Hours cut now theyr'e taking on staff??

MandyLou66

Hi to all on this forum!
I work in a small privately owned Hotel.
Two weeks before Xmas we all got the following letter (will have to type cos I don't have a scanner)

Dear Mandy
By now you will be aware of the future facing all businesses and that The ..... Hotel is no exception. There is no expert predicting the future but it is felt that matters are unlikely to improve for some time.
You will have observed that part timers have had their hours cut and leavers are not being replaced. As has been discussed (I was not party to these discussions), salaried staff will need to be part of the survival effort. I am deeply aware that after all the discussions you will want to know what has been decided.
It is with deep regret that all salaried staff will have to work a 4 day week or agree to a 20% reduction in salary from January 1st 2009 ( this will equate to 17.5% cut in net pay.)

Why the either/or?

a) Some staff will be under minimum salary if they take a 20% cut and this would be illegal.

b) the Hotel Contract has provision that the hotel can insist on a cut in the working week.

c) By law a cut in salary (ie rate of pay) must be agreed by the employee.

How Long will it last?

a) until revenues return to sustainable levels, therefore I have no idea.

b) until staff level reduction through wastage results in the desired cut in payroll and/or the needs of the operation dictate.

There is then stuff about what we can do ie get new jobs, hang tight until things improve or get second job. Then how sorry he is but 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing!

It was a bit of a blow but most of us decided on the 4 day week, however hotel work is 24/7 and now the shifts can not all be covered so they are looking to take on a new person to cover breakfast shifts. This person will be part time minimun wage so obviously cheaper than giving us salaried staff back our shifts.

Can they do this?

MandyLou66

Anyone know if this is legal?

Confusedconsumer_2

Go to your local Citizens Advice Bureau, google to find it or look in your telephone book, where you will get confidential advice.

Alternatively, you may have access to legal help with one of your insurance companies, house or car, or with a credit card company. It's worth finding out. If you do have access to legal help, ask the company for a local employment specialist.

Good Luck.

ceridwen

The other point here of the employer stating that you can choose between either a paycut (per hour) or getting cut back to a 4 day workweek is that many poorly-paid childless people might choose to take a paycut per hour rather than having the workweek cut back to 4 days. "Result" as far as management is concerned - as it would mean they would get the same number of hours from those people - but for less money. No wonder they gave you all the choice.....

Reason: in my own job, for instance, a reduction in hours to a 4 day workweek would mean I would be working less than 30 hours per week. As a childless person I have to work at least 30 hours - otherwise I wouldnt be eligible to get any Working Tax Credit I was due according to the wage level I was on. Whereas - people with children are only required to work 16 hours per week to be eligible for WTC. So - I imagine its the case that some childless people might have elected to have an hourly paycut instead of reducing their workweek - specifically in order to be able to claim WTC to make up a bit of their loss in salary.

(Hmmm.....thinks.....the Government will know this fact and that many poorly-paid childless people will, as a result, be refusing to have their workweeks cut to less than that 30 hour figure. I can feel a change in regulations coming on - so that childless people dont have to work longer hours than those with children - thus putting us in a position as well where we could accept a shorter workweek if we choose to, rather than being made redundant.) I definitely suspect the Government of having given a "nod and a wink" to employers that they would prefer them to cut workweeks, rather than make people redundant if possible - as people dont show up as a dole queue statistic unless they have lost ALL of their job. Someone who has lost PART of their job wont count as an extra figure to add to the (current) 2 million odd "tally". It would be interesting to know just how many "part" jobs have been lost -thinks: 5 people having their workweek cut to 3 days for instance would mean that 2 "jobs" had been lost across the economy.

ceridwen

A further thought here - bearing in mind the WTC hours regulations - it may be that management anticipate that some part-time people with children might wish to take that breakfast shift work - in order to ensure that they work at least 16 hours per week.

Its a common bit of abuse of the System for part-timers with children to ask for just 1 or 2 more hours to bring them up to that 16 hours per week. I am aware of some part-time jobs near here that are 15 hours per week - some of the people in those jobs have children and, as a consequence, have asked for (and been given) just 1 more hour per week: ie taking them from 15 hours per week to the qualifying 16 hours per week. So - that extra 1 hour per week means they will receive: 1 hour extra wages AND however much money they can get awarded in WTC!!! (ie an extremely good hourly rate of pay for that 16th hour).

SomeBozo

Mandy

Is the new job being advertised the same job title as yours? ie does it do the same tasks as you?

It sounds like its a different role to me?

Bozo

SomeBozo

ceridwen

You are again going off topic with rantings and ramblings about the government and tax credits (none of which are mentioned in the original post).

Please take your comments to the discussion area.

Thanks
Bozo

MandyLou66

Hi all .Thanx for your comments.

I think I will make an appointment with the CAB, confusedconsumer and show them the letter we all had to sign.
No somebozo , the new job is a part time position but I do actually do the job within my fulltime hours. I just think they could have offered us the chance to make back some of our lost hours. ML

exil

If we all worked slightly less hours and had our pay reduced pro-rata unemployment could be reduced to virtually zero. Would we be willing to do this - if we knew it wasn't permanent?