Minimum wage violation?

arbroath_lass

marybelle01 wrote: »

And seek as a may I cannot find the bit in the marriage ceremony that says it is a husbands job to look out for his wife. that sounds a rather antiquated notion - what do you think the wifes job is?

Not sure why you'd think that is antiquated. The wife's "job" as you call it is to look out for her husband surely? They are a partnership and if they want to look out for each other it is entirely up to them. If your happy your husband won't stick up for you that is up to you but IME that is not normal for a marriage.

I'd be fizzing if my husband stood by while someone attempted to walk all over me and vice versa.

lesstoinvest

marybelle01 wrote: »

I am neither, thank you for enquiring. But I no more interfere with my husbands business than he interferes with mine. We are both adults and quite capable of sorting out our own employment issues. Nor do we interfere with our (adult) childrens business. A partnership does not mean joined at the hip and unable to sort out our own affairs.

Some people are capable of sorting out their own employment issues, others are not.

Unless you believe that everyone in this country knows their rights and that nobody gets taken advantage of, paid less than minimum wage, etc???

marybelle01

I repeat again for all those who have not read what I said - which appears to me mostly everyone. The OP does not know that the NMW regulations have been or will be broken. He is assuming it based on a piece of paper which may or may not be correct, and everybody else is guessing at what the piece of paper means. On this basis he is saying that he doesn't know who is to blame for a breach he doesn't know has occured, and "protecting" his wife from these dastardly employers although he hasn't a shred of evidence that they are doing anything wrong here! I cannot fathom that it is beyond the wit of his wife to ask the employer or the agency the question, rather than have him thumping his chest on a public website about something he does not know to be true.

liney

lesstoinvest wrote: »

Basically £13,000/260 = £50 per day.

NMW is £6.08, so £50/6.08 = 8 hrs 13 minutes. Anything less than a 50 minute break, and it's illegal.

IME when she's done work before, they've had a 30 minute break.

1 hr would be quite a long break

I'm not sure if it's the agency or the hotel to blame tbh, all recruitment agents are scum IME.

A company doesn't have to pay for any breaks, so they may give her 30 mins lunch and a couple of 15 min tea breaks and deduct an hour.

She simply needs to ask how many hours she is actually going to be working, which will clear up the issue entirely.

lesstoinvest

marybelle01 wrote: »

I repeat again for all those who have not read what I said - which appears to me mostly everyone. The OP does not know that the NMW regulations have been or will be broken. He is assuming it based on a piece of paper which may or may not be correct, and everybody else is guessing at what the piece of paper means. On this basis he is saying that he doesn't know who is to blame for a breach he doesn't know has occured, and "protecting" his wife from these dastardly employers although he hasn't a shred of evidence that they are doing anything wrong here! I cannot fathom that it is beyond the wit of his wife to ask the employer or the agency the question, rather than have him thumping his chest on a public website about something he does not know to be true.

Do you normally spout such nonsense?

An anonymous poster posts a question, without taking any other action, in respect of an unidentified employer and an unnamed agency, and you respond with a post put "protecting" in scare quotes, even though the word "protect" only appears in your post.

Clearly £13k/45/52 is illegal, but I don't really have any experience with low-paid work, and some of the more helpful posters (i.e. not you!) have pointed out that breaks need not be paid, and that this 45 hours might include those breaks.

So either the hours are actually 41 or fewer, or they are breaking the law, but either way we will find out more soon enough. She was told verbally 45 hours as well. Anyway, as helpfully pointed out, if there is a full hour break, then it's quite legal, so we shall see....

lesstoinvest

Well she went there, and they said you get paid for 40 hours but you have to work 45.

MissSarah1972

lesstoinvest wrote: »

Well she went there, and they said you get paid for 40 hours but you have to work 45.

Then that's only £5.55 an hour - where is her 20 min break then?

lesstoinvest

MissSarah1972 wrote: »

Then that's only £5.55 an hour - where is her 20 min break then?

It's 30 minutes.

getmore4less

lesstoinvest wrote: »

Well she went there, and they said you get paid for 40 hours but you have to work 45.

report them.

https://payandworkrights.direct.gov.uk/complaints/

can't find the HMRC link, it looks like they have change to the above.

Googlewhacker

getmore4less wrote: »

report them.

https://payandworkrights.direct.gov.uk/complaints/

can't find the HMRC link, it looks like they have change to the above.

£5.88 it works out if you take the 30 mins unpaid. Ultimately OP you have to either let your wife just accept the £5.88 until she finds another job and then report them.

Or report them but risking the chances they may dismiss her early on, ultimatley it really depends how much you and her need her to work.

PS, OP in your calculations you put £130000, if that was the case there would be no problem