Employer buying two weeks leave

zagfles

Jarndyce wrote: »

And would you still think that if you were working for an employer that was preventing you from taking any leave?

The point is the employee doesn't have the choice. It should be like the WTD 48-hour limit - no employer can force you to work more than 48 hours but you can if you want by signing an opt out.

System

employer that was preventing you from taking any leave?

I have no problems with the regulations stating that you have an inalienable right to have that leave and the employer can not take it away from you
What I fail to understand is that you can be FORCED by legislation to take leave even if you don't want to. Some people (and I am one) are happy to take just 3 weeks leave and if I want to convert the remainder into money and the employer is agreeable then why shouldn't that happen. Is this another case of a badly worded regulation having repercussions wider than it's intention?

Jarndyce

zagfles wrote: »

The point is the employee doesn't have the choice. It should be like the WTD 48-hour limit - no employer can force you to work more than 48 hours but you can if you want by signing an opt out.

But we know that in practice, bad employers effectively do force workers to sign the opt out, eg by only offering overtime or other opportunities to those who have signed.

zagfles

Jarndyce wrote: »

But we know that in practice, bad employers effectively do force workers to sign the opt out, eg by only offering overtime or other opportunities to those who have signed.

Well clearly they can't offer overtime which would take the employee over 48 hours to those who haven't signed the opt-out!

But other forms of discrimination against employees for not opting out are illegal (I know - we went though this at our place). If employers are breaking the law then there is no point in any law in the first place!

Jarndyce

zagfles wrote: »

Well clearly they can't offer overtime which would take the employee over 48 hours to those who haven't signed the opt-out!

But other forms of discrimination against employees for not opting out are illegal (I know - we went though this at our place). If employers are breaking the law then there is no point in any law in the first place!

That's a bit of a circular argument, with respect. Most employment law is there for a reason and the remedies are there after the event rather than being preventative.

SarEl

Actually we are now getting hot under the colar about something that isn't true. Annual leave is an entitlement not a right. In law that makes them different things. You are entitled to 28 days leave per year - nobody is actually forced to take it and an employer actually can't make you take it. What the employer cannot do, with certain exceptions already mentioned, is pay you for it. Taking it is your choice - being paid for it instead isn't.

zagfles

Jarndyce wrote: »

That's a bit of a circular argument, with respect. Most employment law is there for a reason and the remedies are there after the event rather than being preventative.

How is it circular? If the employee hasn't opted out of the 48 hours limit of the WTD then clearly the employer can't offer overtime which would exceed that limit. And the second point, if the employer is a lawbreaker then what's the point of any law?

It's a bit like trying to prevent rape by banning sex completely!

Uncertain

SarEl wrote: »

Actually we are now getting hot under the colar about something that isn't true. Annual leave is an entitlement not a right. In law that makes them different things. You are entitled to 28 days leave per year - nobody is actually forced to take it and an employer actually can't make you take it. What the employer cannot do, with certain exceptions already mentioned, is pay you for it. Taking it is your choice - being paid for it instead isn't.

Agreed.

In the real world, as it seems this is a small employer with whom the employee gets on well, he will probably work those two weeks as an unpaid volunteer. No doubt the employer will then pay for his new TV or whatever.

Obviously I couldn't advise that course of action.............

Googlewhacker

zagfles wrote: »

How is it circular? If the employee hasn't opted out of the 48 hours limit of the WTD then clearly the employer can't offer overtime which would exceed that limit. And the second point, if the employer is a lawbreaker then what's the point of any law?

It's a bit like trying to prevent rape by banning sex completely!

The law is there to stop unscrupulous employers and quite rightly but I actually have the situation where I actively encourage my staff to take their holidays but one of my staff is 'old school' and just never takes their full amount each year.

Apart from forcing him to take the holiday there is little I can do and there is no benefit to me in forcing him to take holiday as it will only create bad will.

So we come to an agreement where I tell him he should take all his holiday and he ignores me

EDIT: Just seen SarELs quote about entitlement. I don't feel as bad now if he doesn't wish to use all his holidays.

zagfles

Googlewhacker wrote: »

The law is there to stop unscrupulous employers and quite rightly but I actually have the situation where I actively encourage my staff to take their holidays but one of my staff is 'old school' and just never takes their full amount each year.

Apart from forcing him to take the holiday there is little I can do and there is no benefit to me in forcing him to take holiday as it will only create bad will.

So we come to an agreement where I tell him he should take all his holiday and he ignores me

EDIT: Just seen SarELs quote about entitlement. I don't feel as bad now if he doesn't wish to use all his holidays.

Sounds like a charter for "unscrupulous employers"! The employer could foster an expectation of not taking all holidays ("eg by only offering overtime or other opportunities to those who don't"), and they have a perfect excuse to refuse any payment for it (ie it's illegal!). :eek: