I don't think so, people, are free to work though their holidays if they wi sh I assume. Here if I haven't used all my holidays up by the end of the y ear I can carry a maxium of 5 days over to next year. Last year they owed m e 8 days. So I said then I'll either take the next 3 days off, (they wanted the lab o pen and me here)or you can carry 8 days over to the next year and I wont ta ke the next 3 days off. They agreed and all was well. But with some staff i n the past they have said well that's your problem you'll have to loose tho se days and some accept this, I don't. If they'd have said "No you can't" take the days as holiday and you can't h ave them carried over then I'd have gone 'sick'
They have a legal obligation to ensure that the employees take the statutory mininum of holidays (28 days for full-time employees). It's up to the employer what happens to the rest (if any). I get the impression that many employers don't know the law and let the employees carry over or lose more holidays.
May be worth having a look here about loss of holiday due to sickness. Seems there is legal precedent that would force the employer to allow the leave to be taken in the next year. But read for yourselves:
You dont need to go fuher than the people who run the EU actually.
I very much doubt there is any Jewish conmnection, but there is a lot of communist connection.
Although you may regard communism as a delightful piece of Jewish devilment of course. That was the rationale behind the 'Jewish conspiracy' of Bolshevism that was held by many in the 20s and 30s. And was the bedrock of opinion that helped the rise of Fascism in Spain Italy and Germany. Of course the Fascists lost, and the communists, as we now see in the shape of the EU, won.
Sadly no one asked the rest of us, whether we in fact would prefer an alternative that didn't include Fascism or Communism.
I don't think so. we tried to ensure that they did, but some just didn't. I remember personally waiving a contractual obligation to allow more days to be carried over for one employee. WE told him to bugger off and go ski-ing and not walk through the door till mid January or something.
There are three levels in play here, what is the legal employment law, what is in a contract of employment, and what on the day the employer decides to do.
If you breach a contract IN FAVOUR of an employee they cant sue you for damages! I.e. if an employer allows holidays to accumulate past their contract termination date and be taken in another calendar year, that is within their powers and rights, and if you have an employee who is busting a gut to complete work before the year ends, and therefore not taking the entitlements, you would be a total bloody idiot not to rewards that in any way you could.
Contrariwise if you have an employee that uses up every one of their holidays and throws an abnormal amount of Friday and Monday 'sickies' - especially attached to each end of statutory public holidays and their own personal holidays - then you can exercise your right to not increase their pay year upon year until they hopefully bugger off to the BBC, NHS, local council offices or somewhere where that sort of behaviour is the norm.
The employee who phones you up on a Monday and says 'sorry boss, to be brutally frank I got rat-assed yesterday at a barbie, and we were drinking to 4 a.am and although I could come in, frankly I wont get a days work done: can I take today as a holiday?' not only gets a 'yes, of course' but if he or she is good worker, mysteriously the day never gets subtracted from the holiday entitlement either..
Well thats te private sector. No doubt such an admission would have you up before a disciplinary committee in the public sector.
Exactly Sticking to the letter of a contract in exceptional circumsances pisses off staff. Wise employers dont do that. Stupid pettifogging middle managers in large organisations cant be seen to be doing that, or everyone would expect it.
we have people here that have no life outside the university, university is their life.
In my opionion lots of managers are bloody idiots or is it that they see a hard worker and 'encourage' them ?
What if managment see this as a I'll scratch your back...... It's the situation I found I was in managers doing 'favours' for each other.
Doesn;t that depend on their job. I doubt the average ambulance driver can do that or an airline pilot, I doubt even bus drivers would get that siort of treatment.
But supose the above happens but rather than take a days holiday they work at home, as this did happen with my mamager he phoned me to tell me what he was doing, but not HR or those that recod such things.
Not that I've noticed.
There's no reason why everyone shouldn't be treated equally is there ?
There's still been a war and one side has lost. It was just a war with no shooting. And the effect is the same, as the Danes will tell you. They gave up with hardly a shot fired as the Germans invaded Norway. Didn't stop Danish Jews being shipped off along with all the other effects of losing a war to a fascist state.
Equally, Austria in '38 and then Czechoslovakia lost their wars without a shot fired. Poland, however, resisted. But it came to the same thing in the end.
Don't kid yourself that just because a war happens "peacefully", that there's been no war.
Hmm, that word, paying. And, benefit? What bloody benefit? Wages were fine, conditions were OK. What did I need benefit of being in a union? No, wrong mate, it wasn't losing 10p that worried me, it was the pressure to join. The type of pressure that comes from all power hungry, money making regimes.
Yes, I totally agree that unions, and therefore, power to the workers was once needed but, in the 70-80's it went way too far. It was political bullying.
So, tell me, of two miners, one on low wages selling cheap and, one earning substantially more, selling dear, who would you buy from? Take into account that, when we have bought up the cheap coal, we still have ours here to use should we need to. As ugly as using coal is.
Trying to divert attention away from your false claims I see.
If you really want to know what unions are like you should have been an industrial worker in the '70s.
Like what happens when management borrows cash and buys a new machine..
union: that's new technology, you will have to pay 20% more or we won't use it. Union: oh it produces twice as much, so you will have to have two men to work it even if it doesn't need any men.
And that's why a lot of British industry couldn't compete and investment just wasn't worth doing. which led to the near death of some industries with the associated loss of jobs.
And yes I have seen it happen even if you haven't. In fact you haven't seen so many things I wonder what you did see, maybe you never got out of the '60s drug induced clouds?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.