Zero-hour contracts banned in New Zealand

Parliament unites to pass legislation outlawing the controversial practice in victory for trade union campaign

Zero-hour contracts have been outlawed in New Zealand after parliament unanimously passed a bill to ban the controversial practice.

Political parties across the board supported the ban, which is being hailed as a major victory for minimum wage workers, particularly in the fast-food industry.

Mike Treen, leader of the Unite union, who led the charge, said the move was being closely followed by fast-food workers worldwide, many of whom banded behind the New Zealand workers campaign last year.

“It was like we had God sitting on our shoulder helping us out – it just went wild,” said Treen.

“This is an incredible victory and I am still shocked by it to be honest – the fact that the ban was unanimously supported in parliament is pretty unbelievable.”

Treen estimates there are “hundreds of thousands of workers” employed on zero-hour contracts in New Zealand, which means employers do not have to guarantee minimum hours of work per week, and often expect employees to be available 24/7.

The contracts have also caused controversy in the UK where the country’s biggest sports retailer, Sports Direct, has 15,000 employees on zero-hour deals.

In New Zealand they are typically used by fast-food chains, as well as by cinema groups, security firms and cleaning companies, said Treen.

The bill, which will take effect on 1 April, stipulates that employers must guarantee a minimum number of hours work each week, and workers can refuse extra hours without repercussions.

“The passing of this Bill delivers on the government’s commitment to improve New Zealand’s employment law framework to encourage fair and productive workplaces without imposing unnecessary compliance costs on employers in general,” said Michael Woodhouse, the workplace relations and safety minister.

“The bill eliminates zero-hour contracts by getting rid of unfair employment practices where employers do not commit any hours of work, but expect employees to be available when required without compensation.”

Hannah Shelton-Agar, 23, is employed on a zero-hour contract at Hoyts cinema in Auckland.

She usually works between 10-25 hours a week, and said she is “ecstatic” about the ban.

“This is going to change people’s lives. It is such a relief for so many people to know they will no longer risk having zero dollars at the end of the week. It also means workers feel more included in the workplace, and valued for their contribution.”

The move to ban zero-hour contracts gained huge momentum around New Zealand last year when it was picked up by TV3’s Campbell Live current affairs show, which has since been axed.

Campaigners said the exposure and interest of Campbell Live galvanised opposition to zero-hour contracts nationwide.
“Campbell was a pivotal, campaigning force for us,” said Treen. “I said in the negotiations, you might beat the union but you can’t beat the union and Campbell Live.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/11/zero-hour-contracts-banned-in-new-zealand



Really well done New Zealand!  Fantastic!   The chances of that happening here with all the influence the companies using it have - zero.

I think those contracts are OK as long as they don't expect employees to turn down other work or be sitting there waiting for a call. Some people might like them.

Hannah Shelton-Agar, 23, is employed on a zero-hour contract at Hoyts cinema in Auckland.

She usually works between 10-25 hours a week, and said she is “ecstatic” about the ban.

What if they only give her a contract for 10 hours a week so she can never do 25?

Then she will have contract for 10 hrs that will be the same every week and she can try for another job for the other hours. 

She usually works between 10-25 hours a week, and said she is “ecstatic” about the ban.

ie, she doesn't know how many hours she will get a week and can't plan to do another job if her hours are at the low point.

The bill, which will take effect on 1 April, stipulates that employers must guarantee a minimum number of hours work each week, and workers can refuse extra hours without repercussions.

Won't they just give them contracts for one hour instead, for example?

sassy wrote:The bill, which will take effect on 1 April, stipulates that employers must guarantee a minimum number of hours work each week, and workers can refuse extra hours without repercussions.

ie they can get another job for extra hours

They can do that anyway. If there are jobs out there with guaranteed hours, why were they signing up for zero-hour contracts?

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:The bill, which will take effect on 1 April, stipulates that employers must guarantee a minimum number of hours work each week, and workers can refuse extra hours without repercussions.

ie they can get another job for extra hours

They can do that anyway. If there are jobs out there with guaranteed hours, why were they signing up for zero-hour contracts?

FGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   No they can't.  They didn't know from week to week how much time they would get and WHEN, and had to be free to do more hours if the company required them to, and they, like many, were signing up because they were the only jobs going.

Why do you think their parliament had a unanimous vot for this bill - because they all recognised the horrors of zero hours contracts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They can do that anyway. If there are jobs out there with guaranteed hours, why were they signing up for zero-hour contracts?

FGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   No they can't.  They didn't know from week to week how much time they would get and WHEN, and had to be free to do more hours if the company required them to, and they, like many, were signing up because they were the only jobs going.

Why do you think their parliament had a unanimous vot for this bill - because they all recognised the horrors of zero hours contracts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You keep saying they can go and get another job if they're not committed to a zero-hours contract. They can do that anyway. If there aren't any other jobs out there, what difference does it make?

well were I to ever get into power, I'd execute all those company bosses who implemented these zero hour contracts on the charge of exploitation....


since a soldier is expected to disobey an immoral order

there could be no defence that it was "legal at the time" since regardless it was immoral and they could have and should have refused to use it....

Lord Foul wrote:well were I to ever get into power, I'd execute all those company bosses who implemented these zero hour contracts on the charge of exploitation....


since a soldier is expected to disobey an immoral order

there could be no defence that it was "legal at the time" since regardless it was immoral and they could have and should have refused to use it....

The companies are paying for whatever hours the employee works though. What if they need someone one week and not the next?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:well were I to ever get into power, I'd execute all those company bosses who implemented these zero hour contracts on the charge of exploitation....


since a soldier is expected to disobey an immoral order

there could be no defence that it was "legal at the time" since regardless it was immoral and they could have and should have refused to use it....

The companies are paying for whatever hours the employee works though. What if they need someone one week and not the next?

then their business plans and governance and planning are shit....they dont deserve to run a business...shoot em and put someone who CAN run a business in in their place....

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The companies are paying for whatever hours the employee works though. What if they need someone one week and not the next?

then their business plans and governance and planning are shit....they dont deserve to run a business...shoot em and put someone who CAN run a business in  in their place....

You've never heard of seasonal work then?

Rags/ I used to be Finance Manager/Director of a company that would have highs and lows of work.  We still had permanent set hours contracts, because we factored in the cost of the highs and the lows in our company expences.  When the work ran a bit low, there was always things we could find for people to do, even if it wasn't what they normally did.  Would not have dreamt of having zero hours, it simply would not have been fair to our employees who were young on the whole and had rents/mortgages and families to bring up.  That is how you run a business, if you can't do that you shouldn't be running it.

And seasonal work is quite different, in that case you give people a short term contract for a set number of hours a week.

There might be people with small companies where they can't guarantee how much work they will get in from customers every week though. They're not going to give someone a contract for a set number of hours if they simply don't have guaranteed work every week.

funny...they USED to manage.....

perhaps modern businesses are run by incompetants then......

or maybe they are just greedy......

Lord Foul wrote:funny...they USED to manage.....

perhaps modern businesses are run by incompetants then......

or maybe they are just greedy......

Times are hard Victor, times are hard ...

No harder than when I was helping to run a small business with ups and downs, just incompetence and greed.

sassy wrote:No harder than when I was helping to run a small business with ups and downs, just incompetence and greed.

Well of course I wouldn't expect you to have any problems with workflow because you're so fucking perfect - allegedly.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think those contracts are OK as long as they don't expect employees to turn down other work or be sitting there waiting for a call. Some people might like them.

That's just it, they do.   It's a horrible thing and I've worked under it.   The uncertainty of not knowing when you get paid is awful.    I think it should be outlawed here.

People aren't forced to take these contracts though are they? If employers don't want to guarantee hours, won't they just use agencies instead?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:well were I to ever get into power, I'd execute all those company bosses who implemented these zero hour contracts on the charge of exploitation....


since a soldier is expected to disobey an immoral order

there could be no defence that it was "legal at the time" since regardless it was immoral and they could have and should have refused to use it....

The companies are paying for whatever hours the employee works though. What if they need someone one week and not the next?

It's like being on call.   It's actually a horrible way to employ people.

Raggamuffin wrote:People aren't forced to take these contracts though are they? If employers don't want to guarantee hours, won't they just use agencies instead?

No, ,they're not.   I wasn't.  But at the time, I was desperate for work, and there was nothing else around for me at that time.    Believe it or not, it's quite hard to get a job in some circumstances.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:People aren't forced to take these contracts though are they? If employers don't want to guarantee hours, won't they just use agencies instead?

No, ,they're not.   I wasn't.  But at the time, I was desperate for work, and there was nothing else around for me at that time.    Believe it or not, it's quite hard to get a job in some circumstances.

It might be even harder if these contracts are banned.

Raggamuffin wrote:There might be people with small companies where they can't guarantee how much work they will get in from customers every week though. They're not going to give someone a contract for a set number of hours if they simply don't have guaranteed work every week.

Then employ people part time.  The thing about zero hours is they can literally cancel your work on the same day or send you home.

As I said, I don't think companies should have the right to tell people they can't do other work, or that they must be on call, but if they have to guarantee a minimum number of hours, they'll either guarantee one hour a week, or they'll use an agency instead.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

No, ,they're not.   I wasn't.  But at the time, I was desperate for work, and there was nothing else around for me at that time.    Believe it or not, it's quite hard to get a job in some circumstances.

It might be even harder if these contracts are banned.

Why?   Companies managed before.  Zero hours makes it easier for employees to be jerked around, let down and used.   Nobody who wants to earn an honest crust should be subjected to that.    What zero hours does is keep it nice and peachy for the company.  They can pick or drop when it suits them.   The place I worked for didn't even tell me I was on zero hours until I went in one day and got sent home.   Also, they keep you tied into it with promises of work, that often fall short.  Because you can have a few weeks of full time, then suddenly, fuck all.   It's not a good way to work.

Raggamuffin wrote:As I said, I don't think companies should have the right to tell people they can't do other work, or that they must be on call, but if they have to guarantee a minimum number of hours, they'll either guarantee one hour a week, or they'll use an agency instead.

In an ideal world, yes.   Agencies cost money.   They charge three times as much as employing someone on zero hours.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It might be even harder if these contracts are banned.

Why?   Companies managed before.  Zero hours makes it easier for employees to be jerked around, let down and used.   Nobody who wants to earn an honest crust should be subjected to that.    What zero hours does is keep it nice and peachy for the company.  They can pick or drop when it suits them.   The place I worked for didn't even tell me I was on zero hours until I went in one day and got sent home.   Also, they keep you tied into it with promises of work, that often fall short.  Because you can have a few weeks of full time, then suddenly, fuck all.   It's not a good way to work.

Did that to my grandaughter when she first started work, told her it was 24hrs a week, which, as she was living with us, she was happy with.  Got her to sign the contract when there was a rush on, so being yourng, she didn't read it, and then didn't give her a copy.

Turned out the contract said 'up to 24 hrs a week' and she had to be available when and where she was required.  I got her statement about when she signed it and how a copy wasn't given to her and went to a solicitor I know.  He ripped them to shreds and she got a contract for 16 hours at set times, that way she knew she had times when she could volunteer to gain experience for the career she wanted to end up in.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:As I said, I don't think companies should have the right to tell people they can't do other work, or that they must be on call, but if they have to guarantee a minimum number of hours, they'll either guarantee one hour a week, or they'll use an agency instead.

In an ideal world, yes.   Agencies cost money.   They charge three times as much as employing someone on zero hours.

Yes, but they wouldn't be employing someone on zero hours any more. They might find it cheaper if they only need someone to work for them say one week every month, for example.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:funny...they USED to manage.....

perhaps modern businesses are run by incompetants then......

or maybe they are just greedy......

Times are hard Victor, times are hard ...

well you know what "dave" said...we are all in it together.....

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Times are hard Victor, times are hard ...

well you know what "dave" said...we are all in it together.....

Except the poor sons on zero hours are 'in' it and their bosses are 'rolling in' it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

In an ideal world, yes.   Agencies cost money.   They charge three times as much as employing someone on zero hours.

Yes, but they wouldn't be employing someone on zero hours any more. They might find it cheaper if they only need someone to work for them say one week every month, for example.

what they exploit is people's desperation.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but they wouldn't be employing someone on zero hours any more. They might find it cheaper if they only need someone to work for them say one week every month, for example.

what they exploit is people's desperation.

They're not exploiting anyone if they really do only need someone for one week every month though.

People seem to assume that businesses don't have ups and downs, that they make the same amount of money every week, and that they have a consistent need for employees.

Nobody assumed anything of the sort, in fact we spoke about what they should be doing if that is the situation.

Raggamuffin wrote:

The bill, which will take effect on 1 April, stipulates that employers must guarantee a minimum number of hours work each week, and workers can refuse extra hours without repercussions.

Won't they just give them contracts for one hour instead, for example?

IF they follow Oz's example for casual employment contracts, they will probably have a minimum of 3 hours for any shift that they start..

With no maximum number of hours specified in that contract..

(The maximum number of hours per day, and days per week, should be covered by separate Federal employment laws..).

Australia has always had better working conditions then, say, NZ, Britain or Ireland..
THAT'S why there are more Kiwis, Brits and Oirish working down here, then there are Aussies working there...

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:
what they exploit is people's desperation.

They're not exploiting anyone if they really do only need someone for one week every month though.

People seem to assume that businesses don't have ups and downs, that they make the same amount of money every week, and that they have a consistent need for employees.

It doesn't quite work like that.   They employ you in the normal way, and say you need to be available for work,  but can drop you at the last minute.   Of course businesses have ups and downs, but then they should equate this into the structure of employment or just struggle by without staff.  Zero hours enables them to jerk people around.

Have a greenie, that's exactly what it does.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

then their business plans and governance and planning are shit....they dont deserve to run a business...shoot em and put someone who CAN run a business in  in their place....

You've never heard of seasonal work then?

YOU really know nothing about actually running a small or medium size business, do you Rags ?

FOR genuine "seasonal workers" -- most often found in such industries as agriculture/horticulture, tourism, retail at Christmas and holidays, and clothing manufacture -- the employers usually have access to short term casual employment contracts, to enable them to take on extra workers over a designated period (e.g. during a fruit or vegetable harvest; or manning checkouts during peak periods..). Even then, when they call those casuals in for another shift (s) they guarantee a minimum number of hours (e.g. 3 or 4) in recognition of the fact that it costs those workers money and time to simply turn up

IN the past, genuine employers have never seen any need for such uber-exploitive rubbish as those "zero hour contracts" -- they have become the domain of suspect companies run by shonky accountants and shyster lawyers, who have no interests or concerns in anything other than ever expanding their 'bottom lines'.      

Raggamuffin wrote:There might be people with small companies where they can't guarantee how much work they will get in from customers every week though. They're not going to give someone a contract for a set number of hours if they simply don't have guaranteed work every week.

BULLSHIT !

ANY small business owner that stupid simply doesn't deserve to be in business..


"Most businesses don't plan to fail  --  but simply fail to plan !"
An 'oldie but a goldie' Business Management adage.

Wolfman, you know fuck all about anything, and I really can't be bothered to discuss anything with you after your unprovoked outburst about me earlier. Talk to yourself, or someone else who will put up with your rudeness.