Talk:Zero-hour contract/Archives/2015

POV Template Added
This article has emotive language and discursive opinions, and makes value judgements about what work should be for. For example consider this in the introductory paragraph: "Zero-hour contracts may be ideal for some people such as retirees and students who want occasional earnings and are able to be entirely flexible about when they work,[6] but people in the general working population, including those with mortgages and responsibility for supporting a family, run the risk of unpredictable hours and earnings. The possibility of the use of such contracts by management as a tool to reward or reprimand employees for any reason or no reason raises issues about how workers can adequately assert their employment rights or maintain decent employment relations.[7]" An incomplete list of things wrong with these sentences is:


 * Speculation about who the contracts may or may not be ideal for, citing just four categories out of a UK population of ~60 million, is not a helpful introduction to what these contracts actually are
 * "Decent employment relations" is an individual subjective judgement, not relevant to the introductory factual description
 * General statements about "those with mortgages" or "supporting a family" are opinion, and it doesn't matter if common-sense suggests that some of the time these opinions are likely to be correct

There are well-referenced criticisms of zero hours contracts that touch on these concerns, but they belong in the "Criticism" section and need to be much more encyclopaedic in nature. The introduction needs to concentrate on explaining what these things actually are.

Dan Shearer (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should describe the topic and also give any notable controversies. The point about flexibility vs security is important and should be mentioned there. However, I did find the lead to not totally summarize the article, and also include weirdly disproportionately detailed description of New Zealand labour law with bullets. I have tried to condense and thematically organize the lead. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 20:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Since the discussion is a year old and has become dormant (I got confused by the dates even!), I have removed the POV tag for now. I have rewrote the lead a bit to address the concerns above. If you have more concerns, please open a new discussion. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 20:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Synonymous Content & Redirect
The title of this article is phraseology synonymous with the Contingent Work article. Its content is biased toward United Kingdom labour laws. I propose the article's UKGBNI content be consolidated into the United Kingdom Labour Law article with a Redirect established to the Contingent Work article. It is anticipated that this article will be populated with prose references to current UK political debates regarding the application of Zero-Hour Contracts, content that is better referenced in UK political and employment articles. Factrules (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. This work covers the same topic as casual work and should be redirected to that subject. FOARP (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Synonymous Content & Redirect
The title of this article is phraseology synonymous with the Contingent Work article. Its content is biased toward United Kingdom labour laws. I propose the article's UKGBNI content be consolidated into the United Kingdom Labour Law article with a Redirect established to the Contingent Work article. It is anticipated that this article will be populated with prose references to current UK political debates regarding the application of Zero-Hour Contracts, content that is better referenced in UK political and employment articles. Factrules (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. This work covers the same topic as casual work and should be redirected to that subject. FOARP (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)