Employment/Work and asscioated benefits woes

[Hacked_Off]

We understand that, and we're not debating it nor disputing your statement, beyond seeking initial clarification. Sometimes side discussions happen on threads, and lo! here is one newly hatched from the mother discussion egg. This schedule of payment is unusual - it attracts comment.

 

Anyhow, you won't be at risk of sanction simply because you approach the Jobcentre to ask the question, especially as it's for 15 hours per week. I believe it is possible to get a CL as "alignment to wages", but I'm no expert on that. Certainly, there's no absolute requirement to be on benefits in order to be eligible, but I have heard that people who aren't do have problems from time to time.

 

Edit: Actually, now I think about it, are alignment payments available for people going into part time work?

 

 

Questioning the pay frequency isn't a side discussion. That's going of issue. I've explained a few times now and people are still Apparantly confused!!!!!

 

"this schedule of payment is unusual" no it isn't, most employers pay in arrears.

[Hacked_Off]

A company pays whenever the payroll cough up!...What your saying is about working a month in hand!... it is hard but if thats the way they pay then thats it)

 

again I wasn't questioning that. I give up.

[Lea_HTH]

Fire service:-)

 

That's interesting - one of my cousins is a fireman and he gets paid monthly. Weird.

[Lea_HTH]

Questioning the pay frequency isn't a side discussion. That's going of issue. I've explained a few times now and people are still Apparantly confused!!!!!

 

"this schedule of payment is unusual" no it isn't, most employers pay in arrears.

 

Not confused, just disbelieving that an employer would pay two months in arrears. Many employers pay in arrears, a week in hand, a month in hand...it's the two months that is odd, hence my first query as to whether you have understood the employer correctly.

 

Your contract of employment will clear this all up - post the relevant section that states you will be paid two months in arrears.

 

It's definitely NOT a side issue - it is relevant because if you've got it wrong, you won't have anything to worry about with regards to gaining extra benefits during that time period.

[antone]

Questioning the pay frequency isn't a side discussion. That's going of issue. I've explained a few times now and people are still Apparantly confused!!!!!

 

"this schedule of payment is unusual" no it isn't, most employers pay in arrears.

 

I know that most employers pay in arrears - what's unusual is paying two months in arrears. Most employers do not do this. But aside from gaining clarification as to what you meant, no-one is disputing what you say and we understand you just fine. We're just surprised.

 

Main issue: "Can benefits be paid to help me with this situation?"

 

Side issue: "Whoa! That's a strange pay schedule!"

[flumps1976]

The OP has already stated that they will be paid for the last 3 working days worked in October at the end of November and will then receive a full month in December for work completed in November (if I have understood the post correctly that is!), so the company is not paying 2 months in arrears.

[antone]

The OP has already stated that they will be paid for the last 3 working days worked in October at the end of November and will then receive a full month in December for work completed in November (if I have understood the post correctly that is!), so the company is not paying 2 months in arrears.

 

That's two months. DWP example - DWP staff are paid at the end of the month for work completed that month. In other words, you're paid at the end of November for November's work, hence one month in arrears. If you're paid at the end of December for November's work, you're being paid two months in arrears.

[Sidewinder]

"this schedule of payment is unusual" no it isn't, most employers pay in arrears.

 

Afraid it is - or you are unlucky!

 

Every company I have worked for, been responsible for payroll for, or have had dealings with, pay at the end of the month (or on a specific day of the month) for hours worked up to the end of the week preceding payday. So, for somebody starting on Monday, and where the next payday is the last Friday of the month, the payroll would capture hours worked up to the week prior to payday.

 

Running payroll a month behind makes no common or commercial sense whatsoever!

[Hacked_Off]

I have today recieved an email from the respondent saying "Thankyou for your evidence bundle, you have misse out some emails which I will include in mine"

 

Now the thing is as per ye management order they need to be in 7 days before the hearing, the 7 days is today. Nothing has been recieved from the respondent.

 

Surely anything he hands in now will be thrown out?

[Pusillanimous]

Not so. The view will be that it is in the public interest to see their evidence.

[Hacked_Off]

I've been working for an agency for 9 months. The job I'm on is for a company that's been on the news alot and are well known for incompetence.

 

I had been on one site for 8 months, recently I have been moved with one hours notice to another site were I was led to believe that's were I would be for the foreseeable future. Then I'm told by txt message I was to move again to a third site from Monday. The supervisor was not happy about it because she "removed at OPS request". The manager told her "removed at OPs request". I have had zero say in this. Not even a phone call. Nor have I been given details from the agency such as the address, start time, who to report to. I've had to find all that out myself!!!

 

All three sites are chronically understaffed and I'm being used as the floater to make up for this, something I did not sign up for. No body else is being made to go between sites. The first site I was on now has three staff members left from seven. I'm being given the work of four people to cover which is physically impossible.

 

Then I find out the people employed direct are on £46 per month more than me. Isn't that not allowed under AWR?

 

I've asked for an explanation off the agency re the wages and being used as a yo yo. To which I have not received a response.

Edited December 18, 2012 by ims21

[Hacked_Off]

Now there saying I won't get paid on Friday because my timesheet was not signed by a supervisor. It was signed I was stood next to her.

 

 

 

There also refusing to acknowledge the other staff are on more than me and to "prove it with a payslip". Not very professional at all, she spoke to me like dirt.

Edited December 18, 2012 by ims21

[Hacked_Off]

"You are paid the same hourly payrate as a cleaner at X in the same role, monthly pay after tax is irrelevant to your hourly rate. I cannot comment on why somebody would pick up more - maybe they have a different tax code? "

 

I've no idea why there going on about tax none of us earn enough to be taxed so as she says its irrelevant

[assisted blonde]

salaries can be different for an agency worker and one paid directly, the agency would have to have your tax code weather you pay insurance or not and a different code can mean a difference in net pay. it sounds like you have had enough of this agency, if you are fed up with them go to a different one, but agency workers do have a harder time of it in some respects so you may not find a great deal of difference.

[Hacked_Off]

Thanks for the reply

I've checked with everyone were all on the same tax codes and I was told they were all given a pay rise in April, just when I started. No body gets taxed because we don't earn enough!

 

The boss told me today she got on the phone to the agency and they told her my timesheet was fine. Then they phoned me straight after and told me the opposite. Makes no sense to me.

 

It's a shame really because the job itself is fine.

[Hacked_Off]

Removed

Edited December 18, 2012 by Hacked_Off

[assisted blonde]

Are they paid by the agency or direct from the employer?

[bedlington83]

Now there saying I won't get paid on Friday because my timesheet was not signed by a supervisor. It was signed I was stood next to her.

I don't think its particularly any help but, even if it wasn't signed, its illegal to withhold payment for that reason under the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations

[Hacked_Off]

Are they paid by the agency or direct from the employer?

 

Direct from the employer.

 

I'm paid by the agency.

[Hacked_Off]

I don't think its particularly any help but, even if it wasn't signed, its illegal to withhold payment for that reason under the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations

 

 

Super helpful actually, I've just quoted that at them and I am now getting paid Friday!!! Thanks!!

[Hacked_Off]

Removed

Edited December 18, 2012 by Hacked_Off

[assisted blonde]

Well that may well explain it if the company pay x rate to employees they employ directly the agency can pay its employees what they like. Two different employers

[Hacked_Off]

Well that may well explain it if the company pay x rate to employees they employ directly the agency can pay its employees what they like. Two different employers

 

"After 12 weeks in the same job with the same hirer, you’re entitled to the same basic terms and conditions as if you had been recruited directly, including:

 

basic pay, including holiday pay, overtime and bonuses linked to your performance"

[assisted blonde]

But is the job exactly the same? may well be some differences

[Hacked_Off]

But is the job exactly the same? may well be some differences

 

Nope exactly the same. I've been working on the same floors with people who are directly employed.

 

I went to see an employment solicitor before for a free consult and he agreed the points of law I am using are correct and they will probably be made to pay up if intake them to ET.

 

Luckily I've just got a perm job starting mid jan. no agency this time.