If you really want a pay rise do this...

nykied

geordie_joe wrote: »

But as she has never worked, she doesn't know that if you take your holidays before they are accrued, when you go back to work you won't accrue any holidays until you have "paid" for the ones you took in advance.

Having read this whole thread and laughed a lot, I have only one comment:

Mumbles is female??? Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!

speirsro

OK, I can't even handle it any more!!! I'm only on page 16 and can't go any further! :):)

Joe - you've got the patience of a saint.
Mumbles, you've got the brain of...ach,nevermind!

I have no strategy. I don't want a month off earlier every year (or 2 lots of 2 weeks every 5 months). I achieved a pay rise by actually taking my holidays like a normal person.

I just can't read anymore just now. This. Is. Too. Funny.

Mumbles - If I see you've tried to repost the same message when I start reading again, I may actually wet myself laughing!

Cheered up my Saturday morning!

geordie_joe

nykied wrote: »

Mumbles is female??? Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Mumbles MUST be my ex-wife, there can't be two people in this world who could come up with something so stupid and stubbornly stick to it when everyone is telling them it's wrong.

Hotlad00

mumbles_one wrote: »

Sorry I have not replied for the last 2 months but I have been on holiday.

Many thanks to JimmyTheWig who understands the system . The aim is to work the minimum number of days possible between holidays which to me is a virtual pay rise compared to working 11 months on and 1 month off.

Next holiday planned for November

haha, this thread is brilliant, so by only working 10months before getting four weeks off, insted of 11 months, its a virtual payrise

so firstly its like you can buy more things which a pay rise would bring about ---errr nope (ok my bad, you can "virtually" spend more "virtual" money from your "virtual" payris on an imaginary new car i guess???


and secondly i took a week off in jan, then a week in feb, so only waited 1 month for 1 week compared to your 10 months for 4 weeks which denominated down to 2.5 months for 1 week, so for that part of the year (forgetting accrued holiday allowance because that obviously going over your head) i had a much bigger "virtual" payrise, so im virtually minted lol

* my signature on my usaly forum reads: Everyone has the right to be stupid, some people just abuse the right!!

is kinda self explanatory here

Pound

Hotlad00 wrote: »

haha, this thread is brilliant, so by only working 10months before getting four weeks off, insted of 11 months, its a virtual payrise

so firstly its like you can buy more things which a pay rise would bring about ---errr nope (ok my bad, you can "virtually" spend more "virtual" money from your "virtual" payris on an imaginary new car i guess???

I think when Mumbles started the thread he thought his system meant overall you were working less days, which I suppose, it it were true would be a pay rise since you'd be working less hours for the same money.

cottyh24

I haven't read all of this but there seems to be one thing that people have missed. I usually take my main holiday in September (3 weeks), so using this system I should now take them in August. I'm not sure how I'm saving/earning more money if I now have to pay twice the amount for my holiday due to it being during the school summer holidays Surely this only works if I now sit at home and do nothing during my time off.

Pound

cottyh24 wrote: »

I haven't read all of this but there seems to be one thing that people have missed. I usually take my main holiday in September (3 weeks), so using this system I should now take them in August. I'm not sure how I'm saving/earning more money if I now have to pay twice the amount for my holiday due to it being during the school summer holidays Surely this only works if I now sit at home and do nothing during my time off.

Good point. Also, during some years you would be taking your holiday in the middle of winter and spending the entire summer working.

nykied

geordie_joe wrote: »

Mumbles MUST be my ex-wife, there can't be two people in this world who could come up with something so stupid and stubbornly stick to it when everyone is telling them it's wrong.

:rotfl:

Pound wrote: »

Good point. Also, during some years you would be taking your holiday in the middle of winter and spending the entire summer working.

That would mean (if you chose not to go away) that you'd be spending more money on heating the house, which you usually wouldn't be spending as you'd be at work and just set the heating to come on an hour before you were due home. It's a false economy, if you ask me...

JimmyTheWig

As a theoretical exercise it is almost valid.

Lets take an analogy...
Say you work an 8.5 hour shift and get a 1 hour break as part of it. What would you do? Ideally, you'd work 3.75 hours, then take your break, then work 3.75 hours.
Lets say you now have to do a double shift. You are now working for 17 hours and get 2 one hour breaks. What would you do?
(a) Work 3.75 hours then take your break then work 7.5 hours then take second break then 3.75 hours.
(b) Work 5 hours, take first break, work 5 hours, take second break, work 5 hours.
Mumbles' holiday plan is like (b). The normal holiday plan is like (a).

But for this to be of any relevance there has to be so many assumptions it makes it unrealistic.
But, like I said, on a theoretical level what he's saying is correct.

elvis86

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

As a theoretical exercise it is almost valid.

Lets take an analogy...
Say you work an 8.5 hour shift and get a 1 hour break as part of it. What would you do? Ideally, you'd work 3.75 hours, then take your break, then work 3.75 hours.
Lets say you now have to do a double shift. You are now working for 17 hours and get 2 one hour breaks. What would you do?
(a) Work 3.75 hours then take your break then work 7.5 hours then take second break then 3.75 hours.
(b) Work 5 hours, take first break, work 5 hours, take second break, work 5 hours.
Mumbles' holiday plan is like (b). The normal holiday plan is like (a).

But for this to be of any relevance there has to be so many assumptions it makes it unrealistic.
But, like I said, on a theoretical level what he's saying is correct.

Only...it's not.

In your example above, in the first instance you're "at work" for 8.5 hours and have taken an hour's break. So you worked for 7.5 hours.

In the second example (ie the double shift) you've been "at work" for 17 hours, and have taken 2 hours break. Therefore you worked for 15 hours. It's exactly the same. As with mumbles' "genius" system, you're no better off (ie you haven't miraculously escaped working as long as the guy at the desk next to you or gotten a virtual payrise), you just got to eat your butties at a time that suited you. In the same situation, I might choose to work 15 hours then sod off home...:D

I can't believe this thread is still going! It's ridiculous!