Who is out of order here?

[fornical]

I run a healthy meal delivery company. I have several delivery drivers, however, having an issue with one in particular. My delivery drivers are self employed. Deliveries happen on a Saturday.

Long story short, I've had one of my delivery drivers for over a year now. I pay her £10 per hour and 45 pence per mile. She drives from Essex to London to collect the deliveries then back to Essex to deliver them every Saturday. She arrives to collect them at 9 am.

I text her asking for the next six weeks if she could be at pick up point at 8 am rather than 9 am.

She replied - 'See to be honest, it’s unsociable hours with it being so early at the weekend and having to get Amelia out of bed etc. I’d have to put my price up to £15 per hour. Let me know if you would be happy to go ahead with that or not. If you can’t though don’t worry I understand, It just means I’ll have to be getting up at 6.30 on a Saturday and my daughter too. Just wouldn’t be worth my while for tenner an hour xx'

AIBU to think this is totally unreasonable and out of the blue? How did she jump from £10 an hour to £15 because I asked her to come in one hour earlier. Am I being unreasonable?

As has already been very clearly explained on here, there's no way that a SE worker without all of the employee guarantees, benefits and protections should be getting anything close to as low as NMW.

However, I really wish there was a lot more of a stigma to big employers who do only pay NMW, with the common mindset that it is them getting away with paying you as little as they can - 1p an hour less and they would be breaking the law. At the moment, many people seem to equate 'minimum wage' with 'fair wage'.

In some scenarios, it may be fair enough - working for a non-profit or moving up from a volunteer role, maybe; but when companies are getting rich off the backs of people they pay the bare minimum to (and then also expect taxpayers to subsidise their wages with UC etc.), there should be a widespread acknowledgment of shame and disgrace.

I own a nursery. I would love to pay my staff £20 an hour. I couldn’t do it without charging the parents triple the amount. No nursery owner could. What do you think the parents would say if I told them the fees were going up by 300%? The principle is the same, except it doesn’t affect you directly so you can afford to express faux outrage.

Staff working at a fixed location - which could be right next door to where they live, if they're lucky or plan carefully - is completely different from a longish-distance driving/delivery job.

Would you expect your staff to work for you the whole day but for you to only pay them for the afternoon? That's effectively what OP is doing right now.

I don’t think she’s being out of order. If she has to get up at 6.30am on a Saturday and sort childcare from say 7am on a Saturday, that is kind of unsociable if she’s a single Mum and has to drop a child at a babysitters. She’s simply saying it’s not worth her while.

It depends what is more hassle for you, paying her an extra fiver an hour (because she’s a good worker and you wanting to retain her) or finding someone new who may turn out to be crap. Personally I’d pay her the extra.

No one's out of order, but the jump isn't really a surprise is it?
You might currently be 50p over minimum wage but it'll be going up to 10.42 in April.
Also the cost of everything is going up, 45p a mile doesn't cover what it used to

The principle is not the same because you are comparing your employees to self employed contractors. They are completely different and you cannot compare an employees wage to a contractors hourly rate.

It’s not “faux outrage”, it is quite genuine outrage.

If she can't afford to pay a decent rate that freelance workers are willing to accept, then she can't afford to run the business as it currently exists. It isn't a sustainable business model if it relies on people being exploited.

And it isn't really the same as your nursery in principle, is it, if your staff are employees?

I don't see any faux outrage on the thread. I'm self employed myself, and my disapproval of this kind of BS is very genuine.

Nope.

She isn't paying holiday pay, so effectively she is paying the equivalent of £8.92 per hour. Not taking into account pension contributions.

no she’s not @User8646382 : £10ph for a self employed person is far less than the equivalent of MW. And is that really your criteria for generosity. It’s called the minimum wage for a reason. It’s the absolute bare minimum.

She isn't paying holiday pay, so effectively she is paying the equivalent of £8.92 per hour. Not taking into account pension contributions.

Not even that - more like half of that - considering that she's only paying for one leg of a standard unavoidable return trip for deliveries.

Hourly rate aside, I simply can't get my head around the fact that OP has engaged an Essex driver to drive into London to pick up goods to take back to Essex, and fails to pay them anything for this part of her work. This is not like paying her to commute. Essentially she starts off in her workplace. If you paid her for the driving she actually does, maybe she'd be prepared to work at a rate that's more in line with your idea of what her work is worth to you. It shouldn't be zero.

She's doing what tradesmen do when they don't really want a particular job - i.e. pricing herself out.

It's basically saying 'I don't want to do this, so you'd better make it worthwhile if I do.'

She works for you for 4 hours.

She wants £5 extra an hour

That is £20 in total!

How strapped is your business that you can't pay her that if she is a good worker?

Usually the job starts upon collection I think.

My experience is that a lot of people prefer to be self-employed. It means they can work when they want to work and not have any contractual obligations. I have a few staff who do regular bank work for the nursery, which they prefer to being employed because they can set their own rules.

This makes no sense because if the driver lived in London, they’d be paid for both outward journey and return to deliver from London to Essex.

OP is penalising the driver for living at destination instead of origin.

She's doing what tradesmen do when they don't really want a particular job - i.e. pricing herself out.

Yes, I concur. She's probably been unhappy for some time, as she's started to realise just how little she ends up having to show for all of her efforts; then the extra hour earlier demanded, meaning an earlier start and less time on a Saturday with her DD, was likely her final lightbulb moment.

She's probably a people-pleaser, and so didn't like to outright quit then and there; but she must have known that a client who already refuses to pay half of her (low) wages and mileage allowance is not going to up it by 50% - and will end the relationship herself.

No. Min wage is £9.50 rising to £10.41 in April

To be fair, we don’t know that she isn’t paying holiday pay. And maybe the driver only works for 10 hours a week, which would be under the threshold for SSP anyway.

And who’s to say the driver is even declaring the money?

Re the argument that people don't get paid for their commute to work, didn't they change the law so that if you travel over 2 hours it has to be included in your working hours?

That is the straw which has broken this woman's back.
And you're not paying enough, OP. Nowhere near.

Usually the job starts upon collection I think.

But that's just semantics. In that case, she should be paid from the point of collecting the meals in London, and then for driving to Essex and delivering them, and then back to London again. The fact that the return to London is deferred until the following Saturday is neither here nor there - it's still an essential part of the job.

It's like asking if somebody living in London should pay more for a return trip to Madrid and back home than somebody living in Madrid should pay for a return trip to London and then back to their home (all on scheduled flights at the exact same times/days/time of year etc.).

Yes we do know that holiday pay is not being paid. Op said

I can't pay her annual leave, sick pay etc. She literally works for me for four hours

I didn't mention SSP.

It really doesn't matter if the person is declaring the money or not. It's entirely possible they wouldn't be due to pay tax and ni on it anyway. Anyone on minimum wage is still entitled to holiday pay whether or not they reach the minimum level to pay ni and paye.

She needs to live.

She needs more money.

You've made her life more difficult - she's had enough.

She's being reasonable.

You have a choice - you can pay her more or find someone else. Either would be reasonable.

The OP specially says she does not pay for holidays

fornical · Today 21:24
I can't pay her annual leave, sick pay etc. She literally works for me for four hours.

It is irrelevant to the OP whether or not the driver declares her earnings. If the driver reaches the tax threshold and chooses not to pay her dues then that is her choice and her risk. It’s not an excuse for OP to pay an unreasonably low amount.

OP if you think this person is charging too much then why don’t you replace her by one of the many people who own a car including business use insurance queuing up to work for £10 per hour?

I can't pay her annual leave, sick pay etc. She literally works for me for four hours

Can't pay or don't want to? You may not want to acknowledge it, but she is a crucial part of your business and not just a petty annoyance that has to be placated now and again. If paying her fairly means that you wouldn't make enough profit/living for yourself, then your business is not viable and should be improved, wound up or made local collection-only.

You aren't expected to organise her AL and sick pay, but you should be paying her a rate that takes account of the need for it, however many or few hours she works for you - I mean really works for you, not just the half of her working hours that you want to pay her for.