Reply to: Is it time to start thinking seriously about this?

[PCTNN]

I'm already doing a 3 day week at my current gig. Still charging the client for 5 days.

[Zigenare]

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.

How are the English classes coming along? Are they worth the money?

[SueEllen]

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.

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.

[vetran]

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.

Of course I am wrong the mighty warthog has spoken, earning a six figure salary he knows everything, if you earn £480 rather than £600 its just a drop in cigar money nothing serious!

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.

[Whorty]

semantics - something we in the top 10% can afford those in the bottom 20% of earners will just be unable to pay the bills.

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.

[vetran]

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

semantics - something we in the top 10% can afford those in the bottom 20% of earners will just be unable to pay the bills.

[EternalOptimist]

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.

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

[Guy Incognito]

I'd do it on my current day rate if I was offered it. Work life balance and all that.

Given the upcoming tapering of corporation tax and my slow decline into old age, I am much less inclined to continue working 250 days per year.

[Whorty]

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.

The pay rate is the same. So not a pay cut. It's a reduction in income if the hours worked reduces, but that can happen today if there is not enough work for someone on an hourly rate (albeit in there would need to be a letter from management etc explaining the change etc).

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).

[vetran]

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.

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.

[Whorty]

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.

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.

[vetran]

The 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 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.

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.

[d000hg]

Hmm "the majority" - can you see the flaw in your argument?.

The 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.

[vetran]

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.

say 8 times in as many months. Mostly to meet customers or the team.

[Whorty]

How often do you have to go into the office?

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.