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

Catslovelycats

InkZ wrote: »

lol, I got up to page 7 then had to skip to the end

same here!
Nice diversion while I tried to kill some time!!!

mumbles_one

Emx wrote: »

Sorry, I can't help it - I got dragged in because it's all so funny, even though I know trying to explain the way I see it is in vain. And I also apologise if I've repeated someone, I wasn't going to read 26 pages!

It's very clever sounding, but there is no financial gain from it, and after writing out a long argument to disprove it I realised it is nothing to do with accruing holiday.

For the sake of argument we'll say you're entitled to one month of holiday a year.
So, you start in January and ten months later take November off. The next year you take October off. The year after that September.

Yes, there is only ten months in between each holiday.

However, in that first year (Jan-Dec, off November) you have still worked 11 months out of 12.
In the second year (Jan-Dec, off October) you have still worked 11 months out of 12.
In the third year (Jan-Dec, off September) you have still worked 11 months out of 12.
I could continue...
Only once every 12 years will you only work 10 months out of 12 (and that's ignoring the fact your holiday resets every year and if you don't take it by the end of the year you lose it).

It doesn't matter that you haven't worked 11 months straight. Just because you have one month less between holidays compared to someone who keeps theirs static does not mean that you are doing any less work in a twelve month period.

All that's being done in this little trick is that the goal-posts are being moved each cycle so that it seems like it's that 1/12 year every year. Or that the goal-posts are being moved so that there is only 11 months in a year. Either way, it's a number trick.

Yes, there is only ten months in between each holiday.
That is a very important statement . Think about it carefully. By taking holidays slightly earlier every year you reduce the number of days worked between your holidays. Read back through earlier posts where you have to decide in a hypothetical case : If you only had one day holiday per year (like in Victorian days) would you take the same day every year??? or take a day slightly earlier every year??? think carefully about your answer. Or try this : Imagine you only worked and got paid and therefore could buy food on one day per year . Would you work the same day every year??? or would you work on a day slightly earlier every year??? are you getting it now???

geordie_joe

mumbles_one wrote: »

Yes, there is only ten months in between each holiday.
That is a very important statement . Think about it carefully. By taking holidays slightly earlier every year you reduce the number of days worked between your holidays. Read back through earlier posts where you have to decide in a hypothetical case : If you only had one day holiday per year (like in Victorian days) would you take the same day every year??? or take a day slightly earlier every year??? think carefully about your answer. Or try this : Imagine you only worked and got paid and therefore could buy food on one day per year . Would you work the same day every year??? or would you work on a day slightly earlier every year??? are you getting it now???

It's you who is not getting it. You are thinking the length of time between holidays is more important than the quality of the holiday.

This is because you are still at school and have only known fixed holidays. So you think, when you are able to choose your holidays, getting them earlier would be best. Once you grow up and get a job you will realise that taking your holidays when you want/need to is best.

To take your example of one day per year.

Year 1 you take 31 Dec off, fantastic, you have to go to work on 1st Jan with the biggest hangover of the year

A few years later you get to take xmas day off, that's a good year

The next year you get to take xmas eve off and have to work xmas day

At some point you will get to take the day after your birthday off, good you can celebrate your birthday and spend the next day recovering. But the next year you can't!

And it will go on every year, you taking days off when you don't want to or need to, and not having days to take off when you do want a holiday, or need to take a holiday.

That would be like being at school......Oh yes, you are at school, that's why you fell for the scam!

telboyo

geordie_joe wrote: »

I would play them on 31 December every year, if I followed your scheme, after 364 years I'd be playing it on 1st Jan, and I don't like listening to Slade when I have a hangover.

You forgot leap years- it would be slade day 1 day earlier each year until feb 28 and and then there may or may not be a leap year-- oh I can't be bothered just play slade every day.

cepheus

A good technique for those with with flexible holidays is to book them on just about every occasion you would conceivably need them, then cancel the ones you don't want nearer the time. This makes it look like you are deciding to work in preference to taking a holiday. It also avoids having to book them at short notice such as ahead of a bid or other rush job on.

bazzab

You work 10 months between holidays, you accrue 22 days (at 2.2 per month)

Employee X works 11 months between holidays, he acrues 24.2 days.

So basically you say it's an advantage that you work less time before you take holiday (please note: the holiday you take is 2.2 days shorter than Employee X takes).

If your 'strategy' is to be followed, surely taking 2.2 days per month (and only working 28 days roughly between holidays) is even better to do if your sole aim is too reduce the time worked between holidays?

If, as it appears, the amount of holiday taken per holiday period is of absolutely no relevance in your world?

geordie_joe

cepheus wrote: »

A good technique for those with with flexible holidays is to book them on just about every occasion you would conceivably need them, then cancel the ones you don't want nearer the time. This makes it look like you are deciding to work in preference to taking a holiday. It also avoids having to book them at short notice such as ahead of a bid or other rush job on.

There's a fatal flaw in your theory, you can't book more holidays than you have/or will have in the holiday year.

If a worker booked holidays for "just about every occasion they would conceivably need them" they would be booking 200 days holiday a year.

Then there's the other side, if you book your holidays like that then your employer will assume you are going to be at work the rest of the time, and may allow too many others to book their holidays for those days. Meaning that if you want an unexpected day off you can't have it because your colleagues booked that day off.

As an example, I used to work in a department of 4 people. The rule was it had to be manned by at least two people, so no more than two of us could be off at the same time. We had flexible holidays, but only if they fitted in with that rule.

So, suppose I booked Mon, Tue and Wed off, because I anticipated that I might want them off. Then two of my colleagues book Thurs and Fri off. Then I find that I don't need my days off, but do need Thurs and Fri off. I would not be able to take those days off, ny boss would say "No, you had your days booked so I allowed two other to have those days off on the basis that you would be here".

Your theory sounds good, when you look at it like "I'm telling work I'm not coming in, then coming in, so I will look good"

But when you book your holidays you are not just saying "I won't be here on those days" you are also saying "I WILL BE HERE ON THE OTHER DAYS" so your employer might make decisions based on that and not be willing to change them.

Most employers will let you come in when you said you wouldn't, but they may not let you not come in when you said you will.

JimmyTheWig

cepheus wrote: »

A good technique for those with with flexible holidays is to book them on just about every occasion you would conceivably need them, then cancel the ones you don't want nearer the time. This makes it look like you are deciding to work in preference to taking a holiday. It also avoids having to book them at short notice such as ahead of a bid or other rush job on.

What if you book a day off and then decide not to take it...
... and then are ill on that day.

It's going to look like you've pulled a sicky to do what you originally booked the day off for.

tinktay84

I havent read every post admittedly but am I right in the idea is to work less between holidays?

I used to have a week off every 3 months...thus working approx 11 weeks then having a week off.........? have I missed the point completely here? Or is this a bit like the advert that tells you to go left at the teapot?

telboyo

I don't think any one really understands what the Original poster was on about. Basically the op thinks if you only waited 10 weeks for your next week off and then 9 and so on you would eventually get a "free" week.
Doesn't make any sense to me