Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To wonder why they wouldn't want to do this?

43 replies

SunsetsInVenice · 25/05/2023 22:25

Work currently as a manager at a nursery. Have 2 brilliant supply workers from an agency. They come in regularly every week, know the kids well, qualified and get on well with staff.
We want to employ them as bank staff directly but both turned it down. Aibu to wonder why when they are pretty much permanent staff anyway and would still be allowed to pick their own hours ? Both didn't really give am explanation when they turned it down. Just a bit surprised.

OP posts:
Gingergirl70 · 25/05/2023 22:27

Would they be guaranteed the same amount of hours? Would the pay be the same or more? What benefits can you offer them that they don't already receive?
There are a lot of reasons why people turn down job offers so it would be really difficult for us to hazard a guess.

Original poster
SunsetsInVenice · 25/05/2023 22:29

Pay we would possibly match.
They would both have more guaranteed hours as we wouldn't be using any other agency.
Benefits would be that and feeling even more like the team. They would be permanent rather than temps.

OP posts:
Thedogscollar · 25/05/2023 22:30

Is it that they can pick and choose what days they work or wages are better doing supply work?
I have colleagues in the NHS left their roles to return doing bank work, no extra money and less annual leave. I can't understand why they chose that but it obviously suits them.

Icantremembermyusername · 25/05/2023 22:31

Freedom? They can take off time when they want it? What pay incentive is there? What extras would they have to do going forward? How is bank better than supply?

Quitelikeit · 25/05/2023 22:32

Money!!!!

Gingergirl70 · 25/05/2023 22:33

Maybe it's the 'possibly match' bit but there could be so many reasons. Are you allowed to ask them why?

LynetteScavo · 25/05/2023 22:33

You would possibly match pay? I wouldn't become permanent for less pay.

The people I know who like agency work occasionally need time off for appointments, which isn't possible with permanent contracts.

Tanith · 25/05/2023 22:34

Perhaps they see so many settings are struggling or going out of business and they don't want to limit their options to one setting.

Original poster
SunsetsInVenice · 25/05/2023 22:34

They would be employed with us on a zero hour contract so could still pick their hours.
We would expect them to attend meetings and complete policies and procedures of the company so maybe it is that.

OP posts:
Gingergirl70 · 25/05/2023 22:36

Yeah, I think you've pretty much answered your own question.

InceyWinceySpidy · 25/05/2023 22:36

You would "possibly" match their existing pay.

So you would also possibly pay them less?

Of course they aren't going to take a pay cut to feel more of a team! You say they'd get more hours, well they'd need it just to make the same as what they're making already.

Original poster
SunsetsInVenice · 25/05/2023 22:37

Maybe they are worried about the nursery closing. Yet them joining us would mean that is less likely to happen and they would be aware of that too.
They would still be able to be flexible with their hours to attend appointments and do other things.

OP posts:
WouldYouLikeYourMuffinButtered · 25/05/2023 22:37

It's because a zero hour contract is less secure than their current agency contract.

Original poster
SunsetsInVenice · 25/05/2023 22:39

They are on zero hour contracts with the agency.

OP posts:
Ardiaei · 25/05/2023 22:39

But if the nursery closed they could just go back to an agency and get other work.

Could it be that some people are not allowed to accept direct job offers if they’re working for an agency? Ie you’re not permitted to circumvent the agency within a certain timeframe?

ThirstyThursday · 25/05/2023 22:40

Why do you want them to be permanent staff?

that's why they don't want to.

FreestyleInTrance · 25/05/2023 22:41

'Possibly matched' pay would be the first thing. You'd be saving on agencies fees and yet still might pay them less? That's not an attractive offer!

For the same (or possibly less!) money, why would they want to risk alienating the agency? With you, if you run out of hours they're stuck. With the agency, if you run out of hours they have access to plenty of other childcare settings.

Even if the agency didn't mind you employing them directly, having 2 employers instead of 1 complicates your tax code and for no extra money why would you take on the trouble of that?

Gingergirl70 · 25/05/2023 22:42

SunsetsInVenice · 25/05/2023 22:39

They are on zero hour contracts with the agency.

Yes, but at agency they'd have more chance of being sent to another company if they were not needed by you, whereas if they had zero hour contract with you alone, no hours means no opportunities to go elsewhere, surely? You can't guarantee hours otherwise you would be able to offer them more than zhc

CC4712 · 25/05/2023 22:44

I worked for an agency for many years, but in a different sector. I was offered longer contracts, permanent roles and to join their own bank many times. If I was to do so though, the new employer legally had to pay out the agency a 'finders fee'. I think this was equivalent to 1mths work, but not sure. From memory, if I'd left the agency to join the others bank, and NOT told the agency, then I would be in breech of my contract and potentially I'D owe them money.

I cannot talk on their behalf of your supply staff though- but this was my experience. I also enjoyed the variety of work at different places and flexibility to travel when I wanted. Why no just ask them???

Spiderboy · 25/05/2023 22:44

SunsetsInVenice · 25/05/2023 22:29

Pay we would possibly match.
They would both have more guaranteed hours as we wouldn't be using any other agency.
Benefits would be that and feeling even more like the team. They would be permanent rather than temps.

Nothing here sounds like a benefit tbh. You “may” match their pay?

Where they currently are, there will be opportunities out there still if the need in your nursery decreases. You offer zero security and they have more options where they are.

I wouldn’t do it either unless you hired permanently with a satisfactory pay

Weallgottachangesometime · 25/05/2023 22:45

I’m gonna echo the comments about “possibly” matching their pay. It it were me to change from agency to nursery bank I would want the same pay, or more, and some guaranteed hours (or a minimum number of hours).

A zero hour contract for a single employer isn’t that attractive a proposition

Shinyandnew1 · 25/05/2023 22:46

Where they currently are, there will be opportunities out there still if the need in your nursery decreases. You offer zero security and they have more options where they are.

This!

There seem to be no advantages for them, as far as I can see. Presumably you’d get to pay less though?

Wakeywake · 25/05/2023 22:46

Zero hours contract? Are you having a laugh? Of course it's not the same as agency work, I bet they get as many hours as they want. You're offering no guaranteed work for less money.

FloweryName · 25/05/2023 22:47

Pay you would possibly match?

Tell the you would definitely match their pay and pay them for the time they’d need to do the other things you need from bank staff, then if they still don’t want to do it you might have valid reason to be asking your question.

Spiderboy · 25/05/2023 22:47

SunsetsInVenice · 25/05/2023 22:39

They are on zero hour contracts with the agency.

You must know yourself, they are in need. They won’t struggle without you. So many nurserys need staff. You would struggle without them however. And you aren’t attractive enough
Why would they go from choosing their own hours across X amount of locations to choosing their own hours with only 1 location, less flexibility when your need is low and no pay rise?

Swipe left for the next trending thread