Working at Amazon

weaviemx5

Take it up with the OECD. They define what counts as employment, and pretty much every advanced economy uses their definition.

weaviemx5

That is written like 'inability to plan financial futures with regards to mortgages/childcare etc' go hand in hand with zero hour contract. The reality couldn't be further from the truth, it gives you all the control in the work. But you have to be disciplined and do the hours to get the income. It is not some kind of scheme that you don't work the hours and still get paid...

In practise there should not be any difference. The emphasis is on should as undoubtedly there are some 'old fashioned' financial institutions who 'score people down' for being on zero hour contracts. More fool for them as they'll be loosing business. The UK has been very late in looking at actual affordability.

weaviemx5

And those that don't (arguably more than those that do) are out of a job.  Hence, it's ok for the Business owner, and the limited number of people designing/building/maintaining the new automated production lines but not great for those lower skilled British workers that you've showed concern for over wages reducing due to immigration.

I'm not saying automation is a bad thing, I personally work in IT for a major manufacturing company so would arguably benefit, my issue is the apparent false concern showed for our lowest paid workers who are facing lower wages due to immigration (you shared the link again above).

weaviemx5

And as per the discussion we've already had, as we will be reducing the supply of low skilled workers, unemployment should remain stable even as we move some jobs up through the value chain.

There are no downsides to this for British workers. It's what everyone wants - higher skilled jobs with higher pay.

weaviemx5

I was paraphrasing the article I linked to, specifically in relation to McDonald's workers;

"Frances O’Grady, the TUC general secretary, said: “MPs aren’t the only ones feeling insecure in their jobs right now. If nothing changes, hundreds of thousands more Brits could be stuck in insecure work, being treated like disposable labour. That’s the same as 13 extra Sports Directs, or the entire working population of Sheffield.

“Paying rent and bills can be a nightmare when you don’t know how much you’ve got coming in each month. And planning childcare is impossible when you’re constantly at the beck and call of employers."

Surely it only gives the worker control up to the point that they choose the hours they work, to fit their chosen lifestyle?  If the employer is dictating the hours made available, I'm not sure how that gives employees control?

Matt_C

And back to my previous point, we apparently already have very low levels of unemployment, which I assume only accounts for British residents?  Reducing the supply of low skilled workers means a reduction in British jobs.  If you replace 50 low skilled British workers packing boxes for Amazon with one automated line and a couple of people to maintain it, where do the other 48 people go?

weaviemx5

Employment - Employment rate - OECD Data

"Employment rates are defined as a measure of the extent to which available labour resources (people available to work) are being used. They are calculated as the ratio of the employed to the working age population. Employment rates are sensitive to the economic cycle, but in the longer term they are significantly affected by governments' higher education and income support policies and by policies that facilitate employment of women and disadvantaged groups. Employed people are those aged 15 or over who report that they have worked in gainful employment for at least one hour in the previous week or who had a job but were absent from work during the reference week. The working age population refers to people aged 15 to 64. This indicator is seasonally adjusted and it is measured in terms of thousand persons aged 15 and over; and as a percentage of working age population."

As per @IronGiant's earlier post, classing someone who's worked 'at least 1 hour over the course of a week' as 'employed' feels a little bit like fudging the statistics, regardless of who uses them.

Sonic67

I can see the benefits as essentially a top up income or some flexible pocket money.  With upwards of 1 million people there will be a mix of those who benefit from the flexibility and those that don't.  Reading those case studies, the second one shows the downside, especially with regards to their particular employer seemingly penalising the employee with less hours the next week if they turn down hours on the day.  Of course, I'm sure every employer is different.

Bl4ckGryph0n

They go to other jobs. Some of them train up and stay with Amazon.

Sonic67

Sounds good to me - I was quoted £11.65 as a night rate (£9.20 outside of the midnight to 5am night hours) at Sainsbury's, so £11.70 is a good rate. I did night replenishment at Safeway many years ago and whilst I can't remember what it paid, I know it wasn't anywhere near that much.