New analysis published today (Friday) by the Resolution Foundation has revealed workers on zero-hours contracts (ZHCs) face a ‘precarious pay penalty’ of almost seven per cent – or £1,000 a year for a typical worker – compared to similar workers doing similar jobs.
The Foundation’s analysis is the first to pinpoint a specific ‘precarious pay penalty’ associated with ZHCs. The number of workers on these contracts recently reached record high of 900,000. They have been in the spotlight recently and caught up with the poor working conditions exposed at Sports Direct and JD Sports.
While it is well known that ZHC workers earn less than permanent employees – 38 per cent less per hour on average – many people assume this is down to the fact the jobs are concentrated in low-paying sectors, and among younger and less experienced staff.
To get to the real pay penalty associated with ZHCs, the Foundation’s analysis compares the pay of ZHC and non-ZHC workers with similar characteristics and doing similar jobs. It does this by controlling for a wide range of factors including the worker’s gender, age, experience, qualification level, their occupation, the industry they work in and how long they’ve been in their current job. These factors explain around four-fifths of the overall pay gap between ZHC workers and other employees.
This analysis highlights a remaining ‘precarious pay penalty’ of 6.6 per cent (or 93p an hour) directly associated with zero hours work itself. For a typical ZHC worker, working 21 hours a week, this penalty amounts to £1,000 a year.
The analysis also finds that the ‘precarious pay penalty’ is greater still for ZHC workers in lower-paying roles, with the lowest 20 per cent of earners experiencing a ZHC pay penalty of at least 9.5 per cent.
Other forms of non-traditional employment also carry a pay penalty when workers doing such work are compared to others with similar characteristics doing similar jobs, including temporary work (5.5 per cent) and permanent agency work (2.4 per cent). Crucially ZHC workers stand out as suffering the biggest ‘precarious pay penalty’ of all.
The Foundation says this ‘precarious pay penalty’ suggests that the use of ZHCs is not only about the flexibility they bring. The existence of such a large pay penalty suggests they also result in wages being held down in some cases.
It adds that this penalty shows why the government is right to look into modern working practices through the recently commissioned Matthew Taylor review. Understanding the reasons behind this pay penalty will be crucial in order to tackle some of the challenges raised by new forms of employment, without jeopardizing the success of the UK’s flexible jobs market.
Concern about the use and abuse of zero hours contracts goes far wider than a few notorious firms
Laura Gardiner, Senior Policy Analyst at the Resolution Foundation, said:
“Zero hours contracts have hit the headlines in recent months for their widespread use in Sports Direct and JD Sports.
“But concern about the use and abuse of zero hours contracts goes far wider than a few notorious firms. There is mounting evidence that their use is associated with a holding down of wages.
“While some people value the flexibility offered by zero-hours contracts, they also carry a significant ‘precarious pay penalty’ that can cost workers around £1,000 a year. That’s a big price to pay for work that too often lacks the security workers desire.
“As new ways of working continue to grow – from ZHCs and agency work to the gig economy and wider self-employment – we need a better understanding of how they help or hinder people’s earnings and career prospects.
“Policy makers must also tread a careful path between getting to grips with the living standards challenges thrown up by new and often insecure forms of employment, without jeopardising Britain’s recent job-creating success.”
Is Wood Burning Sustainable For Your Home?
Wood is a classic heat source, whether we think about people gathered around a campfire or wood stoves in old cabins, but is it a sustainable source of heat in modern society? The answer is an ambivalent one. In certain settings, wood heat is an ideal solution, but for the majority of homes, it isn’t especially suitable. So what’s the tipping point?
Wood heat is ideal for small homes on large properties, for individuals who can gather their own wood, and who have modern wood burning ovens. A green approach to wood heat is one of biofuel on the smallest of scales.
Is Biofuel Green?
One of the reasons that wood heat is a source of so much divide in the eco-friendly community is that it’s a renewable resource and renewable has become synonymous with green. What wood heat isn’t, though, is clean or healthy. It lets off a significant amount of carbon and particulates, and trees certainly don’t grow as quickly as it’s consumed for heat.
Of course, wood is a much less harmful source of heat than coal, but for scientists interested in developing green energy sources, it makes more sense to focus on solar and wind power. Why, then, would they invest in improved wood burning technology?
Solar and wind technology are good large-scale energy solutions, but when it comes to small-space heating, wood has its own advantages. First, wood heat is in keeping with the DIY spirit of homesteaders and tiny house enthusiasts. These individuals are more likely to be driven to gather their own wood and live in small spaces that can be effectively heated as such.
Wood heat is also very effective on an individual scale because it requires very little infrastructure. Modern wood stoves made of steel rather than cast iron are built to EPA specifications, and the only additional necessary tools include a quality axe, somewhere to store the wood, and an appropriate covering to keep it dry. And all the wood can come from your own land.
Wood heat is also ideal for people living off the grid or in cold areas prone to frequent power outages, as it’s constantly reliable. Even if the power goes out, you know that you’ll be able to turn up the heat. That’s important if you live somewhere like Maine where the winters can get exceedingly cold. People have even successfully heated a 40’x34’ home with a single stove.
Benefits Of Biomass
The ultimate question regarding wood heat is whether any energy source that’s dangerous on the large scale is acceptable on a smaller one. For now, the best answer is that with a growing population and limited progress towards “pure” green energy, wood should remain a viable option, specifically because it’s used on a limited scale. Biomass heat is even included in the UK’s Renewable Heat Initiative and minor modifications can make it even more sustainable.
Wood stoves, when embraced in conjunction with pellet stoves, geothermal heating, and masonry heaters, all more efficient forms of sustainable heat, should be part of a modern energy strategy. Ultimately, we’re headed in the direction of diversified energy – all of it cleaner – and wood has a place in the big picture, serving small homes and off-the-grid structures, while solar, wind, and other large-scale initiatives fuel our cities.
New Climate Change Report Emphasizes Urgent Need for Airline Emission Regulations
In less than two months, the United States has grappled with some of the worst natural disasters in its history. Hurricanes battered the south central United States. Fires destroyed homes throughout Northern California. Puerto Rico experienced some of the worst storms ever. A massive windstorm caused more damage to the northeastern United States then any other storm on record before winter even struck.
These recent incidents have spurred discussion on the dangers of climate change. A recent report from the University of London has shed some light on the discussion. The new report suggests that new regulations are needed, including stricter EPA regulations on Airlines.
Review of the new report
The new report was published in the British medical Journal, Lancet. The report concluded that climate change is a “threat multiplier” for a variety of social problems, including diseases and natural disasters. While numerous studies have processed the risk that climate change plays with creating natural disasters, University of London report is among the first to explore the relationship between climate change and disease.
The authors warned that the problems are becoming irreversible. They will continue to get worse if risk factors are not adequately addressed.
The most concerning part of the report is that these problems are having the most serious impact on the most vulnerable communities in the world. Countries that depend on agriculture and other issues will suffer the most if climate change escalates.
“The answer is, most of our indicators are headed in the wrong direction,”said Nick Watts, a fellow at University College London’s Institute for Global Health and executive director of the Lancet Countdown, one of the lead researchers of the paper. “Broadly, the world has not responded to climate change, and that lack of response has put lives at risk. … The impacts we’re experiencing today are already pretty bad. The things we’re talking about in the future are potentially catastrophic.”
Airline industry discovers climate change is a two-way Street
The airline industry is coping with the problems of climate change, while also coming to terms with the fact that it has helped accelerate the problem. Earlier this year, American Airlines was forced to cancel four dozen flights near Phoenix. Cancellations were called due to excessive temperatures. The air was over 120 degrees, which is too hot for some smaller jet planes to get off the ground.
One anonymous airline executive privately admitted that their business model has facilitated climate change. They warned that the problem may become twice as bad in the next few years if proper safeguards aren’t implemented. Representatives from Goindigo have echoed these concerns.
The EPA has stated that airplanes account for 11% of all emissions. They are expected to increase over 50% within the next 30 years. This could have serious repurcussions if newer, greener airplane models don’t become the new standard in the very near future.
This is driving discussion about the need for new policies.The EPA has been discussing the need for new airline regulations for nearly two years. An EPA ruling made in July 2016 set the tone for new regulations, which could be introduced in the next year.
The new policies may be delayed, due to the new president’s position on climate change. He hired an EPA chief that has sued the organization about a dozen times. However, the Trump Administration may not be able to oppose climate change indefinitely, because a growing number of people are pressing for reforms. Even younger conservatives primarily believe climate change is a threat and are demanding answers. This may force the EPA to follow through on its plans to introduce new solutions.