Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don’t see 500,000 out of work, I see a lot more people caught in part time or zero hours contracts that get them off the unemployed stats but no where near being able to support themselves or have financial stability.

Why employ one person full time when you can fill the same hours with two or three that are at your beck and call, to work unsociable hours or fill in shifts at short notice, or simply be asked to not come in if it is a quiet week? Great for employers, great for the government, great for cutting back on benefits, terrible for those employed and their dependents.

I think a better way of representing work would be equivalent full time hours worked. I wonder how many not employed are also taking on again/off again jobs where there is a complete lack of consistency (lets say cleaning). I think that would be a better representation of employment level. We could then equate that against number of employable people giving a median estimate of the number of hours each person works per week with an actual distribution. My concern is that changes to the benefits is forcing people into jobs even if for only a few hours a week (but without adding things to the economy overall). That means they then come off the unemployment figures but the reality of the number of hours worked isn't really improving or might still be getting worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Well I’ve known people in zero hours contracts that were frequently called up the day before or even in the morning to work the afternoon because someone was ill or whatever. Great if you’re sitting around with nothing to do, bit more pay. But if they said they couldn’t do it, surprise surprise they had fewer hours given on the next week’s rota. You want regular hours? You be prepared to bend over for them all the time.

There's two types of zero hour contracts. There are those where they work because it meets the employed persons needs (e.g. a student) and there are those where the system is exploited by the employer to meet their needs with no concern. It seems particularly bad in the catering business. I know family friends who have a child that works as a 'chef' (as in for a pub restaurant). They get called up at any time and told they need to work for two hours, then after that stint they may wait 3 hours to be told they are needed for another 1.5 hours and so on. Just as in your case they provide no warning and if you say no then lo and behold they are put at the bottom of the call off list. When people argue that it worked for me, then they are correct, but that was at the point in their life when that schedule did work without real consideration of other people's circumstances. It was also in the past, employers in low skilled jobs more and more are seeing the 'benefit' of zero hours contracts as an exploit to minimise costs.

Anyone that doesn't like zero hours is more than free to find another job. If you look at advertised jobs on websites, zero hours are incredibly rare to find. It tends to be the sort of thing you go looking for as opposed to the sort of thing you have to do to make ends meet as it is often portrayed.

That might be true in your area, but it's certainly not universal.

The workplace is stuffed full of zero hours contracts. I personally know people who have no choice but to try and live on the zero hours contracts they have found themselves stuck on. It's a fething gak life for them, and if I had the means to, I would ban these gakky and exploitative contracts immediately.

Yeah sure, go out and get another job. When I was looking for work a few years ago the majority in the job centre needed a forklift or HGV licence and there was a handful of care home type things and other zero hours stuff. It was absolutely dire. I moved to London, but that isn’t an option for people who have any commitments.

And they can't be on zero hour contracts with different companies because they need to jump to all of them when needed. It's literally the worst of all world's.

I worked a few jobs as a student with weird hours but never on a zero hour contract. In theory, with the ability to decline shifts without being penalised, then zero hour could be great for people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bouncingboredom wrote:
Anyone that doesn't like zero hours is more than free to find another job. If you look at advertised jobs on websites, zero hours are incredibly rare to find. It tends to be the sort of thing you go looking for as opposed to the sort of thing you have to do to make ends meet as it is often portrayed.

I wonder how many are zero hours but just don't say so, since it's not some thing many peopleseek out.

I've been on a zero hour contract before, as a Key Timer with Games Workshop.

Now there, it worked out nicely as it was a second job. And importantly, I still got my discount. Other advantage was that if I wanted a weekend off, I was absolutely able to turn down hours.

But what we're seeing now, as noted above, is an absolute abuse of the concept lies with the employer, and what might be a single job dished out by degrees to three or four employees.

As for 'hurr durr, find another jurb'? So much easier said than done.

Right now, I've been looking into the job's market, as my commute is killing my social life. Despite living in a wealthy town, ain't nobody round here can actually afford me. All the jobs are low paid, especially those that require any modicum of skill or experience. My former flatmates? They're the opposite end of the job spectrum, going from menial to menial. And pretty much all their employers have taken the absolute michael out of them.

Other than that, the majority of jobs round my way seem to be Zero Hour or Part Time. One could look further afield, but due to Public Transport being run by For Profit companies, any gains in wage are quickly devoured by travel costs - so for all but a few, it's just not worth it as there's no personal gain.

And all in the name of massaging the figures. Got a Zero Hour contract? Congratulations, you're no longer unemployed. What? You've not been given hours for three weeks? Well, you're still employed.

Smoke, mirrors and typical Tory flim-flammery.

bouncingboredom wrote:
Anyone that doesn't like zero hours is more than free to find another job. If you look at advertised jobs on websites, zero hours are incredibly rare to find. It tends to be the sort of thing you go looking for as opposed to the sort of thing you have to do to make ends meet as it is often portrayed.

It's not that rare, 5% of all employment contracts now have no minimum hours as per the ONS reports (that's about 1.4m). Of these about 900,000 are considered by the employees to be their main job.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/contractsthatdonotguaranteeaminimumnumberofhours/september2017

That you don't see them is either an impact of the area you are in or the field you work in. It hence also indicates in certain areas zero hour contracts are much more prevalent.

bouncingboredom wrote:
Anyone that doesn't like zero hours is more than free to find another job. If you look at advertised jobs on websites, zero hours are incredibly rare to find. It tends to be the sort of thing you go looking for as opposed to the sort of thing you have to do to make ends meet as it is often portrayed.

That’s not true. Many people are on zero hours who are doing it to make ends meet. Lots of Mothers have to have zero hours as employees won’t let people work part time any other way. Many people who get jobs through agencies are zero hours, and they are going there as last resort. I would guess that the majority of zero hours contracts are people who are desperate for work and do it to make ends meet. Even more so if you remove the Uber/diliveroo type of “work when you want” kind of stuff and only include the “you will work when we need you” jobs.

Uber works because it’s cheaper to hire a person that owns a car than it is to hire/buy a car and employ a driver. They’re after the car not you. Same with Deliveroo.

If you have no qualifications beyond your A levels and want a job immediately, you have two choices normally: The high street and the zero hours sector.

The high street is mostly 12-18 hour contracts (for flexibility on the part of the companies) where they work you hard and give little back for the most part. There are a few exceptions, such as John Lewis, who offer genuine career opportunities, pay rises, and care beyond what they have to by law; but virtually all of the rest are all like Next, who offer minimum wage and deliberately do things like schedule in 7 1/2 shifts so that they don't have to give an hour's lunch break.

Then you have the zero hours sector. Some few of them (like Royal Palaces) are the ones that the contract type was designed for because it's seasonal work and well suited to students. Of late however, many companies like Serco, G4S, virtually all care home companies, and so on, have come to use it as their standard employment/pay method. All these companies are highly exploitative, will hire anyone with a pulse regardless of fitness for position, and extract maximum profit with no thought for employees or the contracts they hold. The jobs are not necessarily zero hours; that's just the standard contract they dole out now. If you don't take it, you won't get hired, and given that they'll take mostly anyone in preference to changing the contract, they can always find someone else.


In other words, if you get onto the clone high street, you can enjoy minimal stability whilst being exploited. If you work there six years, you might be able to claw your way up to store manager (where most promotion opportunities end). If you end up in the zero hours sector though, you don't even have that. You're just a replaceable name on a list who functions like a cog and can/will be replaced if you so much as breathe the word 'Union'. The managers are all brought in externally so actual promotion is virtually non-existent (I was "promoted" to new responsibilities twice whilst working for G4S, though my pay packet stayed the same).

If I had no qualifications right now, I'd personally be trying to stick to John Lewis like a limpet. They give a food discount, have a corporate ladder you can work up, often employ/promote internally for things like HR, have a range of personal loans for employees, and offer an annual bonus.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Uber works because it’s cheaper to hire a person that owns a car than it is to hire/buy a car and employ a driver. They’re after the car not you. Same with Deliveroo.

I understand what they do and why they do it, and I dislike both of them and will not use them, but I see a distinction between those kind of gig economy jobs where you genuinely do have SOME choice and the likes of high street stores and catering companies. If you do Uber or diliveroo you can choose to say “I have three hours spare tomorrow so will do a short shift for a few quid” and no one will stop you or penalise you if at the last moment you decided not too. I don’t think the economics stack up and they damage other people’s work, but they are not inherently exploitative. This is different to a company that calls up at 8am and says “I need you in to do 9-11 and 4-8 today” and refuses to give you more shifts if you refuse and only gives you shifts every three weeks and won’t let you work for anyone else.

I'll just point this out: be glad you have the labor laws you do. I used to work a job with a mandatory 80 hour week, that only paid for 40, and then didn't give you a salary either, and got away with it, be glad of what you got because modern corporations will still gladly feth you as hard as the law allows.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I'll just point this out: be glad you have the labor laws you do. I used to work a job with a mandatory 80 hour week, that only paid for 40, and then didn't give you a salary either, and got away with it, be glad of what you got because modern corporations will still gladly feth you as hard as the law allows.

Our workers Unions and predecessors fought hard for these labour laws, they weren't gifted to us by the Govt. The Tories are trying to erode them as much as possible though, and turn us into a mini US. However, some working class have forgotten, or have taken for granted, the prizes won for us in the past, and they keep voting for the the same people who are determined to strip away our protections in the belief that "trickle down" economics isn't some sort of fantasy con.

 Ketara wrote:


If I had no qualifications right now, I'd personally be trying to stick to John Lewis like a limpet. They give a food discount, have a corporate ladder you can work up, often employ/promote internally for things like HR, have a range of personal loans for employees, and offer an annual bonus.

The other alternative is local Councils. They might not pay the best but they are also usually willing to train those that show aptitude. The difficulty is finding one given the current cuts (but then that's similar to most places).

Apologies in advance for the length of this, busy day.

r_squared wrote:That might be true in your area, but it's certainly not universal. The workplace is stuffed full of zero hours contracts. I personally know people who have no choice but to try and live on the zero hours contracts they have found themselves stuck on. It's a fething gak life for them, and if I had the means to, I would ban these gakky and exploitative contracts immediately.

I live about a half hour drive from the statistically most deprived part of the entire county. There are still lots of jobs being advertised around here, almost none of them zero hours. Considering everyone thinks zero hours contracts are so prevelant, it's actually quite difficult to find them.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Yeah sure, go out and get another job. When I was looking for work a few years ago the majority in the job centre needed a forklift or HGV licence and there was a handful of care home type things and other zero hours stuff. It was absolutely dire. I moved to London, but that isn’t an option for people who have any commitments.

When I ended up out of work I hammered out a bunch of CVs, sent them out (hidden job market) and offered to work trial shifts for free to prove what I could. Someone took me up on the offer and I earned a job in almost no time at all. The reason people like me often scoff at some when they talk about how difficult it is to get a job is because I know a lot of people just don't try (though in fairness, it seems Job Centres wait months before they actually start doing any of the many small and useful things they could be doing to help people find work). I'm sure it's a lot tougher in some areas and for some people with limited skills sets or employment backgrounds, but I also think a lot of the people who cry wolf about how hard it is to find work could be doing more. Someone I used to go to school with is currently a "sofa surfer". However, before you feel too sorry for him, he's been offered work by at least three different people including his own brother and has refused all offers because he considered the work in question to be beneath him. Not everyone without a home or a job is in that place because of a lack of opportunities, some are there by choice, and they're doubly annoying on account of the fact that they tarnish the name of others who want to work etc.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:IAs for 'hurr durr, find another jurb'? So much easier said than done. Right now, I've been looking into the job's market, as my commute is killing my social life. Despite living in a wealthy town, ain't nobody round here can actually afford me.

See above.

Whirlwind wrote:It's not that rare, 5% of all employment contracts now have no minimum hours as per the ONS reports (that's about 1.4m).

5% is pretty rare. Especially when people are making it out like half the country is sinking under the grinding weight of the zero hour menace. For context, most bouncers are on zero hours deals. That's about 250,000 people in the UK, so we've almost hit one fifth of that total already in just one profession.

Steve steveson wrote:Lots of Mothers have to have zero hours as employees won’t let people work part time any other way. Many people who get jobs through agencies are zero hours, and they are going there as last resort. I would guess that the majority of zero hours contracts are people who are desperate for work and do it to make ends meet.

You've gotta be joking, the biggest problem with mothers is that most of them don't want enough hours. They seem to want to work 2 hours a day, 5 days a week, at the most inconvenient times possible. As for agencies, typically you give them the days you can work, the times you can work, what you can do and how far you can go. It's ideal for people with time on their hands but can't commit solidly to regular hours like students. It never ceases to amaze me how many of the people that complain about zero hours have either a) never done them before and/or b) never considered why it would be highly advantageous for some people to have a zero hours deal.

Ketara wrote:If you have no qualifications beyond your A levels and want a job immediately, you have two choices normally: The high street and the zero hours sector.

On what planet? Just out of interest, opened a job search website, banged in some basic distance info and on the first page alone all the jobs were fixed hours and only a third of them were retail (exlcuding jobs that required specific skills like a qualification).

but virtually all of the rest are all like Next, who offer minimum wage and deliberately do things like schedule in 7 1/2 shifts so that they don't have to give an hour's lunch break.

That's on account of there being no legal requirement to give you an hours lunch, irrepsective of how many hours you work. The legal mandate is 20 mins (paid or unpaid, employers discretion) if you work more than six hours. So I'm not sure where you heard that from, but you've been suckered in by an urban myth I'm afraid.

bouncingboredom wrote:
On what planet?

Manners please.Taking an aggressive 'lol wat planet you on' stance in your first response to somebody is virtually guaranteed to engender a negative reaction and start a conversation spiralling downhill from the outset. You wouldn't speak to a stranger in that way out of the blue; please don't presume to do so to me here just because you're behind a computer screen.

Just out of interest, opened a job search website, banged in some basic distance info and on the first page alone all the jobs were fixed hours and only a third of them were retail (exlcuding jobs that required specific skills like a qualification).

You're conflating job listings with the number of jobs available. Easy mistake to make. The way most zero hours companies hire is to simply do a single listing once a week/fortnight/month (however regularly they need the turnover) then winnow the CV's as they come in. So whilst you might see ten ads for twenty different other positions, you'll see a fraction of the number of ads representing considerably more jobs. For example, when I worked at G4S as security, we used to put up about one ad a week over the summer, but we were trying to fill literally hundreds of posts. The turnover and burnout rate was ridiculous because the staff were treated so poorly.

This is in addition to the 'gig' economy of course, where you turn to places like Deliveroo because you're having difficulty finding an actual job and need money now. Then because you have rent to pay, you end up working plenty of hours for them and have little time/energy for job hunting or education, but are locked into your crappy new gig job. Then your CV starts looking dated, etcetc.

So I'm not sure where you heard that from, but you've been suckered in by an urban myth I'm afraid.

No, you're right there. My mistake.

When I ended up out of work I hammered out a bunch of CVs, sent them out (hidden job market) and offered to work trial shifts for free to prove what I could. Someone took me up on the offer and I earned a job in almost no time at all. The reason people like me often scoff at some when they talk about how difficult it is to get a job is because I know a lot of people just don't try

This is of course, assuming that everyone is:-
a) neurotypical, and
b) lives in a locale where it's an option, and
c) gets lucky.

And it is luck. I did much the same thing as you twice post-undergrad. It still took me a month and a half to secure my first job, which was a Christmas temp one at John Lewis, and the same again to secure my second one (at Travelodge). I got that one by sweet-talking the manager in person after seeing the job go up online. It wasn't the first place I tried that with though, I tried plenty before that, and virtually every shop (I'm talking about a couple of big shopping centres) either fobbed me off or told me they simply didn't have the autonomy to have me work there without formally hiring me. It isn't as simple as it once was in that regard. Being proactive can certainly help I think, but it's not something everyone can do, and it's not something that has any serious chance of success. You're just rolling a D20 each time and hoping your number comes up.

bouncingboredom wrote:
Apologies in advance for the length of this, busy day.

r_squared wrote:That might be true in your area, but it's certainly not universal. The workplace is stuffed full of zero hours contracts. I personally know people who have no choice but to try and live on the zero hours contracts they have found themselves stuck on. It's a fething gak life for them, and if I had the means to, I would ban these gakky and exploitative contracts immediately.

I live about a half hour drive from the statistically most deprived part of the entire county. There are still lots of jobs being advertised around here, almost none of them zero hours. Considering everyone thinks zero hours contracts are so prevelant, it's actually quite difficult to find them.

Funny how he noted "maybe in your area" and that "it's not universal" as in hard to find and you provide just your own place info. You basically strengthen HIS arqument.

It's ideal for people with time on their hands but can't commit solidly to regular hours like students. It never ceases to amaze me how many of the people that complain about zero hours have either a) never done them before and/or b) never considered why it would be highly advantageous for some people to have a zero hours deal.

Funny. when I was student I had pretty much set schedule for day not much different than I now have at work. Maybe one or two hour more but basically as a student easiness of working was about same as easiness of taking second job now.

Plus students tend to want the crap shifts noone else does. When I was a student I worked 7-11pm every week night; no way would I want to do that now.

bouncingboredom wrote:
I live about a half hour drive from the statistically most deprived part of the entire county. There are still lots of jobs being advertised around here, almost none of them zero hours. Considering everyone thinks zero hours contracts are so prevelant, it's actually quite difficult to find them.

I'm not sure whether this tells us anything. I both live within 30 minutes of the some of the most deprived and most affluent areas. In London there are areas where there may be 5-10mins walk between wealthy and deprived areas. As Ketara pointed out generic 'anyone can do' jobs are likely to be smaller in number because you can advertise once for multiple vacancies. Conversely more specialised jobs have to be advertised individually because they need a more precise skill set. As such individual jobs can look more prevalent.

When I ended up out of work I hammered out a bunch of CVs, sent them out (hidden job market) and offered to work trial shifts for free to prove what I could. Someone took me up on the offer and I earned a job in almost no time at all.

You do appear relatively well educated which many people are not. Your CVs will likely give a better impression and stand out more. The CVs of those less fortunate or doing 'menial' jobs likely look far less impressive. I don't think there is any doubt that individuals also have to take responsibility however I think I'd like to understand the jobs offered and the conditions (as I can imagine a sewer worker is not for everyone!).

5% is pretty rare. Especially when people are making it out like half the country is sinking under the grinding weight of the zero hour menace. For context, most bouncers are on zero hours deals. That's about 250,000 people in the UK, so we've almost hit one fifth of that total already in just one profession.

I think our view of rare is quite different. My view is that it has to be less than approx. 1:1000; I would never consider 1:20 rare. Not when I can glance around a crowded bus and one/two of these people are likely to be on zero hour contracts.

It never ceases to amaze me how many of the people that complain about zero hours have either a) never done them before and/or b) never considered why it would be highly advantageous for some people to have a zero hours deal.

It's already been pointed out a few pages back that there are different types of zero hour contracts. The problem is for those that are being exploited by the employers for their own benefits. As already noted about 3% of the workforce consider their main job to be zero hour contracts. That's not an insignificant number (and this likely doesn't include the type of jobs where you are effectively self employed but working to zero hour work).

but virtually all of the rest are all like Next, who offer minimum wage and deliberately do things like schedule in 7 1/2 shifts so that they don't have to give an hour's lunch break.

That's on account of there being no legal requirement to give you an hours lunch, irrepsective of how many hours you work. The legal mandate is 20 mins (paid or unpaid, employers discretion) if you work more than six hours. So I'm not sure where you heard that from, but you've been suckered in by an urban myth I'm afraid.

However there are exceptions to this, for example if you have no set hours then you are not entitled to these type of breaks.

That would have to be a very poor, or willful, miss reading of the rules to apply that to shop workers. I can’t see any situation where they would be exempt working over 6 hours.

Even meaningful jobs on the highstreet are pretty hard to come by these days, what with the trend toward shorter shifts in the morning and evening for replenishment with only a few people in during the day for CS and tidying up.

I used to work at Waitrose (left this year) and they were just starting to bring in shifts that were 3 3/4 hours long, so they didn't have to give people a break. At the same time they were moving toward a model where there were 4/5 people in the morning and evening and only 1/2 across the day.

Also got rid of sunday and bank holiday overtime for new starters which was a shame as now no one wants to work them as overtime (why do unsociable hours for no real return?).

I thought Waitrose was part of the John Lewis Group - I'd have thought they'd be more 'worker friendly'.

Me too.

It's a sign of the times that companies are cutting back on benefits for new staff.

When I joined Future a few years ago, my pension benefits were significantly worse than staff in similar positions who had joined a lot earlier.

It was because the company was losing money badly and had to cut back.

MarkNorfolk wrote:I thought Waitrose was part of the John Lewis Group - I'd have thought they'd be more 'worker friendly'.

Way back when I first started they were pretty good for new starters, but with the squeeze on the retail market it's got to a point where a pay rise is considered good at 20p an hour extra. I started at 16 on 4.50 and when I left at 26 I was on £8.50, making me one of the more highly paid partners in the branch. The internal magazine would usually be full of comments about comparing the pay and bonus for shopfloor staff vs those in senior management (head office) and how the Chairman's renumeration package of c.£1m (fairly cheap as they go, but still outrageous when you consider it) could be justified when people on full time contracts were barely making £16 grand before tax.

Regarding the points about job hunting in the current climate - it's relatively easy if you have experience. If you don't, it's much, much harder. Many employers either want a relevant degree and several years experience for even fairly junior positions. Experience that is only possible to get by having the job in the first place or being able to afford an internship/placement.

Head office jobs at John Lewis/Waitrose are surprisingly well paid.

The main benefit of being shop floor staff is the discount. IDK if John Lewis shop staff are badly paid. Probably yes, as they work in more specialist areas that require more product knowledge.

Waitrose has led the way in getting rid of low level shop staff, with the laser gun gadget that lets customers do their own billing. Everyone else is copying it. It is a good example of investment in technology displacing human workers.

That said, who likes waiting in a checkout queue for someone to push all your items over a scanner?

I've heard that Waitrose retail staff, as opposed to the John Lewis ones (the department store) tend to be worked a bit harder and paid slightly less. Probably because Waitrose makes less money.

On a more general note, John Lewis as a whole is feeling the pressure a bit these days. Profits are down by half:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41264277

Profits being down means less of a direct bonus for the staff in January. It doesn't help that unlike most large companies, they pay full tax, which puts them at a competitive disadvantage on branded products.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-01-06/john-lewis-concerned-amazon-tax-problem-is-creating-an-unfair-fight/

In its last financial year Amazon booked more than £5.3 billion of British online sales through its operation in Luxembourg. Meanwhile Amazon.co.uk, a British subsidiary, posted a modest profit of £34 million. And paid £11.9 million to the government in Corporation Tax.

By comparison, every sale made at John Lewis and Waitrose online and off was booked in Britain. The partnership made a profit of £350m and paid £51m in corporation tax - four times more than Amazon

 Ketara wrote:
I've heard that Waitrose retail staff, as opposed to the John Lewis ones (the department store) tend to be worked a bit harder and paid slightly less. Probably because Waitrose makes less money.

Once upon a time that was the case, for at least the last 5 years Waitrose consistently made more profit. John Lewis also tends to have more staff - if you've ever been to the tv/electricals section usually there's 4/5 people in suits milling around trying to look busy...

Anyhoo. That's my whingeing done for the day!

 Steve steveson wrote:

However there are exceptions to this, for example if you have no set hours then you are not entitled to these type of breaks.

That would have to be a very poor, or willful, miss reading of the rules to apply that to shop workers. I can’t see any situation where they would be exempt working over 6 hours.

I was thinking more of warehousing staff, drivers and so forth. If you are on contracted hours it does apply. They are exempt when there are no fixed hours - realistically if you come in 6 days a week 8 - 5 then you have fixed hours regardless of what your contract states.

However the point is there are exceptions and could particularly apply to those on 'zero hour' contracts. Of course the question is how long until retailers start moving to zero hour contracts too. Have a core set of permanent staff and then a 'bank' of on call, zero hour, staff if things get busy?

 Ketara wrote:
I've heard that Waitrose retail staff, as opposed to the John Lewis ones (the department store) tend to be worked a bit harder and paid slightly less. Probably because Waitrose makes less money.

On a more general note, John Lewis as a whole is feeling the pressure a bit these days. Profits are down by half:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41264277

Profits being down means less of a direct bonus for the staff in January. It doesn't help that unlike most large companies, they pay full tax, which puts them at a competitive disadvantage on branded products.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-01-06/john-lewis-concerned-amazon-tax-problem-is-creating-an-unfair-fight/

In its last financial year Amazon booked more than £5.3 billion of British online sales through its operation in Luxembourg. Meanwhile Amazon.co.uk, a British subsidiary, posted a modest profit of £34 million. And paid £11.9 million to the government in Corporation Tax.

By comparison, every sale made at John Lewis and Waitrose online and off was booked in Britain. The partnership made a profit of £350m and paid £51m in corporation tax - four times more than Amazon

And this is why we need a Government not afraid or too invested in it to clamp down on tax dodging.

And yes, even if it means ripping up the current tax law and replacing it whole sale with a simplified version.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On employee benefits, those are a large part of why I’ve stuck with my current job and career path.

Amongst ancillary benefits, the pension is hard to beat. Without costing me a penny, 12% of my wage is paid into a pension. And they match me up to another 3%, which of course I’ve taken full advantage of.

And I get £50 a month flexible benefit to put toward whatever I choose from the options.

Suffice to say, each year a total of £5,616 is paid into my pension pot each year. And it costs me a piffling £28 a month, not allowing for tax breaks which are long winded and something I don’t fully understand.

Yes, I’m lucky. It’s the next best thing to a Final Salary scheme.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

However there are exceptions to this, for example if you have no set hours then you are not entitled to these type of breaks.

That would have to be a very poor, or willful, miss reading of the rules to apply that to shop workers. I can’t see any situation where they would be exempt working over 6 hours.

I was thinking more of warehousing staff, drivers and so forth. If you are on contracted hours it does apply. They are exempt when there are no fixed hours - realistically if you come in 6 days a week 8 - 5 then you have fixed hours regardless of what your contract states.

However the point is there are exceptions and could particularly apply to those on 'zero hour' contracts. Of course the question is how long until retailers start moving to zero hour contracts too. Have a core set of permanent staff and then a 'bank' of on call, zero hour, staff if things get busy?

That’s my point, they are not. It could, I guess, apply to delivery drivers, depending on how they work (although they have separate H&S required breaks). The “no set hours” isn’t referring to the hours you are contracted to work, but the way you work. Someone who works more than 6 hours and is required to be there no matter what their contract. The “no set hours” refers to someone who is not required to be somewhere for a set time, but someone who has a task based role. For example if a persons job were to complete a server installation, however long or short and could go home when they are finished. If someone says when you have to arrive and leave then immediately it is classed as set hours for this role.