Strike sympathy , not me

[CliveH]

Big Momma - 2011-06-30 10:57 PM

 

It was the PRIVATE sector that got the economy into this mess, and the Government are using the PUBLIC sector to bear the pain to bail this country out of it *-) The strike today was not just about teacher's, it was about PUBLIC Sector cuts of which the teachers are but a small part of. The Medical profession will be out with their 'sob stories' soon as will the 'Council workers' followed by..............

 

Look at it this way, how many times do you see the Private Sector supporting anything that the Government does, but this time it is in their interests to do so. Hyping up the Public Sector takes the real cause of the problem, the Private Sector, out of the limelight.

 

The Public Sector pension is not the biggest drain on the public purse, in fact the cost is decreasing, not a quote from me but from an independent financial analyst on the news tonight.

 

Discuss :D

 

It was one small section of the private sector that caused the banking crisis. And they were allowed to set up the dodgy deals because the FSA (Financial Service Authority - and part of the Public Sector) was asleep at the wheel.

 

It is the ever increasing burden of the public sector as set up by New labour that is the problem. Blair and Brown increased Public sector jobs by huge amounts - and when the economy was booming this was affordable. However, the boom that Gordon Brown oversaw was funded by debt. The government sold off our Gold reserves when the price of gold was low and borrowed huge amounts of money to pay the vastly increased Public Sector bill.

 

Then the dodgy lending the banks set up collapsed and it all hit the fan.

 

So whilst it is easy for those in the public sector to blame the Private sector for the problems we have a) it is only the banks that caused the problem - NOT the private sector on masse and b) with the private sector on its knees, the public sector has to accept that without the tax revenues from a booming private sector economy, the public sector costs have to be reduced.

 

For the Public Sector to demand that their lifestyle, pay and conditions and pensions should be protected when these benefits are considerably better than anything in the private sector currently is arrogant and nonsensical.

 

Unless we want to go he way of Greece and Ireland that it.

 

[postnote]

WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FOLLOWING THIS POST...STRIKES..NOT PENSIONS

 

Next it will be the poor hard done by BA cabin staff... :-(

[oldlowie]

CliveH - 2011-07-01 8:21 AM

 

OK - so it looks like I have upset you Donna simply by having views different to yours and have had the temerity to post them (lol)

 

 

This seems to happen quite a lot. *-) Is it hormonal or something?

[donna miller]

oldlowie - 2011-07-01 9:54 AM

 

CliveH - 2011-07-01 8:21 AM

 

OK - so it looks like I have upset you Donna simply by having views different to yours and have had the temerity to post them (lol)

 

 

This seems to happen quite a lot. *-) Is it hormonal or something?

 

No, it's just that some members on here do not posses the ability to admit they have posted wrong information, they then attempt to distort what they have said to save face.

[CliveH]

Pot calling kettle black there Donna (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

What part of of the DirectGov reference is not clear to you?

 

To infer that the 28 days does not include the eight days of Bank Holidays is just silly.

 

(lol) (lol)

[Robinhood]

CliveH - 2011-07-01 10:33 AM

 

Pot calling kettle black there Donna (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

What part of of the DirectGov reference is not clear to you?

 

To infer that the 28 days does not include the eight days of Bank Holidays is just silly.

 

(lol) (lol)

 

 

....so Clive, what's the holiday entitlement for someone who works 5 full days a week, with a standard shift pattern of Wednesday to Sunday?

 

(Think about it before replying).

 

Sometimes these regulations are written the way they are for a reason!.

[donna miller]

CliveH - 2011-07-01 8:21 AM

 

 

2...And Bruce is correct - the holiday legal entitlement is 20 days and the 8 bank holidays - making a total of 28 days.

 

 

OK - so it looks like I have upset you Donna simply by having views different to yours and have had the temerity to post them (lol)

 

As for my "leaving you out of future posts" - as far as I am concerned - I speak to God every day so if I want to comment on something you have posted then I will do. If you don't like what I say - either ignore it or converse in an adult manner.

 

Anyway the rules on holiday in the UK are clear so dealing with point 2:-

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/Timeoffandholidays/DG_10029788

 

And this is the relevant section:-

 

“There is a minimum right to paid holiday, but your employer may offer more than this. The main things you should know about holiday rights are that:

• you are entitled to a minimum of 5.6 weeks paid annual leave - 28 days for someone working five days a week (capped at a statutory maximum of 28 days for all working patterns)

• part-time workers are entitled to the same level of holiday pro rata (so 5.6 times your usual working week, eg 22.4 days for someone working four days a week)

• you start building up holiday as soon as you start work

• your employer can control when you take your holiday

• you get paid your normal pay for your holiday

• when you finish a job, you get paid for any holiday you have not taken

• bank and public holidays can be included in your minimum entitlement

• you continue to be entitled to your holiday leave throughout your ordinary and additional maternity leave and paternity and adoption leave”

 

So the minimum including Bank Holidays is 28 days - so that is 8 bank holidays and 20 actual holiday days. You said in your previous post:-

 

You try to make out that Bruce and I are wrong when it is clear that the minimum entitlement of 28 days INCLUDES the 8 days of Bank holidays.

 

Finally Donna – I do think it unreasonable of you to try to dictate that I should “leave you out of future posts” – sorry – not going to happen. You have every right to express your views and every right to disagree with what I and anyone else says. Please accept the fact that others have the same right of free speech.

 

 

Clive, I used to think of you as an intelligent person, and I have no desire to fall out with you, but it would appear you just respond to critisism like so many others, by dismissing the poster who has dared to question your comments, with the usual I'm entitled, crap.

 

"Respond in an adult manner", I can't see where you can interpret that I have answered in a childish manner, or was that a attempt at belittlement, as so many of you seem to resort to when dealing with me, perhaps it's a man thing, if so, you should be ashamed of yourself. So, maybe if you were adult enough to admit you have made a mistake in your interpretation of a law (which I doubt very much you deal with as part of your job, but one that I have to), then others may do as you ask.

You have just tried to backtrack on the holiday entitlement issue despite both YOU and BRUCE claiming that the law gives employees 20 days plus 8 bank holidays, read your penultimate paragraph, then compare it to what Is actually said in the link, you will find that the laws says "your employer MAY include bank holidays,perhaps you would like to explain how "MAY" has turned into "DOES" to make you now right,.

As for your " so that is 20 days plus the 8 bank holidays" stance, where does that leave people this year then when you had the extra day for the royal wedding, or last year when an extra day was given in the new year. By your reckoning then, every one would be entitled to 20 days plus 9 bank holidays, and yet doesn't the very same government publication you quoted say that the minimum 28 days will not be exceeded in law.

 

You are not going to admit you are wrong, so get on with it, I only hope you never have to employ anyone and find out the hard way.

I know jack about pensions, of which you are an obvious expert, so I wouldn't attempt to dispute what you say and advise others, I on the other hand are an employer of 30 odd people, and on employment law and practises, I know what I'm talking about, It's just a pity you do not give the same respect to other peoples knowledge, that they give to yours.

 

I refer you to your own comment ........." If you don't like what I say - either ignore it or converse in an adult manner".

 

 

 

[CliveH]

OK I will try to explain it as simply as possible.

 

Donna you say;-

 

"You have just tried to backtrack on the holiday entitlement issue despite both YOU and BRUCE claiming that the law gives employees 20 days plus 8 bank holidays, read your penultimate paragraph, then compare it to what Is actually said in the link, you will find that the laws says "your employer MAY include bank holidays, perhaps you would like to explain how "MAY" has turned into "DOES" to make you now right,."

 

The entitlement for holiday can include Bank holidays which are statutory days off. So the minimum that any employer has to give is 20 days which when added to the 8 statutory days of bank holidays gives you the 28 days.

 

Donna - you are trying to infer that the employer must provide 28 days paid holiday plus the 8 days bank holidays - that is not the case.

 

As for the Royal Wedding - that was not a Bank Holiday and many employers allowed people to take the day off but it had to form part of their holiday entitlement.

 

We didn't - we gave our staff the day off.

 

As for what you or anyone thinks of me Donna - please do not confuse me with someone that is that bothered. The DirectGov website is clear. I asked for you to respond in an adult manner because frankly trying to tell me not to reply to your posts is rather like a child putting fingers in ears and going la la la la la la - when hearing something they don't like.

 

The total allowance is 28 days including bank holidays - so that means employers must provide employees with 20 days annual holiday entitlement as a minimum.

 

The wording "Employers MAY include the 8 days of BH's simply allows some employers to be more generous.

 

But the statutory minimum is 20 days paid annual holiday with a further 8 days of BH's as and when the fall.

 

That is the minimum employers have to provide.

 

[BGD]

donna miller - 2011-07-01 10:10 AM

 

oldlowie - 2011-07-01 9:54 AM

 

CliveH - 2011-07-01 8:21 AM

 

OK - so it looks like I have upset you Donna simply by having views different to yours and have had the temerity to post them (lol)

 

 

This seems to happen quite a lot. *-) Is it hormonal or something?

 

No, it's just that some members on here do not posses the ability to admit they have posted wrong information, they then attempt to distort what they have said to save face.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh Donna, please.

 

I was an HR manager and latterly HR Director for over 20 years.

I know little about construction, I know virtually nothing of particle physics. But as an employment law specialist throughout that career, I do know UK employment law

 

The law with regard to Holiday entitlements began, as with most other areas, as Common Law. That needn't worry us for the purposes of your mistaken assertions; I merely set the scene.

A big change occurred with the creation of the EU Working Time Directive (the original Directive was passed in 1993, with an updated version passed in 2003.

All EU Member States were (are) required to pass the active provisions of that EU-wide directive into their own domestic law. The UK Government did so via the creation and implementation of a Statutory Instrument called the "Working Time Regulations", in 1998.

 

Now, here's the fun bit:

Those original Working Time Regulations set out for the first time a minimum statutory (ie, required by law) amount of paid leave, commonly known as "holidays".

The EU Directive required ALL member states to provide for minimum of 20 days paid leave. But each member state was able to write its own domestic regulations on how this was to made up, because of variations across the EU in the number of Bank Holidays.

In the UK, the Government had to take account of the fact that there was already almost universal common-practice fro Employers to allow 8 "Bank Holidays". So to do this, they framed the description of the new, statutory minimum, number of holidays as:

"20 days, which may include the 8 bank holidays".

 

Now, canter forward to the passing of the 2nd EU Working Time Directive, in 2003.

That changed several things, including removal of the previous UK derogation which allowed an "opt-out" of the 48 hour working week. But for the purposes of this post, the most important thing is that it INCREASED the minimum number of annual paid holidays from 20, to 28.

Again, EU Member States had to incorporate that new Directive into their own domestic legislation or regulation.

In the UK, the Secretary of State has derogated powers to "lay amending regulations before Parliament". I won't go into the technical details here, but suffice to say that this means there is no need for further primary legislation (another Act of Parliament); the Minister can simply publish new regulations, and after a consultation period, they become law.

 

What those amended regulations said was that the UK would adopt the increased, 28-days EU minimum holiday entitlement via a two stage process.

 

 

Now here's the kicker Donna.....

I quote the pre-amble to these actual regulations for you:

"From 1st October 2007 full-time employees will became entitled to 24 days annual holiday

rising to 28 days in April 2009.

This is to phase in the inclusion to an employee’s holiday entitlement of the 8 recognised Public Holidays in England and Wales.

As is the case with the current statutory minimum, pay-in-lieu of holiday or working

on a public holiday will not be permitted. However, to ease the ?nancial burden

to employers of its implementation, between 1 October 2007 and 1 April 2009,

organisations may pay the additional 4 days’ entitlement instead of giving it as time

off. Holiday entitlements for part-time employees should be pro-rated according to

their hours."

 

 

 

Did you get the second sentence in the actual regulations?

Not here-say; not what someone else wrote; not how it is presented in the UGov website in order to try to keep things simple for people who have to obey the law but are not legal specialists.....but the ACTUAL UK law itself.

For the avoidance of any further doubt; go back and read it once more if necessary.

What the regulation says is that the increase from 20 days to 28 days is to take account of the 8 Bank Holidays in England and Wales. The minimum entitlement had been 20 days, plus another 8 to recognise UK bank holidays.

 

That Donna, is why I correctly wrote earlier that the UK entitlement is 20 days plus the additional 8 for bank Holidays. And that Donna, is an explanation of why your arguing with that point in my earlier post, is wrong.

 

The website you took your information from is trying to keep things simple - it tells you only that the minimum is 28 days so as not to confuse people with the detailed legal mechanism by which that total has been arrived at.

 

 

 

 

 

I suspect that the reason why you (incorrectly) challenged my post, is that you have confused the entitlement to the "20 days plus 8 additional days to recognise Public Holidays" as meaning that people are now entitled, as of right, to actually take the 8 Public Holidays off.

That is NOT the case, never has been, and still is not.

 

The current Working Time regulations encompass the NUMBER of Public Holidays to which each full time employee is now entitled (8, on top of the prior 20); not the DATES upon which they have a right to take that holiday.

To determine any such entitlement, one must examine the individual contract of employment, together with any Collective Agreements which may be incorporated into it; as statute law and regulation are silent on this point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In summary, the minimum holiday entitlement of an full-time employee with at least one years service in the UK has, since the 1st April 2009 been a total of 28 days, made up of the 20 days under the original Working Time Regulations; plus another 8 days in recognition of the 8 Public Holidays in England and Wales, which were added by the Working Time (Amendment) Regulations, 2007.

 

 

 

I'm happy to post in agreement with you when I agree, I'm happy to post in contradiction to you when I disagree, and I'm happy to explain if required the reasons why I disagree.

 

I am NOT attacking the poster here; I am attacking the misunderstanding which is apparent in the post

 

I have taken the time to explain this all to you Donna, in order to help correct your misunderstanding, and also to avoid other readers being mislead by believing your posts rather than mine on this topic.

 

Maybe you could demonstrate publicly that you are not one of the people that (to quote your own words above) "do not posses the ability to admit they have posted wrong information"?

 

 

 

 

[Robinhood]

CliveH - 2011-07-01 11:37 AM

 

But the statutory minimum is 20 days paid annual holiday with a further 8 days of BH's as and when the fall.

 

That is the minimum employers have to provide.

 

 

....so Clive - to reiterate my question put above (either, you or Bruce may answer).

 

"what's the (paid) holiday entitlement for someone who works 5 full days a week, with a standard shift pattern of Wednesday to Sunday?"

 

....and again, I would think about the answer.

 

[CliveH]

Oh and by the way - employee benefit advice on sick pay, holiday entitlement is part of our remit as IFA's - It has to be that is the law - because when we advise individuals we have to ensure that what we recommend "dovetails" with legioslation and the specific provissions of that employer.

 

We also employ several people in our admin department.

 

So please stop making silly assumptions Donna that only you can be correct!

[BGD]

"CliveH - 2011-07-01 11:37 AM

But the statutory minimum is 20 days paid annual holiday with a further 8 days of BH's as and when the fall.

That is the minimum employers have to provide."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agree with two out of the three Clive -

 

Yes to the total of 28 days.

 

Yes to how it's arrived at, as 20, then another 8 a few years later.

 

No to the "as and when the(y) fall" bit.

The entitlement to the additional 8 days was in recognition of of the NUMBER of "Public Holidays", the regulations DO NOT give an entitlement to take all or indeed any of those 8 days on the specific DATES that those "Public Holidays" fall each year.

 

 

[Robinhood]

BGD - 2011-07-01 12:03 PM

 

"CliveH - 2011-07-01 11:37 AM

But the statutory minimum is 20 days paid annual holiday with a further 8 days of BH's as and when the fall.

That is the minimum employers have to provide."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agree with two out of the three Clive -

 

Yes to the total of 28 days.

 

Yes to how it's arrived at, as 20, then another 8 a few years later.

 

No to the "as and when the(y) fall" bit.

The entitlement to the additional 8 days was in recognition of of the NUMBER of "Public Holidays", the regulations DO NOT give an entitlement to take all or indeed any of those 8 days on the specific DATES that those "Public Holidays" fall each year.

 

 

Well at least you're getting there Bruce :-D

 

...but I think the moral high ground is with Donna.

 

The minimum entitlement (for a regular 5-day-a-week worker) is 28 days paid leave - full stop.

 

An employee may normally take Bank Holidays off, (if their working pattern falls on them), and they may or may not be paid for these (depending on contract - whilst it is common practice, there is no right to paid leave on a Bank Holiday).

 

If, however, they do take it off and are paid, their employer may, if they wish, count the day towards the minimum 28 days. If they aren't paid the employer can't count it towards the minimum 28 days.

 

If their working pattern means they would not normally work a given Bank Holiday, and therefore they don't, and don't get paid for it, the employer can't count it towards the minimum 28 days.

 

To restate, the minimum entitlement is 28 days. Bank Holidays may be set against that under certain circumstances.

 

For many people under common working circumstances, in an average year, that will lead to 8 days that may be set against the 28 day minimum allowance.

 

For a good few others, who are not scheduled to work on certain Bank Holidays, it will lead to less.

 

It would be technically feasible, but not very likely, that someone could work 5 days a week, with none of them falling on a Bank Holiday - in which case they would be entitled to 28 days leave to be taken outside any Bank Holiday dates.

 

The law is written to ensure that the 28 day entitlement works as intended under various contractual practices and working patterns, and is absolutely not "20 days paid annual holiday with a further 8 days of BH's as and when the (sic) fall".

 

[donna miller]

Robinhood - 2011-07-01 11:46 AM

 

CliveH - 2011-07-01 11:37 AM

 

But the statutory minimum is 20 days paid annual holiday with a further 8 days of BH's as and when the fall.

 

That is the minimum employers have to provide.

 

 

....so Clive - to reiterate my question put above (either, you or Bruce may answer).

 

"what's the (paid) holiday entitlement for someone who works 5 full days a week, with a standard shift pattern of Wednesday to Sunday?"

 

....and again, I would think about the answer.

 

 

Robin, I wouldn't bother mate, both of these are making it personal towards me, and as such will never back down, I haven't seen many people on here agreeing with them, so I'll take that as read.

They both believe that by making their posts as long as possible it will baffle everyone, and neither will see or admit that their interpretations mean nothing in the real world.

You will have noticed they bothhave started to slip in the usual insults, infering that I know nothing, I'm childish, blah blah.

You see, you and me would see a green ball and call it a green ball, they will argue it's a ball made up of blue and yellow mixed to give the final colour.

I put up with stroppy males mon-fri who believe they know better than their manager who has been in the business for 15 years.

So 2 faceless men on an internet forum with an agenda, don't bother me in the least.

 

 

Our posts crossed while I was writing mine, but your explanation of how the entitlement actually works is what I tried to say in the first place, and 100% accurate. Well done.

 

Prepare to be lambasted *-)

[Robinhood]

donna miller - 2011-07-01 12:34 PM

 

Robin, I wouldn't bother mate, both of these are making it personal towards me, and as such will never back down, I haven't seen many people on here agreeing with them, so I'll take that as read.

 

...hey, don't mind me, I've just loaded the van up and I'm filling in time before "the off".

 

I usually resist the temptation to respond to much of the drivel B-) that goes on here, but I had time on my hands.

 

You used a blue and yellow analogy, I think I would go straight to the black and white one.

 

:D

[donna miller]

yep, sorting the van out myself, can't decide whether to go down to Goodwood for the festival @ £53 a ticket, or mong out on one of Wales's lovely gower beaches.

 

Obviously I won't wildcamp. :D

 

 

oops had to edit to correct my grammar mistakes. *-)

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2011-07-01 8:36 AM................................It was one small section of the private sector that caused the banking crisis. And they were allowed to set up the dodgy deals because the FSA (Financial Service Authority - and part of the Public Sector) was asleep at the wheel...............................................

 

Well yes.............and then again, no! Surely, the blame, for that seems to be what we are discussing, must lie in the first instance with the perpetrator, and not with the referee?

 

It was within that small section of the private sector (in fact, a small section within that small section) that the "dodgy deals" were dreamed up, were tested, were authorised, and were promoted, so it seems a bit unreasonable to imply, as appears the case here, that the somnolent FSA was to blame for their consequences. Partially to blame, yes, but surely not as guilty as the inventors? Besides, who set FSA policy? Were they acting without ministerial direction? I somehow doubt it - you could see it in Brown's eyes. He knew who had decided to keep the dogs in their kennels when the fox was around.

 

This line of reasoning seems rather akin to blaming the police, rather than the burglar, for the robbery. The referee is the reactive end stop, not the pro-active progenitor of the act. It must be the progenitors who take the full blame, and responsibility, for the consequences of their actions.

 

Ultimately, though, this is a symptom of trying to oversimplify. To pretending that the economy can really be broken into just two parts, the private, and the public, sectors, and then tarring every facet of each with the same brush.

 

Reality, is far more subtle. For illustration, consider a new NHS hospital, or a prison, or a school, funded under PFI. Where does the private sector involvement end and the public sector involvement begin? I know PFI is somewhat atypical, but semblances of those same relationships exist outside PFI in similar institutions funded by other means, and in other institutions. These catch-all labels are far too crude, and really don't contribute to clarity of understanding.

[francisgraham]

donna miller - 2011-07-01 12:55 PMyep, sorting the van out myself, can't decide whether to go down to Goodwood for the festival @ £53 a ticket, or mong out on one of Wales's lovely gower beaches.Obviously I won't wildcamp. :Doops had to edit to correct my grammar mistakes. *-)

I really shouldn't bother replying but, as you insist on carrying on with these snide little remarks, I must ask the obvious question, which is: Why didn't you sort out your grammar mistakes then? And whilst pondering that you could look up infer and imply.

[CliveH]

BGD - 2011-07-01 12:03 PM

 

"CliveH - 2011-07-01 11:37 AM

But the statutory minimum is 20 days paid annual holiday with a further 8 days of BH's as and when the fall.

That is the minimum employers have to provide."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agree with two out of the three Clive -

 

Yes to the total of 28 days.

 

Yes to how it's arrived at, as 20, then another 8 a few years later.

 

No to the "as and when the(y) fall" bit.

The entitlement to the additional 8 days was in recognition of of the NUMBER of "Public Holidays", the regulations DO NOT give an entitlement to take all or indeed any of those 8 days on the specific DATES that those "Public Holidays" fall each year.

 

 

Yes quite right Bruce.

 

My actual thoughts re "as and when they fall" was more in line with as and when they fall within the individuals work patterns.

[donna miller]

francisgraham - 2011-07-01 1:22 PM>

I really shouldn't bother replying but, as I'm an arse, I thought I should , I must ask the obvious question, which is: Why didn't you sort out your grammar mistakes then? And whilst pondering that you could look up infer and imply.

8-) 8-) 8-)Now I'm really confused.

[BGD]

Robinhood - 2011-07-01 12:33 PM

 

BGD - 2011-07-01 12:03 PM

 

"CliveH - 2011-07-01 11:37 AM

But the statutory minimum is 20 days paid annual holiday with a further 8 days of BH's as and when the fall.

That is the minimum employers have to provide."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agree with two out of the three Clive -

 

Yes to the total of 28 days.

 

Yes to how it's arrived at, as 20, then another 8 a few years later.

 

No to the "as and when the(y) fall" bit.

The entitlement to the additional 8 days was in recognition of of the NUMBER of "Public Holidays", the regulations DO NOT give an entitlement to take all or indeed any of those 8 days on the specific DATES that those "Public Holidays" fall each year.

 

 

Well at least you're getting there Bruce :-D

 

...but I think the moral high ground is with Donna.

 

The minimum entitlement (for a regular 5-day-a-week worker) is 28 days paid leave - full stop.

 

An employee may normally take Bank Holidays off, (if their working pattern falls on them), and they may or may not be paid for these (depending on contract - whilst it is common practice, there is no right to paid leave on a Bank Holiday).

 

If, however, they do take it off and are paid, their employer may, if they wish, count the day towards the minimum 28 days. If they aren't paid the employer can't count it towards the minimum 28 days.

 

If their working pattern means they would not normally work a given Bank Holiday, and therefore they don't, and don't get paid for it, the employer can't count it towards the minimum 28 days.

 

To restate, the minimum entitlement is 28 days. Bank Holidays may be set against that under certain circumstances.

 

For many people under common working circumstances, in an average year, that will lead to 8 days that may be set against the 28 day minimum allowance.

 

For a good few others, who are not scheduled to work on certain Bank Holidays, it will lead to less.

 

It would be technically feasible, but not very likely, that someone could work 5 days a week, with none of them falling on a Bank Holiday - in which case they would be entitled to 28 days leave to be taken outside any Bank Holiday dates.

 

The law is written to ensure that the 28 day entitlement works as intended under various contractual practices and working patterns, and is absolutely not "20 days paid annual holiday with a further 8 days of BH's as and when the (sic) fall".

 

 

 

 

For pities sake mate -

 

Is it that you did not read my explanation, or that you did not grasp it?

 

That is EXACTLY what I said, and how the Working Time Regulations, the Working Time (Amendment) Regulations and the Common Law of contract operates.

 

Jeez.

 

 

[postnote]

donna miller - 2011-07-01 1:27 PM

francisgraham - 2011-07-01 1:22 PM>

I really shouldn't bother replying but, as I'm an arse, I thought I should , I must ask the obvious question, which is: Why didn't you sort out your grammar mistakes then? And whilst pondering that you could look up infer and imply.

8-) 8-) 8-)Now I'm really confused.Typical woman :D

[francisgraham]

donna miller - 2011-07-01 1:27 PM

francisgraham - 2011-07-01 1:22 PM>

I really shouldn't bother replying but, as I'm an arse, I thought I should , I must ask the obvious question, which is: Why didn't you sort out your grammar mistakes then? And whilst pondering that you could look up infer and imply.

8-) 8-) 8-)Now I'm really confused.

Clearly you are. Like a spoiled child who simply can't let go you continue to make snide remarks, aimed at me, because of a spat that is well and truly over for everyone else.

But of course once again you make yourself look silly by posting your nasty little comment about how you've had to edit your grammar mistakes and then appear not to have edited your mistakes, of which there are some very obvious ones.

And as for editing my post by adding 'because I'm an arse' that is the cheapest of the cheap tactics but, as you've already proven yourself first-class in the cheap tactics' department, we expect no less from you.

[CliveH]

Brian Kirby - 2011-07-01 1:09 PM

 

CliveH - 2011-07-01 8:36 AM................................It was one small section of the private sector that caused the banking crisis. And they were allowed to set up the dodgy deals because the FSA (Financial Service Authority - and part of the Public Sector) was asleep at the wheel...............................................

 

Well yes.............and then again, no! Surely, the blame, for that seems to be what we are discussing, must lie in the first instance with the perpetrator, and not with the referee?

 

It was within that small section of the private sector (in fact, a small section within that small section) that the "dodgy deals" were dreamed up, were tested, were authorised, and were promoted, so it seems a bit unreasonable to imply, as appears the case here, that the somnolent FSA was to blame for their consequences. Partially to blame, yes, but surely not as guilty as the inventors? Besides, who set FSA policy? Were they acting without ministerial direction? I somehow doubt it - you could see it in Brown's eyes. He knew who had decided to keep the dogs in their kennels when the fox was around.

 

This line of reasoning seems rather akin to blaming the police, rather than the burglar, for the robbery. The referee is the reactive end stop, not the pro-active progenitor of the act. It must be the progenitors who take the full blame, and responsibility, for the consequences of their actions.

 

Ultimately, though, this is a symptom of trying to oversimplify. To pretending that the economy can really be broken into just two parts, the private, and the public, sectors, and then tarring every facet of each with the same brush.

 

Reality, is far more subtle. For illustration, consider a new NHS hospital, or a prison, or a school, funded under PFI. Where does the private sector involvement end and the public sector involvement begin? I know PFI is somewhat atypical, but semblances of those same relationships exist outside PFI in similar institutions funded by other means, and in other institutions. These catch-all labels are far too crude, and really don't contribute to clarity of understanding.

 

I was saying that the FSA was tasked to protect consumers and it has a history of not doing that - Equitable Life - Parliamentary Ombudsman report clearly stated that the regulator was to blame in that they allowed fraud to take place. Her report was titled "Equitable Life a decade of regulatory failure.

 

The FSA is supposed to protect the consumer - it does not do this - what it does is cosy up with the banks and the likes of Equitable Life to protect the old boys network - and bugger the poor consumer.

 

With the FSA it was recognised that Gordons "Super Regulator" was not up to the job re what the banks were up to (Northern Rock being a classic example) and so the regulator seconded in people from??? - You guessed it!! - The Banks!! So poachers turned gamekeepers!!

 

They have been doing it for a while - this from City Wire from 2010

 

 

 

"The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has increased the level of staff it seconds from other organisations and used them to strengthen its enforcement division.

 

The number of seconded staff at the FSA has grown to 111 in 2009 from 97 in 2008, and 68 in 2007, a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by Citywire has revealed. The FSA deployed 41 of its seconded staff in its enforcement division in 2009. The regulator paid £3 million to 81 staff on secondment while another 30 experts were provided free of charge by their employer in 2009. That bill has risen from the £1.59 million paid in 2007.

 

It relied upon accountants KPMG, Ernst & Young and Deloitte for 48 of its seconded staff last year. Its use of staff from the big accountancy firms has emerged as the regulator argues for powers to censure and fine auditors. The FSA has accused accountants of not being ‘sufficiently sceptical’ when challenging banks about bad debts ahead of the credit crunch.

 

The FSA has also borrowed staff from nationalised bank Lloyds Banking Group, UBS and several City law firms. It has used expertise from overseas regulators like the Securities & Exchange Commission, BaFin from Germany and Autorité Des Marchés Financiers from France.

 

The regulator has also borrowed staff from more unusual sources like the Libyan Central Bank, University College for Creative Arts, East London Business Alliance and the Bucharest Stock Exchange. "

 

Nice to know that the FSA used Libyan Central bank.

 

As for its deficiencies in regulating - Lord Turner :-

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8595239/FSAs-failings-to-be-revealed-in-RBS-report.html

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/06/23/uk-regulation-fsa-idUKTRE75M1DK20110623

 

 

 

[CliveH]

OK - yet again_

 

Basic calculation

For a basic calculation of your leave allowance multiply the number of days you work a week by 5.6. For example, if you work a five day week you would be entitled to 28 days' annual leave a year:

 

5 days x 5.6 weeks = 28 days

 

Regardless of your working pattern, the minimum leave entitlement is capped at 28 days. So if you work a six day week, the statutory entitlement of 5.6 weeks will still be 28 days. (see later re bank holidays)

 

You may find it helpful to use the statutory holiday entitlement calculator on the Business Link website. It allows you to calculate statutory holiday entitlement for full or part years based on the set days or hours you work.

 

Calculate your holiday entitlement using Business Link's calculator Opens new window

 

Bank and public holidays can be included as part of your minimum 5.6 weeks' holiday entitlement.

...................................................................................................................................................................................

 

Just to confirm!

 

BANK AND PUBLIC HOLIDAYS CAN BE INCLUDED AS PART OF YOUR MINIMUM 5.6 WEEKS HOLIDAY ENTITLEMENT

 

and i really do not know how to say this any other way - 5.6 weeks is 5.6 weeks times five days = 28 days and within these 28 days your employer can include the statutory Bank Holidays!

 

This means that many firms terms and conditions or contract of employment state that "Holiday entitlement is 20 days plus the statutory bank holidays".

 

The guidelines go onto say:-

 

Part-time workers

 

If you are a part-time worker, you are still entitled to 5.6 weeks' holiday – 5.6 of your normal working week. For example, if you work two days a week you would be entitled to 11.2 days' annual leave a year:

 

2 days x 5.6 weeks = 11.2 days

 

 

You should be treated no less favourably if you are a part-time worker than an equivalent full-timer. This means that if your employer gives extra days off to full-timers they may have to give extra time off to part-time workers as well.

 

 

Part-time workAgency workers

 

If you are an agency worker, you are entitled to the statutory minimum leave entitlement of 5.6 weeks. Your agency must allow you to take your paid holidays.

 

 

Using employment agenciesCasual or irregular working patterns

 

If you work casually or irregular hours it may well be easiest to calculate the holiday entitlement that accrues (accumulates) as hours are worked. The holiday entitlement of 5.6 weeks is equivalent to 12.07 per cent of the hours you worked. The 12.07 per cent figure is:

 

5.6 weeks' holiday, divided by 46.4 weeks (being 52 weeks - 5.6 weeks) multiplied by 100 = 12.07 per cent

 

The 5.6 weeks have to be excluded from the calculation as you would not be present during the 5.6 weeks in order to accrue annual leave. For example, if you had worked 10 hours, you would be entitled to 72.6 minutes' paid holiday:

 

12.07 per cent x 10 hours = 1.21 hours = 72.6 minutes

 

The holiday entitlement is just over seven minutes for each hour worked.

 

 

Shift workers

 

If you are a shift worker your leave is calculated by using an average of your shifts over a 12 week period.

 

For example, if you always work four 12 hour shifts, followed by four days off (the ‘continental’ shift pattern) then the average working week is three-and-a-half 12 hour shifts. You would be entitled to 19.6 shifts of 12 hours as annual leave a year:

 

5.6 weeks x 3.5 shifts = 19.6 12 hour shifts

 

For other shift patterns, it may be easiest to calculate according to the established pattern of repeat.

 

 

Working time - find out what counts as working timeTerm-time workers

The guidance for term-time workers is currently under review.