Rather than guessing whether it's worth it, this works backwards from the cost — the minimum this role would need to bring in, so you can judge for yourself whether that's realistic.
One thing worth checking before anything else: if this is simply replacing someone who's left — same role, same hours — none of this really applies. This is for a genuinely new or additional role, not a like-for-like backfill.
Beyond that: this isn't a yes or no answer, and it's not about whether someone would be good at the job. It works backwards from the cost of the role to the minimum this role would need to bring in to cover it — so you have a number to weigh against what you already know about your business. And worth remembering: not every hiring decision is purely financial — sometimes the case is a day off for whoever's currently running everything, or having cover when someone's ill, not just what the numbers say.
Step 1
The cost of the role
Whatever you're actually planning — full-time, part-time, a few extra shifts — put the real hours and rate in.
£
All-in cost — wage plus employer NI and pension, not just headline pay. Roughly wage + 3-15%, depending on the Employment Allowance.
Weekly cost of this role
—
Now — where does that extra capacity actually go?
Step 2
What the extra capacity is for
Pick whichever one is actually true for you — most hires are really about one of these two.
You're capped at peak times — more hands means more customers served without longer queues.
£
Roughly what's left after ingredients — most cafés see 65-75%.
Since you're hiring for the hours entered in Step 1, that's the trading window this creates — no need to estimate extra hours separately.
Roughly what's left after ingredients — most cafés see 65-75%.
£
Minimum needed
—
Against your estimate
—
Weekly cost vs. what your estimate would bring in
This is one hire, one scenario.
It assumes the extra demand is genuinely there — not guaranteed just because there's capacity to serve it. And it's one way this role could pay for itself; a real hire is often a mix of both.
No ramp-up time — a new hire isn't at full capacity from week one
No recruitment or training cost included
Doesn't capture non-financial reasons to hire — reducing burnout, succession, resilience if someone's off sick
If that minimum feels realistic, this could pay for itself faster than expected. If it feels like a stretch, that's just as useful to know before committing to the cost.