Holiday entitlement?

nicechap

billy2shots wrote: »

This is mind blowing stuff.

Someone is looking for help yet people seem more interested in attacking me. I joined mse because I thought it was a grown up forum but I have quickly realised that is not the case.

I am not a former member and am not here to argue unlike some of you it seems.

Read these string of posts back and see how juvenile you come across. Let's not derail the OPs thread anymore.

Well done for continuing the argument and derailing the OP's thread with your passive aggressive post. You could have ended it by not posting again.

getmore4less

nicechap wrote: »

My guess, and it is only a guess, its an old foe trying to wind up Sangie to get her PPR'd again.

It is sangie that has been sporting for the fight.

nicechap

getmore4less wrote: »

It is sangie that has been sporting for the fight.

No, IMHO, Sangie doesn't suffer fools and has a valuable direct posting style particularly when people give wrong or misleading advice and won't admit they have.


If people want sugar coated, brow patting "there, there" cuddly wuddly advice then other forums may be a more appropriate place for them. When you are discussing pay, careers, the law, etc telling people what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear is much, much more damaging to their lives, families etc etc.


Its quite obvious when someone she has previously crossed swords with comes along and pushes her buttons to rile her.


Just my opinion - Sangie can speak for herself.

billy2shots

nicechap wrote: »

,

Its quite obvious when someone she has previously crossed swords with comes along and pushes her buttons to rile her.


Just my opinion - Sangie can speak for herself.

Evidently it's not that obvious because you are completely wrong with your assumptions.

Sangie does not need to speak for herself as I have not tried to rile her up (where is your imaginary evidence for this).

Your claims that I am a former member or a troll are tiresome. I have no issue if you correct any faults in my posts but you don't. Instead you have taken it upon yourself to attack me personally. You seem intent on bullying me and making false accusations all over the forum to get me to leave this site.

Please can you leave me alone.

sangie595

getmore4less wrote: »

It is sangie that has been sporting for the fight.

No, it is not. The individual has been giving advice that is not simply opinion, but legally incorrect, on multiple occasions and has refused to accept they are wrong. They have deliberately gone out of their way to scare a poster by claiming they have broken the law - an allegation they have yet too prove despite being asked to do so by, amongst other people, the poster it referred to. If you are going to give legally incorrect advice and swear blind it is the law even when corrected, I am going to make is very clear that you are not telling the truth.

JustAnotherSaver

Here's a crazy suggestion ....


Since you two clearly do not / can not / will not agree then instead of playing tennis on my thread talking about God knows what off topic stuff then why not communicate via private message and go at it hammer & tongs all you like?


Yes it's a public forum but there's also blatant piddle taking where we drift so far off the topic.


I mean what's this line even about.....

A copy and paste from another thread

What on earth has 'another thread' even got to do with mine? Did i make it? Probably not. Therefore what is it to do with this?




Reported.

Masomnia

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Back to the cases i opened the thread with. While the first person may not get extra days because their extra time (the Tuesday) isn't a full day, surely over the course of a year it would equate to more hours?

Back on topic. Yes.

JustAnotherSaver

Masomnia wrote: »

Back on topic. Yes.

How would they calculate that though? There must be a formula so that they could calculate it themselves to check if their employer is being straight with them?


Sorry if it's already been mentioned but i got a bit lost amongst all the off topic stuff and then the correct stuff that other people came saying was incorrect stuff. :eek:

billy2shots

Person 1 works 15 hours a week and has started mid way through the year.

15 x 5.6 =84

84 paid holiday hours for a whole year.

84/365 days is 0.23

0.23 x the amount of days the person will work in that year due to it not being a full year.
So mid July will leave around 260 days.

0.23 x 260 = 59.8 (60) hours of paid leave could be due.

To confuse things further yiy will need to work out how much of the year was done doing 10 hours then how much will be done at the new 15. Add those figures together. So it would be less than the 60 I said above because 15 hours were not the norm from July.

The average of the last 12 weeks example that was used earlier is more suited to someone who's hours change a lot week to week. Your 'person 1' doesn't really fit that.

Masomnia

I'd take the number of hours they work in a standard week and multiply that by 5.6 for their full entitlement including bank holidays (unless their contract specifies more).

It will be pro-rata for the rest of the year. If they used to do 7 hours a week their entitlement for the year would be 39.2. If that increases to 10 hours per week their new annual leave entitlement will be 56 hours, but they won't get that full increase because it only applies for part of the holiday year.