Minimum Wage question

[Pegleg]

Odd question but I've been asked for advice and want to see if more experienced people in such matter can help.

26 Year old has been offered £15500 PA salary for a 48 hour week They get 5.6 weeks paid holidays. Bank holidays are at basic pay. There is no mention of Lunch breaks in their contract.

So the question is are they being offered minimum wage (£6.71 per hour). My amateur calculation says not if:

£15500 / 52 = 298.08 / week /48hrs =£6.21

However, if lunch hours are discounted from the 48 hours, then 298.08 / 43 hours =£6.93 which is minimum wage.

Am I correct or am I missing something?

 

[didds]

My understanding (not a lawyer!) is that generally speaking lunch breaks are unpaid and a salary is a 52 week grossed amount.

The question you (or the 26 year old) needs to ask is

"Does this 48 hours include breaks or not".

If it doesn't then it does not meet NMW and you/they need to ask why. At this juncture do not expect the job offer to remain and if it does take it while looking for a more scrupulous employer that understands their responsibilities. If they are going to screw somebody over 50p an hour and the NMW then what else are they going to screw you/them over?

didds

 

[Taff]

When people say "It's just 50p an hour" it sounds miserly, but it works out at £1,248 a year ... every year at least while he's there. Plus the employers Pension Contributions, plus the employers National Insurance contribution, paid paternal leave etc etc etc. For all we know the business may not even be profitable, so every pound counts.

 

[Pegleg]

so what's your argument Taff? The company has a right not to abide by the law? The worker has rights too. If the company is unprofitable they are not worth working for!

Pay fair or dont pay at all. They have no right to break the law, just as you and I do not, Taff .

 

[RobLev]

Generally an "X"-hour per week contract means Xhrs paid work; so the worker in the OP will be in the office for 10hrs 36mns a day for 5 days, assuming he takes an hour for lunch. He's being underpaid.

 

[Taff]

so what's your argument Taff? The company has a right not to abide by the law? The worker has rights too. If the company is unprofitable they are not worth working for! Pay fair or dont pay at all. They have no right to break the law, just as you and I do not, Taff .

Nobody is suggesting that the company breaks the law. And "fair" for who anyway?

My argument is that the company may not be able to afford an extra "just 50p an hour" or £1,248 a year.

My argument is that the bosses need to keep an eye on the bigger picture. It's not "just 50 an hour". It's 50p an hour (or £1,248 a year + all the extra "social costs" the Government expects the employer to pay for) for him - assuming the company has say 5 employees, they all talk amongst each other and before you know it, the other now 4 want "just 50p an hour" so that's now 5 x £1,248 = £6,240 a year on top of what they're paying now.

... The worker has rights too.

Some would say too many "rights" ... and they keep getting more.

... If the company is unprofitable they are not worth working for!

Then advise him not to work for them. Or advise him to go self-employed ... but I won't hold my breath on that one.

I assume this job is the best your mate can get at the moment, otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question.

 

[RobLev]

Nobody is suggesting that the company breaks the law. And "fair" for who anyway?

My argument is that the company may not be able to afford an extra "just 50p an hour" or £1,248 a year.

My argument is that the bosses need to keep an eye on the bigger picture. It's not "just 50 an hour". It's 50p an hour (or £1,248 a year + all the extra "social costs" the Government expects the employer to pay for) for him - assuming the company has say 5 employees, they all talk amongst each other and before you know it, the other now 4 want "just 50p an hour" so that's now 5 x £1,248 = £6,240 a year on top of what they're paying now.


Some would say too many "rights" ... and they keep getting more.


Then advise him not to work for them. Or advise him to go self-employed ... but I won't hold my breath on that one.

I assume this job is the best your mate can get at the moment, otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question.

If the business is unprofitable without subsidy from the benefit system, why should it receive that subsidy?

 

[Taff]

Generally an "X"-hour per week contract means Xhrs paid work; so the worker in the OP will be in the office for 10hrs 36mns a day for 5 days, assuming he takes an hour for lunch. He's being underpaid.

Where do you get 10 hrs 36 mins from? 48 hours a week / 5 days = 9 hours 36 minutes a day. Where the 36 minutes has come from I have no idea.

Anyway, thanks to the National Living Wage starting next month, he will be on £7.20 an hour.

 

[Pedro]

Paid break entitlements are based on length of shift rather than hours worked. Legal minimums are 2x 15 mins paid breaks in an 8 hour shift, plus 30 minutes uninterrupted and unpaid break for meal. Typically these are used as 1 X 15 min break and 1 X 45 minute break of which 15 are paid.

 

[RobLev]

Where do you get 10 hrs 36 mins from? 48 hours a week / 5 days = 9 hours 36 minutes a day. Where the 36 minutes has come from I have no idea.
...

"Assuming he takes an hour for lunch"; 9hrs 36mns working plus 1hr for lunch equals leaving time 10hrs 36mns after arrival.

 

[RobLev]

Paid break entitlements are based on length of shift rather than hours worked. Legal minimums are 2x 15 mins paid breaks in an 8 hour shift, plus 30 minutes uninterrupted and unpaid break for meal. Typically these are used as 1 X 15 min break and 1 X 45 minute break of which 15 are paid.

That depends on a collective agreement; the WTR don't require breaks to be paid, and as enacted (I've not checked amendments) don't provide for your numbers above.

 

[Pegleg]

Nobody is suggesting that the company breaks the law. And "fair" for who anyway?

My argument is that the company may not be able to afford an extra "just 50p an hour" or £1,248 a year.

My argument is that the bosses need to keep an eye on the bigger picture. It's not "just 50 an hour". It's 50p an hour (or £1,248 a year + all the extra "social costs" the Government expects the employer to pay for) for him - assuming the company has say 5 employees, they all talk amongst each other and before you know it, the other now 4 want "just 50p an hour" so that's now 5 x £1,248 = £6,240 a year on top of what they're paying now.

The law says it is fair.

Some would say too many "rights" ... and they keep getting more.


Then advise him not to work for them. Or advise him to go self-employed ... but I won't hold my breath on that one.

I assume this job is the best your mate can get at the moment, otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question.

Yes we could undo all the changes that have addressed low pay in the UK. That's a "good idea". Hmmm.

The company is very profitable.

THat is money on top of the current figure is totally irrelevant. If it is illegal they must choose:

1 Obey the law and Pay the legal figure.

2 Obey the law but don't abuse the worker. Employ him for fewer hours and pay the same amount.

3 Break the law.

Those three are simple.

Of course you have not actually addressed the question I asked. Which is a shame.

Thanks to those who did do so.

 

[Pegleg]

That depends on a collective agreement; the WTR don't require breaks to be paid, and as enacted (I've not checked amendments) don't provide for your numbers above.

Indeed breaks are compulsory (depending on hours etc), but paid ones are not.

 

[Pedro]

You're right, but I'm quoting from the Acas guidelines and any employer who doesn't follow them is leaving themselves open to tribunal and unfair working conditions. ACAS are probably the best place for you friend to start with advice - regardless of whether the company recognises the Union or not they will eventually be the arbitrator of any disagreements.

 

[Taff]

That is money on top of the current figure is totally irrelevant. If it is illegal they must choose:
1 Obey the law and Pay the legal figure.
2 Obey the law but don't abuse the worker. Employ him for fewer hours and pay the same amount.
3 Break the law.
Those three are simple.

You keep going on about breaking the law. Nobody has suggested breaking the law and I can almost guarantee that the company won't be breaking the law, otherwise they would be facing a HMRC investigation or an Employment Tribunal PDQ. See HERE.

... Of course you have not actually addressed the question I asked. Which is a shame.

I was the only one that pointed out that in a couple of weeks he will be on the new Living Wage of £7.20 an hour.

I just can't help wondering why the 26 yr old just doesn't ask his potential employer how the figure is arrived at. I've worked it out quickly, and assuming he / she is on the current minimum wage (Not the imminent higher Living Wage) get it to within a couple of quid of what he's been offered.

 

[Pegleg]

If they don't pay minimum wage they will be breaking the law. A number of firms have recently had action begun against them for doing so. What the Mimimum will be is not the point the question was and still is is the figure offered legal or not. Others have kindly addressed the issue itself to those people I am greatful.

Thankfully I employ only myself in my business so have no concerns over emplyment regulations. I'd like to think I would respect my emloyees should I ever "grow the business".

 

[4eyesbetter]

You keep going on about breaking the law. Nobody has suggested breaking the law and I can almost guarantee that the company won't be breaking the law, otherwise they would be facing a HMRC investigation or an Employment Tribunal PDQ. See HERE.

I was the only one that pointed out that in a couple of weeks he will be on the new Living Wage of £7.20 an hour.

I just can't help wondering why the 26 yr old just doesn't ask his potential employer how the figure is arrived at.

I know people who've worked at jobs where they were certain that if if they questioned something like this they'd have been put down as a troublemaker and carefully shuffled out the door in a few months. Perhaps they're reasonably concerned that the employer will find a reason to withdraw the offer?

And it's all very well saying "well, people can go to tribunal", but even before the Government started charging people for the privilege, that's still a long and stressful process.

 

[SimonSmith]

You keep going on about breaking the law. Nobody has suggested breaking the law and I can almost guarantee that the company won't be breaking the law, otherwise they would be facing a HMRC investigation or an Employment Tribunal PDQ. See HERE.

Regardless of the technicalities - which should be laid out in his contract anyway - this has to be one of the most charmingly naive things I have read.

yes. All companies strive to avoid breaking the law. Of course they do.

 

[Pegleg]

I just can't help wondering why the 26 yr old just doesn't ask his potential employer how the figure is arrived at. I've worked it out quickly, and assuming he / she is on the current minimum wage (Not the imminent higher Living Wage) get it to within a couple of quid of what he's been offered.

Are you incredibly naive or an employer "accidentally" paying below MW? Depending on the issue of Lunch hours he's up to 50p short of MW (as you say he is being offerred some £1.2K year short of the legal minimum!) Harfly "within couple of quid" after all it's the same "couple of quid" that, potentially, the emploer is wrongfully hanging on to!

Young people are keen to hang on to a job and not to rock the boat (well unless you believe the Daily Heil of course).

As I said thanks to the poster who actually offered constructive answers. With their help the young land has been helped and can deal with things from a clearer understanding of the LAW.

 

[Mini P]

In response to the opening post:
It appears that the contract is 48 hours working and therefore in my view your calculation of £6.21 is correct and unlawful.

In response to Pedro:
The legal minimum in respect of breaks is not as stated (unless Wales has different laws). The law states that the minimum is uninterrupted 20 minute break if the worker is working 6 hours or more.

As you say Pedro, you are quoting guidelines and not law. The law is the Working Time Regulations 1998

I don't practise Employment Law as I'm more a Civil Litigator but I am a small business employer so if anyone requires further advice, please do not hesitate to ask