- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Is it time to start thinking seriously about this?"
Collapse
-
I'm already doing a 3 day week at my current gig. Still charging the client for 5 days.
-
Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
It's not just removal of Eastern European workers - I in fact know a lot who haven't yet decided to pack their bags and go elsewhere in Europe - it is demographics. There is simply not enough young people in the UK, and the young people there are because it costs more to educate them aren't doing part-time jobs.
In my area in Summer there were lots of clearly 16-22 year olds working in shops, restaurants, pubs etc and even people I know who have carers were suddenly getting much younger carers, however now the majority have now disappeared.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by vetran View Post
The hospitality jobs are the ones that have been bouncing along the minimum wage, the companies having a challenge hiring people are the ones who decided that paying people a living wage is too hard, until we removed the cheap eastern European labour they could get away with it now sadly they are finding it difficult.
In my area in Summer there were lots of clearly 16-22 year olds working in shops, restaurants, pubs etc and even people I know who have carers were suddenly getting much younger carers, however now the majority have now disappeared.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Whorty View Post
No, it's not semantics, you're wrong although you'll never admit it will you? ... it's the difference between a pay cut (the hourly rate is reduced) and a reduction in income (the hours are reduced at the same pay rate).
You could of course have a pay rise ... the rate per hour increases ... but a reduction in hours such that the income is less. Do you see that as a pay cut? Or a pay rise?
But it's a moot point as hourly workers are highly unlikely to be asked across the board to work less hours as it's the less skilled jobs around hospitality, care etc that are crying out for workers and for people to work extra hours.
The hospitality jobs are the ones that have been bouncing along the minimum wage, the companies having a challenge hiring people are the ones who decided that paying people a living wage is too hard, until we removed the cheap eastern European labour they could get away with it now sadly they are finding it difficult.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by vetran View Post
semantics - something we in the top 10% can afford those in the bottom 20% of earners will just be unable to pay the bills.
You could of course have a pay rise ... the rate per hour increases ... but a reduction in hours such that the income is less. Do you see that as a pay cut? Or a pay rise?
But it's a moot point as hourly workers are highly unlikely to be asked across the board to work less hours as it's the less skilled jobs around hospitality, care etc that are crying out for workers and for people to work extra hours.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
what??? thats an income cut. not a pay cut.
if you work zero hours on an hourly rate you get zero income. thats not a pay cut
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by vetran View Post
You are viewing this from a position of power.
if you get £15 an hour and work 40 hours you earn £600 a week. If you now work 32 hours a week you get £480 a week. Its nice you don't see that as a pay cut most people earning that sort of money will. The reality will be that slowly £480 a week will become the defacto pay.
Remember the proliferation of 0 hour contracts that wasn't to help staff.
if you work zero hours on an hourly rate you get zero income. thats not a pay cut
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mattster View PostI'd do it on my current day rate if I was offered it. Work life balance and all that.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by vetran View Post
You are viewing this from a position of power.
if you get £15 an hour and work 40 hours you earn £600 a week. If you now work 32 hours a week you get £480 a week. Its nice you don't see that as a pay cut most people earning that sort of money will. The reality will be that slowly £480 a week will become the defacto pay.
Remember the proliferation of 0 hour contracts that wasn't to help staff.
As far as I see these lower paid role are crying out for resources in many instances, and staff are being asked to work extra hours not less. Can't see that changing just yet - carers for example seem to be able to work as many hours as they want, extra shifts, the works. Not an option for us 'powerful' salary based staff (well, we can work extra hours but we won't see any more cash in our banks for doing it, never have).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Whorty View Post
It's actually the total opposite of this in my experience and of my friends ... the highly skilled are salaried workers and we work x hours for y pay. We can choose to work less hours for less pay, or choose to work the same hours over less days. I know no one who has been offered less hours for same pay.
Lower skilled workers are not generally salaried but work and get paid hourly at a specified rate. They may also get an overtime allowance on top if they exceed their 'standard' weekly hours.
Working 20% less time, and therefore being paid 20% is not a pay cut. The hourly rate is the same. Similarly, if they choose to work extra hours, and get more in the pay packet, this is not a pay rise.
if you get £15 an hour and work 40 hours you earn £600 a week. If you now work 32 hours a week you get £480 a week. Its nice you don't see that as a pay cut most people earning that sort of money will. The reality will be that slowly £480 a week will become the defacto pay.
Remember the proliferation of 0 hour contracts that wasn't to help staff.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by vetran View Post
The link I posted, the majority. Again you are only looking at one approach.
The reality currently is if you want to work 4 days a week the most likely offer you will get is your normal hours compressed into 4 days or a 20% pay cut, especially if you are not high skilled.
Lower skilled workers are not generally salaried but work and get paid hourly at a specified rate. They may also get an overtime allowance on top if they exceed their 'standard' weekly hours.
Working 20% less time, and therefore being paid 20% is not a pay cut. The hourly rate is the same. Similarly, if they choose to work extra hours, and get more in the pay packet, this is not a pay rise.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by d000hg View PostThe story I linked to and the backdrop of companies trialling "same pay for 4 day weeks" in the news recent months is not about squeezing a 35 hour working week into 4 days. You are incorrect to state otherwise and I'm not sure why you are labouring the point.
The reality currently is if you want to work 4 days a week the most likely offer you will get is your normal hours compressed into 4 days or a 20% pay cut, especially if you are not high skilled.
I love the naivete of the idea that large international companies who offshored everyone or charged them for safety equipment are suddenly going to give everyone a 20% pay rise unless of course you have pictures of them naked with NLyUK & the flying helmet.
Not labouring the point, just providing a less optimistic view which seems closer to reality.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by vetran View Post
Hmm "the majority" - can you see the flaw in your argument?.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Whorty View Post
Very rarely .... went in yesterday to meet external consultants. Had a workshop last week. But in the 12 months I've been at the company I've been into an office 6 times.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: