Should employed counsellors provide sessions without extra pay when requested?

[peapodleaf]

I have used AI for the title. I had put 'some people at my work refusing to do this, what do you think?'

I am a counsellor. I have my own business but I also work part-time for a company (a huge, for profit organisation) where my job is to manage cases for other counsellors. I do things like sort their paperwork, approve new cases, deal with requests (such as for more sessions)liaise with companies who pay for the counselling, things like that. Another part of the job is answering calls from new counselling clients, I will assess their suitability and choose a counsellor for them.
Occasionally, we're asked to do the counselling sessions ourselves.

Out of the small team I am in who do the same job, several people have refused to do this when asked, based on the fact that we're on a low wage (I think It's £32K for a full-time employee) whereas a counselling session in this region is anything from £40-80 per hour, sometimes even more. In my private practice, for online I would charge between £45-£60 per session, whereas work offer no extra pay for it.

It's causing a bit of a ruckus, there's a divide between those of us who will and those who won't 'enthusiasm' and 'eagerness' and 'work ethic' have been thrown about by management among other terms.

I am not sure. I haven't been asked to do one for a while and when I have, I have been unable to (the client has wanted sessions on days that I am not available for example) but I am not sure where I stand if I am asked again. What do you think?

If your work are asking people with no training at all to do it that’s really bad.

if you are all trained and it’s the pay then they are being arseholes but it’s up for negotiation.

Think about someone who’s a trained teacher but works in a school office being asked to cover classes. If they were teaching, they’d be well within their rights to ask for teacher pay for those hours. Otherwise they’re getting teacher skills for admin pay, which is exploitative.

Sorry, maybe wasn't clear but yes you have to be a qualified counsellor at a minimum, to be in the team I am in.

I'm with the colleagues refusing to do the counselling for no extra pay. There is one wage for what sounds like an admin/coordinator job, but counselling itself should be higher paid - it requires additional training, and can be emotionally draining.

Yes, we're on a set hourly rate for doing an admin job basically. The only thing I like about this job is it is very easy, and from home. And I need a PAYE job for other reasons otherwise I would just try to expand on my private self-employed work.

But yes, they're asking us to provide counselling sessions for the same pay, when realistically counselling sessions cost much more than that pay. We're not on all much more than minimum wage.

We're all trained and qualified counsellors but I am with you on the pay not being enough for the emotional impact. I said this in my previous post but the reason I have accepted this low-paid role really is a lot to do with how easy it is. It's one of those jobs where you just log off and that's that, and I haven't had one of those before!

Surely it all depends what the job description says?

Was that part of your job contract? What about insurance and supervision?
It sounds like you should be refusing to do it.

Is it in the job description and/or contract? Something clearly outlined as an occasional duty? If so, they don't have a leg to stand on though could try to negotiate an additional rate of pay.

If not then there probably is a clause that says "other duties as required". If you all want to argue that this isn't commensurate with the role then fine, but those other duties don't have to be ones at your pay grade if they are ad hoc.

Ultimately, people either need to be clear that they won't do it and be prepared for the consequences - whether that's fighting for additional pay, a change to terms, or a split of those who will and those who won't and the impact of that - or get on with their jobs

I bet they’re still charging the client the full counselling charge, not the lower admin charge and pocketing the difference though.

This type of creep is so typical of the charity/3rd sector and care sector.

I remember the shit my friend had to put up with working for a similar type of charity/3rd sector organisation. They messed her about all of the time expecting free labour and guilting/manipulating it on the needs of those involved with the organisation.

Her next job was working for something at the other end of the spectrum “think vulture fund managers” and the level of good treatment, respect, kindness and compassion she got in that job compared to the “caring job” was unbelievable.

I have paraphrased this for obvious reasons but this is what is written in the contract under 'duties'.

The employee agrees to carry out their duties properly, honestly and diligently, and to use any powers given to them. They must do this in accordance with instructions from their manager. The duties may change or include additional responsibilities over time, including work for other companies within the same group. However, the manager can only assign duties that are appropriate to the employee’s role and position.

What does the job description say?

Sorry cross post

This is a very good point about insurance and supervision. We should be supervised if we have clients. We don't need it for the admin, or if, say I had no private clients currently, and I took on one of these 'work requests' and that would cost me roughly £130! While not earning any money from that client! Nope!

I do have personal counselling insurance, but I am not sure how that would work if something happened to one of the clients through work? I am going to be a pest about this. I do not think it is right!

I think you and your colleagues are absolutely right to push back on this.

ETA also, these clients presumably aren't ad hoc in the sense that you are picking up one session here and there; you would be the regular counsellor for the client for 6-8 sessions or whatever the insurance covers - ?

In short, the company makes money by charging clients (who are HUGE, wealthy companies, think the likes of Microsoft or Bank of England) a fee for providing counselling for their employees. So for an ease of description example Microsoft pay £XXXXX K per year for access to me, who then refers them to an accredited, experienced counsellor.

I do not need to be accredited, experienced beyond 100hours of counselling practice (which is nothing really) or to have any additional qualifications, to do the job that I do. I might be, but I don't have to be. So MS has paid for something they will not necessarily get for that employee, if I decide to say yes to doing these sessions.

The whole business model is to prevent people from going off sick, I think. By giving them MH support. It's a 'company benefit' paid by the company in order to provide counselling to them.

Do you have a professional body that has legal advice available? It would be easier if you could say X union or professional body has advised this is not good practice and that these conditions (insurance, supervision, recommended pay rate) should be met in order for us to take on counselling sessions

Some counsellors offer free or low cost sessions to clients in need, and it's not outrageous to ask someone who already has insurance, CPD and supervision in place to do the odd free session. It's completely outrageous to expect them to or try to insist! What a cheek.

That's general terminology you'll find in most job descriptions, but there must be something about what the actual role, referred to in that paragraph is.

If it is an admin support role, I would say that counselling is not "appropriate to the employee’s role and position."

What is your actual job title? Your personal skill set is irrelevant here. A lot of people have jobs that are relevant to, but not directly utilising their professional skill set, and they need to be paid appropriately for using that skill set.

A personal example. I used to have a couple of PT teaching contracts at a university, but was also employed on a PT admin role at the same organisation. At no point would I have been prepared to (or expected to) teach students during my admin hours or for my admin pay (which was less than half my teaching pay).

At the very least they should be offering a pro-rata salary increase for every instance they are asking you to provide actual counselling.

I once worked in a sort of similar situation, except I was organizing teachers and would step in and teach if absolutely necessary. But there it was very clear cut: any teaching was paid at teaching rates.
There needs to be clear rules on this, so pass it on to whoever can make those rules and authorize payment. But clearly if the counselors are providing counseling session they need to be paid as counselors. But someone in management needs to write some sort of policy because obviously if they are doing counseling they are not doing admin, so is that time made up, or not, etc etc.

I am in a union and that is a very good point!

Definitely, I have given half-price sessions at my own discretion in the past, for DV victims etc.

You are right to push back. Don't be guilted by management. I work in education and they constantly try and use 'it's for the good of the children' as if we work because we all adore children and not because we have mortgages and bills to pay.

If they were recruiting a new admin person Vs a counsellor how does the necessary requirements compare?

I have access to the sort of counselling programme you describe. I think the expectation is that we get a qualified counsellor- surely they are in effect ripping off their clients?

Regular. Any number from 5-12 is usual.