Pay: an analysis

[BAJR Host]

However here is the law on the matter.

my suggestion is to work for the company that gives the best benefits package (and conditions ) as you can see, it is up to them whether they include or exclude the holidays......


A worker is entitled to four weeks annual paid leave. Part-time workers are entitled to the same holidays as their full-time colleagues, calculated on a pro-rata basis. Employers may offer better contractual provisions; check your contract, statement of particulars or company handbook for details

Example:

A full-time person working 5 days a week is entitled to 5 days x 4 = 20 days.

A part-timer working two days a week is entitled to 2 days x 4 = 8 days.

A person working 15 hours a week is entitled to 15 hours x 4 = 60 hours per leave year.

There is no statutory entitlement to paid public holidays so an employer may include the public holidays in your four-week entitlement. Where a worker joins during the leave year they will be entitled a proportionate amount of annual paid leave. For example, a worker joining six months during the year will be entitled to two weeks annual paid leave.

Are public holidays counted towards the entitlement?...........
There is no statutory right to paid public holidays, so employers may include these holidays in the four weeks annual paid leave.


Another day another WSI?

[beamo]

My wife used to work for a large civil service organisation and always seemed to have loads of additional days off - Queen's Birthday etc, including a paid half-day off for Xmas shopping despite being located in central London and therefore able to nip out at lunchtime to get the wrapping paper crackers.

Even more annoying (from my private sector viewpoint) was the annual 10 day sick leave allowance which was seen by many staff there as an entitlement rather than a benefit. There were numerous occasions where her department was desperately understaffed towards the end of the year because people were 'taking their sick leave'.

Maybe this was to make up for the abysmal management, appalling health and safety, and complete lack of career development opportunities.

Beamo

[1man1desk]

So the IFA are being widely criticised for proposing a package that is better than the present one. A few points:

Holiday - the IFA proposal that the minimum standard should be 20 days, not including statutory holidays, is better than the legal entitlement (20 days including statutory holidays).

Sick pay - the IFA propose to make the minimum standard a 1-month paid sick leave allowance. At present there is no statutory requirement for paid sick leave, and many employers (in and out of archaeology) do not pay for more than 3 days a year. So, again the proposed IFA minimum standard is better than legal entitlement and common practice.

Pension contribution - the IFA propose that employers either contribute to pensions, or pay more salary as compensation for not doing so. I think that addresses Kevin Wooldridge's point about SERPS.

Working hours - the IFA propose an average working week of 37.5 hours, which is less than many people have to work now.

In each of these items, they propose a scale of financial contribution if the standard is not met (bearing in mind that these standards exceed legal entitlements).

These proposals do not separate the pay scales from LG scales, which I think is necessary. However, they would significantly improve terms of employment for many archaeologists in the UK, without causing a financial loss to compensate. So, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Bear in mind that neither the IFA nor any other public body (not even HM Government) can do more than define a minimum standard. There is nothing to stop RAOs or other employers from exeeding the standard (as my employer, an RAO, does in every respect already).

Nor can the IFA single-handedly resolve all the problems that exist with employment in British archaeology. They can push in the right direction though, and this proposed minimum standard would be a significant step forward from the present position.



1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[mercenary]

The IFA is being widely criticised on the holiday entitlement issue. If it is [u]exclusive </u>of stat holidays then OK, it is better than the law currently requires. I suppose that the fact most employers currently provide it already, makes little difference. It may catch out the worst of the worst, but they already play fast and loose with employment law, and IFA rules are unlikely to change that.
I am having problems locating the original IFA document (rather than the copy on BAJR) to confirm whether it is [u]exclusive </u>or [u]inclusive</u>. Help me out someone?

[BAJR Host]

The BAJR copy is a direct copy and paste from the document sent to it by the IFA.

As you can see the IFA are trying to enshrine a better than required deal.

SO a little praise where it is due.

Another day another WSI?

[mercenary]

Thanks hosty, that settles it. An unwarrented criticism. (This time)

[Tile man]

There is anarticle by Pete Hinton in The Archaeologist no 54 page 8-10

http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...s/ta54.pdf

[kevin wooldridge]

I have just checked the original Kate Geary letter posted on BAJR 'IFA and other Comments' dated 30th November 2005 It states:

20 days annual leave including statutory holidays = ?14,281(PIFA), ?16,633 (AIFA), ?21,563 (MIFA)

[Tile man]

sorry to be so spoddy but here is the full text, the line you are quoting is from table 1...
The proposed changes will come into effect on 1 April 2007.


Changes to the IFA recommended pay minima

You may remember a consultation about the recommended pay minima in TA 54. In it we reported that, whilst they have been broadly effective with few jobs now advertised below the appropriate rate, they only cover one aspect of employee benefits, i.e. pay.

Increasing rates of pay for archaeologists is still very much a priority. However, it is recognised that access to other important benefits such as sick pay, paid holidays and pensions is variable and these benefits make a significant contribution to the employment package.

We proposed a model whereby the minimum salary is taken to include an employer?s pension contribution, a minimum number of days of paid leave, a sick leave allowance and a defined average working week. Following the consultation, Council has agreed the following package as a minimum standard, from 1 April 2007

? 37.5 hour average working week
? Employer pension contribution of 6%, subject to any reasonable qualifying period
? 20 days annual leave excluding statutory holidays
? Minimum sick leave allowance of 1 month on full pay, subject to any reasonable qualifying period

In some cases employers may find themselves unable to meet these requirements. Whilst this is not best employment practice, the IFA will expect any shortfall in benefits to be compensated for in pay. The following table illustrates examples of the salary enhancements which would be required if the employment package fell below the minimum recommended allowances. Betterment of these terms would not, however, permit a reduction in basic salary.

Table 1.
2006/7 minimum salaryrecommendations = ?13,855 (PIFA), ?16,137 (AIFA), ?20,893 (MIFA)

No employer pension contributions (+6%) = ?14,686 (PIFA), ?17,105 (AIFA), ?22,146 (MIFA)

Average 40 hours/week = ?14,978 (PIFA), ?17,445 (AIFA), ?22,587 (MIFA)

20 days annual leave including statutory holidays = ?14,281(PIFA), ?16,633 (AIFA), ?21,563 (MIFA)

No sick leave allowance (based on min. 1 month
full pay) = ?15,009 (PIFA), ?17,481 (AIFA), ?22,634 (MIFA)


Note: The IFA?s minimum salary recommendations increase annually in line with local government pay scales. Figures for 2006/7 are based on an increase of 2.95%. Figures for 2007/8 not yet available but are likely to increase in line with inflation.

For the registration year 2006-7 onwards, Registered Archaeological Organisations must abide by the IFA?s present recommended minimum salaries. The IFA recognises that extending the scheme to include other employee benefits may result in increased costs for some RAOs and some employers will need time to make adjustments to budgets, charges and/or employment terms. It is also recognised that some RAOs are bound by local or national agreements on pay and conditions beyond their direct control. With this in mind, the changes will not be introduced until 1 April 2007.The implications of the proposed amendments will need to be considered carefully and the IFA is now seeking comments on whether there are any aspects of the revised recommendations that will cause particular difficulties to employers that wish to abide by the spirit of this approach. Council accepts that some fine-tuning may be necessary and proposes that any revisions be announced by 1 April 2006.

The IFA will also be considering whether any changes are needed to the wording of Principle 5 and rule 5.6 of the Code of conduct, in order to reflect the changes outlined above.

In considering the impact of the changes, your attention is also drawn to the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations which came into force on 1 October 2002. These state that

Fixed-term employees will have the right not to be less favourably treated than comparable permanent employees, unless the less favourable treatment is justified on objective grounds. The right applies both to less favourable treatment in relation to contractual terms (including pay and pensions) and to their overall package of conditions. In addition fixed-term employees should not be subject to other detrimental treatment by the employer.

Yours sincerely

Kate Geary
Training & Standards Co-ordinator.

[kevin wooldridge]

Apologies all, my error for misreading table 1.