Week in hand

If someone works a week in hand on NMW and works for 10 years, do they get paid the weeks wages which would have been due 10 years ago or do they get the current rate for the job? If they got the rate from 10 years ago (and I know NMW wasn't used then, this is a rhetorical question) would that fall foul of the NMW regulations?
08:58 Fri 23rd May 2008
 
Best Answer


No best answer has yet been selected by thugulike. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.

1 to 4 of 4

A week in hand means that each week you get paid for the previous week so that when you leave that job you will be paid at your current rate for the hours worked the previous week plus the hours worked for your last week.
You've confused me her thugulike. I think you are misunderstanding the concept of a week in hand. I think it's quite starightforward unless I'm missing something.

Let's suppose you work for 10 years or 520 weeks):

In week 1 you get nothing ,
In week 2 you get paid for week 1
In week 3 you get paid for week 2
............................................................
In week 519 you get paid for week 518
In week 520 (your final week) you get paid for week 519
Then as you leave you get paid for week 520
Question Author
Thank you. I understand that to be case but in practice it doesn't seem to work like that. I appreciate your answers.
I think the previous answers are confusing a week in hand with a week in arrears. In a week in hand situation if you earn �400 in your first week this is retained by your employer and paid to you (less deductions) when you leave. So if you work there for ten years and your wages increase to �700 per week you will still only get �400 returned as your week in hand.
In a week in arrears what you earn in week one is paid to you in week two so when you leave your final pay packet would be two weeks at the current pay rate.
I doubt very much if the week in hand would fall foul of NMW legislation as I don't think it is retrospective.

1 to 4 of 4

Related Questions

Right guys I'm going to America next year for 3 weeks and I've hit a huge bump in the road. Driving. I can't hire a car because I'm 19 and car agencies do not allow under 25s to hire a car, 21-24 is...
Criticise article about Greek temple (8) I have _ A _ _ _ _ _ N Now it's almost Parthenon but it isn't! Criticise is PAN and article is THE and about could be RE but there's a letter too many. On the...
Well, I'm still on the same case if anyone remembers it. Any clues at all with this greatly appreciated. As always, please ask if I don't include enough detail. In a civil case, at the appeal on paper...
My OH is extremely sensitive to xrays (e.g. dental xrays) and some other things (including chemicals, perfumes and dyes) - they make him feel all "buzzy" and unwell for days afterwards. We've just...
much in the press this week about Jeremy Corbyn's economic plans (just google "corbynomics" for all sorts of links. There seem to be 2 camps; those that say they can't understand why JC's approach has...
Good morning everyone - well the sun is shining and it promises a lovely day but oh boy ! was it cold overnight and of course the heating unit in the bedroom has decided to play silly whatsits - hence...

Latest posts