[zoombini]

But yes they are getting paid for them.

The statutary 20 days is irrespective of it being a bank holiday, so if they have to take the BH then they are getting a days rest which is the reason for the statutary days.

If you take 20 days off a year and do not get paid for all 20 then I'm sure that there would be some other legal fighting going on already.

The paid for bank holidays or a day in the loo, isn't that down in law somewhere already or was that a union specific thing?
(I remember forcing the issue & getting extra days off at a co I was at when I was a mere 19).

What this proposal looks like doing is making it so that all our hospitals & other services that need to be open on bank holidays will either be severely shorter staffed bacause many will take the time off or it will cost loads more for those days & companies will then rethink about actually being open on them.

If the government wants people to get 20 days + BH, then why not just raise the WT directive to 20 days + however many bank holidays PA.

TB is effectivly shutting down some essential services if it goes ahead.

If someone gets many more holidays thatn 20 +BH (like me - I get 36) then good for em (us) but that's usually a contractual thing or because it's a "benifit" that the employer provides.

However, if they are only required to give a worker 20 days & they are also required to work on bank holidays (because we do not all work in banks) then so be it, that's the nature of the job & is likely made known when taking the job on.

Some people have to work on Sundays, is the next electioneering going to also stop that?

Edit: I get so many because I have a benifit of service days, 1 per every 3 years worked. I also do not have to work BH, but I can if I wish (apart from Easter & xmas which is our only closure).