Workers To Win Bank Holiday Rights

[zoombini]

Andyl, but I get BH's on top of statotory & when I work them I DO get paid for them.

No one is NOT getting paid for them when they work, they just get paid as if it was a normal day.

If they are forced to work them & don't get paid for those days then that's something different which is not what I am seeing from the announcment.

IMO bank holidays should be just that, holidays for banks.

If you have a holiday it should be at a time convinient to yourself & your employer. Just because a bank has a holiday there is no reason to force me to.
If my employer wishes to shut down for a day then they should pay me for that day that I am prepared to work.

Although it might be nice to have more paid days, I still dont see anyone actually losing out money wise from working on a BH.

Originally Posted by zoombini

Andyl, but I get BH's on top of statotory & when I work them I DO get paid for them.

No one is NOT getting paid for them when they work, they just get paid as if it was a normal day.

If they are forced to work them & don't get paid for those days then that's something different which is not what I am seeing from the announcment.

IMO bank holidays should be just that, holidays for banks.

If you have a holiday it should be at a time convinient to yourself & your employer. Just because a bank has a holiday there is no reason to force me to.
If my employer wishes to shut down for a day then they should pay me for that day that I am prepared to work.

Although it might be nice to have more paid days, I still dont see anyone actually losing out money wise from working on a BH.

Lucky you..you are ok so let's not bother..

Oh I give up..

Originally Posted by me283

Moral obligation? Don't make me laugh! People go into business and employ others, because they want to make money. There is no "moral obligation". If it fails to be economically viable, they close their businesses. Moral obligation? You certainly aren't an employer, are you?!

I'm off to bed.

So the altruistic (and extraordinarily successful) businessmen who built workers' villages around their factories (e.g. Port Sunlight, Wirral, or New Lanark, Lanarkshire) were acting purely out of economic self interest, with no regard whatsoever for the thought that their personal success conferred on them some greater responsibility to ensure the prosperity of the society they lived in?

Sorry, but your tawdry and somewhat selfish assessment of the nature of business and its responsibility in society is the very reason why in the past, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Unfortunately, while Lord Leverhulme and Robert Owen were busy creating workers' paradise, too many other Victorian factory and mill owners took your view and, therefore, bear some responsibility for the very existence of the Labour movement, which culminated in the parlous state this country was in by the late 1970s. It took almost two decades in opposition to drag the Labour party back into the centre of politics and frankly, I think we should be relieved that the Party is content now to dabble at the fringes, making minor changes to holiday entitlements, and is not busily reinstating the whole raft of excessive Trade Union power that is now thankfully a thing of the past.

If you conduct your business in a vacuum, then fine, do so according to your own narrow economic self interest. But if you conduct your business within the structures of a civilised society, and therefore profit, if only indirectly, from the stability that that society brings, then you are morally compelled to recognise that by contributing to the further wellbeing and stability of that society. If you can't do that voluntarily by granting your staff a measly eight extra days of paid leave in a year, then I support the efforts of any Government that would seek to force you. And if it puts you out of business, then too bad. Next time, try starting a company with employee welfare at the heart of the business plan and not as a bolt-on.

Am I missing something? The proposal is for paid Bank Holiday leave

"With Labour every full-time worker will be entitled to 28 days paid holiday - including the time for bank holidays. This is just one example of Labour's commitment to give more help and support to hard working families."
http://www.labour.org.uk/ac2004news?...workersbenefit

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by andyl

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

What is the history of bank holidays?

Weren't they days off before companies had to give annual entitlement to workers?

I understood bank holidays were traditionally a time when employees would have a day off to go to the seaside etc. I'm not even sure if they were paid for these days off?

I do think employees should be treated fairly, however if one company gives 30 days holiday because they can afford to, and another gives 20 I do think its fair that the other company should be forced to give 30 days.

It should be law that all bank holidays are included in annual holiday entitlement, and then there would not be any arguments, except for deciding how much if anything people should be paid if they have to work them. From my own personal/selfish opinion, it wouldn't matter when I had the days off and I would be happier to choose the holidays when I need them. What use are bank holidays anyway, just cues of traffic jams and not being able to get your DIY stuff at B&Q.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Escapee

It should be law that all bank holidays are included in annual holiday entitlement, and then there would not be any arguments, except for deciding how much if anything people should be paid if they have to work them. From my own personal/selfish opinion, it wouldn't matter when I had the days off and I would be happier to choose the holidays when I need them. What use are bank holidays anyway, just cues of traffic jams and not being able to get your DIY stuff at B&Q.

But isn't that precisely what Labour is suggesting? The minimum annual number of holidays will be 28 including Bank Holidays (though some may get more). Right now the mimimum is 20, including BHs for some, and excluding BHs for others. So those on 20 days including BHs will get 8 more days. Good for them.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by danielf

But isn't that precisely what Labour is suggesting? The minimum annual number of holidays will be 28 including Bank Holidays (though some may get more). Right now the mimimum is 20, including BHs for some, and excluding BHs for others. So those on 20 days including BHs will get 8 more days. Good for them.

I understood the current holiday entitlement did include bank holidays if a person was entitled to holidays. ie: a full time permanent employee.

Is Labour suggesting companies have to increase holidays by another 8 days?

I currectly get 34 days including bank holidays, so an increase of 8 days should apply to me as well then.

[zoombini]

but Incog, I do bother. My wife has to have BH's off because her employer shuts down too. I'm not being "I'm alright jack".

Escapee, if all employers were forced to give the same holiday entitlement then what would the benifit of weoking for some employers be?
Some give additional holidays to what they are bound to do as a benifit to thier employees (usually because they give no other benifits).

The history of bank holidays looks to say that they were for banks.

Bank holidays are days in the whole or part of the UK on which banks may close for business

.
Some of use are just lucky that our employers choose to shut down then too & give us a holiday, otherwise it should be treated as any other day.

If your contract deems it that you need to work them then that's part of the conditions of your work. Changing it opens a whole new kettle of fish, not just getting TB more votes.

another link.
__________________

Originally Posted by Escapee

I currectly get 34 days including bank holidays, so an increase of 8 days should apply to me as well then.

Exactly one point I was making, will my employer now give me an extra 8 days off?
Answer on a postcard, most likely to be NO.
__________________

Oh whatever... (the Incog approach D) )

[danielf]

This is getting very confusing...

I think the issue is that the minimum is 20 days. For many/the majority of office workers (where the company does not operate on Bank Holidays, this effectively means 20 days plus 8 Bank Holidays. For many people that do work Bank Holidays, the 20 just means 20 days, so they are 8 days short. What the new law would mean is a minimum of 28 days for all. Since many office workers already have 28, they will not get additional days. The poor sods who only get 20 days now would get 8 more days.

Edit:

"A third term Labour government will help those still missing out by ensuring bank holidays come on top of the right to four weeks paid holiday," wrote Mr Blair.

Originally Posted by zoombini

Some of use are just lucky that our employers choose to shut down then too & give us a holiday, otherwise it should be treated as any other day.

If your contract deems it that you need to work them then that's part of the conditions of your work. Changing it opens a whole new kettle of fish, not just getting TB more votes.

The point is not so much about whether you're entitled to get a paid day off on any given Bank Holiday, it's more about the minimum amount of paid holiday time workers in the UK should be entitled to. In my first job I did work some bank hols, but I always had another day off in lieu as well as getting overtime (very rare in newspapers these days!)

Most of us, when we start a job and look at the contract terms, look at a holiday entitlement of, say, 20 or 25 days, and think, 'ooh, goody, that's four/five working weeks a year'. We assume, before we even get to the sentence that confirms it, that bank hols are on top of this. What we are effectively getting is 28 or 32 days a year, although generally eight of those days have to be taken on the bank hols as they arise, rather than us having the choice about when to have them.

So it came as a big surprise to me, some years ago, when I was offered a job and discovered (only upon directly questioning the person interviewing me, I might add), that the holiday entitlement of 20 days quoted in the contract was inclusive of all bank holidays. That effectively meant that in any given year, I had two weeks and two days to take off as I chose, and then the bank holidays. And all this was quite legal. I'm sorry, but in a country as economically powerful and prosperous as ours, there is absolutely no excuse for anyone being forced to accept such a measly holiday entitlement. Fortunately for me, I had a CV good enough to allow me to walk away from that job offer and find an alternative. Thankfully it's rare for an industry that recruits professionally qualified staff to offer such rotten terms. A great many other people do not have the benefit of professional qualifications or experience on their CVs and have to take the first job they can get, no matter how poor the conditions.

Making Bank Holidays a legal entitlement, alongside the current legal entitlement of 20 days' paid leave a year, will effectively result in everyone being entitled to 28 days holiday. In most cases that will be four weeks, plus eight days as they arise. In some cases it'll be five weeks and three days. Whichever way you cut it, I think it's a lot more equitable.

[me283]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

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.

That's ok then. "I'm sure they will manage". I must go back to my old business studies lecturer and advise him of this new business concept. I can see it now in that lecture hall:

"Sir, how does XYZ Ltd maintain it's profit margins to a level acceptable to it's financial backers, whilst ensuring that it's pricing is competitive enough to win a reasonable amount of it's core market?"

"I don't know, but I'm sure they'll manage".

In fact I shall use it as a business plan with my bank manager... "I have stable income, but increasing overheads when I'm already struggling to break even. But don't worry about the escalating overdraft as I'M SURE I'LL MANAGE".

What a sound, well-reasoned and balanced argument you present.

This motion by our Tone may not bring industry to it's knees, but it sure as Hell ain't doing it any favours.

When you go back to your business lecturer could you ask him if he believed or promoted the doom and gloom theories so widely promulgated pre minimum wage?

[me283]

Originally Posted by Chris T

So the altruistic (and extraordinarily successful) businessmen who built workers' villages around their factories (e.g. Port Sunlight, Wirral, or New Lanark, Lanarkshire) were acting purely out of economic self interest, with no regard whatsoever for the thought that their personal success conferred on them some greater responsibility to ensure the prosperity of the society they lived in?

Sorry, but your tawdry and somewhat selfish assessment of the nature of business and its responsibility in society is the very reason why in the past, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Unfortunately, while Lord Leverhulme and Robert Owen were busy creating workers' paradise, too many other Victorian factory and mill owners took your view and, therefore, bear some responsibility for the very existence of the Labour movement, which culminated in the parlous state this country was in by the late 1970s. It took almost two decades in opposition to drag the Labour party back into the centre of politics and frankly, I think we should be relieved that the Party is content now to dabble at the fringes, making minor changes to holiday entitlements, and is not busily reinstating the whole raft of excessive Trade Union power that is now thankfully a thing of the past.

If you conduct your business in a vacuum, then fine, do so according to your own narrow economic self interest. But if you conduct your business within the structures of a civilised society, and therefore profit, if only indirectly, from the stability that that society brings, then you are morally compelled to recognise that by contributing to the further wellbeing and stability of that society. If you can't do that voluntarily by granting your staff a measly eight extra days of paid leave in a year, then I support the efforts of any Government that would seek to force you. And if it puts you out of business, then too bad. Next time, try starting a company with employee welfare at the heart of the business plan and not as a bolt-on.

I take it you're not an employer either? Ah, words of wisdom from yet another theorist. When you understand the economics of paying people for time they are not working, maybe you will change your opinion. Typically, companies presently pay around 20 days per annum, PLUS Bank Holidays. Some do not. Forcing them to do so would increase that financial commitment by nearly 50%.

Incidentally, some businesses build "communities" not just to be altruistic, but because it benefits the BUSINESS in many ways.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by me283

That's ok then. "I'm sure they will manage". I must go back to my old business studies lecturer and advise him of this new business concept. I can see it now in that lecture hall:

"Sir, how does XYZ Ltd maintain it's profit margins to a level acceptable to it's financial backers, whilst ensuring that it's pricing is competitive enough to win a reasonable amount of it's core market?"

Presumably the answer would be that as the competition will incur the same cost, there will not be an unfair disadvantage.

[me283]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I'm sorry, but in a country as economically powerful and prosperous as ours, there is absolutely no excuse for anyone being forced to accept such a measly holiday entitlement.

In the USA, which might also be classed as "economically powerful and prosperous", the typical entitlement is 10 days plus Public Holidays.