Do I have to work for free?

DCFC79

Well you do have a choice, you can quit then all your problems solved.

relic

liam92 wrote: »

I believe full timers get 31 days paid holiday per year, including the 8 annual bank holidays. However, without the 8 BHs, it's just 23 days.

However, I'm only contracted to work Saturdays and my contract says I have just 4.3 days. And, as it's rare for a Bank Holiday to fall on a Saturday, there are years when I only have 4.3 days to take off.

The direct.gov site states very clearly that all employees must have a minimum of 5.6 weeks paid holiday per annum:-

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/Timeoffandholidays/DG_10029788


This is illegal, yes?

Yes that's right.

You don't even have to turn up to work anymore, just take your 5.6 weeks worth of holidays all year round!

Great work!

theoretica

How old is your contract? The minimum holiday allowance increased in April 2009 and it seems you are still on the old system. Might be worth pointing out to HR and either asking for the days you are owed as pay or holiday depending on which you want.

hcb42

I am no fan of unions either, although I respect their historical position.

But 15 minutes either way...it's the norm. Especially at that hourly rate, which equates to a reasonable salary on a 40 hour week.

One thing I automatically did early on, was not to clockwatch, but simply get the job done. It works wonders for progression.

I now work in hospitality in a specialist role, but for example, a department head in a decent hotel - e.g. bars manager/restaurant manager/sales office manager might earn £24K but they would easily be working 60+ hours week regularly. I've even known 90-95 hours a week on occasion, in events and kitchen roles - that's 50 hours with no extra pay! But when the pressure is on, it is on. (and yes I do think the latter is ridiculous, but it happens)

EDIT: a decent mgr would allow some time back, but it often doesnt get taken for operational requirements

SarEl

Googlewhacker wrote: »

I'm not a big fan of unions but they have their place and to be fair in the BA dispute the fact they were there was it meant that the hurt was lessoned for its members.

I still think that the unions overstated their case and were unrealistic with their dispute but then they are not gonna bend over and take it up the proverbial are they

And whilst a big fan of unions, they do not always measure up to my expectations! But overstated / unrealistic or not - they won on every important ground they claimed for. A few more union memberships with the courage to do that, and we would not now be facing the erosion of employees rights - two years to claim unfair dismissal because it is very unreasonable to expect employers to know if they want to keep an employee or treat them fairly after only a year, for example.

SarEl

theoretica wrote: »

How old is your contract? The minimum holiday allowance increased in April 2009 and it seems you are still on the old system. Might be worth pointing out to HR and either asking for the days you are owed as pay or holiday depending on which you want.

Bearing in mind that we are talking about someone who can't recall when the started work, and doesn't quite recall if they have worked one year or three, you are assuming a lot that he isn't getting his full holiday entitlement and hasn't noticed! Before pointing out "what he wants" it might be useful to check that he hasn't got it already - written terms are not generally updated for small changes.

postingalwaysposting

liam92 wrote: »

Yes, but surely the act of getting 'ready for work,' is working.

Mistral001 wrote: »

So what is your problem? In a little while you will probably working in a job where you clock on and clock off.

I clock in and clock off for my work and I still work way over what is expected. Take today for instance, start time 9am, clocked in and on shop floor working 8.15am. Then I am supposed to finish at 6pm, I stop work at 6pm but emptying of bins/tidying department/switching off lights etc mean I clocked out at 6.20pm. I never get this time back either paid or in lieu. however there are also times when I am off the shop floor, ready to clock out and walk out the door and the employer rarely asks for this 5min to be deducted from my pay. Swings and roundabouts

In all honestly I don't really care about the missing time, I have a job and that job pays my bills. If it means giving the odd 30-60min a few days a week then so be it. There are some occupations that require you to give sometimes hours unpaid so fill grateful that yours is only 15-30min.

KiKi

liam92 wrote: »

I believe full timers get 31 days paid holiday per year, including the 8 annual bank holidays. However, without the 8 BHs, it's just 23 days.

However, I'm only contracted to work Saturdays and my contract says I have just 4.3 days. And, as it's rare for a Bank Holiday to fall on a Saturday, there are years when I only have 4.3 days to take off.

BH entitlement has absolutely nothing to do with what days they fall on.

You are entitled to one fifth of 31, by law. Which is 6.2 days a year.

The direct.gov site states very clearly that all employees must have a minimum of 5.6 weeks paid holiday per annum:-

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/Timeoffandholidays/DG_10029788

This is illegal, yes?

5.6 weeks is the total PAID holiday (including annual leave and bank holidays, ie, 20 + 8) that is a legal requirement. It is calculated pro rata for part-timers, so your entitlement is as I've put above. Contact your HR department to get it changed.

KiKi

SarEl

Googlewhacker wrote: »

As for the 2 years unfair dismissal. I would reduce this IF there was a way to guarantee that that people didn't start tribunals on a whim and a prayer and that if they lost there was some financial cost but as it is to many people are making claims that are not founded purely to get a reference or a payout because they know some companies may not defend and this has clogged the system up.

There is. There always has been. PHR's scrutinise jurisdiction and prospects of winning and can (and do) rule cases out; they can and do order deposits; and tribunals can and do order costs if claims are frivolous. The fact that costs are not often awarded is not a reflection of weakness - it is reflection of how few cases that have no prospects or are litigatious ever get through to a tribunal. The system is clogged up because people think that they have been treated unfairly, and probably have been, but that is not always the same thing as either not having a case or not having been treated unlawfully; and because many employers think they can do whatever the hell they like. Perhaps we should also abolish the magna carta while we are at it, and decide that people who are obviously guilty of crimes should go straight to prison without a trial? That would save an awful lot of money and stop needlessly clogging up the criminal justice sytem - to say nothing of saving all that pesky legal aid that employment cases don't even get? Of course, the slight problem id - who decides that they are obviously guilty? And I suppose the odd few people who actually aren't guilty going to prison is a small price to pay?

Imperfect though tribunals are, people are allowed access to them. And it would be a poor day for us as a nation when we say that only those who can afford them are entitled to plead their case.

an9i77

OP the anwer to your original question seems to be - Yes