Straw poll : 1. If you work full time, how many hours are you paid for a week? 2. Does your employer pay you for all or part of your lunch break?

[Armadollo]

Looking at a job. They say they're a living wage foundation employer (ie that they pay more than minimum wage) but because full time contracted hours are only 35 a week the monthly salary is lower than minimum wage for a job with contracted hours 37.5 a week. I mean I'm not going to take it but just wondered how common this is. Everywhere else I've worked full time is 37.5 hours a week so eight hours with an hour off for lunch half of which is paid.

Obviously if you have a high paid job where hours required/worked isn't really a factor I'm not asking for your experience. I'm talking to the low paid office staff like me.

37.5 - 7.5 hours with 30 min lunch. was 35 hours at my last place with 30 min lunch (which noone took and regularly did overtime)

40 hours a week, 8.5 hour shifts with an unpaid half hour break.

7.5 hour day, 30 min unpaid lunch

It's very common not to have any of your lunch paid.

Currently on 37 hrs, work 9-5 with a weird unpaid 36 minute lunch.

Last job 40 hrs, worked 8-5 with 1 hour unpaid lunch.

Job before was 42.5 hours, 8.30-5, with 30 mins unpaid lunch and 2x15 mins paid tea breaks.

I'm paid for 36 hours because I have an early finish on Fridays. My 30 minute lunch break is unpaid.

37 hours a week but hours unpaid lunch break every day

As a lawyer, my last 3 contracts were:

35 hours / 1 hour unpaid lunch
37.5 hours / 1 hour unpaid lunch
35 hours / 1 hour unpaid lunch

Because so few people actually take a full hour for lunch, I suppose it means people are working “for free”, but as a salaried employee and particularly in the legal industry, nobody really works their contracted hours anyway.

Lunch is almost always unpaid. 35 hours pw is at the lower end of full time so if this is the number of hours you work, the salary is always going to be less than places where they expect you to work 37.5 or 40 hours pw and pay you for those hours.

I think the minimum wage and living wage is the same for people age 23 or over anyway, so being a 'living wage foundation employer' doesn't mean that you earn any more.

I suppose whether or not the job is worth taking depends on the overall T&Cs, how far away they are (time and cost of travel being a factor) and what else is available.

Only this week, I've heard of two different employers saying they're unable to recruit and keep staff even though they're paying substantially more than NMW for work that requires only school leaver qualifications and no experience or training, and these jobs are in northern cities, so not high cost areas, transport not a difficulty and plenty of people in theory available to work.