New data on zero-hours contracts adds to a worrying picture

New data on zero-hours contracts adds to a worrying picture

Greater awareness among employees and a new survey of businesses means the full extent of precarious employment is emerging into view

There are an estimated 2.7m zero-hour contracts in Britain according to a new figures published today by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

They consist of the headline figure of 1.4m contracts under which employees worked some hours in the fortnight beginning 20 January 2014, and a further 1.3m contracts where employees were not given any hours at all in that two-week sample period. The latter figure could include people who have found another job but remain on the books and the ONS said it would be investigating further to refine its estimate.

It’s the first time the ONS has surveyed businesses to produce an estimate of the number of zero-hours contracts. Previous estimates relied on the Labour Force Survey, which reported that in February, 583,000 people said they were on zero-hours contracts as their primary employment.

The ONS says the dramatically larger figure from the business survey may be partly explained by the fact that some people have several zero-hours contracts, perhaps with different employers. But the ONS also suggested that some employees may not realise they are on a zero-hours contract, even if their employer does.

The business survey numbers do not include workers who are engaged on a self-employed basis, even though they may work for just one company. So it’s likely that the new figures do reflect the reality that the extent of zero-hours contracts is significantly larger than previously thought.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/apr/30/new-data-on-zero-hours-contracts-adds-to-a-worrying-picture


More graphs and information on the link. This is absolutely disgusting. Add the 1.3mill who got no work for that time to the figures for the unemployed (At 2.24 million for December 2013 to February 2014 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/april-2014/statistical-bulletin.html) because that is what they were, and that shows the reason why this government has tried to pretend that unemployment is falling. That's 4.94 MILLION people unemployed or on zero hours contracts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Averaging 25 hours per week.

Not bad.

And what were they doing while Labour were in charge?

Watching Jeremy Kyle = BAD.

I think society, and particularly the welfare state, is rapidly sliding back to the 1930s.  Milliband's just announced too that he wants to overhaul the rental sector, abolishing short tenancies and imposing minimum three year ones, etc.  Now all that sounds good and noble, but we know, from the 1960s, that all it does in reality is stop landlords wanting to rent at all, stop potential buy to lets, and basically make the housing shortage ten times worse.

All the good intentions, workers' rights, tenants' rights, seem to have reached their zenith, but over-zealous proponents of these, ie the militant unions etc, have made them more or less unworkable, so things have swung back to the bad old days.  I don't know where it'll all end, but I'm glad I'm not 21 and starting out!

Tesstacious wrote:I think society, and particularly the welfare state, is rapidly sliding back to the 1930s.  Milliband's just announced too that he wants to overhaul the rental sector, abolishing short tenancies and imposing minimum three year ones, etc.  Now all that sounds good and noble, but we know, from the 1960s, that all it does in reality is stop landlords wanting to rent at all, stop potential buy to lets, and basically make the housing shortage ten times worse.

All the good intentions, workers' rights, tenants' rights, seem to have reached their zenith, but over-zealous proponents of these, ie the militant unions etc, have made them more or less unworkable, so things have swung back to the bad old days.  I don't know where it'll all end, but I'm glad I'm not 21 and starting out!

so...also pass a law that anyone owning more than one home....and not using the others for rentals etc   loses them in 6 months....without compensation, except in exceptional (and defined) circumstances. Stopping "buy to let" would actually INCREASE the housing stock available and by making more homes available on the market push down prices..

victorisnotamused wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:I think society, and particularly the welfare state, is rapidly sliding back to the 1930s.  Milliband's just announced too that he wants to overhaul the rental sector, abolishing short tenancies and imposing minimum three year ones, etc.  Now all that sounds good and noble, but we know, from the 1960s, that all it does in reality is stop landlords wanting to rent at all, stop potential buy to lets, and basically make the housing shortage ten times worse.

All the good intentions, workers' rights, tenants' rights, seem to have reached their zenith, but over-zealous proponents of these, ie the militant unions etc, have made them more or less unworkable, so things have swung back to the bad old days.  I don't know where it'll all end, but I'm glad I'm not 21 and starting out!

so...also pass a law that anyone owning more than one home....and not using the others for rentals etc   loses them in 6 months....without compensation, except in exceptional (and defined) circumstances. Stopping "buy to let" would actually INCREASE the housing stock available and by making more homes available on the market push down prices..

I agree Vic we need that here too

yeah..well you see veya...I am such a R/W b'stard.........

victorisnotamused wrote:yeah..well you see veya...I am such a R/W b'stard.........

on most topics       

         
But that is a left wing suggestion screwing the Rich man for a change.

I do realise that you are not as RW (or a silly) as some of the other loons on here.      

 :asdrnkbudsas: :asdrnkbudsas: :asdrnkbudsas: :asdrnkbudsas: :asdrnkbudsas: :asdrnkbudsas: :asdrnkbudsas: 

victorisnotamused wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:I think society, and particularly the welfare state, is rapidly sliding back to the 1930s.  Milliband's just announced too that he wants to overhaul the rental sector, abolishing short tenancies and imposing minimum three year ones, etc.  Now all that sounds good and noble, but we know, from the 1960s, that all it does in reality is stop landlords wanting to rent at all, stop potential buy to lets, and basically make the housing shortage ten times worse.

All the good intentions, workers' rights, tenants' rights, seem to have reached their zenith, but over-zealous proponents of these, ie the militant unions etc, have made them more or less unworkable, so things have swung back to the bad old days.  I don't know where it'll all end, but I'm glad I'm not 21 and starting out!

so...also pass a law that anyone owning more than one home....and not using the others for rentals etc   loses them in 6 months....without compensation, except in exceptional (and defined) circumstances. Stopping "buy to let" would actually INCREASE the housing stock available and by making more homes available on the market push down prices..

How do you work that out? Ordinary people can't afford to buy nowadays, so who would fill all these newly created empty homes? Who do people rent from if the buy to letters don't buy?? As for taking away second homes, I agree in principle, but the reality's a bit more complicated. The ones to blame are the foreign buyers who are leaving the properties empty as an investment. They should be made to pay so much that it's not profitable to do this. And any empty properties should be taxed much more, unless there's a valid reason for them being empty.

Why do people always go for extremes? There's always a reasonable answer if you look hard enough.

That's how to get the unemployment figures down. Instead of having one person doing a job, get three people working to do the same job either on a part time basis, work share or on zero hours contracts and hey presto unemployment figures go down.

Simple, isn't it?

Tesstacious wrote:I think society, and particularly the welfare state, is rapidly sliding back to the 1930s.  Milliband's just announced too that he wants to overhaul the rental sector, abolishing short tenancies and imposing minimum three year ones, etc.  Now all that sounds good and noble, but we know, from the 1960s, that all it does in reality is stop landlords wanting to rent at all, stop potential buy to lets, and basically make the housing shortage ten times worse.

All the good intentions, workers' rights, tenants' rights, seem to have reached their zenith, but over-zealous proponents of these, ie the militant unions etc, have made them more or less unworkable, so things have swung back to the bad old days.  I don't know where it'll all end, but I'm glad I'm not 21 and starting out!

What if someone wants a short-term let as a tenant?

Irn Bru wrote:That's how to get the unemployment figures down. Instead of having one person doing a job, get three people working to do the same job either on a part time basis, work share or on zero hours contracts and hey presto unemployment figures go down.

Simple, isn't it?

Exactly, but the truth of the matter is it means nearly 5 MILLION people are either unemployed, on zero hours contracts getting no hours, or on zero hours contracts getting a few hours. Meanwhile the Government lies and says the unemployment figures are better!