quote:

Originally posted by Angry:

quote:

Originally posted by Deus ex machina:

quote:

Originally posted by Deus ex machina:
By defrauding the customer.

quote:

Originally posted by Angry:
Defrauding seems a little strong, but they will certainly raise their prices. Staff costs are a large part of the expenses of any business, increasing them squeezes profit quite hard.

Maybe it is - but we are talking about unscrupulous employers here who have cheated their staff for years - so why not now the customer?

Unscrupulous employers that have stuck by the letter of the law (4 days holiday per year for each day of the week normally worked). The law has now changed, so that minimum is having the 8 Bank Holidays added, eventually.

These unscrupulous people can put up their prices, they need to be careful though, put them up too much and people won't pay. Its very rare there is no competition.

This is just creating a level playing field to bring them into line with the good employers - after all the good employers have been disadvantaged while the dodgy ones have been able to get away with this.

quote:

Originally posted by dubmunkey:

quote:

Defrauding seems a little strong, but they will certainly raise their prices. Staff costs are a large part of the expenses of any business, increasing them squeezes profit quite hard.

too bad for them then, perhaps they should learn to balanace the books better

There are only so many ways to do that. Any suggestions which method they should use?

quote:

Originally posted by coco ribbons:

quote:

Originally posted by Deus ex machina:

quote:

Originally posted by Angry:
By defrauding the customer.

Defrauding seems a little strong, but they will certainly raise their prices. Staff costs are a large part of the expenses of any business, increasing them squeezes profit quite hard.

Maybe it is - but we are talking about unscrupulous employers here who have cheated their staff for years - so why not now the customer?

Or in the case of a listed company they will just have to reduce the Dividens paid out to share holders!![/QUOTE]

Now you're getting to the crux of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Deus ex machina:
This is just creating a level playing field to bring them into line with the good employers - after all the good employers have been disadvantaged while the dodgy ones have been able to get away with this.

I understand that, I'm one of the lucky ones that beats even the new law, and have been for a few years.

I simply pointed out that this will increase costs for some businesses, and so increase prices. The majority of those businesses could well be retail businesses, the only people I know that this law will have an effect on work in retail, everyone else beats the new level anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Angry:

quote:

Originally posted by dubmunkey:

quote:

Defrauding seems a little strong, but they will certainly raise their prices. Staff costs are a large part of the expenses of any business, increasing them squeezes profit quite hard.

too bad for them then, perhaps they should learn to balanace the books better

There are only so many ways to do that. Any suggestions which method they should use?

Let's face it - these are the same employers who kicked up a fuss about the minimum wage saying it would lead to massive unemployment and what actually happened? Nothing, and that's what will happen after they're forced to take this on board too.

quote:

Originally posted by Angry:

quote:

Originally posted by Deus ex machina:
This is just creating a level playing field to bring them into line with the good employers - after all the good employers have been disadvantaged while the dodgy ones have been able to get away with this.

I understand that, I'm one of the lucky ones that beats even the new law, and have been for a few years.

I simply pointed out that this will increase costs for some businesses, and so increase prices. The majority of those businesses could well be retail businesses, the only people I know that this law will have an effect on work in retail, everyone else beats the new level anyway.

There are always round everything.

quote:

Originally posted by coco ribbons:

quote:

Originally posted by Deus ex machina:

quote:

Originally posted by Angry:
By defrauding the customer.

Defrauding seems a little strong, but they will certainly raise their prices. Staff costs are a large part of the expenses of any business, increasing them squeezes profit quite hard.

Maybe it is - but we are talking about unscrupulous employers here who have cheated their staff for years - so why not now the customer?

Or in the case of a listed company they will just have to reduce the Dividens paid out to share holders!![/QUOTE]
No matter what effect this might have on the share price? And so the viability of the business?

Unlikely.

quote:

Originally posted by Deus ex machina:

quote:

Originally posted by Angry:

quote:

Originally posted by dubmunkey:

quote:

Defrauding seems a little strong, but they will certainly raise their prices. Staff costs are a large part of the expenses of any business, increasing them squeezes profit quite hard.

too bad for them then, perhaps they should learn to balanace the books better

There are only so many ways to do that. Any suggestions which method they should use?

Let's face it - these are the same employers who kicked up a fuss about the minimum wage saying it would lead to massive unemployment and what actually happened? Nothing, and that's what will happen after they're forced to take this on board too.

You may be right.

No suggestion how they do it though.

quote:

Originally posted by Deus ex machina:

quote:

Originally posted by Angry:

quote:

Originally posted by Deus ex machina:
This is just creating a level playing field to bring them into line with the good employers - after all the good employers have been disadvantaged while the dodgy ones have been able to get away with this.

I understand that, I'm one of the lucky ones that beats even the new law, and have been for a few years.

I simply pointed out that this will increase costs for some businesses, and so increase prices. The majority of those businesses could well be retail businesses, the only people I know that this law will have an effect on work in retail, everyone else beats the new level anyway.

There are always round everything.

You've lost me.

quote:

There are only so many ways to do that. Any suggestions which method they should use?

not get into a situation where you have to force your staff to work holidays... if that was off the table to begin there would be no problem- but they are obviously doing their forecasts with the denied bank holidays built into it and why would an unscuplulous employer who only worries about profit do any different?

they wont even see that as denying holiday- just more cash!

quote:

Originally posted by Angry:

quote:

Originally posted by Deus ex machina:

quote:

Originally posted by Deus ex machina:
By defrauding the customer.

quote:

Originally posted by Angry:
Defrauding seems a little strong, but they will certainly raise their prices. Staff costs are a large part of the expenses of any business, increasing them squeezes profit quite hard.

Maybe it is - but we are talking about unscrupulous employers here who have cheated their staff for years - so why not now the customer?

Unscrupulous employers that have stuck by the letter of the law (4 days holiday per year for each day of the week normally worked). The law has now changed, so that minimum is having the 8 Bank Holidays added, eventually.

These unscrupulous people can put up their prices, they need to be careful though, put them up too much and people won't pay. Its very rare there is no competition.

Where back to what I keep going on about (BLC) BUY LESS CR@P> I cannot believe that you have advertising telling you if your house is getting too cluttered go and pay a monthly fee to store the CR@P in an 8ft by 8ft box, or more space if you require, and you get your own personal swipe card to visit it 24 hrs a day now what does that tell us .

These storage facilities take up Large land space, pushing up land prices, which is another pressure for housing prices.

quote:

Originally posted by Deus ex machina:

quote:

Originally posted by coco ribbons:

quote:

Originally posted by Deus ex machina:

quote:

Originally posted by Angry:
By defrauding the customer.

Defrauding seems a little strong, but they will certainly raise their prices. Staff costs are a large part of the expenses of any business, increasing them squeezes profit quite hard.

Maybe it is - but we are talking about unscrupulous employers here who have cheated their staff for years - so why not now the customer?

Or in the case of a listed company they will just have to reduce the Dividens paid out to share holders!!

Now you're getting to the crux of it.[/QUOTE]I do not believe in the stock market ethos, infact I want it to come tumbling down, the only problem is convincing people, you may have to go through the s^^t to get to the sugar!!

quote:

Originally posted by coco ribbons:
Where back to what I keep going on about (BLC) BUY LESS CR@P> I cannot believe that you have advertising telling you if your house is getting too cluttered go and pay a monthly fee to store the CR@P in an 8ft by 8ft box, or more space if you require, and you get your own personal swipe card to visit it 24 hrs a day now what does that tell us .

These storage facilities take up Large land space, pushing up land prices, which is another pressure for housing prices.

Absolutely agree. I offloaded a ton of crap from my more stupid days to charity shops.

Do I miss it? I don't even remember what most of it was. And it included a load of books, something I would have considered sacrelige not too long ago.

quote:

Originally posted by dubmunkey:

quote:

There are only so many ways to do that. Any suggestions which method they should use?

not get into a situation where you have to force your staff to work holidays... if that was off the table to begin there would be no problem- but they are obviously doing their forecasts with the denied bank holidays built into it and why would an unscuplulous employer who only worries about profit do any different?

they wont even see that as denying holiday- just more cash!

The majority of people forced to work Bank Holidays work in retail, and that is because the public demand the shops open then. Retail workers take their holidays at other times.

This law just changes the minimum amount of days a business is allowed to give a worker, not when they are allowed to take them.

quote:

he majority of people forced to work Bank Holidays work in retail, and that is because the public demand the shops open then. Retail workers take their holidays at other times.

one reason i wont work in retail- the rule makes sense if you are a retailer- i was just illustrating that retail aint the same as other industries when it comes to worker rights...the funeral example being the extreme end of this...

the thing is that at present a Company is not obliged to pay for Bank Holidays. It is totally at the discretion of management

The 'good' employers tend to be those with larger workforces. They deal with this sort of legislation on a kind of 'economies of scale'. A large retailer for example can equalise the extra labour costs across a large number of stores by reducing the hours for new staff. This is one reason why they like a 'phasing in'.

The smaller business cannot do this and it is they who take the brunt of the costs or they have to pass them direct to the customer. If they do that then they run an increased risk of failure which = no jobs at all. This has been the small business argument over all these New Labour workplace improvements.

I am quite surprised at the title of this thread and that there is any controversy about it.

From my experience of employment a few years back, and later as an employer (one employee), the question of holidays was made clear at the outset of employment.

It was part of the contract of employment, subject to employment legislation, and made clear to the employee in writing.

Annual leave was quantified and shown as separate from bank holidays. Working on a bank holiday would be considered the same as working on a Sunday. Subject to extra pay, if agreed, or time off in lieu.

Nothing very difficult here. I'm surprised that any firms ever included bank holidays as part of annual leave. But if they did, did it form part of the contract of employment and conform with current legislation? If so the employee must have agreed to it.

The problem is bjm that most people are not in a position to turn a job down just because they don't get 20 or 25 days plus stats on top like their mate does. To most having a job and keeping their heads above water is more important than the holidays and this is why they have been able to get away with it. You only really realise once you are in the job just how stingy it is, by which time you are correct and you have agreed to the terms and conditions.

I have been lucky enough to work for good employers with generous holidays and if you did have to work bank holidays you would be paid double time. Even I felt a real difference in my last place where we got 20 days plus bank holidays compared to the 25 that I was used to. It didn't seem an issue to me when I was taking the job and I'm sure those who have had to have bank holidays included have not considered it fully when they take the position either.

I used to work as a "temp", (although that was a bit of an oxymoron as I was there for nearly 3 years).

I got 20 days holiday a year, but this had to be accrued so I couldn't take a days holiday until I had "earnt" it and those 20 days did not include bank holidays.

Easter and the May bank holidays were always a cr*p time because I had to use my accrued leave on those days, and if I didn't have enough saved up I went unpaid.

I also had to save days for the shutdown between Christmas and New year (usually 5 days) so if I didn't start "saving" early enough, that would be another period of time that I would not get paid.

quote:

Originally posted by bjm:
I am quite surprised at the title of this thread and that there is any controversy about it.

From my experience of employment a few years back, and later as an employer (one employee), the question of holidays was made clear at the outset of employment.

It was part of the contract of employment, subject to employment legislation, and made clear to the employee in writing.

Annual leave was quantified and shown as separate from bank holidays. Working on a bank holiday would be considered the same as working on a Sunday. Subject to extra pay, if agreed, or time off in lieu.

Nothing very difficult here. I'm surprised that any firms ever included bank holidays as part of annual leave. But if they did, did it form part of the contract of employment and conform with current legislation? If so the employee must have agreed to it.

originally posted by queenstomper

quote:

The problem is bjm that most people are not in a position to turn a job down just because they don't get 20 or 25 days plus stats on top like their mate does. To most having a job and keeping their heads above water is more important than the holidays and this is why they have been able to get away with it. You only really realise once you are in the job just how stingy it is, by which time you are correct and you have agreed to the terms and conditions.

And this is why I feel that we need to cover this in school at about year 10, some peole are not given a contact, I know someone who works for a property maintenance company in the city this is his forth employer the others were a danger to work for, they never gave a contract and actually were breaking the Law with regards to holiday entitlement, not provided with safety gear etc. There are many surveyors running maintenance compaines in London with juicy contracts with local councils, I look forward to the day that councils will require, as part of that contract that the company signs, that the company offerring that service comply with all Employment Law and Health and Safety, you may all scream the contract will cost more I do not see it that way I see that some of those surveyors will have to sell one of their homes abroad, give up the Porsche Cayenne 4x4 at £68k and weekend sports car, that will help them put in a competetive quote

quote:

'Employment Law' and 'Health & Safety' needs to be covered in the Citizenship curriculum at schools, understanding it, how effects different sectors, your rights in many different areas of work, who gets what, what regulations are compulsory and what companies can chooses to opt out of, would give people a better understanding of what their employer is offering.

Do you think they would take it all in though? Or see that lesson as a bit of a doss?