Sleep in confusion
Comments
-
trigger_fish wrote: »With these type of jobs I thought the sleepover money was a bonus on top of NMW or wage rate.
No that's what it is seen as being (as in theory if you were needed for 2 hours you'd get paid the 2 hours) but now we get paid the hourly rate for the sleep ins. We're starting to get the back payment July to now, just waiting on a bit.
In theory though, although not fair, they've just said as long as over your say 40 hour weeks including sleeps as long as it averages out at at least minimum wage then they've met what they need to do. Not saying it's fair but going forwards if you work say the 15 hour shift and sleep you'll get
£67.50 - if a 9 hour sleep.
15 hours of £9 an hour = £112.50
Gives a £45 sleep in rate in theory as £1.50 an hour extra X 15 = £22.50 - £67.50 = £45 sleep in
Mine seemed nearly £30 off for a few months back pay but I'm 10p over nmw so I think the same has happened to me, not to the same scale mind:T:T :beer: :beer::beer::beer: to the lil one
:beer::beer::beer:0 -
The 6 years back pay will be interesting though as we're waiting on the mencap case in March and it depends when the 6 years kick in from to be honest:T:T :beer: :beer::beer::beer: to the lil one :beer::beer::beer:0
-
marliepanda wrote: »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...
Right I get this. But if the payment for the sleep ins brings the wage down to £7.50 per hour across the board then they are paying less than the £9 per hour that they are contractually obliged to pay.
It doesn't matter what the government say - if a contract has been breached, the innocent party can sue the breaching party.
Like I say, it depends on the contract.What will your verse be?
R.I.P Robin Williams.0 -
Right I get this. But if the payment for the sleep ins brings the wage down to £7.50 per hour across the board then they are paying less than the £9 per hour that they are contractually obliged to pay.
It doesn't matter what the government say - if a contract has been breached, the innocent party can sue the breaching party.
Like I say, it depends on the contract.
They were never contractually obliged to pay the £9 for the sleepover. That’s as an additional agreed payment between OP and her employer.
As the govt has decided that ALL hours ‘at work’ have to be paid NMW they have worked out that OP was paid that.
What she is contracted to be paid is irrelevant as the govt isn’t saying everyone should get their contracted pay for sleeping, ONLY that the hours must not take people under minimum wage.
OP agreed to do the sleep ins for a set payment. The fact the govt has moved the goalposts doesn’t change what OP agreed to.0 -
I think in the long term its hoped these care organisations will be able to pay an hourly rate for the sleep in (albeit NMW), in the meantime, no one is earning any less than they were before the ruling, but some people are earning more. At least I think that's right?0
-
I think in the long term its hoped these care organisations will be able to pay an hourly rate for the sleep in (albeit NMW), in the meantime, no one is earning any less than they were before the ruling, but some people are earning more. At least I think that's right?
Not true. My friend used to work 40 hours at say £7.50 an hour, then he would get maybe 2 sleep ins a week, his were I think about £30.
So he used to get £240 on top of his wage for two sleep ins a week, 8 a month.
Now he gets 40hours at £7.50 an hour. No extra for sleep ins as thats now incorporated into his working hours, so to him, he's lost 240 an month. Yes he now has those hours free during the week but he doesn't want that! He'd rather have the money.
The money for this has to come from somewhere. Care organisations set hours, salaries, shifts and costs to service users based on the old model. They can't just now change one thing, the sleepover pay, and leave the rest as is.
Its almost the equivalent of the govt saying all hours on call are now at NMW, rather than the rate it is currently at. Most companies would struggle with backpaying this and struggle to maintain going forward without changes.0 -
So does that mean the company he works for has had to employ more staff to cover the same hours, as people like your friend still have the same hours, but effectively work less often? And if so, doesn't that mean his contract has changed as he no longer gets a payment for doing sleepins?0
-
So does that mean the company he works for has had to employ more staff to cover the same hours, as people like your friend still have the same hours, but effectively work less often? And if so, doesn't that mean his contract has changed as he no longer gets a payment for doing sleepins?
Yes they have taken on extra staff so that people are not doing over their allotted hours as they used to pay OT, no longer.
They also have cut down on the amount of time they have 'handover' as that was over and above their service user agreements, so now theres only one person with each user at any time whereas before there would be 2 hour an hour or so each shift change.
My friend IS being paid for sleep-ins at NMW, but it is rolled up into his hours.
yes he now works 'less' during the day but he used to have 3/4 days off anyway as his shifts would often be over 12 hours as 'broken up' by sleep ins. Now he has more time off but less money, when he had plenty of time off anyway, and theres no OT available as his company cant afford it. The shifts have also been changed to accommodate this as well and now theyre a little more awkwardly placed but thats not an employment matter, just an annoying factor for him.0 -
The latest news on this is that care companies have been underpaying staff who have only been getting a flat rate for a 7-8 hour sleep in.
They got away with only paying £25-£30, where they should of been paying the NLW for each hour that the staff member was asleep but on duty!
Mencap are appealing the decision so every care company is waiting to see what the outcome is.
This can be back dated 6 years.
So, if you are like me and worked a lot of sleep ins there might be a few quid coming your way.:beer:0 -
So, if you are like me and worked a lot of sleep ins there might be a few quid coming your way.:beer:
And maybe losing your job or hours because the organisation can't afford to provide the same service at a price they are able to charge.loose does not rhyme with choose but lose does and is the word you meant to write.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards