Zero-hours contracts are flexible – for the employers | Letters

Well done Barbara Ellen for her suitably scathing piece on the scandalous increase in zero-hours contracts (“Dear boss: expect zero loyalty from zero-hours staff”, last week). These are, as she correctly remarks, a 21st-century rebadging of 19th-century casual labour, with the difference that, unlike Victorian employees, contemporary full-time workers can expect a degree of employmentprotection (holiday pay, redundancy rights, minimum wage) all of which is bypassed by the ZHC. The ZHC worker offers his/her labour to be used on demand, but with no guarantee when it will be required or for what duration.

However, Barbara does repeat in passing one of the myths of the “flexible labour force”, that it suits the work/life patterns of some groups (students, carers, the retired). In reality, the flexibility is all on the side of the employer and the ZHC employee has little choice in the matter.

In the now largely discredited rhetoric of human resource management, there was much talk of gaining enhanced employee commitment or engagement, around the mantra that “people are our greatest asset”. In the three decades since this was first espoused we should have expected the quality of working life to have been significantly enhanced. By the second decade of this century, the direction seems to have been reversed.
Chris Baldry
Wigtown, Dumfries and Galloway

Blame nostalgia, not stupidity

I invariably enjoy Nick Cohen’s trenchant columns, but, however frustrated one may feel, simply calling someone “stupid” doesn’t really help or explain anything. (“No patriot can take pride in these stupid and vile acts”, Comment, last week.)

Being stupid is not the same as feeling angry, undervalued or being deluded. The votes for Brexit and Trump were based on a nostalgic desire to return to the way things used to be, before life became so complicated for everyone who doesn’t belong to a social, cultural or economic elite.

The fact that this desire has been subject to the unscrupulous manipulation of billionaires on the political right for their own ends, as detailed by Carole Cadwalladr (“This dark and murky affair raises questions vital to our democracy in the digital age”, News, last week), does not invalidate their thinking, although it does call into question the likelihood of the outcomes of these choices in any way achieving the desired end. Just such a nostalgia is in any case surely echoed in Cohen’s own desire to return to the England he thought he knew and belonged to.

By the same token, neither do I think Jeremy Corbyn “stupid”, although I believe him misguided. He and his close colleagues are intent on remaking the Labour party in their own image, with no real interest in Parliament or forming the next government. The only elections they’re interested in are internal party elections which they’re winning hands down. It’s up to those who don’t agree with them to present their ideas in a way that is sufficiently persuasive to win the hearts and minds of ordinary (not stupid) people.
Dr Jan Sewell
Stratford-upon-Avon

Not only a vicar’s daughter

As commentators try to understand what makes her tick, why is there so much emphasis on the profession of the prime minister’s father (“The vicar’s daughter is more of a gambler than she realises”, Comment, last week)? I can’t imagine that a male prime minister would continually be referred to as a vicar’s son, but the inherent sexism here also deflects from a more plausible explanation of her current politics – that she is so keen now to remain in power that far from challenging the anti-immigrant feelings fanned by the Brexit vote she is embracing them, prioritising the “control of borders” over the preservation of Britain’s economic interests within the single market which she supported as a Remainer.
Jem Whiteley
Oxford

How Ofsted fails our children

Many teachers will be surprised that your correspondent Sean Harford, national director, education, Ofsted (Big Issue, last week) says that “data is only a signpost, not the destination for inspection”. Headteachers know they are judged by test results and so they organise the school and curriculum content and teaching to meet the requirements of the tests.

Ofsted inspection, based as it is on an unproven assumption that a fixed and limited set of causal relationships are responsible for school outcomes, is a dead hand on a curriculum which, in Baroness Warnock’s words, ought to “enlarge a child’s knowledge, experience and imaginative understanding … awareness of moral values and capacity for enjoyment and to enter the world as an active participant in society and a responsible contributor to it”.
Dr Robin C Richmond
Bromyard, Herefordshire

Individual focus of Lent

Well done to Catherine Pepinster for her masterly summary and analysis headlined “Civil war in the Vatican as conservatives battle Francis for the soul of Catholicism” (News, last week).

I would just quibble on one minor point. She refers to Lent as a time when Catholics “reflect on humanity’s sinfulness”. I don’t think that quite gets it. When the priest confers the ashes at the beginning of Lent, he says to each person individually: “Turn away from sin and believe in the gospel.” In other words, Lent is much more about recognising personal sin – my sin. Not to wallow in that, however, but to turn away from it towards Christ and the positive values of the gospel. The other two traditional elements of Lent – fasting and almsgiving – give concrete expression to this as a repudiation of self-indulgence in favour of generosity towards others.
Christopher Abbott
Didsbury, Manchester