SportsDirect & zero hours contracts

[Francois Badenhorst]

It's all over Twitter this morning: "Sports Direct has said it will offer directly employed casual retail staff at least 12 guaranteed hours a week, instead of zero-hour contracts."

The company had become a punching bag and symbol of the much maligned zero hours contracts.

What do you guys think, then? Positive?

 

[Chris Ashdown]

It's still a sign of poor management if they cannot see the value of offering all the warehouse staff fixed employment hours, they must know how many people they need to operate but chose zero hours so they can pass the employment contracts onto a agency

We have two part time workers but they both have fixed hour contracts and if no work they still get paid, It's a insult to offer zero hours contacts

 

[STDFR33]

I feel sorry for those that will be contracted to work for at least 12 hours in what are still horrendous working conditions.

 

[Francois Badenhorst]

Speaking in a personal capacity, I have to agree with you, Chris. It's a shame it's still exceptional news when a large business makes a small (some would say token) concession to worker's rights.

I'm as of yet to encounter an instance where a business has treated its workers with dignity and respect and not achieved great results/increased productivity/positive reactions. The attitude of SportsDirect does seem to hark back to the Victorian era.

 

[UKSBD]

In my opinion it's the agencies that should come under scrutiny not the businesses using the agencies

If a business doesn't want to employ anyone, it should have every right to use the services of an agency.

The agency is then the employer and it should be them who should be pressurised in to having proper contracts of employment.

Why should it be the businesses at fault, that's why they are using the agencies?

 

[Faevilangel]

In my opinion it's the agencies that should come under scrutiny not the businesses using the agencies

If a business doesn't want to employ anyone, it should have every right to use the services of an agency.

The agency is then the employer and it should be them who should be pressurised in to having proper contracts of employment.

Why should it be the businesses at fault, that's why they are using the agencies?

exactly, the business use agencies so they can manage their staff easier, pay more for the privilege. It's down the agencies to set the contracts for the staff and unfortunately the agencies will cost cut as much as possible to try and get as much profit for themselves.

my dads employer use an agency for their warehouse staff and they are all on fixed hours, paid nearly £10 an hour and if the company feels like the person is a good fit, they offer them a full time job away from the agency.

The agency are basically a recruiter for the company, they can pick and choose who they offer full time work too based on their work they do for the agency. Unfortunately companies choose the cheaper agencies and then they get stick when the agencies become greedy.

 

[STDFR33]

The ultimate employer must take some responsibility. It is them that create the working conditions, not the agency.


This is the problem with many businesses that use agencies. They think that it absolves them from any sort of responsibility to the workers.


The agencies are there to make a profit too. Their commodity is labour. If SD approach an agency for warehouse staff, and are only willing to pay £8ph, then the agency are not going to advertise for staff at £9ph. It is the engager that sets the hours, pay rate etc. The agency are just a separate legal entity linking employee to employer.

 

[woodss]

Or to put it another way, they're a leech on the back of an employer and employee. This is minimum wage work folks, agencies are not required - just stick a job ad in the local rag and people will come flocking.

 

[UKSBD]

The agencies are there to make a profit too. Their commodity is labour. If SD approach an agency for warehouse staff, and are only willing to pay £8ph, then the agency are not going to advertise for staff at £9ph.

Then the Agency should negotiate the rate with the client.

If the client offers a rate that the Agency can't make a profit on that should be the Agencies concern.

If no agency accepts the rate the client is offering, the rate goes up or the client has to start employing direct.

If all agencies are regulated better, employing people on proper contracts, etc. the client can't use the one who is cutting corners and is employing the end worker cheaper.

It's agencies that need regulating and sorting out or they just become glorified gang masters.

 

[STDFR33]

Then the Agency should negotiate the rate with the client.

If the client offers a rate that the Agency can't make a profit on that should be the Agencies concern.

If no agency accepts the rate the client is offering, the rate goes up or the client has to start employing direct.

If all agencies are regulated better, employing people on proper contracts, etc. the client can't use the one who is cutting corners and is employing the end worker cheaper.

It's agencies that need regulating and sorting out or they just become glorified gang masters.

What is there to negotiate?

These workers are working for a budget retail chain in an already minimum wage job.

The agencies are competing for contracts in an overcrowded market. If they stood their ground on rates, they would not win any contracts.

It's the big companies that are pulling all the strings.

 

[UKSBD]

What is there to negotiate?

What mark up they make on supplying a worker that they are employing at minimum wage.

 

[STDFR33]

What mark up they make on supplying a worker that they are employing at minimum wage.

It would depend on the size of the contract.

I would expect the contract with SD has very tight margins.

 

[UKSBD]

It wasn't a question.
you asked "What is there to negotiate?"
That was my answer to your question.

 

[STDFR33]

It wasn't a question.
you asked "What is there to negotiate?"
That was my answer to your question.

Apologies, missed your quote on my phone.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

If a lot of people are on bad pay with poor conditions it has an effect on the economy as a whole
Somewhere in the last 15 years it became acceptable for companies to revert back to the victorian era . In the old days people in these jobs could still get a mortgage !
I have always said that if your employing people you are effectivlty taking over their life .So it is unacceptable to offer them a bad deal

 

[tony84]

In the old days people in these jobs could still get a mortgage !

Still can, and at normal high street rates.

 

[Scott@Tracto]

Still can, and at normal high street rates.

With what deposit? And what about those rising house prices and the fact there ain't enough of them?

 

[bharris]

With what deposit? And what about those rising house prices and the fact there ain't enough of them?

Not all parts of the country are suffering from high house prices and a shortage of supply. locally to me you can buy a 2-3 bed house £70-£80K. So you should only need about £5k deposit, or a lot less if you buy a 1 bed studio flat like i did i the 80's. The problem is people want everything now, it took me almost 3 years to save for the deposit on my first home sitting on bean bags and using cardboard boxes as tables. Its really odd that people seem to accept they cant buy a house and they have to rent at many times the price of a mortgage.
Back to the op - zero hour contracts suit a lot of people's life styles, a blanket its terrible lets bash the employer attitude doesn't help everyone. Many people have multiple jobs and switch hours between them to suit whatever is happening in a particular week.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

That is wrong and inaccurate the opportunity's are not around like they were when we were young
Anybody could get a well paid job to buy a house in the old days and people were not on dodgy employment contracts . If you were not in business you could go down the mine in a factory or where I live in the paper mills but none exists anymore . The only jobs are the jobs that nobody wanted to do in the old days
We have let down our young people .Maybe when our generation starts to take some ownership for the mistakes made things may head in a new direction
Very few people here can be accused of employer bashing why would we do that when we are involved in that very role. If anything its the other way around where employers here have the support from the members

 

[tony84]

With what deposit? And what about those rising house prices and the fact there ain't enough of them?

10% deposit.
Im not sure what you expect me to say about price rises and a lack of houses. Thats a whole other issue in itself which arguably would be worse if everyone was earning more money.