Hospitality Sector Ranked Lowest for Hourly Pay, New Data Reveals
Business finance experts at money.co.uk business bank accounts said that analysis of ONS data shows that tighter margins mean that hospitality firms are forced to offer staff hardly more than minimum wage.
It comes as the UKHospitality chief executive Kate Nicholls has criticised the Uk Government's efforts to boost business growth through its recently announced Industrial Strategy, saying it failed to address the challenges facing the hospitality sector.
Industries with the lowest hourly pay:
The accommodation and food service activities sector makes up a significant part of the UK's economy, with the hospitality sector's annual economic contribution hitting £93 billion in 2023 and estimated to increase by another £29 billion by 2027.
Despite this, this industry's workers have the lowest hourly pay rate. An average working week is around 26 hours long, and the average hourly pay is £12.39 – just 18 pence above the national living wage.
Businesses within the industry have faced a lot of financial hardship in recent years, the researchers said, including the Covid pandemic and National Insurance increases. This has made improving workers' pay increasingly difficult while still making a profit, contributing to lower hourly rates in the sector.
The sector also ranked in the top 10 for the amount of overtime worked, with employees clocking an average of 2.8 hours of overtime per week.
Joe Phelan, money.co.uk business bank accounts expert, said:
'Attracting and retaining high-quality talent doesn't just come down to salary – it's also about meeting evolving expectations around working conditions. Today's employees are more willing to walk away from roles that don't offer a healthy work-life balance or prioritise wellbeing. That means businesses need to offer more than just pay; they must create environments with manageable hours, flexibility, and genuine support.
'When companies get this right, they typically see lower staff turnover, higher engagement, and more consistent productivity, all of which feed into more stable operations and healthier cash flow. And with greater financial predictability comes the ability to plan and grow with confidence.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
2 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Huge jump in rejections for vital benefit worth £340 a year that unlocks full state pension payments – how to avoid it
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) HUNDREDS of people could be missing out getting their full state pension in retirement because they're not receiving a vital benefit. New figures obtained by wealth management company Quilter have revealed the number of Carer's Credit claims being rejected has risen to the highest level in over a decade. 1 The benefit can be claimed by people who have taken time out of work to care for someone else. The benefit doesn't pay you any money directly but it's a National Insurance credit that makes sure you can still get the full state pension while you're not working. You usually need 35 years of National Insurance contributions to get the full state pension, which currently sits at £11,973 per year. If you only have 10 qualifying years, for example, you would get just £3,420.86 a year. That means you would lose out on £342 for every year that you're not making National Insurance contributions. If you claim Carer's Credit, it fills in the gaps in your National Insurance record to help you get the full amount. The latest figures, which come from a Freedom of Information request to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), show the number of rejected Carer's Credit claims rose to 990 in 2024/25. A total of 6,773 claims were submitted over the year. This means nearly 15% of claims were rejected. It's also a sharp increase on the 164 claims that were rejected out of the total 7,105 claims made in 2023/24. In 2022/23, a total of 4,209 claims were made with only 67 rejected. The DWP said the most common reasons for refusal were missing qualifying benefit links or missing health or social care certificates. Other factors included being over the state pension age, applying late, not living in the UK, or submitting duplicate or future-dated claims. Almost 5.7million people in the UK provide unpaid care, including 1.7million people who deliver 50 hours or more of care per week. The DWP said it didn't hold any data on how many carers may be entitled to but not applying for Carer's Credit. But it appears a large number of people could be eligible. Jon Greer, head of retirement policy at Quilter, said: "The rise in disallowed claims is a clear warning sign that many people are still unaware of the criteria or are being tripped up by administrative complexities... "Too many carers are missing out either because they don't know the credit exists or because they face hurdles in proving eligibility. "With millions of unpaid carers across the UK, it feels like this is a potentially largely underutilised benefit for carers and we should be doing much more to ensure that their future retirement income is not being quietly eroded." Are you eligible for Carer's Credit? To claim you'll need to be aged 16 or over but under the state pension age, which is currently 66. You could claim the benefit if you're in one of these situations: You care for one or more people for 20 hours or more a week but miss out on Carer's Allowance because you don't care for any one of them for 35 hours or more a week Where there is more than one of you caring for someone, and someone else is getting the Carer's Allowance for that person You care for someone who can't or refuses to claim disability benefits, or if the disability benefits of the person you are caring for have stopped due to them being in hospital or residential care You are within 12 weeks of claiming Carer's Allowance and/or within 12 weeks of your claim for Carer's Allowance stopping. The person you're looking after must normally be getting one of the following: The middle or the higher rate of the care component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) The daily living component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) (at either rate) Attendance Allowance (at either rate) or Constant Attendance Allowance Armed Forces Independence Payment (AFIP) You may still be able to claim Carer's Credit even if the person you're caring for doesn't get one of these benefits. When you apply, you should fill in the Care Certificate part of the application form and ask a healthcare professional to sign it. You don't need to apply for Carer's Credit if you get Carer's Allowance or Carer Support Payment because you'll automatically get credits. You'll also automatically get credits if you claim Child Benefit for a child under the age of 12. If you're a foster carer, you can apply for National Insurance credits instead. How can you claim? You can download a claim form online through the Government website here. You can also get the form by calling the Carer's Allowance Unit. The phone number is 0800 731 0297. You should then send off the form to Freepost DWP Carers Allowance Unit. Do not write anything except the freepost address on the envelope. You do not need a postcode or a stamp. Can you challenge the decision if your claim is rejected? If your claim is rejected you can still challenge the decision. This is called mandatory reconsideration and it's free to ask for. You can ask for mandatory reconsideration if any of the following apply: You think the office dealing with your claim has made an error or missed important evidence You disagree with the reasons for the decision You want to have the decision looked at again. You should contact the DWP if you disagree with the decision. You will need to ask for mandatory reconsideration within one month of the date of your decision letter. You'll need to give the date of your original benefit decision, your name and address, your date of birth and your National Insurance number. Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing money-sm@ Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Manchester United are importing a sinister US tactic: Public money for stadiums
In March, Manchester United officially unveiled images and plans for a new 100,000-seater stadium to replace their aging home, Old Trafford. While the grandiosity of the circus-tent-like structure attracted widespread attention, something else did, too: as part of this project, United are planning to secure land not by paying for it themselves – but by having the UK government do it for them. In order to clear the site that the club wants to use, a rail freight hub will need to be moved to out near St Helens, between Manchester and Liverpool. The cost of moving the hub is estimated to be between £200m and 300m ($270-405m), but that may be an optimistic appraisal; in the past, the project budget was estimated at closer to £1bn ($1.35bn). Politicians supporting United's plan, like Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, have stressed that no public money will be used to build the stadium. But that appears to be a bit of verbal trickery: United's new stadium cannot be built as planned without moving the freight rail hub; if the government pays to move the hub, they save United from having to do so themselves. (Manchester United declined to respond to a request for comment.) The plan's proponents back it by promising it would confer grand economic benefits to Greater Manchester – 92,000 new jobs! 17,000 new homes! 1.8 million additional tourists! – and would be worth over £7bn annually to the UK economy. Sebastian Coe, the chair of the Old Trafford Regeneration Taskforce and a key organizer behind the 2012 London Olympics, has said 'I don't think I'm overstating when I say this actually has the potential to be, not only a bigger project than London 2012 but, in terms of European scope and scale, probably the biggest thing that's ever really been undertaken.' If United do secure hundreds of millions of pounds of public money as an ancillary part of the stadium project, the club, knowingly or otherwise, would be continuing a long and ignoble tradition that has become commonplace in America. In the UK, it's relatively rare for big sports teams to benefit from public money. In the US, however, it's such a common practice that the record for the largest public subsidy given to a team has been repeatedly shattered in recent years. The Las Vegas Raiders received $750m (£555m) in 2016. The Buffalo Bills got $850m (£629m) in 2022. The Washington Commanders are now in the process of landing over $1bn (£740m). And all that has happened despite a consensus among American academics that massive injections of public money towards major stadium projects have not led to the widespread economic benefits they promised. 'That's the story they tell to get the public money, but it's the big lie' of the stadium funding debate, says Pat Garofalo of the American Economic Liberties Project, 'We [in the US] export a lot of problematic things. And I really hope that we don't export that big lie.' Adds Geoffrey Propheter, a professor at the University of Colorado-Denver: 'In the US, my colleagues and I have the benefit of [decades] worth of examples. We have gotten to see how government intervention in sports facilities has evolved into this monster.' According to Propheter, out of the approximately 125 major league sports facilities across five major men's leagues – MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL, and MLS – only about 10% do not or have not received public money in some form. In the UK, West Ham and Manchester City play in stadiums built with public money, but in both cases the facilities were built for one-off sporting events (the 2012 Olympics and the 2002 Commonwealth Games, respectively) and then repurposed. According to research by the University of Michigan professor Stefan Szymanski, smaller clubs lower down the pyramid – such as Swansea City and Colchester United – have received some public money, but that spending was seen more as an investment into a community asset like a library or a school rather than as an economic generator. 'In the US it is almost taken as a given now that any new facility will receive taxpayer funding,' says Garofalo. 'It's the ones that don't that stand out as oddballs.' The story that Manchester United are telling now is the same one that American sports owners have told, again and again, despite a voluminous and still-growing body of proof that the story isn't real. 'I stress to my friends in the UK – all the evidence here shows that it's not true,' Garofalo says. 'You are setting this money on fire. And you are doing this to support a massive private business that prints money.' In 2024, the Portland Sea Dogs – a minor league baseball team in Maine – received a $2m tax break. While the sums of money and the size of the teams being discussed vary widely, there is a parallel between the Sea Dogs and Manchester United: both effectively disguised their solicitations for public money. Just as United aren't asking for hundreds of millions of pounds to go into their stadium construction budget, the Sea Dogs didn't ask for $2m to be put in their bank account. But by not having to pay $2m in taxes, that's effectively what the Sea Dogs got. Maura Pillsbury of the Maine Center For Economic Policy was part of a network of locals and legislators who pushed back on the Sea Dogs' tax break, ultimately unsuccessfully. When imagining what she would share with folks in Manchester as they contemplated United's plan, she says, 'Everybody here loves the Sea Dogs and I'm sure everybody there loves Manchester United' (City fans aside, of course) 'so it's hard to say no to. But I would encourage them to think about what they're sacrificing. Other people are going to have to pay for that. Something is gonna get cut.' Sign up to Soccer with Jonathan Wilson Jonathan Wilson brings expert analysis on the biggest stories from European soccer after newsletter promotion Donald Trump recently signed into law a massive federal budget bill that will slash social programs across the US and directly impact vulnerable populations in Maine. Meanwhile, the Sea Dogs recently unveiled the results of the renovation paid for in part by their tax break. 'That was another dagger,' Pillsbury says. 'Giving the Sea Dogs $2m – that was a policy choice. Where could have this money gone instead? That's childcare subsidies, that's healthcare, that's food on kids' plates. The emotional, feelgood nature of these proposals belie the actual reality – there's a cost and a consequence to making these decisions.' Propheter says that to 'get to where we are now' – where American pro teams have received billions in public money payouts – 'it took about 50 years of these stadium messes. I wonder if across the pond, folks are like: 'Hey, we can get to where America is because we can learn from the NFL, MLB – we can get to ballooning subsidies even faster.'' One thing standing in the way of this dangerous precedent blossoming in the UK may be the agency of the fans. As United seeks to benefit from public money, will fans – imagining where else their tax pounds could go – push back? American fans 'live in a world of fear,' says the University of Michigan's Stefan Syzmanski, 'because of what terrible thing might happen to them' – namely, their team being taken away. When a team owner in the US asks for public money, there is the implicit or explicit threat of the owner moving the team if the municipality doesn't cough up the dough. 'As a matter of rote reflex,' Garofalo says, 'they threaten to move the team. They have all the leverage to demand these subsidies' lest they have to rip up the team and move away – as, for example, happened when the NFL's Chargers left San Diego for Los Angeles. 'The fans treat the team as a community asset and the owners treat it as a private business.' But while American sports fans seem to respect team owners' legal right to manipulate them by threatening to leave, in the UK, Szymanski says, the thinking is different. Relocating your team is 'a borderline criminal activity.' And in general, fans don't think the owners of their teams should get to do whatever they want. 'Manchester United fans do not actually believe' that its proprietors, the Glazer family and Jim Ratcliffe, 'own Manchester United,' Szymanski says. 'That might be the legal position but the reality' is that they, the club's supporters, are 'the true owners' and that the Glazers and Ratcliffe are 'temporary stewards – and pretty shitty ones, at that.'
South Wales Guardian
5 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Where inflation jumped in July – and where it eased
The average cost of air tickets was 15.5% higher last month than it was a year earlier, compared with an annual rise of just 0.5% in June, according to data published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). When comparing figures month on month, air fares jumped 30.2% between June and July: more than double the rise of 13.3% between the same months in 2024, and the largest July increase since monthly inflation data for air travel began in 2021. Prices accelerated for a range of household groceries last month, which further pushed up the cost of living. The average cost of coffee was up 18.0% year on year in July compared with 12.3% in June; tea was up 4.9% compared with 0.5%; fruit juices were up 8.6% compared with 3.6%; and whole milk was up 11.3% compared with 8.4%. Inflation also picked up pace for margarine, eggs, potatoes, crisps, breakfast cereals, chocolate and bread. Energy bills edged higher, with electricity costs up 8.0% year on year in July, greater than the 4.5% jump in June, while gas was up 13.0% compared with 12.3% the previous month. Both petrol and diesel recorded a negative annual rate of inflation in July, but by a smaller margin than in June, indicating a rise in the cost of filling up at the pumps. The average price of petrol in July was down 7.3% year on year, compared with a fall of 9.5% the previous month, while diesel was down 6.0% compared with a previous drop of 8.6%. Not everything saw a jump in price last month, however. Items where prices fell faster year on year in July than in June included pasta and couscous, fish, olive oil and sugar. Inflation eased for cheese, which stood at 3.4% in July compared with 5.2% in June, while children's shoes swung from positive annual inflation (1.9%) to negative (down 1.9%). Below are some examples of how the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) inflation rate has eased or accelerated. Two figures are listed for each item: the average rise in price in the 12 months to June, followed by the average rise in price in the 12 months to July. – Examples where annual inflation has accelerated, ranked by the size of change: Passenger air travel: June up 0.5%, July up 15.5%Coffee: June up 12.3%, July up 18.0%Cinemas/theatres/concerts: June up 0.4%, July up 5.7%Fruit & vegetable juices: June up 3.6%, July up 8.6%Tea: June up 0.5%, July up 4.9%Electricity: June up 4.5%, July up 8.0%Hotels/motels: June down 2.7%, July up 0.3%Whole milk: June up 8.4%, July up 11.3%Breakfast cereals: June up 2.2%, July up 5.1%Eggs: June up 3.4%, July up 4.9%Ready-made meals: June up 4.5%, July up 5.7%Potatoes: June up 0.7%, July up 1.9%Crisps: June up 4.2%, July up 5.1%Chocolate: June up 16.3%, July up 17.2%Women's clothes: June up 2.3%, July up 2.9%Soft drinks: June up 5.6%, July up 6.1% – Examples where annual inflation has eased: Children's footwear: June up 1.9%, July down 1.9%Passenger train travel: June up 8.4%, July up 6.1%Fridges/freezers: June up 1.7%, July down 0.5%Dried fruit/nuts: June up 7.4%, July up 5.4%Cheese/curd: June up 5.2%, July up 3.4%Yoghurt: June up 3.0%, July up 1.2%Children's clothes: June down 2.1%, July down 3.8%Pasta/couscous: June down 0.7%, July down 2.1%Fish: June down 0.4%, July down 1.8%Washing machines/dryers: June down 2.0%, July down 3.4%
