Agreed.Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:14 pmYes prior to 1998 there was zero hours contract but it was often abused by employers to not pay employees for quiet periods even if the employees had to stay onsite in case they got busy
As part of the Minimum Wage Act Labour added a protection around this unscrupulous practice which required the employer to pay the employee the minimum wage for all the time the employer required them to be at the work place even if it was quiet and there was no work to do
Whatever the rights and wrongs are of zero hours contracts over the years I would say that the 1998 change that Labour made which Sid likes to bang his drum about was a sensible and good one and one which protected the working man/woman
The problem with zero hours contracts so far as I can see is that social services, so rumour has it, have been treating them as actual job offers and withdrawing benefits from people who turn them down. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, it's outrageous and wrong. Zero hours contracts ought to be linked into the benefits system in a fair way, details of how that will work I don't know, but in a way that people can work if work is available but still get benefits as a "top up".
As a job for a main household earner who needs regular income, they are of course useless, just as casual labour always has been.