areas have been cut and A&E is the last resort for many people for instances that were and should still be cared for within other areas of the care system.

 

All of the BS that the Tory Gvmt and it's supporters give re the NHS show their complete and utter disregard for the NHS and more importantly what it actually stands for in our society. No Tory Gvmt have been real supporters of the NHS and this one in particular have more to gain from its disbandment

[drat01]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23617555

 

Quite an interesting story here re a leading Tory and his association with a fairly obscene racist group

[villaajax]

Ugh, Rees-Mogg, how can anyone take him seriously? He's just some silly caricature like Fabricant or that buffoon Johnson.

[peterms]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23617555

 

Quite an interesting story here re a leading Tory and his association with a fairly obscene racist group

 

He says he's shocked by their views.  As though he had no idea about them beforehand, yet agreed to speak at their event. 

 

But Searchlight warned him about them beforehand, and suggested that speaking at their event was not good.  This is the warning the BBC story mentions, saying he checked out the warning by asking the organiser of the event. 

 

I wonder how the conversation might have gone?  "I've been told your group is associated with far-right extremists in Europe".  "Oh no, that's just a smear".  "Well, that's all right then".

 

He now claims that he cleared his attendance at the event with Central Office.  Central Office deny it, saying that clearing such an event with them would not be expected.

 

It seems to be getting worse for him by the hour.

[tonyh29]

They have been against the NHS right from the start to be fair.

Why should poor people have access to healthcare?

You'd have to be a pretty sad individual to own a mug like that

It was also Beveridge's NHS in principal and he was a Liberal , though it was a labour govt that implemented the cross party proposals of the report