Is twenty-nine days off work (for various reasons) "generous"?

[Belperpete]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #13 originally in this thread.

I don't agree it's generous at all. ...... SWR only give allowance for 29 days to cover all of:
- Annual leave
- Unpaid or additional leave
- Sick days spent at home
- Days working from home or off site

That sounds pretty generous to me. After 20 days annual leave, that leaves 9 days for the other items. I never had a single day's unpaid or additional leave in my whole working career, my company would look seriously at any employee taking more than 5 days sick leave a year, and working from home or site visits is just not practical for most jobs. If 29 days off work is seen as low nowadays, then it is no wonder that UK productivity is so bad.

 

[Starmill]

After 20 days annual leave

Lots of people are awarded more than 20 plus 8 English Bank Holidays.

I never had a single day's unpaid or additional leave in my whole working career

I agree these are less likely, but it's far from inconceivable that a day off might be generated by working overtime to get a project complete by a deadline or as a performance incentive. Moving days are also quite commonly sanctioned, or at more generous places even a free day off on your birthday. Leave days granted for bereavement would also be included in this category.

my company would look seriously at any employee taking more than 5 days sick leave a year

So you admit that they accept a handful of sick days, which you've defined as up to 5, as uncontroversial realities, even if they're disappointing ones?

working from home or site visits is just not practical for most jobs

These are very popular in many places.

If 29 days off work is seen as low nowadays, then it is no wonder that UK productivity is so bad.

For conventional office jobs, not in the office =/= unproductive. Indeed, such stuck in the mud attitudes to being desk vegetables where it isn't necessary are also a driver of poor productivity.

 

[Belperpete]

Lots of people are awarded more than 20 plus 8 English Bank Holidays.
I agree these are less likely, but it's far from inconceivable that a day off might be generated by working overtime to get a project complete by a deadline or as a performance incentive. Moving days are also quite commonly sanctioned, or at more generous places even a free day off on your birthday. Leave days granted for bereavement would also be included in this category. So you admit that they accept a handful of sick days, which you've defined as up to 5, as uncontroversial realities, even if they're disappointing ones?
For conventional office jobs, not in the office =/= unproductive. Indeed, such stuck in the mud attitudes to being desk vegetables where it isn't necessary are also a driver of poor productivity.

I agree that many people are awarded more than 20 days annual leave, but this usually comes with length of service or seniority. Most such senior staff don't commute by train (except if they get it for free).
I didn't define 5 days as being a reasonable number of sick days - my employer did.
For most jobs (shop staff, nurses, policemen, dustmen, etc.) working from home is not a reality.

I agree that for office jobs working from home, flexitime, and such-like is an increasing reality. The 9-5 Monday-Friday desk jobs have largely gone the same way as all the pin-striped bowler-hatted Reggie-Perrins that filled them. If you are out of office sufficiently frequently that you aren't getting a fare deal out of delay-repay, then it is also likely that buying an annual season wasn't a good deal in the first place. In the latter part of my career, I only bought weekly seasons on those weeks I knew I was going to be in the office enough to warrant it.

 

[island]

I agree that many people are awarded more than 20 days annual leave, but this usually comes with length of service or seniority. Most such senior staff don't commute by train (except if they get it for free).

I’m afraid you’re quite out of touch with the real world.

Not a single person at the organisation where I work, which employs thousands, gets the legal minimum 20 days leave. It’s 23 for a new joiner at an entry level clerk job. 30 for more senior people with some service. And being in London, yes we all commute by train (including Tube), and we all pay for it.

 

[Starmill]

I’m afraid you’re quite out of touch with the real world.

Not a single person at the organisation where I work, which employs thousands, gets the legal minimum 20 days leave. It’s 23 for a new joiner at an entry level clerk job. 30 for more senior people with some service. And being in London, yes we all commute by train (including Tube), and we all pay for it.

Indeed. I started out with 25 + 8 myself and my friend on the KPMG graduate scheme got 3 more days than that.

 

[Belperpete]

Indeed. I started out with 25 + 8 myself and my friend on the KPMG graduate scheme got 3 more days than that.

The majority of the UK working population get less than 25 days leave. A KPMG graduate is not representative of the general population.

Those who work for large corporations with thousands of employees tend to view the world through a different lens to the rest of the world, where conditions are nowhere near as generous. I suggest you ask your cleaners and canteen staff what conditions they are on. In most cases, such staff are not directly employed, in order that the corporations can wash their hands of their poor employment conditions. Likewise many council workers are also outsourced - the first thing that happened to my brother when his job was outsourced was that the company cut his leave.

 

[Starmill]

The majority of the UK working population get less than 25 days leave. A KPMG graduate is not representative of the general population.

We're not even talking about the general population. We're talking about the population who travel to work by train every day.

I quite accept that the minimum wage and minimum holiday entitlements in the UK are set marginally too low in legislation, and that many other examples of sharp practice, ranging from compulsory overtime or enforced working on 26th December to charging employees for uniform or making deductions from pay to account for business losesses such as minor theft. I think all of these things are quite wrong. But I don't see what that has to do with annual season users.

I also quite disagree that small firms are ungenerous in their conditions compared with large firms. There are a large number of examples of small firms being very favourable places for workers, and large firms being very unfavourable ones. But I digress.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For conventional office jobs, not in the office =/= unproductive. Indeed, such stuck in the mud attitudes to being desk vegetables where it isn't necessary are also a driver of poor productivity.

Quite often home workers will be more productive as they've got nobody to chat with rather than do work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We're not even talking about the general population. We're talking about the population who travel to work by train every day.

Which will tend, outside of the innersuburban services, to be those in higher paid jobs in places like the City, where I'd be surprised if anyone got the legal minimum. 25 + 8 is probably most common but some will have more and many can buy up to 30 or 35 by salary sacrifice.

Except for people who are subcontracted to other organisations in which case it costs more, for most employees giving a generous leave entitlement is a cheap way of making the package look better when compared to a higher salary. And as a bonus for the company, some won't actually take it all either, though why I have never understood, I don't after all foresake a few hundred quid's pay a month.

 

[SteveM70]

Quite often home workers will be more productive as they've got nobody to chat with rather than do work.

Indeed. And also there’s an argument they’re more productive because they fear being seen as lazy; and also because the ten second commute means an overall shorter day can contain more productive hours

 

[Belperpete]

Which will tend, outside of the innersuburban services, to be those in higher paid jobs in places like the City, where I'd be surprised if anyone got the legal minimum.

Again, City commuters are hardly representative of city commuters in general.

Commuting has changed significantly since I first started work. The common work-pattern used to be that the lower-paid staff (the cleaners, nurses, cooks, shop staff, etc.) tended to live in the inner-city areas close to where they worked, while the more affluent workers commuted in. However, the gentrification of large swathes of many inner-city areas now means that significantly more of the lower-paid staff can't afford to live locally, and have to commute, whereas significantly more of the affluent staff live locally. The serried ranks of pin-stripped bowler-hatted Reggie Perrins have gone, and commuting is far more cosmopolitan than it used to be. The chances that the person sitting next to you is an office worker are quite low these days.

giving a generous leave entitlement is a cheap way of making the package look better when compared to a higher salary. And as a bonus for the company, some won't actually take it all either, though why I have never understood, I don't after all foresake a few hundred quid's pay a month.

On the other hand, there are significant extra costs to employing additional staff, as opposed to just getting your existing staff to work extra hours. Which is why offering extra leave is more popular with companies with staff whose work can easily be deferred for a day or two (which generally tend to be higher-paid professional staff), less popular with organisations employing lower-paid "coal face" staff ("sorry, the person dealing with your claim is off today" doesn't have the same ring as "sorry, its the fireman's day off today").

I agree about people not taking all their leave. I used to save up a couple of days leave for contingencies, and then take them around Christmas at the end of the leave year. As Christmas was often our busiest time, I would agree to work overtime from home.

 

[Belperpete]

Indeed. And also there’s an argument they’re more productive because they fear being seen as lazy; and also because the ten second commute means an overall shorter day can contain more productive hours

It has been found that a significant number of people who work from home don't claim all the hours that they actually work, and are therefore significantly under-paid.

 

[kristiang85]

The majority of the UK working population get less than 25 days leave. A KPMG graduate is not representative of the general population.

Those who work for large corporations with thousands of employees tend to view the world through a different lens to the rest of the world, where conditions are nowhere near as generous. I suggest you ask your cleaners and canteen staff what conditions they are on. In most cases, such staff are not directly employed, in order that the corporations can wash their hands of their poor employment conditions. Likewise many council workers are also outsourced - the first thing that happened to my brother when his job was outsourced was that the company cut his leave.

I work in public health and get 36 days a year, (+8 BH) plus some WAH time if I want it, and trust me I'm not on a high wage or seeing the 'world through a different lens'. What I do know is that SWR take about 20% of my take home each year, my average delay is 10 mins a journey, and the delay repay is nowhere near adequate for the lost time in both my work and home life.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It has been found that a significant number of people who work from home don't claim all the hours that they actually work, and are therefore significantly under-paid.

That isn't necessarily so. What I tend to find I do is to work more slowly with more interruptions and a longer lunch break so I can get out of the house and go somewhere, but start actually working earlier and finish rather later. I find this suits me, though it may not suit everyone. If I was to log say an 11 hour working day this would be plain dishonest as the amount of work I've done is more like an 8 hour day in the office.

 

[Kite159]

Considering the legal minimum is 28 days annual leave a year (for full time workers), which includes the 8 bank holidays, then 29 days is only suggesting someone takes an extra day off during the year above the bare minimum. It is probably safe to assume that some commuters will be getting more than 28 days holiday a year, either outright or by 'buying' extra holiday.

 

[PeterC]

Anywhere where I have worked for more than three years has given more than 20 days leave. The best that I managed was 27.

At my last company there was a strict limit on how much sick leave you could claim in a year, I think it was 3 or 5 days. I assume it was aimed at self certification as I was signed off for a couple of months after cardiac surgery which was accepted without question. At most places it was down to the manager to decide if you were taking the **** or genuine.

 

[Starmill]

Considering the legal minimum is 28 days annual leave a year (for full time workers), which includes the 8 bank holidays, then 29 days is only suggesting someone takes an extra day off during the year above the bare minimum. It is probably safe to assume that some commuters will be getting more than 28 days holiday a year, either outright or by 'buying' extra holiday.

Not quite, because the figure of 261 was based on working days in England. It may not be exactly accurate though, and it may vary slightly some years.

 

[Essan]

Well I work a 6 day, 40+ hour, week and get no paid holiday leave, nor any paid sick leave. So it would very generous for some.

But I guess not many self employed shop owners use a season ticket to commute?

 

[Pyreneenguy]

More than 35 years ago, when I commuted into Liverpool and then London, my employer ( big bank ! ) gave me an interest free loan to buy an annual Season Ticket. Does or can this still occur ? Perhaps it's now taxable ? Just curious !

 

[PeterC]

More than 35 years ago, when I commuted into Liverpool and then London, my employer ( big bank ! ) gave me an interest free loan to buy an annual Season Ticket. Does or can this still occur ? Perhaps it's now taxable ? Just curious !

There were still employers giving season ticket loans when I retired in 2011. HMRC apply a notional interest rate to determine the value. This has always been treated as a taxable "benefit in kind". There is a fairly generous floor limit below which benefits in kind aren't taxed and a season ticket loan on its own should be well below this. If there are other benefits the liability can be minimised by starting the loan early in the fiscal year.

 

[Tetchytyke]

my company would look seriously at any employee taking more than 5 days sick leave a year,

You shouldn't be basing everyone else's experiences on the fact your employer is an a-hole. I've never worked anywhere with such a ridiculous policy.

I've never had as little as 20 (+8 BH). I get 24 now, plus our trustee board usually throw in an extra 3 days for the Christmas break. The most I've had, working in London for a University, was 33 (29 + 4 "customary days" at Christmas).

 

[Raul_Duke]

You shouldn't be basing everyone else's experiences on the fact your employer is an a-hole. I've never worked anywhere with such a ridiculous policy.

I've never had as little as 20 (+8 BH). I get 24 now, plus our trustee board usually throw in an extra 3 days for the Christmas break. The most I've had, working in London for a University, was 33 (29 + 4 "customary days" at Christmas).

Count yourself lucky you’ve never worked somewhere that uses, “The Bradford Formula!”

*Queue Evil Organ Music and Thunder*

 

[Kite159]

You shouldn't be basing everyone else's experiences on the fact your employer is an a-hole. I've never worked anywhere with such a ridiculous policy.

I've never had as little as 20 (+8 BH). I get 24 now, plus our trustee board usually throw in an extra 3 days for the Christmas break. The most I've had, working in London for a University, was 33 (29 + 4 "customary days" at Christmas).

Depends if sick days are paid for, and if that employee has a habit of phoning in sick the day after a night out or other patterns. For example there was someone who used to go sick on a Friday to "beat the traffic" to drive to see family 'up north'.

Where I work if you go above a "lost time" rate of 5% within a rolling 12 month period you normally get called in for a chat with a manager unless there is a good reason for the absences (they call it a "wellbeing" meeting)

 

[Tetchytyke]

Depends if sick days are paid for, and if that employee has a habit of phoning in sick the day after a night out or other patterns.

Patterns are looked at, but that's not the same thing at all.

Count yourself lucky you’ve never worked somewhere that uses, “The Bradford Formula!”

One employer- a university- did try something similar, with three absence periods (regardless of length) resulting in a disciplinary.

Needless to say it didn't do much to reduce sickies, but did usually dissuade me from rushing back to work *too* quickly in case it resulted in more sickness.

But even that wasn't "asking questions" about keeping someone in a job.

 

[Belperpete]

Considering the legal minimum is 28 days annual leave a year (for full time workers), which includes the 8 bank holidays, then 29 days is only suggesting someone takes an extra day off during the year above the bare minimum.

You are double-counting the bank holidays. If you go back to starmill's original post, 29 days is the difference between the number of working days in a year, and the number of days that an annual season is valid for. As bank holidays are not included in the number of working days in a year, they are already accounted for.

So 29 days less 20 days annual leave, gives 9 days for sickness and other exceptional leave, working from home, etc.

 

[bussnapperwm]

I get 28 days + 3 days for Christmas (albeit pro rata as I'm part time.)

Count yourself lucky you’ve never worked somewhere that uses, “The Bradford Formula!”

*Queue Evil Organ Music and Thunder*

My employer introduced that last year. We've already lost 3 people due to it, with one more on a first and final in my department alone!!

 

[Belperpete]

You shouldn't be basing everyone else's experiences on the fact your employer is an a-hole. I've never worked anywhere with such a ridiculous policy. I've never had as little as 20 (+8 BH). I get 24 now, plus our trustee board usually throw in an extra 3 days for the Christmas break. The most I've had, working in London for a University, was 33 (29 + 4 "customary days" at Christmas).

Likewise, you shouldn't be assuming that every employer is as generous as yours. One of my employers used to insist that we take 3 days at Christmas, but it had to come out of our 20 day annual leave entitlement.

Count yourself lucky you’ve never worked somewhere that uses, “The Bradford Formula!”
*Queue Evil Organ Music and Thunder*

Unfortunately I did work for an employer that used the Bradford Formula, and applied it very strictly.

 

[baz962]

Considering the legal minimum is 28 days annual leave a year (for full time workers), which includes the 8 bank holidays, then 29 days is only suggesting someone takes an extra day off during the year above the bare minimum. It is probably safe to assume that some commuters will be getting more than 28 days holiday a year, either outright or by 'buying' extra holiday.

It's not actually 28 day's , it's the equivalent. Someone doing 12 hr shifts , on a four on four off basis , get only 20 . And that includes the eight bank holidays. It's actually done on hour's and the 28 is based on a 9-5 five day week.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I suppose there is no point me whining I only get 15 days in the USA plus public holidays?

 

[nlogax]

I suppose there is no point me whining I only get 15 days in the USA plus public holidays?

Nope, none I was up to twenty days per year plus public holidays before moving from the US to the UK, but obviously in a minority to have such a 'generous' vacation allowance.