Work for your benefits

[bpoolrover]

I think if they paid them minimum wage and they only did enough hours to cover what benefits they earn then it's a good idea, but no1 should be made to work for less than the minimum wage. I think the dole is 70 a week so say if they did 10 hours a week that would be fine

[IC1967]

Wilts, for some incomprehensible reason Mick seems to think that there is 'give and take' on both sides and the hours offered/worked are up for negotiation , when everybody but Mick knows that what happens is that the employer will instead tell an awkward employee who wants to argue about the hours to piss off so that they can offer those hours to someone else more biddable and will do what the employer wants without arguing about it because they're desperate enough. So lets leave out the 'give and take' b*llocks and have a serious reply, eh Mick?

Look, you never know when to back off and admit defeat. You start digging a hole and you forget to stop. Your statement is so way off the mark it beggars belief.

I'll have one more go at explaining it to you in the vain hope you might actually get it this time.

The hours that are available for work is up to the employer. To remain efficient and competitive employers don't want to be paying for staff to be stood around twiddling their thumbs. So the number of hours available is totally up to the employer. Seems reasonable to me.

Next, after the employer has decided how many hours are available he offers them to the employee. At this point the employee can tell the employer how many hours he wishes to work. For example if the employer offers say 40 then the employee can work anywhere between 0 and 40. Got it? Get it? Good.

Now I'd delete all your statements on zhc's if I were you. They are completely at odds with what is actually happening in the real world. I'd do it quickly if I were you before too many more people see the drivel you have spouted.

Now get on with that abject apology. You owe me that many now I've lost count. As I am a kindhearted soul I'll let you have an amnesty. Just get one abject apology sorted and I'll forget about all the others you owe me. Just get on with it man. You know you should.

[IC1967]

I think if they paid them minimum wage and they only did enough hours to cover what benefits they earn then it's a good idea, but no1 should be made to work for less than the minimum wage. I think the dole is 70 a week so say if they did 10 hours a week that would be fine

I can see where you're coming from. What you are saying in effect is that people should get a job. That's what the government are trying to get the workshy to do.

The policy is only really aimed at the workshy. There is no excuse for anyone that is fit and able for not getting a job that pays more than the dole. Unfortunately there are many scroungers that are quite happy to do nothing and live off benefits. This policy will reduce that number.

Then maybe, the likes of Dagger's family will be better looked after by the state.

[Filo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23554409

You feel bullied. You start at 06:30am, could work till 11:30am, then be told there's no more work for you today," explains Karen

"But if you say you can't work that day they don't tend to ring you again because they say you're not turning up - it makes you feel unworthy

"They make it quite clear when you start - you've got no employment rights and no job security until you've been employed for two years. And now they want to terminate me."

If we ever turned down a shift then they'd (employers) see us as unreliable and cut our hours for weeks to come," insists one 18-year-old who works for 1st Energy in Essex

One 40-year-old further education teacher has told the BBC that she is still living with her mum because her zero-hours contract prevents her saving for a deposit and getting a mortgage.

"One month you could be earning £1,000, the next it could be £600. It's incredibly frustrating," she says.

It meant his shifts could suddenly be cancelled at just 24-hours notice and it could be weeks before there was more work.

"I'd have the landlord screaming at me for the rent," he says. "The fridge would be empty. I'd have to lean on friends for help, I've slept on sofas - lots of us did. It's the only way to keep going."

I know your just being an argumentative dick Mick, and you most likely don't agree with much of what you google, copy and paste, and I should n't really respond to your wumming, but the above quotes suggest you're wrong on zero hours contracts

[IC1967]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23554409

You feel bullied. You start at 06:30am, could work till 11:30am, then be told there's no more work for you today," explains Karen

"But if you say you can't work that day they don't tend to ring you again because they say you're not turning up - it makes you feel unworthy

"They make it quite clear when you start - you've got no employment rights and no job security until you've been employed for two years. And now they want to terminate me."

If we ever turned down a shift then they'd (employers) see us as unreliable and cut our hours for weeks to come," insists one 18-year-old who works for 1st Energy in Essex

One 40-year-old further education teacher has told the BBC that she is still living with her mum because her zero-hours contract prevents her saving for a deposit and getting a mortgage.

"One month you could be earning £1,000, the next it could be £600. It's incredibly frustrating," she says.

It meant his shifts could suddenly be cancelled at just 24-hours notice and it could be weeks before there was more work.

"I'd have the landlord screaming at me for the rent," he says. "The fridge would be empty. I'd have to lean on friends for help, I've slept on sofas - lots of us did. It's the only way to keep going."

I know your just being an argumentative dick Mick, and you most likely don't agree with much of what you google, copy and paste, and I should n't really respond to your wumming, but the above quotes suggest you're wrong on zero hours contracts

No way it does. A few anecdotes from the tiny percentage of the workforce does not prove me wrong. I've already said these contracts are sometimes abused by employers. It is indisputable fact that the vast majority of employees like zhc's. It is indisputable fact that only a tiny percentage of employees are on zhc's.

That is the truth.

[Filo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23554409

You feel bullied. You start at 06:30am, could work till 11:30am, then be told there's no more work for you today," explains Karen

"But if you say you can't work that day they don't tend to ring you again because they say you're not turning up - it makes you feel unworthy

"They make it quite clear when you start - you've got no employment rights and no job security until you've been employed for two years. And now they want to terminate me."

If we ever turned down a shift then they'd (employers) see us as unreliable and cut our hours for weeks to come," insists one 18-year-old who works for 1st Energy in Essex

One 40-year-old further education teacher has told the BBC that she is still living with her mum because her zero-hours contract prevents her saving for a deposit and getting a mortgage.

"One month you could be earning £1,000, the next it could be £600. It's incredibly frustrating," she says.

It meant his shifts could suddenly be cancelled at just 24-hours notice and it could be weeks before there was more work.

"I'd have the landlord screaming at me for the rent," he says. "The fridge would be empty. I'd have to lean on friends for help, I've slept on sofas - lots of us did. It's the only way to keep going."

I know your just being an argumentative dick Mick, and you most likely don't agree with much of what you google, copy and paste, and I should n't really respond to your wumming, but the above quotes suggest you're wrong on zero hours contracts

No way it does. A few anecdotes from the tiny percentage of the workforce does not prove me wrong. I've already said these contracts are sometimes abused by employers. It is indisputable fact that the vast majority of employees like zhc's. It is indisputable fact that only a tiny percentage of employees are on zhc's.

That is the truth.

Selective quoting Mick, you're a big fan of that are n't you?

[IC1967]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23554409

You feel bullied. You start at 06:30am, could work till 11:30am, then be told there's no more work for you today," explains Karen

"But if you say you can't work that day they don't tend to ring you again because they say you're not turning up - it makes you feel unworthy

"They make it quite clear when you start - you've got no employment rights and no job security until you've been employed for two years. And now they want to terminate me."

If we ever turned down a shift then they'd (employers) see us as unreliable and cut our hours for weeks to come," insists one 18-year-old who works for 1st Energy in Essex

One 40-year-old further education teacher has told the BBC that she is still living with her mum because her zero-hours contract prevents her saving for a deposit and getting a mortgage.

"One month you could be earning £1,000, the next it could be £600. It's incredibly frustrating," she says.

It meant his shifts could suddenly be cancelled at just 24-hours notice and it could be weeks before there was more work.

"I'd have the landlord screaming at me for the rent," he says. "The fridge would be empty. I'd have to lean on friends for help, I've slept on sofas - lots of us did. It's the only way to keep going."

I know your just being an argumentative dick Mick, and you most likely don't agree with much of what you google, copy and paste, and I should n't really respond to your wumming, but the above quotes suggest you're wrong on zero hours contracts

No way it does. A few anecdotes from the tiny percentage of the workforce does not prove me wrong. I've already said these contracts are sometimes abused by employers. It is indisputable fact that the vast majority of employees like zhc's. It is indisputable fact that only a tiny percentage of employees are on zhc's.

That is the truth.

Selective quoting Mick, you're a big fan of that are n't you?

Excuse me. You are the guilty party. I've not done any selective quoting. However, surprise ,surprise in the article you posted you indeed have been guilty of selective quoting. I'll give examples to prove the point below. I would also ask you to prove that I have been selective in my quoting. I haven't. I posted all the evidence I need to back me up. Don't bother because you won't be able to.

Right, now to prove that you are the guilty one. Here are some other quotes from the same article:

Some welcome the use of these contracts, arguing that they give employees flexibility over their own work schedules, as well as benefiting employers.

Calum, a 17-year-old housekeeper at the holiday operator Center Parcs, says having a zero-hours contract enables him and other students working there to fit work around their studies.

"The job suits me," he says.

Center Parcs spokesman Simon Kay says he cannot comment on individual cases but says: "We only offer this type of contract to employees who benefit from the flexibility."

However, another student working at a tourist attraction in Beer, Devon - who also wishes to remain anonymous - says he was just pleased to get the work.

"I'd been looking for a job for nine months," he says.

"I'm probably the best person to hire on this type of contract as I don't have to do any budgeting or family planning."

Responding to the comments, Pell and Bales chief executive Derwyn Jones says: "We try to provide our employees with the type of contract they want," pointing out that many staff are musicians, students or actors who appreciate the flexibility.

"At one end - in domestic care, retail, hotels - it's exploitative and pretty awful. But on the other hand, 25% [of workers on such contracts] are students and those in post-grad as teachers.

"For them it's probably a much better experience and gives a degree of flexibility."

All from the same article that you selectively quoted from! Unbelievable. Now get an abject apology sorted and I'll try and put this sorry mess behind us.

[BobG]

Even if he simply wumming Filo, the psychological make up of someone who can persist for so long in portraying himself as brain dead is fascinating. What sort of person can gain any pleasure at all from repeating ad nauseam the shite he does? It beggars belief tbh. I suspect, deep down, there's quite a few on here who feel quite sorry for him. I know I do. He's got a hard life ahead of him - whatever is left of it.

BobG

[IC1967]

Even if he simply wumming Filo, the psychological make up of someone who can persist for so long in portraying himself as brain dead is fascinating. What sort of person can gain any pleasure at all from repeating ad nauseam the shite he does? It beggars belief tbh. I suspect, deep down, there's quite a few on here who feel quite sorry for him. I know I do. He's got a hard life ahead of him - whatever is left of it.

BobG

There you go again. Attacking the man. Why not try winning the debate instead by providing evidence for your ludicrous statements. You never do though do you. You lose then attack the man. Again. Pathetic.

We can all see it. Just admit you lefties don't have a clue about zhc's and all your drivel has been nothing more than an attempt to influence gullible people into thinking the wrong way about zhc's.

As the voice of reason I will continue to expose leftie drivel wherever I find it. In future back up your fatuous assertions or don't bother. Realise I'll be keeping an eye on you.

Now get an abject apology sorted pronto. You'll feel so much better for it.


IC1967

[IC1967]

Right. You've all had long enough. Where are my abject apologies? Get on with it will you and we can put this sorry matter behind us.