If a shift has an awkward start time one has to “rotate sleep pattern” to get ready for, then Yes. That last-minute cancellation, seems to be just a regular spite thing the client firm does, rather than the agency, only there as “blame-taking buffer” for said client firm, don’t forget.
Client firms only pay agencies a premium to supply “fire and forget” staff because they can treat them in such a manner, of course.
BUT when agency get paid the same or lower than the full timers? - THAT is when one should really question “What am I bothering with this agency lark for?”
“Risk Premium” is one thing.
“Risk Discount”? WTF?
This breaking scandal of BooHoo at Leicester…
I was thinking that if you lived in a household where no one had a job at present, and someone offered you a £3.50ph job that you could then top up to a maximum extent with “in-work benefits” - then there’s a possible motive there for at least “one person per otherwise unemployed household” taking on such a job, and of course keeping stumn about it, as they know as well as would-be sweat shop owner that such a practice is both illegal, and encourages people to fiddle their benefits…
Perhaps the answer for say, the DWP to close such a loophole - is to remove means testing from in-work benefits, and instead move towards something along the lines of “Universal Income” where the taper-off point for in-work benefits ends up being “Minimum wage x 40 hours” rather than the £256-£512 “working allowance” that, let’s face it - WHAT job earns THIS little in a whole month? Step forward Boohoo…
This would mean that with the NMW @ £8.72ph, your four-weekly allowance of earnings before in-work benefits got tapered off @ 63p in the pound - would be nearly £1400 per month, rather than the current range so low that anyone working more than part time or more than minimum wage - is going to question the viability of increasing their hours, or going for any kind of advancement at work… By the time your wages got to £2500 per month, you’d STILL by that point be tapered off the entire benefit money, as you would do already. The taper just isn’t quite so sharp as before, that’s all. It would encourage at least one person in every household to get a job, rather than encourage this current common practice of workerless households to “get someone living there registered as disabled, including having your own kids declared as head cases” - NOT good for any long-term prosperity of ANY household - is it?
“Low Allowances” encourage MORE benefit dependency rather than less I would suggest.