How should an employer be calculating uniform allowance level for NMW staff?

Naf

So we know that my wife is getting screwed over with respect to NMW, both in terms of all of those 5-10 minutes at the ends of a shift (which happens basically every day, and they refuse to write up if it's less than 15 minutes at a time; and even then sometimes not if it wasn't "authorised" - even though childcare staff can't leave until enough other adults are in the room for supervision numbers), and in terms of uniform. They provide 2 shirts per year for a FT staff member, and require them to have black trousers and shoes themselves, despite being bang on NMW. I've faced this so often, it's only been Martin's recent work that's brought it to my attention that it's not right (legally; I've always seen it as a moral outrage)

I wonder, though, what guidelines exist as to how they should be calculating how much the stuff costs, or how often it needs to be replaced? Like saying you can get a £20 pair of shoes in Asda every year is all well and good, but those realistically aren't going to last a year for a bunch of jobs, and aren't going to provide adequate support for many others. What decides what's appropriate, or are they free to basically say what they like? Two shirts seems incredibly stingy too, as its near impossible to wash and dry one every day around all of the the laundry for a family.

I was also reading that if employers want to make deductions from wages for uniform, then they can't spread the costs - their wage has to cover it over and above NMW in a single pay period; does anything similar apply for costs for uniform purchased yourself from a third party? I'm assuming this is the reason they make staff pay cash if they "choose" to have more than the two which are provided.

Marcon

Naf said:

So we know that my wife is getting screwed over with respect to NMW, both in terms of all of those 5-10 minutes at the ends of a shift (which happens basically every day, and they refuse to write up if it's less than 15 minutes at a time; and even then sometimes not if it wasn't "authorised" - even though childcare staff can't leave until enough other adults are in the room for supervision numbers), and in terms of uniform. They provide 2 shirts per year for a FT staff member, and require them to have black trousers and shoes themselves, despite being bang on NMW. I've faced this so often, it's only been Martin's recent work that's brought it to my attention that it's not right (legally; I've always seen it as a moral outrage)

I wonder, though, what guidelines exist as to how they should be calculating how much the stuff costs, or how often it needs to be replaced? Like saying you can get a £20 pair of shoes in Asda every year is all well and good, but those realistically aren't going to last a year for a bunch of jobs, and aren't going to provide adequate support for many others. What decides what's appropriate, or are they free to basically say what they like? Two shirts seems incredibly stingy too, as its near impossible to wash and dry one every day around all of the the laundry for a family.

I was also reading that if employers want to make deductions from wages for uniform, then they can't spread the costs - their wage has to cover it over and above NMW in a single pay period; does anything similar apply for costs for uniform purchased yourself from a third party? I'm assuming this is the reason they make staff pay cash if they "choose" to have more than the two which are provided.

A requirement for a member of staff to wear their own choice of black trousers and shoes seems pretty reasonable, since they are the sort of items you can buy cheaply in a range of high street stores and might well wear outside work/on other occasions. If she didn't have to wear any particular sort of uniform, your wife would still be wearing clothes (or at least I trust she would!) and you wouldn't expect the employer to pay for those.

Shirts should last more than a year, so by year two surely she'd have four? If for some reason that isn't the case, has she actually asked the employer to provide another one now?

Naf

Marcon said:

Naf said:

So we know that my wife is getting screwed over with respect to NMW, both in terms of all of those 5-10 minutes at the ends of a shift (which happens basically every day, and they refuse to write up if it's less than 15 minutes at a time; and even then sometimes not if it wasn't "authorised" - even though childcare staff can't leave until enough other adults are in the room for supervision numbers), and in terms of uniform. They provide 2 shirts per year for a FT staff member, and require them to have black trousers and shoes themselves, despite being bang on NMW. I've faced this so often, it's only been Martin's recent work that's brought it to my attention that it's not right (legally; I've always seen it as a moral outrage)

I wonder, though, what guidelines exist as to how they should be calculating how much the stuff costs, or how often it needs to be replaced? Like saying you can get a £20 pair of shoes in Asda every year is all well and good, but those realistically aren't going to last a year for a bunch of jobs, and aren't going to provide adequate support for many others. What decides what's appropriate, or are they free to basically say what they like? Two shirts seems incredibly stingy too, as its near impossible to wash and dry one every day around all of the the laundry for a family.

I was also reading that if employers want to make deductions from wages for uniform, then they can't spread the costs - their wage has to cover it over and above NMW in a single pay period; does anything similar apply for costs for uniform purchased yourself from a third party? I'm assuming this is the reason they make staff pay cash if they "choose" to have more than the two which are provided.

A requirement for a member of staff to wear their own choice of black trousers and shoes seems pretty reasonable, since they are the sort of items you can buy cheaply in a range of high street stores and might well wear outside work/on other occasions. If she didn't have to wear any particular sort of uniform, your wife would still be wearing clothes (or at least I trust she would!) and you wouldn't expect the employer to pay for those.

Shirts should last more than a year, so by year two surely she'd have four? If for some reason that isn't the case, has she actually asked the employer to provide another one now?

The NMW law requires an employer to pay for any required uniform; and specifying a particular colour falls under that.

Generally the shirts given in year one are not new, so no guarantees they will last a year. And even new ones worn 2-3 times a week in a childcare setting don't always hold up.

But what I'm asking for is if there is any official guidance, or best practise, or anything like that around how an employer should be determining how much uniform is necessary, how much it costs, and how long it would be expected to last, in order to inform their reimbursement policy.

Marcon

Naf said:

Marcon said:

Naf said:

So we know that my wife is getting screwed over with respect to NMW, both in terms of all of those 5-10 minutes at the ends of a shift (which happens basically every day, and they refuse to write up if it's less than 15 minutes at a time; and even then sometimes not if it wasn't "authorised" - even though childcare staff can't leave until enough other adults are in the room for supervision numbers), and in terms of uniform. They provide 2 shirts per year for a FT staff member, and require them to have black trousers and shoes themselves, despite being bang on NMW. I've faced this so often, it's only been Martin's recent work that's brought it to my attention that it's not right (legally; I've always seen it as a moral outrage)

I wonder, though, what guidelines exist as to how they should be calculating how much the stuff costs, or how often it needs to be replaced? Like saying you can get a £20 pair of shoes in Asda every year is all well and good, but those realistically aren't going to last a year for a bunch of jobs, and aren't going to provide adequate support for many others. What decides what's appropriate, or are they free to basically say what they like? Two shirts seems incredibly stingy too, as its near impossible to wash and dry one every day around all of the the laundry for a family.

I was also reading that if employers want to make deductions from wages for uniform, then they can't spread the costs - their wage has to cover it over and above NMW in a single pay period; does anything similar apply for costs for uniform purchased yourself from a third party? I'm assuming this is the reason they make staff pay cash if they "choose" to have more than the two which are provided.

A requirement for a member of staff to wear their own choice of black trousers and shoes seems pretty reasonable, since they are the sort of items you can buy cheaply in a range of high street stores and might well wear outside work/on other occasions. If she didn't have to wear any particular sort of uniform, your wife would still be wearing clothes (or at least I trust she would!) and you wouldn't expect the employer to pay for those.

Shirts should last more than a year, so by year two surely she'd have four? If for some reason that isn't the case, has she actually asked the employer to provide another one now?

The NMW law requires an employer to pay for any required uniform; and specifying a particular colour falls under that.

Generally the shirts given in year one are not new, so no guarantees they will last a year. And even new ones worn 2-3 times a week in a childcare setting don't always hold up.

But what I'm asking for is if there is any official guidance, or best practise, or anything like that around how an employer should be determining how much uniform is necessary, how much it costs, and how long it would be expected to last, in order to inform their reimbursement policy.

If that's the question, I'm afraid the simple answer is no.

Naf

Marcon said:

Naf said:

Marcon said:

Naf said:

So we know that my wife is getting screwed over with respect to NMW, both in terms of all of those 5-10 minutes at the ends of a shift (which happens basically every day, and they refuse to write up if it's less than 15 minutes at a time; and even then sometimes not if it wasn't "authorised" - even though childcare staff can't leave until enough other adults are in the room for supervision numbers), and in terms of uniform. They provide 2 shirts per year for a FT staff member, and require them to have black trousers and shoes themselves, despite being bang on NMW. I've faced this so often, it's only been Martin's recent work that's brought it to my attention that it's not right (legally; I've always seen it as a moral outrage)

I wonder, though, what guidelines exist as to how they should be calculating how much the stuff costs, or how often it needs to be replaced? Like saying you can get a £20 pair of shoes in Asda every year is all well and good, but those realistically aren't going to last a year for a bunch of jobs, and aren't going to provide adequate support for many others. What decides what's appropriate, or are they free to basically say what they like? Two shirts seems incredibly stingy too, as its near impossible to wash and dry one every day around all of the the laundry for a family.

I was also reading that if employers want to make deductions from wages for uniform, then they can't spread the costs - their wage has to cover it over and above NMW in a single pay period; does anything similar apply for costs for uniform purchased yourself from a third party? I'm assuming this is the reason they make staff pay cash if they "choose" to have more than the two which are provided.

A requirement for a member of staff to wear their own choice of black trousers and shoes seems pretty reasonable, since they are the sort of items you can buy cheaply in a range of high street stores and might well wear outside work/on other occasions. If she didn't have to wear any particular sort of uniform, your wife would still be wearing clothes (or at least I trust she would!) and you wouldn't expect the employer to pay for those.

Shirts should last more than a year, so by year two surely she'd have four? If for some reason that isn't the case, has she actually asked the employer to provide another one now?

The NMW law requires an employer to pay for any required uniform; and specifying a particular colour falls under that.

Generally the shirts given in year one are not new, so no guarantees they will last a year. And even new ones worn 2-3 times a week in a childcare setting don't always hold up.

But what I'm asking for is if there is any official guidance, or best practise, or anything like that around how an employer should be determining how much uniform is necessary, how much it costs, and how long it would be expected to last, in order to inform their reimbursement policy.

If that's the question, I'm afraid the simple answer is no.

So they could give you 20p for a pair of second-hand trousers from a charity shop, and claim that is to last however many years you stay with the company, and you'd have no recourse to challenge that?

k3lvc

The NMW law requires an employer to pay for any required uniform; and specifying a particular colour falls under that.

Does it ? And if so where ?

I suspect you're clutching at straws that a pair (or 2 pairs) of black trousers/shoes will be an allowable expense or claim re NMW regulations 

Naf

k3lvc said:

The NMW law requires an employer to pay for any required uniform; and specifying a particular colour falls under that.

Does it ? And if so where ?

I suspect you're clutching at straws that a pair (or 2 pairs) of black trousers/shoes will be an allowable expense or claim re NMW regulations 

Not the view taken by HMRC when it came to Wagamamas and TGI Fridays a few years ago.

It's also one of the specific examples given in many NMW guides, including the government's own: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/national-minimum-wage-manual/nmwm11220

"Example 3: A hairdresser requires workers to wear a uniform consisting of any black trousers and any white tee shirt. Workers can purchase these from any shop. The cost of purchasing these items will reduce National Minimum Wage pay, since it is a specific requirement imposed on the worker by the employer."

Andy_L

Naf said:

Marcon said:

Naf said:

Marcon said:

Naf said:

So we know that my wife is getting screwed over with respect to NMW, both in terms of all of those 5-10 minutes at the ends of a shift (which happens basically every day, and they refuse to write up if it's less than 15 minutes at a time; and even then sometimes not if it wasn't "authorised" - even though childcare staff can't leave until enough other adults are in the room for supervision numbers), and in terms of uniform. They provide 2 shirts per year for a FT staff member, and require them to have black trousers and shoes themselves, despite being bang on NMW. I've faced this so often, it's only been Martin's recent work that's brought it to my attention that it's not right (legally; I've always seen it as a moral outrage)

I wonder, though, what guidelines exist as to how they should be calculating how much the stuff costs, or how often it needs to be replaced? Like saying you can get a £20 pair of shoes in Asda every year is all well and good, but those realistically aren't going to last a year for a bunch of jobs, and aren't going to provide adequate support for many others. What decides what's appropriate, or are they free to basically say what they like? Two shirts seems incredibly stingy too, as its near impossible to wash and dry one every day around all of the the laundry for a family.

I was also reading that if employers want to make deductions from wages for uniform, then they can't spread the costs - their wage has to cover it over and above NMW in a single pay period; does anything similar apply for costs for uniform purchased yourself from a third party? I'm assuming this is the reason they make staff pay cash if they "choose" to have more than the two which are provided.

A requirement for a member of staff to wear their own choice of black trousers and shoes seems pretty reasonable, since they are the sort of items you can buy cheaply in a range of high street stores and might well wear outside work/on other occasions. If she didn't have to wear any particular sort of uniform, your wife would still be wearing clothes (or at least I trust she would!) and you wouldn't expect the employer to pay for those.

Shirts should last more than a year, so by year two surely she'd have four? If for some reason that isn't the case, has she actually asked the employer to provide another one now?

The NMW law requires an employer to pay for any required uniform; and specifying a particular colour falls under that.

Generally the shirts given in year one are not new, so no guarantees they will last a year. And even new ones worn 2-3 times a week in a childcare setting don't always hold up.

But what I'm asking for is if there is any official guidance, or best practise, or anything like that around how an employer should be determining how much uniform is necessary, how much it costs, and how long it would be expected to last, in order to inform their reimbursement policy.

If that's the question, I'm afraid the simple answer is no.

So they could give you 20p for a pair of second-hand trousers from a charity shop, and claim that is to last however many years you stay with the company, and you'd have no recourse to challenge that?

however they will end up with scruffy and/or smelly staff (or no staff at all as they all quit) which is likely to undermine the whole point of a uniform so they have a commercial incentive to not let that happen

Naf

Andy_L said:

Naf said:

Marcon said:

Naf said:

Marcon said:

Naf said:

So we know that my wife is getting screwed over with respect to NMW, both in terms of all of those 5-10 minutes at the ends of a shift (which happens basically every day, and they refuse to write up if it's less than 15 minutes at a time; and even then sometimes not if it wasn't "authorised" - even though childcare staff can't leave until enough other adults are in the room for supervision numbers), and in terms of uniform. They provide 2 shirts per year for a FT staff member, and require them to have black trousers and shoes themselves, despite being bang on NMW. I've faced this so often, it's only been Martin's recent work that's brought it to my attention that it's not right (legally; I've always seen it as a moral outrage)

I wonder, though, what guidelines exist as to how they should be calculating how much the stuff costs, or how often it needs to be replaced? Like saying you can get a £20 pair of shoes in Asda every year is all well and good, but those realistically aren't going to last a year for a bunch of jobs, and aren't going to provide adequate support for many others. What decides what's appropriate, or are they free to basically say what they like? Two shirts seems incredibly stingy too, as its near impossible to wash and dry one every day around all of the the laundry for a family.

I was also reading that if employers want to make deductions from wages for uniform, then they can't spread the costs - their wage has to cover it over and above NMW in a single pay period; does anything similar apply for costs for uniform purchased yourself from a third party? I'm assuming this is the reason they make staff pay cash if they "choose" to have more than the two which are provided.

A requirement for a member of staff to wear their own choice of black trousers and shoes seems pretty reasonable, since they are the sort of items you can buy cheaply in a range of high street stores and might well wear outside work/on other occasions. If she didn't have to wear any particular sort of uniform, your wife would still be wearing clothes (or at least I trust she would!) and you wouldn't expect the employer to pay for those.

Shirts should last more than a year, so by year two surely she'd have four? If for some reason that isn't the case, has she actually asked the employer to provide another one now?

The NMW law requires an employer to pay for any required uniform; and specifying a particular colour falls under that.

Generally the shirts given in year one are not new, so no guarantees they will last a year. And even new ones worn 2-3 times a week in a childcare setting don't always hold up.

But what I'm asking for is if there is any official guidance, or best practise, or anything like that around how an employer should be determining how much uniform is necessary, how much it costs, and how long it would be expected to last, in order to inform their reimbursement policy.

If that's the question, I'm afraid the simple answer is no.

So they could give you 20p for a pair of second-hand trousers from a charity shop, and claim that is to last however many years you stay with the company, and you'd have no recourse to challenge that?

however they will end up with scruffy and/or smelly staff (or no staff at all as they all quit) which is likely to undermine the whole point of a uniform so they have a commercial incentive to not let that happen

You'd have thought so; but on paper they'd be at liberty to have that as their uniform reimbursement policy? If you don't want to show your underwear to your colleagues through the holes in the ancient trousers, then that's your problem?

Undervalued

OK, you are clearly very upset about this on your wife's behalf (and maybe rightly so).

So what realistic, practical and cost effective steps are you going to suggest she takes to improve the situation?

Naf

Undervalued said:

OK, you are clearly very upset about this on your wife's behalf (and maybe rightly so).

So what realistic, practical and cost effective steps are you going to suggest she takes to improve the situation?

A grievance to begin with, and give them the opportunity to choose to put it right, at least in the present and going forward.