Zero hour contracts.

The latest unemployment figures are due to be released today, as more and more companies are offering zero hour contracts instead of regular work that many need, the figures will be manipulated to look a lot better than they are.

Apart from helping the government cover up their inadequacies, they allow employers to get out of their responsibilities to, thus denying the employee the rights he would be entitled to if he was working in a full time, even a part time job.

Isn't it time this 'scam' was outlawed in the UK as it is in many other countries?

Syl wrote:The latest unemployment figures are due to be released today, as more and more companies are offering zero hour contracts instead of regular work that many need, the figures will be manipulated to look a lot better than they are.

Apart from helping the government cover up their inadequacies, they allow employers to get out of their responsibilities to, thus denying the employee the rights he would be entitled to if he was working in a full time, even a part time job.

Isn't it time this 'scam' was outlawed in the UK as it is in many other countries?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/05/11/almost-one-million-britons-zero-hours-contracts-dont-want-work/

No, it should not be outlawed. Many people are happy with zero hour contracts. As long as the person is free to work elsewhere too, I don't see a problem with them.

It suits some, students for eg, who can choose their hours (sometimes) to fit round their studying.
For many it's the only work they can get. Obviously they will do a second or third job to make up for the lack of money they earn doing zero hours.

Syl wrote:It suits some, students for eg, who can choose their hours (sometimes) to fit round their studying.
For many it's the only work they can get. Obviously they will do a second or third job to make up for the lack of money they can earn doing zero hours.

Again based on what evidence?

It accounts for only a small percentage of jobs and yet many are happy to take on such roles

Syl wrote:It suits some, students for eg, who can choose their hours (sometimes) to fit round their studying.
For many it's the only work they can get. Obviously they will do a second or third job to make up for the lack of money they can earn doing zero hours.

So why do you want them outlawed?

Raggamuffin wrote:No, it should not be outlawed. Many people are happy with zero hour contracts. As long as the person is free to work elsewhere too, I don't see a problem with them.

100% agree

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:It suits some, students for eg, who can choose their hours (sometimes) to fit round their studying.
For many it's the only work they can get. Obviously they will do a second or third job to make up for the lack of money they can earn doing zero hours.

So why do you want them outlawed?

Because I don't think it's fair on the employees.
I just listened to a greater Manchester phone in, everyone who called wanted regular full time or part time work, none could get it.
One woman who worked in a food bank said the majority of people who use it work....on zero hour contracts.
My grandson is looking for full time work till he joins the navy, the best he has got is zero hour contract.
One week he could work 25 hours, then may not be needed for a couple of weeks....the job he had before that was the same.
How are people with responsibilities expected to manage?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So why do you want them outlawed?

Because I don't think it's fair on the employees.
I just listened to a greater Manchester phone in, everyone who called wanted regular full time or part time work, none could get it.
One woman who worked in a food bank said the majority of people who use it work....on zero hour contracts.
My grandson is looking for full time work till he joins the navy, the best he has got is zero hour contract.
One week he could work 25 hours, then may not be needed for a couple of weeks....the job he had before that was the same.
How are people with responsibilities expected to manage?

The employees know that the contract is a zero-hours one before they take it on, and some people want that. They like the flexibility and might have no need for regular work. Not all people have responsibilities. Those who don't like them don't have to sign up for them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Because I don't think it's fair on the employees.
I just listened to a greater Manchester phone in, everyone who called wanted regular full time or part time work, none could get it.
One woman who worked in a food bank said the majority of people who use it work....on zero hour contracts.
My grandson is looking for full time work till he joins the navy, the best he has got is zero hour contract.
One week he could work 25 hours, then may not be needed for a couple of weeks....the job he had before that was the same.
How are people with responsibilities expected to manage?

The employees know that the contract is a zero-hours one before they take it on, and some people want that. They like the flexibility and might have no need for regular work. Not all people have responsibilities. Those who don't like them don't have to sign up for them.

If its the only sort of contract they can get and they don't want to rely on benefits....many people will take the job on offer.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The employees know that the contract is a zero-hours one before they take it on, and some people want that. They like the flexibility and might have no need for regular work. Not all people have responsibilities. Those who don't like them don't have to sign up for them.

If its the only sort of contract they can get and they don't want to rely on benefits....many people will take the job on offer.

It's better than nothing then right? If there were no zero-hour contracts, they wouldn't do any work.

What about the people who do like them? Why should they not be able to do what they want?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

If its the only sort of contract they can get and they don't want to rely on benefits....many people will take the job on offer.

It's better than nothing then right? If there were no zero-hour contracts, they wouldn't do any work.

What about the people who do like them? Why should they not be able to do what they want?

It's not a matter of it being better than nothing, employers need workers, they should offer them either full time, part time or seasonal work..... having people never knowing when they will be needed or not is wrong, it's an unstable way to employ someone.
A dozen or so EU countries have banned the practice, I think they have it right.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's better than nothing then right? If there were no zero-hour contracts, they wouldn't do any work.

What about the people who do like them? Why should they not be able to do what they want?

It's not a matter of it being better than nothing, employers need workers, they should offer them either full time, part time or seasonal work..... having people never knowing when they will be needed or not is wrong, it's an unstable way to employ someone.
A dozen or so EU countries have banned the practice, I think they have it right.

The companies obviously think that it's not an unstable way to employ someone - from their perspective anyway. They might need extra staff at certain times but not the rest of the time, and perhaps they can't predict those times in advance. You keep avoiding the question re those who like zero-hours contracts. Should they be deprived of them because someone else can't find a more stable job?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

It's not a matter of it being better than nothing, employers need workers, they should offer them either full time, part time or seasonal work..... having people never knowing when they will be needed or not is wrong, it's an unstable way to employ someone.
A dozen or so EU countries have banned the practice, I think they have it right.

The companies obviously think that it's not an unstable way to employ someone - from their perspective anyway. They might need extra staff at certain times but not the rest of the time, and perhaps they can't predict those times in advance. You keep avoiding the question re those who like zero-hours contracts. Should they be deprived of them because someone else can't find a more stable job?

Obviously, if zero hour contracts were banned in the UK people wouldn't be able to offer them, sometimes the good of the few has to be compromised for the good of the many.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The companies obviously think that it's not an unstable way to employ someone - from their perspective anyway. They might need extra staff at certain times but not the rest of the time, and perhaps they can't predict those times in advance. You keep avoiding the question re those who like zero-hours contracts. Should they be deprived of them because someone else can't find a more stable job?

Obviously, if zero hour contracts were banned in the UK people wouldn't be able to offer them, sometimes the good of the few has to be compromised for the good of the many.

I don't think that's the right way to look at it. If those who like zero-hours contracts are in a minority, they still have a right to those contracts. Those who don't like them can avoid them - they're not forced to apply for them. If they're banned, there's no guarantee that the companies will offer contracts with fixed hours anyway - they may well just use their existing staff.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Obviously, if zero hour contracts were banned in the UK people wouldn't be able to offer them, sometimes the good of the few has to be compromised for the good of the many.

I don't think that's the right way to look at it. If those who like zero-hours contracts are in a minority, they still have a right to those contracts. Those who don't like them can avoid them - they're not forced to apply for them. If they're banned, there's no guarantee that the companies will offer contracts with fixed hours anyway - they may well just use their existing staff.

If their existing staff can do the job I doubt they would be offering extra work out on zero contracts.

For busy times, like Christmas, or covering for other staff off work, there was always temp jobs or seasonal work, where the person knew the job was short term but also knew in advance when he/she would be required to work.

Another thing, if a person is on benefits, how can he claim when one week he may be working 40 hours and the next three weeks nothing?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think that's the right way to look at it. If those who like zero-hours contracts are in a minority, they still have a right to those contracts. Those who don't like them can avoid them - they're not forced to apply for them. If they're banned, there's no guarantee that the companies will offer contracts with fixed hours anyway - they may well just use their existing staff.

If their existing staff can do the job I doubt they would be offering extra work out on zero contracts.

For busy times, like Christmas, or covering for other staff off work, there was always temp jobs or seasonal work, where the person knew the job was short term but also knew in advance when he/she would be required to work.

Another thing, if a person is on benefits, how can he claim when one week he may be working 40 hours and the next three weeks nothing?

They could offer overtime to the existing staff. There are still temp and seasonal jobs - people are free to apply for them.

I think someone can claim JSA and still do some work. Don't they just declare what work they've done when they sign on?

So-called "Zero Hour contracts" are nothing new...   It's simply a new euro-centric name for an age-old usurious and grossly unfair and inequal practice by greedy employers too mongrel-minded, lazy and stupid to use properly contracted and employed permanent full-time and part-time workers, while avoiding giving them proper pay rates and conditions...

Recent surveys of "casualised" workforces in Australia, NZ and the USA have found that around two-thirds of them want more hours, and would much prefer to be employed on a permanent basis, while over one-third would like to be fulltime rather than part-time --  but many of the more bloody-minded employers, and their lobbyists and pet shill politicians, keep on falsely claiming that they need the "flexibilty" of a more insecure and uncertain workforce to keep their businesses "viable"; further lying through their teeth by stating that the "majority" of workers support casualised employment..

No real surprises, then, in seeing a couple of our resident corporatists supporting capital over the workers, as seen on here several times before both the Dodger and Ragga' will nearly always support the bosses and financiers against the downtrodden and abused workers.        

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

So-called "Zero Hour contracts" are nothing new...   It's simply a new euro-centric name for an age-old usurious and grossly unfair and inequal practice by greedy employers too mongrel-minded, lazy and stupid to use properly contracted and employed permanent full-time and part-time workers, while avoiding giving them proper pay rates and conditions...

Recent surveys of "casualised" workforces in Australia, NZ and the USA have found that around two-thirds of them want more hours, and would much prefer to be employed on a permanent basis, while over one-third would like to be fulltime rather than part-time --  but many of the more bloody-minded employers, and their lobbyists and pet shill politicians, keep on falsely claiming that they need the "flexibilty" of a more insecure and uncertain workforce to keep their businesses "viable"..

No real surprises, then, in seeing a couple of our resident corporatists supporting capital over the workers, as seen on here several times before the Dodger and Ragga' always support the bosses and financiers against the downtrodden and abused workers.        

I'm actually supporting those people who like to work zero-hour contracts. It's not illegal to be greedy, lazy, or stupid anyway - banning something on those grounds isn't really very logical.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

If their existing staff can do the job I doubt they would be offering extra work out on zero contracts.

For busy times, like Christmas, or covering for other staff off work, there was always temp jobs or seasonal work, where the person knew the job was short term but also knew in advance when he/she would be required to work.

Another thing, if a person is on benefits, how can he claim when one week he may be working 40 hours and the next three weeks nothing?

They could offer overtime to the existing staff. There are still temp and seasonal jobs - people are free to apply for them.

I think someone can claim JSA and still do some work. Don't they just declare what work they've done when they sign on?

The honest answer is I don't know, I did hear the phone in this morning and different people said working for one of these contracts has messed up benefits.

There are less full time jobs now, especially in low paid work, because employers are prefering to offer zero hours....it seems to benifit them a lot more than the employee.
A new complex has opened up near here, most of the catering, cinema, bar jobs are not standard part time or full time.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:


They could offer overtime to the existing staff. There are still temp and seasonal jobs - people are free to apply for them.

I think someone can claim JSA and still do some work. Don't they just declare what work they've done when they sign on?

The honest answer is I don't know, I did hear the phone in this morning and different people said working for one of these contracts has messed up benefits.

There are less full time jobs now, especially in low paid work, because employers are prefering to offer zero hours....it seems to benifit them a lot more than the employee.
A new complex has opened up near here, most of the catering, cinema, bar jobs are not standard part time or full time.

There are a lot of part time jobs out there - it's the way it's going. A lot of people like that though because they don't want work full time, or they have other commitments. Zero-hour contracts are just another form of part time work for those who aren't that bothered about regular pay. I just don't see why they should be deprived of them. People are free to apply for jobs which are not zero hour ones.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

The honest answer is I don't know, I did hear the phone in this morning and different people said working for one of these contracts has messed up benefits.

There are less full time jobs now, especially in low paid work, because employers are prefering to offer zero hours....it seems to benifit them a lot more than the employee.
A new complex has opened up near here, most of the catering, cinema, bar jobs are not standard part time or full time.

There are a lot of part time jobs out there - it's the way it's going. A lot of people like that though because they don't want work full time, or they have other commitments. Zero-hour contracts are just another form of part time work for those who aren't that bothered about regular pay. I just don't see why they should be deprived of them. People are free to apply for jobs which are not zero hour ones.

With a part time job you have regular hours and a regular wage coming in.

I know people are free to apply for none zero hour jobs, but they will be even more hard to get the way many employers are prefering zhc.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There are a lot of part time jobs out there - it's the way it's going. A lot of people like that though because they don't want work full time, or they have other commitments. Zero-hour contracts are just another form of part time work for those who aren't that bothered about regular pay. I just don't see why they should be deprived of them. People are free to apply for jobs which are not zero hour ones.

With a part time job you have regular hours and a regular wage coming in.

I know people are free to apply for none zero hour jobs, but they will be even more hard to get the way many employers are prefering zhc.

You mentioned full time jobs versus zero hour jobs. There are many part time jobs with regular hours.

Syl wrote:It suits some, students for eg, who can choose their hours (sometimes) to fit round their studying.
For many it's the only work they can get. Obviously they will do a second or third job to make up for the lack of money they  earn doing zero hours.

The problem with zero hours is that they expect you to be on call. I've worked zero hours and they're a nightmare. If you want to work two or more jobs, then get two or more jobs. But zero hours will have you at their beck and call and if you don't jump through the hoops someone else will. There's absolutely no security in it. I think the only people who benefit from zero hours are bits of kids who live at home and don't give a shit if they don't get the work.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

With a part time job you have regular hours and a regular wage coming in.

I know people are free to apply for none zero hour jobs, but they will be even more hard to get the way many employers are prefering zhc.

You mentioned full time jobs versus zero hour jobs. There are many part time jobs with regular hours.

Not in this area. Grandson wanted full time, would have settled for part time, he went to various places...he was only offered zero hours.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There are a lot of part time jobs out there - it's the way it's going. A lot of people like that though because they don't want work full time, or they have other commitments. Zero-hour contracts are just another form of part time work for those who aren't that bothered about regular pay. I just don't see why they should be deprived of them. People are free to apply for jobs which are not zero hour ones.

With a part time job you have regular hours and a regular wage coming in.

I know people are free to apply for none zero hour jobs, but they will be even more hard to get the way many employers are prefering zhc.

Zero hour contracts are open to abuse. The majority of people who work zero hours are under 25 and over 65, so if it suits you all well and good but people have been refused rent and mortgages because of it's instability. You do have the usual workers rights though. You can only hope for a fair employer.

One of the worst offenders who abuse zero hours was Sports Direct.

Employees were penalised under a Dickensian workhouse ethic and suffered having their hours cut if they weren’t available to work on the whims of the retailer.

Strange you should say that about Sports Direct, my daughter worked there, did ok for hours at first (she'd tried for loads of jobs not even getting replies and she's pretty well educated and capable but quiet) they then began asking her to go in at short notice, which she did, then a couple of times she had other plans or was already out somewhere, suddenly her hours began dropping until she hardly worked at all. The zero hoyrs may be good for students but if someone has rent to pay and food to buy they aren't. If you are told there's no work next week, you don't get benefits straight away how are people supposed to support themselves let alone a family.

Vintage wrote:Strange you should say that about Sports Direct, my daughter worked there, did ok for hours at first (she'd tried for loads of jobs not even getting replies and she's pretty well educated and capable but quiet) they then began asking her to go in at short notice, which she did, then a couple of times she had other plans or was already out somewhere, suddenly her hours began dropping until she hardly worked at all. The zero hoyrs may be good for students but if someone has rent to pay and food to buy they aren't. If you are told there's no work next week, you don't get benefits straight away how are people supposed to support themselves let alone a family.  

This is why I don't agree with Zero hours. Can you imagine if all work was like this? It would be terrible.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:It suits some, students for eg, who can choose their hours (sometimes) to fit round their studying.
For many it's the only work they can get. Obviously they will do a second or third job to make up for the lack of money they  earn doing zero hours.

The problem with zero hours is that they expect you to be on call.   I've worked zero hours and they're a nightmare.    If you want to work two or more jobs, then get two or more jobs.   But zero hours will have you at their beck and call and if you don't jump through the hoops someone else will.   There's absolutely no security in it.   I think the only people who benefit from zero hours are bits of kids who live at home and don't give a shit if they don't get the work.

That's terrible. Here in the US, on-call hours must be compensated for under the Fair Labor Standards Act. If it's holding you down, in any way--even if by a telephone number--you're on the job and must be compensated.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You mentioned full time jobs versus zero hour jobs. There are many part time jobs with regular hours.

Not in this area. Grandson wanted full time, would have settled for part time, he went to various places...he was only offered zero hours.

There are loads in my area.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

With a part time job you have regular hours and a regular wage coming in.

I know people are free to apply for none zero hour jobs, but they will be even more hard to get the way many employers are prefering zhc.

Zero hour contracts are open to abuse.   The majority of people who work zero hours are under 25 and over 65, so if it suits you all well and good but people have been refused rent and mortgages because of it's instability.   You do have the usual workers rights though.  You can only hope for a fair employer.

Exactly. It does suit some people, so there's no need to outlaw it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Zero hour contracts are open to abuse.   The majority of people who work zero hours are under 25 and over 65, so if it suits you all well and good but people have been refused rent and mortgages because of it's instability.   You do have the usual workers rights though.  You can only hope for a fair employer.

Exactly. It does suit some people, so there's no need to outlaw it.

I don't think it'll get outlawed but I do think if there's a danger of it becoming the norm, rather than the exception mostly from smaller employers, it's not a good thing. Although Sports Direct were a large company.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

The problem with zero hours is that they expect you to be on call.   I've worked zero hours and they're a nightmare.    If you want to work two or more jobs, then get two or more jobs.   But zero hours will have you at their beck and call and if you don't jump through the hoops someone else will.   There's absolutely no security in it.   I think the only people who benefit from zero hours are bits of kids who live at home and don't give a shit if they don't get the work.

That's terrible.  Here in the US, on-call hours must be compensated for under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  If it's holding you down, in any way--even if by a telephone number--you're on the job and must be compensated.

Where I worked, it was be there when we need you or else. So I couldn't plan anything, or do any other job. There were about 8 of us all vying for the work. I could be booked for 7 hours, and then at the last minute, nothing at all. It was at this point I went self employed, and I've not looked back. It was the best thing I ever did.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's terrible.  Here in the US, on-call hours must be compensated for under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  If it's holding you down, in any way--even if by a telephone number--you're on the job and must be compensated.

Where I worked, it was be there when we need you or else.   So I couldn't plan anything, or do any other job.   There were about 8 of us all vying for the work.   I could be booked for 7 hours, and then at the last minute, nothing at all.   It was at this point I went self employed, and I've not looked back.   It was the best thing I ever did.

I liked being self employed too. Technically, I still am self employed but I have a full-time job, so I can't really do both. Besides, the self-employed work kind of stopped.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

With a part time job you have regular hours and a regular wage coming in.

I know people are free to apply for none zero hour jobs, but they will be even more hard to get the way many employers are prefering zhc.

Zero hour contracts are open to abuse.   The majority of people who work zero hours are under 25 and over 65, so if it suits you all well and good but people have been refused rent and mortgages because of it's instability.   You do have the usual workers rights though.  You can only hope for a fair employer.

With a zero hour contract the employer holds all the cards.
The employee should have the right to  refuse work if it' not convenient.
The reality  is if they refuse work at short notice they can get asked less and less to work, meaning they are often not earning anything for long periods.

'Zero hours' is just another name for temp/agency work... and is not tying anyone to anything... free to do any other type of work you can find...


If you want a full time job... then you must keep applying for full time jobs... until you get one...

Any business wants people they can rely on, if an Employee want to pick and choose what hours he works he's not going to be employed for long. Employers are in it to make a profit.If an employee can't be relied on he's no good for the business !

Tommy Monk wrote:'Zero hours' is just another name for temp/agency work... and is not tying anyone to anything... free to do any other type of work you can find...


If you want a full time job... then you must keep applying for full time jobs... until you get one...

Yes, it's no different to agency work really. I used to do tempting, and I never knew when or if I was going to get some work. That was fine with me at the time though.

nicko wrote:Any business wants people they can rely on,   if an Employee want to pick and choose what hours he works he's not going to be employed for long.  Employers are in it to make a profit.If an employee can't be relied on he's no good for the business !

But that is supposed to be the deal in a zero hours contract Nicko.
The employee states what he can and cant do, the employer doesn't guarantee him regular hours.

Its an unstable way to organise employment, it may suit people who dont need regular work and a regular income, but many people are being offerred this sort of contract now instead of regular employment.

Tommy Monk wrote:'Zero hours' is just another name for temp/agency work... and is not tying anyone to anything... free to do any other type of work you can find...


If you want a full time job... then you must keep applying for full time jobs... until you get one...

No, it's not.   I've worked as  a temp.   Temp agencies seek out the work for you.   If one job  falls through, they'll find you another usually on the same day.   You are rarely out of work.   Also, often temp jobs lead to permanent work.  A temp agency works in both your interests and their own. Also you can work for more than one agency and they don't take umbrage if you can't do a job for them because you're currently working somewhere else.

Syl wrote:

nicko wrote:Any business wants people they can rely on,   if an Employee want to pick and choose what hours he works he's not going to be employed for long.  Employers are in it to make a profit.If an employee can't be relied on he's no good for the business !

But that is supposed to be the deal in a zero hours contract Nicko.
The employee states what he can and cant do, the employer doesn't guarantee him regular hours.

Its an unstable way to organise employment, it may suit people who dont need regular work and a regular income, but many people are being offerred this sort of contract now instead of regular employment.

The only people it suits is those who are probably at home all day and can afford to hang around waiting for that phone call. You can't live like that if you've got bills to pay, rent or mortgage, kids to feed, etc.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

But that is supposed to be the deal in a zero hours contract Nicko.
The employee states what he can and cant do, the employer doesn't guarantee him regular hours.

Its an unstable way to organise employment, it may suit people who dont need regular work and a regular income, but many people are being offerred this sort of contract now instead of regular employment.

The only people it suits is those who are probably at home all day and can afford to hang around waiting for that phone call.    You can't live like that if you've got bills to pay, rent or mortgage, kids to feed, etc.  

Or students, my grandson at uni worked for a company on zero hours, it suited him because they were quite fair with the hours they offered....he also felt valued and was awarded employer of the month a couple of times.....but the workplace shouldn't be run to suit students and people who don't really want the hours.

I think some employers are using this to shirk their responsibilities towards the workers, instead of employing a couple of people (say) in regular full time work, they are picking and choosing amongst several casual workers.

My other grandson cant get a full time, even a regular part time job, he has had to sign up for zero hours, along with 7 others who were looking for regular work in the same complex.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:'Zero hours' is just another name for temp/agency work... and is not tying anyone to anything... free to do any other type of work you can find...


If you want a full time job... then you must keep applying for full time jobs... until you get one...

No, it's not.   I've worked as  a temp.   Temp agencies seek out the work for you.   If one job  falls through, they'll find you another usually on the same day.   You are rarely out of work.   Also, often temp jobs lead to permanent work.  A temp agency works in both your interests and their own.  Also you can work for more than one agency and they don't take umbrage if you can't do a job for them because you're currently working somewhere else.  

Yes, they get the work for you, but there's no guarantee that they can get you work.

Tommy Monk wrote:'Zero hours' is just another name for temp/agency work... and is not tying anyone to anything... free to do any other type of work you can find...

If you want a full time job... then you must keep applying for full time jobs... until you get one...

The big difference is whether the employee is an independent contractor, or a full employee.  In California, the distinction is in the degree of control an employer wants to exercise:

NOLO wrote:In general, an independent contractor is someone who is in business for himself or herself. Independent contractors usually perform work that requires a specialized skill or trade that is not part of a company’s regular business. They also typically perform work for multiple customers or clients, set their own fees, work from home or their own place of business, provide their own tools and equipment, and determine how and when the work is to be done. A customer or client may provide specifications or deadlines for the work, but the independent contractor decides how much time to spend and how best to do the job. For example, a web designer who works from home, performs services for multiple clients, sets his or her own hours, and gets paid on a project basis would probably be classified as an independent contractor.

An employee, on the other hand, is someone whom a company has much more control over. An employee typically performs work that is a regular part of a company’s business. Employees also usually have regularly scheduled hours, work at the employer’s place of business, receive training and direction from the company, receive an hourly wage or salary, and are subject to discipline by the company. The company has control over how the employee performs the work, often providing training, guidelines, or other supervision over the work product.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/are-you-employee-independent-contractor-under-california-law.html

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:'Zero hours' is just another name for temp/agency work... and is not tying anyone to anything... free to do any other type of work you can find...


If you want a full time job... then you must keep applying for full time jobs... until you get one...

No, it's not.   I've worked as  a temp.   Temp agencies seek out the work for you.   If one job  falls through, they'll find you another usually on the same day.   You are rarely out of work.   Also, often temp jobs lead to permanent work.  A temp agency works in both your interests and their own.  Also you can work for more than one agency and they don't take umbrage if you can't do a job for them because you're currently working somewhere else.  

Exactly. Tommy is talking wank.

eddie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

No, it's not.   I've worked as  a temp.   Temp agencies seek out the work for you.   If one job  falls through, they'll find you another usually on the same day.   You are rarely out of work.   Also, often temp jobs lead to permanent work.  A temp agency works in both your interests and their own.  Also you can work for more than one agency and they don't take umbrage if you can't do a job for them because you're currently working somewhere else.  

Exactly. Tommy is talking wank.

He's not actually. I've also done temping so I know that work is not guaranteed.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:'Zero hours' is just another name for temp/agency work... and is not tying anyone to anything... free to do any other type of work you can find...


If you want a full time job... then you must keep applying for full time jobs... until you get one...

No, it's not.   I've worked as  a temp.   Temp agencies seek out the work for you.   If one job  falls through, they'll find you another usually on the same day.   You are rarely out of work.   Also, often temp jobs lead to permanent work.  A temp agency works in both your interests and their own.  Also you can work for more than one agency and they don't take umbrage if you can't do a job for them because you're currently working somewhere else.  

All depends what type of work you are putting yourself up for... and how busy the various agencies are...

Let me explain...

I am registered with several agencies as a skilled worker, and as being (potentially) available to take up any offer of work, doing my particular skill, and which could be to start the same night or next day etc, and could be just for one night/day or for a few days/weeks/months, and any number of hours... although it is usually the case that the offer will be to start the next day or on the Monday, and they have arranged with the client that there will be 8-10 hours paid work available each day... but it is also usually the case that the agency tell workers that it will be (for example) 6 months work, when it is really 6 weeks or less, or they say 6 weeks when it is only 6 days etc... and they say it's 10 hours a day only to find out it's only 8 etc...


I very rarely do any of the agency work... I'll only do a couple of weeks here and there in a year if I've got nothing else on, as it sometimes comes in handy to fill a gap between my regular jobs...


But if all I had was the agency work offers to go to, they could not keep me going all year, and I would have big gaps with no work at all...


Now... as far as unskilled work goes... years ago I was registered with a temp casual labor agency who would phone me at short notice to fill demand at the local post office sorting office at busy times... no mention of how many hours or days I would be needed... just a random phone call out of the blue every now and then, asking if I could do a few hours that evening... no set number of hours for the shift, or number of days/nights/weeks needed either...


Sometimes it would be just 4-5 hours and 'thanks goodbye' and not hearing anything from them for days/weeks after... other times I would do 8 hours and be asked to stay a couple more hours and come back for the next few days... and then nothing for ages...

From Tommy's experience temp work isn't dissimilar to zero hours....cept a temp agency wil save you the bother of looking for the work yourself.

Syl wrote:From Tommy's experience temp work isn't dissimilar to zero hours....cept a temp agency wil save you the bother of looking for the work yourself.

Well yes, although you do have to convince the agency that you're worth hiring, so it's not that easy.