Zero hours contract

Discussion in 'Finance, Property, Law' started by postman_twit, Dec 3, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. My company are looking at putting their Drivers on a zero hours contract. We are currently contracted to work 52.5 hours per week (Mon to Fri) and have to make ourselves available to work an additional day every two weeks for an extra payment. Our work is shift based and fluctuates greatly.

    Does anyone have any experience of a Zero hours contract as my initial research doesn't look like we will benefit from any proposed change over (and that's putting it mildly!).


  2. I'm not taking that big a pay cut! :)
  3. I have no experience or even zero knowledge if you like of the situation but I would hazard a guess that there are two possible outcomes.
    1) The workforce will be better off financially
    2) The company will save money at the expense of the workforce.

    Your guess as to which is more likely.
    • Like Like x 3
  4. About 25 years ago when I worked for a large high street chemist, they put all their warehouse staff on zero hours contracts. Basically it meant they'd pick and choose who they wanted to work and when and pay them only for the hours worked. The best workers got good hours and decent'ish overtime, the slackers got 3 hours one week, 5 hours over 3 days the next, etc.

    They claimed it gave them better flexibilty over the workforce, especially in the run up to xmas. A big downside for the 'lightly' employed staff was, they still effectively had a contract of work, therefore couldn't sign on in the times when they weren't called in.

    Mush_Lad went for a job with a well known burger chain last summer, he was offered a similar type of contract, except they expected him to sit in the rest room in between shifts, which were in 1/2 hour chunks. No leaving the building. After chatting to a mate who'd stuck it out for 2 weeks and found he was paid for 22 worked hours despite being onsite for over 80 hours over the fortnight, he told them to stuff it.

    Not a good working practice from the employees point of view, great if you're a business owner.
  5. What the company is hoping for is greater flexibility in how it fucks people around. I bet currently, they find some difficulty getting people to work overtime at certain times so either have to accept that they have no-one to do certain jobs, or have to pay over the odds to get someone in. The new system will allow them to dictate who does what extra hours, and when they do them, for which they will have to pay more than they currently would have to if the workers were compliant, but in a way which is more profitable for the company.
  6. That's my worry. I can foresee that they expect us to be on permanet call too.
  7. There's a hint that if you're on call, onsite, then that can be treated as under the agesis of Minimum wage laws and they'll end up paying for you to sit around
  8. On call will be from home, therefore gratis. What's brought it about is that the MD has decided to do away with Agency drivers. The problem is we can go from needing 18 drivers one day and 28 the next. They have no problems with drivers covering extra work. The Agency drivers are all regulars and most are semi retired having done this job full time prior to that.
  9. And your pension ?
  10. What pension???
  11. That could explain their decision as inforced enrolement on pensions schemes kicks off after Christmas
    • Like Like x 3
  12. It's solely for their benefit. Lots of retailers do it - Next, Boots etc but also some LAs. It makes you casual labour. No holiday pay, no sick pay, no need to pay you if they don't want you in. In return you are expected to respond immediately when they want you in.

    100% availability in return for 0% commitment.
    • Like Like x 2

  13. No it doesn't. As far as Inland Revenue are concerned

    "The PAYE position is clearly spelt out in the Employer’s Guide. As far as the Revenue is concerned, a casual employee is someone taken on for no more than one week and not taken on again in the same tax year. Thus, if someone is taken on for eight days, he (or she) cannot be regarded as a casual employee. Likewise, if a worker is employed for five days in March 2002 having worked for one day in May 2001, he (or she) cannot be regarded as a casual employee. The PAYE system – according to the Employer’s Guide – must be operated. "
  14. Fair point, I meant casual in the looser sense rather than legal sense. i.e. you are employed as and when it suits them, you have no guarantees and get no holiday or sick pay.