Zero-hours contracts can in fact be beneficial to certain employees – such as older people who have made most of the money they need but want a little extra; being at an employer’s convenience won’t harm their standard of living in the long run.
That can’t be said of young people who are dependent on the wages they earn for their survival – especially in cut-throat Tory and Tory Democrat Britain, where benefits are routinely denied to those who need them.
The employer on this BBC programme is quite clearly misrepresenting zero-hours contracts and the BBC should (yet again) be ashamed of its own lack of balance.

SKWAWKBOX

Recently I’ve had a few people commenting to me that zero-hours contracts (ZHCs) are not malignant or exploitative, but rather vital to business and employment. Just a few minutes ago I watched a business owner, on BBC Programme “The Big Questions”, completely misrepresent ZHCs as giving flexibility to one of his older workers who doesn’t want to work full-time and great for young people, when the reality is that a ZHC puts the employee completely at the convenience of the employer.

The following was posted as a comment to my first blog article about ZHCs. It tells its own story, which I won’t embellish except to say that it shows perfectly how these abhorrent contracts are being exploited by unscrupulous companies to put the people under them in an invidious position:

Hi Steve, I recently moved from a Relief (casual) to zero-hour contract along with every other Relief staff…

View original post 717 more words