25th September 2008, 04:10 PM
Quote:quote: Being expected to travel 2 hours to site, do a full day and then travel 2 hours back is not unheard of - an extra 4 hours per day = 20 hours per week. So the wages are effecively being cut just because of that. Not to mention the difficulties this makes in comparing prices. I don't know if RAOs are in some way penalisable (if that's evan a word) for such things, but others won't be.
This is going back a bit and quoting my own posting but I was reading BAJR's response to the IFA consultation with regard to advertising and the JIS made me think of this again...
If a company advertises on BAJR (or anywhere else) that they do an X hour week, and then it turns out that this regularly involves unpaid overtime, particularly travelling several hours to a site, doing a full day then travelling back, should they be allowed to get away with what is clearly a false statement in their advert? It is effectively the same as advertising a specific pay scale to meet BAJR's criteria and then coming up with some reason to pay less when the job is actually awarded. Just a thought... after all doing 38 hours a week for £15,000 does not equal the same as doing 50 hours per week for the same amount now does it? If some form of TOIL is offered that is fair enough, but is it in some cases?