Being paid below minimum wage?

Spendless

What's the reason for travelling further? Kids that are being picked up live further away or due to roadworks/traffic congestion?

My Dad works in the same job but as the bus driver. He's had issues about this before due to roads being dug up and our local council keep changing their mind about whether the school's buses are eligible to use the bus lanes or not, when he's raised it he gets told it's just a temporary issue until the roadworks are completed.

If it's due to a child moving or joining them who lives a lot further away I'd raise the extra time with the employer.

LittleVoice

Spendless wrote: »

What's the reason for travelling further? Kids that are being picked up live further away or due to roadworks/traffic congestion?

My Dad works in the same job but as the bus driver. He's had issues about this before due to roads being dug up and our local council keep changing their mind about whether the school's buses are eligible to use the bus lanes or not, when he's raised it he gets told it's just a temporary issue until the roadworks are completed.

If it's due to a child moving or joining them who lives a lot further away I'd raise the extra time with the employer.

Is the answer to your question in the OP?
"In the past few months the children involved have changed"

tripled

daytona0 wrote: »

1. Put up with it for the sake of the Children (the person in question is presumably happy with the existing contract of 3h/day so surely it can't be a money issue?!)

So a private company are providing services, on which they are presumably profiting, while exploiting their staff. Personally I don't see that as something the OP should "put up with". If they were working for a charity perhaps your point would have merit, but they're not. The money saved by underpaying the OP is not helping needy children, it's lining someone else's pockets.

TELLIT01

Spendless wrote: »

What's the reason for travelling further? Kids that are being picked up live further away or due to roadworks/traffic congestion?

The additional travel and time is due to the children being picked up living further away. Previously all the children lived in the local area so the 3 hr contract just covered it. Now the furthest is 15 miles away and pickup is at the busiest time of day. Suggestions to use drivers and chaperones who live closer to these children fall on deaf ears.
She does enjoy the contact with the kids, although some of them can be very hard work, but she's feeling more and more that the owners are taking the ****.
In response to a previous poster who suggested giving an hour a day to charity shouldn't be a problem (I paraphrase), it might not be if the additional money was going to charity, it's not, it going directly to the owners of the company.

Spendless

LittleVoice wrote: »

Is the answer to your question in the OP?
"In the past few months the children involved have changed"

I saw the OP thank you very much. However it still doesn't answer if the further away collection point for the children is taking further because there are roadworks on it or just they live a lot further away, does it?

As I've pointed out my Dad is doing the same job just as driver and if it's due to a temporary issue, he gets told it's just one of those things.
The OP didn't have a problem answering my query below -Thanks

Spendless

TELLIT01 wrote: »

The additional travel and time is due to the children being picked up living further away. Previously all the children lived in the local area so the 3 hr contract just covered it. Now the furthest is 15 miles away and pickup is at the busiest time of day. Suggestions to use drivers and chaperones who live closer to these children fall on deaf ears.
She does enjoy the contact with the kids, although some of them can be very hard work, but she's feeling more and more that the owners are taking the ****.
In response to a previous poster who suggested giving an hour a day to charity shouldn't be a problem (I paraphrase), it might not be if the additional money was going to charity, it's not, it going directly to the owners of the company.

I was going to mention this as children from where my Dad works are put on the closest route. I didn't as I thought you might be living in a smaller area with just one bus. I'd ask for an answer on why the children aren't being picked up by the closest route. Might it be that they don't have any spaces? The longer it goes on the more difficult it will be to change as the children will be settled on 'their' bus.

missbiggles1

I think she should take it up with the council, even if they aren't employing her directly - they need to know how their contractors are abusing the system. In fact I'd go further and suggest that she joins a union like Unite, if she hasn't already.

TELLIT01

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I think she should take it up with the council, even if they aren't employing her directly - they need to know how their contractors are abusing the system. In fact I'd go further and suggest that she joins a union like Unite, if she hasn't already.

I'm not clear how union membership would make any difference to an employer who seems to have little interest in abiding by employment law anyway. I don't think one person signing up the the union would exactly have them quaking in their boots. It would just be additional money being taken from her already inadequate pay.

Savvy_Sue

tripled wrote: »

So a private company are providing services, on which they are presumably profiting, while exploiting their staff. Personally I don't see that as something the OP should "put up with". If they were working for a charity perhaps your point would have merit, but they're not. The money saved by underpaying the OP is not helping needy children, it's lining someone else's pockets.

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying: she shouldn't put up with it, but I strongly disagree with the bit I've bolded. Doesn't matter if you're working for a charity or a private company. Employers should abide by the law and pay minimum wage.

daytona0

tripled wrote: »

So a private company are providing services, on which they are presumably profiting, while exploiting their staff. Personally I don't see that as something the OP should "put up with". If they were working for a charity perhaps your point would have merit, but they're not. The money saved by underpaying the OP is not helping needy children, it's lining someone else's pockets.

Then the person in question should move on to the second point I made (the one you didn't quote)