working Bank holiday for no extra pay

joeypesci

getmore4less wrote: »

I would not be suprised many of these are thankfull they have a job, any job

Maybe so, but the point of this forum and the questions is someone wants a proper fing answer.

If people feel they should be thankful they have a job, so be it, keep it to themselves but just answer the fing question instead of being patronising.

It's what happens a lot in the IT field which I work in. Someone new to PCs will ask a question "What PC shall I get". You'll get patronising answer like "If you don't know, you shouldn't be using a PC" or about "I have this issue with IE" and someone says "Use Firefox". That's not answering the question. You can say "Not sure how to fix that issue but you could give Firefox a try as it's a better browser and to see if you have the same issue". Etc



I'm going off topic.

normanjay

getmore4less wrote: »

If this can be done without an obvious leader in case they do go down the get rid of troublemaker route(how likley is that).

I'll sneak the letter under the door when no-one is looking

The key is to try and establish a better working relationship so that they realise that consultation with the workforce would be constructive when planing future changes. In most cases a workforce will be reasonable if there is a clear business need and the emplyer shows some comprimise to ballance any reduction in benefit.

Nice words. I agree the best approach is to not simply complain about what they have done wrong but to also point out some benefits the company will receive in return.

Letting them know that people are not happy is important, some employers are oblivious so need to be told.

I think they know we are unhappy, perhaps not quite how unhappy. Plus making them know we are aware of a breech of contract will make them more cautious in future

(BTW I think you missed the irony in my other post)

No, not at all. My rant wasn't addressed to you. I should have made that clear, sorry.

missprice

bigheadxx wrote: »

So what you are saying is that private sector workers should not be allowed to have more holidays, what makes you better than a private sector worker?

The OP is effectively expecting triple time as they have already stated that they are getting a day off in lieu.

i now work in the private sector but thanks for totally misreading

DVardysShadow

globalds wrote: »

Maybe it is time for you and your colleagues to think about the big picture ......

The company made an effort in the good times ...Maybe if you make an effort, you can all get through the bad times.

And do you think they will give it back come the good times? Do you really?

jdturk

DVardysShadow wrote: »

And do you think they will give it back come the good times? Do you really?

Why not? The perks were there in the good times due to them being good so when things get better why not bring them back?

kelloggs36

why won't they give them back? Because they will want to keep the profits for themselves/shareholders and will justify it because it had changed and nobody challenged it.

bigheadxx

missprice wrote: »

public sector hols used to be great however with the new rules that all staff have 28 days inc stats then its not so wonderful anymore.

Bigheadxx
So what you are saying is that private sector workers should not be allowed to have more holidays, what makes you better than a private sector worker?

The OP is effectively expecting triple time as they have already stated that they are getting a day off in lieu.

missprice

i now work in the private sector but thanks for totally misreading

What have I misread?public sector hols used to be great however with the new rules that all staff have 28 days inc stats then its not so wonderful anymore.

Its not so wonderful anymore because private sector workers are getting the same as public sector workers? How dare we eh?