Independence and the thought of ridding ourselves of the tory vermin is wonderful. I'm not sure there will be enough room to accommodate all you guys who will want to escape the clutches of Cameron & Co.
Well I think, the Scottish Invasion of London the other night would pale into insignificance by comparison of us Northern Englishmen heading north.
But now that you have to pay to take an employer to a tribunal, not many people on zero hour contracts would have the money needed and employers know that!
In response to other posts, if someone works say 40 hours for a set period, say over 5,6 months it is highly likely that a tribunal will find that their contract was varied by custom and practice.[/QUOTE] Don't think they would go to tribunal as the goalposts have moved AGAIN to the employers side even further. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23482520
It's all very well to say that people had a choice to take or not, if they don't have a job and are desperate for one then they'll sign up for it. Also if they turn it down they could get their JSA stopped. I guess my first job in the early 80's would now be described as a zero hours contract. I was working at Barnsley Council as a computer operator and we weren't guaranteed hours. It was a rolling temporary contract that lasted 3.5 years. 4 of us worked as required doing unsocial hours around the permanent staff. So I ranged from having as few as 10 hours a week to doing 60 hours. It did though give me a foot in the door and valuable experience.
Alot of small businesses wouldn't survive if they had to offer fixed hours contracts, especially sectors which are seasonal by nature. Also, a lot of young people want to work flexi hours to suit their needs (Uni, social life etc). I agree that big companies exploit the loophole, but if the Govt used a sledehammer to crack a nut (banning them completely) it would do more harm than good. By the way, you can still have flexi hours contracts, with proper sick pay, holiday pay, breaks, benefits etc, which is probably the norm, but doesn't seem to be reported on.
Why state "no holiday or sick pay". All employees are entitled to the equivalent of 5.6 weeks leave per year whether full time, part time or casual and sick pay is governed by NI contributions. Surely nowt to do with zero hour contracts. Some people like the flexibility of the zero hour contract and I believe they have their part to play. If some companies are abusing this, they should be taken to task.
Having been on the receiving end of two entremely frivolous claims, and having paid a Employment Law Barrister to defend them, I think it's a good idea that people need to pay something to make a claim. Both were found in our favour, but it did cost me the legal fees. The service is expensive, and I don't see why the taxpayer should stump up for all these claims. If people have a genuine case then fine, but it will make the chancers think twice about making spurious claims. One still sticks in my mind - I employed someone for several years, looked after him properly, pay rises etc, then he started working for a competitor on my time, running their payroll on my software etc. Obviously he lost, but it was very time consuming and expensive to defend his tribunal.
^^^^Agree 100%.^^^^^^ The trouble is, most people just think "big business, fecking the working class, tory b@stards etc etc". Your case is EXACTLY why this change was made. What people don't realise is that small employers that employ less than 20 people are collectively responsible for a huge percentage of the employed workforce. It is small scale enterprises such as this that make the economy tick and ultimately make it grow. The ability to make fatuous claims against employers was symtomatic of the "no win no fee" culture that blights the country today and was just yet another barrier to the ability of people to make such companies work and grow, which is ultimately to the benefit of all of us.
Working Tax Credits already makes companies flourish and grow, with the tax payer subsidising low pay to tune of £4 billion per year. Can you provide evidence that 'fatuous' claims are having a negative effect on the economy because the Govt, certainly can't.