Am I being worked illegally?

[Centurion07]

Mr Will said:

If you are on a salary then it's not unpaid overtime - it's your job. If you are on a day rate or per-task rate then it's not unpaid overtime - it's your job.

If your contract says you get paid for a 40 hour week and you actually have to work 45 hours, then it's unpaid overtime. I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make?

[Mr Will]

Centurion07 said:

Mr Will said:

If you are on a salary then it's not unpaid overtime - it's your job. If you are on a day rate or per-task rate then it's not unpaid overtime - it's your job.

If your contract says you get paid for a 40 hour week and you actually have to work 45 hours, then it's unpaid overtime. I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make?

My contract says that I am paid £xx,xxx per year, it says nothing about an hourly wage. I'm paid to fulfil a role, not for the number of hours I do or don't spend at my desk. That's what being a salaried employee means.

[KarlMac]

Centurion07 said:

If your contract says you get paid for a 40 hour week and you actually have to work 45 hours, then it's unpaid overtime. I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make?

Salaried contracts for management (like mine) will frequently carry a clause stating that an enployer can make reasonable requests for overtime and it will not be paid.

OP, i was in your situation when younger working for Orange. We were paid for the store opening hours, not the 30 minutes before a shift or the hour afterwards we needed to stop behind and close up/cash up.

I started leaving on time, the employer didn't overtly have an issue with it but I got all the st shifts and last pick for holidays and stuff, all the petty things powerless managers like to retain control over.

[KFC]

There is a world of difference with a manager on £40k+ being contracted to work a few 'free' hours here and there, and an 18 year old on minimum wage being forced into illegally working extra time. Remember you can't contract out of the minimum wage... and a kid working an hour for free at the end of his shift is almost certainly earning under it.

[BJG1]

Mr Will said:

My contract says that I am paid £xx,xxx per year, it says nothing about an hourly wage. I'm paid to fulfil a role, not for the number of hours I do or don't spend at my desk. That's what being a salaried employee means.

No it isn't - you are contracted to do a job and work a certain amount of hours. If you are salaried and your contract states you work 40 hours a week, those extra 5 hours a week of work that you do are outside of contract - you might be fine with doing that for free, but it's also perfectly fair to not accept that situation.

[Mr Will]

KFC said:

There is a world of difference with a manager on £40k+ being contracted to work a few 'free' hours here and there, and an 18 year old on minimum wage being forced into illegally working extra time. Remember you can't contract out of the minimum wage... and a kid working an hour for free at the end of his shift is almost certainly earning under it.

I'd wager that the OP is also missing the give and take that comes from being a salaried employee. If I need to take a couple of hours off for a doctors appointment/school meeting/whatever then I don't get any pay or holiday docked. Equally if I have to work a few extra hours now and then it's not a problem.

If you are on an hourly wage you should be paid for the hours you work. You are quite right that it is a world away from a full-time employee, regardless of level.

[gregf40]

Breadvan72 said:

Everything is fundamentally wrong with zero hours contracts. They lack mutuality of obligation and are inherently unfair and exploitative.

What's wrong with giving someone the opportunity to work for you when you need them and paying them for it?

[anonymous-user]

What if that person is dependent on that work for their sole source of income? Placing them at the whim of the employer is a type of old school Capitalism that we had moved beyond, for a while.

[gregf40]

Breadvan72 said:

What if that person is dependent on that work for their sole source of income?

I fail to see how it is the employers problem.

[Mr Will]

gregf40 said:

Breadvan72 said:

What if that person is dependent on that work for their sole source of income?

I fail to see how it is the employers problem.

I think that the contract should reflect the typical number of hours that a person works. Using a zero hours contract for someone who usually does 35 hours per week, just so that you can tell them to sod off on a whim is unfair but equally a zero hours contract for someone who helps out occasionally on an ad-hoc basis is entirely appropriate.

It's the mis-use that is the problem, not zero-hours contracts themselves.

[KFC]

gregf40 said:

Breadvan72 said:

Everything is fundamentally wrong with zero hours contracts. They lack mutuality of obligation and are inherently unfair and exploitative.

What's wrong with giving someone the opportunity to work for you when you need them and paying them for it?

Because its incredibly one sided. Bear in mind most of these contracts demand exclusivity... so you can give me a contract and then give me 0 hours one week yet still demand I don't go work anywhere else. How can you possibly run a household around working under those conditions?

They're fine for somebodies wife with a little hobby job to keep herself busy, but hopeless for a main breadwinner.

[gregf40]

KFC said:

gregf40 said:

Breadvan72 said:

Everything is fundamentally wrong with zero hours contracts. They lack mutuality of obligation and are inherently unfair and exploitative.

What's wrong with giving someone the opportunity to work for you when you need them and paying them for it?

Because its incredibly one sided. Bear in mind most of these contracts demand exclusivity... so you can give me a contract and then give me 0 hours one week yet still demand I don't go work anywhere else. How can you possibly run a household around working under those conditions?

They're fine for somebodies wife with a little hobby job to keep herself busy, but hopeless for a main breadwinner.

Then work somewhere else. No one is forcing you to take the contract. It isn't rocket science.

It's all just part of the world we live in where everyone thinks they are owed a living.

[Centurion07]

gregf40 said:

Then work somewhere else. No one is forcing you to take the contract. It isn't rocket science.

It's all just part of the world we live in where everyone thinks they are owed a living.

Unfortunately not everyone else lives in a world where they can just pick and choose which job they take and can just swan from one to the next without a care in the world.

[gregf40]

Centurion07 said:

gregf40 said:

Then work somewhere else. No one is forcing you to take the contract. It isn't rocket science.

It's all just part of the world we live in where everyone thinks they are owed a living.

Unfortunately not everyone else lives in a world where they can just pick and choose which job they take and can just swan from one to the next without a care in the world.

I didn't realise businesses were charities there to support society?

Would you rather it be a communist state?

Edited by gregf40 on Tuesday 2nd December 19:46

[Centurion07]

gregf40 said:

I didn't realise businesses were charities there to support society?

Would you rather it be a communist state?

Edited by gregf40 on Tuesday 2nd December 19:46

They're not. By the same token they shouldn't take the piss out of their staff, which SOME companies do when using these contracts.

[Steve H]

KFC said:

Because its incredibly one sided. Bear in mind most of these contracts demand exclusivity... so you can give me a contract and then give me 0 hours one week yet still demand I don't go work anywhere else.

Genuine question here.

Aside from not being given any further hours, would an employer have any cause of action against an employee for breaching a contract term like that?

If they wouldn't be liable for any of the employers costs if they were not available then surely the employee would just look for additional work elsewhere irrespective of the exclusivity clause if they weren't being called in for enough hours?

[davepoth]

gregf40 said:

I didn't realise businesses were charities there to support society?

Would you rather it be a communist state?

Edited by gregf40 on Tuesday 2nd December 19:46

Who buys consumer goods?

[davepoth]

Mr Will said:

I think that the contract should reflect the typical number of hours that a person works. Using a zero hours contract for someone who usually does 35 hours per week, just so that you can tell them to sod off on a whim is unfair but equally a zero hours contract for someone who helps out occasionally on an ad-hoc basis is entirely appropriate.

It's the mis-use that is the problem, not zero-hours contracts themselves.

I worked with a haulage company a few years back. The owner's semi-retired uncle did a bit of van driving from time to time for them when they had an urgent small load; he wasn't up to much from day to day that he couldn't put off for a few hours, and the haulage company didn't have to have a van driver hanging around being paid all day. Worked well for both parties.

That's how zero hours contracts have to work - neither party can demand exclusivity from the other, either in terms of the employer expecting the employee to be at their beck and call, or of the employee expecting it to be their sole income.

If an employer wants an employee to be in work regularly at a fixed time, they should offer them a contract with some degree of certainty for those hours.

[KFC]

gregf40 said:

Then work somewhere else. No one is forcing you to take the contract. It isn't rocket science.

It's all just part of the world we live in where everyone thinks they are owed a living.

Spoken like a true PH powerfully built company director

Its easy to say 'work somewhere else' but not so easy to find somewhere else is it ? re people thinking they're owed a living, in a developed western country like UK i certainly don't think its too much for every fit and healthy adult who wants to work, to expect to be able to do so and actually live off the proceeds.

If 'just find another job if you don't like the terms' is fair, then how about national minimum wage ? I assume we should abolish that, and just let people find other better paid jobs if they don't like it ? How do you think that pans out for the guy working in a factory and living in a house with his wife and kid, when it comes to competing with a dozen Lithuanians and Poles living together for 6 months in a 2 bedroom house, whilst repatriating all of their pay cheques ?

The reality is these people need protecting from exploiting. Free market setting the rates and rules isn't going to cut it.

The

Steve H said:

Genuine question here.

Aside from not being given any further hours, would an employer have any cause of action against an employee for breaching a contract term like that?

If they wouldn't be liable for any of the employers costs if they were not available then surely the employee would just look for additional work elsewhere irrespective of the exclusivity clause if they weren't being called in for enough hours?

I've no idea, I'm not a lawyer. I'd assume they couldn't or wouldn't do anything about it other than give you no more hours.

From the employees point of view, if he's being given 10 hours a week but needs 15 to live on, what do you do ? you could break the terms and find another 5 hours elsewhere... but get caught and end up with less than you started with. Its a ridiculous position to put employees in. If you're not going to give them regular hours then I don't think its fair to be able to contract them into not being able to accept work elsewhere. You're basically forcing the taxpayer to pick up the tab, since you'll give them no hours, they can't work anywhere else and then its straight down the office to claim benefits surely ?

[SLCZ3]

Mr Will said:

My contract says that I am paid £xx,xxx per year, it says nothing about an hourly wage. I'm paid to fulfil a role, not for the number of hours I do or don't spend at my desk. That's what being a salaried employee means.

iirc there has to be a set number of hours in the contract, so no mention of holidays sick pay, time of start and finish per day??, we are party to the European working time directive are we not.