Sleep in Allowance is so unfair!

Nebulous2

cazz2013 wrote: »

This is probably a silly question - but - if you were to only work these shifts and claim tax credits -- you would declare how many hours legitimately worked, but surely it would then raise the query of not enough pay for the hours declared, based on the NMW that tax credits work on?

People don't only do these shifts. A typical pattern I am familiar with would be a 24.5 hour shift from 2.30 pm to 3 pm the following day.

So the person would work an 8 hour shift, get paid a £32 allowance overnight for being available if needed, then work another 8 hour shift. For people commuting this meant one journey to pay for instead of two.

So it was heavy going but it meant in just over 24 hours you had been paid for two shifts plus a sleepover. This compressed pattern also gave people longer periods off.

patman99

If they had to pay nmw for sleeping shifts, then there would be no gain in switching to waking shifts instead. After all, what's to stop the worker grabbing a few hours kip during the night?. Especcially if there are 2 staff members on shift.

It is not unknown in the security business where there are 2 staff manning something like a security point for one to sleep the first 4 hours, then the second to sleep the last 4.

adouglasmhor

Nebulous2 wrote: »

This section from the Unison leaflet is relevant:- "However, some employers may not be able to afford a straight pay rise and this could lead to detrimental implications for other terms and conditions."

It looks like things have moved on since I was involved, but at that point they were confident that averaging out sleepovers and waking hours to reach at least NMW would work legally. We reduced the sleepovers that people could do to 3 a month to make sure this applied.

Funding didn't come from service users, it came from council contracts. The plan would have been to cut the hourly rate and increase the night time rate, basically using the same money but dividing it up differently. Unfortunately there wasn't any more money to pay what the unions wanted.

A waking person can clean, cook, write care plans, do laundry etc. So replacing the sleepover with a waking night made sense in respect of making sure all these tasks were done.

It has certainly moved on with person centred services, if you are not up to date with the relevant stuff, please make it clear in your posts.

Mojisola

You wouldn't expect to be paid the NMW and sleep all night, would you?

If you were going to be paid the hourly rate, you'd be expected to be up and working.

Nebulous2

adouglasmhor wrote: »

It has certainly moved on with person centred services, if you are not up to date with the relevant stuff, please make it clear in your posts.

I'm not sure that was necessary? You may not like what I'm saying, but it explains the pressures on budgets reasonably well.

I know what people are doing. I'm out of the loop with what management contingency plans are for any enforced changes due to the legal situation changing.

adouglasmhor

Mojisola wrote: »

You wouldn't expect to be paid the NMW and sleep all night, would you?

If you were going to be paid the hourly rate, you'd be expected to be up and working.

MNW is less than hourly rate, you are entitled to your sleep time by law (EWTD), if awake you are paid hourly rate, if you have to stay on call and are not allowed to leave the law says NMW is the least you can be paid, it's a little complicated. My GF worked somehwere where you had to be awake for over an hour before you got paid yoru hourly rate, the person cared for was up needing assistance several tiems each night but never for more than 30 mins.

adouglasmhor

Nebulous2 wrote: »

I'm not sure that was necessary? You may not like what I'm saying, but it explains the pressures on budgets reasonably well.

I know what people are doing. I'm out of the loop with what management contingency plans are for any enforced changes due to the legal situation changing.

Well the legal situation has already changed as to person centred funding. Service users pay from their own funding now.

Nebulous2

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Well the legal situation has already changed as to person centred funding. Service users pay from their own funding now.

Oh - that's what you meant. Actually that has had very little impact so far. Most services are still directly funded by councils. SDS only came in from April and most places have barely begun to implement it. Even then councils are putting restrictions on the hourly rate so the option to charge more just doesn't exist.

adouglasmhor

Nebulous2 wrote: »

Oh - that's what you meant. Actually that has had very little impact so far. Most services are still directly funded by councils. SDS only came in from April and most places have barely begun to implement it. Even then councils are putting restrictions on the hourly rate so the option to charge more just doesn't exist.

Several service users or their agents/advocates/families have moved to other service providers since it came in here, council has next to say in how they spend the allowance, it came in earlier here though so has had time to get rolling,

Bigbobby

Oh and it is interesting to note as well that time spent asleep is actually technically classed as "working hours". Clearly based on the number of sleeps I do on top of day shifts my employer is breaching the 48 hour rule. I have not even signed out an opt out agreement.