We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Holiday entiletilment issue
Comments
-
paddedjohn wrote: »If you have a full year on the sick you will accrue 6.3 weeks leave, that is because normally you would only have to work 46.4 weeks to earn 5.6 weeks but you will have accrued 52 weeks worth instead.
Are you absolutely sure of this?
I understand your reasoning (although there is also another way of looking at it) and I have heard the argument advanced before.
Has there been a definitive ruling on this?
The counter argument is that the holiday is effectively backdated. As you say you work 46.4 weeks to accrue 5.6. However, when you eventually take those 5.6 weeks (or get paid in lieu) you are not accruing during that time.0 -
Are you absolutely sure of this?
I understand your reasoning (although there is also another way of looking at it) and I have heard the argument advanced before.
Has there been a definitive ruling on this?
The counter argument is that the holiday is effectively backdated. As you say you work 46.4 weeks to accrue 5.6. However, when you eventually take those 5.6 weeks (or get paid in lieu) you are not accruing during that time.
Yes you are correct, after thinking a little more i realise there is a major flaw in my calculation, the simple fact that the legal entitlement is only 5.6 weeks per year so couldnt possibly be any more unless it was stated in the contract.Be Alert..........Britain needs lerts.0 -
If the OP used, say, 2 weeks holiday and therefore received 2 weeks wages, wouldn't that mean that the OP isn't entitled to ESA for those 2 weeks?DMP Mutual Support Thread member 244
Quit smoking 13/05/2013
Joined Slimming World 02/12/13. Loss so far = 60lb in 28 weeks :j 18lb to go
0 -
skintandscared wrote: »If the OP used, say, 2 weeks holiday and therefore received 2 weeks wages, wouldn't that mean that the OP isn't entitled to ESA for those 2 weeks?
No.
His total earnings and assets may affect eligibility for income based ESA but otherwise it is paid purely on medical grounds.
If you have one of the rare jobs that pays long term company sick pay (beyond six months) this doesn't stop you from claiming ESA providing you meet the medical criteria. Contribution based ESA is available regardless of your financial situation.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards