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 Lime-man)
    It's getting repetitive naying all of these socialist items. Need to mix it up a bit.
    I mean, the problem is economic dogmatism is turning you off fundamentally good ideas. Are you against the minimum wage now too, despite that also having demonstrably little to no effect on employment?
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Without seeing the proper figures for this, all I can say is some people like them and some don't. This is probably a knee-jerk reaction to the bill rendering me jobless.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Without seeing the proper figures for this, all I can say is some people like them and some don't. This is probably a knee-jerk reaction to the bill rendering me jobless.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This is a misunderstanding I think. Through this Bill, the vast, vast majority of ZHCs will either become better-paid (fewer) or guarantee at least some hours (more). A negligible amount will be lost, but we would see this through typical weekly variation as well. At the moment, if you have a ZHC, you have no effective employment security.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Please explain your rationale.
    The costs of production will increase. Ie the increased cost of labour, as from this bill- the firms will still want to make a profit, so will then increase the selling price of the good; then our real incomes [income- rate of inflation] will decrease, as the value of money will decrease; as we must now use more to buy the same goods- leading workers to demand higher wages to combat these effects... and there you have it- cost push inflation.

    It will either lead to that, or the increase wages, and the firm wants to keep costs constant, so gets rid of some staff, increasing unemployment!
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam9317)
    The costs of production will increase. Ie the increased cost of labour, as from this bill- the firms will still want to make a profit, so will then increase the selling price of the good; then our real incomes [income- rate of inflation] will decrease, as the value of money will decrease; as we must now use more to buy the same goods- leading workers to demand higher wages to combat these effects... and there you have it- cost push inflation.

    It will either lead to that, or the increase wages, and the firm wants to keep costs constant, so gets rid of some staff, increasing unemployment!
    I don't see this as imposing many greater costs on firms at all, I accept there will be some but I wouldn't expect a huge effect. The power of the employer in labour markets means that one can impose quite significant counter-balancing costs before it ends up affecting sale prices in competitive product markets.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    This is in cessation
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    This has gone to a second reading
 
 
 
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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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

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