Many years back I did some contracting for a trade union organisation. The work should have lasted about nine weeks or so, but supplier delays meant that it lasted longer. Because of the organisation's rules, anyone who worked for them for more than three months automatically became a full-time employee.
The result: with the work unfinished, my contract was ended. Which was fine; I had other work to do anyway, and if offered a full-time contract would have had to refuse and leave of my own accord.
Whilst this was not a zero-hours contact (although the definition of that seems slightly nebulous), to me it highlight one of the dangers of this proposed change.
BTW: it was an interesting place to work, with some great people in it. The work they did was absolutely vital.
Yes, i remember the reporting of the event to be very different to what Ed says what happens. Dan Hodges i believe actually left the Labour Party because of it (though had already repeatedly criticised Miliband before this).
As i recall, the PM called him in and said he didnt want to put a motion to the house without support from both sides, could he support it. Then miliband gave a series of requirements for labour to support, which the government did.
From what i remember, at the point the motion was put to the house, the understanding was that it would get Labour's support.
The PM was significantly diminished on that day, and the integrity of the leader of the opposition was destroyed for those who know what happened.
A contract of employment with no minimum specified hours, and therefore no minimum salary. If they have work for you to do, you get paid. If they have no work on the day, you get no pay.
Much like union work halls for construction and dock workers here - they dole out jobs according to who needs what. How is this bad?
FPT. There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.
Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.
I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.
FPT. There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.
Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.
I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.
Just been watching Rachel Reeves defend Labour's economic policy on SKY. Eamonn Holmes was very gentle on her but the woman knows nothing about business.
Could someone please explain to the Labour party that the vast majority of people who work in the UK, work for employers and the signatories of the Telegraph letter employ more than 500,000 of the workforce.
FPT. There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.
Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.
I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.
Surely the 'must be available to work' is an exclusivity clause (as it means someone cannot get other work), and has already therefore been legislated against by the coalition?
While Labour tries to occupy the moral high ground and lecture everyone else wasn't it actually the Labour Party that introduced Zero hour contracts in the first place?
Many years back I did some contracting for a trade union organisation. The work should have lasted about nine weeks or so, but supplier delays meant that it lasted longer. Because of the organisation's rules, anyone who worked for them for more than three months automatically became a full-time employee.
The result: with the work unfinished, my contract was ended. Which was fine; I had other work to do anyway, and if offered a full-time contract would have had to refuse and leave of my own accord.
Whilst this was not a zero-hours contact (although the definition of that seems slightly nebulous), to me it highlight one of the dangers of this proposed change.
BTW: it was an interesting place to work, with some great people in it. The work they did was absolutely vital.
Another good example of the unintended consequences of poorly thought through policy, made up for a soundbite or Brownian "Dividing Line" rather than actually addressing a perceived issue. The problem of exclusive contracts with no guaranteed hours was legislated away already by the coalition, so why is Ed still going on about it?
Just thinking what a build up to Michael Ashcroft's latest batch of constituency polls revisited has received with the Telegraph letter.
Meanwhile we have 2 inches of snow on the ground this morning and a blizzard has just started. Thankfully I only have to drive to the village station this afternoon.
FPT. There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.
Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.
I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.
Yes, the MUST be available is a problem.
Which is why the Coalition make "exclusive" ZHCs (ie MUST be available) illegal...
FPT. There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.
Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.
I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.
Yes, the MUST be available is a problem.
By the way, I'm planning to be in Atlanta on the 15th April if you have time for a coffee
FPT. There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.
Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.
I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.
Yes, the MUST be available is a problem.
Which is why the Coalition make "exclusive" ZHCs (ie MUST be available) illegal...
Let's say you work for a restaurant - you are scheduled for the lunch shift, and you are cut at 2.30pm (after being there from say 11am) as the place is pretty much empty. Is that illegal?
A technical note is that I think yesterday's YG sample (result: tied) was Tory-leaning and today's (result, Lab+1) is Labour-leaning, because of sharp moves in the subsidiaries. Yestyerday, people thought the government was doing OKish (38 Yes, 48 No). Today, they don't (Yes 34, No 50). I dson't believe in a 6-point shift overnight.
That said, the fact that voting intention is much the same illustrates the stability of the situation.
Sometimes wonder how far through the campaign it will be before certain Labour figures wake up, smell the coffee, read the paper, and realise that the most aggressively anti-business agenda since the 1980s was not the best tack to take.....
Which Labour figures will start to distance themselves from campaign. Y. Cooper for one seems to have been very quiet....
Many years back I did some contracting for a trade union organisation. The work should have lasted about nine weeks or so, but supplier delays meant that it lasted longer. Because of the organisation's rules, anyone who worked for them for more than three months automatically became a full-time employee.
The result: with the work unfinished, my contract was ended. Which was fine; I had other work to do anyway, and if offered a full-time contract would have had to refuse and leave of my own accord.
Whilst this was not a zero-hours contact (although the definition of that seems slightly nebulous), to me it highlight one of the dangers of this proposed change.
BTW: it was an interesting place to work, with some great people in it. The work they did was absolutely vital.
I think that drafted correctly Eds proposals on ZHC could be a good one. Provided that there was an option for the employee to decline the offer of a substantive contract.
The problem comes in that some employers would just terminate the contract at 12 weeks. There does need to be a legal way for companies to take on short term staff to cover variations in workforce demand. Temporary work is often a good way to try out a person for a more permanent job.
ZHC are widely abused though. The first act of the company that took over cleaning, portering and domestic services at my hospital was to try to force all transferred staff onto these ZHCs. There is an issue to be tackled.
Labour talk about ZHCs as if they are a universally hated form of modern slavery. NOT TRUE. Many of those who use ZHCs love the flexibility. Students, jobbing actors, semi-retireds, etc - there are many classes of people who earn money, sometimes decent money, via a very loose and flexible arrangement that works for them. This is wholly to be encouraged. What does not work is for long term unemployed seeking full time work to be forced into exclusive contracts - which is precisely what the coalition has banned.
I agree Cons have had the best start since Parliament was dissolved.
But I am not sure 100 Tories signing a letter to the press will have the effect that it had last time.
That's the problem with people like you and Labour in general that's going to cost you dear. Anyone that dares to speak out against the comrades is a Tory. Actually a number of these 100 are anything but hence its the overall message you should be listening too.
Of course you won't listen, Labour never do and consequently it will cost them a majority and probably the entire election as a result.
FPT. There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.
Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.
I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.
Yes, the MUST be available is a problem.
Which is why the Coalition make "exclusive" ZHCs (ie MUST be available) illegal...
Let's say you work for a restaurant - you are scheduled for the lunch shift, and you are cut at 2.30pm (after being there from say 11am) as the place is pretty much empty. Is that illegal?
My understanding is not.
What would be illegal would be the restaurant saying "you can't take any other jobs because we may need you to come into to work at some point in the future. But we won't pay you unless we call you in to work"
Labour talk about ZHCs as if they are a universally hated form of modern slavery. NOT TRUE. Many of those who use ZHCs love the flexibility. Students, jobbing actors, semi-retireds, etc - there are many classes of people who earn money, sometimes decent money, via a very loose and flexible arrangement that works for them. This is wholly to be encouraged. What does not work is for long term unemployed seeking full time work to be forced into exclusive contracts - which is precisely what the coalition has banned.
Could Ed please just STFU now on this subject?
With the exception of those on retainers you could add the vast majority of consultancies onto that list as quite often the work demand fluctuates in precisely the same way.
FPT. There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.
Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.
I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.
That's right. The former is a loose ZHC, the latter is an exploitative ZHC, because it prevents you taking other work. Labour will ban the latter but not the former (for interest, the Green Party would ban both).
A contract of employment with no minimum specified hours, and therefore no minimum salary. If they have work for you to do, you get paid. If they have no work on the day, you get no pay.
Much like union work halls for construction and dock workers here - they dole out jobs according to who needs what. How is this bad?
More to the point - how is this a vote winner?
We used to have that system here - people would queue up at the docks every morning to see if work was available, and in the building trade it was called "the Lump". It's been regarded as discredited (because it ties up people from other potential work in what was seen as a humiliating way) by most people here for a very long time, and is long gone. It's an illustration of the difference in UK and US employment practice.
The reason abolishing exploitative ZHCs a vote-winner is that they work as a trap. You're looking for work, and will lose your benefit if you don't accept it. You're offered a deal whereby employer X says he'll sometimes employ you, when he needs you, and you must always be available. In practice, he uses you say 2 days out of 5. Your income is pathetic, but if you quit you're "voluntarily unemployed" and you aren't entitled to benefit. You're not allowed to take other work. How do you escape?
There's a great article in The Times by Danny Finkelstein, references some 10,000 strong polling by Populus.
If true could swing the election for the Tories. Potential 3% late swing in the campaign to the Tories according to this polling.
Blue Dawn?
I hope so.
I know it isn't going to happen.. but I do hope for a majority, however tiny.
A tiny majority scares me.
Would be like 1992-1997 all over again.
A bunch of [moderated] holding the government hostage because they are obsessed with Europe.
That led to 13 years of a Labour government. We can't risk that again
A fair point. However much I like those bastards, they can still be bastards. So, we just have to win a hundred seat majority, that's all there is to it hah!
On a serious note, I wonder if Cameron would continue in coalition even if he had 326-336 seats?
Poor Leanne Wood. I've only seen her in a few interview and she seems nice enough. Don't agree with her policies though...
Her point (and central policy for PC) is that Wales should get the same per capita spending as Scotland. Not an unreasonable point as Wales is one of the poorer parts of the UK, and has some of the same rustbelt/rural geographic issues as Scotland.
Any English politician could make the same valid point, so it does look as if the Barnett formula will be centre stage on Thursday. Could be interesting...
Sometimes wonder how far through the campaign it will be before certain Labour figures wake up, smell the coffee, read the paper, and realise that the most aggressively anti-business agenda since the 1980s was not the best tack to take.....
Which Labour figures will start to distance themselves from campaign. Y. Cooper for one seems to have been very quiet....
An anti-business agenda is not necessarily unpopular.
There's a great article in The Times by Danny Finkelstein, references some 10,000 strong polling by Populus.
If true could swing the election for the Tories. Potential 3% late swing in the campaign to the Tories according to this polling.
Labour and Conservatives being swapped for Gov't means that all arguments can be made both ways on which way stuff will swing if you base off last time.
I agree Cons have had the best start since Parliament was dissolved.
But I am not sure 100 Tories signing a letter to the press will have the effect that it had last time.
That's the problem with people like you and Labour in general that's going to cost you dear. Anyone that dares to speak out against the comrades is a Tory. Actually a number of these 100 are anything but hence its the overall message you should be listening too.
Of course you won't listen, Labour never do and consequently it will cost them a majority and probably the entire election as a result.
Indeed. It's just a coincidence that so many if the signatories have long-established Tory links.
I am a company director and was one of the founders of the company. People like Mr Dudley and Mr Thiam do not speak for me. Taking big pay rises on the back of salary freezes, job cuts and fleecing customers is not the way to do things in my book.
FPT. There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.
Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.
I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.
That's right. The former is a loose ZHC, the latter is an exploitative ZHC, because it prevents you taking other work. Labour will ban the latter but not the former (for interest, the Green Party would ban both).
A contract of employment with no minimum specified hours, and therefore no minimum salary. If they have work for you to do, you get paid. If they have no work on the day, you get no pay.
Much like union work halls for construction and dock workers here - they dole out jobs according to who needs what. How is this bad?
More to the point - how is this a vote winner?
We used to have that system here - people would queue up at the docks every morning to see if work was available, and in the building trade it was called "the Lump". It's been regarded as discredited (because it ties up people from other potential work in what was seen as a humiliating way) by most people here for a very long time, and is long gone. It's an illustration of the difference in UK and US employment practice.
The reason abolishing exploitative ZHCs a vote-winner is that they work as a trap. You're looking for work, and will lose your benefit if you don't accept it. You're offered a deal whereby employer X says he'll sometimes employ you, when he needs you, and you must always be available. In practice, he uses you say 2 days out of 5. Your income is pathetic, but if you quit you're "voluntarily unemployed" and you aren't entitled to benefit. You're not allowed to take other work. How do you escape?
Is this the same situation or different as to when Labour were in government?
A good start blown in one full page ad in the Telegraph. Whoever had the idea of getting 100 captains of industry to put their names to this must have been drinking too much Fosters.
They have effectively made Labour's point that we are not 'all in this together' and the Tories are the party for the rich.
Here is name NO 1 on the list followed by a recent article in the TELEGRAPH............
FPT. There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.
Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.
I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.
That's right. The former is a loose ZHC, the latter is an exploitative ZHC, because it prevents you taking other work. Labour will ban the latter but not the former (for interest, the Green Party would ban both).
A contract of employment with no minimum specified hours, and therefore no minimum salary. If they have work for you to do, you get paid. If they have no work on the day, you get no pay.
Much like union work halls for construction and dock workers here - they dole out jobs according to who needs what. How is this bad?
More to the point - how is this a vote winner?
We used to have that system here - people would queue up at the docks every morning to see if work was available, and in the building trade it was called "the Lump". It's been regarded as discredited (because it ties up people from other potential work in what was seen as a humiliating way) by most people here for a very long time, and is long gone. It's an illustration of the difference in UK and US employment practice.
The reason abolishing exploitative ZHCs a vote-winner is that they work as a trap. You're looking for work, and will lose your benefit if you don't accept it. You're offered a deal whereby employer X says he'll sometimes employ you, when he needs you, and you must always be available. In practice, he uses you say 2 days out of 5. Your income is pathetic, but if you quit you're "voluntarily unemployed" and you aren't entitled to benefit. You're not allowed to take other work. How do you escape?
If you're (say) a restaurant, and have regular shift schedules, that's fine. But once you have the 'you must be available for me at all times, regardless', that's clearly wrong.
Mr. Observer, Labour can't have it both ways, claiming it's pro-business "Look at all these nice quotes we have" and then claim any business being pro-Conservative is somehow not valid and shouldn't be listened to.
FPT. There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.
Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.
I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.
That's right. The former is a loose ZHC, the latter is an exploitative ZHC, because it prevents you taking other work. Labour will ban the latter but not the former (for interest, the Green Party would ban both).
According to press reports this morning, Labour is apparently proposing banning both.
FPT. There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.
Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.
I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.
That's right. The former is a loose ZHC, the latter is an exploitative ZHC, because it prevents you taking other work. Labour will ban the latter but not the former (for interest, the Green Party would ban both).
According to press reports this morning, Labour is apparently proposing banning both.
Mr. Observer, Labour can't have it both ways, claiming it's pro-business "Look at all these nice quotes we have" and then claim any business being pro-Conservative is somehow not valid and shouldn't be listened to.
They should definitely be listened to. And their records and actions examined.
Mr. Observer, Labour can't have it both ways, claiming it's pro-business "Look at all these nice quotes we have" and then claim any business being pro-Conservative is somehow not valid and shouldn't be listened to.
They should definitely be listened to. And their records and actions examined.
A good start blown in one full page ad in the Telegraph. Whoever had the idea of getting 100 captains of industry to put their names to this must have been drinking too much Fosters.
They have effectively made Labour's point that we are not 'all in this together' and the Tories are the party for the rich.
Here is name NO 1 on the list followed by a recent article in the TELEGRAPH............
Labour talk about ZHCs as if they are a universally hated form of modern slavery. NOT TRUE. Many of those who use ZHCs love the flexibility. Students, jobbing actors, semi-retireds, etc - there are many classes of people who earn money, sometimes decent money, via a very loose and flexible arrangement that works for them. This is wholly to be encouraged. What does not work is for long term unemployed seeking full time work to be forced into exclusive contracts - which is precisely what the coalition has banned.
Could Ed please just STFU now on this subject?
I don't know if Milicent actually believes that line.
His problem is a) That he risks being outflanked by the goonish left and their publicity astutn machine - Greens, NUS, Occupidiots and so on, and b) That he and many of his MPs are owned by the rather extreme leaders of the big Trades Unions.
He needs to work out who TU members actually vote for (mainly not Labour), then reform the relationship.
Mr. Observer, Labour can't have it both ways, claiming it's pro-business "Look at all these nice quotes we have" and then claim any business being pro-Conservative is somehow not valid and shouldn't be listened to.
There's a great article in The Times by Danny Finkelstein, references some 10,000 strong polling by Populus.
If true could swing the election for the Tories. Potential 3% late swing in the campaign to the Tories according to this polling.
Labour and Conservatives being swapped for Gov't means that all arguments can be made both ways on which way stuff will swing if you base off last time.
Seen that frequently here.
I would not disagree with that. The article in The Times does however resonate with one that appeared in The Telegraph back in January, which included this graphic...
"Last nights YG 2010:2015 vote ratios gave a implied 34.7-34.3 lead to the Tories. It's been weighted out. Seven of the last nine have been Tory leads."
You find ever more ingenious ways of finding Tory leads when the pollsters point the other way. Can you explain how Yougov managed to get this one so misleadingly wrong when all they needed to do was ask you?
Mr. Observer, Labour can't have it both ways, claiming it's pro-business "Look at all these nice quotes we have" and then claim any business being pro-Conservative is somehow not valid and shouldn't be listened to.
They should definitely be listened to. And their records and actions examined.
My investments with the pru have done very well. I did not buy their funds or annuities though, I bouth the shares for my own ISA. They are now doing very well in the fast maturing far east markets. With no real welfare state and a rapidly ageing population China is the new frontier for private pensions.
Mr. Observer, Labour can't have it both ways, claiming it's pro-business "Look at all these nice quotes we have" and then claim any business being pro-Conservative is somehow not valid and shouldn't be listened to.
They should definitely be listened to. And their records and actions examined.
Recall some months ago on PB that the press had found that both the Labour Party and some Unions were employing people on ZHC.
The problem is that most politicians and especially EdM have failed to realise that the world has moved on during the last 10+ years and has become a lot more competitive vis-a-vis the UK as well as becoming better skilled.
Full time employment with all benefits for all may be an ideal, but the reality is that if the UK cannot sell enough of its products and services to export markets, then it will not be able to borrow enough money to pay for energy, raw materials and all the textiles, electronics and plastics that it imports from the Far East.
In order to compete we have to improve both efficiency and skill sets and neither is a short term solution that can be fixed within five years after years of neglect and benign indifference.
I'm getting increasingly perplexed by Mr Farage's non-sequiturs. Now he's sort of saying that too many immigrants are preventing kids playing football in the street...
Labour talk about ZHCs as if they are a universally hated form of modern slavery. NOT TRUE. Many of those who use ZHCs love the flexibility. Students, jobbing actors, semi-retireds, etc - there are many classes of people who earn money, sometimes decent money, via a very loose and flexible arrangement that works for them. This is wholly to be encouraged. What does not work is for long term unemployed seeking full time work to be forced into exclusive contracts - which is precisely what the coalition has banned.
Could Ed please just STFU now on this subject?
Labour are either consciously playing on the public's misunderstanding of these things, or they don't really understand them themselves.
The more I listen to Ed, the more I think it's the latter.
He has got Hollande written all over him, and I'd guess that we'd see rising prices, rising taxes and rising unemployment within a year of him being elected.
I'm getting increasingly perplexed by Mr Farage's non-sequiturs. Now he's sort of saying that too many immigrants are preventing kids playing football in the street...
Err.
If they're from Pakistan or India wouldn't they rather play cricket in the street?
And that's working on the assumption of UNS. As even the poll shows the swing is not uniform. The SNP are getting goldilocks swing of just enough in every constituency according to Ashcroft.
Scotgoespop has been scathing on some Scottish Unionist (not NI) newspapers who have been reporting the poll as if a nationwide one and getting about half and half seats Scotland-wide. He has worked out the actual equivalent figures and they are pretty much the usual bog standard Labour massacre.
I'm getting increasingly perplexed by Mr Farage's non-sequiturs. Now he's sort of saying that too many immigrants are preventing kids playing football in the street...
Err.
I think his basic riff is that life was better in the 1950s and that's what we want back.
@NickBolesMP: With heavy heart I am standing down as Conservative PPC in Grantham & Stamford in favour of @GeneralBoles. He's simply more popular than me.
And that's working on the assumption of UNS. As even the poll shows the swing is not uniform. The SNP are getting goldilocks swing of just enough in every constituency according to Ashcroft.
Scotgoespop has been scathing on some Scottish Unionist (not NI) newspapers who have been reporting the poll as if a nationwide one and getting about half and half seats Scotland-wide. He has worked out the actual equivalent figures and they are pretty much the usual bog standard Labour massacre.
The Labour Party should thank the Telegraph for their 100 fat cat endorsement of the Tory Party, just what Labour needed. Some of these people enjoyed a 25% pay rise while their workers got none. Don't forget families are only now enjoying a 70 pence weekly rise in their income, the first since 2010.
Men from the Pru share huge £49m payout: Pensions firm accused of 'greed' after details of perks for senior executives are revealed days before shake-up
Mr Thiam who recently awarded himself an £11,000,000 bonus says
And that's working on the assumption of UNS. As even the poll shows the swing is not uniform. The SNP are getting goldilocks swing of just enough in every constituency according to Ashcroft.
Scotgoespop has been scathing on some Scottish Unionist (not NI) newspapers who have been reporting the poll as if a nationwide one and getting about half and half seats Scotland-wide. He has worked out the actual equivalent figures and they are pretty much the usual bog standard Labour massacre.
Labour talk about ZHCs as if they are a universally hated form of modern slavery. NOT TRUE. Many of those who use ZHCs love the flexibility. Students, jobbing actors, semi-retireds, etc - there are many classes of people who earn money, sometimes decent money, via a very loose and flexible arrangement that works for them. This is wholly to be encouraged. What does not work is for long term unemployed seeking full time work to be forced into exclusive contracts - which is precisely what the coalition has banned.
Could Ed please just STFU now on this subject?
Labour are either consciously playing on the public's misunderstanding of these things, or they don't really understand them themselves.
The more I listen to Ed, the more I think it's the latter.
He has got Hollande written all over him, and I'd guess that we'd see rising prices, rising taxes and rising unemployment within a year of him being elected.
Ed Miliband is playing to his 33% gallery. It may well prove a successful strategy. For sure he understands nothing whatever about the economy or business - but neither do his tribe. This is a GE campaign and all he needs to worry about is making the right noises to get his tribe into the voting booth - no matter how fucking inane they are. What we all need to worry about is that 33% is probably enough to see him and Eck running the country (down) .
Seem to recall from ST YG polls that about one third of the VI have not been affected/not noticed the effects of 'cuts'/austerity. Would they be manly people employed by the public sector or on such pensions?
Comments
Thought this might come up...
If true could swing the election for the Tories. Potential 3% late swing in the campaign to the Tories according to this polling.
Many years back I did some contracting for a trade union organisation. The work should have lasted about nine weeks or so, but supplier delays meant that it lasted longer. Because of the organisation's rules, anyone who worked for them for more than three months automatically became a full-time employee.
The result: with the work unfinished, my contract was ended. Which was fine; I had other work to do anyway, and if offered a full-time contract would have had to refuse and leave of my own accord.
Whilst this was not a zero-hours contact (although the definition of that seems slightly nebulous), to me it highlight one of the dangers of this proposed change.
BTW: it was an interesting place to work, with some great people in it. The work they did was absolutely vital.
As i recall, the PM called him in and said he didnt want to put a motion to the house without support from both sides, could he support it. Then miliband gave a series of requirements for labour to support, which the government did.
From what i remember, at the point the motion was put to the house, the understanding was that it would get Labour's support.
The PM was significantly diminished on that day, and the integrity of the leader of the opposition was destroyed for those who know what happened.
More to the point - how is this a vote winner?
There’s no problem with ZHC’s UNLESS the employer also says that the “employee” must always be available for work if required.
Hospitals and silver service waitresses have worked on them for years quite satisfactorily. “Can you do a shift this weekend?” No, sorry,” “OK” ... employer tries next name on the list.
I understand though that some fast food outlets insist that an employee must always be available, but can be sent home if the restuarant quietens down.
Could someone please explain to the Labour party that the vast majority of people who work in the UK, work for employers and the signatories of the Telegraph letter employ more than 500,000 of the workforce.
And Ed hasn't a clue:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11507586/General-Election-2015-Labour-threatens-Britains-recovery-say-100-business-chiefs.html
Personally I suspect that both of the main parties' big moves overnight are vote losers, but they'll probably cancel each other out.
Meanwhile we have 2 inches of snow on the ground this morning and a blizzard has just started. Thankfully I only have to drive to the village station this afternoon.
High winds have damaged Silverstone's roof, but repairs shouldn't be a problem.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-32141042
But I am not sure 100 Tories signing a letter to the press will have the effect that it had last time.
That said, the fact that voting intention is much the same illustrates the stability of the situation.
We look forward to the non-Lord`s marginal polls.If this shows no shift from previous,it`s game over for the Tories.
Which Labour figures will start to distance themselves from campaign. Y. Cooper for one seems to have been very quiet....
The problem comes in that some employers would just terminate the contract at 12 weeks. There does need to be a legal way for companies to take on short term staff to cover variations in workforce demand. Temporary work is often a good way to try out a person for a more permanent job.
ZHC are widely abused though. The first act of the company that took over cleaning, portering and domestic services at my hospital was to try to force all transferred staff onto these ZHCs. There is an issue to be tackled.
Is there anywhere in the UK outside of London that Labour are resonating.....
Could Ed please just STFU now on this subject?
Of course you won't listen, Labour never do and consequently it will cost them a majority and probably the entire election as a result.
Would be like 1992-1997 all over again.
A bunch of [moderated] holding the government hostage because they are obsessed with Europe.
That led to 13 years of a Labour government. We can't risk that again
What would be illegal would be the restaurant saying "you can't take any other jobs because we may need you to come into to work at some point in the future. But we won't pay you unless we call you in to work"
Also backed Cameron and Sturgeon on the outright.
With the exception of those on retainers you could add the vast majority of consultancies onto that list as quite often the work demand fluctuates in precisely the same way.
It's been weighted out.
Seven of the last nine have been Tory leads.
The reason abolishing exploitative ZHCs a vote-winner is that they work as a trap. You're looking for work, and will lose your benefit if you don't accept it. You're offered a deal whereby employer X says he'll sometimes employ you, when he needs you, and you must always be available. In practice, he uses you say 2 days out of 5. Your income is pathetic, but if you quit you're "voluntarily unemployed" and you aren't entitled to benefit. You're not allowed to take other work. How do you escape?
On a serious note, I wonder if Cameron would continue in coalition even if he had 326-336 seats?
Annoying as I'm holding Tory OM at the moment hoping for more Tory leads to sell it lower.
Is it too much to wish that Labour's campaign in this election goes as well as Scotland 2011..?
Any English politician could make the same valid point, so it does look as if the Barnett formula will be centre stage on Thursday. Could be interesting...
Seen that frequently here.
I am a company director and was one of the founders of the company. People like Mr Dudley and Mr Thiam do not speak for me. Taking big pay rises on the back of salary freezes, job cuts and fleecing customers is not the way to do things in my book.
A good start blown in one full page ad in the Telegraph. Whoever had the idea of getting 100 captains of industry to put their names to this must have been drinking too much Fosters.
They have effectively made Labour's point that we are not 'all in this together' and the Tories are the party for the rich.
Here is name NO 1 on the list followed by a recent article in the TELEGRAPH............
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/03/bps-bob-dudley-got-25-pay-rise-as-company-salaries-were-frozen
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/robert-colvile/11158607/Yes-CEOs-are-ludicrously-overpaid.-And-yes-its-getting-worse.html
Here's today's Mail on Mr Thiam from the Pru:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3020497/Men-Pru-share-huge-49m-payout-Pensions-firm-accused-greed-details-perks-senior-executives-revealed-days-shake-up.html
I couldn't figure out why Martin Freeman wasn't on that list, do you know ?
His problem is a) That he risks being outflanked by the goonish left and their publicity astutn machine - Greens, NUS, Occupidiots and so on, and b) That he and many of his MPs are owned by the rather extreme leaders of the big Trades Unions.
He needs to work out who TU members actually vote for (mainly not Labour), then reform the relationship.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11366259/General-Election-2015-with-100-days-to-go-this-chart-should-scare-Ed-Miliband.html
Nick Clegg to join Grindr for election campaign
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/04/01/nick-clegg-to-join-grindr-for-election-campaign/
Business leaders writing to papers in support of Labour = Producers
Simples.
"Last nights YG 2010:2015 vote ratios gave a implied 34.7-34.3 lead to the Tories.
It's been weighted out.
Seven of the last nine have been Tory leads."
You find ever more ingenious ways of finding Tory leads when the pollsters point the other way. Can you explain how Yougov managed to get this one so misleadingly wrong when all they needed to do was ask you?
(Makes sense if you've seen Love Actually)
Recall some months ago on PB that the press had found that both the Labour Party and some Unions were employing people on ZHC.
The problem is that most politicians and especially EdM have failed to realise that the world has moved on during the last 10+ years and has become a lot more competitive vis-a-vis the UK as well as becoming better skilled.
Full time employment with all benefits for all may be an ideal, but the reality is that if the UK cannot sell enough of its products and services to export markets, then it will not be able to borrow enough money to pay for energy, raw materials and all the textiles, electronics and plastics that it imports from the Far East.
In order to compete we have to improve both efficiency and skill sets and neither is a short term solution that can be fixed within five years after years of neglect and benign indifference.
Err.
The more I listen to Ed, the more I think it's the latter.
He has got Hollande written all over him, and I'd guess that we'd see rising prices, rising taxes and rising unemployment within a year of him being elected.
BP's BOB DUDLEY GOT 25% PAY RISE AS COMPANY SALARIES WERE FROZEN
"The group’s chief executive took home $12.7m (£8.3m) last year after slashing 300 jobs and failing to meet safety targets"
I wonder if Labour can get Cosby to work for them (if he isn't already)
But what is a goldilocks swing please??
Men from the Pru share huge £49m payout: Pensions firm accused of 'greed' after details of perks for senior executives are revealed days before shake-up
Mr Thiam who recently awarded himself an £11,000,000 bonus says
'VOTE TORY!! DONT ROCK THE BOAT'
http://www.camdennewjournal.com/candidatestrident#.VRufhdGAJ4I.twitter