Pro Rata Question

liney

nzmegs wrote: »

Yeah - check that out. 20K pro rata works out as much more than 10K per year based on 25 hours a week.
My pro rata is 14,000 and I am on just over 10K a year on 25 hours a week.

o they mean a flat salary of 10K perhaps. Either way - if you are happy then well done!

Pro rata, is in relation to the full time hours of the job. If the full time hours are 50 (which they are) then if you work 25 hours then you would earn half of the year salary, which she is. ie 20k for 50 hours, and 10k for 25 hours.

If you get just over 10k for 25 hours based on 14k pro rata, then your company works on a basis of 35 hours for the post full time.

Reds-on-Sea

LittleVoice wrote: »

Thanks for letting us know.

(But, wow, a full-time person is expected to work 50 hours a week! I had reckoned you would get over £10K when it was £17K for 40 hours full-time)

The fact that it's reception probably means that a full time person works 45hrs a week (9hrs + 1hr lunch each day) the 2 job sharers probably cover this between them so there's no stop for lunch.

LittleVoice

Reds-on-Sea wrote: »

The fact that it's reception probably means that a full time person works 45hrs a week (9hrs + 1hr lunch each day) the 2 job sharers probably cover this between them so there's no stop for lunch.

When people quote "pro rata" they always, in my experience, mean that it relates to the number of hours that someone working for the organisation full-time would be working - not related to the specific job but to all roles in their full-time form.

The job can't be a receptionist working 50 hours a week with no break which is what this idea of pro rata would imply.

If they are really saying it is £10K for 25 hours pro rata, then I would have expected the full-time rate to be £15K (if the normal full-time employee were working 37.5 hours/week).

Perhaps it was the employer not understanding what pro rata means or wanting to suggest that the person was doing a job which was more highly valued than it is.

liney

Or perhaps they pay for breaks, making it 50 hours paid weekly.

Debt_Free_Chick

Given the WTD, is it actually lawful to have a full-time job that requires 50 hours a week?

juliescot

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Given the WTD, is it actually lawful to have a full-time job that requires 50 hours a week?

If the job was contracted at 50 hours per week, which included a 1 hour paid lunch break per day, for example, then there would be no breach of the working time regulations.

liney

Or even 30 mins paid each day making 47.5 hours of work.

juliescot

liney wrote: »

Or even 30 mins paid each day making 47.5 hours of work.

Indeed, my use of the hour was just to illustrate that a 50 hour week, or more potentially, would not break the regulations