zero hour contracts

[holymonk]

I do understand this, and have seen this first hand - the problem (as I see it) with zero hour contracts for employers is that it creates a sentiment of "don't care" regarding the employers attitude toward their staff.

In her contract, it said she was expected to work the re-occurring shifts that she was given. I'm sure there was wording to say that it was required that she did that. That annoyed me. The employer was basically saying "We're going to make no commitment, but you have to make a commitment to be available.. although if you cancel plans/other work to make yourself available for these shifts we may still cancel them anyway.

Due to operating like this, I see social care companies with a high staff turnover. This is ultimately bad for both the company (training costs) and the service users (inconsistency of care - or even just staff / routine). I do appreciate that money is used as metric, and that falls second to quality - the whole system is broken.

Exactly this, what a recipe for disaster in a care home, these sort of contracts encourage staff turnover, not continuity and career progression.

Who wants a vulnerable person cared for by a new member of staff each week, who is less likely to understand their needs?

 

[b0rn2sk8]

and another company being arses. hovis are at it now.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/27/hovis-workers-strike-zero-hours



and il bet some people will still claim this doesnt happen.

The article does not state what jobs were made redundant and what jobs the agency workers were covering, also it does not state if the employees made redundant were offered/refused different positions in the company. The article is heavily biased against the companies actions with some of the key facts omitted.

Once you take these key facts into account its difficult to draw an objective opinion about Hovis' actions.