UK General Election 2015

[mulhuzz]

I think you would be surprised at how many people actually LOVE zero hours contracts.

My wife is a Sister in Radcliffe in Oxford and she says new staff almost demand zero hours, as it gives them the flexibility to almost pick and choose when they work.

The resultant problem then becomes that no one wants to cover certain shifts and they end up paying a fortune to Temps/Locums etc and that is pretty much why the NHS is struggling.

I don't think I have ever come across anyone who likes these zero hours contracts Adz. I have 3-4 people who I have on zero hour contracts and they hate, but they only get on with it either to get experience or because luckily they have a imilar role with another business. I offer each person pretty much 10 hours a month & I choose to pay them a little bit more because I know it's only a few hours a month. They hate it, but they still work for it. There is no winner is this debate for the zero hours contracts though. If Labour try and go ahead with a 12 week period, then maybe businesses may not be forced to find that vacancy. Then again, there is no positive to it either. If I was labour instead of doing this, then I would offer a lower tax rate for these people. Think there are much more important things than the zero hours contract to be getting on with debating about.

But what I do believe is a complete red herring that the Tories keep giving us is the apparent decrease in unemployment. How many people are the government paying to work? These back to work schemes & so on, which show they are employed. I volunteer in a charity shop in the town centre when I can, there are THREE people in that shop alone that are on these schemes, all 18 hours a week, mostly subsidised by the government. So how many around the UK??

That's not necessarily representative though - a sizeable proportion, if not the majority, of zero hour contracts are seasonal jobs; often filled with students. There are 2.3 million HE students in the country and only 700,000 zero hour contracts so it wouldn't take many of them to make a large proportion who are happy on these types of contracts.

Yes, they are all students because that fits with your narrative,

Any evidence of that at all, other than, 'there are some students and it wouldnt take many of them'?

Get a fucking clue man.

[Jon MW]

I think you would be surprised at how many people actually LOVE zero hours contracts.

My wife is a Sister in Radcliffe in Oxford and she says new staff almost demand zero hours, as it gives them the flexibility to almost pick and choose when they work.

The resultant problem then becomes that no one wants to cover certain shifts and they end up paying a fortune to Temps/Locums etc and that is pretty much why the NHS is struggling.

I don't think I have ever come across anyone who likes these zero hours contracts Adz. I have 3-4 people who I have on zero hour contracts and they hate, but they only get on with it either to get experience or because luckily they have a imilar role with another business. I offer each person pretty much 10 hours a month & I choose to pay them a little bit more because I know it's only a few hours a month. They hate it, but they still work for it. There is no winner is this debate for the zero hours contracts though. If Labour try and go ahead with a 12 week period, then maybe businesses may not be forced to find that vacancy. Then again, there is no positive to it either. If I was labour instead of doing this, then I would offer a lower tax rate for these people. Think there are much more important things than the zero hours contract to be getting on with debating about.

But what I do believe is a complete red herring that the Tories keep giving us is the apparent decrease in unemployment. How many people are the government paying to work? These back to work schemes & so on, which show they are employed. I volunteer in a charity shop in the town centre when I can, there are THREE people in that shop alone that are on these schemes, all 18 hours a week, mostly subsidised by the government. So how many around the UK??

That's not necessarily representative though - a sizeable proportion, if not the majority, of zero hour contracts are seasonal jobs; often filled with students. There are 2.3 million HE students in the country and only 700,000 zero hour contracts so it wouldn't take many of them to make a large proportion who are happy on these types of contracts.

Yes, they are all students because that fits with your narrative,

Any evidence of that at all, other than, 'there are some students and it wouldnt take many of them'?

Get a fucking clue man.

I suspect that a large proportion of zero hour contracts are filled by higher education students.

To test that I would need to know the number of HE students on zero hour contracts - I can't find that statistic.

But, what I can find would suggest their are approximately 1.3 million students with some kind of employment

and given that zero hour contracts fits in well with the student need for flexible employment

what proportion of those would it be rational to assume were not on zero hour contracts?

It's possible, for example, that 90% of students in work have fixed hour contracts - but given that flexibility works well for them - would that be rational and/or expected?

And that's not even counting the 5 million or so further education students - and there must be a fair few 16 and 17 year olds on zero hour contracts (wouldn't you think?).

On a more anecdotal level (such as your example) - I live in a seaside town and I don't think I've particularly known of any of the seasonal staff who particularly cared that they didn't have fixed employment hours and days.

[david3103]

workers in demand will love zero hours contracts because they get the benefit of the flexibility to choose their hours.

Workers where there is a labour surplus will loathe them because the employer gets the benefit of the flexibility.

Their introduction hasn't changed the position for those workers who meet a demand for skills that much. It has changed the position for the unskilled and lower paid.

[mulhuzz]

It isn't even the zero hour component which fucks the poor, it's the exclusivity clauses which hurt.

[Jon MW]

It isn't even the zero hour component which fucks the poor, it's the exclusivity clauses which hurt.

It's a minor point - but isn't that why the Government is banning them?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/26/pdfs/ukpga_20150026_en.pdf

[Kmac84]

It isn't even the zero hour component which fucks the poor, it's the exclusivity clauses which hurt.

Very much this. 

I don't often agree with you Mulhuzz but in this you are 100% spot on. 

I work for a major finance company underwriting mortgages and the increasing number of zero hour contracts I am asked to take a view on day after day is staggeringly high and the vast majority of these people are not students. 

They are normally low paid workers, with a below average skill set or people who have been thrown to the lions den by this governments drastic austerity cutting measures. 

Whilst we are discussing we should also look at discussing the in work benefits that low paid workers find themselves on, the Government topping up the wage for their rich pals so they can get away paying shit wages.  I totally appreciate that not all people claiming CTC/WTC are in dead end jobs but for the vast majority it is most definitely the case.  When we talk abot benefits Britain we normally bash the sick and unemployed but the biggest drain on society are pensioners and in-work top-ups. 

It seems to me there are too many people with the attitude of well I'm ok so fuck everyone else, stuck in their middle class bubble looking down on the poor and who's narrative is framed by the right supporting media. 

[doubleup]

Working benefits will obviously be where the Tory cuts are aimed as they are so hooked on the grey vote that they won't   touch pensions.

[Kmac84]

Working benefits will obviously be where the Tory cuts are aimed as they are so hooked on the grey vote that they won't   touch pensions.

More likely they will continue to cut JSA/CHB/DLA etc than go after the in-work benefits.  The likes of WTC/CTC are a free roll for many of their rich pals who continue to pay below market wages. 

[nirvana]

It isn't even the zero hour component which fucks the poor, it's the exclusivity clauses which hurt.

Very much this. 

I don't often agree with you Mulhuzz but in this you are 100% spot on. 

I work for a major finance company underwriting mortgages and the increasing number of zero hour contracts I am asked to take a view on day after day is staggeringly high and the vast majority of these people are not students. 

They are normally low paid workers, with a below average skill set or people who have been thrown to the lions den by this governments drastic austerity cutting measures. 

Whilst we are discussing we should also look at discussing the in work benefits that low paid workers find themselves on, the Government topping up the wage for their rich pals so they can get away paying shit wages.  I totally appreciate that not all people claiming CTC/WTC are in dead end jobs but for the vast majority it is most definitely the case.  When we talk abot benefits Britain we normally bash the sick and unemployed but the biggest drain on society are pensioners and in-work top-ups. 

It seems to me there are too many people with the attitude of well I'm ok so fuck everyone else, stuck in their middle class bubble looking down on the poor and who's narrative is framed by the right supporting media. 

These low paid workers can become capitalists with owning houses and shiz.. pretty good e.g of first world problems. Yr in the castest ironist middle class bubble brah. If you wanna tell me all about your philanthropy though I'd really like that so I know that you are different from the general 'fuck everyone else' mentality that I agree prevails sadly

[aaron1867]

I think you would be surprised at how many people actually LOVE zero hours contracts.

My wife is a Sister in Radcliffe in Oxford and she says new staff almost demand zero hours, as it gives them the flexibility to almost pick and choose when they work.

The resultant problem then becomes that no one wants to cover certain shifts and they end up paying a fortune to Temps/Locums etc and that is pretty much why the NHS is struggling.

I don't think I have ever come across anyone who likes these zero hours contracts Adz. I have 3-4 people who I have on zero hour contracts and they hate, but they only get on with it either to get experience or because luckily they have a imilar role with another business. I offer each person pretty much 10 hours a month & I choose to pay them a little bit more because I know it's only a few hours a month. They hate it, but they still work for it. There is no winner is this debate for the zero hours contracts though. If Labour try and go ahead with a 12 week period, then maybe businesses may not be forced to find that vacancy. Then again, there is no positive to it either. If I was labour instead of doing this, then I would offer a lower tax rate for these people. Think there are much more important things than the zero hours contract to be getting on with debating about.

But what I do believe is a complete red herring that the Tories keep giving us is the apparent decrease in unemployment. How many people are the government paying to work? These back to work schemes & so on, which show they are employed. I volunteer in a charity shop in the town centre when I can, there are THREE people in that shop alone that are on these schemes, all 18 hours a week, mostly subsidised by the government. So how many around the UK??

That's not necessarily representative though - a sizeable proportion, if not the majority, of zero hour contracts are seasonal jobs; often filled with students. There are 2.3 million HE students in the country and only 700,000 zero hour contracts so it wouldn't take many of them to make a large proportion who are happy on these types of contracts.

Yes, they are all students because that fits with your narrative,

Any evidence of that at all, other than, 'there are some students and it wouldnt take many of them'?

Get a fucking clue man.

I suspect that a large proportion of zero hour contracts are filled by higher education students.

To test that I would need to know the number of HE students on zero hour contracts - I can't find that statistic.

But, what I can find would suggest their are approximately 1.3 million students with some kind of employment

and given that zero hour contracts fits in well with the student need for flexible employment

what proportion of those would it be rational to assume were not on zero hour contracts?

I don't know where you can find the statistic either mate, but I would go against your opinion that it's for HE students. I know a lot of people tend to go on zero hours to either try and get work or top up their benefits. I wouldn't say there is much in it anyway.

Anyone going to be watching the debate tonight who is still yet undecided on who to vote for? Or are people (like me) watching to see what happens but still won't be swayed in voting for a different party anyway?

[Kmac84]

It isn't even the zero hour component which fucks the poor, it's the exclusivity clauses which hurt.

Very much this. 

I don't often agree with you Mulhuzz but in this you are 100% spot on. 

I work for a major finance company underwriting mortgages and the increasing number of zero hour contracts I am asked to take a view on day after day is staggeringly high and the vast majority of these people are not students. 

They are normally low paid workers, with a below average skill set or people who have been thrown to the lions den by this governments drastic austerity cutting measures. 

Whilst we are discussing we should also look at discussing the in work benefits that low paid workers find themselves on, the Government topping up the wage for their rich pals so they can get away paying shit wages.  I totally appreciate that not all people claiming CTC/WTC are in dead end jobs but for the vast majority it is most definitely the case.  When we talk abot benefits Britain we normally bash the sick and unemployed but the biggest drain on society are pensioners and in-work top-ups. 

It seems to me there are too many people with the attitude of well I'm ok so fuck everyone else, stuck in their middle class bubble looking down on the poor and who's narrative is framed by the right supporting media. 

These low paid workers can become capitalists with owning houses and shiz.. pretty good e.g of first world problems. Yr in the castest ironist middle class bubble brah. If you wanna tell me all about your philanthropy though I'd really like that so I know that you are different from the general 'fuck everyone else' mentality that I agree prevails sadly

I don't have the funds to be phillantropist, but I give what I can to those less fortunate than me.  I look out for those in my community, I don't look down my nose at people who are less well off than me, I don't have pre-conceived ideas about people who claim benefits. 

[neeko]

Best bit of the debate so far for me, my sky signal has died and it has gone quiet.

[TightEnd]

!!!

i repeat

!!!

"Not one member of a YouGov panel held earlier this week could name Nicola Sturgeon. But according to Google, the SNP leader was the most searched for participant midway through the debate, and by the end of the evening the sixth most googled question was “Can I vote for the SNP?”.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/03/revealed-the-winner-of-the-leaders-election-debate

[mulhuzz]

!!!

i repeat

!!!

"Not one member of a YouGov panel held earlier this week could name Nicola Sturgeon. But according to Google, the SNP leader was the most searched for participant midway through the debate, and by the end of the evening the sixth most googled question was “Can I vote for the SNP?”.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/03/revealed-the-winner-of-the-leaders-election-debate

Absolutely incredible that. Her performance was imperious though, to be fair.

Think she allayed a lot of people's (my own included) that if they are kingmakers, they will still represent the entire country.

I'm not sure at what point they push for another in/out referendum for Scotland, but surely not for another generation? If they perform well they'll get it, as well.

[Teacake]

Sturgeons performance was only a surprise to those outside of Scotland, she is a massively impressive politician with a huge amount of debating experience. Jim Murphy must have been absolutely spewing last night. The SNP now have over 100,000 members in a country of just over 5m with another 1600 joining last night alone.