Civil Service - Help Please

Money_saving_maniac

I have been offered an O band job in HMRC at reduced hours.
What I am struggling to understand is that a full time role is 42 hours per week including a paid lunch break.
I have been offered 4 days per week - 30 hours- but am not offered a paid lunch break. I can't get my head round this as everywhere else I've worked part time has treated me pro rata the same as full time employees. I honestly don't get why the civil service appear to be exempt. Or is there some weird way of evening it out that a normal person isn't going to guess?

So I'm also worried about the effect on pay. If the full time role pays 24k, are they going to work out the part time pay like this:

24000/52/42 = hourly rate of 10.98 x 30 worked hours over 4 days
which comes out as £17142
which compares to a full time worker's pay for four days of £19142 which is bumped up by the difference in paid lunch time?

how can that be fair or indeed even legal?

I'd really appreciate the input of someone who understands the way the civil service works these things out....

Genuineguy03

Can I ask why your only able to take 30hrs over 4 days. Is it just that that's what they offered you. Or is it what you asked for due to responsibilities outside of employment? Such as child care, medical reasons etc etc?

Also can you clarify the hours here. You said full time role is 42 hours, is that over 5 days or 6? Or I'm I correct that they paid 8.4 hours per day (which doesnt make sense as that be 8hrs and 20 something minutes) on 5 day week, and your paid just 7.5 hours per day on 4 day week? Or do those that do 42 hours work 6 days a week with Saturday being shorter hours. As 42/6 is 7 hours so if they worked shorter hours on saturday, for instance half day, it should work out at around 7.5 hours per day over 6 days for those on 42hrs

Yeah basically we need more clarity on the hours and days worked. So we can get our heads round it too and give you the correct answer to your question. Or our best answer at least.

nicechap

Money_saving_maniac wrote: »

I have been offered an O band job in HMRC at reduced hours.
What I am struggling to understand is that a full time role is 42 hours per week including a paid lunch break.
I have been offered 4 days per week - 30 hours- but am not offered a paid lunch break. I can't get my head round this as everywhere else I've worked part time has treated me pro rata the same as full time employees. I honestly don't get why the civil service appear to be exempt. Or is there some weird way of evening it out that a normal person isn't going to guess?

So I'm also worried about the effect on pay. If the full time role pays 24k, are they going to work out the part time pay like this:

24000/52/42 = hourly rate of 10.98 x 30 worked hours over 4 days
which comes out as £17142
which compares to a full time worker's pay for four days of £19142 which is bumped up by the difference in paid lunch time?

how can that be fair or indeed even legal?

I'd really appreciate the input of someone who understands the way the civil service works these things out....

You don't need to provide a breakdown of the hours you plan to work to satisfy someone's ego.

My first reaction is that its a !!!! up - is the offer letter silent or explicit on lunch breaks, you might be worrying over nothing at the moment. The offer letter should also include the salary, so you can do the sums then.

It can be fair and legal to pay people differently for the same role, but from what I know of the civil service and its remnants I'd expect it would pay equally to avoid any potential claims.

Your union would be a good point of call in the meantime.

Tigsteroonie

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

You said full time role is 42 hours, is that over 5 days or 6? Or I'm I correct that they paid 8.4 hours per day (which doesnt make sense as that be 8hrs and 20 something minutes) on 5 day week

I used to work a 37hr contract (so 42hrs if you included the 1hr/day lunchbreak). It was four 7.5hr days and one 7hr day, finishing 30 mins early on each Friday. If the OP is working M-T then 30 hours would be correct, excluding lunchbreak.

I must admit, I've never really thought of including lunchbreaks as paid hours; I always deduct lunch and then consider my working week to be "number of actual worked hours" long.

marlot

Money_saving_maniac wrote: »

I have been offered an O band job in HMRC at reduced hours.
What I am struggling to understand is that a full time role is 42 hours per week including a paid lunch break.
I have been offered 4 days per week - 30 hours- but am not offered a paid lunch break. I can't get my head round this as everywhere else I've worked part time has treated me pro rata the same as full time employees. I honestly don't get why the civil service appear to be exempt. Or is there some weird way of evening it out that a normal person isn't going to guess?

So I'm also worried about the effect on pay. If the full time role pays 24k, are they going to work out the part time pay like this:

24000/52/42 = hourly rate of 10.98 x 30 worked hours over 4 days
which comes out as £17142
which compares to a full time worker's pay for four days of £19142 which is bumped up by the difference in paid lunch time?

how can that be fair or indeed even legal?

I'd really appreciate the input of someone who understands the way the civil service works these things out....

I've not come across O grade before. A quick google suggests that it's an HMRC thing. 2017 figures seem to be minimum £23,836, maximum £26,810. That's probably risen a little for 2018.



Full time is 42 hours minus 5 lunches = 37 hours.

If your contract is 30 hours excluding lunches I would expect it to pay 30/37 of the full salary.

The civil service is very strong on flexible working and treating people fairly, so I'd expect any discepancy to be error rather than malice - I'd phone the HR team and ask them how its worked out.

Tom99

marlot wrote: »

If your contract is 30 hours excluding lunches I would expect it to pay 30/37 of the full salary.

Yes that is what will happen so no need to worry. I have worked 37hrs over 5 days then 30hrs over 4 days then 24hrs over 3 days. All paid as above formula.

Genuineguy03

Thanks guys for clarifying things.

As for you nicechap... "Ego"? guess you was looking to you vanity mirror when you posted that. But don't worry my dear chap, your not first person with you characteristics that I have come across on forums similar to this one, and you won't be the last. So I not the slightest bit offended, in fact, its quite amusing seeing someone drown in there own vanity. Which is probably derived from you superiority complex and unwillingness to accept that, like myself and everyone else here, your just an average joe/Jane. Such superiority complex probably stems from past or even currently present self confidence issues or or struggles to be accepted by your peers at some point in the past. I suggest you consider getting help for such issues or any similar issues. Off course I'm working on an assumption based on your responses to my posts and to other posters here on this forum, including the belittle of an op who was being harassed by staff sending/leaving pictures of animals, and you subsequently went and post pictures if animals in the thread, whilst mocking his ability as a senior manager. All whilst knowing nothing about him/her personally. Just like you know nothing about me. But now its touche time, as now your the one being belittled, mocked and laughed at, and i probably not the only one that finds this amusing at your expense. What comes around goes around. If you want respect then you treat people with respect, if not, then its open season. So good luck my dear chap, you'll need it.

Parking_Eyerate

Genuineguy03, did you previously post as ‘Beverley Hillbillies’?

Money_saving_maniac

Thank you for the helpful answers. I can't speak to anyone as there are no phone numbers given, only email, so I cant speak to HR and I cant get help from the PCS (I tried!) as I'm not yet employed so not eligible to join and they wont help at all unless you are a member.

It makes a huge difference if it is 30/37ths or 30/42nds but given the way that the government is trying to reduce the wage bill and the poor t and c for new recruits I feel the need to be certain!

I must say the Civil Service recruitment process is a nightmare ....

ReadingTim

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

Thanks guys for clarifying things.

As for you nicechap... "Ego"? guess you was looking to you vanity mirror when you posted that. But don't worry my dear chap, your not first person with you characteristics that I have come across on forums similar to this one, and you won't be the last. So I not the slightest bit offended, in fact, its quite amusing seeing someone drown in there own vanity. Which is probably derived from you superiority complex and unwillingness to accept that, like myself and everyone else here, your just an average joe/Jane. Such superiority complex probably stems from past or even currently present self confidence issues or or struggles to be accepted by your peers at some point in the past. I suggest you consider getting help for such issues or any similar issues. Off course I'm working on an assumption based on your responses to my posts and to other posters here on this forum, including the belittle of an op who was being harassed by staff sending/leaving pictures of animals, and you subsequently went and post pictures if animals in the thread, whilst mocking his ability as a senior manager. All whilst knowing nothing about him/her personally. Just like you know nothing about me. But now its touche time, as now your the one being belittled, mocked and laughed at, and i probably not the only one that finds this amusing at your expense. What comes around goes around. If you want respect then you treat people with respect, if not, then its open season. So good luck my dear chap, you'll need it.

Hate to break it to you mate, but far from being the blisteringly caustic attack it was in your mind; you've just scored a massive own goal in the "biggest fool on the thread" comp, as this misspelled masterpiece is gold dust in terms of ammunition for belittlement, mockery and laughter.

Sadly that is at at yours, rather than nicechap's expense.

marlot

Money_saving_maniac wrote: »

... given the way that the government is trying to reduce the wage bill and the poor t and c for new recruits I feel the need to be certain!

I must say the Civil Service recruitment process is a nightmare ....

I think the offer to junior civil service staff is actually pretty good - it gets less competitive at senior levels.


But I agree on the process being a nightmare.