1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (in force Oct 1st)

Discussion in 'Supply teaching' started by Agency_Worker, Jan 8, 2011.

  1. <font size="1">Hi, </font>
    <font size="1">After 6 years in the classroom and 2 years on supply I turned to the dark side and became an agent... </font>
    <font size="1">I think it's fair to say I see both sides clearly enough to say that we're all facing a lot of the same challenges when it comes to supply and "cost saving" by schools (the other CS affecting secondary) </font><font size="1">Anyway, in October this year the agency workers regulations come in to force and could cause even more difficulty for supply teachers. The regs state that after 12 weeks, which can be made up of 1 day every 4 weeks for example, the "agency worker" will be entitled to the same baisc employment rights as permanent staff. This includes pay, which on one hand is a great thing. But on the other hand it means that the school and agency will be forced to pay an M6 teacher around &pound;160 per day. Which if you think most receive currently between &pound;110 - &pound;130, this is a significant increase. </font><font size="1">At a time when the DfE are recommending to schools that they try to save 20% on their agency supply staff costs. (this is an increase of up 25% in some cases) The concern here is that the regulations might be prohibitive for M6 teachers (even M4-M6) </font><font size="1">Have you heard of this regulation? </font><font size="1">what is your opinion? </font><font size="1">Is it worth contacting your MP to campaign against this move?</font><font size="1">So far there has been limited publicity about these regulations but there it was passed by Europe in 2008 and has to be in place here by November 2011. </font><font size="1">I am interested to know you opinions so please do be honest.</font>
    <font size="1">Thanks</font>
     
  2. My own superficial view.
    New legislation to make temping better normally makes it worse for supply teaching.
    However could be one or five days a week for up to 12 weeks. Any term is max 8 weeks there will always be that break at half term or full term 0 days per week.
    Hard one but never any good news for us lot!

     
  3. Your analysis is not correct! Most supply teachers work usually in an assortment of different schools and most agencies do NOT PAY TO SCALE BUT use flat rates e.g. HAYS' so called "premium"rate= &pound;100/day and has been so for the last five years!
    Most unfair. Agencies have their own "contracts of engagement".
    Comparisons with so called "permanent" staff (with whom?) are difficult to make and the 12 week ruling would be difficult to apply:
    • 12 weeks with the same school?
    • 12 weeks with the same employer/agency?
    Holiday pay is currently deducted on a weekly basis by the agency and the employee now has to actually book payments with the said agency! Most unfair yet again!
    I'm sure you already know about most of these practices?

     
  4. Thanks for the response.
    The regulations allow for a break not exceeding 6 weeks, at which point the time starts again. However there is a provision for time when a company (or school) is closed, so during the summer holidays for example, the time is suspended meaning that school holidays don't count for time spent. So the example below would count (except the regulations don't come into effect until Oct this year)
    1st day in school end of june.
    Next day in school last week of July (so far counts as 4 weeks under the regulations)
    Next day in school 2nd week of September (counts as 6 weeks)
    Next day in school 4th week of September (counts as 8 weeks)
    Next Day in school 4th 3rd week in October (counts as 11 weeks)
    Next day in school 2nd week in November (counts as 13 weeks - now entitled to parity pay)
    So as you can see, on this example even though there is a summer break, and the person has only worked 6 days, the 6th would have to be paid at the rate as though you were employed permanently by the school.
    N.B the time counts even if the bookignis with a different agency.
     
  5. Thanks.
    A lot of teachers do go back to the same school, often by request to cover different classes etc and there could be a few weeks between bookings. This would count as time spent as long as there hasn't been a break for more than 6 weeks (not including time when the school is closed - ie half term/xmas etc)
    The holiday pay element isn't a consideration on this legislation as such. Under the regs you are entitled to the same holiday pay as permanent staff. If your agency deducts holiday pay it will currently be accrued to cover the minimum, which is 28 days including bank holidays. Where as permanent teaching staff get 70 days. It might be of interest for you to know that not all agencies accrue holiday pay in this way. Many still include your holiday in your daily rate. Even if not paying to scale. Education supply is one of the only sectors that is allowed to include holiday pay in the daily rate. It may be worth considering a different agency/agencies.
    Depending on where you live, the &pound;100 per day rate is not exactly premium but I'm sure you've had that discussion with your agency already.
    It's really difficult trying to balance getting enough work for teachers and appropriate pay rates whilst schools are putting so much pressure on prices. Add to that the whole cover supervisor issue I feel for you because all of these devalue the profession. As a teacher and a supply agency, we try our hardest to get the best rates and the most work for our teachers. I wish things would change too. I fear that this legislation is only going to make things worse!
    See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/93/contents/made

     
  6. They can make a profit and they do. Teaching seems a particular case where taking the **** is totally rife.

    Case in point. Factory staff doing a menial task. They get paid £6, agency charges £8 per hour. Teaching, well, when I started, I was on £85 and cost £190 (from the horses mouth) and one utterly mad time, I was doing some summer work, I was on £45 a day (beats being skint) and they were charging a lot more than that. Double and a half or something. I totally draw the line at that level of **** taking. Bear in mind that the agency staff are also on pennies. It's about dividends and the ability to pay. When the cash was flowing, no-one was complaining, until they realised they could pay even less. It was like schools discovering how to reverse their gas meter. They were all at it.
     
  7. The situation is strange, in that the governments have tried to drive wages down through the use of private companies (agencies) and competition and now at least for longer placed supply, costs would have to go up.
    What is so sad is that direct LEA employment was the norm when I started supply, there was little difficulty organising regular work directly with the schools, then agencies were foisted on many LEAs, closing down the LEA lists. For the agency supply teachers, part of the &pound;50 or so agency fee came from the TP contributions that they would otherwise be getting.
    Most of my supply career was arranged directly with schools, either to scale or to hourly rate pay. During this time I both earned more than my agency colleagues, had pro-rata holiday pay; and gained around &pound;500 a year extra on my pension for every extra year of service on my pension record. I don't think this cost the school more than if they had gone through the agency, the difference is the whole amount came to me.
    If you can arrange it in your area, the future , what there is of it, may well be a return to LEA direct arrangement of supply.


     
  8. mereside

    mereside New commenter

    Schools are too lazy to use LA supply lists. I am registered with 2 LAs and have been for 2 years. In that time I have had 2 days work through them and yet have worked for weeks at schools in both areas through agencies. The cover co-ordinators basically cannot be bothered to work though the LA as it is far easier for them just to ring an agency even though it would be cheaper for them to employ through the LA.
     
  9. Crowbob

    Crowbob Established commenter

    Are they comparable? With the number of breaks in the year for teachers, profit needs to be crunched into smaller time frame. Much less certainty on the availability of work. Number of different schools on the books is different. Complexity of administration is different...
     
  10. In the present economic climate with so many teachers unemployed, agencies WILL NOT PAY TO SCALE! So you would be very lucky if you were on MPS with any agency.
    It's a case of lump it or leave it!
    There are even stories of some agencies persuading/forcing those on their books to relinguish their hard earned qualifications to accept CS rates!
    Totally unacceptable, perverse and bullying!
    Relinguish my degrees and PGCE etc etc NEVER!!!!


     
  11. Schools weren't "lazy" once, and many aren't lazy now. Maybe secondaries had a lot of supply to arrange, that might be different from primary, but the key change is not laziness. Some schools, with very challenging catchments might have found it difficult to arrange supply. Some times of large demand may have been harder. For most of the time, a phone call directed to your supply teacher took no longer than a phone call to your agency. It isn't saving much time at all, you still have to make a call, or answer the phone, as a lot of agencies ring around schools first thing in the morning. Actually, where several agencies are ringing round schools, a school has more time taken on the phone than when they make necessary calls themselves.

     
  12. Wanted to make supply teachers aware the Monarch Education are paying teachers to scale from the 1st of September 2011...so register with an office near you.[​IMG]
     
  13. I am new to supply and as far as I can tell agencies are *** in my view- been out of teaching for 5 years and working as TA3 in Primary School on 55 a day... school approached me and told me that the lady am covering for was on 80 a day and that they could pay me that. My supply agency were quick to correct them - basically creaming off 25 .Feel like a prostitute and agecny my pimp but then beats being broke and fingers crossed will lead upwards ...

     
  14. Pennyforyourthoughts

    Pennyforyourthoughts Occasional commenter

    Difficulty being that schools are trapped into contracts with schools and therefore afraid to employ us direct if we were initially through the agency as they would have to pay an introductory fee which is quite a considerable sum. Catch 22.]]
     
  15. But the bottom line is that schools aren't using agency staff. Hence Select Education are now Called Randstad-Not-Education. If there is no demand for prostitutes, it's no good the pimp letting you keep all your money.

    There is no prostitution and there is no pimping. It is a dead industry.
     
  16. The "finder's"/"Introduction" fees are a COMPLETE NONSENSE! Bullying and greedy agencies, schools etc wil always come up with thsi drivel. These "concepts" have no bearing in a court of law and as verbalised have absolutely no bearing in any court!

     
  17. darkness

    darkness New commenter

    Supply agencies still charge the schools a lot of money. They are multi million pound profit organisations. That is how much they cream off the top. They can at times take almost a 50% cut.

    I am going to warn you now, it only take 1 agency to start undercutting rivals by a lot and schools will flock. Before you know it, all prices are driven down. It happened here. The LA supply pool is gone, agencies run things, and it has been driven down so much that it was £80 a day, but now they are trying to force people to take CS rates. Minimum wage.

    We are a hotspot for supply agencies with recent mention in the TES about this very issue. I think all supply should be paid MPS1 and a return to just LA supply pools. This saving schools money and everyone getting paid a decent amount, not this very wide ranging amount we have now. I am an optimist, what can I say.
     
  18. Anonymous

    Anonymous New commenter

    In an ideal world, schools would realise they need good quality supply teachers to fill long term posts and hence would offer good pay to attract them. They would then realise that these long term teachers might also want decent daily pay for daily jobs just so they stay in the supply market and don't go elsewhere.
    Schools seem to want their cake and eat it. They need good quality long term supply teachers but don't seem to want to offer daily supply work to these teachers. If they go for agencies that are cheap, you are not going to get quality supply staff who want to work for such low rates.
    Like I said, in an ideal world.
     
  19. try googling "Ranstad, profits"
    accoring to "The Recruiter" they're making millons-even though gross profit margins are down from 20% to 18% -supply teachers pay now down Nearly 4o%.
    No wonder some of us will only work direct-schools happier too.
     
  20. darkness

    darkness New commenter

    it's true, most agencies are multi million pound profit ones and continue to expand their offices. All this while supply teachers are having massive reductions in what they get paid.
     

Share This Page