B968 - Payment of Overtime on Low-Hours Employment Contracts Bill

Watch
This discussion is closed.
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
B968 - Payment of Overtime on Low-Hours Employment Contracts Bill, TSR Socialist Party



Payment of Overtime on Low-Hours Employment Contracts Bill 2016

A Bill to improve pay for workers with unstable or inconsistent income streams and to create incentives for employers to provide certainty

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1. Definitions
The following definitions are used in this Act:
  1. The 'Full-Time Threshold' shall be 32 guaranteed hours per week.
  2. The 'contracted hours' are the number of hours which are guaranteed to be paid for by the employer.
  3. The 'contracted wages' are the sum paid in remuneration of the employee's work by way of cash, or liquid property with a clear market value.
    a) Property is 'liquid' if it may be expected to be sold at or above market rate within one day.
    b) A market value is 'clear' if the property is subject to free exchange within a market where i) equivalent property is transferred several times per hour on average, and ii) a record of transactions is publicly maintained.
    c) The value of the property concerned shall be the market rate after transactional taxes, agent fees and other costs incurred by the vendor are deducted.
  4. An 'eligible employment contract' is one to which the National Minimum Wage applies, and where the employee is aged 18 or over.
    a) If an employee turns 18 within the duration of the contract, the contract shall become an 'eligible employment contract' from that point.

2. Overtime payment on low-hours employment contracts
  1. On eligible employment contracts with less guaranteed hours than the Full-Time Threshold, any hours worked which are beyond the number of contracted hours must be paid at the Enhanced Rate.
  2. The Enhanced Rate shall be the following:
    a) For contracted wages between the National Minimum Wage (NMW) and 1.2 times the NMW, the Enhanced Rate shall be 160% of the contracted wage.
    b) For contracted wages between the 1.2 times the NMW and 1.5 times the NMW, the Enhanced Rate shall be 140% of the contracted wage.
    c) For contracted wages between 1.5 times the NMW and 3 times the NMW, the Enhanced Rate shall be 120% of the contracted wage.
    d) For contracted wages which are greater than 3 times the NMW, the Enhanced Rate shall be 100% of the contracted wage.
  3. The right to be paid the Enhanced Rate where specified by this Act may not be alienated through contract or through any other means.
  4. Any additional sums due under this section are payable in the same way as the contracted wage (for instance, where the contracted wage is paid through a mixture of stock options and cash, the additional sum may be paid through stock options or cash, but no through no other means), with the exception that payment in cash shall always be permissible.

3. Requirement to retain record of employment contract
  1. The employer must retain, and offer to the employee a copy of a record of all non-written employment contracts, stating clearly the number of contracted hours and the contracted wage.
  2. Failing to do so may result in a fine up to 5% of the annual revenue of the beneficiary of the employee's work, payable by the employer.

4. Civil claims for non-compliance
  1. Where an employee believes that section 2 or section 3(1) above is not being complied with by their employer, they may bring a civil complaint before the Employment Tribunal.
  2. An employee has standing to bring a claim under section 2 above if they can demonstrate the existence of a contract under which an Enhanced Rate of 101% or greater may become liable to be paid.
  3. An employee has standing to bring a claim under section 3(1) above automatically.
  4. If a successful claim is brought under section 2 above, damage consisting of impacts on the employee's personal life, including, but not limited to fees and interest payments incurred through debt, loss of property through debt or otherwise, and impacts on personal relationships as loss of amenity demages, should not be considered too remote.

5. Criminal offence of non-compliance
  1. Deliberate and sustained non-compliance with sections 2 or 3(1) above shall amount to a criminal offence.
  2. The maximum penalty for non-compliance with section 2 above shall be six times the amount unpaid, or 10% of the annual revenue of the beneficiary of the employee's work, whichever is greater.
  3. The maximum penalty for non-compliance with section 3(1) is as defined in section 3(2).

6. Commencement, Short Title and Extent
  1. This Act may be referred to as the Overtime Act 2016
  2. This Act will extend to the United Kingdom; and;
  3. This Act shall come into force on the 6th April 2017.




Notes

Policy explanation:
Spoiler:
Show
Zero-hour and low-hour contracts add flexibility benefits for the employer without any benefits being gained by the employee. Given the labour market is one with significant monopsonies, this needs state intervention to adjust for.

This Bill requires that any hours worked over the contracted number of hours for employment contracts for less than 32 weekly hours are paid at an additional rate in order to compensate the employee.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
TSR socialists: the party of unemployment.

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
For the avoidance of doubt, this essentially tackles the zero-hours contracts situation, and ensures that employers cannot easily screw over employees by requiring them to be available without guaranteeing them an income.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
TSR socialists: the party of unemployment.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Someone who is paid for 6 hours a week but is required to be available for 9 hours every day isn't 'employed' in any meaningful sense.
1
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
Aye - the power of employers over workers needs to decrease. Unfortunately, there are just too many people who are essentially being exploited for no extra reward.
1
DanE1998
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
Nay

This screws with the caring profession which relies on zero hours and casual contracts, as there is likely to be no guarantee of hours especially where a direct payments user pays the individual using PAYE
0
username1899909
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
And that's a nay from me
How will businesses be able to afford this and secondly this effectively gives some one working part time the say pay for someone working Full time ?
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by DanE1998)
Nay

This screws with the caring profession which relies on zero hours and casual contracts, as there is likely to be no guarantee of hours especially where a direct payments user pays the individual using PAYE
I suspect carers are not covered by this Bill, as they are not 'employees' but rather independent contractors. I'd be interested to hear more though.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by hazzer1998)
And that's a nay from me
How will businesses be able to afford this and secondly this effectively gives some one working part time the say pay for someone working Full time ?
This imposes no additional costs on businesses unless they require people to work more than their contracted hours. Businesses can avoid all costs by contracting to employ people for the number of hours they intend to require them to work.
0
DanE1998
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
This imposes no additional costs on businesses unless they require people to work more than their contracted hours. Businesses can avoid all costs by contracting to employ people for the number of hours they intend to require them to work.
But what if that need is flexible, as it regularly is?
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
Nay - this harm small businesses and help mega companies
0
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
I dunno, part of me agrees even though I might be going on one of the contacts you're getting rid of soon.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by DanE1998)
But what if that need is flexible, as it regularly is?
If the business need is flexible, the business should adopt the risk, especially in a market which already involves significant monopsonies in favour of the employer.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by joecphillips)
Nay - this harm small businesses and help mega companies
How so?

It certainly doesn't help mega companies. One of the best-known users of ZHCs is Sport Direct - a 'mega company' by any standards. I'm willing to hear your argument on how it harms small businesses but I don't think it does at first.

(Original post by Andy98)
I dunno, part of me agrees even though I might be going on one of the contacts you're getting rid of soon.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Are you against the abuse of employees with the use of zero-hour contracts? If so, you should vote in favour.
0
DanE1998
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
If the business need is flexible, the business should adopt the risk, especially in a market which already involves significant monopsonies in favour of the employer.
I don't think you understand,

I'm not talking about a business, I am talking about individuals who run their own NFP business which employs careers using council funds.

Waste of council funds, which would see a 20% increase and the risk to people with disabilities is huge, nope.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by DanE1998)
I don't think you understand,

I'm not talking about a business, I am talking about individuals who run their own NFP business which employs careers using council funds.

Waste of council funds, which would see a 20% increase and the risk to people with disabilities is huge, nope.
Okay, these carers are not affected by this Bill. It will vary from contract to contract but 99% of caring contracts are not 'employment' contracts in the legal sense, and I know for a fact that zero-guaranteed hours council ones are not employment contracts, and are therefore unaffected by this Bill.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
How so?

It certainly doesn't help mega companies. One of the best-known users of ZHCs is Sport Direct - a 'mega company' by any standards. I'm willing to hear your argument on how it harms small businesses but I don't think it does at first.



Are you against the abuse of employees with the use of zero-hour contracts? If so, you should vote in favour.
I'm not saying something should be done about zero hour contracts but not this.
If someone is ill and they have to get another worker in to cover then it is going to cost them more, the national living wage has lead to small businesses losing out because of higher costs which was estimated to have caused 60000 job cuts and fewer working hours and with 60000 businesses in a 'dire financial state' this could result in these companies going out of business leaving the bigger companies who can absorb this with less competition in the market.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-a6962911.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-10375495.html

http://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com/...al-living-wage


Really nice way to convince people it would solve the zero hours contract problems but it would create a lot more problems so you really should say if you want to cause bigger unemployment problems and get rid of zero hour contracts you should vote in favour.
1
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by joecphillips)
I'm not saying something should be done about zero hour contracts but not this.
If someone is ill and they have to get another worker in to cover then it is going to cost them more, the national living wage has lead to small businesses losing out because of higher costs which was estimated to have caused 60000 job cuts and fewer working hours and with 60000 businesses in a 'dire financial state' this could result in these companies going out of business leaving the bigger companies who can absorb this with less competition in the market.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-a6962911.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-10375495.html

http://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com/...al-living-wage


Really nice way to convince people it would solve the zero hours contract problems but it would create a lot more problems so you really should say if you want to cause bigger unemployment problems and get rid of zero hour contracts you should vote in favour.
"If someone is ill and they have to get another worker in to cover then it is going to cost them more"

This is not true. A support worker is not an 'employee', legally speaking. They are either an independent contractor, or employed by another organisation. This Bill does not affect how much these people are paid.

The rest of your post is therefore inaccurate.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
toronto353, if necessary, can I ask for a second reading if only the notes have been changed? I'm concerned that with the Bill as present, too many people will interpret 'employee' too widely, and few are likely to read this far down in the thread.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
"If someone is ill and they have to get another worker in to cover then it is going to cost them more"

This is not true. A support worker is not an 'employee', legally speaking. They are either an independent contractor, or employed by another organisation. This Bill does not affect how much these people are paid.

The rest of your post is therefore inaccurate.
They don't go out of the company they would offer overtime to one of the current members of staff who want it.

At a place like sainsburys when someone is ill where do the cover staff come from?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now? (select all that apply)

Lack of purpose or routine (277)
15.42%
Uncertainty around my education (281)
15.65%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (178)
9.91%
Isolating with family (127)
7.07%
Lack of support system (eg. Teachers, counsellors) (80)
4.45%
Lack of exercise/ability to be outside (150)
8.35%
Loneliness (177)
9.86%
Financial worries (74)
4.12%
Concern about myself or my loved ones getting ill (165)
9.19%
Exposure to negative news/social media (128)
7.13%
Lack of real life entertainment (eg. cinema, gigs, restaurants) (159)
8.85%

Watched Threads

View All