UKC

A friend of mine inquired about working at the new Huddersfield climbing wall recently. The wall is run by John Dunne's company that owns Harrogate and Manchester walls too. He was told that instructors will work on a zero hours contract and are prohibited from working anywhere else under whilst under their employment. These are shameful working conditions. I wonder how many other places I spend my money, am I totally unaware of the same set up. These companies deserve no-ones respect

In reply to crag david:

He was told that instructors will work on a zero hours contract and are prohibited from working anywhere else under whilst under their employment.

Is that fact or conjecture?
I'd be very careful about naming and shaming in such a fashion unless you're 100% certain of the facts...

In reply to FactorXXX:

fact

In reply to crag david:


Let's see... new user registered today... blank profile... first and only post... hmmm, a more suspicious person than I might think you were agitating excrement in a circular motion because you were more closely involved with the situation than your post suggests?

In reply to crag david:

>These are shameful working conditions...

...and illegal since last month.

In reply to crag david:

I am just going to freeze this thread while we bring it to MCC's attention as is our policy with this kind of post.

Please don't start another post on this topic.

Thanks

Alan

In reply to crag david:

Hi David,

In response to your post, there seems to be some confusion.

At all of our centres, we have a mix of full-time, part time and zero-hours employees. No-one employed by ourselves on a zero-hours contract is prohibited from working elsewhere, other than a directly competing organisation. This reflects the investment in training and continuous professional development we offer to our employees. We don’t employ any freelance staff, in order to be able to guarantee a standard across all our sites, but operate a rota system allocating shifts to all our staff ahead of time, which are always honoured.

We are appalled that your friend has left with what sounds like the wrong impression following their enquiry, and would always welcome direct contact from anyone with concerns, in order to clarify any confusion.

Mike Lloyd
Climbing Centre Group

In reply to Parthian Climbing:

So an instructor is not allowed to instruct at any other wall else whilst working on a zero hours contract for you?

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

It sounds like a grey area legally at best.

In reply to Parthian Climbing:

That filled him in.

In reply to crag david:

I'm not clear why, if they are making an "investment in training and continuous professional development", that would preclude a non-zero-hours contract? Surely it would be better to have employees invested in the company with all of the appropriate benefits to them and the company?

If the matter is 'flexibility' my question is how many senior people are on such 'flexible' contracts? Why is it only the low paid who need to be 'flexible' in this manner?

In reply to Parthian Climbing:
How can you tell someone what they can and can't do if you're not employing them. Zero hours is not employment it's just a way for employers to take advantage of people.

In reply to Parthian Climbing:


Given that a 'directly competing organisation' would be any climbing wall, essentially if a local climber wants to get into the climbing wall industry, you'll allow him or her to turn down every other paid opportunity which might come their way, in return for an agreement which states that you don't legally need to pay them anything at all.

And this is the business practice about which you feel you can boast in public.

Would any of this valuable training lead to a qualification recognised elsewhere, or is it just centred around your own business model and so not transferable?

In reply to Wsdconst:


That's not necessarily true, it's all in how the contract is applied in practice. Some zero hours contracts are exploitative and some are a way for two parties to work together in a mutually beneficial manner.

Mostly it depends on how in demand the skills of the employee are - the more highly skilled and in demand the employee is the more a zero hours contract is likely to be good for them.

In reply to Parthian Climbing:


Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 - explanatory notes
"...the Government decided to render unenforceable exclusivity terms in zero hours contracts. This will allow individuals engaged on a zero hours contract, whose current employers are unable to offer them enough work, to boost their income by working elsewhere if they so wish."

"...includes an order making power that allows for Regulations to tackle avoidance of the exclusivity ban and provide routes of redress. "

There is substantial precedent in law where competitive working bans are struck out on the basis that you cannot stop someone following their trade since that is the way they earn their living.

In reply to Parthian Climbing:



I'd just take all your investment in my good self then bugger off and negotiate a better deal elsewhere as a qualified wall person!

In reply to BarrySW19:

Although I agree with you we both know this is not the case here.its more about dictating to young people with dreams of working in the climbing industry what they can or cannot do.personally I'd tell them to shove their zero hours bullshit contract up their €$¥#.zero hours can work well for some people and in principle it's a good idea, but in practice it just leads to employers treating people like slaves.

In reply to crag david:

Makes me laugh all these people dissing MCC, two climbing walls next door to each other, all things equal except one is doing zero contracts and is £1 a session cheaper or £50 cheaper on a year pass, the que would be forming of climbers outside the cheaper one. Climbers are such hypocritcal tossers, makes me laugh, they also go on about being eco friendly yet burn loads of fuel traveling all over the world.

In reply to BarrySW19:

>"That's not necessarily true"

In what percentages of cases would you say?

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

So every climber is the same. Imposing collective responsibilty on a single group is plain moronic when 'climbers' will obviously be as diverse as any other group. Are you not a 'Climber'?

Maybe you just agree with illegal working practices?

In reply to Que Sera Sera:


The point is that MCC won't offer guaranteed hours of work while investing their incredibly valuable resources on their trainees. If it's so precious, why zero hour contract? (no need to answer that one!!!)


Totally irrelevant!

In reply to Lusk:

My Son and Daughter, both at Uni like zero hour contracts, they suit them. Now if your bleeding hearts are so bothered about this, next time you go to the wall give a tip to the staff or if your such a smart arse go and open up a climbing wall and put your money where your mouth is.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

I don't think it is the zero-hours that are the worry, but the "No-one employed by ourselves on a zero-hours contract is prohibited from working elsewhere, other than a directly competing organisation". If they want to keep their staff all to themselves give them set hours and pay.

I used to work on a zero-hour contract and it worked great for myself and my employer. I was not limited to where else I could work.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

Josh just said what I was going to!
You just don't get it, do you?
As it happens, at the moment, a zero hour job would suit me fine.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

It's not zero hours that's the problem you fool, it's the restrictions p.s they let you breed ?really

In reply to Lusk:

I know far too many people who delight in saying in how they love cheap day time pensioners and students rates at climbing walls. I suspect its hard turning a profit from a climbing wall and climbers.

In reply to Wsdconst:

Do you enquire at Awesome what the working terms and conditions are?

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

Yes I do,I know climbing wall wages are crap, a lot of people are quite happy at that for the free climbing and being with the in crowd. that's fine it's up to them.but when companies start to break the law with their terms and conditions then I have to disagree.its not right to say I can't promise you any work but you can't work anywhere else.if you don't want your staff to work anywhere else you have to give them the work.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:


Maybe, but that's still not a reason to treat staff craply (generally, not just in this specific case).

In the grand scheme of things, being generous to staff makes for better morale, which makes for more enthusiasm for the job, which makes for better productivity and better profits

In reply to Wsdconst:

So your saying you have asked the staff at Awesome Walls what their working terms and conditions are? Bollocks!

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

You voted Tory, didn't you?
Don't be shy now!

In reply to Lusk:

Sure I did, Im a capitalist capitalist, what are you a socialist capitalist, at least I never voted for Tony Blair :-p

In reply to Que Sera Sera:
No,bollocks is not one of them, they employ girls too. I had my solicitor look over all of their employment contracts and not unlike the man from del monte, he said yes.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

I can't see why your staff working at other walls will affect profits? There's hardly a shortage of SPAs, CWAs, it's just hard for free lancers to string together work to survive and these guys are making it harder.

It's a very poor policy but the problem is with zero hr contracts, the worker had little option, they just don't get the work of they don't follow their employers guidelines.. It's probably illegal to do what they are doing but any worker challenging them just wouldn't get work.

That's the problem with zero hour contracts, it's something a union or body like the MLTB/BMC should challenge (who's the governing body for SPAs?).

In reply to crag david:

The big issue I have with zero hours contracts, and I've worked a few, is that whereas people seem to think that there is equal power on both sides in reality there isn't.
If a company has a load of zero hours people doing some random low skill job they'll give the hours to the people who they know they can shaft at every turn. I've had people say to me that if I don't take the hours I'm given at 5 hours notice when I'm out climbing somewhere miles away they'll "cut me off". I've had other people come up to me at lunch time and tell me to go home and not get paid for the last 5 hours of what should have been my shift with the basic line being if you don't comply with whatever crap I throw at you you effectively won't have a job next week. How can this be considered fair?

The only way it works is if the employee is a seriously rare commodity, but in this case they can name their price and be compensated for the lean times.
Perhaps places should pay a hourly premium for people on zero hours contracts to repay their flexibility?

In reply to Que Sera Sera:



What was your old forum name? I vaguely remember you from a few years back. (The picture gives it away )

In reply to crag david:
The law seems quite clear cut on this one: MCC should draw up new contracts immediately to avoid prosecution. End of...

In reply to Oldsign:
And I hope that they do. These restrictive employment terms are using a zero hours contract for commercial gain. They are un-necessary for an established business and will only breed resentment and anger amongst its employees. The last thing the already low paid outdoor industry needs is one of the UK's largest wall operators setting a terrible example to other employers

In reply to crag david:

I'm self employed. It's zero hours from every client. We are not due a living from anyone and having accepted a job from an overpaid management team hunting profits instead of customer satisfaction many people should not be proud of a lifelong career beneath said shuffling malfeance.
The bigger priorities are limiting greed as a business opportunity.

In reply to Lusk:


He was GLUF

In reply to talky123:

Let's see... new user registered today... blank profile... first and only post... hmmm, I appear to be experiencing déjà vu.

In reply to Lusk:

sjc?

I hold several zero hours contracts with a number of clients. Not low wage or low skills in this case, rather the opposite. It suits me fine. Not exploitative at all. I get rather annoyed at the common assumption that everyone on a zero hours contract is unhappy about it and is yearning for a "proper job".

However adding exclusivity is immoral and now illegal. One of my clients did try it. I (and others) told them "no way" and they backed off. I realise those at the other end of the low wage/low skill spectrum may not be able to assert themselves on this point.

I don't accept that what MCC is doing is either morally defensible or legal.

In reply to EddInaBox:
I'm not sure what point your trying to raise eddinabox?

In reply to Wsdconst:


I don't know... I can see this might work out. For example, getting called in for a couple of hours work might mean you can then train at the wall for a couple of hours afterwards (I'm assuming staff get free use of the walls). It all depends how it works out in practice. I'd be willing to give it a go - if they ended up messing me around then fine, tell them where to stick the job, but equally it might work out quite well provided both parties are behaving reasonably.

In reply to crag david:

To a certain extent, I can understand MCC not wanting their staff to work at other walls in the area. They are likely to invest a significant amount of effort making sure that staff delivering courses such as NICAS are doing so in line with their standards. Some walls do invest heavily in their staff, both freelance and employed, and would rather not see all of that investment disappear and go to a competing wall. I'd wager that there are sufficient staff willing to work under those terms that it becomes a take it or leave it option for those that aren't happy with them.

I've worked as a freelance instructor with several walls and, whilst I don't remember a similar clause, they would have been rightly naffed off if I'd taken all that training that they gave me and then set up shop at a wall down the road.

Whilst it is true that CWA/SPA holders are pretty easy to find, it isn't normally possible to find someone who can just drop in and take up what a previous instructor was doing without an induction process.

As others have said, if you wish to complain about the rates of pay at climbing walls, some perspective on rates of pay across the wider outdoor leisure industry is helpful. The bottom line is that climbing wall owners are very very rarely in it for the money and if we wish to have higher paid instructors, we will have to have higher instruction costs & higher wall entry fees.

Finally, I don't think that, given the actual evidence here, any amount of outrage directed at MCC is either fair, helpful, or proportionate. I expect that this kind of practice is common across the whole outdoor leisure industry, not just one group of walls.

In reply to crag david:

As at least one other poster has mentioned in Zero Hours contracts it is now illegal to compel staff to work for only the one company.

In reply to gethin_allen:

I worked on zero-hours contracts when I was at university - it worked very well for me. Maybe I was lucky; maybe you've been unlucky, but I was paid more than the full time staff, was able to choose my hours, and was paid for full shifts even if I wasn't needed for the entirety of a shift. I often turned down work, but was always offered work. It meant that I could fit work around my life, rather than my life around work, and work as much as I needed to when I wanted more money.

There are definitely cases where zero-hours contracts can be exploitative, but they can be good for both employer and employee.

Superficially, MCC don't seem to be too exploitative here - but if they had a similar restriction on staff working in another climbing centre after they had finished working for MCC, that would certainly be unenforceable. I can see why they wouldn't want staff whose training they had paid for using it with a competitor, but if that's the case, it would be much fairer if they offered guaranteed hours.

In reply to whenry:

I believe that some walls have a clause whereby training expenses must be returned by the employee if they terminate employment.

In reply to crag david:

Given that MCC have stated on a very public climbing board that they adopt a practice that is illegal and there are several disgruntled employees/would be employees here...

I predict the thread will vanish very soon!

Saved.

In reply to JJL:


I'm not clear that they have but then I'm not a lawyer.

The law is intended to prevent Exclusivity Clauses (which are not the case here), not restrictive practices per se and the only mechanism of enforcement appears to be the Employment Lawyers Endowment that is known as the Tribunal system, leading to test cases that are decided on an individual basis.

It's not clear from the legislation if preventing people from working for competitors during their down time is covered or not. It would be easy to see some cases (IP for example) where such restrictive practices could be considered a proportionate aim of the business.

MCC say that they do not employ freelancers and they may well be able to build a case that their zero hours contracts are an improvement over the much more common practice of using freelance instructors, who can be similarly restricted but lie outwith the new regulations.

In reply to whenry:


It's an illegal practice: if MCC want exclusivity in their contracts, they have to introduce non-zero hour contracts of employment. There's a reason why even the Tories pushed this one through - and it's based on exploitation.

I don't have a problem with MCC using zero hour contracts - when I was in college, I'd have happily taken one to offset training costs - but here, all ideological discussion starts and ends with legal protections for employees. It's no longer legal to introduce restrictive, non-competition, clauses into zero hour contracts.

Coming onto a public forum to imply their ignorance of employment law hasn't helped them one jot; it wouldn't surprise me if all their competitors have been doing the same thing, but hopefully they'll scramble their HR bods at nine o'clock tomorrow and fix it.

Power to the public voice, citizen....

In reply to crag david:
The unfortunate situation with the contracts is that even if they remove the exclusivity clause, employees will still be subject to exploitation through the use of 'zero hours'. I.e employee 'A' decides to also work elsewhere as the current wall cannot provide enough hours (fairly common place). This mild reduction in availability combined with the fact that he/she now works at a competing location will mean they drop out of favor. Combine these two factors and they now end up with potentially less work than they started with.
I accept that zero hours contracts work in lots of cases, especially for locations such as MCC with a large university population or perhaps for a retired person who wants to keep a hand in but wants the freedom to take holiday/ not be available. However I think they should be the exception rather than the rule. Perhaps making zero hours contracts only available if the employee and employer agree it will be mutually beneficial.

In reply to Martin not maisie:


A lawyer writes:

"What about another sort of ‘pseudo exclusivity clause’ stating the worker cannot work for a competitor, or cannot do so without consent? The answer: it would be surprising if the legislation prevents such provisions although on the face of it, it could be argued that it does...

If the company relies heavily on the exclusivity clause it could consider inserting instead the 'pseudo exclusivity' clause in relation to competitors: but be warned – this has not been tested."

Priya Chanda-Wilson is a solicitor at employment law specialists Doyle Clayton

http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/hro/features/1151257/the-employers-guide-to-zer...

In reply to talky123:


It's not exactly "exploitation"
When hours are available they are offered to the member of staff who is most likely to take them.
Person A always turns out when asked.
Person B only turns out 50% of the time because they are climbing/working elsewhere /can't be arsed.
Person A will always be asked first.
This is how things have worked forever, way before zero hour contracts.
It used to be overtime, the guys that always did the overtime had first pick of any that came up.

I take it you all run businesses then?
Regardless of whether 0 hour contracts work for the employee, in some cases a business can only run with these contracts in place.
Case in point, a climbing wall. Revenue is low because competition is high, and people don't want to pay over the odds for use of the facilities. Revenue can drop further when the weather is good, when sessions that require minimum people aren't booked enough and are cancelled etc etc. if you were to give staff contracted hours, there will be all too many occasions which those staff simply will not be needed, yet you have to pay them. In an already revenue low business, you simply cannot afford to pay staff to stand around and do nothing.
If a kids party is cancelled, you've lost that income that would be paying for the member off staff you've now contracted to have in.
These places do not have guaranteed need for staff, so you cannot guarantee staff working hours.

As has been said, this particular employer allows work elsewhere, but not in the same line of work. Fair enough, if they are spending time, money and effort in developing staff, why should you be allowed to then use that for some other businesses gain?

As long as customers demand low prices, and flexibility of use, businesses will have no choice but to use these contracts.

As an employee, if you don't like these conditions, find work elsewhere. The leisure industry is notorious for low pay, and poor hours, but people choose to get into it because they don't want the desk jockey 9-5, where you actually will get proper pay.

I work a zero hours contract, but have also got a day job to pay my bills. I've told my zero hours job my availability, and they give me hours that are mutually agreeable. It works for us both. I don't work there for the money, I do it for the enjoyment and experience.

You do hear about some businesses that are reall abusive of their employees on 0hours, sports direct made a name for themselves. But that doesn't mean all companies offering the same are to be tarred with the same brush.

In reply to Tomtom:
What if they didn't train the staff?

Plenty get these awards off their own back?

I work zero hour contracts. If my work said I couldn't work elsewhere I'd say fuck off.. And they provide some training but I struggle to earn as it is.

As winhill says its unchallenged, but who will.

It's an awful policy and well done to the OP for highlighting it. I'm disappointed so many support such a policy.

Hopefully this public pressure will make MCC change their policy.

Re who said wall owners aren't in it for money.. Bollocks they aren't. They may enjoy their work but we all work for Money.

The first part of your post is nonsense as no one is arguing against zero hours, they work both ways so people such as students or working parents like the flexibility but the power is too one sided and the workers cannot speak up for them. So it's only their union (is there one?)An NGB or the customers who can make changes for the workers.

In reply to Tomtom:

It's not the zero hour contract that's the issue, it's the exclusivity clauses some employers use as apprears to be the case here. I don't know if they are legal or not but being told you can't work for a direct competitor would make me think twice about working there.

I personally don't see the issue with using freelance self-employed staff. Can anyone suggest a disadvantage?

In reply to Roadrunner5:

As mcc have said, they provide training and a sign off to ensure standards are the same across the board. This is irrelevant of prior experience and quals. So training is provided, and it wouldn't suprise me if its better training than cwa or spa, which people actually have to pay for!

The op highlighted a misconception of a policy. The policy being you can't work for a direct competitor, which is pretty fair. Zero hours or not, I can't imagine many businesses would be cool with you taking a second job with a direct competitor.

I fail to see how the first part is nonsense. Some businesses need staff on zero hours, I don't see how that can be nonsense. But plenty of people here are slagging zero hour contracts, not just the fact that a particular business doesn't want people on these contracts to work for competitors.

What changes exactly should be made?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:
They are just creating a pool of staff with wages, bank details, insurance all covered. It makes sense.

Where I work I can't work more than 8 credit hours a week or I'm entitled to more benefits etc so we all teach in other areas. Even they would never try such an approach.

These guys can't use their qualifications that MCC won't have paid for in most if not all cases.

In reply to Tomtom:
Because no one is arguing against zero hours...

The training may be better but it's not a recognized qualification which will get them work.

It's a disgusting practice and why 0 hours have a bad name because companies use them to stuff workers because they have no rights.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

and I don't think in-house training is better than a recognised NGB as you have to have a wider knowledge than just the facility you happen to be trained in-house to use.

I feel exclusivity clauses are a paranoid reaction to competition. The climbing walls I've been in (quite a few) all have the same features - ropes, and climbing walls. They aren't producing something unique that the employer can tell their competitors all about. It's an effing climbing wall!!!

In reply to higherclimbingwales:



Its a unknown quantity. You don't know them, their standards or reliability. If you have your own staff, you get to know them and their capabilities, you can set standards, and you know you've got a trustworthy dependable team.
Not to say freelancers aren't any of the above, at all, but there's no guarantee of it for a business.
Also, for the punters, to get to know and recognise the same faces that will be helping them in their development in courses like NICAS. Business have got employees that they know will provide the customer service they want providing, and not just the skill set that a freelancer is qualified to have.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Not necessarily. Take the CWA for example. It's hardly a wide base of knowledge, but is the essentials for working at a wall. But surely a wall that teaches directly will want you to learn more that mean you can help in more situations. Like you said a climbing wall is a wall and ropes, so surely been taught the extras that will benefit that wall is a wider knowledge base than the bare essentials that you need to tick off CWA.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


So this argument is solely about employers saying you can't work for direct competitors.

I think every employment contract I have signed has had a 'you must keep the businesses best interests in mind' clause.
Working for a business aids that business. If you work for two similar places, you are aiding both businesses, and therefore not keeping each businesses best interests in mind.

In reply to Tomtom:




I don't think this is true at all. If I was to work for two competing businesses I would want both to prosper so they can continue to give me work. I can't see any rational reason to prevent an employee working for another venue where there is no reason to such as to prevent espionage or information exchange.

The 'investment of time and resources' line doesn't really wash as if it is truely in-house training they refer to then it isn't really relevant to the other venue. If they are investing NGBs then the right to recoup costs should be allowed but not by preventing the employee working for a competitor.

In reply to Tomtom:

That's a lot of speculation. It's just as easy to argue that in house training would be inferior in order to keep the costs down. With a qualification, at least the people who deliver it are motivated by delivering a good course that people will pay for. A climbing wall wants to do whatever is cheapest without killing their clients.

In reply to Tomtom:




Yeah, that's because it's along the lines of 'Intellectual property' or whatever.
We're just talking about a minder at a frigging climbing wall here!

I think its pretty poor not allowing people to work for other walls in the area. Its pretty common elsewhere in my experience and as long as you are not promoting other walls whilst working for MCC or who-ever I don't see the problem. Zero hours contracts make sense at a climbing wall....

In reply to dunnyg:

I've friends who work in TV, they work freelance at NFL films and various local stations, NPR etc.. They never get away with these contracts. It's totally restricting your career and ability to build experience.

In reply to Tomtom:


I sincerely, genuinely doubt this. A properly trained SPA has a considerably broader knowledge base than someone who has gone through in-house training in a climbing gym.

Incidentally, I think this is a poor attempt to prevent spread of business to competing gyms. Frankly, if you need a policy like that then you don't deserve the business. A well set, well maintained wall with happy staff will always do much better.

In reply to Lusk:



This.

There's very little harm to MCC if someone works 8 hours a week for MCC and 16 hours for awesome walls. Anyone got a good justification? Trade secrets? Like belaying and putting on a a harness?

In reply to FreshSlate:

It's petty and at the expense of those on the lowest rung of the ladder

In reply to Tomtom:


I realise I'm probably pushing against a stuck door here, but you do realise that exclusivity (non-competition) clauses in zero hours contracts are illegal, yes? Not dodgy or sharp practice, but plain illegal.

Essentially, if you want your employees to refrain from working for your competitors, then you have to offer them contracts other than zero-hour.

It's the law.

For the purposes of argument, I essentially do a mix of freelance and zero-hour work. It works well for me. And I work in a variety of competing practices, often two at the same time. There's no conflict because I behave myself and use discretion; are you saying that climbing wall workers wouldn't?

In reply to crag david:

I doubt we will, but it'd be nice to get some input from other wall staff. I think its unlikely that this is the policy of just the climbing centre group. Anyone worked for a wall that pays well and pose no restrictions on where you can work? Anyone work somewhere with similar policies?

In reply to Dave Heaton:

I worked at a wall a couple of years back, was on a reasonable enough wage for what I was doing (not megabucks but a trained monkey could have done most of the stuff). While I personally only worked at the one place (due to choice rather than a contract), several other of the staff on zero-hours worked at the 3 local walls. 2 of the people that work full time on a permanent contract at the wall also do the odd bit of work for another local wall (not related to who their full time contract is with). They have also been known to loan out instructors to other groups when needed (not sure at what cost though).

In reply to Parthian Climbing:

Well Mike,

I hope you're going to give us a response to all this?

In reply to crag david:
If an employer can't provide full time work, I think they have no moral right to prevent the employee or contractor from working for a competitor, unless we're talking about very well paid positions where the employee or contractor is essentially happy to work part time. If an employer wants low paid employees or contractors to work exclusively for them, they should provide full time work. I think that's fair.

Also, a ban on working elsewhere is a bit shortsighted really. It means there is less opportunity to find out how competitors operate and thus improve your own business.

In reply to Misha:

Exactly..

Your staff have less opportunity to develop, you don't learn from competitors the same.. Plus you come across as.. Turds..

It really is that simple.

Dump the rule. I don't think the beacon did this, if they did I would not have climb there. It is walking over your staff. What
Do they go then if they have 3 8 hour shifts midweek? What other work is open to them but low paid work? Even more low paid...

In reply to Tomtom:



I thought it was about zero hour contracts.
It does seem a bit restrictive not to allow people to work at other walls, quite nearby there is Rochdale, Bolton, Rockover, Awesome and a new one apparently at Trafford park soon. But then it could be said there are plenty of other businesses nearby where staff could also work, so MCC are not stopping people working. What do other climbing walls do?
Possibly a great article for UKC to do and expose on the working terms and conditions in the UK outdoor industry. UKC gets slated from some quarters for pandering to its advertisers, well they do pay for the site, but people need to trust that the content is not to commercialy biased. So come on UKC an article on what its like to work in walls and how staff are treated.

In reply to Tomtom:


On top of all that's already been said - what's defined as a direct competitor? It sounds like MCC is really talking about Awesome Walls but what kind of radius are we talking about here?

Up here I regularly use EICA, TCA & GCC and occassionally The Peak in Stirling. If I'm willing to travel to climb at all of those then presumably they could all be considered "direct competitors" but (other than GCC & TCA) they're over 20 miles away from each other.

In reply to Parthian Climbing:
Hi Mike,

Thanks for responding to this, but let's be clear here. The person in question hasn't really 'left with the wrong impression here' have they? It sounds like they've understood it pretty well.

It is your stance about not allowing staff on zero hours contracts to also work at other walls nearby that you should be appalled about.

Such situations are indicative of why the labour market here is so unfairly and unnecessarily weighted in the favour of employers. And ultimately, no-one gains. You'll just end up with less happy, engaged, and experienced staff - and in turn, fewer paying customers.

So, if my occupation is indoor climbing instructor, and I get a limited number of hours working at your wall, would you really expect me to waste time and money travelling far afield for work?

Sadly I doubt you're alone among climbing walls in adopting this style of crazy contract - which sounds more like something at you'd expect in Qatar than the UK. I've no idea of whether you'll be forced to change this for legal reasons. But regardless, for moral and reputational reasons, I think your business should strongly consider dropping your ban on zero hours staff working at other centres nearby.

Thanks,
Danny.

In reply to DannyC:

Sadly, I'm aware of '50 mile' radius applying to the Reading wall, if not all of Climbing Centre Group.

A little bit more research on their own websites suggests a worrying shift in direction with regards to independents using their walls. Historically, the instructor had to produce suitable documents, but was welcomed with their group or clients (who paid a charge), with the instructor being admitted for free. There seems to be a charge levied against the instructor of external groups now, too?!

Clearly, climbing walls are big business! What a shame the minority seem to be seeking to 'control' their meagrely paid workforce and squeeze out competition by way of independent instructors or coaches.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

>"people need to trust that the content is not to commercialy biased"

May it's just me, but I'd think it safer just to assume the content is commercialy biased and work from there.

In reply to crag david:

In response to the above thread.

The Climbing Centre Group’s Human Resources policies are overseen by Peninsula Business Services, one of the UK’s leading HR and employment law advisors. There is no question of legality regarding any Climbing Centre Group policies or procedures.

The focus of the thread is on the moral aspect of our procedures and the administration of zero-hour contracts. The Climbing Centre Group administers these contracts in a fair and transparent manner.

Our zero-hour contract employees are allocated shifts based on their availability, at least 7 days in advance. We try as much as possible to meet our staff’s requirements and requests for shifts based on demand. If we have committed to a shift, the employees will get paid even if their sessions are cancelled on the day. The Climbing Centre Group gives the same rights, entitlements and benefits to all employees, regardless of contract type. This includes items such as pension scheme, holiday entitlement and sickness pay. This is what we deem a moral administration of a zero-hour contract, and is reviewed on a quarterly basis among the senior management team.

The Climbing Centre Group operates a full in-house training and assessment program for all our employees. We support our staff in terms of continuous professional development, including CWA, CWLA, SPA National Governing Body awards, BMC Fundamentals 1, 2 & PT1 as well as the Mountain Training Association Foundation Coach Award. We realise that these skills will allow some of our staff to progress their career outside of the Climbing Centre Group in the future, and in no way look to restrict that.

Our zero-hour contract employees have the freedom to work elsewhere, with the exception of a direct competitor. This may cause a conflict of interest and have a detrimental effect to our business. As a business, we need to protect our intellectual property, financial reporting and confidential data and cannot risk sharing this with a competitor. This is standard practice in any industry, entirely legal, and is also made clear at the recruitment stage.

Anyone visiting our centres will recognise the nature of our business and the quality that our procedures produce. Our focus is on operating a high-quality and sustainable business for the benefit of our customers and employees.

We trust that the above clarifies the issues, and this will be our final comment on the matter.

Mike Lloyd
Climbing Centre Group

In reply to Parthian Climbing:

A quick google brought up:

http://www.shepwedd.co.uk/knowledge/banning-exclusivity-clauses-zero-hours-...

(quote from the page) "Any term in a zero-hours contract which prevents a worker from doing work or performing services for another party is unenforceable." - I wouldn't be surprised if companies that draft these contracts on behalf of businesses without dedicated HR departments are waiting for a test case or something.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4...

In reply to Parthian Climbing:


I have to say your policy is really poor and if other climbing walls have a similar policy then theirs are equally poor. You are maybe doing what you think is right for your business but zero hour contracts in combination with clauses that prevent employees seeking work of a similar nature locally elsewhere strikes me as immoral. I am not local but if I was then I would certainly not be using your climbing wall. I would not be using any climbing wall with such a policy and if all climbing walls have such a policy then quite frankly I would stop using them all. Such are my feelings about the point. Maybe it's time that climbers stand up for climbers and vote with their feet.

In reply to Parthian Climbing:

From Acas

'On 26 May 2015, new regulations about zero hours contracts were brought in. The law prevents employers from enforcing 'exclusivity clauses' in a zero hours contract. An exclusivity clause would be where an employer restricts workers from working for other employers.'

In reply to Parthian Climbing:

Wow! Well, I have to say that your reply reeks of paranoia!

'As a business, we need to protect our intellectual property, financial reporting and confidential data and cannot risk sharing this with a competitor.'

We are talking about climbing instructors and not secret service employees?!

Presumably, the only people really with access to that depth of information about your business are the ones on a salaried - NON zero hours contract! And, I suspect will be the ones feeling obliged to 'like' your post!

As I mentioned earlier, I believe you are in the minority (or completely alone!). And, thank goodness for that!

In reply to Parthian Climbing:

I wonder who's going to be liable under section 27A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (as amended by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015), MCC or Peninsula Business Services? I suspect the former and you'll have to sue your HR provider for damages.

I love the way that CPD is now intellectual property and confidential data.

In reply to climbwhenready:



Who will challenge it though?

Anyone who does will think they will not getting called in to work..

We have it in academia with adjuncts.. I only know of one university where the adjuncts have formed a union and have managed to secure some benefits.

The rest get shat on and they worry if they speak out they won't get a class the next semester.. Yet adjuncts now deliver most of US lectures. The UK higher education system will go the same way, it makes a lot of financial sense.

In reply to jsmcfarland:





I hope some of their staff read your post.

In reply to Parthian Climbing:

When the grass is lush you can have holes in your fence. When the grass is poor you need a fine fence.

If conditions at MCC are so good then you'd have few worries about staff (and their skills) being poached.

In reply to Parthian Climbing:

The sad truth is though if you have no hours for someone one week, they cannot work at another wall for that week under this illegal contract. If they complain that they are not earning money because of this, you are within your rights not to give them any hours in the future due to the zero hours. Lets face it, you would rather give hours to staff that put up with this rubbish, rather than any that complain about it.

Its a shame I don't live up there because I would certainly be avoiding your wall

In reply to Que Sera Sera:
If your professional qualifications are CWA/SPA then surely virtually anywhere you can work using these could be interpreted as 'direct competition'? So yes there are lots of other businesses you could work in locally but not using your professional skills, and of course on a zero hours contract you may be getting no work through the wall employing you so you could be seriously hitting your career development and earning power. Seems very harsh. In other cases say a web developer, it would be less bad as at least you can use your skills at non-competing business.

Seems mad anyway as I would have thought that generally instructors get better the more experience and in practice they are but hey, need to protect all that valuable secret ip climbing walls have...

In reply to Parthian Climbing:

"all employees, regardless of contract type. This includes items such as pension scheme, holiday entitlement and sickness pay"

You comply with the law then? Well done you, give yourselves a corporate slap on the back and discuss morality at your next meeting

In reply to Parthian Climbing:

Terrible attitude! I will be avoiding CCG walls unless I hear about this being rectified. The excuse about commercially sensitive information is an absolute joke!

In reply to Parthian Climbing:

If CCG don't want their employees working for a competitor then employ them full/part time rather than zero hours. Easy.

In reply to Parthian Climbing:

I can tell you from experience that peninsula do and have strayed from best practice/ the law and have had to rush out a fix/ solution pretty sharpish after a problem shone a spotlight on the problem. As someone above mentioned. You will be help initially accountable for any action brought against an illegal practice. It's your reputation that will (and has) suffered because of it.

Rather than you incredibly arrogant response, surely a better idea would have been to listen to the very strong response to this topic, and at the very least, asked peninsula to look into the matter and give you evidence to prove that you are indeed adhering to the law. Maybe show the gathering crowd this to put their minds at ease.
As it is, you've pissed people off, pissed them off a bit more and then denied there being a problem. You seem worried about what's best for your business and what will affect it negatively, and have quite astonishingly not seen the response as equally damaging.
I had heard bad thing s about the way these walls were run before, by ex employees so this comes as no surprise really.

In reply to crag david: I had the good fortune to work at the Leeds Wall in '96 & '97, they used to pay a premium for "Freelance" Sessional Staff, £10 an hour!!

It used to go a long way for basic living costs back then, but gear was a lot more expensive (relative to fuel, food and a pint).

In reply to malx: i


Oh I don't know - the commercial value to competitors of knowing how often your routes are really reset or how much the caff spends on making a chocolate cake must be invaluable. Oh wait....

In reply to Parthian Climbing:


Actually, your zero-hour contract employees have the *right* to work elsewhere, *including* for a direct competitor, because in making them zero-hours employees, you give up any right to dictate such conditions to them. And you gave up that right voluntarily when you told them that you were under no obligation to give them work. It's the law.

The potential effects of them working for a competitor is entirely your headache, not theirs: put simply, you're creating the problem, not being the victim of it. If you used different contracts, with at least some guaranteed hours, you could dictate to them. But you don't, so you can't.

Section 27A (the amendment in question), subsection 3 states:

Any provision of a zero hours contract which—

(a) prohibits the worker from doing work or performing services under another contract or under any other arrangement, or

(b) prohibits the worker from doing so without the employer’s consent,

is unenforceable against the worker.


So, either of two things are happening here:

1) Your HR company doesn't know this and are leaving you open to action. You might want to have another word with them.

2) Either you, the HR company - or both - know that despite exclusivity clauses being illegal, currently there are no enforcement provisions, which means that vulnerable workers have to take private action to protect themselves, inevitably leading to their contracts being withdrawn. So either way, they lose.

Which is worse.

In reply to crag david:
This is a great thread. Pretty much everyone in agreement standing up for the workers. Who knows, it might even bring about change. Solidarity comrades!

In reply to crag david:
Maybe time for UKC resident's of Manchester, Harrogate and Reading to start to think with their feet?

I hope so

In reply to Parthian Climbing:


Nah keep digging. You could open a caving centre as well. Although ideally not using zero hour exclusive contracts.

In reply to goose299:

Actually, no - that would just hurt workers. Better if MCC just sorts it out. It won't actually cost them anything and might be a better long-term business strategy.

In reply to crag david:

Is your surname Douglas?

#guerrilla marketing

In reply to Martin not maisie:

Well yeh but judging by Mike Lloyd's response, that isn't going to happen.
My idea is at least an alternative that may prompt them to make these changes that are both legally and morally correct

In reply to goose299:


Granted, but these things are rarely black and white. Issues of morality are often of secondary importance in a saturated marketplace; issues of legality are a bit different.

It wouldn't take much for MCC to front up - and back down.

In reply to Martin not maisie:



Of course, and let's hope that they do and the comment that their last post was their last statement on the matter is shit but I don't reckon they will until it's brought up via legal routes.
And who's going too?

I do wonder if any CCG employees are reading this and have the bottle too?
I hope so but realistically are they going to?

In reply to Parthian Climbing:

Might be your last word on the subject but you may wish to read this;

http://m.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4468

"On 26 May 2015, new regulations about zero hours contracts were brought in. The law prevents employers from enforcing 'exclusivity clauses' in a zero hours contract. An exclusivity clause would be where an employer restricts workers from working for other employers"

In reply to goose299:


There's nothing to stop you yourself doing something about it, should you want to.

In reply to goose299:



Yes.....footwork is very important.

Having followed the level of negative feeling surrounding the issue of zero hour type contracts on this thread and elsewhere, as Managing Director I will be conducting a review of all our employment contracts with our legal advisors and management teams. Whilst the Climbing Centre Group has always administered zero hours contracts fairly, following the recent legislative changes now is the time to look at alternatives. As with all areas of our operation, we are committed to best practice and if improvements and changes need to be made to our HR policies, we will make any necessary changes.

John Dunne Managing Director Climbing Centre Group

In reply to Rob Parsons:

You've not met my missus.

In reply to goose299:


You can't be sure of that ...

In any event, I just get very uneasy when folk egg others on to do things; question their 'bottle' if they don't; etc.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I was eggin them on as they have more of a vested interest than me. I neither work in the industry, nor live near any of the walls

It appears the post has done each job judging by John Dunnes last post

In reply to John Dunne:

Well that's non-committal at best but at least it's something. I assume you will post back and let us know the result of your review?

In reply to John Dunne:



Except for the unfair restrictive clauses.

In reply to Cheese Monkey:


No it's not. It sounds pretty clear cut to me.
How long have you been running your business for and how many people do you employ?

Boggy

In reply to Bogwalloper:




I hope you've never criticised David Cameron or Tony Blair because I'm pretty sure you've never been Prime Minister!

In reply to Bogwalloper:

Its clear cut that there will be a review, not necessarily changes.

In reply to 3leggeddog:


This is precisely the point. They're having their cake and eating it.

The other thing I don't quite get is why can't they find stuff for their staff to do when they don't need them to instruct groups or whatever. There must be other stuff to do - admin, marketing, route setting. Most employees will be happier because they're getting a wider variety of work and developing their skills. And if they're often finding that they don't need people, aren't they just crap at scheduling and planning? May be I'm being naive but I do believe that good management can avoid a lot of these issues in the first place!

In reply to John Dunne:

Good to know you're doing it because of the negative views expressed on here rather than, say, because you feel like you should abide by the law, or treat your staff well, or just not be d*cks.

John,

Great that you are 'looking into it' but you shouldn't have to. Your company or your HR company should be abiding by the law, not breaking it and hoping nobody kicks up a fuss. As others have said (mostly at the top of the thread), zero hour contracts do have a part to play, but only when they are being applied fairly and legally. Lots of people out there who want hours as and when that they can fit around trips or other commitments, but the point is you cannot tell them where they can and can't work outside of their job with you.

If that's not acceptable then you must offer guaranteed hours. Judging by the response of people in the thread your customers will start voting with their feet if you are breaking the law in how you treat your employees

In reply to John Dunne:



Errr...no, the time to change them was when the law came into force, not when potential employees have brought this to your attention via a forum. How on earth can you not have known about this legal change?

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

What kind of worries me more is how the HR company they use (Peninsula Business Services), didn't know about it! How many other small businesses are using them and unknowingly breaking the law, along with who know what other laws? If I was running the CCG, I would be looking at my relationship with this company very closely right after fixing the contracts problem.

I think this thread has now run its course. Some good points have been made and MCC have responded positively. I don't think much more can be achieved by leaving it going so I am going to close it to replies from now.

Thanks everyone for the contributions.

Alan