Workers To Win Bank Holiday Rights

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I think I TEACH in the real world.

The problem is that there are as many REAL worlds as there are inhabitants. It is evident from many postings on these forums that a lot of members think that their own experiences and views are the same as those of the vast majority of people.

[me283]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I think I TEACH in the real world.

Well I wouldn't want you teaching my children. I would prefer them to be taught by someone who can hold a reasoned, balanced discussion, not get insulting when they are challenged. I wonder how OFSTED would view your approach?

And I thought you had unsubscribed?
__________________

Originally Posted by ian@huth

The problem is that there are as many REAL worlds as there are inhabitants. It is evident from many postings on these forums that a lot of members think that their own experiences and views are the same as those of the vast majority of people.

Very good point Ian. We all relate to our own "real world". I have been one of those who works Bank Holidays, for no extra money or entitlement. I went into that situation with my eyes open, and just got on with it. Needs must, and all that. But it vexates me when the government decide to blatantly "buy" votes, whilst at the same time hindering the good old "small businessman" who already has enough on his plate. After all, there are less than 2 million of them, so they win more points than they lose. Simple maths, eh?
__________________

Originally Posted by andyl

Nice. Brought me down a peg or too.

Nothing personal.

Ok me283, who do you think is the more disadvantaged, the small businessperson or the low paid worker whom you seem quite happy to deny BHs (OK, quite a loaded question but honestly this is a no brainer).

And yes, you're maths is correct.

Personally, I think you got off lightly with Coggy I'm sure you'll sympathise with the defence of provocation.

[zoombini]

Can someone please remind me what your all arguing.. sorry discussing about?

Are people having to work these days & not get paid for that time worked or something?

Originally Posted by zoombini

Can someone please remind me what your all arguing.. sorry discussing about?

Are people having to work these days & not get paid for that time worked or something?

Yep, that's about it. Labour is proposing to introduce legislation which will prevent companies including Bank Holidays within an employee's statutory 20 days annual leave. This will affect two million, mainly low paid workers. Apparently not all agree this is a good idea

[zoombini]

No thats not it?

If the bank holidays are in thier leave then they get paid for it.

Surely, If they work it then they get paid for it too.

Where are people NOT getting paid for the days?
(which is the impression that I get about what some are saying )

I realise that some may be contractually obliged to work on the bank holidays because of the nature of the proffession & TB is going to make it so that people that do this get paid for these days in addition to thier statutary days.

But where are people NOT getting paid for working them?

Originally Posted by zoombini

No thats not it?

If the bank holidays are in thier leave then they get paid for it.

Surely, If they work it then they get paid for it too.

Where are people NOT getting paid for the days?
(which is the impression that I get about what some are saying )

I realise that some may be contractually obliged to work on the bank holidays because of the nature of the proffession & TB is going to make it so that people that do this get paid for these days in addition to thier statutary days.

But where are people NOT getting paid for working them?

Agreed that is a slightly different, yet allied issue. If people only get BH as part of their statutory leave then they are, in effect, not being paid for them because they don't get 20 days plus the 8 BHs as part of paid leave.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by zoombini

No thats not it?

If the bank holidays are in thier leave then they get paid for it.

Surely, If they work it then they get paid for it too.

Where are people NOT getting paid for the days?
(which is the impression that I get about what some are saying )

I realise that some may be contractually obliged to work on the bank holidays because of the nature of the proffession & TB is going to make it so that people that do this get paid for these days in addition to thier statutary days.

But where are people NOT getting paid for working them?

People on a basic monthly salary who get 20 annual holidays, get BHs off as well, without being so they essentially get 20 days + BH. If the BHs are included in the 20 days, you have fewer paid holidays than people who get them on top of their holidays.

Mind you, there's other tricks as well. My GF has a decent job, with 20 holidays plus Bank Holidays. She is also required to occasionally work tradeshows. If these days are on a weekend, she does not get additional holidays (or pay). Funnily, her boss, who draws up the rota, and also works the trade shows, always assigns himself a weekday, leaving the weekends to the others.

[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).

Originally Posted by zoombini

The statutary 20 days is irrespective of it being a bank holiday

No it's not. That's the whole point. I think you need to read the initial news story.

From post#1: "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

[zoombini]

I did read it & OK have read it again.
I read

"Not all of them will get a paid day off in lieu. And there are also the forgotten millions who, while they may be off these bank holidays, have these days counted as part of their annual holiday.

These people ARE getting paid for the days worked.


So what's being said here is that people are being forced to take those days off & not get paid for it?

AND they also get 20 days paid leave?

Yes, not nice for the lower paid, having to have unpaid holidays & yes if this comes in it will make life better for them to the tune of almost 2 weeks wages a year.

Ok then, what effect is this going to have on others like me, because I already get more than the statutary requirement, my employer is just going to say that I swallow the newer requirement into my contractual alocation. Or will it alos mean that I too get to have an extra 9 days PA?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by zoombini

I did read it & OK have read it again.

So what's being said is that people are being forced to take those days off & not get paid for it?

AND they also get 20 days paid leave?

Yes, not nice for the lower paid, having to have unpaid holidays & yes if this comes in it will make life better for them to the tune of almost 2 weeks wages a year.

Ok then, what effect is this going to have on others like me, because I already get more than the statutary requirement, my employer is just going to say that I swallow the newer requirement into my contractual alocation. Or will it alos mean that I too get to have an extra 9 days PA?

Most likely, nothing will change for you, as you probably already have Bank Holidays off.

[zoombini]

But no I don't, I work them.
But that's through my choice.

Apart from (as I said) a few which I do get paid for anyway.


So the issue is NOT that people are forced to work these days an NOT get paid for working them.

Is the issue that poeple are forced to NOT work them and still get paid for them? (which effectivly breaks up thier holidays into little bits preventing them taking week's at a time?)

Not all of them will get a paid day off in lieu. And there are also the forgotten millions who, while they may be off these bank holidays, have these days counted as part of their annual holiday

These people work them AND get paid for them AND get to have thier 20 days statutary leave or dont work them and still get paid.

I see no-one who does not get paid, all this appears to be about is giving people 20 days PLUS BH's which in effect makes the WT directive wrong & that could can be changed, perhaps what they meant was they want it to be 29 days a year instead.

Originally Posted by zoombini

I did read it & OK have read it again.
I read


These people ARE getting paid for the days worked.


So what's being said here is that people are being forced to take those days off & not get paid for it?

AND they also get 20 days paid leave?

Yes, not nice for the lower paid, having to have unpaid holidays & yes if this comes in it will make life better for them to the tune of almost 2 weeks wages a year.

Ok then, what effect is this going to have on others like me, because I already get more than the statutary requirement, my employer is just going to say that I swallow the newer requirement into my contractual alocation. Or will it alos mean that I too get to have an extra 9 days PA?

No they are not being forced to take BH off and get paid for it..They are being forced to include BHs in their annual paid leave.All the proposal will do is insist that they get their paid holidays PLUS the 9 odd BH that are on the timetable if they want them.I think that you will find that KEY workers will still have to come to an agreement with their bosses as to who mans the hospitals,power stations,firestations,police,armed forces etc as they have always done.However they will be guaranteed time off in that case at another point hopefully of their choosing.It will also I hope mean that anyone who does fulfill said obligation will get DOUBLE TIME for working on BHs.

What hopefully will happen is that those forced to include BH's in their annual paid holiday will now be allowed to have them separately.Now this won't affect everyone especially those who do have reasonable employers..After all although it is nice to have some shops open on a BH it is not imperative for all of them to be open.After all we already have 7 days of retail trade.It hardly matters if B&Q have to close on a BH...not being a vital key industry.

Now stands back and waits for the usual "what about small businesses?How will they survive the added expense of providing 9 days off?"

Well I'm sure they will manage..they used to before we all became mad about providing services 24/7.They managed when the minimum wage came into force by the way and I can't see why they can't now.

It might be nice if having a Bank Holiday meant that the pace of life was reduced for that day.Bank holidays were always the best time for workers because it meant they could see the world from a different perspective and maybe go somewhere they wouldn't go normally.Some small businesses used to organise a works outing on those days for their workers..

I think it is time that Bank Holidays became special again.

Gah! Crossed posted again.

Zoombini, If someone gets BHs on top of statutory leave, they will get paid for them. So when they work BHs now, they are, in effect, working for free.

me283 - JUst to prove I am not anti-business, this is the kind of support I approve of: http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/bu...usinesses.html