Offering shelter to homeless employees

Question

Hypothetical question.

Is there anyway for an employer to legally allow a low-wage homeless employee to regularly doss-down overnight in a empty store-room in a commercial premises?

Lets say John owns a fast food restaurant (or something similar), he runs a legitimate business and likes to do things by-the-book. His employees are all paid living wage, but local rental costs are so high that some of them are sleeping rough. John would like to help, he has a unused store room with power, running water, sink and toilet, but no shower, heating or cooking area. It does however provide better shelter than the local underpass!

The storeroom doesn't have planning permission for residential use, and bringing it up to regulations for rental use is totally un-economic (probably £30-60k or more). If it were brought to a rentable standard, then the size of the investment would require to John to rent it a market-rate, and even if John were to somehow offer it as a freebie to some of his employees, then any such freebie would be taxed as income by the taxman - leaving the employee worse off.

Back to the original question - is there any legal way of letting one or more of the employees living in the storeroom - possibly for several months?

Answer 1

There is no legal way of doing this

At least, not without receiving planning permission which is likely to be refused unless the living accommodation meets minimum standards. This would include (shared) bathing and cooking facilities.

Without such permission, Bob is in breach of local planning permission.

In addition, Bob is also likely in breach of his lease (if a tenant) or his commonhold obligations (if applicable) as these will almost invariably have a prohibition on residential use. He has also breached his insurance contract for the same reason so if the building burns down and all the employees suffer excruciating deaths, Bob is liable without insurance cover.

Answer 2

Homeless Bob Initiative

Yes, but it might be considered a little creative to say the least. John only has to change Bob's job description from waiter to night watchman and pay him for the eight hours he is on duty at night while the establishment is closed. There is no law that prevents an employee from nodding off while he is on the clock. It's strictly a matter between the employer and the employee. For fun, John could provide security cop uniform pajamas (widely available online) and a comfortable couch in the break room.

During the day, Bob could act as a volunteer to perform his regular duties of waiting on tables. This makes it possible for him to be covered by insurance while he is on the premises at any hour. The added benefit of having a watchman available might even lead to lower insurance rates due to the lower risk and/or prevention of robberies and fire.

I've seen this done on construction sites and it greatly reduces losses of construction materials. It's very effective and helpful to everyone all around. It's very common for night watchmen to be allowed to engage in other activities while they remain at their post, even if snoozing isn't specifically mentioned.

In the UK, employers cannot legally force employees to work longer than their contracted hours, but no law prevents workers from choosing to stay on the premises if the employer allows it. There needs to be no contract at all for this arrangement.

There are no laws in the UK that define the rights of volunteers or the legal definition of a volunteer. A person who is paid for his shift as a night watchman can volunteer to wait tables during the day. Employees are entitled to at least 11 hours of consecutive rest in every 24-hour period, but they are not forced to rest and they are not prevented from 'lending a hand' if they wish to during their off hours. Labor laws are designed to prevent employers from abusing their workers, but no law prevents them from being kind, generous, flexible, and charitable.

As long as John and Bob are okay with the deal, no one else has any say in the matter. Even if the locals did find out about it, they would most likely admire John and be glad that Bob wasn't sleeping under the bridge. No judge could prevent it unless it came into a court of law.

This legal strategy is based on maintaining a non-adversarial relationship between two parties. No lawyer would recommend it for obvious reasons: 1) the high probability that it would become adversarial, and 2) the lack of recourse for either party if it did. The question asks if there is a legal way for Homeless Bob to remain on the premises in a non-residential facility as a non-resident. This is one possible way, regardless of the probability of a poor outcome.

In practice, this situation is more often handled in the manner that @Perkins suggests in his comment on the question: "If the employer has plausible deniability that they knew the employee tasked with closing up was staying the night, then it's just a matter of making sure nothing ever happens that would require said employer to officially take notice."

In my own personal experience, I've purchased abandoned homes that were far below residential standards, and I am like John in the OP's question in the sense that "John would like to help". My Homeless Bob is retired on a low fixed income and wants to occupy and purchase a home, but cannot afford a down payment and cannot get a loan. To avoid liability, I am free to transfer ownership free and clear "as is" and rely on his word that he will make payments as he can going forward.

No one, especially not a lawyer, would advise me to do so. Bob could decide to pay nothing and get a free house. It's madness. It's crazy and it's not advised, but it's legal. I have to wonder if this is more insane or less insane than enormous masses of humans clutching and scratching at each other's eyes to 'get over' on one another.

One important advantage is that this makes Trust and Honor possible by allowing space for trustworthiness and honor to flourish. Banks, lawyers, and real estate agents get completely cut out of the deal and are no longer able to prey on us. The 'Homeless Bob Initiative' is also known as "Occupy This!"

Answer 3

More of a comment than an answer, but so far eveyone seems to obviate the laboral part of this.

The laboral relationship makes everything more difficult

For the sake of the answer, I will assume that the housing is not up to the minimal standards setup for a rental (because if it is good enough, there is no legal issue).

An employer can provide housing for employees. It is not that unusual for seasonal workers, or for certain industries, provided that the housing is meets legal standards.

But, that housing, is a payment in kind. It is something that the employee receives as part of the work relationship. In fact, it can be valued and taxed accordingly. For you as an employer, it is something of value that you give to your employee, in exchange for his work.

So, what you are proposing is paying employees with housing that does not meet the legal standards. Think of it as if you were feeding them, but with rotten food. Or paying with scrip. Which means that, apart from the issues purely derived from the quality of the housing, there may be issues related to laws protecting workers'rights.

(*1) Which would not make legal but could give you some leeway with the relevant authorities.

The fact that you also give your employees a salary makes little difference. By giving that housing, you are making your job offer more attractive for a given salary, so you cannot say it is not related.

Answer 4

Even if your person does not live at their work, a "break room" where people can get clean and change their clothes, maybe even wash their clothes by hand and hang them up for the day, would make them much more comfortable and healthy. A policy that anyone who needs to can arrive an hour or so before their shift starts and use this room, would be a nice one. (You could also say they could stay after as long as the establishment was still open or something like that.) Lots of very expensive employers have such a room for people who bike to work or run before work. They even install showers and lockers. Lockers might enable a rough-sleeper to have a safe place for some of their possessions, I don't mean to imply people need to protect their possessions from their coworkers.

This has the advantage of not being illegal. There is no housing, and therefore no housing standard. Break rooms in which people can meet personal and hygiene needs are an everyday thing. Lockers and sinks and even showers are normal. People changing clothes at work before their shift, also super normal.

There are probably insurance reasons why folks can't sleep there, and depending on your employer for a bed doesn't feel fair, but enabling someone to live a more normal life is possible even without a bed. Note I am not saying wink wink have a couch in there, who knows, some people might have a nap, or anything like that. Simply to meet the many non-sleeping needs, like getting clean, that rough sleepers may have.