Be Excellent To Each Other

FWIW Cavey, my criticisms are not Tory-centered. I identify less and less with any particular party as time goes on (and in part because of the shitstorm that is UK politics at the minute) so this isn't an attempt at "post-truth" / bashing any one particular party. If May called an election tomorrow (incidentally, rumours about an early election?!) I literally have no idea who I'd vote for.

My concerns re: zero hour contracts (just like my concerns in the sharp rise of self-employment in particular for women, for reasons I detailed previously) are based off genuine lived experience and the impact of zero hour / self employment on young / less well off families. Trying to e.g. claim tax credits on a zero hour contract is an absolute bloody nightmare.

Now see, it's this sentiment I just don't get. Those 700k people had NO job before, so even accepting your "insecure jobs" blanket definition for all zero-hours contracts (which I don't), an insecure job is better than NO job, and in any case, vastly more NON ZERO HOURS jobs have been created (to the tune of 1.3 million), which you're simply ignoring.

As for "checking my maths", the calculations could be done by a 10 year old TBH but feel free to check them if you don't believe 'em.

Not necessarily, if your goal is to secure some sort of financial support for your family. No job would mean that you are eligible to claim various benefits etc. whereas a zero-hour contract with insecure hours would potentially stop you from claiming various benefits, despite it being entirely possible that you could work zero hours some weeks, and thus not have any income.

I seriously doubt it is the case that having a zero-hours contract employment precludes you from having full, due access to welfare state provisions.

They do it on averages. So if you have a good month where you're earning over the minimum, your benefit will be stopped. Then if you have a bad month, you have to go through the claim process again. For people on the breadline that will guaranteed mean weeks of no cash at all.

So technically you're right - but it presents an enormous cash flow problem for those least able to manage it.

I'm not saying I can't see issues with zero-hours contract employment, or even that I like it, merely that at the very least, it's better than having no job at all. Which it demonstrably is.

Besides which, far more jobs have been created which are not zero hours contracts, so the whole thing's largely a red herring anyway, as I've said (and demonstrated) previously.

If it would hardly make any difference then they should just ban them altogether.

Speaking of great employment practices.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... 800-pounds

How is have ZERO money from employment and ZERO money from state benefits for weeks on end a good thing? Only for either your hours or benefits to pick up again, cancelling each other out and then having to start the process again? And finding out several months down the line that because you worked an hour too many one week, that your benefit claim was too high and you have to pay £X back with interest even though you have no money in the first place?

And worse, when you're stuck in this situation you can't just leave the job, because you then end up disqualified from certain benefits for even longer - because you voluntarily gave up your non-job.

It is the worst of all solutions, and telling 700k people that it's OK they're being shafted because 1.3 million people have proper jobs is a kick in the teeth.

You might well be right, but that's a totally different point.

ANECDOTE WARNING: My cousin is on a zero-hour contract for a staging company (he puts up stages for concerts and the like). He works 37.5 hours a week (plus overtime most weekends if he wants it), and has for six months or so. He's just out of school, so he's got no responsibilities so won't be in any kind of trouble if his job suddenly vanishes.

Oh yeah, there were loads of those sorts of anecdotes wheeled out about minimum wage too. I still think it's a good idea, though.

Again, I'm not suggesting zero-hours contracts are great and/or have no issues associated with them, merely that they're demonstrably better than nothing at all.

I'm also pointing out that there have been significantly more non zero hours employments created in the same period (which is inarguably a good thing), and that in this latter case, these c.1.3 million new "conventional" jobs vastly outweigh the 400k that was being claimed.

That's about the extent and scope of what I'm saying/claiming, no more, no less.

+ for e.g. working tax credits you have to work a minimum number of hours (it used to be 16, no idea what it is now) which obviously a zero hour contract cannot guarantee by its very definition.

How?

I think Cras has covered it? You can't be paid less by working vs. not working. Cashflow is another argument but doesn't change the basic fact of being paid equal or greater (cumulatively) by working.

You're assuming, of course, that all zero-hours contracts are so marginally paid as to be on a par with unemployment benefit or whatever, whereas this seems unlikely; I'm sure that some are significantly better paid than that.

Look, I don't want this turned into me somehow being the champion of zero hours contracts or something. The point for me, Jem, was that your numbers were totally wrong, which you have graciously conceded (thank you). I was genuinely interested to know if the revelation that even ignoring zero hours contracts, the Tories have created *three times* as many jobs as the 430k you were claiming actually changed any of your views or appraisal of them, but you have confirmed it does not.

Cashflow is often the only argument that matters for those on the breadline.

So, turning that argument on its head, you're saying you're better off being paid LESS, but at regular intervals. Can't say I agree, but fair enough.

Well, probably yes, as at the moments that's what the benefits system is designed to cope with. Plus it allows you to budget and plan with a bit more certainty.

The fact that low earners with varying incomes week-to-week can get screwed is a problem of the benefits system as much as the employment itself.

Except he didn't - he barely scratched the surface of the "inconvenience" of zero hour contracts and the impact on family finances.

The cumulative value of receiving e.g. housing benefit, council tax benefit etc while sitting on jobseekers or similar VS losing that and spending weeks with no money while each separate benefit application is assessed & processed and then redone on a regular basis... it's no contest.

This, obviously, depends on your situation.

Edit: @ Squirt and whoever was above Squirt.

Also, if the 1.3m jobs supposedly created that aren't ZHCs are not paying enough to allow the workers to meet the NLW (or hell, even the NMW in some cases, e.g. apprenticeships) then it's hardly worth shouting from the rooftops as something to be lauded.

I think the thing I take from discussions around this is that you can't just look at the numbers, you have to look at the bigger picture. I saw an apprenticeship listed the other day for a Subway Sandwich Artist, that paid £3.60 per hour. It's pure slave labour, there's nothing about that job that you couldn't learn within 3 days tops, calling it an apprenticeship is just utter bollocks.

Compare that to my brother, who started working for Perkins as an apprentice when he left school, but learned a decent trade (engineering, although he now works in IT for them, having worked there for nearly 30 years) - that's what an apprenticeship should be, something you can make a damned career out of.

//edit: Link no longer works, presumably they took it down thanks to the negativity.

Except you're making the mistake of thinking that every single zero-hour contract puts employees on their arse for weeks at a time, because those are the ones you read about - much like all people on benefits are cheating scroungers.

I have literally no idea what percentage of zero-hour contracts do mess with employees to that extent, but it's not all of them. I'd be surprised if it's half of them (as that doesn't make any business sense), but I don't know.

You're making the mistake of thinking that I'm basing this on people I've read about and not from multiple anecdotes within my own social circle.

I could literally spend all day talking about the utter mess zero hour contracts put my brother's family into and I can't even stand the guy, so it does little for me moan about the shit system for his benefit.

Of course it's not all of them - I am sure, such as your anecdote, there are people happy on zero hour contracts - just like there are people unhappy in full time employment.

My point - way before we started talking about numbers and figures and ONS and all that - was that there has been a HUGE increase in zero hour contracts since 2010 and we cannot ignore this when talking about employment figures.

That's your opinion - I don't agree with you. Being paid more counts for a lot, and this government has made a big thing about "you're always better off working".
Plus you know, I've already said I'm not here to defend zero hours contracts. *My* problem was the "430,000 jobs" thing, whereas the reality is "2,000,000 jobs, of which 1,300,000 are not zero-hours contract jobs", which is quite different - and now dealt with.

I'm sitting here tell you that the cash value of unemployment can be greater than the cash value of a zero hour contract income + fractured benefits and you're repeating government mantra like it's truth? I literally experienced a situation - albeit due to childcare costs etc - where it was demonstrably NOT better to work and it means nothing because the government says so?



It's not opinion, it's lived and breathed experience.

Your "problem", Cavey, started with you rabidly defending the Tories way before I even mentioned any numbers despite the fact that at no point did I criticise the Tories or their policy. You assumed I was attacking your precious government when I had to fucking Google when they came into power because I literally couldn't give a fuck who is leading us and ONLY give a fuck about how it affects people like me.

Not much more I can add Jem TBH.

Cavey doesn't seem to "get" how zero hour contracts work.

He also doesn't seem to "get" that in low- and minimum- wage employment, which zero hour contracts are, you need to claim state top-ups like working tax credits to survive financially. Top-ups which you in most cases cannot claim while on a zero hour contract.

I've never understood the defence of the Tory party like it's a religion either, particularly when he's said or hinted that he's not a member. (Not that being a member of a party means you need to defend it on everything. Some of the people who are most critical of political parties are often paying members, from my experience.)

Oh boy.

Zzzzzz.

Beyond that, even - how many people have the '3 months salary for a rainy day' that is such standard financial advice I read it multiple times a year? An awful lot of people would be in huge trouble if they didn't get paid one month.

So it's not as if those who are poorer are worse at managing their cashflow. It's the way things are for a lot of people.

I reckon she'll call a general election soon. She would be insane to waste an opposition as fucking shambolic as the Labour Party.

Get ready for fifteen years of a Tory government.

I might have about a days salary in savings. I'd be screwed if I missed more than a month of salary ( and would probably reallt struggle if missed just one )

We've got a cash buffer of about 75% of one month's income (which is my wage + DLA + Carer's Allowance), but even that's a fairly recent development. Beyond that we'd be living on credit.

I can't ever imagine getting to the three month stage. Indeed, for the longest time we were basically skint at the end of every month, and bills would have to wait for payday to arrive.

We don't have a mortgage (yet), but when we've been researching it seems that they can allow you overpayments to build up a cash reserve so that you can underpay in future (up to the value of the overpayments).

So it would seem sensible to put all your 'buffer' cash into the mortgage and then 'withdraw' it if you needed it.

Consumer inflation up 27% in Feb from Jan.

CPI at 2.3% (as compared to 1.9% in January), as according to the ONS.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices

Yes, 27%

I make that a rise of 21%? Am I doing my maths wrong?

No, you're not.
I was trying to be delicate about it; not something I'm very good at.

I read 1.8% to 2.3%

The gift that keeps on giving (unlimited political power to the right wing).

Christ on a bike, I don't even think you thought they would be this bad, Cavey!

To be fair - I did! Honestly!
I predicted terminal schism and chaos - and that's what's we got...

It's not like the left have a long and noble history of infighting and squabbling over inconsequential bollocks;



There does seem to be a lot more buyer's remorse appearing for those people that voted for Corbyn though. Those that refuse to countenance any faults in their great leader appear to be entrenching themselves even further to the point where they may as well just call themselves SPLITTERS.

This is my favourite exchange of recent times though, likened on Twitter to an Anime film, a badly dubbed Kung Fu film or terrible game cutscene dialogue.

.... So it's not so much a matter as to see who blinks first, Trousers, more a case of who can achieve the greatest contra-rotational eyeball angular velocities?

Pass the Butterkist....

I do, but only because the wifes granddad died 3 years ago while I was having a particularly bad time at work, and so we carved out an amount of the inheritance into a pot which is known as the "For when he loses freaking mind" account.

We lived hand-to-mouth until relatively recently, and even now I pretty much blow everything on really stupid stuff.
I have the financial planning skills of a 10 year old in a sweetshop.

My 11 year old daughter has more savings than me.