Hello all,
My wife works for a national charity in one of their care homes for elderly people. She is a senior care assistant and is responsible for the building when management is absent. She is sometimes required to 'sleep in' when the ratio of care staff to residents reaches a certain level. However, she is not paid for this sleeping in. At the weekend, she had to work a 1430 - 2230 shift, sleep in (effectively on call) and then work 0700 - 1500. I would have thought that if she was on work premises available for duty then she should be paid regardless of whether she was asleep or not. She says that it is in her contract of employment that employees are not paid to 'sleep in'. Is this an unfair term of contract?
Any thoughts?
|
This is why people need to be members of a Union. Not only would they advise on this point but given the employer is a reputable charity it would probably recognise the Union for negotiating purposes. The appropriate Union would probably be Unison who have some very good employment lawyers.
If she's salaried then I'd expect her salary to reflect the 'sleeping in' requirement even if there's not an explicit allowance. What happens if she's actually called during a sleep in period?
|
I don't quite follow the jump to justifying unions, especially given their behaviour these days.
That to one side, Bromp does hit the relevant points;
On what basis is she paid? Is it based on time or simply employment? A clue would be whether or not her payments go up or down according to how many shifts/hours worked in a particular pay period.
The other point is the purpose of the sleep-in period and how it can/will be used. For example, one might expect a different financial payment depending on whether she was just "sleeping" or was actually called upon.
Further, if she is deputising for management then I would expect that to be compensated also.
My limited experience of charities (2) suggests that they treat their staff abominably relying on their good will.
I'd collect together all the information and pop down to CAB. Frequently local solicitors hold free clinics for first consultation also.
|
According to this:
www.smallbusiness.co.uk/running-a-business/office-and-home-working/2093953/what-is-the-legal-number-of-hours-between-shifts.thtml
there is a minimum of 11 hours rest required between shifts. It appears that the break between the two shifts is not sufficient.
|
|
Phone ACAS. They have a conficential helpline... 08457 47 47 47. They are very good at what they do. They will intervene on behalf of an employee. Very good if you catch them on a good day. I'd have cheated and asked our employment lawyer but he has a client and I'm off for the day in a few minutes.
|
>> Phone ACAS. They have a conficential helpline... 08457 47 47 47.
>>
If you don't like 084 numbers, try 0115 900 2670.
|
>> I don't quite follow the jump to justifying unions, especially given their behaviour these days.
Just seems to me that this is what unions are for - helping employees in real or potential dispute with their employer. A sort of insurance cover.
Big disputes and TU/Labour politics are a different question.
|
My daughter has reluctantly joined a teachers union. Sometimes one needs protection against the big guns.
BTW. Last week, excluding Saturday & Sunday , (on both days she did preparation & marking, but for how long, I don't know accurately ) she worked 59 hours, so I guess around 65+ hours in total.
Even allowing for 13 weeks holiday as opposed to most other people's 4 weeks, it's a pretty poor hourly rate for a £24k salary! She has a BA, a PGCE and formal TFL qualifications.
I know several teachers doing similar hours who are permanently shattered, as is she.
|
The days of being paid to be asleep went out with red robbo and British Leyland.
|
>> The days of being paid to be asleep went out with red robbo and British
>> Leyland.
>>
>>
>>
Not entirely, anyway it's wonderful idea more satisfing than a visit to trap 2 on works time.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Mon 11 Nov 13 at 15:18
|
>> Not entirely, anyway it's wonderful idea more satisfing than a visit to trap 2 on
>> works time.
With your copy of Playboy wrapped up in "The Daily Worker"?
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 11 Nov 13 at 21:12
|
SQ
>> With your copy of Playboy wrapped up in "The Daily Worker"?
>>
Dead tree copy? These days it online via the mobile. Daily Worker, no far too highbrow for me. I don't spend that much time in there, time in trap 2 is time wasted, time I should be in bed at work.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 11 Nov 13 at 21:12
|
>> more satisfing than a visit to trap 2 on works time<<
I have very fond memories of trap 2:)
Sheerness Dock, many moons ago didn't have any female toilets and I had a choice of using any one of the four men's ones.
Trap 2 always had the best graffiti and I learned so much while I lingered in there!
Sorry, lorry driver hat off and respectable member of this forum hat back on....
I like me much better as me though.
Pat
|
|
Are your wife's working conditions covered by the health service's Agenda for Change pay changes? If so I would have thought that she should be paid a minimal amount per hour for being on-call and then at least her hourly rate when she was asked to attend a patient.
|
The "living" wage, surely should be same as the "minimum wage".
Are the Government saying that the minimum wage is not enough to live on?
|
>> The "living" wage, surely should be same as the "minimum wage".
>> Are the Government saying that the minimum wage is not enough to live on?
The minimum wage is set by law and revised every year. In the years since Labour introduced it it's failed to keep pace with the real cost of living - particularly food and fuel.
The so called 'living wage' is an academic project, not sponsored by Government. It is sets out to define the minimum hourly wage required to sustain what it's inventors call a reasonable standard of living. There is a definition somewhere but IIRC it includes things like more than one pair of shoes, a decent overcoat and a short holiday.
|
.....and yet a certain politician is saying that taxpayers money should be used to bribe employers into paying the living wage, rather than the minimum wage.
Hardly just academic!
|
>> .....and yet a certain politician is saying that taxpayers money should be used to bribe
>> employers into paying the living wage, rather than the minimum wage.
>> Hardly just academic!
If people are on minimum wage then liklihood is that taxpayer is subbing them by way of Tax Credits, Housing Benefit etc.
The living wage, determined by a team of academics, is a decency threshold and if employers can be cajoled or incentivised into paying it then not sure how that is bad.
|
If it is good, (which it is) then the minimum wage should at least equal the living wage.
I do not see why taxpayers money should go to employers rather than the same money being available directly to those who need it.
If the minimum wage is not a living wage, it is not fit for purpose, surely?
|
>> If it is good, (which it is) then the minimum wage should at least equal
>> the living wage.
>> I do not see why taxpayers money should go to employers rather than the same
>> money being available directly to those who need it.
>> If the minimum wage is not a living wage, it is not fit for purpose,
>> surely?
>>
I'd agree with final sentiment. Labour did not do as much as they should to maintain or boost the min wage. The Tory dominated coalition is even less inclined to do so.
I'm not sure I can see much of an issue either way with a subvention to the employer v one paid to the employee. I suspect the paperwork for the former would be simpler and it might work better for those with a portfolio of part time work.
|
It should be obvious that a minimum wage is a tricky compromise.
There are presumably people who would work for £3 an hour - it's not a living wage, but not everybody needs one. And potentially there are businesses that would be viable paying that, but not the minimum wage of £6.31 per hour.
Every increase in the minimum wage stresses business that are marginal and struggling, and results in some job losses.
On the other hand, too low a minimum wage means greater surpluses accrue to capital, and sellers of labour (most folk) are made poorer.
If it was as simple as shoving the minimum wage up to the living wage it would surely have been done by now. The government has even mooted that the minimum wage should be frozen or cut if it threatened damage to jobs or the economy.
A complicating factor is that the living wage is going to be quite different regionally. There's a London/non-London one, but the cost of living in Cambridge must be very different to that in South Wales. The government has already realised that regional public sector pay isn't that simple either.
|
|
The trouble is Roger people are their own worst enemies when we are talking about a minimum wage.Some will say they can live on 50 pound a week by picking food out the dustbins..:) Agree about employers if you can't pay a living wage don't run a business,what we having to subsidise by taxpayers money.
|
Did some Googling on this for you and found the below.
www.freelanceadvisor.co.uk/go-freelance-guide/care-workers-what-are-your-rights-at-work/
There is an important message in here that case-law is changing all the time and you need up-to-date advice.
ACAS....
|
Thank you for all your replies. I very much apologise for not replying sooner but I have much to deal with at the moment. My dad passed away seven weeks ago and, while I don't want to use that as an excuse for ignorance I hope you will forgive me for not being around for a bit.
I shall pass on your replies to my beloved, and I thank you all for taking the time to contribute.
Ta muchly.
|
Mrs B works as an agency nurse and is sometimes required to work a similar pattern to the one you describe - arrive in the evening, paid hourly rate til say 11, then a flat fee for the sleep in element followed by hourly rate again for the first couple of hours in the morning before she knocks off. Hourly rate also applies if she is called upon during the night.
This usually applies in care homes where they are trying to reduce the overall wage bill, although her field of work is mental health so may not be directly the same.
|
Employment Law Question - Bromptonaut
