Annual salary: should it be calculated over 48 or 52 weeks?

Exodi

Mark_d said:

General_Grant said:

Mark_d said:

The GM is offering you a contract which is different to your current contract with the agency.  The new package might be based on your existing hourly rate - but as you'd be getting more benefits the GM can justify your pay being marginally lower.

You may be able to negotiate a better pay with the GM but the GM is under no obligation to pay you more.  Ultimately if you don't like what's being offered, don't take it!

Conversely, the employeer is saving the amount they pay for the agency's profit.

I agree the employer is indeed saving money.  However that does not dictate what salary the employer should offer.  The employer chooses what they consider to be a fair and reasonable offer.  If they're making more money, they don't have to give it to you

Plus while they're saving the ongoing commission they pay to the agency, they'll need to pay a significant fee to the agency for taking on the staff member.

Also it's not unreasonable for the employer to hope to save money over the long time, otherwise what would be the point for the employer to hire them if they were expected to pay the same including agency commission + the big lump sum fee.

Marcon

Michele1800 said:

Should I multiply my weekly wages by 48 or 52 when working out what my annual salary should be? 

Neither. You need to look at the offer you are being made and see if it's at a level you'd like to accept (and of course it needs to meet minimum wage requirements). If not, then you can try to negotiate.

Hoenir

The employer is probably suffering from miscomprehension. They pay the employment agency only for the works you actually work. They also know the hourly rate you get paid by the agency. What they are overlooking is that the employment agency is also accruing paid holiday leave, Which you will receive at some point in the future. 

A polite discussion is required pointing them in the direction of their statutory obligations.  

Marcon

Hoenir said:

The employer is probably suffering from miscomprehension. They pay the employment agency only for the works you actually work. They also know the hourly rate you get paid by the agency. What they are overlooking is that the employment agency is also accruing paid holiday leave, Which you will receive at some point in the future. 

Or the employer is simply offering what they're prepared to pay? There will be other costs such as pension contributions which the employer has to fork out for (and employer NI), so they aren't necessarily planning to match the current hourly rate being received by an agency worker.

Hoenir said:

A polite discussion is required pointing them in the direction of their statutory obligations.  

Not if what they are offering as an annual salary meets minimum wage requirements for each pay period. There's no suggestion OP isn't going to get the minimum holiday requirement, although it seems to have been badly expressed during discussions. 

General_Grant

Marcon said:

Hoenir said:

The employer is probably suffering from miscomprehension. They pay the employment agency only for the works you actually work. They also know the hourly rate you get paid by the agency. What they are overlooking is that the employment agency is also accruing paid holiday leave, Which you will receive at some point in the future. 

Or the employer is simply offering what they're prepared to pay? There will be other costs such as pension contributions which the employer has to fork out for (and employer NI), so they aren't necessarily planning to match the current hourly rate being received by an agency worker.

Hoenir said:

A polite discussion is required pointing them in the direction of their statutory obligations.  

Not if what they are offering as an annual salary meets minimum wage requirements for each pay period. There's no suggestion OP isn't going to get the minimum holiday requirement, although it seems to have been badly expressed during discussions. 

And they will have been paying an element for ER's NI when paying the agency.

It was the case when I paid agencies some years ago that the amount of, as it were, "finders fees" paid to an agency when taking a temp onto the permanent staff was on a sliding scale, reducing the longer the temp had been working for the employer through the agency.

But, IIRC, the OP said that the employer was referring to the hourly rate being equivalent to what they were receiving through the agency.

EnPointe

General_Grant said:

Marcon said:

Hoenir said:

The employer is probably suffering from miscomprehension. They pay the employment agency only for the works you actually work. They also know the hourly rate you get paid by the agency. What they are overlooking is that the employment agency is also accruing paid holiday leave, Which you will receive at some point in the future. 

Or the employer is simply offering what they're prepared to pay? There will be other costs such as pension contributions which the employer has to fork out for (and employer NI), so they aren't necessarily planning to match the current hourly rate being received by an agency worker.

Hoenir said:

A polite discussion is required pointing them in the direction of their statutory obligations.  

Not if what they are offering as an annual salary meets minimum wage requirements for each pay period. There's no suggestion OP isn't going to get the minimum holiday requirement, although it seems to have been badly expressed during discussions. 

And they will have been paying an element for ER's NI when paying the agency.

It was the case when I paid agencies some years ago that the amount of, as it were, "finders fees" paid to an agency when taking a temp onto the permanent staff was on a sliding scale, reducing the longer the temp had been working for the employer through the agency.

But, IIRC, the OP said that the employer was referring to the hourly rate being equivalent to what they were receiving through the agency.

indeed  hence thew whole thing  in genral of  " 12 weeks through the agency temp to perm "   so the 12 weeks acts as an extended trial / interview of you  learning and doign the job  

General_Grant

EnPointe said:

General_Grant said:

Marcon said:

Hoenir said:

The employer is probably suffering from miscomprehension. They pay the employment agency only for the works you actually work. They also know the hourly rate you get paid by the agency. What they are overlooking is that the employment agency is also accruing paid holiday leave, Which you will receive at some point in the future. 

Or the employer is simply offering what they're prepared to pay? There will be other costs such as pension contributions which the employer has to fork out for (and employer NI), so they aren't necessarily planning to match the current hourly rate being received by an agency worker.

Hoenir said:

A polite discussion is required pointing them in the direction of their statutory obligations.  

Not if what they are offering as an annual salary meets minimum wage requirements for each pay period. There's no suggestion OP isn't going to get the minimum holiday requirement, although it seems to have been badly expressed during discussions. 

And they will have been paying an element for ER's NI when paying the agency.

It was the case when I paid agencies some years ago that the amount of, as it were, "finders fees" paid to an agency when taking a temp onto the permanent staff was on a sliding scale, reducing the longer the temp had been working for the employer through the agency.

But, IIRC, the OP said that the employer was referring to the hourly rate being equivalent to what they were receiving through the agency.

indeed  hence thew whole thing  in genral of  " 12 weeks through the agency temp to perm "   so the 12 weeks acts as an extended trial / interview of you  learning and doign the job  

Is that an example of a possible period after which agency introductory fee would be reduced?
And the "you" is not actually referring to anyone - ie not the OP (who didn't mention a contract length) nor me (who paid the agency)?

DullGreyGuy

General_Grant said:

EnPointe said:

General_Grant said:

Marcon said:

Hoenir said:

The employer is probably suffering from miscomprehension. They pay the employment agency only for the works you actually work. They also know the hourly rate you get paid by the agency. What they are overlooking is that the employment agency is also accruing paid holiday leave, Which you will receive at some point in the future. 

Or the employer is simply offering what they're prepared to pay? There will be other costs such as pension contributions which the employer has to fork out for (and employer NI), so they aren't necessarily planning to match the current hourly rate being received by an agency worker.

Hoenir said:

A polite discussion is required pointing them in the direction of their statutory obligations.  

Not if what they are offering as an annual salary meets minimum wage requirements for each pay period. There's no suggestion OP isn't going to get the minimum holiday requirement, although it seems to have been badly expressed during discussions. 

And they will have been paying an element for ER's NI when paying the agency.

It was the case when I paid agencies some years ago that the amount of, as it were, "finders fees" paid to an agency when taking a temp onto the permanent staff was on a sliding scale, reducing the longer the temp had been working for the employer through the agency.

But, IIRC, the OP said that the employer was referring to the hourly rate being equivalent to what they were receiving through the agency.

indeed  hence thew whole thing  in genral of  " 12 weeks through the agency temp to perm "   so the 12 weeks acts as an extended trial / interview of you  learning and doign the job  

Is that an example of a possible period after which agency introductory fee would be reduced?
And the "you" is not actually referring to anyone - ie not the OP (who didn't mention a contract length) nor me (who paid the agency)?

All these things are negotiable... with my first ever employer we did a lot of temp to perm for our entry level position. So the total fee was £2,000, during their temp phase the agency got 20% (about £1 hour) and when they went perm they got the balance of the total fee less the fees to date. If you went straight to perm then the £2,000 is part refundable if they left in the first 6 months. We had a lot of people that failed training or left shortly after and was considered better not to be the ones having to claw back commissions. 

For higher grade roles we either had contractors or perms the finders fee for the later was a percentage of their salary. If you took a contractor on as a perm there wasnt an automatic offset of the fees paid to date.

Agencies can work in different ways though, we had an emergency agency too and with them we simply paid a fixed hourly rate with no knowledge of what they were paying their staff but they guaranteed to get us basically competent people within 2 hours who know how to use a call centre terminal. There was no offset were we to take any of their staff on.

These kinds of elements are not always in contracts but can be "discussed" at a later date... ie do something reasonable or we'll stop using you as an agency. A former client decided to cull its list of acceptable agencies and introduce a new time sheeting system. Several agencies were told they were no longer going to be accepted however the people on board will stay until their natural end. A couple of agencies were told they were being gotten shot of but we will move their contractors to another agency. My client incorrectly thought there was an offset clause so they wouldn't have to pay anything but they were wrong and ended up paying a big chunk of money over as finders fees for keeping their sourced people.

sheramber

is the employer aware the agency pay you holiday pay?

your choice is to accept their offer, negotiate over the 4 weeks pay or decline the offer