Ok, so what happens to those of us who have 25 days holiday, plus banks...for example?
Scrap Bank Holidays to save the Economy?
- Thread starter Castiel
- Start date
Ok, so what happens to those of us who have 25 days holiday, plus banks...for example?
That would depend on whether your statutory entitlement includes bank holidays or not, if it does you are effectively losing 8 days holiday already.
For example, my wife gets 5.6 weeks plus bank holidays....she would lose 8 days, the average seems to be 25 days plus bank holidays, so those people would lose a weeks holiday....and so on.
Not to mention the other aspects of bank holidays that do not involve money.
Last edited:
Yes they would, then they are getting more than deemed necessary by the government already, so less a loss more a decline in gain.
Dont be ridiculous....a loss is a loss.
And how long do you think it would be before the Govt rationalise the reduction of statutory entitlements to reflect the absence of bank holidays?
What it amounts to is a reduction to the minimum statutory entitlements, however you try to rationalise it.
You know what would really boost the economy, if we reduced everyones wage to the minimum statutory requirements......those earning more are already getting more that the Govt deems neccessary so less of a loss, more of a decline in gain....
Last edited:
It's GD, it's what is done here. You make an ill judged statement and then rather than admit you were wrong you have to defend it far beyond the point of reason.
Perhaps.. However that is how my contract states it...
Either way it could quite easily end up that I lost a week of holiday due to the removal of Bank holidays, forcing it down to the statutory minimum.
EDIT: currently the way it's phrased is a benefit to me at the moment as it means I get an extra day off this year due to the extra bank holiday.
Where did I say it was going to happen, it is still worthy of discussion and is there a definitive right or wrong, or is it simply a matter of opinion and perspective?
Suspended
Yep.
Plus as been discussed by a few, your contract would dictate if you were or were not affected. Mine I believe is x days (including 8 bank holidays) ie it clarifys that I do not get bank holidays as well. We technically do not automatically qualify for the extra bank holiday this year although its been given.
If they removed the bank holidays for all then I would suggest they would amend the statuatory requirement if they aimed to reduce the total days.
I think the BBC article has been amended by the way, its painting a different picture to what I saw when I initially read it.
My understanding of employment law would indicate otherwise - but I'm not a lawyer.
I'm reasonably sure the government would simplify things and avoid a million court cases by just stating there are still 8 bank holidays and but they are on unspecified days (or 6 and 2 at Christmas etc).
If they did not do it this way then people in the position of Castiel's wife, for example, would be in a grey area where a stupid employer may try to effectively cut the holiday allowance. My understanding of employment law makes me think they'd have less legs than is normally the requirement to stand on, but it may need to go as far as court.
The think tank won't be saying if people had 8 days less holiday then the economy would grow by 19Bn, the figure would be significantly greater than that. What they're saying is the stop/start/lack of momentum results in a productivity loss.
There are other ways of accounting or tackling that though, in fact many businesses already have rota/lieu day systems that spread the entitlement across a more managable timeframe if they wish to remain in full-time or reduced production......
Businesses cannot just switch to it though without amending contracts. Government would need to change bank holidays in order to enable businesses to do it without the consent of their employees. I don't know if you've ever worked in a large company where people have ancient contracts allowing them much better terms than the rest of the staff, but it's fairly common and they never want to budge an inch on it - wisely so. I've worked somewhere that had a rota for bank holidays to keep the business running, where there were people who didn't do any bank holidays because they weren't contractually obliged.
Additionally being open on a bank holiday with a skeleton staff is not the same as being open on a normal day.
Additionally being open on a bank holiday with a skeleton staff is not the same as being open on a normal day.
Dont be ridiculous....a loss is a loss.
And how long do you think it would be before the Govt rationalise the reduction of statutory entitlements to reflect the absence of bank holidays?
What it amounts to is a reduction to the minimum statutory entitlements, however you try to rationalise it.
You know what would really boost the economy, if we reduced everyones wage to the minimum statutory requirements......those earning more are already getting more that the Govt deems neccessary so less of a loss, more of a decline in gain....
Ah I see you're getting it now
Anything above what has been deemed necessary is a gain, to lose that gain is to reduce it If you are more skilled you benefit or gain a better quality of life through money, part of this would be paid days off, it's all a gain that could be reduced. I don't beleive for one minute that if all pay dependant on skill was equalised, that all skilled workers would clamour for the un-skilled work. It would affect me but for different reasons as it would mean me having to either pay someone to look after my kids or take un-paid days off during school holidays, something I would welcome them scrapping, as this costs me a small fortune.It is actually very easy to amend contracts if you can give a sound business reason for doing so and give the requisite consultation and waiting periods......
Suspended
There are ways of managing those people off those contracts. The normal way is that you offer them a new contract and do not give a pay rise to those who do not sign. The vast majority of contracts are clear that pay rises are discretionary and the company just applies that.
I have worked in two significantly large employers in the UK who both applied that strategy. Its legal and it works, although if people have massively massively beneficial contracts they may stick for a long time.
Edit :
This is actually one of the softer strategys, you can go heavier as Castiel mentions above