Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

zero hour contracts
does the employee still qualify for holiday pay?
if not, then there's even less difference between that and being self-employed than has been purported

Zero hours workers are entitled to annual leave, the National Minimum Wage and pay for work-related travel in the same way as regular

cynic
No obligation to pay holiday pay, but some do.

Very rare indeed.

HOW EMPLOYERS ABUSE ZERO-HOURS CONTRACT WORKERS
16/03/2014 · by skwalker1964

Recently I’ve had a few people commenting to me that zero-hours contracts (ZHCs) are not malignant or exploitative, but rather vital to business and employment. Just a few minutes ago I watched a business owner, on BBC Programme “The Big Questions”, completely misrepresent ZHCs as giving flexibility to one of his older workers who doesn’t want to work full-time and great for young people, when the reality is that a ZHC puts the employee completely at the convenience of the employer.

The following was posted as a comment to my first blog article about ZHCs. It tells its own story, which I won’t embellish except to say that it shows perfectly how these abhorrent contracts are being exploited by unscrupulous companies to put the people under them in an invidious position:

Hi Steve, I recently moved from a Relief (casual) to zero-hour contract along with every other Relief staff member of my national social care employer. Here is a slightly redacted copy of my submission to the ‘consultation’. This move followed the removal of TUPE rights for all contracted staff and the loss of sick pay for the first three days of absence for contracted employees.

Dear,

I have read the pack and the intranet guidance on the relief proposals and, frankly, am appalled. I will be in [the office] on Tuesday but here are a few thoughts before I see you.

The zero-hours contract we are being asked to sign is horrid! At the moment, relief work is a two-way understanding: [The company] don’t have to offer work and we don’t have to accept it.

Now the balance of power is all one way. We can’t expect to be offered any work but are expected to be available at all the times we state on the form. We can be pulled part-way through a shift and lose the rest of the hours we were booked to work. We will never be classed as having any service to the company – ten years of regular work would count for nothing as far as length of service goes. We have no employment rights. Finally, the tone of the covering letter makes no pretence that this is a consultation in anything but name – this is clearly going to happen no matter what.

I have 4.5 years service and am writing this after giving advice to a prospective assistant manager, writing up two Mental Capacity Assessments and completing a cost breakdown and support outline for a meeting I’m having with a Social Worker tomorrow. I am a Senior Support Worker until I step down under the restructure, and make myself available at all hours to help out Support Workers and managers by telephone; kind of an unofficial on-call for the day-to-day stuff. Basically I believe I am an important part of the service, not the peripheral throwaway interchangeable body assumed by the new contract. I am not alone in this: many relief staff pull in 40-50 hour weeks in tough times and basically keep the services going; it is wrong to demean their contribution in this way. By the way, I remain on relief for the benefit of the company: as a single Dad who has to be home every night for my two-year old I thought it unfair to the rest of the team to apply for a contract when my hours and availability are restricted.

We have current adverts out for Relief Support Workers for £6.89 per hour under the old contracts, and recent recruits at that wage will not receive a consultation pack [only staff with a minimum length of service and hours worked were sent a pack]. How would you feel if you received a 4% pay cut and a more restrictive contract mere weeks after starting your own job, or while still waiting for your start date? Is it even legal? We rely on regular relief staff as cover and our fallback is an agency where we offer £6.50-£8.29 per hour plus agency fees for. Scrimping on the basic terms and conditions for in-house staff is a false economy in my opinion.

My suggestions in all this?
Increase the pay offer to £6.89 in line with contract support workers, and do the same across the country to show that relief workers are valuable.
Count time working regularly on relief towards length of service, including weeks when nothing can be offered.
Pay a full shift if cancelled within 24 hours of when it is due to start.
Set up a calendar system where we can block times we are unavailable on a real-time basis so managers can see when we have commitments elsewhere such as family or other jobs, rather than the unbalanced proposal where we have to offer everything and you nothing.
Above all, don’t treat us like second-class citizens if you expect any kind of respect for the company. To the people I support and my colleagues; always. But not to [the company].
A final thought: this offer fits in beautifully with the ex-gratia payment made a while back to show how much [the company] valued its staff. Relief workers got a big fat nothing. Now you’re doing it again.

Yours,

CMG

Zero hour contracts = self employed...... in all but name.

But without the tax advantages and perks.

The People have spoken!



Crimea Referendum Poll: 93% Vote For Russia

6:24pm UK, Sunday 16 March 2014




Voters in Crimea have overwhelmingly backed breaking away from Ukraine to join Russia, according to exit polls.

The White House has restated its rejection of the referendum in the southern Black Sea region, and has branded Russia's actions as "dangerous and destabilising".

There was a turnout of more than 80% it is being reported.

People waving Russian flags have already started celebrating in the Crimean capital Simferopol, ahead of the official results being announced.

Russian President Vladimir Putin had already reiterated the referendum complies with international law and promised to "respect" the outcome of the vote on whether to join Russia.



http://news.sky.com/story/1226921/crimea-referendum-poll-93-percent-vote-for-russia

thanks max .... i confess that has always been my impression too, but was told it wasn't quite the fact

Self employed equals running a business in. some form. It means having multiple clients otherwise you have to be on PAYE and get caught by IR35 regs. Most zero hours people cannot work for anyone else while under contract to their employer. The national insurance regs are different. A self employed must produce accounts for tax man. That is just a small sample number of thevdifferences.

No, they call zero hour folk "employed", even though they have no security. and I suppose they pay tax/Ni on a PAYE scheme.

They would be better off, if they set themselves up as self employed. That way they could offset tax against fares, car running expenses etc.

Yes, sorry to miss that, you need several contracts to get around the taxman.

Which is where the contracts themselves try to force you into a single employer status, without the compensation.

Yoiu can only offset tax against expenses if you have varied places of work. If you work at one location for one client then the tax man says you are employed and will refuse expenses. To get expenses, you must show you are running a genuine business.

I did say several contracts.

fine and i read and some of it i knew, but essentially, for the person at the end of the rope, unless you're clever and have an accountant (and can afford same), you're potentially or actually worse off with a zero-hour contract than being self-employed

Hays is spot on Zero Hours contracts v Self Employed are like chalk and cheese.

Remember the recent case of the radio disc Jockey who was also claiming he was a used car salesman for IR35 purposes. Wayne Rooney gets away with it at present by reckoning hes a after dinner talker/entertainer (besides footballer.....debatable recently) although I believe hes soon to have his collar felt.

Any way you normally find the Zero Hours contract employee usually working for an agency as an employee. Thats the big give away. Its the agency who as the power to hire and fire but no doubt most are swayed directly by the employers they have contracts with.

The Halifax Bank used them in Call Centres and they were mostly seasonal workers or one off project workers.

Their salary was about 30% less than the employees hired directly by the Halifax and a lot of permanent staff looked down on them wrongly imo. Also had no holiday pay although they could take non paid leave but couldnt join a union. Did get subsidised meals though.

Basicaly Cheap Labour.

This Crimea vote ...it could only happen in Russia or North Korea....they invade a country and then have a vote afterwards....unbelievable....
It is pretty obvious that no Fifa world cup can be held in Russia.....I would expect England and most countries to abstain from participating...and Fifa should suspend the world cup 2018 immediately from being held there....

zero hour contracts
sticky - the end financial result for the "employee" does not seem to be greatly different, except that on zero hour contract, you get paid at least the statutory minimum wage, whereas the self-employed guy, may well be paid less than that when his immediate expenses are deducted (as in courier drivers)


crimea
i'm surprised how sanguine the markets seem to be this morning, though most assuredly this is far from the end of the drama

As legal as Iraq, Libya?

Thames Estuary

Would prefer a Boris island there myself....super project that... freeing up Heathrow for housing ....