Is this fair?

[Al Cain]

I think you maybe correct, the working time directive doens mention something about breaks of 11 hours for every 24....

 

oh dear...

[djw1981]

If you're an adult worker (that is, over 18), you'll normally have the right to a 20 minute rest break if you're expected to work for more than six hours at a stretch. A lunch or coffee break can count as your rest break. Additional breaks might be given by your contract of employment. There's no statutory right to 'smoking breaks'.

 

If you're under 18 but over school leaving age (you're under school leaving age until the end of summer term of the school year in which you turn 16) you're classed as a 'young worker'. A young worker is entitled to a 30 minute rest break if they are expected to work for more that four and a half hours at a stretch.

 

The requirements are:

 

* the break must be in one block

* it can't be taken off one end of the working day - it must be somewhere in the middle

* you're allowed to spend it away from the place on your employer's premises where you work

* your employer can say when the break must be taken, as long as it meets these conditions

 

Daily rest - a break between working days

 

If you're an adult worker you usually have the right to a break of at least 11 hours between working days. A young worker has a right to a break of at least 12 hours between working days.

Weekly rest - the 'weekend'

 

If you're an adult worker you usually have the right to 24 hours clear of work each week or 48 hours clear each fortnight.

If you're a young worker (see above), you must have at least 48 hours clear of work every week. If the nature of the job makes it unavoidable, e.g. if you work split shifts, then the 48 hours could be reduced to 36 hours so long as time off is given later in compensation.

 

Exceptions to the regulations

 

The rights to breaks apply differently to you if:

 

* you have to travel a long distance from your home to get to work or you constantly work in different places making it difficult to work to a set pattern

* you're doing security or surveillance-based work

* you're working in an industry with busy peak periods, like agriculture, retail or tourism

* there's an emergency or risk of an accident

* the job needs round-the-clock staffing (e.g. hospital work)

* you're employed in the rail industry and you work on board trains or your activities are irregular or linked to seeing that trains run on time

 

Instead of getting normal breaks, you're entitled to 'compensatory rest', which is rest taken later, ideally during the same or following working day. The principle is that everyone gets 90 hours rest a week on average, although some rest may come slightly later than normal.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Emp...Off/DG_10029451

Who's not covered by the Regulations?

Your working week is not covered by the Working Time Regulations if you work in the following areas:

* jobs where you can choose freely how long you will work eg a managing executive

* the armed forces, emergency services and police are excluded in some circumstances

* domestic servants in private houses

There are also special rules for doctors in training and mobile workers in the transport industry (either road, rail, air or sea).

 

I guess an unscrupulous employer could claim that point 1 above applies....

[ChrisD]

Don't take the job? That's what I'd do, and I'd say the same to your mate!

 

I saw a job for £500 - 15 venues on a tour! I don't think so! I asked if they meant £500 a venue, and no, that's £500 for all 15, so £33 each. They were paying for travel etc. but given any sensible fit up and 1 night show is going to be at least 8-10 hours work, plus travel TIME etc., I thought it was laughable, so I turned it down.

 

Don't devalue yourself by taking crappy paid jobs. OK, don't oversell yourself by refusing to work for less than £300 a day, but if you think it's rotten pay, don't take the job!

[Ben]

There are a few things that need to be considered, one is that the Directive in fact states it must be an 11 hour rest period, this is specifically NOT 11 hours between shifts and is often argued that it in fact must be 11 hours at home so if it takes an hour to get home and an hour back thats 13 hours between shifts. The second is that you have the option to opt out such as accepting overtime where you know this will cut into your rest time. this also does not apply to people who are self employed (or lots of other cases that we wont worry about here).

 

 

There is a very similar topic also being discussed about long working hours also worth a read or combining with this one

[djw1981]

Equally, AIUI the 11 hours a day can be taken to be split across the day - i.e. 1pm-10pm followed by 6am-3pm. Although only 8hrs between shifts, there was a total time off of greater than 11 hours on each day. This is all contract dependent, and based often on local agreements. Certainly that is how it has applied in most jobs I have had where I have been employed. w.r.t. a self-employed basis I;m not sure how the rules stack up.

[Chris Adam]

To play devils advocate for a minute, You haven't mentioned the job spec or your mate's experience level, so please consider this:

 

When I was starting out as a professional, I accepted work with a company for the Edinburgh Fringe - who will remain nameless, but they are one of the biggest - and the work was for a pitiful amount. (worked out around £2.50 per hour). I did 14 - 16 hour days, 30 days in a row, 9 shows per day. Being honest, it was horrible.

However, through doing this I got offered a few shifts with the BBC, a bunch of corporate stuff, some theatre and made contacts the length of my arm who I still work with to this day. Not to mention all of the experience I gained right accross the board that comes with doing 14 hour days with industry professionals in a demanding role.

So..... basically what I'm saying is, this job will only be as good as your mate makes it. If he already has a wealth of experience, then he can easily turn it down or ask for more, but if he doesn't, encourage him to think about what he might get out of it after this and who he might meet in the process.

It would be so easy to work to rule and the BECTU rates, but sometimes a step backwards is actually a better move.

[Shaggy]

So..... basically what I'm saying is, this job will only be as good as your mate makes it. If he already has a wealth of experience, then he can easily turn it down or ask for more, but if he doesn't, encourage him to think about what he might get out of it after this and who he might meet in the process.

It would be so easy to work to rule and the BECTU rates, but sometimes a step backwards is actually a better move.

 

Working for a pittance to "prove yourself" is a sure fire way to get the piss taken out of you and lower wages for everyone else at the same time. If the job needs doing then it needs doing and should be paid at a sensible rate, working for almost no money is subsidising a commercial entity and that does noone any favours. In other industries people get paid when learning the job, why should this industry be any different/

[Paul TC]

I did 14 - 16 hour days, 30 days in a row, 9 shows per day. Being honest, it was horrible.

 

If anyone is thinking of doing that and then adding in driving 1 hour each way either side of that. I hope you are on a differrent road to me.

 

Sometimes one needs to use one's common sense and just say no, however much the money is.

[Chris Adam]

Shaggy has kind of missed my point there. To be clearer,these jobs have nothing to do with proving yourselves to anyone. They are far more valuable as a method of gaining experience for yourself, meeting people and generally getting a good foot in the door of an industry that is rather hard to get into. Surely it's better to get a bit of cash for gaining experience rather than none?

In other industrys, there is no other choice than to learn your trade at University, and whilst that option is open to us now too, many people in our industry believe that experience outweighs education in terms of gaining knowledge. (and please, I'm not looking to start a debate on education v experience - that one has been done to death). Other industys do have crap paid jobs too though: for example, a junior journalist only gets 11K per year and is expected to work 60-70 hour weeks. All after 4 years at University. Is that fair?

I think we are all in agreeance that the wage for that particular position is pretty crap, so do you think that the company is going to get the person they really want? Probably not, which will give someone the chance who needs / wants experience until they are in a position where they feel themselves that they can turn that kind of offer down. It certainly hasn't driven down the freelance rates that I get paid.

 

I should probably also have made it clearer that I was local to the edinburgh fringe and I wouldn't recommend driving after those sort of shifts either. Common sense does come in handy there (even though common sense doesn't exist anymore - Quote from health and safety types)

[Ben]

Equally, AIUI the 11 hours a day can be taken to be split across the day - i.e. 1pm-10pm followed by 6am-3pm. Although only 8hrs between shifts, there was a total time off of greater than 11 hours on each day. This is all contract dependent, and based often on local agreements. Certainly that is how it has applied in most jobs I have had where I have been employed. w.r.t. a self-employed basis I;m not sure how the rules stack up.

 

 

the 11 hours must be one continual rest period it CAN NOT be split up over the day

[Shaggy]

Shaggy has kind of missed my point there. To be clearer,these jobs have nothing to do with proving yourselves to anyone. They are far more valuable as a method of gaining experience for yourself, meeting people and generally getting a good foot in the door of an industry that is rather hard to get into. Surely it's better to get a bit of cash for gaining experience rather than none?

In other industrys, there is no other choice than to learn your trade at University, and whilst that option is open to us now too, many people in our industry believe that experience outweighs education in terms of gaining knowledge. (and please, I'm not looking to start a debate on education v experience - that one has been done to death). Other industys do have crap paid jobs too though: for example, a junior journalist only gets 11K per year and is expected to work 60-70 hour weeks. All after 4 years at University. Is that fair?

I think we are all in agreeance that the wage for that particular position is pretty crap, so do you think that the company is going to get the person they really want? Probably not, which will give someone the chance who needs / wants experience until they are in a position where they feel themselves that they can turn that kind of offer down. It certainly hasn't driven down the freelance rates that I get paid.

 

I should probably also have made it clearer that I was local to the edinburgh fringe and I wouldn't recommend driving after those sort of shifts either. Common sense does come in handy there (even though common sense doesn't exist anymore - Quote from health and safety types)

I did not miss your point at all, I just completely disagree with what you are saying. If a job is a job and thus needs to be done, it should be paid at a fair rate, which at a bare minimum should be minimum wage, not subsidising a commercial concern by doing manual labour for a pittance. Your example of the junior journalist is just as reprehensible in my view, using a different example many junior lawyers are higher rate taxpayers straight out of university. Yes, it's hard work with long hours but the ample compensation makes it better. Experience is good but doing work for nothing drives down everyone elses wages and devalues the more skilled crew. And also, once you are doing work for a price it is hard to put your rates up.

[cfmonk]

The point here about something being "fair" is entirely irrelevant really. I'm an economist in my day job and the fair price for a job is the amount at which somebody is willing to do the job to the standard that you want it done. The minimum wage does put a different slant on it and if your mate is being asked to work as an employee (see my post in The Office for a definition of that term) then the chap who is asking him to do it looks set to get a heavy fine BUT the question is not whether this rate of pay is fair, it is whether your mate wants to work for that amount of money. If he does then fair enough, if he does not then don't do it!

 

P.S. The length of days worked here are not that long really! When I first started a 27 hour shift was not uncommon in what I was doing and I'm sure it still is not to many people. I was working as a self employed sub contractor so the working time directive (which did not exist then I don't think) did not apply. Of course, I would NOT have trusted myself to drive anywhere after that sort of time, nor would I be climbing any kind of ladder!

 

 

A concurrent post has been automatically merged from this point on.

 

P.P.S. By day job I mean student!

[Chris Adam]

cfmonk has hit the nail right on the head. The company is only going to get what they pay for, and are quite possibly expecting that, hence the cheaper rates.

I personally believe that if you are looking for a bit of experience, you are much better having £400 smackers in your back pocket for doing something you enjoy (have we forgotten that we enjoy this job?), than sitting at home watching eastenders and complaining about it?

The OP didn't mention his mates experience level, or the job description so I was just assuming he was being offered a rate that the company believe the position is worth.

I'm all for socialist values, but sometimes it doesn't all revolve around cash. This position may have had more to offer the chap than just money.

[zonino]

However the NMW is just that, the MINIMUM wage that should be paid. It is also the LAW. Just like H&S its not something you can opt out of.

[Chris Adam]

Not sure if freelance work is covered in the NMW