Sleep in confusion
Comments
-
It's not illegal practice though is it? Most care organisations are still in the process of trying to fund the paying of sleep-ins at an hourly rate instead of the previously used one-off payment, and, at the moment they are only doing what is needed to comply with the law.
The 'solutions' probably vary between different organisations, and unfortunately in some cases, those on a higher rate of pay, don't get any benefit from the changes, while those on a lower rate do. I have heard a mention of people signing new contracts and effectively having two parts to the sleep-in period, one paid and one done free - that sounds quite alarming.
However, not as alarming as the people being supported by care workers losing sleep-ins altogether, having to get used to assisted technology, or being moved to other houses etc. As usual, the people who really suffer, are those who are getting cared for.0 -
If your contract says you are paid £xx and they are paying you less than that, then depending on the wording of your contract they could be in breach of contract.
Don't see how they can retrospectively and unilaterally change that.What will your verse be?
R.I.P Robin Williams.0 -
If your contract says you are paid £xx and they are paying you less than that, then depending on the wording of your contract they could be in breach of contract.
Don't see how they can retrospectively and unilaterally change that.
They are not though. Her contract probably states something like £9 p/h plus £30 for a sleep in. That is what she agreed to and was happy to work.
The government have decided that the sleep ins cannot take people down to less than minimum wage (NOT their contracted wage, the govt don't care or have say in that)
In the OP's case, it does not. They haven't done anything with her contract. They never agreed to pay her £9 an hour on her sleep ins.
My friend does sleep ins, for the vast majority of the time with his service user, he is asleep. If he does get woken and has to 'work' then he is paid hourly for that work. Care companies aren't rolling in money anyway, if they have to start paying supervisors extra money to sleep, they either will remove the service, remove those shifts for supervisors or pass those costs on to the service users which are already high...0 -
I cant seem much happening from this. The government have messed things up big time.
You had a contract with your employer, one which most people seem to have been happy with. The government have decided to change rules and backdate it. Thousands of companies are now finding the costing models they used are screwed up and are now finding any profits being wiped out by back pay.
Im aware contracts are legally binding but i dont know how applicable that could be to laws changed retrospectively. As i said businesses will have used the costings at the time to plan the finances for the business. Getting them to backdate pay can and has wiped out any profits and many businesses will be on the brink of collapse due to this.
It would be a bit like saying card transaction fees are unfair and making Visa backdate and refund any charges. Great news for the recipients until Visa doesnt have enough money to pay for all the refunds, goes bust and everyone loses.
Its very poorly thought out. The government have risked businesses it needs to rely on because theyve changed something theyve always been aware of.
I sympathise with you OP, but i also sympathise with your employer.0 -
With these type of jobs I thought the sleepover money was a bonus on top of NMW or wage rate.0
-
marliepanda wrote: »My friend does sleep ins, for the vast majority of the time with his service user, he is asleep. If he does get woken and has to 'work' then he is paid hourly for that work.
If I'm reading this right if your friend's client doesn't wake up then he only gets the sleepover money.0 -
trigger_fish wrote: »With these type of jobs I thought the sleepover money was a bonus on top of NMW or wage rate.
No its a flat rate for the sleep.
Most of the time it is just sleeping and being there 'just in case' Like I said my friend would get £30 to sleep for 8 hours say, but if he was having to work during the night he would get his hourly rate. Otherwise he is just being paid to be asleep.0 -
trigger_fish wrote: »If I'm reading this right if your friend's client doesn't wake up then he only gets the sleepover money.
Yes, he would be paid £30 to 'sleep' but this also wasn't part of his contracted hours, so it was a nice bonus to him, so 40 hours at NMW or whatever, plus £30 everytime he slept over.
Now his company cannot afford that additionally, so now he gets 40hours at NMW which includes any sleep overs, so actually he is earning less money.0 -
Bring an unlawful deduction from wages claim on the following basis:
Your contract says that you earn £9/hour + £30/sleep in.
NMW regulations state that you cannot be paid less than £7.50 an hour. For the £30/sleep in to be legally compliant, terms will need to be implied into it. What the other posters are suggesting is that the terms that are implied will be : you are paid £xx for every hour worked, where x = hourly rate when you total your weekly sum divided by total hours (which will be <£9 but likely more than £7.50).
What you could seek to argue instead is that what should be implied into your contract is that you are paid £9/hour for every hour worked. I am not sure where you stand on whether that argument has found much success, but it's one route you could explore.0 -
As an individual, I'd say no chance of getting anywhere with this. Which is partly why I said, join the union!Signature removed for peace of mind0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards