Workers To Win Bank Holiday Rights

"Tony Blair has pledged to ensure workers get bank holidays on top of paid leave if Labour wins the next general election.
The prime minister announced the plans which will benefit two million workers currently forced to take bank holidays off as part of their annual leave."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4387199.stm

Find myself agreeing with the Government again Nice move.

[punky]

"Biting the hand that feeds" comes to mind.

[me283]

Sounds like a deliberate vote-chaser to me. Normally people read contracts of employment before signing them; that tells you if you get paid Bank Holidays or not. I've never had a job that didn't pay Bank Holidays anyway; but if I didn't like my proposed contract, I wouldn't sign it.

Personally I don't think it's such a good thing; yet another constriction forced upon employers.

Originally Posted by punky

"Biting the hand that feeds" comes to mind.

Do you mean the election campaign coffers might dry up? I think they're still probably too corporate friendly for that.

My mate works at Tesco and had to 'pay back' six hours because Xmas fell on a weekend this year. So just for her, I'd welcome this move but I guess the other 2 million affected will be pretty pleased.

[paulyoung666]

ohhhhhhh , lets all vote labour :o , not

Originally Posted by me283

Personally I don't think it's such a good thing; yet another constriction forced upon employers.

They'll live. For those who do have to count BHs as part of their leave - generally low paid workers - it'll be great news. And I know where my sympathies lie.

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

They'll live. For those who do have to count BHs as part of their leave - generally low paid workers - it'll be great news. And I know where my sympathies lie.

If people work Bank Holidays, they get paid. If they don't like the days or hours they get paid to work, find another job. It's not difficult.

[punky]

Originally Posted by andyl

Do you mean the election campaign coffers might dry up? I think they're still probably too corporate friendly for that.

My mate works at Tesco and had to 'pay back' six hours because Xmas fell on a weekend this year. So just for her, I'd welcome this move but I guess the other 2 million affected will be pretty pleased.

No what I am saying is, that its all fine and well, from the workers and unions standpoint, dictating all these things, but the cost is borne by the company. This little move will cost all companies a fortune. Piling endless costs onto companies is not the best way of keep unemployment low. Unions, in particular don't seem to realise that. Whats the point in helping workers with one hand, when it is choking the companies with the other?

Originally Posted by me283

If people work Bank Holidays, they get paid. If they don't like the days or hours they get paid to work, find another job. It's not difficult.

A lot of people don't have the choice. Do you think that they want to be treated like that? Everyone should be paid for BHs.

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

A lot of people don't have the choice. Do you think that they want to be treated like that? Everyone should be paid for BHs.

Everyone has a choice. If they wanted to be paid for working Bank Holidays, they shouldn't sign a contract that says they won't be.

This also brings into question another issue: such legislation would render millions of employment contracts illegal. Who will pay to renegotiate or amend them?

Nice one, Mr. Bliar. Of course, he and his wife are lawyers...

Originally Posted by punky

No what I am saying is, that its all fine and well, from the workers and unions standpoint, dictating all these things, but the cost is borne by the company. This little move will cost all companies a fortune. Piling endless costs onto companies is not the best way of keep unemployment low. Unions, in particular don't seem to realise that. Whats the point in helping workers with one hand, when it is choking the companies with the other?

Well, everyone will have to pay it so level playing field within the domestic market and I would guess a lot of workers affected are in retail and care work so won't having a real impact on international competitiveness. And rember the fuss before the 97 election about the Minimum Wage? Business seems to have coped well enough though.

At the end of the day everyone should be entitled to the same BH rights.

[paulyoung666]

Originally Posted by punky

No what I am saying is, that its all fine and well, from the workers and unions standpoint, dictating all these things, but the cost is borne by the company. This little move will cost all companies a fortune. Piling endless costs onto companies is not the best way of keep unemployment low. Unions, in particular don't seem to realise that. Whats the point in helping workers with one hand, when it is choking the companies with the other?

exactly , and the cost of goods will ineviatably rise with it

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

Well, everyone will have to pay it so level playing field within the domestic market and I would guess a lot of workers affected are in retail and care work so won't having a real impact on international competitiveness. And rember the fuss before the 97 election about the Minimum Wage? Business seems to have coped well enough though.

At the end of the day everyone should be entitled to the same BH rights.

This is a long shot, and I'm going out on a limb here... you're not an employer, are you?

[blackthorn]

Originally Posted by me283

If people work Bank Holidays, they get paid. If they don't like the days or hours they get paid to work, find another job. It's not difficult.

Yes, they get paid but most dont get paid double time. A lot are shop staff, so you wont mind if there are no shops open on bank holidays.

[me283]

Originally Posted by blackthorn

Yes, they get paid but most dont get paid double time. A lot are shop staff, so you wont mind if there are no shops open on bank holidays.

Wouldn't bother me at all. It's hardly the end of the world, is it?