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 education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

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

    Dismiss Notice

AWR: another nail in the coffin?

Discussion in 'Supply teaching' started by apmcarthur, Jan 17, 2012.

  1. Whats AWR?

    Surely it wont be as bad as it sounds?
  2. Agency Workers Regulations. This was supposed to improve our conditions but employers will skirt round it and it we will find that we are actually worse off. The Supply Teacher in a school is now about as welcome as a random intruder on school premises and schools are finding that they can easily get by without them.
  3. AWR: Agency Workers Regulations. New legislation became effective October 2011 aims to establish equal treatment for agency workers.

    If a booking (can even be only half-day per week) lasts for 12 weeks or more the school will be charged a higher daily rate and the teacher will be paid at a higher rate equivalent to spine point.

    Supply is already struggling due to school budgets (hence CS/HLTAs/TAs) without this. I don't object to the rationale of the legislation but if it reduces the work on offer how are we to benefit from it?
  4. pob1888

    pob1888 New commenter

    I have been working on supply everyday from July, but im not through an agency, the school contacted me directly, does this mean it doesnt effect me?
  5. The clue is in the acronym
  6. Lara mfl 05

    Lara mfl 05 Star commenter

    to pob1888. It's a national agreement so potenetially yes.
    Like other posters, I foresee this will be the' last nail in the coffin' for supply.
    What will happen when they need people with experience to cover long-term sickness and the like when the work force has moved on I dread to think. I'm just really glad I have no children or grandchildren in the system.
  7. Is one way round it simply to not give you work for a week so it breaks your "continuous service"? To be honest I would put up with that if it meant I still got sufficient work. Much as it galls me to be paid so little I would rather have that than nothing at all.
  8. The last thing you do in a bloody recession is start introducing eutopian cuddly socialist rules.

    This is idiocy of the highest order from those in charge. When things are tight and people really really are struggling and the pimps are also crawling over each other to offer the best service, you do not put a massive spanner in the works

    It *** things up for the schools, it *** things up for the supply teacher and it *** things up for the agency. The only thing it does do is make those sodding eurocrats feel all lovely for bringing us one step closer to the USSR. (Apart from the USSR were actually positive about doing some work).

    This will do nothing to the situation apart from make the best possible outcome less of a likely option.

    If this is the approach to facilitating the economy and building a sustainable social system, no wonder the whole economy is in such a mess

    It's like taking a car with a bit of a misfire and ******** in the carburettor
  9. magic surf bus

    magic surf bus Star commenter

    After this week I'll have two more weeks to go before I'm into AWR territory, so I'll keep you posted. I checked the cover manager was fully aware of the implications on the day I started.
  10. Mrs-Pip

    Mrs-Pip New commenter

    Unfortunately the break in service has to be over six weeks before the clock starts at week one again!
  11. Oh I didn't realise that. I can't afford to be off that long. I'll have to just hope that I'll still be wanted.
  12. I've just checked the guidance notes and you are right, the break between bookings at the same school has to be 6 weeks to stop the clock. Darn it!
  13. pob1888
    No. It won't effect you. The legislation only covers Agency Workers.
  14. A totally dimwitted, morally corrupt and <u>PERVERSE INTERPRETATION</u> OF yet another EU ruling, the "Agency Worker's directive [2011] to <u>protect</u> agency workers who show commitment, loyalty and hardwork by giving them benefits similar to permanent staff!!!!!!?
    BUT!?... instead all are sacked after twelve weeks employment!!!!!!!! Morally corrupt, exploitative and totally unacceptable behaviour of the agencies!!!!![​IMG] TESCO, HAYS, Angard, Reed etc etc are all doing it!!!!!
    So much for the banqueting EU ministers with suppy teachers in mind??????!?
  15. EVIL AND MORALLY CORRUPT PLAYING/INTERPRETATION OF DIMWIT RULES!?...FURTHER interpreted by more dimwits....????????..bureacrats who enjoy their permanent contracts??!

  16. This is the problem. The law was put in place with the right sentiment, but it was poorly thought through and ineffective, however it made the status quo worse by the "workarounds" used by the agencies.

    I was on the radio earlier having a moan about this. I was stopped and asked about the jobs situation in Cornwall and said that in addition to the sheer desperation of people across pretty much every sector, there had been a load of businesses start up, who were ready to hire staff, but probably not in a situation to afford such luxuries as a "worker" exercising their rights. So, it comes down to a situation of a less-than-favourable contract for starters, or perhaps one which involves some fancy legal footwork, or at worst, something like a shell company to take the hit and fold if a member of staff does exercise their "rights".

    Sadly, in this economic climate, there is no room for "all men are equal" legislation from those with lovely working conditions (who are often funded by the actual working sector) who have the funding and opulence to consider such luxuriant ********. They do mean well, but it puts a massive spanner in everyone's works

    I can't afford to have a member of staff being paid to not be present, a lot of companies cannot either. This used to mean agency staff. Paying someone a load extra money so they caught the flack. This is what you pay them for. So, now it comes down to a choice. Use agency staff and boot them out when the time period has expired. (How about the member of staff being allowed to choose?) or pay cash in hand whilst working under a dodgy alias, or make the staff self employed by restructuring the task and rewording the instructions.....

    I am shocked to see that the EU has put in a clause which prevents the agency using the same school for a number of weeks. This is just typical of the sort of poorly thought out **** which has landed their whole economy in a permanent and irretrievable fiasco of cyclic misery.

    What we all don't need now is more nanny state, or the fat auntie state over the channel
  17. Pennyforyourthoughts

    Pennyforyourthoughts Occasional commenter

    Not actually felt the affects of the AWR yet. Why not say to the Agencies that you will negotiate your spinal point of payment that will enable the continuation of work. I have noticed that I have not been in certain schools I used to teach in. I am wondering .... when the 12 weeks are up will the Agency then start to use me in schools that I have not been in in the last 12 weeks .... therefore the question of the 12 week AWR may never kick in if I along with the others are on a 3 month rotation of availability to certain cluster of school. End of January will be the telling point.... watch this space.
  18. jubilee

    jubilee Star commenter

    Schools can't get out of paying the 'enhanced' proper rate for the job simply by stopping booking a certain teacher and taking someone else instead!
    The regulations about getting increased pay after 12 weeks of working for an employer applies not to an individual workplace but to being hired out to the same employer.
    In the case of LA schools, being sent to various schools controlled by the same LA will trigger a higher pay rate when next sent to a school in that LA.
    With Academies etc, you l;ook at the Trust controlling the schools. If you clock up work in 12 weeks (ignore holiday weeks) at schools in the same Trust, up goes your pay.
    Schools will soon learn that they don't avoid paying the same amount that they pay their contracted staff by ceasing bookings for a specified teacher after 12 weeks. the teacher they get to replace them could already have served a 12 week period at otehr schools in the same LA/Trust.
    Unless agencies are going to register and place supply teachers for 12 weeks only and then hand over P45s and get in different teachers who haven't been working in schools, the regs will eventually do what is intended - preventing temporary workers from being exploited for long periods. The agencies will be able to make a bigger profit on them for a short time and then the employees placed by agencies get parity with their contracted colleagues and the agencies take a smaller cut.
  19. Moony

    Moony Lead commenter

    I've been at a school since september so I can give that agency acall and find out what's going on in terms of my rate and the AWR. The HoD is very pleased with what i'm doing there so It should negate any price hike, but i'm not full time so hopefully that goes in my favour too.
  20. jubilee

    jubilee Star commenter

    Why 'unfotunately'?
    The 6 weeks has been included as it protects teachers over the summer break. the can contunue to build up a 12 week + record and get proper pay eventually despite the termly and half termly breaks.
    No-one gets work in the school holiday periods!
    My own advice would be for more supply teachers to register with LA supply registers or their outsourced agencies and/or to canvass schools directly.
    If only people didn't register with private agencies as a first port of call (there was a time when there were no private agencies in teaching, only LA provision), schools would have to look elsewhere when they wanted qualified teachers.
    It's out of teaching but bears a mention. A 16 year old girl in one of my classes last year was boasting about how her evening/weekend job paid her nearly &pound;7 per hour as she was employed directly by the factory. Many of her p/t colleagues were Polish adults who were getting around &pound;4 per hour after the cut taken by the agency. the factory was paying less per hour to the agency than the schoolgirl was getting from them.
    The AWR is there to stop that sort of exploitation.
    The pay that some agency teachers get, compared with the rate paid to contracted ones is no less iniquitous.

Share This Page