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

mizzbiz

I just cannot believe this thread is still going after almost eight months! It's going to win an award for the most popular pointless thread of the year lol.
It is about as fruitless as a Labour and Conservative supporter trying to convince each other of the others views.

Unless it's cold, hard cash, it ain't upping your income. Think thread should be assigned to history where it belongs.

mumbles_one

mizzbiz wrote: »

I just cannot believe this thread is still going after almost eight months! It's going to win an award for the most popular pointless thread of the year lol.
It is about as fruitless as a Labour and Conservative supporter trying to convince each other of the others views.

Unless it's cold, hard cash, it ain't upping your income. Think thread should be assigned to history where it belongs.

If your company offered you the same money for less work would you consider that a pay rise??? Because that is exactly what the unions used to negotiate for their members. That's how we got to a 37.5 hour week.
Funny nobody talks about a reduction in the working week any more and 20 years ago that's all everybody wanted.

mizzbiz

mumbles_one wrote: »

If your company offered you the same money for less work would you consider that a pay rise??? Because that is exactly what the unions used to negotiate for their members. That's how we got to a 37.5 hour week.
Funny nobody talks about a reduction in the working week any more and 20 years ago that's all everybody wanted.

Actually, I wasn't looking to prolong the conversation. The irony is beyond belief!!

JimmyTheWig

mumbles_one wrote: »

there is the original post . nothing has changed except that I have tried lots of examples to try and help people understand.

You never said what you were trying to achieve until, iirc, page 5.

mumbles_one wrote: »

If your company offered you the same money for less work would you consider that a pay rise???

Yes, of course.
In your scheme, do you get the same money? Yes.
Do you work less? No.
So I don't see your point.

tescomilk

I'm completely confused. Can someone who can write in simple good spelling and provide clear math please explain ...

I thought I could see a benefit of taking your holiday 2 months earlier than the last if your were coming up to your retirement for example, because over 5-6 years you would be able to push your holidays sooner, but then I realised that only works in the first year, after that its the same number of months behind you.

The way I see it:

Start job on 1st Jan 2010, take Holiday in November
Work Jan-October (10 months) + Holiday Nov (1 month) + Work Dec (1 month) = WORK 11 MONTHS, HOLIDAY 1 MONTH
Next year in 2011, Take Holiday Earlier in October
Work Jan-Septemeber (9 months) + Holiday Oct (1 month) + Work Nov & Dec (2 months) = WORK 11 MONTHS, HOLIDAY 1 MONTH
Next year in 2011, Take Holiday even Earlier in May for example
Work Jan-Apr (4 months) + holiday May (1 months) + Work Jun-Dec (7 Months) = WORK 11 MONTHS, HOLIDAY 1 MONTH

As you can see from above it still means that in each year I work 11 Months with 1 Month Holiday Off.
Where does the additional month come from?

JimmyTheWig

There is no additional month, tescomilk.
The OP conceded at one point that taking holidays a month earlier every year was unsustainable.
I believe we decided on taking them 9 days earlier each year would be optimum for the OP's engineered requirements.

The point is that the time before working (e.g. as a student) is like a holiday. And the time after working (i.e. retired) is like a holiday.
So if you work for 40 years, there are actually 42 holidays (fence posts) - 1 for each year worked plus one at the start and one at the end - which gives 41 periods of work (fence panels).
The OP wants to split those 41 periods of work evenly (why, I don't know!). Which means bringing the holiday forward by 9 days each year.

You don't gain anything by doing this. Certainly no-one else loses out anything by you doing this.
All you gain is having equal periods of work between holidays.

Ninjawombat

I think you've all been successfully trolled!

(at least, i'm hoping that was mumbles' plan and he doesn't actually believe his 'system' works)

geordie_joe

mumbles_one wrote: »

Its strange how people end up using personal insults when they realise reach the end of their understanding. But I will try to explain one more time.
This post is trying to identify a better way of taking your annual leave entitlement in a way that minimises the number of days that have to be worked between holidays.
If you take the same 22 days every year the number of days worked between your holidays would be 11 months BUT if you book your holidays slightly earlier every year then the number of days worked from the first day back in work until your next holiday will be less.
It can't be more clear ....... or can it????

The whole point is, with your system, if it could be worked, you take your holidays when the system dictates you must take them, not when you want, or need to take them.

How can that be better.

I don't resort to insults because I reach the end of my understanding, I do it because you keep ignoring one point.

You have said that your employers would not let you take holidays until you have accrued them. So you can not keep taking a months holiday a month earlier each year as you would not have accrued enough holidays to do it.

But you keep ignoring that each each time it is pointed out to you, as you will this time.

geordie_joe

mumbles_one wrote: »

If anyone out there knows this Martin Lewis guy then get him to say that this system doesn't work and I will give £500 of my hard earned cash to the charity of his choice.

No, why not give it to him and let him pass it on the charity of his choice. Then he can come in here and tell us he has done it.

We'd rather he did it than you, as we would believe him.

If you agree to that then we will ask him for his opinion.

Pound

mumbles_one wrote: »

there is the original post . nothing has changed except that I have tried lots of examples to try and help people understand.

How about the title of the thread which is "If you want a pay rise do this"? There's no financial gain (or loss) from this system and I think you realised this as you haven't mentioned that point for a while.