Confusion over part time hours at new job...can anyone help?

[BarrenFieldofFucks]

I'm due to start a new job in a few weeks at a local college. 10 hour contract initially.

Have been mithering them for what days I am due to work for nearly three months as term starts next week and they have finally confirmed two days at 0900-1630 essentially.

Apparently the extra hours are breaks and as such unpaid.

This presents a real problem to me, I'm in effect paying childcare for over 8 hours at work, but only being paid for 5 of them.

If this is the norm then ok, and I'll have to rethink as I will be in deficit. It seems a bit odd though?

2.5 hours of unpaid breaks a day?

Exactly. Presumably an hour's lunch plus other breaks or free periods through the day? I obviously can't leave though, they're being stated as my hours...

If you work less than six hours you don't need to have paid breaks

I know. But having to be at work for 2.5hrs longer than paid due to enforced unpaid breaks?

Can they give you a breakdown of your hours? Iirc you'd be need to take a half hour unpaid break, but how are they justifying the extra two hours?

Xpost. That's very weird.

An hour's lunch sounds ok but I would ask for clarification about the other unpaid hours. Is it a student support role where you have to be available during certain periods? If this is the case, I would also check if they're employing you on a 'casual' basis. It's the FE equivalent of zero hours.

You can leave if the breaks are unpaid.

That presumably means that by extension they can con people into teaching 5 full days per week on a 25 hour per week contact!

I think FE/ post compulsory teaching has a reputation these days for being pretty badly paid with poor t&c but perhaps post in the staffroom board.

That's nuts!
The law says "Workers have the right to one uninterrupted 20 minute rest break during their working day, if they work more than 6 hours a day. This could be a tea or lunch break. The break doesn’t have to be paid - it depends on their employment contract."

So you're taking hours of unpaid breaks while still probably being on the premises? It seems excessive - but they're clearly wanting the hours covered but not willing to pay someone to work all day.

Is there a work-related reason why you need to be there until 4.30pm?

www.gov.uk/rest-breaks-work

I work in a school, I am not paid for lunchtime, morning break or afternoon break. I am not allowed to leave until all the children have left (usually around 3.45/50) but am not paid after 3.30. This adds up to about 2hrs I can leave site at lunchtime though.

I used to teach secondary and my flexible working request after maternity leave was met with an offer of being paid 60% of my former salary for a 60% timetable but spread over the full week, (and the school had a two week timetable).

At least I can leave in my free periods, or a proportion of them, and breastfed my 6 month old at nursery or do my food shop to avoid doing it with the baby, and come in at 10 on the days I teach my first lesson at 10:45, I said, trying to look on the bright side of paying for full time child care on a 60% wage. No said the head, that would be not in the students' best interests and look like favouratist treatment to other staff - you'll need to be in at 8:15 and available until 45 minutes after the end of the school day like everyone else - but you can do your marking and preparation in your unpaid time.

I resigned and went back only for the period required to avoid repaying maternity pay, and was taken for last minute urgent cover lessons (sorry, but there is nobody else) in my unpaid time, which very rarely were compatible with getting marking and preparation done.

Teaching can be shit for part timers - primary seems to be different, but the older the kids the worse part timers or anyone not some form of management are treated.

That sounds completely unreasonable. But I'm not sure there is a specific law against it. I would be asking why they think you need any break for a 5 hour shift, and if they say it is because you are needed for certain times then you should be paid for a longer shift.

Anotherusefulname, if they are insisting that you are at work till 3.50 then they should be paying you for it. They cannot argue that it is an unpaid break at the end of the day if you are not allowed to leave.

You don’t have to be at work all that time, only the time you are being paid. Have they specified what your non-working times during the day will be? You’ll have to ask them why they want you to work those specific hours rather than just 5 hours straight, or with one short break. Depending on the role, it may be that they need very specific hours to be covered. All you can do is ask why the day needs to be so long, and whether you can reduce it.

So I'm guessing they want you to work something like 9am-10.30am, 11-12.30, 1.30-3 to cover classes and then be available for a staff meeting 4-4.30? So technically you could leave between classes or during your lunch break but in practice it's not really possible, and you'll still need childcare 8.30-5?

I'd turn them down.

That's exactly what I think they'll say. I'm well used to the world of work, and worked in schools for years as well as offices so I don't expect a paid lunch etc. I was ok to look past the minimum wage, and the general disorganisation because I want a foot back in work, but this just seems a little off.

Just ask the question and then if they won’t budge, turn the offer down. They’ll struggle to recruit to those hours for this reason- most people who want part time work need/want the hours to be a bit more helpful than that.

That's the input everyone. I just wanted to check that my initial 🤔 reaction wasn't way off before I contacted them.
Have emailed HR so will see what they say tomorrow.

whatsthecomingoverthehill
You are probably right but TAs can't afford to rock the boat. We are too disposable in the era of repeated budget cuts.

Yes I can appreciate that. And i can understand why the schools try and stretch it - from their pov if they had to pay the true hours they would have to reduce staff. Doesn't make it right though.

I worked as a ta a decade ago prior to teacher training and was out of the door with the kids. Sounds like times have changed.

I'm not an expert but I think this could fall under minimum wage legislation. If they are asking you to be in for eight hours, those eight hours have to be included in minimum wage calculations. So if you divide your wage by the 15 hours you are being asked to be there and it drops below the hourly minimum wage it's illegal....
Might be worth checking out.

”If they are asking you to be in for eight hours, those eight hours have to be included in minimum wage calculations.“

There’s no reason at the moment to suppose they are asking that at all, though. If they say to the OP that she is not allowed to leave during the 2.5 hours of that time that she is not being paid, you would be right.

@flowery yes, that wasn't clear in my reply, only if there is a requirement to be there for those additional hours.