PDA

View Full Version : Minimum Wage question



Pegleg
12-03-16, 23:03
Odd question but I've been asked for advice and want to see if more experienced people in such matter can help.

26 Year old has been offered 15500 PA salary for a 48 hour week They get 5.6 weeks paid holidays. Bank holidays are at basic pay. There is no mention of Lunch breaks in their contract.

So the question is are they being offered minimum wage (6.71 per hour). My amateur calculation says not if:

15500 / 52 = 298.08 / week /48hrs =6.21

However, if lunch hours are discounted from the 48 hours, then 298.08 / 43 hours =6.93 which is minimum wage.

Am I correct or am I missing something?

didds
13-03-16, 02:03
My understanding (not a lawyer!) is that generally speaking lunch breaks are unpaid and a salary is a 52 week grossed amount.

The question you (or the 26 year old) needs to ask is

"Does this 48 hours include breaks or not".

If it doesn't then it does not meet NMW and you/they need to ask why. At this juncture do not expect the job offer to remain and if it does take it while looking for a more scrupulous employer that understands their responsibilities. If they are going to screw somebody over 50p an hour and the NMW then what else are they going to screw you/them over?

didds

Taff
13-03-16, 08:03
When people say "It's just 50p an hour" it sounds miserly, but it works out at 1,248 a year ... every year at least while he's there. Plus the employers Pension Contributions, plus the employers National Insurance contribution, paid paternal leave etc etc etc. For all we know the business may not even be profitable, so every pound counts.

Pegleg
13-03-16, 09:03
so what's your argument Taff? The company has a right not to abide by the law? The worker has rights too. If the company is unprofitable they are not worth working for!

Pay fair or dont pay at all. They have no right to break the law, just as you and I do not, Taff .

RobLev
13-03-16, 10:03
Generally an "X"-hour per week contract means Xhrs paid work; so the worker in the OP will be in the office for 10hrs 36mns a day for 5 days, assuming he takes an hour for lunch. He's being underpaid.

Taff
13-03-16, 10:03
so what's your argument Taff? The company has a right not to abide by the law? The worker has rights too. If the company is unprofitable they are not worth working for! Pay fair or dont pay at all. They have no right to break the law, just as you and I do not, Taff .
Nobody is suggesting that the company breaks the law. And "fair" for who anyway?

My argument is that the company may not be able to afford an extra "just 50p an hour" or 1,248 a year.

My argument is that the bosses need to keep an eye on the bigger picture. It's not "just 50 an hour". It's 50p an hour (or 1,248 a year + all the extra "social costs" the Government expects the employer to pay for) for him - assuming the company has say 5 employees, they all talk amongst each other and before you know it, the other now 4 want "just 50p an hour" so that's now 5 x 1,248 = 6,240 a year on top of what they're paying now.


... The worker has rights too.
Some would say too many "rights" ... and they keep getting more.


... If the company is unprofitable they are not worth working for!
Then advise him not to work for them. Or advise him to go self-employed ... but I won't hold my breath on that one.

I assume this job is the best your mate can get at the moment, otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question.

RobLev
13-03-16, 11:03
Nobody is suggesting that the company breaks the law. And "fair" for who anyway?

My argument is that the company may not be able to afford an extra "just 50p an hour" or 1,248 a year.

My argument is that the bosses need to keep an eye on the bigger picture. It's not "just 50 an hour". It's 50p an hour (or 1,248 a year + all the extra "social costs" the Government expects the employer to pay for) for him - assuming the company has say 5 employees, they all talk amongst each other and before you know it, the other now 4 want "just 50p an hour" so that's now 5 x 1,248 = 6,240 a year on top of what they're paying now.


Some would say too many "rights" ... and they keep getting more.


Then advise him not to work for them. Or advise him to go self-employed ... but I won't hold my breath on that one.

I assume this job is the best your mate can get at the moment, otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question.

If the business is unprofitable without subsidy from the benefit system, why should it receive that subsidy?

Taff
13-03-16, 11:03
Generally an "X"-hour per week contract means Xhrs paid work; so the worker in the OP will be in the office for 10hrs 36mns a day for 5 days, assuming he takes an hour for lunch. He's being underpaid.
Where do you get 10 hrs 36 mins from? 48 hours a week / 5 days = 9 hours 36 minutes a day. Where the 36 minutes has come from I have no idea.

Anyway, thanks to the National Living Wage (https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates) starting next month, he will be on 7.20 an hour.

Pedro
13-03-16, 11:03
Paid break entitlements are based on length of shift rather than hours worked. Legal minimums are 2x 15 mins paid breaks in an 8 hour shift, plus 30 minutes uninterrupted and unpaid break for meal. Typically these are used as 1 X 15 min break and 1 X 45 minute break of which 15 are paid.

RobLev
13-03-16, 11:03
Where do you get 10 hrs 36 mins from? 48 hours a week / 5 days = 9 hours 36 minutes a day. Where the 36 minutes has come from I have no idea.
...

"Assuming he takes an hour for lunch"; 9hrs 36mns working plus 1hr for lunch equals leaving time 10hrs 36mns after arrival.

RobLev
13-03-16, 12:03
Paid break entitlements are based on length of shift rather than hours worked. Legal minimums are 2x 15 mins paid breaks in an 8 hour shift, plus 30 minutes uninterrupted and unpaid break for meal. Typically these are used as 1 X 15 min break and 1 X 45 minute break of which 15 are paid.

That depends on a collective agreement; the WTR don't require breaks to be paid, and as enacted (I've not checked amendments) don't provide for your numbers above.

Pegleg
13-03-16, 12:03
Nobody is suggesting that the company breaks the law. And "fair" for who anyway?

My argument is that the company may not be able to afford an extra "just 50p an hour" or 1,248 a year.

My argument is that the bosses need to keep an eye on the bigger picture. It's not "just 50 an hour". It's 50p an hour (or 1,248 a year + all the extra "social costs" the Government expects the employer to pay for) for him - assuming the company has say 5 employees, they all talk amongst each other and before you know it, the other now 4 want "just 50p an hour" so that's now 5 x 1,248 = 6,240 a year on top of what they're paying now.

The law says it is fair.

Some would say too many "rights" ... and they keep getting more.


Then advise him not to work for them. Or advise him to go self-employed ... but I won't hold my breath on that one.

I assume this job is the best your mate can get at the moment, otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question.

Yes we could undo all the changes that have addressed low pay in the UK. That's a "good idea". Hmmm.

The company is very profitable.

THat is money on top of the current figure is totally irrelevant. If it is illegal they must choose:

1 Obey the law and Pay the legal figure.

2 Obey the law but don't abuse the worker. Employ him for fewer hours and pay the same amount.

3 Break the law.

Those three are simple.

Of course you have not actually addressed the question I asked. Which is a shame.

Thanks to those who did do so.

Pegleg
13-03-16, 12:03
That depends on a collective agreement; the WTR don't require breaks to be paid, and as enacted (I've not checked amendments) don't provide for your numbers above.

Indeed breaks are compulsory (depending on hours etc), but paid ones are not.

Pedro
13-03-16, 12:03
You're right, but I'm quoting from the Acas guidelines and any employer who doesn't follow them is leaving themselves open to tribunal and unfair working conditions. ACAS are probably the best place for you friend to start with advice - regardless of whether the company recognises the Union or not they will eventually be the arbitrator of any disagreements.

Taff
13-03-16, 12:03
That is money on top of the current figure is totally irrelevant. If it is illegal they must choose:
1 Obey the law and Pay the legal figure.
2 Obey the law but don't abuse the worker. Employ him for fewer hours and pay the same amount.
3 Break the law.
Those three are simple.
You keep going on about breaking the law. Nobody has suggested breaking the law and I can almost guarantee that the company won't be breaking the law, otherwise they would be facing a HMRC investigation or an Employment Tribunal PDQ. See HERE. (https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage/worker-disputes-over-minimum-wage)


... Of course you have not actually addressed the question I asked. Which is a shame.
I was the only one that pointed out that in a couple of weeks he will be on the new Living Wage of 7.20 an hour.

I just can't help wondering why the 26 yr old just doesn't ask his potential employer how the figure is arrived at. I've worked it out quickly, and assuming he / she is on the current minimum wage (Not the imminent higher Living Wage) get it to within a couple of quid of what he's been offered.

Pegleg
13-03-16, 12:03
If they don't pay minimum wage they will be breaking the law. A number of firms have recently had action begun against them for doing so. What the Mimimum will be is not the point the question was and still is is the figure offered legal or not. Others have kindly addressed the issue itself to those people I am greatful.

Thankfully I employ only myself in my business so have no concerns over emplyment regulations. I'd like to think I would respect my emloyees should I ever "grow the business".

4eyesbetter
13-03-16, 14:03
You keep going on about breaking the law. Nobody has suggested breaking the law and I can almost guarantee that the company won't be breaking the law, otherwise they would be facing a HMRC investigation or an Employment Tribunal PDQ. See HERE. (https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage/worker-disputes-over-minimum-wage)

I was the only one that pointed out that in a couple of weeks he will be on the new Living Wage of 7.20 an hour.

I just can't help wondering why the 26 yr old just doesn't ask his potential employer how the figure is arrived at.

I know people who've worked at jobs where they were certain that if if they questioned something like this they'd have been put down as a troublemaker and carefully shuffled out the door in a few months. Perhaps they're reasonably concerned that the employer will find a reason to withdraw the offer?

And it's all very well saying "well, people can go to tribunal", but even before the Government started charging people for the privilege, that's still a long and stressful process.

SimonSmith
13-03-16, 15:03
You keep going on about breaking the law. Nobody has suggested breaking the law and I can almost guarantee that the company won't be breaking the law, otherwise they would be facing a HMRC investigation or an Employment Tribunal PDQ. See HERE. (https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage/worker-disputes-over-minimum-wage)


Regardless of the technicalities - which should be laid out in his contract anyway - this has to be one of the most charmingly naive things I have read.

yes. All companies strive to avoid breaking the law. Of course they do.

Pegleg
13-03-16, 16:03
I just can't help wondering why the 26 yr old just doesn't ask his potential employer how the figure is arrived at. I've worked it out quickly, and assuming he / she is on the current minimum wage (Not the imminent higher Living Wage) get it to within a couple of quid of what he's been offered.


Are you incredibly naive or an employer "accidentally" paying below MW? Depending on the issue of Lunch hours he's up to 50p short of MW (as you say he is being offerred some 1.2K year short of the legal minimum!) Harfly "within couple of quid" after all it's the same "couple of quid" that, potentially, the emploer is wrongfully hanging on to!

Young people are keen to hang on to a job and not to rock the boat (well unless you believe the Daily Heil of course).

As I said thanks to the poster who actually offered constructive answers. With their help the young land has been helped and can deal with things from a clearer understanding of the LAW.

Mini P
11-05-16, 09:05
In response to the opening post:
It appears that the contract is 48 hours working and therefore in my view your calculation of 6.21 is correct and unlawful.

In response to Pedro:
The legal minimum in respect of breaks is not as stated (unless Wales has different laws). The law states that the minimum is uninterrupted 20 minute break if the worker is working 6 hours or more.

As you say Pedro, you are quoting guidelines and not law. The law is the Working Time Regulations 1998

I don't practise Employment Law as I'm more a Civil Litigator but I am a small business employer so if anyone requires further advice, please do not hesitate to ask

Pegleg
12-05-16, 07:05
Thank you Mini P. As I understand employment law has not been devolved so is the same in England and Wales.

L'irlandais
12-05-16, 10:05
Why so rude with Taff? Employers create jobs, what rights does that entitle them to?

Your 26 year old only has rights, if he stand up for those rights. I started work long before the 1999 law came into force, one had to accept being exploited back then. With a couple of years expierence under his belt he can ask for more than the minimum wage.

A quick google search would tell you it's not new this problem :
Government names and shames 37 National Minimum Wage offenders (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-names-and-shames-37-national-minimum-wage-offenders)

Low-skilled workers are most 'at risk of exploitation' - BBC News

Employer costs much higher in France than in the UK (https://www.towerswatson.com/en/Press/2012/08/UK-is-most-competitive-in-Western-Europe-for-employer-costs)
etc...

leaguerefaus
12-05-16, 12:05
Why so rude with Taff? Employers create jobs, what rights does that entitle them to?

Your 26 year old only has rights, if he stand up for those rights. I started work long before the 1999 law came into force, one had to accept being exploited back then. With a couple of years expierence under his belt he can ask for more than the minimum wage.

A quick google search would tell you it's not new this problem :
Government names and shames 37 National Minimum Wage offenders (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-names-and-shames-37-national-minimum-wage-offenders)

Low-skilled workers are most 'at risk of exploitation' - BBC News

Employer costs much higher in France than in the UK (https://www.towerswatson.com/en/Press/2012/08/UK-is-most-competitive-in-Western-Europe-for-employer-costs)
etc...

1. That is not how rights are meant to work.
2. The ol' "it happened to me so it should happen to them too".

L'irlandais
12-05-16, 12:05
1 is a fact of life, we do not have rights unless we exercise them. That is how such "rights" were created.
2. The exact opposite of what I am suggesting. In the early '90s if one didn't accept a low salary, somebody else would. The same applies in the current employment market. I have been to works tribunals to exercise my rights. I am surprised a 26 year old asked the question, since most young people know how to find answers on the internet themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

didds
12-05-16, 12:05
I think the real point is that no-one, no matter what age and skill level, should have to request/demand something that they should have already.

It does demonstrate that the employer concerned is at best incredibly ignorant of their responsibilities, so what else are they avoiding (H&S, insurances, correct taxation payments etc etc etc), OR they are ignoring these responsibilities deliberately - so again what else are they deliberately avoiding.?

Accepting that there may be somebody esle prepared to work for less than the legal NMW doesn;t make it correct that NMW is not being paid, and that somebody has to go and ask for it. Otherwise what is the point of having the legislation there anyway?

didds

L'irlandais
12-05-16, 13:05
Well if he raises the matter with his future employer, either the future employer can explain the situation/correct the situation or offer the job to somebody else. I am not saying it is fair or correct, but it is widespread.
The alternative is to accept the offer, sign and contract, keep your head down until the trial period is over, then take him to a work's tribunal, who will enforce the minimum wage. After which he may find himself out of a job anyway. Having had several run ins with dishonest employers, I am not convinced it's worth the effort. By all means raise the issue with them, but if they are less than honest, go work for somebody else.

the minimum wage, before the 7.20 comes into force on the 30 of September 2016.
First thing he needs to know is what are his contracted hours. If 48, then the story of lunchtime unpaid doesn't come into the equation :
6.70 x (contracted hours) = Z
Z times by 52 = (answer) per annum

didds
12-05-16, 14:05
The choice is simple

- work for somebody who through ignorance or choice breaks the law. Pray that you never get badly injured on the job because frankly what's the likelihood they have the other ducks in a row.

- raise the question. If they are ignorant you may get lucky. But lets face, I'm only being kind by suggesting this is a possibility. The reality is you will be out of a job - but you are back to the payoff for choosing to work above. Don't have an accident...

- walk away/and up out fo a job. Report them to the authorities. why do YOU want to now be a tacit partner to illegal activity? Becaue if you don't report them - that is exactly what you are.


didds

Pedro
12-05-16, 18:05
There is absolutely no need to take the job and then take them to an employment tribunal. Simply reporting the job offer, salary and contractual terms to the relevant authorities would be enough.

FWIW - almost every company On that list of those companies sanctioned for paying below minimum wage (particularly any you have heard of previously) didn't actually have illegal t&cs in their contracts- it was a combination of miscalculating (accidentally or not is for everyone to judge for themselves) overtime, holiday, gratuities, performance related various other 'additional' terms which created the issues. peraonally I think it's unethical and unfair whichever way you look at it.

Pegleg
12-05-16, 22:05
Why so rude with Taff? Employers create jobs, what rights does that entitle them to?

Your 26 year old only has rights, if he stand up for those rights. I started work long before the 1999 law came into force, one had to accept being exploited back then. With a couple of years expierence under his belt he can ask for more than the minimum wage.

A quick google search would tell you it's not new this problem :
Government names and shames 37 National Minimum Wage offenders (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-names-and-shames-37-national-minimum-wage-offenders)

Low-skilled workers are most 'at risk of exploitation' - BBC News

Employer costs much higher in France than in the UK (https://www.towerswatson.com/en/Press/2012/08/UK-is-most-competitive-in-Western-Europe-for-employer-costs)
etc...

A totally irrelevant piece of nonsense. The law is the law and applies to the employers and employees.

Pegleg
12-05-16, 22:05
1 is a fact of life, we do not have rights unless we exercise them. That is how such "rights" were created.
2. The exact opposite of what I am suggesting. In the early '90s if one didn't accept a low salary, somebody else would. The same applies in the current employment market. I have been to works tribunals to exercise my rights. I am surprised a 26 year old asked the question, since most young people know how to find answers on the internet themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps some prefer to trust people than rely on dinosaurs on the internet. Many years ago people accepted children working down mines. Your post suggests they should have been grateful for the job.

Pegleg
12-05-16, 22:05
Again, thanks to those with a bit of actualy knowledge and less of a "bring back the workhouse" ethic about them.

Armed with the useful information the problem looks like beign resolved. The lad is happy and some players now see that refs and players work together at times. I always thought the rugby community looked after its own. Perhas not among some.

Shelflife
13-05-16, 10:05
The law is the law and applies to the employers and employees.

I would have thought that such innocence wouldnt be seen by an experienced ref !

The in Ireland anyway is totally on the side of the employee, I agree that the laws should be obeyed but to me its a one way street when it comes to enforcement of labour laws

If I manage to sack an employee (the rings you have to jump through to do that without being sued are numerous) they are entitled to their notice period being paid. If they decide to resign and leave up up the creek technically you can pursue them but if you were to contact the enforcement agency the will tell you to forget it.

Im expected to pay full whack for the hours they are on the premises ,but if they skive off during the day we cant deduct their wages.

If they ring in sick when they are not, thats a breach of contract but nothing can be done unless definitive proof is secured.

If you have an employee pregnant they are entitled to holiday pay while on maternity leave (2 weeks) paid days off for scans appointments etc and can pull the pregnancy card anytime they want when you ask them to do their job that you are paying them full price for. A pregnancy will cost up to 2000 to a small business in paid time off etc when it has nothing to do with us. we have to keep their job open and they dont have to tell us if they are coming back or not until the last minute leaving you up the creek again.

I know of one instance where an employee was caught stealing, admitted it to the owner ,was sacked on the spot and ended winning an unfair dismissal case for 30k because the owner didnt follow procedure



Basically if we break the rules we get the full force of the relevant authorities down on us, if the employees screw us over its a cost of business

So please dont come out with infantile comments that the law applies to both employees and employers.

crossref
13-05-16, 10:05
Again, thanks to those with a bit of actualy knowledge and less of a "bring back the workhouse" ethic about them.

Armed with the useful information the problem looks like beign resolved. The lad is happy and some players now see that refs and players work together at times. I always thought the rugby community looked after its own. Perhas not among some.

So how was it resolved ? Was it, in fact a wicked rapacious employer, or was it rather a confusion over whether lunch breaks are paid or not ?

Pegleg
13-05-16, 12:05
I understand it was explained as a calculation issue / error (not sure I believe that bit as they are a pretty smart outfit). None the less the lad has accepted the situation. He's got a job thats not zero hours. The first he's secured in a while. He gets to stay in the area with his mates and play rugby - he will never make it big time but he'll enjoy the sport.

He's been a bit of a lad on the park up until now who knows now I, with some folks help on here, have helped him he may respect us refs even a little more.

Yes individuals may or may not feel that the law is too far one way or another, BUT the law is the law and that's it for me.

Pegleg
13-05-16, 12:05
I would have thought that such innocence wouldnt be seen by an experienced ref !

The in Ireland anyway is totally on the side of the employee, I agree that the laws should be obeyed but to me its a one way street when it comes to enforcement of labour laws

If I manage to sack an employee (the rings you have to jump through to do that without being sued are numerous) they are entitled to their notice period being paid. If they decide to resign and leave up up the creek technically you can pursue them but if you were to contact the enforcement agency the will tell you to forget it.

Im expected to pay full whack for the hours they are on the premises ,but if they skive off during the day we cant deduct their wages.

If they ring in sick when they are not, thats a breach of contract but nothing can be done unless definitive proof is secured.

If you have an employee pregnant they are entitled to holiday pay while on maternity leave (2 weeks) paid days off for scans appointments etc and can pull the pregnancy card anytime they want when you ask them to do their job that you are paying them full price for. A pregnancy will cost up to €2000 to a small business in paid time off etc when it has nothing to do with us. we have to keep their job open and they dont have to tell us if they are coming back or not until the last minute leaving you up the creek again.

I know of one instance where an employee was caught stealing, admitted it to the owner ,was sacked on the spot and ended winning an unfair dismissal case for €30k because the owner didnt follow procedure



Basically if we break the rules we get the full force of the relevant authorities down on us, if the employees screw us over its a cost of business

So please dont come out with infantile comments that the law applies to both employees and employers.

Well of course procedures should be followed and proper proof should be obtained. It really is not rocket science. When I worked in HR (many moons ago) we followed the rules carefully. I understand things are different now.

4eyesbetter
13-05-16, 13:05
Basically if we break the rules we get the full force of the relevant authorities down on us


There is a very, very, very important qualifier that needs to be added onto the end of this.

If the relevant authorities know about the case; and if the relevant authorities are inclined to take the person or people bringing it seriously; and if they have the time and resources to do so; and if the person who brings it has the time and resources to do so.

Neither of these four things are a given. The people I knew who were in insecure situations would almost certainly have had their hypothetical cases fall at one of those hurdles. If simply enshrining protections in law meant that they were automatically and competently enforced in every case, then we'd be living in Utopia right now and I wouldn't be making this forum post because I'd have no work to avoid.

Pedro
13-05-16, 13:05
To Shelflifes point, this is exactly why a charge was brought in for an employee taking a company to tribunal. Historically this was easy, and many companies would decide to settle with the colleague in order to avoid rather large legal bills for defending themselves in a tribunal. This led to some fairly one sided cases and settlements.

I'm not sure about the Irish Law, but in the UK there is one very important clarification that we need to remember with regards to Employment Law:

In a criminal Case or Court of law, guilt is expected to be proved "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". In employment law the only requirement is to demonstrate "reasonable belief".
It removes a huge burden from Employers - but obviously needs to be treated wisely, or the employer may find themselves facing an unfair dismissal case.

RobLev
14-05-16, 05:05
To Shelflifes point, this is exactly why a charge was brought in for an employee taking a company to tribunal. Historically this was easy, and many companies would decide to settle with the colleague in order to avoid rather large legal bills for defending themselves in a tribunal. This led to some fairly one sided cases and settlements.

It's not quite as simple as that. IT (now ET) - indeed all tribunal - procedures were originally designed to be operable without lawyers. In particular, cost-shifting is a rarity. Nevertheless employers lawyered-up using in-house or external lawyers; employees followed suit (but still more employers than employees are represented by lawyers).

It could therefore be argued that employers bring those costs on themselves...

The effect of the extraordinary fees (1,200 to go to trial) now charged by the ET has been that applications have fallen off a cliff; unless employers changed their behaviour dramatically in the period just prior to introduction of the fees, many employees with justifable claims have been prevented from bringing claims because of the cost and uncertainty.


I'm not sure about the Irish Law, but in the UK there is one very important clarification that we need to remember with regards to Employment Law:

In a criminal Case or Court of law, guilt is expected to be proved "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". In employment law the only requirement is to demonstrate "reasonable belief".
It removes a huge burden from Employers - but obviously needs to be treated wisely, or the employer may find themselves facing an unfair dismissal case.

To explain further; if as an employer you reasonably believe your employee to have stolen from you after a reasonable investigation, and sacked him on that account, you will not have dismissed him unfairly. Even if he didn't in fact steal from you.

RobLev
14-05-16, 10:05
I would have thought that such innocence wouldnt be seen by an experienced ref !

The in Ireland anyway is totally on the side of the employee, I agree that the laws should be obeyed but to me its a one way street when it comes to enforcement of labour laws

If I manage to sack an employee (the rings you have to jump through to do that without being sued are numerous) they are entitled to their notice period being paid.

Other than where stated, I refer to current English law - which may differ from Irish law.

If the employer sacks for gross misconduct, then no notice is required. If not - why should you not pay them for the notice period. If they don't working during that period because employer don't want them in the office/warehouse/factory/etc, that's employer's choice. If they decide not to come in for that period - then they won't get paid for it.


If they decide to resign and leave up up the creek technically you can pursue them but if you were to contact the enforcement agency the will tell you to forget it.

Im expected to pay full whack for the hours they are on the premises ,but if they skive off during the day we cant deduct their wages.

But you can sack them...


If they ring in sick when they are not, thats a breach of contract but nothing can be done unless definitive proof is secured.

No; employer needs only conduct a reasonable investigation and take a reasonable view and action on the outcome of that investigation. ET however won't re-run investigation.


If you have an employee pregnant they are entitled to holiday pay while on maternity leave (2 weeks)

I think you mean 26 weeks. And what is the objection to paying holiday pay to someone who remains an employee?


paid days off for scans appointments etc

Again, what is the objection?


and can pull the pregnancy card anytime they want when you ask them to do their job that you are paying them full price for.

Do you advocate, for example, requiring a pregnant warehouseman to continue manually to pick and load for dispatch until they go on maternity leave?


A pregnancy will cost up to 2000 to a small business in paid time off etc when it has nothing to do with us.

The pregnant employee is the employer's employee - of course it has something to do with the employer.


we have to keep their job open and they dont have to tell us if they are coming back or not until the last minute leaving you up the creek again.

In England it is permissible to employ maternity cover on a temporary contract with a flexible end-date.


I know of one instance where an employee was caught stealing, admitted it to the owner ,was sacked on the spot and ended winning an unfair dismissal case for 30k because the owner didnt follow procedure

I'd guess that either the tribunal didn't believe the owner that the employee had admitted it, or the tribunal got it wrong. Any failure to follow procedure would have to be particularly egregious to justify a finding of unfair dismissal in those circumstances.


Basically if we break the rules we get the full force of the relevant authorities down on us, if the employees screw us over its a cost of business

So please dont come out with infantile comments that the law applies to both employees and employers.

Hmmm.

Shelflife
14-05-16, 11:05
Roblev I am referring to Irish employment law, as a small businessman with 12 employees I speak from experience in these cases.

In the case of a sacking, best practice over here is to pay notice.

Trying to sack a malingerer who is there over 12mths is a long drawn out process, you must retrain,retrain ,warn,warn sack this can take up to 18mths.

Employment appeals tribunals over here take the view that employers are wrong unless proven otherwise.

In Ireland over the 26 weeks maternity leave they build up 2 weeks holidays. Having children is a lifestyle choice in most cases, why should I pay someone holiday pay when they are not working ? why should I pay for it ? if someone takes a day off to get a big tattoo should I pay for them to be off ?

As a self employed person my wife got no paid leave, no maternity pay at all and no paid days off for scans etc

Why should someones choice to have a child be subsidised by their employer ? Yes they are still on the books but they are not working!

We can employ maternity cover over here too, my point was they dont have to tell you they are not coming back until they are due to come back , thus leaving you in the lurch again, politely inquiring as to their intentions can be seen as harassment.Im not talking about heavy lifting or clearly unsafe practises, im talking about simply taking the piss and pulling the pregnancy card because it suits them.

In the sacking case you would guess wrong ! Truck driver was seen filling his truck and his wifes car at then filling station and charging it to the companies card. Admitted it when questioned and begged for forgiveness, offered to pay back, had been going on for a while when they checked the figures. Owner sacked him on the spot.

At the EAT drivers english suddenly was so poor that he needed a translator, said he didnt realise what was happening at the time, court held there was clear breach of procedure and nailed employer.

As I said earlier EAT starts with the position that the employer is wrong and then opens the case.

Roblev Im at this game for 25 years, most of my staff are with me for years so I must be treating them ok, the idea behind accommodating pregnant workers isnt a bad one, the problem arises when small businesses who are just surviving are hit with extra costs for something that is out of their control and is effectively a lifestyle choice of their employee. When you are finding it hard to pay the bills having to fork out €2k to someone whos sitting at home is a hard one to take.

Put it this way, if your co worker got pregnant, would it be fair if money was deducted from your wages to pay her holiday pay while shes off, she is your co worker after all.

The EAT over here has produced some horror stories over the years, they love their practices and procedures, yes there are plenty od shitty employers who screw over people and ive no problem with them been nailed. Id just like to like to see a two way far system.

Pegleg
14-05-16, 14:05
...Id just like to like to see a two way far system.

No problem with a fair system But L'ielandais was apperaering to suggerst return to the days of put up and shut up. The two are poles apart. Ifthe Law demand a minimum wage and employer failing to deilver it needs to be shamed. Simple as that.

L'irlandais
14-05-16, 16:05
Unsurprisingly you have not taken the time to read my posts properly. At no point did I suggest the 26 year old "put up and shut up. That notion came from both yourself and Roblev misinterpretation of my comments. I pointed out (similarilay to Shelflife) that the law today protects employees. We also have many young players at the club struggling to get full time contracts at work. The message to them and your 26 year old is to stand up for themselves. Part of doing so is being man enough to find out information from themselves. You mentioned internet dinosaurs, more chance of finding them on RRF than on Government information websites, on working law and citizen rights, such websites are updated regularly.

When you post in a public forum like this, please refrain from being rude to members who don't share your point of view. Thanks!

L'irlandais
14-05-16, 16:05
A totally irrelevant piece of nonsense. The law is the law and applies to the employers and employees.I can only imagine you didn't bother following the links. Since they are both entirely relevant to the thread topic of minimum wage and workers rights.

Pegleg
14-05-16, 17:05
I read your comments.

RobLev
14-05-16, 19:05
Roblev I am referring to Irish employment law, as a small businessman with 12 employees I speak from experience in these cases.

In the case of a sacking, best practice over here is to pay notice.

Trying to sack a malingerer who is there over 12mths is a long drawn out process, you must retrain,retrain ,warn,warn sack this can take up to 18mths.

Employment appeals tribunals over here take the view that employers are wrong unless proven otherwise.

In Ireland over the 26 weeks maternity leave they build up 2 weeks holidays. Having children is a lifestyle choice in most cases, why should I pay someone holiday pay when they are not working ? why should I pay for it ? if someone takes a day off to get a big tattoo should I pay for them to be off ?

As a self employed person my wife got no paid leave, no maternity pay at all and no paid days off for scans etc

Why should someones choice to have a child be subsidised by their employer ? Yes they are still on the books but they are not working!

We can employ maternity cover over here too, my point was they dont have to tell you they are not coming back until they are due to come back , thus leaving you in the lurch again, politely inquiring as to their intentions can be seen as harassment.Im not talking about heavy lifting or clearly unsafe practises, im talking about simply taking the piss and pulling the pregnancy card because it suits them.

In the sacking case you would guess wrong ! Truck driver was seen filling his truck and his wifes car at then filling station and charging it to the companies card. Admitted it when questioned and begged for forgiveness, offered to pay back, had been going on for a while when they checked the figures. Owner sacked him on the spot.

At the EAT drivers english suddenly was so poor that he needed a translator, said he didnt realise what was happening at the time, court held there was clear breach of procedure and nailed employer.

As I said earlier EAT starts with the position that the employer is wrong and then opens the case.

Roblev Im at this game for 25 years, most of my staff are with me for years so I must be treating them ok, the idea behind accommodating pregnant workers isnt a bad one, the problem arises when small businesses who are just surviving are hit with extra costs for something that is out of their control and is effectively a lifestyle choice of their employee. When you are finding it hard to pay the bills having to fork out 2k to someone whos sitting at home is a hard one to take.

Put it this way, if your co worker got pregnant, would it be fair if money was deducted from your wages to pay her holiday pay while shes off, she is your co worker after all.

The EAT over here has produced some horror stories over the years, they love their practices and procedures, yes there are plenty od shitty employers who screw over people and ive no problem with them been nailed. Id just like to like to see a two way far system.

Two comments:

1. If that's the approach in Irish ETs, it's wrong; but it's not the approach taken by English ETs - not least because they have an employee rep on the tribunal.

2. It looks like I was right - the ET didn't believe the owner.

Rushforth
15-05-16, 00:05
Having children is a lifestyle choice in most cases

Erm, what? You live in Ireland, and having children is a 'lifestyle choice'?

I'm fairly sure that having children is a necessity for the continuation of the human race. That's why people have them. But in Ireland there are still as of today massive issues with birth control and the like.

I'm not going to go any further than that since you are clearly ... positioned. But I've never heard of the facts of life being described as a lifestyle choice before.

Pegleg
15-05-16, 23:05
Of course having children is a choice (on a personal level if not on the wider humanity level). We need new blood to provide taxes etc for older people to retire on. One of the problem the UK is facing is an aging population. A problem caused by lower birth rates amongst other things. Even childless cpouple benefit from new children being born. Therefore it seems right for society to help with that burden. To view it otherwise seems incredibly short-sighted to me.

Phil E
16-05-16, 08:05
if someone takes a day off to get a big tattoo should I pay for them to be off ?

What was the tattoo of?

Shelflife
16-05-16, 09:05
Erm, what? You live in Ireland, and having children is a 'lifestyle choice'?

I'm fairly sure that having children is a necessity for the continuation of the human race. That's why people have them. But in Ireland there are still as of today massive issues with birth control and the like.

I'm not going to go any further than that since you are clearly ... positioned. But I've never heard of the facts of life being described as a lifestyle choice before.

I am clearly........positioned as you put it, im an employer. Im not sure what you are on about the fact that I live in Ireland, what has that got to do with anything ? Im not sure what you are on about regarding birth control here either, birth control is freely available here.


Of course having children is a choice (on a personal level if not on the wider humanity level). We need new blood to provide taxes etc for older people to retire on. One of the problem the UK is facing is an aging population. A problem caused by lower birth rates amongst other things. Even childless cpouple benefit from new children being born. Therefore it seems right for society to help with that burden. To view it otherwise seems incredibly short-sighted to me.

I agree totally that new blood is needed in order to for the human race to continue and I agree that society as a whole should help with the burden and not leave to certain individuals.

Shelflife
16-05-16, 09:05
What was the tattoo of?

It was of you Phil, life size head shot on her back !! :biggrin:

didds
16-05-16, 10:05
As a self employed person my wife got no paid leave, no maternity pay at all and no paid days off for scans etc


isn't that a lifestyle choice also?

didds

Phil E
16-05-16, 12:05
isn't that a lifestyle choice also?

didds

Oooooh, good point, well made!

RobLev
17-05-16, 13:05
...That notion came from both yourself and Roblev misinterpretation of my comments. ...Thanks!

I don't think I actually commented on your comments.

Pegleg
17-05-16, 14:05
Unsurprisingly you have not taken the time to read my posts properly. At no point did I suggest the 26 year old "put up and shut up. That notion came from both yourself and Roblev misinterpretation of my comments. I pointed out (similarilay to Shelflife) that the law today protects employees. We also have many young players at the club struggling to get full time contracts at work. The message to them and your 26 year old is to stand up for themselves. Part of doing so is being man enough to find out information from themselves. You mentioned internet dinosaurs, more chance of finding them on RRF than on Government information websites, on working law and citizen rights, such websites are updated regularly.

When you post in a public forum like this, please refrain from being rude to members who don't share your point of view. Thanks!



Your 26 year old only has rights, if he stand up for those rights. I started work long before the 1999 law came into force, one had to accept being exploited back then. With a couple of years expierence under his belt he can ask for more than the minimum wage.

The point is he should not have to. The employer should comply with the law. your point about the bad old day when you were a lad have sod all to do with the question.

Don't you think the lad WAS standing up for himself by making enquiries? Your dismissive (RUDE )comment implies a lack of care. Sorry but perhaps if you do not wish to be interpreted incorrectly you should be clearer in your comments.

Such websites are often difficult to interpret expecially to the young. so the lad uses commin sense and seeks guidence and you dimiss him. Let's hope people are kinder to you when you need help.