Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why Labour are Scum

danny la rouge said:
Labour aren't against zero hours contracts, only "exploitative zero hours contracts" <snip>
Click to expand...
Is Labour (or any other party) in favour of zero hours rent and utility bills? As long as these remain a more or less set amount, unvaried by the amount of work your employer gave you, zero hour contracts do not equal a living wage.
 
Last edited:
danny la rouge said:
Labour aren't against zero hours contracts, only "exploitative zero hours contracts":

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/zerohours-contracts-exploitative/9437
Click to expand...

There are non-exploitative uses of them. As an example the company I work for has someone who has retired but will occasionally provide some support when required since they have a lot of valuable knowledge/experience. They're kept on the books on a zero hour contract so they can be paid when they do this work, with the advantage that they don't have to go through the hassle of setting themselves up as a consultant and deal with all their own tax affairs (and it's simpler for the company too). I can't see anything wrong with this, and don't think a blanket ban would make much sense if it stopped these kind of simple arrangements.

At the same time I don't think examples like my one should be used to argue against any restriction on their use, companies like Sports Direct need to be hung out to dry.
 
Dogsauce said:
There are non-exploitative uses of them. As an example the company I work for has someone who has retired but will occasionally provide some support when required since they have a lot of valuable knowledge/experience. They're kept on the books on a zero hour contract so they can be paid when they do this work, with the advantage that they don't have to go through the hassle of setting themselves up as a consultant and deal with all their own tax affairs (and it's simpler for the company too). I can't see anything wrong with this, and don't think a blanket ban would make much sense if it stopped these kind of simple arrangements.

At the same time I don't think examples like my one should be used to argue against any restriction on their use, companies like Sports Direct need to be hung out to dry.
Click to expand...


That really could open a can of worms like the idea you can call on a retired person with valuable knowledge but the "Zero Hours" contract we all know of as a way of earning your weekly wage and not knowing how much you are gonna get so as to plan a weekly budget needs to be stamped on hard [And I can see more than one company getting rid of effective TU or Health and safety reps using zero hour contracts]
 
articul8 said:
the critical thing is determining what counts as "non-exploitative" - the bottom line is people should only be working on zero hours contracts out of positive choice, and not just "choice" in the absence of any better options.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense - all employment contracts are exploitative, because of the structural power difference between employer and employee. Zero-hours contracts are simply more exploitative than others, because the employee has no control over what hours they work and thus no guarantee of achieving a particular wage in any given week.

And the idea that an employee can enter into any contract of employment out of "positive choice" rather than economic necessity, let alone a zero-hours contract, is just the sort of simplistic and economically illiterate bollocks we'd expect from both the Labour party and from you.
 
andysays said:
This is nonsense - all employment contracts are exploitative, because of the structural power difference between employer and employee. Zero-hours contracts are simply more exploitative than others, because the employee has no control over what hours they work and thus no guarantee of achieving a particular wage in any given week.

And the idea that an employee can enter into any contract of employment out of "positive choice" rather than economic necessity, let alone a zero-hours contract, is just the sort of simplistic and economically illiterate bollocks we'd expect from both the Labour party and from you.
Click to expand...
This is also partially why "banning" zero hours contracts is basically pointless. Because unless they're going to ban casual work altogether then the same situation is going to exist with a different name.
 
andysays said:
And the idea that an employee can enter into any contract of employment out of "positive choice" rather than economic necessity, let alone a zero-hours contract, is just the sort of...
Click to expand...
Yes, ok point taken - it remains true though that some people eg. people who have taken early retirment that might want a few hours showing visitors round a museum every week, actually quite like the freedom of a zero hours contract. What's totally wrong is to imply that this represents the situation of most zero hours contract workers, who are on them only because employers aren't offering enough jobs with a minimum number of guaranteed hours. It's the latter category of people that are on "super-exploitative" contracts that should be helped in the first instance.
 
articul8 said:
Yes, ok point taken - it remains true though that some people eg. people who have taken early retirment that might want a few hours showing visitors round a museum every week, actually quite like the freedom of a zero hours contract. What's totally wrong is to imply that this represents the situation of most zero hours contract workers, who are on them only because employers aren't offering enough jobs with a minimum number of guaranteed hours. It's the latter category of people that are on "super-exploitative" contracts that should be helped in the first instance.
Click to expand...

It's you and your party who are arguing that there are significant "non-exploitative" examples of zero-hours contracts, whereas in reality they are, I suggest, a tiny and ultimately statistically insignificant number of the ever-growing number. To even attempt to make this distinction in the current economic climate is simply to demonstrate that you are the unscrupulous employers' friends.

And surely if there is scope for your "people who have taken early retirment that might want a few hours showing visitors round a museum every week" then someone can and should be employed to do that work on a properly contracted regular basis?
 
andysays said:
And surely if there is scope for your "people who have taken early retirment that might want a few hours showing visitors round a museum every week" then someone can and should be employed to do that work on a properly contracted regular basis?
Click to expand...

Not if they don't want to - they might want the flexibility of not working many hours one week, if they're looking after the grandkids at half term etc. In no way am I saying this justifies the rampant casualisation of the labour market in general. Labour should, and hopefully will, end the imposition of zero hours contracts across whole sectors of the economy. The key is issue is that the flexibility should be on the workers' side, not the bosses'.
 
articul8 said:
Not if they don't want to - they might want the flexibility of not working many hours one week, if they're looking after the grandkids at half term etc. In no way am I saying this justifies the rampant casualisation of the labour market in general. Labour should, and hopefully will, end the imposition of zero hours contracts across whole sectors of the economy. The key is issue is that the flexibility should be on the workers' side, not the bosses'.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about employing someone who isn't retired, with proper terms and conditions rather than having someone who is retired on call as a way of avoiding having to avoid employing someone on a regular basis, with regular and guaranteed hours of work.

But even focussing on this tiny number, rather than the vast majority who are working with zero-hour contracts out of absolute necessity, is to distort the issue and the arguments around it, as is bringing up the spurious notion of flexibility.

All the flexibility in zero-hours contracts is in favour of the employer - the employee doesn't have any choice in how many hours they work or when those hours are - that is the whole point of such contracts. Only someone who is effectively insulated from such practices could make the mistake of thinking that flexibility and choice have anything to do with an employee's experiences of zero-hours contracts.
 
andysays said:
All the flexibility in zero-hours contracts is in favour of the employer - the employee doesn't have any choice in how many hours they work or when those hours are - that is the whole point of such contracts. Only someone who is effectively insulated from such practices could make the mistake of thinking that flexibility and choice have anything to do with an employee's experiences of zero-hours contracts.
Click to expand...
Of course that's the case in most instances - but not in *all* instances, that is my point. That is why the government can always point to a few people who actively welcome the flexibility of zero hours contracts (in my example, of the semi-retired person wanting the option of a few hours of relatively enjoyable work here or there without having to do a minimum each week - that's the very limited circumstance of when there's no reason to ban the arrangement). *of course* I'm not saying that is in any way how most zero hours contracts work or should be judged - which is why Labour wants exploitation on zero hours contracts to end.
 
articul8 said:
Not if they don't want to - they might want the flexibility of not working many hours one week, if they're looking after the grandkids at half term etc. In no way am I saying this justifies the rampant casualisation of the labour market in general. Labour should, and hopefully will, end the imposition of zero hours contracts across whole sectors of the economy. The key is issue is that the flexibility should be on the workers' side, not the bosses'.
Click to expand...

That sort of flexibility is not actually delivered by a ZHC, is it? Your boss can still insist that any day of work is vital to the role and tell you to work it or find another job, just like they could if you had a regular part-time contract.

Similarly if you have a regular part-time contract it's perfectly possible to arrange periods of leave, either by using your holiday entitlement, working extra hours and accruing TOIL or by just negotiating unpaid leave.

The only thing the ZHC does is protect the employer from potentially having to pay you when they don't want to.
 
Lo Siento. said:
That sort of flexibility is not actually delivered by a ZHC, is it? Your boss can still insist that any day of work is vital to the role and tell you to work it or find another job, just like they could if you had a regular part-time contract.
Click to expand...

It's appears to some people to be delivered to an extent - but it's not *guaranteed*, no. But then it would be only ever appeal to those for whom paid working hours are relatively discretionary - which obviously isn't the case for most ZHC workers.
 
articul8 said:
It's appears to some people to be delivered to an extent - but it's not *guaranteed*, no. But then it would be only ever appeal to those for whom paid working hours are relatively discretionary - which obviously isn't the case for most ZHC workers.
Click to expand...

I mean the reality is unless your employer is understanding about your need for flexibility in that situation it doesn't matter what kind of contract you're on. And if they are that understanding, then it doesn't matter what kind of contract you're on either!
 
I'm not sure how to argue with these SCLV types anymore. On one hand they concede that labour has never been a properly socialist party. On the other hand they don't want a return to Keynesian policies. They want to squeeze concessions out of the bourgeoisie. For them trade unions seem to be pro-working class institutions, merely with a vacillating bureaucracy that mediates between labour and capital. When I argued that unions are more atomised and fragmented than they'd like to believe, it's chalked down to a low level of class struggle, not their philistine reformist marxism desperately in search of postmodern theological solace. They also seem to be against other methods of self-organisation. Quick, bring the commissars in. Any objections are either tossed aside as lazy left-communist/ultraleft handringing or anarcho-syndicalism.

Has any of this actually been thought out? :facepalm:

Any contemporary literature on this topic or at least since the 1980s? butchersapron Knotted Pickman's model chilango
 
Last edited:
Anyone who votes for Labour is knowingly condoning a political party turning a blind eye to child abuse. If you think that is perfectly fine, as many brainwashed Labourites do, then vote for them as you're more than welcome to one another. I, and many others, were appalled at the events in Rotherham and other cities and towns in the UK and will be voting for the only party pragmatic enough to stamp it out, UKIP.
 
i guess what I'm trying to get across to these Trots is that trade unions are inherently bureaucratic institutions because they operate like businesses and use managerial structures (they should answer how 50% of union members are in well off professionalised jobs and less than 20% of unskilled workers are unionised.) To say that we'll vote for labour and push for a (nonexistent) labour left really doesn't take note of how economism is the dominant mode of struggle at the moment. And then you get accused of having no strategy for achieving socialism/communism. Well neither do you, on further inspection, sunshine.
 
Oliver Queen said:
Anyone who votes for Labour is knowingly condoning a political party turning a blind eye to child abuse. If you think that is perfectly fine, as many brainwashed Labourites do, then vote for them as you're more than welcome to one another. I, and many others, were appalled at the events in Rotherham and other cities and towns in the UK and will be voting for the only party pragmatic enough to stamp it out, UKIP.
Click to expand...
pragmatic. but not, i note, principled.
 
I don't know why Labout are scum, but I can tell you how: Chuka Umunna, the local MP here has taken to badmouthing an entire council housing estate, as well as his closest rivals (the Green party). You can read about it on other threads, but basically if he and other people in his party had done a little more for this estate, they'd have nothing to fear in this Labour safe seat. As it is, his (and their) behaviour is likely to be a vote loser.
 
articul8 said:
I've already agreed as much in response to andysays - still, wouldn't expect you to entertain an original thought
Click to expand...

A bit of an equivocal agreement as I remember, still insisting on the appropriateness of Labour's distinction between exploitative and non-exploitative zero-hours contracts - still, wouldn't expect you to entertain the possibility of actually recognising that the Labour party is utterly dominated by nonsense such as that employment contracts can be something other than exploitative and will therefore always be merely reformist, even though that can hardly be described as an original thought on my part...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hitmouse
Unions and Labour
Replies
20
Views
954
Fedayn
Fedayn
Humberto
Home Building Labour guff
Replies
1
Views
274
Humberto
Humberto
Kid_Eternity
New Labour government - legislative agenda
26 27 28 29 30
Replies
893
Views
30K
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
P
In Blackpool South, did people vote because they are head over heals with Labour
Replies
27
Views
995
A380
A380
tim
Natalie Elphicke defecates to Labour
2 3 4 5
Replies
127
Views
5K
two sheds
two sheds
Back
Top Bottom