Zero Hour Contracts and more

[BAJR]

quick question for monty.. can you be on zhc for two companies... as they have effectively contracted you for that time whether there is work or not?

that is more a question than a statement.

[monty]

Yeah and i am not working for either of them at the moment !! I think the contracts state that work will be offered as and when available...also interestingly i am under no obligation to take such work as offered ......

[BAJR]

Hmmmm --- indeed you can refuse if you are not available. so I wonder why companies bother with these contracts? Unless it means you are on the books. ( which means you can get paid faster) But... it can be misused.

Zero contracts and key time contracts

‘Zero contracts’ are contracts of employment which do not specify any number of hours that the employee will be required to work. They are common for shop workers. The contract says that instead of working a specific number of hours per week, you must be ready to work whenever you are asked.
‘Key time’ contracts are those where you are guaranteed some work, but are not guaranteed regular hours each week.
The problem with zero and key time contracts is that you are only paid for the time you work, so even if you have to wait on work premises or be at home waiting by the phone, you may not be paid for this waiting time. However, legally, if you're on a zero hours contract, you are entitled to be paid for any time you have to be on work premises waiting for work to come up, unless your contract of employment says otherwise. You should be paid your normal hourly rate or, at the very least, the National Minimum wage.

This is an interesting forum - remember legal advice should be taken from a legal expert..!
http://www.workplacelaw.net/forums/listC...ad_id/4748

My problem with zhc --- the effect on the individual. It is not really a way to make people feel good. on monthly zero hour contracts. Yes.. I feel valued!

[Jack]

Hmmm sounds similar to the situation in the franchise fast-food industry way back in my university days. It was common practice for managers to, in quite hours, to ask (strongly) for staff to clock-off for a while and sit in the common room out back until trade picked up. Totally illegal, but didn't stop them trying.

[pdurdin]

Hmmmm --- indeed you can refuse if you are not available. so I wonder why companies bother with these contracts? Unless it means you are on the books. ( which means you can get paid faster)

Easier to manage, no contracts etc to sign every time there's work to be done, they just have to keep track of the hours worked.

My problem with zhc --- the effect on the individual. It is not really a way to make people feel good. on monthly zero hour contracts. Yes.. I feel valued!

Realistically, what's the alternative? If there isn't regular work for them to do, they can't expect to be employed in any other manner bar individual contracts per job (which is a hassle and has its own set of problems). If people don't think they're valued just because they're on a ZHC, to what lengths is an employer supposed to go -- given that there is only a limited amount of work per week/month and they don't have details far in advance?

[Wax]

The question is are the employers and employees aware of the range of rights that this type of contract gives the employee as Kevin has pointed out? I suspect not, I would ask those of you who are on these contracts if you have claimed your holiday rights, sick leave and redundancy payments where applicable, again I would suspect not. If you are claiming everything you are entitled to and getting it then may be it is a solution.

[kevin wooldridge]

The point about Zero Hour Contracts is that you are obliged to accept work when it is offered. That is the main difference between a ZHC contract and a casual employment contract. The ZHC gives you rights, whilst the casual employment contract (when YOU can choose when you work) offers less protection. Under Jacks scenario, left sitting around in the workplace waiting for work under a ZHC would still require the employer to pay you. Not so under a casual contract.

As I said a couple of pages back in this thread, it seems to me that most archaeological employers would prefer to have their employees under 'Casual employment' contracts rather than ZHC... and I wonder if there isn't a little confusion between the two. If Monty says they are able to turn work down when offered, they are probably not on a ZHC. Once again I would urge people offered either ZHC or casual employment contracts to seek advice and make sure they know what both they and the employer are committing to.

[BAJR]

Realistically, what's the alternative? If there isn't regular work for them to do, they can't expect to be employed in any other manner bar individual contracts per job (which is a hassle and has its own set of problems). If people don't think they're valued just because they're on a ZHC, to what lengths is an employer supposed to go -- given that there is only a limited amount of work per week/month and they don't have details far in advance?

Realisticly, one has to ask why only a few companies feel the need to do this. The issue is abuse of the system.

If you have been on a ZHC for 6 consecutive months carrying out work you may ask... why? --- as people have been. They are used for specific cases, to fill in for maternity, to fill in for a temporary need for workers. But why ? what benefit does this contract bring to the worker? A ZHC --- why not work when there is work?

What lengths should an employer go to keep the people who carry out the work go? Well, if I have to answer that question, then the employer is not thinking too much about their staff.

[pdurdin]

You didn't exactly answer my question: what's the alternative given a limited number of hours of work available?

However as Kevin pointed out there is some confusion between working under a ZHC and casual employment, and I was wrongly lumping them in one basket.

That said, I still don't see any issue with a ZHC if the employee knows and understands what they're signing up for. There are benefits for both the employee (more protection, benefits after long-term contracts) and the employer (they have staff available when work is available) over a casual employment contract.

(I do not condone abuse of the system!)

[kevin wooldridge]

You didn't exactly answer my question: what's the alternative given a limited number of hours of work available?

However as Kevin pointed out there is some confusion between working under a ZHC and casual employment, and I was wrongly lumping them in one basket.

That said, I still don't see any issue with a ZHC if the employee knows and understands what they're signing up for. There are benefits for both the employee (more protection, benefits after long-term contracts) and the employer (they have staff available when work is available) over a casual employment contract.

(I do not condone abuse of the system!)

I agree totally. There is nothing wrong with a ZHC - infact to some people it may be beneficial. However you need to make sure that it is a ZHC you are signing and not a casual employment contract or vice versa.