Jobseekers being forced into zero-hours roles

Jobseekers being forced into zero-hours roles
Letter from Conservative minister reveals plans to sanction unemployed people if they fail to agree to controversial contracts



Jobseekers face losing their benefits for three months or more if they refuse to take zero-hours contract roles, a letter from a Conservative minister has revealed.

For the first time, benefit claimants are at risk of sanctions if they do not apply for and accept certain zero-hours jobs under the new universal credit system, despite fears that such contracts are increasingly tying workers into insecure and low paid employment.

Last week, the Office for National Statistics revealed the number of contracts that do not guarantee minimum hours of work or pay but require workers to be on standby had reached 1.4 million.

More than one in 10 employers are using such contracts, which are most likely to be offered to women, young people and people over 65. The figure rises to almost half of all employers in the tourism, catering and food sector.

Currently, people claiming jobseekers' allowance are not required to apply for zero-hours contract vacancies and they do not face penalties for turning them down.

However, the change in policy under universal credit was revealed in a letter from Esther McVey, an employment minister, to Labour MP Sheila Gilmore, who had raised the issue of sanctions with her.

The senior Tory confirmed that, under the new system, JobCentre "coaches" would be able to "mandate to zero-hours contracts", although they would have discretion about considering whether a role was suitable.

Separately, a response to a freedom of information request to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) published on its website reveals: "We expect claimants to do all they reasonably can to look for and move into paid work. If a claimant turns down a particular vacancy (including zero-hours contract jobs) a sanction may be applied, but we will look into the circumstances of the case and consider whether they had a good reason."

Higher level sanctions – imposed if a jobseeker refuses to take a position without good reason or leaves a position voluntarily – will lead to a loss of benefits for 13 weeks on the first occasion, 26 weeks on the second occasion and 156 weeks on the third occasion.

Asked about the issue by the Guardian, the DWP said jobseekers would not be required to take a zero-hours contract that tied them in exclusively to work for a single employer. The government is already consulting on whether to ban this type of contract altogether.

The change has been made possible because universal credit will automatically adjust the level of benefits someone receives depending on the number of hours they work. This means claimants should not face periods without the correct benefits when their earnings fluctuate or they change job.

However, critics raised concerns that the new policy will force people into uncertain employment and restrict the ability of claimants to seek better work while still placing a burden on many to increase their hours.

Labour's Sheila Gilmore said she was concerned about the situation because JobCentre decision makers already do not appear to be exercising enough discretion before applying sanctions under the old regime.

"While I don't object to the principle of either universal credit or zero-hours contracts, I am concerned about this policy change," she said. "I also fear that if people are required to take jobs with zero-hours contracts, they could be prevented from taking training courses or applying for other jobs that might lead to more stable and sustainable employment in the long term."

Andy Sawford, a shadow minister who has pushed for reforms of the contracts with his zero-hours bill in parliament, also expressed concern about the change, as universal credit will require many people on low hours to try to increase their work. Those below a "conditionality earnings threshold" – normally 35 hours at the minimum wage – may be asked to "carry out relevant actions" to raise their earnings, or again face sanctions.

"How can you commit to training, undertake a proper job search or agree to participate in interviews when you are on a zero-hours contract and may be required to work at any time?" Sawford said. "Requiring people to take zero-hour jobs is a big change from the past. It will create further insecurity for many of the lowest paid people."

Labour has promised to crack down on abuses of zero-hours contracts, with leader Ed Miliband saying their use has reached "epidemic" proportions in some industries. He wants to see workers with irregular shifts and pay getting a contract with fixed hours if they have worked regularly for the same employer for a year.

The TUC has also expressed worry that they are "no longer confined to the fringe of the job market". A spokesman for the DWP said: "As now, if there's a good reason someone can't just take a particular job they won't be sanctioned. But it is right that people do everything they can to find work and that we support them to build up their working hours and earnings. The average zero-hours contract provides 25 hours of work a week – and can lead to long-term opportunities.

"Universal credit payments will adjust automatically depending on the hours a person works to ensure that people whose hours may change are financially supported and do not face the hassle and bureaucracy of switching their benefit claims."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/05/jobseekers-zero-hours-contracts

Of course this is exactly what bad employers want, state funding of their businesses.

"The average zero-hours contract provides 25 hours of work a week – and can lead to long-term opportunities."


Not too bad - better than doing nothing, i'm sure we'd all agree.

I have to say - UKIP's left wing policies do make some sense on this issue:

Large firms should sign up to a "tough code of conduct" to prevent them exploiting workers on zero-hours contracts, Ukip leader Nigel Farage has said.

He claimed cheap labour "flooding in from abroad" had left big employers in an increasingly powerful position to dictate terms for workers.

In a Daily Express column Mr Farage said: "With so much cheap labour flooding in from abroad, giant corporations are in an increasingly powerful position to dictate terms and conditions for workers."

He added: "Unlimited immigration from eastern Europe and elsewhere has left many British working people pretty much defenceless against constant downgrades in their pay and employment conditions."

Mr Farage said that while having a zero-hours contract as an option was appropriate for some workers "having it as the only available form of work is quite another".

"And keeping people on zero-hours contracts for year after year when they aspire to stable employment so that they can provide for their families is something else again.

"I do not believe in banning zero-hours contracts. But I do believe there is a very strong case for expecting large employers to sign up to a tough code of conduct as to how they are applied.

"For instance, if an employee proves reliable enough to be working for a big company for a year or more then there should be an expectation that the company will offer him or her a permanent position."


http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeeds/farage-calls-for-zerohours-curbs-9268733.html

Well, as an ex-banker, of course he wouldn't want to ban them. Labour would thank goodness.

Sassy wrote:Well, as an ex-banker, of course he wouldn't want to ban them.   Labour would thank goodness.

Mr Milibland has echoed Mr Farage's policy:

Ed Miliband has promised Labour will regulate zero-hours contracts if he becomes prime minister and a Government review of the issue is expected to report in July.


And i'm sure it will be Conservative policy when the report comes in.

So, as always, they're all the same.


edit: when i say they're all the same i mean they're all promising action.

If they don't actually get any hours, they won't lose their JSA, so they might as well sign up for these contracts.

If employers want someone to work for 25 hours, then employ them for a set 25 hours so that they can get employment for the rest of the time. But they don't want to do that, they want the state to subsidise them so that they can pick and chose the hours, meaning the person employed on zero hours contact, even if they get the 25, which a lot of the time they don't, has to claim benefit, simply because the hours are not set and they can't get another part time job. This means that the person on the contract makes less money, and the business is subsidised by the state. The only people winning in the equation is the business. The state looses by having to pay benefits and the person looses by not being able to take another job.

I'm afraid you have to reap what you sow Sassy.

Cheap foreign labour - get over it.

Nothing to do with cheap foreign labour, has to do with businesses knowing their mates in office will subsidise them.

Sassy wrote:If employers want someone to work for 25 hours, then employ them for a set 25 hours so that they can get employment for the rest of the time.   But they don't want to do that, they want the state to subsidise them so that they can pick and chose the hours, meaning the person employed on zero hours contact, even if they get the 25, which a lot of the time they don't, has to claim benefit, simply because the hours are not set and they can't get another part time job.   This means that the person on the contract makes less money, and the business is subsidised by the state.    The only people winning in the equation is the business.   The state looses by having to pay benefits and the person looses by not being able to take another job.

Of course they can get another job. They might lose the zero hours one but it wouldn't matter if they had another job would it?

Sassy wrote:Nothing to do with cheap foreign labour, has to do with businesses knowing their mates in office will subsidise them.

So do something about it.

Or will you do the same as always?

lol

People will do something it.
It will bye bye Dave and Gideon next year.

It's agency work by another name, give people hours when you need them, send them home when you don't only in this instance the employer doesn't have to pay agency rates.

Bit shit if you have a family to keep and bills to pay.

But if an Englishman doesn't take it, a foreigner will.

What choice do we have?   

BigAndy9 wrote:But if an Englishman doesn't take it, a foreigner will.

What choice do we have?    

Let them take it.

Spindleshanks wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:But if an Englishman doesn't take it, a foreigner will.

What choice do we have?    

Let them take it.

I agree.It's a farce and its immoral.

Spindleshanks wrote:It's agency work by another name, give people hours when you need them, send them home when you don't only in this instance the employer doesn't have to pay agency rates.

Bit shit if you have a family to keep and bills to pay.

Yes it is like agency work. Nobody complains about agency work though.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Let them take it.

I agree.It's a farce and its immoral.

?

Ok, low paid work which the tax payer has to subsidise - we've all agreed that.

Two people have just said let foreigners come here and take that work instead of the English - therefore instead of subsidising one Englishman a little bit we subsidise one foreigner and fund one Englishman the whole way.

And then you two same people wonder why the country is struggling and having to make cuts.

Bonkers.

It's a lot of pissing about with adjusting peoples additional benefits based on how much they earn each week and I bet it's always at least a week behind too.

Just as it was when they introduced the tax credit system I can see people being overpaid benefits because of mistakes which of course the employee will have to pay back the following week/month.

It'll be a bloody nightmare and no doubt cost the tax payer a fortune too.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:It's agency work by another name, give people hours when you need them, send them home when you don't only in this instance the employer doesn't have to pay agency rates.

Bit shit if you have a family to keep and bills to pay.

Yes it is like agency work. Nobody complains about agency work though.

Course they didn't, which is why the agency workers regulations were put in place.

BigAndy9 wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I agree.It's a farce and its immoral.

?

Ok, low paid work which the tax payer has to subsidise - we've all agreed that.

Two people have just said let foreigners come here and take that work instead of the English - therefore instead of subsidising one Englishman a little bit we subsidise one foreigner and fund one Englishman the whole way.

And then you two same people wonder why the country is struggling and having to make cuts.

Bonkers.

First of all I believe the tax payer will end up paying for zero hour contracts.

Secondly you can't have people on contracts where they will be working a decent amount of hours one week and nothing the next.It's not fair and they won't be working the hours they need to get enough money,is it not obvious the whole premise is a scam.

But why are these contracts becoming more and more common?

Is it because there's a shortage of people to take jobs, or is it because our market has been flooded by people who will take any low paid job?

You're not looking at the source of the problem - a market flooded by foreign people who can take any job and not worry about the mortgage, the bills, the tax!

BigAndy9 wrote:But why are these contracts becoming more and more common?

Is it because there's a shortage of people to take jobs, or is it because our market has been flooded by people who will take any low paid job?

You're not looking at the source of the problem - a market flooded by foreign people who can take any job and not worry about the mortgage, the bills, the tax!

It's about maintaining profit margins.

During quiet periods when they don't need so many staff they don't bring them in, when it's busy they do.

These zero hours employees can be sent home at any given point through the day so if work dries up they save costs by sending them home, they can't do that with regular employees.

Spindleshanks wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:But why are these contracts becoming more and more common?

Is it because there's a shortage of people to take jobs, or is it because our market has been flooded by people who will take any low paid job?

You're not looking at the source of the problem - a market flooded by foreign people who can take any job and not worry about the mortgage, the bills, the tax!

It's about maintaining profit margins.  

During quiet periods when they don't need so many staff they don't bring them in, when it's busy they do.

These zero hours employees can be sent home at any given point through the day so if work dries up they save costs by sending them home, they can't do that with regular employees.

And if there weren't spare workers to take the cr4p work - then what?

Correct - they wouldn't be doing zero-hours contracts at all.

Look at the source, folks.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

It's about maintaining profit margins.  

During quiet periods when they don't need so many staff they don't bring them in, when it's busy they do.

These zero hours employees can be sent home at any given point through the day so if work dries up they save costs by sending them home, they can't do that with regular employees.

And if there weren't spare workers to take the cr4p work - then what?

Correct - they wouldn't be doing zero-hours contracts at all.

Look at the source, folks.

When was the last time we had a zero unemployment rate in this country?

Spindleshanks wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


And if there weren't spare workers to take the cr4p work - then what?

Correct - they wouldn't be doing zero-hours contracts at all.

Look at the source, folks.

When was the last time we had a zero unemployment rate in this country?

We've certainly never had this many men flooding the place - that's a fact.

Do you disagree entirely that the reason businesses are able to use zero-hours contracts so much is because there are so many people who will take them?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

When was the last time we had a zero unemployment rate in this country?

We've certainly never had this many men flooding the place - that's a fact.

Do you disagree entirely that the reason businesses are able to use zero-hours contracts so much is because there are so many people who will take them?

Yes I do, I think people in certain situations, no family to keep, second income into the coffers etc feel that something is better than nothing.

When you look at who primarily takes these types of contracts, women, youths, older people, aside from the youths who may well be and quite frequently are uni students working during the holidays, gap years etc, women may well be as I said just contribuiting a second income into the household and older people will likely have a pension.

Most foreigners aka economic migrants who have arrived here in the past decade or so, if they don't have a regular job tend to work the agency route in my experience.

Sassy wrote:Nothing to do with cheap foreign labour, has to do with businesses knowing their mates in office will subsidise them.

I think it has a lot to do with politicking, and being seen to be tough on benefits. Let's be honest, it can't work in reality; how can someone make regular payments, rent, mortgage or whatever, if they're going to be employed for 30 hours one week and five hours the next? What about claimants with children - they're claims would be changing every week with their hours, and we all know how useless the system is at the moment in being able to process claims at the normal rate. It'd be total chaos. As I say it's all bullshit to impress the voters. Hasn't even been thought through. As usual.

Both zero hours contracts AND agencies should be BANNED....

victorisnotamused wrote:Both zero hours contracts AND agencies should be BANNED....

Well said Victor.

victorisnotamused wrote:Both zero hours contracts AND agencies should be BANNED....

I've done work through agencies, and although tempting can be difficult, it's also very useful. In fact, I once found a very good company to work for where I started as a temp.

Oh bravo for you...never mind the 1000's whos lives run in circles around agencies....

get rid of em and force employers to take on staff properly...

victorisnotamused wrote:Oh bravo for you...never mind the 1000's whos lives run in circles around agencies....

get rid of em and force employers to take on staff properly...

Well they don't have to get a job via an agency. Why should those who want to use agencies suffer because you don't like them? Some people might actually want a temporary job. Agencies can also find people permanent jobs or long-term jobs - eg, maternity leave type jobs.

Employers also like to use agencies to get staff quickly. It takes time to recruit so they get a temp whilst they advertise. The temp they employ might even get the job, but most temps don't actually want a permanent job from what I've seen.

Agencies don't just find temporary work.

I know several multi-nationals who will only hire through agencies, and temp work can pay more.

BigAndy9 wrote:Agencies don't just find temporary work.

I know several multi-nationals who will only hire through agencies, and temp work can pay more.

Yes. It paid more in London when I was there. I'm not sure if it does anywhere else though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Agencies don't just find temporary work.

I know several multi-nationals who will only hire through agencies, and temp work can pay more.

Yes. It paid more in London when I was there. I'm not sure if it does anywhere else though.

OMG yes - of course it does - businesses have to pay much higher rates to get somebody in for days/weeks.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. It paid more in London when I was there. I'm not sure if it does anywhere else though.

OMG yes - of course it does - businesses have to pay much higher rates to get somebody in for days/weeks.

I meant the amount that the temp gets after the agency takes their cut.   

It was pretty lucrative in London, and probably still is. One could just go from one job to another.

Going via an agency is probably useful for someone who's looking for a permanent job too. They can just register with an agency and get a temp job really quickly.

Raggamuffin wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

OMG yes - of course it does - businesses have to pay much higher rates to get somebody in for days/weeks.

I meant the amount that the temp gets after the agency takes their cut.   

It was pretty lucrative in London, and probably still is. One could just go from one job to another.

Going via an agency is probably useful for someone who's looking for a permanent job too. They can just register with an agency and get a temp job really quickly.

Not all agencies pay good rates. They might charge the company they supply a heck of a whack but often the employee gets minimum wage.

and then gets charged at OTT rates for transport, uniforms, and anything else the agency thinks it can get away with.....

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I meant the amount that the temp gets after the agency takes their cut.   

It was pretty lucrative in London, and probably still is. One could just go from one job to another.

Going via an agency is probably useful for someone who's looking for a permanent job too. They can just register with an agency and get a temp job really quickly.

Not all agencies pay good rates.  They might charge the company they supply a heck of a whack but often the employee gets minimum wage.

That's right, I used to taxi employees of the St.Andrews Bay Hotel...many of which are temps, and two of these young employes told me that as the company pay for the taxi fare from Dundee to St.Andrews, they employee only gets the NMW, feeble excuse not to pay more, or just make sure all staff hail from the area, I'm sure workers would be aplenty in The famous student Town.

Like I said, I think the pay is good in London. I think temping is more common there - at least for office jobs.

Raggamuffin wrote:Like I said, I think the pay is good in London. I think temping is more common there - at least for office jobs.

Not everyone is cut out for office jobs   

strewth...If I got landed in an office job I'd go stir crazy in a week...

I prefer a "real job"....

Gawd...i'd end up like didge..  

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Like I said, I think the pay is good in London. I think temping is more common there - at least for office jobs.

Not everyone is cut out for office jobs   

And some people are. Are we only allowed to discuss non-office jobs in this thread then?

victorisnotamused wrote:strewth...If I got landed in an office job I'd go stir crazy in a week...

I prefer a "real job"....

Gawd...i'd end up like didge..  

What do you consider to be a "real job"?   

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Not everyone is cut out for office jobs   

And some people are. Are we only allowed to discuss non-office jobs in this thread then?

..order Rags, order...  

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

And some people are. Are we only allowed to discuss non-office jobs in this thread then?

..order Rags, order...  

I don't see why someone should roll their eyes at me just because I mentioned office jobs.

We need that snooty smiley on here.   

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


..order Rags, order...  

I don't see why someone should roll their eyes at me just because I mentioned office jobs.

We need that snooty smiley on here.   

..indeed ..we must see Ben, maybe he can pinch Stooo's?   

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:strewth...If I got landed in an office job I'd go stir crazy in a week...

I prefer a "real job"....

Gawd...i'd end up like didge..  

What do you consider to be a "real job"?   

never really considered it deeply, but.....
anything other than "pen pushing", painting your nails whilst looking totally bored out of your skull, whilst skilfully ignoring the telephone....
some thing that requires REAL skill, and knowlege and ability in things other than being top b---h  

used to work in a place that had an"office floor"...us real workers...engineers...called it the "hen house"