Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
I think he's confused. He's certainly confused us, anyway.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The unemployment fudge
- Thread starter urban genie
- Start date
hilts
Well-Known Member
I think he's confused. He's certainly confused us, anyway.
He’s not confused. He Is as I stated one of the few on here that is good at saying what is unfair but when the details are asked they don’t have the answers. Rather than admitting this(it is bluemoon after all) they blag and dig a deeper hole for themselves.
This is always where the waters are muddied and I knew that this would come up. Much like the ZHC agency staff was the old way of exploiting staff. In many ways ZHC and agency are the same but ZHC cuts out the middle man. By doing so you can treat them like shit without the agency being on your back or pulling staff out on you (or you would say it provides more flexibility). Because an agency is effectively a pimping people out and its had to be worth their while.
Agency staff have a contract of employment with the agency who sells agency work to an employer, ZHC staff indeed cut the middle man out and have a contract with the employer but the contracts could be absolutely no different than had that person been employed full time.
Again, the treatment of people in employment has nothing to do with the type of contract.
It is not specifically written into a ZHC that exploitation is allowed because a ZHC contains the exact same workers rights and minimums that a full time one must have.
Conflict in terms of hours is the only possible avenue in a ZHC because it is the only difference.
My company has a lot of sub-contract staff and they were recently told that work has quietened so instead of doing 48hrs they could do a maximum of 37. Is this exploitative?
hilts
Well-Known Member
Agency staff have a contract of employment with the agency who sells agency work to an employer, ZHC staff indeed cut the middle man out and have a contract with the employer but the contracts could be absolutely no different than had that person been employed full time.
Again, the treatment of people in employment has nothing to do with the type of contract.
It is not specifically written into a ZHC that exploitation is allowed because a ZHC contains the exact same workers rights and minimums that a full time one must have.
Conflict in terms of hours is the only possible avenue in a ZHC because it is the only difference.
My company has a lot of sub-contract staff and they were recently told that work has quietened so instead of doing 48hrs they could do a maximum of 37. Is this exploitative?
In the real world people can be exploited more on ZHC for the simple reason the company need not deal with them ever again. It is very much like it or lump it.
I am very much at loggerheads with my current employer but as long as I don’t do anything they can sack me for I’m fine. If I was on a ZHC I wouldn’t be working for them next week that’s for certain.
You really need to get past this idea that everyone is exploited.
So do you want to ban agency work too then?
I have never said that everyone is exploited? (where did I say that?)
But not everyone one is a student some people do have family kids, rents, mortgages to pay you know.
No agency workers are where they should stop.
Agency staff have a contract of employment with the agency who sells agency work to an employer, ZHC staff indeed cut the middle man out and have a contract with the employer but the contracts could be absolutely no different than had that person been employed full time.
Again, the treatment of people in employment has nothing to do with the type of contract.
It is not specifically written into a ZHC that exploitation is allowed because a ZHC contains the exact same workers rights and minimums that a full time one must have.
Conflict in terms of hours is the only possible avenue in a ZHC because it is the only difference.
My company has a lot of sub-contract staff and they were recently told that work has quietened so instead of doing 48hrs they could do a maximum of 37. Is this exploitative?
My firm also employs sub contracts but they work themselves and invoice us every week. But that's not the same ZHC as Sports Direct exploitation, completely different ball game.
I have never said that everyone is exploited? (where did I say that?)
But not everyone one is a student some people do have family kids, rents, mortgages to pay you know.
No agency workers are where they should stop.
Mike, whether or not I disagree with you, I'm totally comfortable with you having that opinion. I'm not right, you're not wrong, but genuinely - here I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to achieve if agency work is OK. It just pushes it along the line.
Help me to understand what you're saying.