Minimum Wage question

[Pegleg]

Thank you Mini P. As I understand employment law has not been devolved so is the same in England and Wales.

 

[L'irlandais]

Why so rude with Taff? Employers create jobs, what rights does that entitle them to?

Your 26 year old only has rights, if he stand up for those rights. I started work long before the 1999 law came into force, one had to accept being exploited back then. With a couple of years expierence under his belt he can ask for more than the minimum wage.

A quick google search would tell you it's not new this problem :
Government names and shames 37 National Minimum Wage offenders

Low-skilled workers are most 'at risk of exploitation' - BBC News

Employer costs much higher in France than in the UK
etc...

 

[leaguerefaus]

Why so rude with Taff? Employers create jobs, what rights does that entitle them to?

Your 26 year old only has rights, if he stand up for those rights. I started work long before the 1999 law came into force, one had to accept being exploited back then. With a couple of years expierence under his belt he can ask for more than the minimum wage.

A quick google search would tell you it's not new this problem :
Government names and shames 37 National Minimum Wage offenders

Low-skilled workers are most 'at risk of exploitation' - BBC News

Employer costs much higher in France than in the UK
etc...

1. That is not how rights are meant to work.
2. The ol' "it happened to me so it should happen to them too".

 

[L'irlandais]

1 is a fact of life, we do not have rights unless we exercise them. That is how such "rights" were created.
2. The exact opposite of what I am suggesting. In the early '90s if one didn't accept a low salary, somebody else would. The same applies in the current employment market. I have been to works tribunals to exercise my rights. I am surprised a 26 year old asked the question, since most young people know how to find answers on the internet themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[didds]

I think the real point is that no-one, no matter what age and skill level, should have to request/demand something that they should have already.

It does demonstrate that the employer concerned is at best incredibly ignorant of their responsibilities, so what else are they avoiding (H&S, insurances, correct taxation payments etc etc etc), OR they are ignoring these responsibilities deliberately - so again what else are they deliberately avoiding.?

Accepting that there may be somebody esle prepared to work for less than the legal NMW doesn;t make it correct that NMW is not being paid, and that somebody has to go and ask for it. Otherwise what is the point of having the legislation there anyway?

didds

 

[L'irlandais]

Well if he raises the matter with his future employer, either the future employer can explain the situation/correct the situation or offer the job to somebody else. I am not saying it is fair or correct, but it is widespread.
The alternative is to accept the offer, sign and contract, keep your head down until the trial period is over, then take him to a work's tribunal, who will enforce the minimum wage. After which he may find himself out of a job anyway. Having had several run ins with dishonest employers, I am not convinced it's worth the effort. By all means raise the issue with them, but if they are less than honest, go work for somebody else.

the minimum wage, before the £7.20 comes into force on the 30 of September 2016.
First thing he needs to know is what are his contracted hours. If 48, then the story of lunchtime unpaid doesn't come into the equation :
£6.70 x (contracted hours) = Z
Z times by 52 = (answer) per annum

 

[didds]

The choice is simple

- work for somebody who through ignorance or choice breaks the law. Pray that you never get badly injured on the job because frankly what's the likelihood they have the other ducks in a row.

- raise the question. If they are ignorant you may get lucky. But lets face, I'm only being kind by suggesting this is a possibility. The reality is you will be out of a job - but you are back to the payoff for choosing to work above. Don't have an accident...

- walk away/and up out fo a job. Report them to the authorities. why do YOU want to now be a tacit partner to illegal activity? Becaue if you don't report them - that is exactly what you are.


didds

 

[Pedro]

There is absolutely no need to take the job and then take them to an employment tribunal. Simply reporting the job offer, salary and contractual terms to the relevant authorities would be enough.

FWIW - almost every company On that list of those companies sanctioned for paying below minimum wage (particularly any you have heard of previously) didn't actually have illegal t&cs in their contracts- it was a combination of miscalculating (accidentally or not is for everyone to judge for themselves) overtime, holiday, gratuities, performance related various other 'additional' terms which created the issues. peraonally I think it's unethical and unfair whichever way you look at it.

 

[Pegleg]

Why so rude with Taff? Employers create jobs, what rights does that entitle them to?

Your 26 year old only has rights, if he stand up for those rights. I started work long before the 1999 law came into force, one had to accept being exploited back then. With a couple of years expierence under his belt he can ask for more than the minimum wage.

A quick google search would tell you it's not new this problem :
Government names and shames 37 National Minimum Wage offenders

Low-skilled workers are most 'at risk of exploitation' - BBC News

Employer costs much higher in France than in the UK
etc...

A totally irrelevant piece of nonsense. The law is the law and applies to the employers and employees.

 

[Pegleg]

1 is a fact of life, we do not have rights unless we exercise them. That is how such "rights" were created.
2. The exact opposite of what I am suggesting. In the early '90s if one didn't accept a low salary, somebody else would. The same applies in the current employment market. I have been to works tribunals to exercise my rights. I am surprised a 26 year old asked the question, since most young people know how to find answers on the internet themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps some prefer to trust people than rely on dinosaurs on the internet. Many years ago people accepted children working down mines. Your post suggests they should have been grateful for the job.

 

[Pegleg]

Again, thanks to those with a bit of actualy knowledge and less of a "bring back the workhouse" ethic about them.

Armed with the useful information the problem looks like beign resolved. The lad is happy and some players now see that refs and players work together at times. I always thought the rugby community looked after its own. Perhas not among some.

 

[Shelflife]

The law is the law and applies to the employers and employees.

I would have thought that such innocence wouldnt be seen by an experienced ref !

The in Ireland anyway is totally on the side of the employee, I agree that the laws should be obeyed but to me its a one way street when it comes to enforcement of labour laws

If I manage to sack an employee (the rings you have to jump through to do that without being sued are numerous) they are entitled to their notice period being paid. If they decide to resign and leave up up the creek technically you can pursue them but if you were to contact the enforcement agency the will tell you to forget it.

Im expected to pay full whack for the hours they are on the premises ,but if they skive off during the day we cant deduct their wages.

If they ring in sick when they are not, thats a breach of contract but nothing can be done unless definitive proof is secured.

If you have an employee pregnant they are entitled to holiday pay while on maternity leave (2 weeks) paid days off for scans appointments etc and can pull the pregnancy card anytime they want when you ask them to do their job that you are paying them full price for. A pregnancy will cost up to €2000 to a small business in paid time off etc when it has nothing to do with us. we have to keep their job open and they dont have to tell us if they are coming back or not until the last minute leaving you up the creek again.

I know of one instance where an employee was caught stealing, admitted it to the owner ,was sacked on the spot and ended winning an unfair dismissal case for €30k because the owner didnt follow procedure



Basically if we break the rules we get the full force of the relevant authorities down on us, if the employees screw us over its a cost of business

So please dont come out with infantile comments that the law applies to both employees and employers.

 

[crossref]

Again, thanks to those with a bit of actualy knowledge and less of a "bring back the workhouse" ethic about them.

Armed with the useful information the problem looks like beign resolved. The lad is happy and some players now see that refs and players work together at times. I always thought the rugby community looked after its own. Perhas not among some.

So how was it resolved ? Was it, in fact a wicked rapacious employer, or was it rather a confusion over whether lunch breaks are paid or not ?

 

[Pegleg]

I understand it was explained as a calculation issue / error (not sure I believe that bit as they are a pretty smart outfit). None the less the lad has accepted the situation. He's got a job thats not zero hours. The first he's secured in a while. He gets to stay in the area with his mates and play rugby - he will never make it big time but he'll enjoy the sport.

He's been a bit of a lad on the park up until now who knows now I, with some folks help on here, have helped him he may respect us refs even a little more.

Yes individuals may or may not feel that the law is too far one way or another, BUT the law is the law and that's it for me.

 

[Pegleg]

I would have thought that such innocence wouldnt be seen by an experienced ref !

The in Ireland anyway is totally on the side of the employee, I agree that the laws should be obeyed but to me its a one way street when it comes to enforcement of labour laws

If I manage to sack an employee (the rings you have to jump through to do that without being sued are numerous) they are entitled to their notice period being paid. If they decide to resign and leave up up the creek technically you can pursue them but if you were to contact the enforcement agency the will tell you to forget it.

Im expected to pay full whack for the hours they are on the premises ,but if they skive off during the day we cant deduct their wages.

If they ring in sick when they are not, thats a breach of contract but nothing can be done unless definitive proof is secured.

If you have an employee pregnant they are entitled to holiday pay while on maternity leave (2 weeks) paid days off for scans appointments etc and can pull the pregnancy card anytime they want when you ask them to do their job that you are paying them full price for. A pregnancy will cost up to €2000 to a small business in paid time off etc when it has nothing to do with us. we have to keep their job open and they dont have to tell us if they are coming back or not until the last minute leaving you up the creek again.

I know of one instance where an employee was caught stealing, admitted it to the owner ,was sacked on the spot and ended winning an unfair dismissal case for €30k because the owner didnt follow procedure



Basically if we break the rules we get the full force of the relevant authorities down on us, if the employees screw us over its a cost of business

So please dont come out with infantile comments that the law applies to both employees and employers.

Well of course procedures should be followed and proper proof should be obtained. It really is not rocket science. When I worked in HR (many moons ago) we followed the rules carefully. I understand things are different now.

 

[4eyesbetter]

Basically if we break the rules we get the full force of the relevant authorities down on us

There is a very, very, very important qualifier that needs to be added onto the end of this.

If the relevant authorities know about the case; and if the relevant authorities are inclined to take the person or people bringing it seriously; and if they have the time and resources to do so; and if the person who brings it has the time and resources to do so.

Neither of these four things are a given. The people I knew who were in insecure situations would almost certainly have had their hypothetical cases fall at one of those hurdles. If simply enshrining protections in law meant that they were automatically and competently enforced in every case, then we'd be living in Utopia right now and I wouldn't be making this forum post because I'd have no work to avoid.

 

[Pedro]

To Shelflifes point, this is exactly why a charge was brought in for an employee taking a company to tribunal. Historically this was easy, and many companies would decide to settle with the colleague in order to avoid rather large legal bills for defending themselves in a tribunal. This led to some fairly one sided cases and settlements.

I'm not sure about the Irish Law, but in the UK there is one very important clarification that we need to remember with regards to Employment Law:

In a criminal Case or Court of law, guilt is expected to be proved "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". In employment law the only requirement is to demonstrate "reasonable belief".
It removes a huge burden from Employers - but obviously needs to be treated wisely, or the employer may find themselves facing an unfair dismissal case.

 

[RobLev]

To Shelflifes point, this is exactly why a charge was brought in for an employee taking a company to tribunal. Historically this was easy, and many companies would decide to settle with the colleague in order to avoid rather large legal bills for defending themselves in a tribunal. This led to some fairly one sided cases and settlements.

It's not quite as simple as that. IT (now ET) - indeed all tribunal - procedures were originally designed to be operable without lawyers. In particular, cost-shifting is a rarity. Nevertheless employers lawyered-up using in-house or external lawyers; employees followed suit (but still more employers than employees are represented by lawyers).

It could therefore be argued that employers bring those costs on themselves...

The effect of the extraordinary fees (£1,200 to go to trial) now charged by the ET has been that applications have fallen off a cliff; unless employers changed their behaviour dramatically in the period just prior to introduction of the fees, many employees with justifable claims have been prevented from bringing claims because of the cost and uncertainty.

I'm not sure about the Irish Law, but in the UK there is one very important clarification that we need to remember with regards to Employment Law:

In a criminal Case or Court of law, guilt is expected to be proved "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". In employment law the only requirement is to demonstrate "reasonable belief".
It removes a huge burden from Employers - but obviously needs to be treated wisely, or the employer may find themselves facing an unfair dismissal case.

To explain further; if as an employer you reasonably believe your employee to have stolen from you after a reasonable investigation, and sacked him on that account, you will not have dismissed him unfairly. Even if he didn't in fact steal from you.

 

[RobLev]

I would have thought that such innocence wouldnt be seen by an experienced ref !

The in Ireland anyway is totally on the side of the employee, I agree that the laws should be obeyed but to me its a one way street when it comes to enforcement of labour laws

If I manage to sack an employee (the rings you have to jump through to do that without being sued are numerous) they are entitled to their notice period being paid.

Other than where stated, I refer to current English law - which may differ from Irish law.

If the employer sacks for gross misconduct, then no notice is required. If not - why should you not pay them for the notice period. If they don't working during that period because employer don't want them in the office/warehouse/factory/etc, that's employer's choice. If they decide not to come in for that period - then they won't get paid for it.

If they decide to resign and leave up up the creek technically you can pursue them but if you were to contact the enforcement agency the will tell you to forget it.

Im expected to pay full whack for the hours they are on the premises ,but if they skive off during the day we cant deduct their wages.

But you can sack them...

If they ring in sick when they are not, thats a breach of contract but nothing can be done unless definitive proof is secured.

No; employer needs only conduct a reasonable investigation and take a reasonable view and action on the outcome of that investigation. ET however won't re-run investigation.

If you have an employee pregnant they are entitled to holiday pay while on maternity leave (2 weeks)

I think you mean 26 weeks. And what is the objection to paying holiday pay to someone who remains an employee?

paid days off for scans appointments etc

Again, what is the objection?

and can pull the pregnancy card anytime they want when you ask them to do their job that you are paying them full price for.

Do you advocate, for example, requiring a pregnant warehouseman to continue manually to pick and load for dispatch until they go on maternity leave?

A pregnancy will cost up to €2000 to a small business in paid time off etc when it has nothing to do with us.

The pregnant employee is the employer's employee - of course it has something to do with the employer.

we have to keep their job open and they dont have to tell us if they are coming back or not until the last minute leaving you up the creek again.

In England it is permissible to employ maternity cover on a temporary contract with a flexible end-date.

I know of one instance where an employee was caught stealing, admitted it to the owner ,was sacked on the spot and ended winning an unfair dismissal case for €30k because the owner didnt follow procedure

I'd guess that either the tribunal didn't believe the owner that the employee had admitted it, or the tribunal got it wrong. Any failure to follow procedure would have to be particularly egregious to justify a finding of unfair dismissal in those circumstances.

Basically if we break the rules we get the full force of the relevant authorities down on us, if the employees screw us over its a cost of business

So please dont come out with infantile comments that the law applies to both employees and employers.

Hmmm.

 

[Shelflife]

Roblev I am referring to Irish employment law, as a small businessman with 12 employees I speak from experience in these cases.

In the case of a sacking, best practice over here is to pay notice.

Trying to sack a malingerer who is there over 12mths is a long drawn out process, you must retrain,retrain ,warn,warn sack this can take up to 18mths.

Employment appeals tribunals over here take the view that employers are wrong unless proven otherwise.

In Ireland over the 26 weeks maternity leave they build up 2 weeks holidays. Having children is a lifestyle choice in most cases, why should I pay someone holiday pay when they are not working ? why should I pay for it ? if someone takes a day off to get a big tattoo should I pay for them to be off ?

As a self employed person my wife got no paid leave, no maternity pay at all and no paid days off for scans etc

Why should someones choice to have a child be subsidised by their employer ? Yes they are still on the books but they are not working!

We can employ maternity cover over here too, my point was they dont have to tell you they are not coming back until they are due to come back , thus leaving you in the lurch again, politely inquiring as to their intentions can be seen as harassment.Im not talking about heavy lifting or clearly unsafe practises, im talking about simply taking the piss and pulling the pregnancy card because it suits them.

In the sacking case you would guess wrong ! Truck driver was seen filling his truck and his wifes car at then filling station and charging it to the companies card. Admitted it when questioned and begged for forgiveness, offered to pay back, had been going on for a while when they checked the figures. Owner sacked him on the spot.

At the EAT drivers english suddenly was so poor that he needed a translator, said he didnt realise what was happening at the time, court held there was clear breach of procedure and nailed employer.

As I said earlier EAT starts with the position that the employer is wrong and then opens the case.

Roblev Im at this game for 25 years, most of my staff are with me for years so I must be treating them ok, the idea behind accommodating pregnant workers isnt a bad one, the problem arises when small businesses who are just surviving are hit with extra costs for something that is out of their control and is effectively a lifestyle choice of their employee. When you are finding it hard to pay the bills having to fork out €2k to someone whos sitting at home is a hard one to take.

Put it this way, if your co worker got pregnant, would it be fair if money was deducted from your wages to pay her holiday pay while shes off, she is your co worker after all.

The EAT over here has produced some horror stories over the years, they love their practices and procedures, yes there are plenty od shitty employers who screw over people and ive no problem with them been nailed. Id just like to like to see a two way far system.