Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
Most employers don't have that intention, although there have been some who have exploited people, it's true.
Zero hour contracts, formerly known as 'casual contracts' are there to provide flexibility both to employers and employees. Some employees like this flexibility - contracts with rigid hours would not suit them.
Frankly, if you are looking for full time employment, zero hour contracts are not what you should be looking for. If you are a student looking for some extra money during the holidays with flexible hours so you can still have plenty of time to socialise, these contracts are perfect.
|
Most employers don't want to minimise their costs? That sounds to me like a flat out fabrication.
While a tiny minority of people do enjoy flexibility the vast majority of the workforce enjoy stability.
Unrestricted capitalism is the problem and you've done an excellent explanation of why. Zero hour contracts are replacing fixed hour contracts in areas such as retail and hospitality - your answer is these people should just find full time jobs instead! Where? If it was that easy why haven't they - unless you are going to accuse them of being irrational.
I'm not sure it's that easy with a mortgage, family, etc.
---------- Post added at 20:26 ---------- Previous post was at 20:24 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Labour should be concerned a lot by the latter.
No, this has always been obvious. But several years down the line and Corbyn, Thornberry, McDonnell and Watson, have forgotten about Teesside, Rochdale, Oldham, Doncaster, Blyth, for example, and there are many many more.
|
That still doesn't answer the question as to why 'no deal' Brexit is better for these people than leaving with a deal?
All I've heard is
freedom of movement. We've already identified we can blame UK Governments for not imposing restrictions they could have and it goes even if we leave with a deal.
As Old Boy says above - can't they just have found other jobs?