Gambling machines. I'm seriously impressed.

[laklak]

I have no objection to contract work in principle, I worked contract jobs for the last 15 years of my working life, and probably 20 years total. Never had benefits through work, and didn't have to deal with a load of corporate HR horseshit. There were definite advantages and disadvantages. I made far more money as a contractor then I did as an employee. A couple of clients tried to get me to go full time, but that would have meant at least a 50% pay cut. This is a different thing, though, it's a way to avoid paying minimum wages and providing benefits.

[Strontium Dog]

I don't get this zero hour contract thing, can someone explain it to me? I could Google it but I'm lazy.

It just means you're employed, but you're not contracted to work a set number of hours. In practice, the average zero hours employee works approximately 25 hours per week.

I would like to see some data on that?

Is Google broken in Holland?

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlab ... rs/mar2017

People on “zero-hours contracts” are more likely to be young, part-time, women, or in full-time education when compared with other people in employment. On average, someone on a “zero-hours contract” usually works 25 hours a week. Around 1 in 3 people (32%) on a “zero-hours contract” want more hours, with most wanting them in their current job, as opposed to a different job that offers more hours. In comparison, 9% of other people in employment wanted more hours.

The latest estimate from the LFS shows that 905,000 people reported that they were on a “zero-hours contract” in the period October to December 2016, representing 2.8% of people in employment.

[Strontium Dog]

I know what full employment is. You apparently don't, as full employment is an arbitrary number that doesn't say anything about the number of jobseekers in a country. So congratulations on avoiding the point. Again, there are far more job seekers than job vacancies. So to say that the unemployed are "unwilling to go out and earn their own through an honest day's work" is spectacularly ignorant and callous in a way that only conservatives can be.

I'm not a conservative, you spectacular imbecile. And yes, you demonstrate again not only that you don't know what full employment means, but also that you are unaware of how "number of vacancies" and "number of jobseekers" is not a zero sum game.

Strontium Dog doesn't do data. He does conservative fee fees..

Deeply ironic on so many levels. I literally only do data. Leave the fee fees up to those who ignore the facts for their own agendas.

[Rum]

I don't get this zero hour contract thing, can someone explain it to me? I could Google it but I'm lazy.

It just means you're employed, but you're not contracted to work a set number of hours. In practice, the average zero hours employee works approximately 25 hours per week.

I would like to see some data on that?

Is Google broken in Holland?

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlab ... rs/mar2017

People on “zero-hours contracts” are more likely to be young, part-time, women, or in full-time education when compared with other people in employment. On average, someone on a “zero-hours contract” usually works 25 hours a week. Around 1 in 3 people (32%) on a “zero-hours contract” want more hours, with most wanting them in their current job, as opposed to a different job that offers more hours. In comparison, 9% of other people in employment wanted more hours.

The latest estimate from the LFS shows that 905,000 people reported that they were on a “zero-hours contract” in the period October to December 2016, representing 2.8% of people in employment.

However those people on zero hours contracts are more or less at the mercy of their employers. Their immediate boss - often a lower or middle level manager- can do you favours, withhold hours or fire you for that matter without having to justify it. My daughter has worked in retail off and on for many a year and has a tale to tell about the system.

[Svartalf]

your daughter, the one that is into ceramics?

[Rum]

your daughter, the one that is into ceramics?

Yep - she has had to earn a crust over the years as well - mostly in retail.

[pErvinalia]

I know what full employment is. You apparently don't, as full employment is an arbitrary number that doesn't say anything about the number of jobseekers in a country. So congratulations on avoiding the point. Again, there are far more job seekers than job vacancies. So to say that the unemployed are "unwilling to go out and earn their own through an honest day's work" is spectacularly ignorant and callous in a way that only conservatives can be.

I'm not a conservative, you spectacular imbecile.

You clearly are, given your disdain for the disadvantaged.

And yes, you demonstrate again not only that you don't know what full employment means, but also that you are unaware of how "number of vacancies" and "number of jobseekers" is not a zero sum game.

I know what full employment means. Perhaps you can explain to me how it relates to the concept of there being far more jobseekers than vacancies. I don't see it. And I'm not sure what you mean by a zero sum game in this context.

[mistermack]

Strontium Dog lives in Liverpool.

Of course he gets hassled for money on the street every day. That's the traditional occupation of all Liverpudlians, when they aren't stealing the hubcaps off cars.

A Liverpudlian who won a fortune on the lottery was once asked what he intended to do about all the inevitable begging letters.

His reply was, "keep sending them".

[JimC]

That's the traditional occupation of all Liverpudlians, when they aren't stealing the hubcaps off cars.

In Melbourne, we tell the same stories, just substituting the inner suburb Collingwood for Liverpool...

[JimC]

Strontium Dog, the following post: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 8#p1770408

contains a personal attack on another member. This is a gentle reminder to avoid such posts in future.

[Strontium Dog]

Strontium Dog, the following post: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 8#p1770408

contains a personal attack on another member. This is a gentle reminder to avoid such posts in future.

He called me a conservative. That's worse.

[pErvinalia]

Strontium Dog, the following post: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 8#p1770408

contains a personal attack on another member. This is a gentle reminder to avoid such posts in future.

He called me a conservative. That's worse.

[Scot Dutchy]

ZHC are banned in most countries on this side of the channel. The British unemployment figures are a sham like almost everything the British government does.

Unemployment in the UK is now so low it’s in danger of exposing the lie used to create the numbers

The UK refuses to use the accepted EU employment measuring methods as it does in everything else; crime, education, health and social care. It blurs everything like the article posted by SD. It is true of everything done in the UK. Local spending is another. Local authorities have been cashed strapped for years and are still being cut back. Why? To create a bigger enough cushion for the tory supporters in post-Brexit Britain.

Forget Brexit, we need to start talking about the real issue blighting our nation – potholes

As a council tax payer, I have a voice but no one in mission control is listening

[Svartalf]

unemployment is really that low in the UK? I thought there was a whole underclass of terminally unemployed folk.

[Scot Dutchy]

Did you read this bit:

The problem with this record is that the statistical definition of “unemployment” relies on a fiction that economists tell themselves about the nature of work. As the rate gets lower and lower, it tests that lie. Because – as anyone who has studied basic economics knows – the official definition of unemployment disguises the true rate. In reality, about 21.5% of all working-age people (defined as ages 16 to 64) are without jobs, or 8.83 million people, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Almost a quarter are unemployed.