Discussion
Was the salon owner good enough to pay them during the furlough period (either directly or via the CV Job Retention Scheme) for their average lost hours?
If he did, then I'd probably consider that he's tried to be a decent employer, which would go a long way in your decision to help him now.
If he didn't, then I'd probably consider him a s
t employer and he can go screw himself!
If he did, then I'd probably consider that he's tried to be a decent employer, which would go a long way in your decision to help him now.
If he didn't, then I'd probably consider him a s
t employer and he can go screw himself!mmm-five said:
Was the salon owner good enough to pay them during the furlough period (either directly or via the CV Job Retention Scheme) for their average lost hours?
If he did, then I'd probably consider that he's tried to be a decent employer, which would go a long way in your decision to help him now.
If he didn't, then I'd probably consider him a st employer and he can go screw himself!
Good point; I don't think I'd so callously offer the opportunity to screw himself - I'd go find somewhere else to work - but it would certainly have a bearing on how I saw the situation.If he did, then I'd probably consider that he's tried to be a decent employer, which would go a long way in your decision to help him now.
If he didn't, then I'd probably consider him a s
t employer and he can go screw himself!
Regarding the suggestions about the opportunity to go mobile, we actually discussed this last night & did agree it's worth looking into but I think she will only do that if she gets the boot, i.e. a worst case scenario, whereas I would be thinking of it more as a possible opportunity....but that's easy for me to say.
She's going to chat to her boss on Saturday, I think her sole aim will be about at last one day off a week. I will report back with the outcome!
Cheers,
Ben
She's going to chat to her boss on Saturday, I think her sole aim will be about at last one day off a week. I will report back with the outcome!
Cheers,
Ben
mmm-five said:
Was the salon owner good enough to pay them during the furlough period (either directly or via the CV Job Retention Scheme) for their average lost hours?
If he did, then I'd probably consider that he's tried to be a decent employer, which would go a long way in your decision to help him now.
If he didn't, then I'd probably consider him a st employer and he can go screw himself!
This part I don't understand. & neither does the missus, when we should really.If he did, then I'd probably consider that he's tried to be a decent employer, which would go a long way in your decision to help him now.
If he didn't, then I'd probably consider him a s
t employer and he can go screw himself!What I do know is she was receiving the 80% of her wage. It was going into her Bank, as opposed to the cash in hand (obviously) which was usual.
Whether it was direct or part of the scheme mentioned, I'm not sure. I'll get more detail out of her about this.
Cheers, Ben
Pegscratch said:
Good point; I don't think I'd so callously offer the opportunity to screw himself - I'd go find somewhere else to work - but it would certainly have a bearing on how I saw the situation.
Maybe a bit OTT, but I've had a family member in a similar position and was told there was no government scheme that covered her zero hour contract.Her employer is not what I'd call 'one of the good ones' though, and I'm sure he knows/knew about the scheme for zero hour workers, but just decided not to bother. Plus he's also called my relative and other colleagues in for a work shift and then told them it's no longer available when they arrive - as he claims it's "first here gets the shift" - which means you end up paying out bus fares when you've got no money from your shift.
A couple of weeks into lockdown she went and got a temporary job at a local supermarket (walking distance), and has decided she'd happily stay there if they ask, so probably not in a terrible situation.
benm3evo said:
This part I don't understand. & neither does the missus, when we should really.
What I do know is she was receiving the 80% of her wage. It was going into her Bank, as opposed to the cash in hand (obviously) which was usual.
Whether it was direct or part of the scheme mentioned, I'm not sure. I'll get more detail out of her about this.
Cheers, Ben
Won't matter if it was out of the company or the government, at least the owner has been paying something What I do know is she was receiving the 80% of her wage. It was going into her Bank, as opposed to the cash in hand (obviously) which was usual.
Whether it was direct or part of the scheme mentioned, I'm not sure. I'll get more detail out of her about this.
Cheers, Ben
mmm-five said:
Pegscratch said:
Good point; I don't think I'd so callously offer the opportunity to screw himself - I'd go find somewhere else to work - but it would certainly have a bearing on how I saw the situation.
Maybe a bit OTT, but I've had a family member in a similar position and was told there was no government scheme that covered her zero hour contract.Her employer is not what I'd call 'one of the good ones' though, and I'm sure he knows/knew about the scheme for zero hour workers, but just decided not to bother. Plus he's also called my relative and other colleagues in for a work shift and then told them it's no longer available when they arrive - as he claims it's "first here gets the shift" - which means you end up paying out bus fares when you've got no money from your shift.
A couple of weeks into lockdown she went and got a temporary job at a local supermarket (walking distance), and has decided she'd happily stay there if they ask, so probably not in a terrible situation.
ks. It's on the very first page of the gov website about furlough that it includes zero hours.Zero hours contracts are very complicated - If this family member was working regular hours over a long period of time, they probably aren't on a zero hours contract. What actually happens trumps what's on the paper.
So many employers try and have their cake and eat it - they want staff to work whenever they are asked, but to not pay them if they don't need them.
Zero hours staff are also entitled to sick pay, and also to holiday pay.
With holiday pay, they should get either paid holiday, or (about 12%) pay in lieu on top.
If they are on minimum wage then that would be a breach of minimum wage legislation too
Pegscratch said:
NGee said:
In my opinion, zero hours contracts should be made illegal. (We don't have any work for you but you can't work for anyone else.)
How were these ever allowed? It is a just a form of modern day slavery.
Have you spoken to anyone on a zero hours contract? I'm certainly not aware of any of the people on them that I know who also have clauses that say they can't work elsewhere. I think one of them is on a non-compete, but can't work for anyone else? Tosh.How were these ever allowed? It is a just a form of modern day slavery.
They, like all things, have people that abuse them; but this bizarre view that they are the devil's work when students practically live off them is quite strange.
The whole point of the zero hours contract was that they couldn't work for anyone else because they might be required to work at short notice.
Both people I knew lost a lot of money and both told their 'employer' to stuff it after a couple of weeks.
The 'can't work for anyone else' was definitely not tosh in these cases.
Different contracts probably have different terms and it may work for some people. If students can live off them, then fine. But It certainly didn't work for the people I knew.
They still remain, in my opinion, the work of the devil!!
benm3evo said:
Yes, she's paid hourly.
Perhaps we've been looking at it the wrong way & should look at the positives of the extra money & see how it stands after the 3 weeks. She is going to be bloody knackered but, in the current climate, things could be worse. I will pass on all the thoughts to her & see what she thinks. Her mindset seemed to be changing slightly after being quite put out initially!
Cheers,
Ben
So you need to support her, by providing a calm home life, healthy meals, keep the place clean, do the ironing etc. Perhaps we've been looking at it the wrong way & should look at the positives of the extra money & see how it stands after the 3 weeks. She is going to be bloody knackered but, in the current climate, things could be worse. I will pass on all the thoughts to her & see what she thinks. Her mindset seemed to be changing slightly after being quite put out initially!
Cheers,
Ben
Have a bath ready for when she walks in, clothes straight into the washing machine. ( because contaminated) and a meal at the table EVERY day.
This is you time to shine.
Plymo said:
That employer was spouting bks. It's on the very first page of the gov website about furlough that it includes zero hours.
Zero hours contracts are very complicated - If this family member was working regular hours over a long period of time, they probably aren't on a zero hours contract. What actually happens trumps what's on the paper.
So many employers try and have their cake and eat it - they want staff to work whenever they are asked, but to not pay them if they don't need them.
Zero hours staff are also entitled to sick pay, and also to holiday pay.
With holiday pay, they should get either paid holiday, or (about 12%) pay in lieu on top.
If they are on minimum wage then that would be a breach of minimum wage legislation too
We know that now, but 8-12 weeks ago we didn't.ks. It's on the very first page of the gov website about furlough that it includes zero hours.Zero hours contracts are very complicated - If this family member was working regular hours over a long period of time, they probably aren't on a zero hours contract. What actually happens trumps what's on the paper.
So many employers try and have their cake and eat it - they want staff to work whenever they are asked, but to not pay them if they don't need them.
Zero hours staff are also entitled to sick pay, and also to holiday pay.
With holiday pay, they should get either paid holiday, or (about 12%) pay in lieu on top.
If they are on minimum wage then that would be a breach of minimum wage legislation too
She didn't have regular hours or shifts. Some weeks she'd do 40 hours, some weeks 0 hours because no shifts were offered, or one's she'd turn up for were cancelled/taken by someone else.
Some times she would be on a shift one afternoon/evening and would be asked if she wanted to do another shift that evening/following day...if she accepted then that would definitely be hers (mostly).
Some times she'd turn up for the agreed shift and be told a group booking was cancelled so she wasn't needed.
Other times she'd not work at all in a week, especially if she'd turned down a few shift requests due to childcare issues - seen almost as a way of being punished by the owner or his wife.
It was probably a blessing in disguise, as she's quite happy at the supermarket, as they don't cancel shifts - even if they realise they've double-booked. She can also see the rota for the coming week where she can put her name in the hat for unallocated shifts.
NGee said:
YES
The whole point of the zero hours contract was that they couldn't work for anyone else because they might be required to work at short notice.
Both people I knew lost a lot of money and both told their 'employer' to stuff it after a couple of weeks.
The 'can't work for anyone else' was definitely not tosh in these cases.
Different contracts probably have different terms and it may work for some people. If students can live off them, then fine. But It certainly didn't work for the people I knew.
They still remain, in my opinion, the work of the devil!!
So, your argument is that two people who didn't really suit zero hour contracts, who then consciously took zero hours contracts, for an employer who by all accounts was the problem and not zero hour contracts across the board, is evidence that zero hours contracts are awful?The whole point of the zero hours contract was that they couldn't work for anyone else because they might be required to work at short notice.
Both people I knew lost a lot of money and both told their 'employer' to stuff it after a couple of weeks.
The 'can't work for anyone else' was definitely not tosh in these cases.
Different contracts probably have different terms and it may work for some people. If students can live off them, then fine. But It certainly didn't work for the people I knew.
They still remain, in my opinion, the work of the devil!!
Conversely, go stand outside a university building and ask what they think of zero hours contracts. Overwhelmingly you'll find the answer "great, if I can't do a shift they just call someone else, but I can take work that lets me pay for getting drunk and new stuff, and cars, and if I can't do it then that's not a problem either".
Your problem is the employer, potentially even the people you knew for taking contracts that didn't give them what they wanted or needed, not zero hours contracts...
Surely the basis for (most, at least) zero-hours contracts is that they are a two-way thing; the employer doesn't have to provide regular hours, and the employee works when they can?
I'd be having a closer look at her contract (she has got one, hasn't she...?) and see how it's worded. Then she can legitimately say 'No thanks'.
Certainly with people like Amazon, they are popular with students who can say "Sorry, got an exam on Thursday, can't work"
Outside of that, as has been mentioned, is the European Working Time Directive which may get in the way of his plan, but it's quite complex.
An 11-hour shift requires a 30-minute break. I do (did...) them regularly.
I'd be having a closer look at her contract (she has got one, hasn't she...?) and see how it's worded. Then she can legitimately say 'No thanks'.
Certainly with people like Amazon, they are popular with students who can say "Sorry, got an exam on Thursday, can't work"
Outside of that, as has been mentioned, is the European Working Time Directive which may get in the way of his plan, but it's quite complex.
An 11-hour shift requires a 30-minute break. I do (did...) them regularly.
littleredrooster said:
An 11-hour shift requires a 30-minute break. I do (did...) them regularly.
This was my understanding. I believe an extra hour "necessitates" a slightly longer break?Either way there's a lot of "it's illegal" (it isn't) in here. There are considerations, but nothing at face value about the request is illegal. Employment and contracts are indeed a two way street so "can we get a day off or two in there" is a reasonable ask, but if you have assurances on it being a one-time thing I'd also consider it a positive that they have paid through furlough (which of course morally they are obliged to do) and an indication of them being overall a reasonable employer, and right now they're just asking you to be a "reasonable" (probably more "exceptional", but anyway) employee.
Pit Pony said:
So you need to support her, by providing a calm home life, healthy meals, keep the place clean, do the ironing etc.
Have a bath ready for when she walks in, clothes straight into the washing machine. ( because contaminated) and a meal at the table EVERY day.
This is you time to shine.
Thank God she's not on PH to give her any ideas! She actually gets this treatment anyway, just from her Mum as she lives at home! She knows she'd suffer a dramatic drop in service if she moved in with me!Have a bath ready for when she walks in, clothes straight into the washing machine. ( because contaminated) and a meal at the table EVERY day.
This is you time to shine.
Pegscratch said:
littleredrooster said:
An 11-hour shift requires a 30-minute break. I do (did...) them regularly.
This was my understanding. I believe an extra hour "necessitates" a slightly longer break?Either way there's a lot of "it's illegal" (it isn't) in here. There are considerations, but nothing at face value about the request is illegal. Employment and contracts are indeed a two way street so "can we get a day off or two in there" is a reasonable ask, but if you have assurances on it being a one-time thing I'd also consider it a positive that they have paid through furlough (which of course morally they are obliged to do) and an indication of them being overall a reasonable employer, and right now they're just asking you to be a "reasonable" (probably more "exceptional", but anyway) employee.
I did think the 11 hour shift required more breaks but, again, happy to be told otherwise.
Yes true, some credit does need to be given for the furlough payments though so I'll make sure she recognises that.
Cheers,
Ben
Pegscratch said:
NGee said:
YES
The whole point of the zero hours contract was that they couldn't work for anyone else because they might be required to work at short notice.
Both people I knew lost a lot of money and both told their 'employer' to stuff it after a couple of weeks.
The 'can't work for anyone else' was definitely not tosh in these cases.
Different contracts probably have different terms and it may work for some people. If students can live off them, then fine. But It certainly didn't work for the people I knew.
They still remain, in my opinion, the work of the devil!!
So, your argument is that two people who didn't really suit zero hour contracts, who then consciously took zero hours contracts, for an employer who by all accounts was the problem and not zero hour contracts across the board, is evidence that zero hours contracts are awful?The whole point of the zero hours contract was that they couldn't work for anyone else because they might be required to work at short notice.
Both people I knew lost a lot of money and both told their 'employer' to stuff it after a couple of weeks.
The 'can't work for anyone else' was definitely not tosh in these cases.
Different contracts probably have different terms and it may work for some people. If students can live off them, then fine. But It certainly didn't work for the people I knew.
They still remain, in my opinion, the work of the devil!!
Conversely, go stand outside a university building and ask what they think of zero hours contracts. Overwhelmingly you'll find the answer "great, if I can't do a shift they just call someone else, but I can take work that lets me pay for getting drunk and new stuff, and cars, and if I can't do it then that's not a problem either".
Your problem is the employer, potentially even the people you knew for taking contracts that didn't give them what they wanted or needed, not zero hours contracts...
You are also right that I have limited experience of zero hours contracts, which is not 'evidence' that they are all awful.
However that does not alter the fact that in my OPINION they are the work of the devil and I hate them with a vengeance!
I'm sure you've read mmm-five's posting about another failed zero hours contract.
Everybody has their own views on life based on personal experience. I think it's called 'agreeing to differ'!
Edited by NGee on Thursday 2nd July 11:01
benm3evo said:
Without going into too much detail, a lot of which I don't know the full story anyway, the bloke does seem like a bit of a dodgy geezer.......He also still pays them in cash, which I can't work out why, but they do have a payslip with tax, national insurance details etc.
Can't help on the working hours thing, but (as an aside) might be worth asking her to check her NI contributions on HMRC website to ensure that's all correct. Paying in cash seems weird. Maybe he's laundering money from a sideline?xx99xx said:
Can't help on the working hours thing, but (as an aside) might be worth asking her to check her NI contributions on HMRC website to ensure that's all correct. Paying in cash seems weird. Maybe he's laundering money from a sideline?
Or as a hairdresser their income is mostly cash and that's convenient as it saves paying it in to pay it out...Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff