Can Social Services legally pay less than minimum wage

whitewing

I do understand your point, but I also don't agree with it. Funding is a limited pot. It is a crucially, crucially important role and if by paying this lower 'on call' charge enables more people to be available to assist then I would rather that happen.

I assume that every minute is vital to a person trying to escape DV, and they need to be sure that help is ready and willing and potentially nearby. There was a recent thread where a MSE user have to just get out of the house straight away with her 3 year old, as her partner had gone out taking her mobile with him (she has been beaten previously). We don't even know what happened to her but saw the amount of courage it took to walk out of the door. I only hope that someone (or more than one as it sounds like there are handovers to ensure safety) was there quickly before she could bottle it.

Blackpool_Saver

Flaming heck, you want jam on it, volunteers at womens aid do that job for free

dmg24

nametaken wrote: »

Oh, I see, well I'm obviously in the minority then.

Can't believe anyone would agree to do it though. Obviously they do.

I won't.

If this is your attitude, this is not the role for you. It is the kind of role that needs a much greater motivation that how much you'll be earning.

patanne

At least these days there are mobile phones so you don't have to stay by the phone all nine hours. My ex husband used to go on call for less than you for the whole weekend 5pm Friday to 9am Monday and one of us had to stay at home to listen for the phone - we just made sure that my in laws came to us for dinner that Sunday & not us to them and were grateful for money for pretty much nothing. Apart of course from the fact that the call outs were usually between 2 & 6 early Sunday morning!

Oldernotwiser

nametaken wrote: »

Oh, I see, well I'm obviously in the minority then.

Can't believe anyone would agree to do it though. Obviously they do.

I won't.

Probably just as well that you won't be doing a caring job like this then!

Oldernotwiser

dmg24 wrote: »

If this is your attitude, this is not the role for you. It is the kind of role that needs a much greater motivation that how much you'll be earning.

Snap......

Blackpool_Saver

dmg24 wrote: »

If this is your attitude, this is not the role for you. It is the kind of role that needs a much greater motivation that how much you'll be earning.

I'll say, when I think of all the unpaid hours of work my friends and I did at women's aid, it makes me seethe.

OP this type of work is not for clock watchers, it is driven by what is inside of you.

patanne

I'm with Whitewing & DMG on this. Unless it gives you child care problems of your own and this is why you object, it doesn't sound like a role you are cut out for

whitewing

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Probably just as well that you won't be doing a caring job like this then!

I think I have turned into Mother Teresa today with my posts!

Although I agree that the OP's posts read initially that it is not the role for her, I don't necessarily think that may be the case, and the interview would certainly sort that out anyway.

If the poster is anything like me, she may not have been taught to handle money and may be picking this up as she goes along. For me, finance takes such massive concentration to overcome my embarrassment at my incompetence and my past history that everything else - like reason - flies out of the window.

All OP needs to do is to reflect on the feedback she is given, and take it to interview stage if she gets asked. The decision can be made after that. It doesn't mean that she can't do the job well and effectively (although it would if she accepted the job without adjusting the attitude).

wuckfit

nametaken wrote: »

Oh, I see, well I'm obviously in the minority then.

Can't believe anyone would agree to do it though. Obviously they do.

I won't.

I suspect you're never going to accept that this is standard practice. The fact is that you're not actually working, but available to work. It's a heck of a lot better than being on a variable part time rota where you don't know when you'll be working from one week to the next.

I went for a job that had an on call element, which was in addition to the normal hours at 2.20/hr regardless of whether I was called out or not. the only stipulation was that you had to be contactable by mobile during that time. However if a call came in, pay at generous overtime rates applied. I was quite gutted I didn't get it.

I'll leave you with the chorus of a song by the late Glasgow comic Matt McGinn:
"I'm looking for a job with a sky-high pay
A four day week and a two hour day
It's maybe just because I'm inclined that way
but I never did like being idle"