Social care employers risking National Minimum Wage scandal

More than a quarter of all UK care workers may be paid less than the minimum wage, according to the findings of a Resolution Foundation study.
In its report ‘Does it Pay to Care?’, the Foundation has explored how carers’ pay relates to the challenges of each working day and has found that workers are losing out considerably, especially when taking account of the time taken to travel between clients.

Although care workers’ pay is currently set above minimum wage, at £6.19 an hour, the absence of financial cover for travelling means that many professionals are earning a sum closer to £5 an hour.

Further to this, the regularity of carers giving additional time to clients in order to make sure they receive a quality service also impacts upon the livelihood of those in the profession.

Deputy chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, Vidhya Alakeson, believes the report highlights the need for a renewed focus on the lives of carers, saying: “Every worker has the right to the minimum wage and it’s scandalous that so many care workers, who do such demanding and valuable work for what is already low pay, are deprived of that right. Some care firms are breaking the law and often they’re getting away with it.

“We hear a lot about the need for dignity in social care but how can we achieve that if care workers are under such pressure in their jobs and not paid even the basic wage? The Government has signalled it wants to take this issue seriously, which is welcome, but the care system itself needs reform to wipe out this kind of abuse. If we believe in better home care for people we should start investing in the workers who provide it.”

President of ADASS (the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services), Sandie Keane, echoes these sentiments and calls for employers to take notice.

She comments, “We all of us fully understand the serious financial pressures facing the private home care sector. They are no less than those faced by the economy as a whole. But that cannot be used in any way as a justification from breaking the law.

“Well supported staff have greater job satisfaction and overall well-being. Care providers must take this into account when establishing the pay and general employment conditions of their staff, as we must take it into account when letting contracts for the care of our citizens.”

The debate surrounding the minimum carers’ visit length also seems to have been re-ignited by the report, as some local councils continue to pay professionals for visits supposed to take as little as 15 minutes – a factor that is reflected in wages even in reality they take much more time.

Subsequently many workers are not even receiving National Minimum Wage, something, the Foundation claims, that highlights the law’s inability to hold employers to account, largely because workers are reticent to report their employers for fear of losing their profession.

Colin Angel, policy and campaigns director of the UKHCA, sees the findings as more proof that zero-hours contracts need to be rolled out across the country.

He writes: ‘We are absolutely clear that the current commissioning of homecare services by local authorities, facing massive public spending constraints, makes the use of zero-hours absolutely essential for the functioning of the homecare sector at the level we have already achieved.

‘The policy direction in all four UK administrations places homecare services at the forefront of services for people using social care. It is essential that our sector is able to expand. This will inevitably be with the continued use of zero-hours contracts.’

Specifically, Mr Angel blames aggressive price cuts within local councils for many of these problems, while also highlighting a clumsy approach to personalisation, which he defines as, ‘An increasing appetite by central and local government for plurality of providers in the market as part of the personalisation agenda, reducing the number of contracts with any guaranteed purchase by councils, the introduction of “framework agreements” open to multiple providers, and an increasing use of personal budgets and direct payments.’

Despite this, Ms Keane remains against the use of 15-minute visits in all cases, disagreeing with the Foundation’s call to abolish such practice. She comments: “There is much in the report which ADASS would support such as increasing penalties for companies which break the law, clearer payslips, ensuring care firms include reasonable payment for staff when bidding for contracts and better Government guidance for the social care sector on applying minimum wage.

“However, we continue to dispute that all ‘15-minute care slots’ are inappropriate. There is much evidence that medicines management, just checking, and/or some carer support tasks can be achieved in shorter timescales.”

UKHCA’s Chair, Mike Padgham, response appears to further the division between the two organisations: He comments: “It is misleading for ADASS to fail to acknowledge the fundamental role that statutory sector commissioning of homecare services has on the terms and conditions of the homecare workforce, and the viability of homecare provider organisations. “It is unfortunate that ADASS have not acknowledged the responsibility of its members for exploiting their considerable purchasing power to issue tenders for homecare services containing unsustainable maximum prices and terms which frustrate their contractors’ wish to keep ahead of National Minimum Wage.”