Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B968 - Payment of Overtime on Low-Hours Employment Contracts Bill Watch

    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    They don't go out of the company they would offer overtime to one of the current members of staff who.

    At a place like sainsburys when someone is ill where do the cover staff come from?
    Sickness should still have relatively little effect. For a start, this doesn't apply to people who work overtime who are already on full-time contracts (32 hours or more); further, in the extreme case that a full-time employee is off sick for a week (let's say 38 hours), and a minimum wage employee on a part-time contract is drafted in to cover for them, this will cost the employer about a hundred quid.

    This is an extreme case, and the vast majority of situations where a sick employee is being covered by another, it will cost the employer usually nothing (if they have employees on at least 32 hours willing to take on additional hours), but usually at most, an extra 20-30 quid.

    Assuming an employee is off sick on average about five days a year (seems pretty normal), this will cost an employer at most about 1% of an extra employee, a truly negligible amount.

    The fears that this costs small businesses (who do not currently exploit ZHCs by guaranteeing zero hours but requiring double digits) a significant amount are completely unfounded. If this makes any small business unprofitable, they would go out of business the second anything else went wrong, even without this Bill, anyway.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Sickness should still have relatively little effect. For a start, this doesn't apply to people who work overtime who are already on full-time contracts (32 hours or more); further, in the extreme case that a full-time employee is off sick for a week (let's say 38 hours), and a minimum wage employee on a part-time contract is drafted in to cover for them, this will cost the employer about a hundred quid.

    This is an extreme case, and the vast majority of situations where a sick employee is being covered by another, it will cost the employer usually nothing (if they have employees on at least 32 hours willing to take on additional hours), but usually at most, an extra 20-30 quid.

    Assuming an employee is off sick on average about five days a year (seems pretty normal), this will cost an employer at most about 1% of an extra employee, a truly negligible amount.

    The fears that this costs small businesses (who do not currently exploit ZHCs by guaranteeing zero hours but requiring double digits) a significant amount are completely unfounded. If this makes any small business unprofitable, they would go out of business the second anything else went wrong, even without this Bill, anyway.
    There are many businesses what I have just showed in a dire financial situation and you are happy increasing there costs it might be a small amount but it will still cost them and we should be looking to help these small businesses not harm them.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    There are many businesses what I have just showed in a dire financial situation and you are happy increasing there costs it might be a small amount but it will still cost them and we should be looking to help these small businesses not harm them.
    If this Bill significantly harms any small business, they're going bust soon anyway. **** happens.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    What about those who would certainly take anything?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Aye will provide workers with stability and reassurance.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    If this Bill significantly harms any small business, they're going bust soon anyway. **** happens.
    Was that the phrase for your party's election campaign? Seems like a good strategy.
    What else does this extend to? If people were dying at significantly higher rates would you just say that? What about the Gays being thrown off roofs by Isis? Just turn a blind eye because **** happens?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Was that the phrase for your party's election campaign? Seems like a good strategy.
    I live in York. Over the Christmas period, there were floods along a couple of streets. Some of the small businesses with low levels of capital and profit thresholds went bust. The others slogged through it and are now doing just fine. **** happens. I'm just acknowledging the effects of the free market. I'm not going to say no businesses will be affected by this Bill, because on average it will impose a tiny cost on each one, but the only businesses who won't be able to shrug off that cost really are operating right at the margin between just about sustaining themselves and going bust. The only truly big effect is that those who use an unethical, employee-exploiting business model like Sport Direct are going to have to change their business model.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imperion)
    What about those who would certainly take anything?
    Those what?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Those what?
    The unemployed
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imperion)
    The unemployed
    Businesses will continue to need employees. This might have a tiny, tiny effect on employment, but the primary effect of this will be to convert uncertainty in employees (ZHCs) into certainty and full-time contracts.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    What is the obsession with removing zero hours contracts completely?

    Whilst I of course accept they can create job uncertainty among some workers, others can actually benefit from their flexibility, students for example.

    I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BenC1997)
    What is the obsession with removing zero hours contracts completely?

    Whilst I of course accept they can create job uncertainty among some workers, others can actually benefit from their flexibility, students for example.

    I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
    If I'd wished to remove ZHCs completely, I would've done so. All this does is remove the possibility for employers to exploit their monopsony power to gain flexibility without paying for it. It's an adjustment back to an undistorted market.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I would rather a simpler proposal was made, and for me the other important bit is paying higher minimum rates for night and Sunday/bank holiday working.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Are you against the abuse of employees with the use of zero-hour contracts? If so, you should vote in favour.
    A few weeks ago I would have said aye; however, now I am about to go onto a zero-hour contract because it is the only job I can get - while this bill helps people it also screws half of them over.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    If I'd wished to remove ZHCs completely, I would've done so. All this does is remove the possibility for employers to exploit their monopsony power to gain flexibility without paying for it. It's an adjustment back to an undistorted market.
    But that's what ZHCs is about... From what I've seen, it's basically taking the meaning out of zero hours contracts... which means you might as well get rid of them entirely.

    In any case, it's a definite nay for me.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    A few weeks ago I would have said aye; however, now I am about to go onto a zero-hour contract because it is the only job I can get - while this bill helps people it also screws half of them over.
    This simply isn't true. I've demonstrated above why I think this should have an absolutely negligible effect on the total number of jobs (probably <1% of ZHCs, and therefore <0.1% of the total UK workforce). This is in return for a huge, huge number of people gaining significantly greater certainty in their employment position.

    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    But that's what ZHCs is about... From what I've seen, it's basically taking the meaning out of zero hours contracts... which means you might as well get rid of them entirely.

    In any case, it's a definite nay for me.
    ZHCs are about flexibility, I get that. However, if employers want the added benefit of flexibility, they should pay for it rather than exploiting labour market inefficiencies to get it for free. This is precisely why this doesn't remove ZHCs (banning them entirely would be somewhat draconian). I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to agree flexible labour contracts; I'm just saying that the employee should be fairly compensated for effectively having to give up more time than they're being paid for.

    (Original post by barnetlad)
    I would rather a simpler proposal was made, and for me the other important bit is paying higher minimum rates for night and Sunday/bank holiday working.
    The problem with simpler proposals is that they cannot effectively achieve the goals of both allowing employers to continue achieving flexibility where needed, and protecting employees who are being exploited in existing labour markets. The simpler proposals I can think of off the top of my head would be banning ZHCs/LHCs altogether (which achieves only the latter goal and has a much bigger effect on the UK economy), and doing nothing (which achieves only the former).

    This is really only the solution which 1) prevents abuse, with 2) little to no fundamental effect on the employment market, and 3) very very little to no economic harm as a result. We owe it to the 800,000 people who are currently being exploited by ZHCs to pass this.

    As for paying higher minimum rates for nights and Sundays/bank holidays, this Bill isn't the place (it is not a general regulation of typical overtime rates), but also, I'm not sure I support doing so. I don't see a fundamental difference between working days and working nights (I say that as someone who tends to work approximately 9pm-5am several times a week), and increasing the NMW for Sundays and bank holidays will severely affect employment of students and kids (I also don't really see what's wrong with working those days). I'm willing to be convinced, but either way it will not form a part of this Bill - I just hope I can convince you of the merits of this in a vacuum.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This simply isn't true. I've demonstrated above why I think this should have an absolutely negligible effect on the total number of jobs (probably <1% of ZHCs, and therefore <0.1% of the total UK workforce). This is in return for a huge, huge number of people gaining significantly greater certainty in their employment position.



    ZHCs are about flexibility, I get that. However, if employers want the added benefit of flexibility, they should pay for it rather than exploiting labour market inefficiencies to get it for free. This is precisely why this doesn't remove ZHCs (banning them entirely would be somewhat draconian). I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to agree flexible labour contracts; I'm just saying that the employee should be fairly compensated for effectively having to give up more time than they're being paid for.



    The problem with simpler proposals is that they cannot effectively achieve the goals of both allowing employers to continue achieving flexibility where needed, and protecting employees who are being exploited in existing labour markets. The simpler proposals I can think of off the top of my head would be banning ZHCs/LHCs altogether (which achieves only the latter goal and has a much bigger effect on the UK economy), and doing nothing (which achieves only the former).

    This is really only the solution which 1) prevents abuse, with 2) little to no fundamental effect on the employment market, and 3) very very little to no economic harm as a result. We owe it to the 800,000 people who are currently being exploited by ZHCs to pass this.

    As for paying higher minimum rates for nights and Sundays/bank holidays, this Bill isn't the place (it is not a general regulation of typical overtime rates), but also, I'm not sure I support doing so. I don't see a fundamental difference between working days and working nights (I say that as someone who tends to work approximately 9pm-5am several times a week), and increasing the NMW for Sundays and bank holidays will severely affect employment of students and kids (I also don't really see what's wrong with working those days). I'm willing to be convinced, but either way it will not form a part of this Bill - I just hope I can convince you of the merits of this in a vacuum.
    It's not just the employers who like the flexibility though... There are also employees that enjoy it too, I just fear that you don't hear from those employees, just from those that constantly whinge.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    It's not just the employers who like the flexibility though... There are also employees that enjoy it too, I just fear that you don't hear from those employees, just from those that constantly whinge.
    Here's the thing - you're right, you don't hear from people who like their ZHCs, but when you do, it's mostly people who are saying 'well I don't particularly mind it' because their particular employer is good to them. Under many employment contracts, the flexibility is the employer's - they can require people on ZHCs to work at a particular time (and if not by contractual stipulation, through the legally legitimate threat of simply not offering them any more hours ever). People who like ZHCs have been lucky to find a charitable employer. I don't think we should let the non-exploitation of hundreds of thousands rely on the charity of a few, especially when they're often incentivised to not be charitable through e.g. training costs.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Here's the thing - you're right, you don't hear from people who like their ZHCs, but when you do, it's mostly people who are saying 'well I don't particularly mind it' because their particular employer is good to them. Under many employment contracts, the flexibility is the employer's - they can require people on ZHCs to work at a particular time (and if not by contractual stipulation, through the legally legitimate threat of simply not offering them any more hours ever). People who like ZHCs have been lucky to find a charitable employer. I don't think we should let the non-exploitation of hundreds of thousands rely on the charity of a few, especially when they're often incentivised to not be charitable through e.g. training costs.
    The point is though, that if you're constantly blowing off the work, then why shouldn't the employer be allowed to not offer them any work. Without seeing figures on this, I wouldn't be able to legitimately say much more though.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 15, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.