Minimum wage - petrol - explain please?

corbyboy

The link that zaax posted above is very clear, she must get paid for the time she spends travelling between jobs, but she doesn't have to be reimbursed petrol costs.

kingfisherblue

As a care worker, she should also consider being in a union. Although it might seem an unnecessary expense, if she is ever accused of wrongdoing towards a client or in a client's home, union support could be invaluable. My daughter is a support worker (now at a fixed location, but previously in the community). She joined Unison, which has a sliding scale of payment, according to amount earned.


Another consideration is whether she is guaranteed the hours, or if it is a zero hours contract and they have said she is likely to be working 16 hours a week. If it is zero hours, there may be some weeks that there are no hours available. Many care workers are on zero hour contracts - if the client goes into hospital, a care home, or passes away, the employer doesn't need to pay the worker or find alternative work for them. They just don't offer the hours.

bylromarha

It's a care assessor role - I'm under the impression that the 16 hours in term time are guaranteed.

She's done the figures and she can see what a doozy the pay is - and then when you add in the benefits she'd be losing, it makes it even worse for her financially. She's scared though that if she gets the job, but doesn't accept, the job centre will cut her benefits anyway as she didn't accept a role she was offered. Is that really how they work these days?

She's been desperate for a job for the year I've known her, wanting to work, but minimal jobs out there for good people like her who have no-one close by who can have her kids through the school holidays for free, and can't get a job which can afford to pay the holiday club bills.

corbyboy

bylromarha wrote: »

It's a care assessor role - I'm under the impression that the 16 hours in term time are guaranteed.

She's done the figures and she can see what a doozy the pay is - and then when you add in the benefits she'd be losing, it makes it even worse for her financially. She's scared though that if she gets the job, but doesn't accept, the job centre will cut her benefits anyway as she didn't accept a role she was offered. Is that really how they work these days?

She's been desperate for a job for the year I've known her, wanting to work, but minimal jobs out there for good people like her who have no-one close by who can have her kids through the school holidays for free, and can't get a job which can afford to pay the holiday club bills.

But presumably a 16 hour minimum wage job isn't going to exclude her from all benefits, I know little about benefits but I can practically guarantee she will be entitled to working tax credits as well as some help with childcare in the holidays.

loskie

there was an mp on the radio a year or so ago "shocked" that carers were not paid for travel time. I think it was the minister for that area of work. She was quite adamant that all time (travel included) was paid for.
If benefits are stopped for not accepting a job with what may be unlawful terms then she should contact the relevant minister.
You may laugh at this but it does work. Several years ago I was on Housing benefit I moved t a cheaper rented house, it took around 3 months for payments to resume (they told me to appeal to the better nature of the landlord-!!!!!!). Local MP sorted it within 2 days.

ViolaLass

globalds wrote: »

The solution ..for the carer, is to use the time allocated to be spent with the person being visited as travel time.

So a one hour time slot for elderly Jack or Jill will be more like twenty minutes ..Poor Jack and Jill ....But you can't blame the carer for not wanting to be mugged over.

You write as if the carer has a choice - unless they are to mess people around by turning up later and later throughout the day, they have to cut appointments, either at the beginning or end.

jobbingmusician

There is a LOT on the news about this (cutting appts and the like) today! It does look as if things are set to change - and not before time!

e.g. http://www.corporatewatch.org/mihomecare-mitie-minimum-wage-clipping-england

The radio report this morning also contained a report of a carer who, on finding an elderly person had fallen, was told to ring for an ambulance and leave for their next appointment, leaving the person alone on the floor with front door open so that the ambulance could gain access. _pale_

elsien

Tell her not to worry, the job centre are unlikely to check who was offered the job. I did some recruitment in my last job, and the job centre never checked who was offered/ turned up for interviews, let alone who got the job.

footyguy

elsien wrote: »

According to whom? ...

According to me.

If you were employed as a farm hand, would you expect to provide your own tractor?

If you were employed as a lorry driver, would you expect to provide your own lorry?

If you werev employed as an ambulance driver, would you expect to provide your own ambulance?

That's ignorting the issue of fuel consumed.

So why, if you are employed as a carer, do you think you should be expected to supply your own car in order to carry out your role as a carer???

footyguy

bylromarha wrote: »

No company vehicle. No one place of work. No mileage paid if she uses her own vehicle. Nothing except an expectation that she will go from house to house doing her job for £7 an hour - and pay the petrol herself from that.

If she has no single place of work, it may be each place or work is considered seperate and so considered commuting. (You don't get reimbursed for commuting). Or it may be all jouneys are considered part of the role of the employment and so chargeable to tax. Look at the HMRC site for guidance, or ask on the tax board.

Whilst employers do, on occassions, pay expenses that are not tax deductable, (and so would represent a tax liability on the employee) it is usually only tax deductable expenses that are reimbursed.

When she enquired how she was expected to travel from house to house, especially when she was not expected to incur any expense, what was she informed?

Maybe she is expected to walk? Is that reasonable in the role?

Perhaps not? turning up looking like a drowned rat at a clients home is probably not the best perception the employer would want to portray.

Listen ,I'm not sure if this thread is serious or not. But in any job I have ever done, where an employee plans to incur any expense, then prior approval needs to be sought, and obtained.

This has two benefits:
1. It allows the employer to remain in financial control
2. Where approved, such expenditure by the employee (assuming it is reasonable and correctly documented) would be expected to be reimbursed.

So let her take the job. Once in position, submit in advance a request to incur expenditure. If that request is denied, explain to the employer the consequences of the denial and allow the employer to decide how to proceed.