People who don’t take annual leave and prefer to work?

Manxman_in_exile

Doshwaster said:

Not taking holidays can sometimes be seen as suspicious. The employee may be up to something dodgy and doesn't want to take time off in case their activities are discovered. In the financial services sector, holidays are mandatory as part of anti-fraud measures. It can also be a sign of a micro-manager not trusting other staff or someone with stress problems.

^^^^^  This.

I worked in the NHS and staff not taking annual leave were always looked on with suspicion - and so were their managers if they permitted it.  It was always one of the questions asked by internal audit.

Difference here is it's not an individual but appears to be something all the other employees want, and from the sound of it they're not engaged in work susceptible to committing fraud.

The OP should just ignore their colleagues - more fool them - and ignore any pressure from management.  Just take their annual leave.

MovingForwards

Doshwaster said:

Not taking holidays can sometimes be seen as suspicious. The employee may be up to something dodgy and doesn't want to take time off in case their activities are discovered. In the financial services sector, holidays are mandatory as part of anti-fraud measures. It can also be a sign of a micro-manager not trusting other staff or someone with stress problems.

It's not always something dodgy why they won't take time off. Quite a few jobs I've had people wouldn't take more than a day or two off, but when they were off ill for a few weeks everything came out they couldn't do the job and wouldn't ask for assistance, training or anything else.
It's happening in my current role, someone is off long-term, their work is now being done by me. I'm dealing with things that haven't been dealt with for up to 2 years. Doubt anything will be done if this person returns and I'm not covering up their incompetence.

Simon11

I find this so strange, as I live to enjoy life, not living for work! Happy to work hard on work days, but I want to 'play' hard too!

I take off all the time I can, sacrifice pay to get an extra two weeks off and use volunteering leave to help! In total I get 43 days off a year with bank holidays on top. No one batters an eye lid here!

elsien

I used to insist my staff took holidays so that they didn't burn out. I didn't give them the option not to. Some of them then picked up shifts elsewhere because they wanted the money but if they then came to me telling me they were stressed I had less sympathy than if they'd given themselves a proper break.
As to feeling pressured to do the same, ignore them. Holiday entitlement is there for a reason. As per the above post, I work to live, not live to work. 

unforeseen

It's a personal choice whether to take leave or not. Just because people don't does not make them a wrong 'un or incapable of doing their job and afraid of being found out.
I was exactly the same when I was in the RAF. As a SNCO I would get 42 days leave a year. I was on a 4 on 4 off shift, I didn't need to take leave and regularly lost leave even though 14 days were carried over. I would occasionally take a few days if if we planned to go away for a week or when we re-organised shifts for Xmas/NY. 

YBR

I work in the railway industry and fatigue is one of the hottest safety topics despite having a 9-5 desk-job. That's because over the last decade more railway staff have been killed or injured on the roads than on the lineside.
If there were an incident or design error, one of the things they will always look at is fatigue - what days off you've had.

For those who manage staff who take no leave, consider the consequences if someone had an accident (at work or commuting) where fatigue was a factor. Perhaps the staff would say they felt under pressure to not take leave, or take sick days - how would you prove otherwise? Perhaps as a consequence your business's insurance would be void and you might be liable for damages.
I admit I don't know how realistic this is but it's not just the staff member themselves who are affected, it's more complex than "personal choice".

TELLIT01

Nobody should either be in a position of not being able to book holiday, or to cancel booked holiday, due to there being nobody else who can do a particular job.  That is an issue for the management to sort out, with the possible exception of sudden illness of a person who was going to cover the work during holidays.  Even then cancelling holiday at short notice should be a request, not an order.

As an aside, I suspect I'm not alone in noticing that there is one contributor to the site who seems to have experienced every situation posted, no matter how unusual or bizarre the situation may be.

justworriedabit

Doshwaster said:

Not taking holidays can sometimes be seen as suspicious. The employee may be up to something dodgy and doesn't want to take time off in case their activities are discovered. In the financial services sector, holidays are mandatory as part of anti-fraud measures. It can also be a sign of a micro-manager not trusting other staff or someone with stress problems.

They are mandatory for all public services and major organisations I believe.
The best way forward not to get bottlenecks is to have your AL starting the day you started instead of January or April therefore
it is a good split and rarely bottlenecks when people save their hols and come March they all want to use up their leave.

justworriedabit

elsien said:

I used to insist my staff took holidays so that they didn't burn out. I didn't give them the option not to. Some of them then picked up shifts elsewhere because they wanted the money but if they then came to me telling me they were stressed I had less sympathy than if they'd given themselves a proper break.
As to feeling pressured to do the same, ignore them. Holiday entitlement is there for a reason. As per the above post, I work to live, not live to work. 

Years ago when I was a lot younger and took no prisoners my manger wanted me to take and I asked why. Initially she could not give a reason and stuttered and then said I do it to everyone so there are at their optimum when they return. I said I was and my work was as good as the next. She then went out to say she did not want her workers to "burn out."  

I asked her if she was a doctor or in anyway medical qualified to make a diagnosis on me, by co-workers sniggered and one did burst out laughing. The manger called me into her office and I put my foot down and told her that if it was the end of the year and she said to me i needs to take A/L and she was doing to everyone to avoid bottlenecks fair enough but she was not. She wanted to give me a verbal warning and take me to HR. I was ready to go to HR before she was and went with the union guy and guess what, lol, she had to back down.

Never again did she go around telling people they need to take their hols just because she felt they were burnt out.

I always took most of my hols and flexi in 1 and 2 days and she then picked me up on that. Again we went to HR with my union rep and as I was not causing a problem ie shortfall of staff I could carry on taking the odd 1/2 every subject to usual conditions ie cover in the office.

People need to stand up for their entitlement IMO.

oh_really

justworriedabit said:

 The manger called me into her office and I put my foot down and told her that if it was the end of the year and she said to me i needs to take A/L and she was doing to everyone to avoid bottlenecks fair enough but she was not. She wanted to give me a verbal warning and take me to HR. I was ready to go to HR before she was and went with the union guy and guess what, lol, she had to back down.

Never again did she go around telling people they need to take their hols just because she felt they were burnt out.


People need to stand up for their entitlement IMO.

You do realise the employer can dictate when and how A/L is taken? (subject to appropriate notice).