Holiday pay ruling to impact millions of workers

[Mecky 10]

No Mecky that's not how it works - you havea track record of refusing to answer the awkward questions - like this one.

 

Yes it is, that's precisely how it works. What comes around goes around.

[milquetoast1 10]

On the topic in hand, holiday pay and OT.

 

Whilst holiday pay didn't include routine OT payments it allows the business to effectively pay a lower rate of HP than they would otherwise pay if they actually employed enough people.

 

Take it to an extreme. Call regular hours 0, and everything is overtime. Then pay no HP.

Not legal (I'd hope), but it illustrates that the business is effectively reducing it's wage bill by not having enough staff and having people work regular OT.

 

A business can easily avoid a problem from this ruling, but hiring enough people that no OT is required.

 

At the business I work at now, and all the businesses I've worked at previously, OT has been paid at time and a half or better. This should more than compensate for the fact that it is not paid to somebody on holiday.

 

Besides, as barleycorn highlighted, why should it be paid to somebody sat on a sun lounger in Spain but not somebody working the regular shift back in the factory?

 

The business I work for now has actually discussed employing more people with staff to eradicate OT and they don't want it. The employees like the flexibility as much as the employer does, they like the extra occasional money, and they don't want to be bored during the quieter periods.

 

OT for us was never about saving money, in fact it was more expensive. It was just simple.

 

This ruling might actually give some employees exactly what they don't want, no OT at all, and more companies introducing shift work. Our MD has just held a meeting this morning about introducing shift work.

[Mecky 10]

I don't see how it's possible to be paid a wage that your employer can not afford, so no.

However, I do think unions are important and the power that they have is necessary. Like Obelix says, it's getting the balance right that's the issue.

 

Well, that's precisely the problem. The cost of living in the UK is no longer a matter for the UK people. We have to go to the global market for food, materials and goods and those prices generally control the cost of living in the UK. Even foreign-owned business operating in the UK are charging high prices to subsidise cheap prices in their countries of origin - The well known story is high rail fares in the UK subsidising cheap rail fares abroad.

[Cyclone 10]

Not every business has a constant level of work. .there are times when an order has to be satisfied and overtime has to be done..you couldn't have a permanent staffing level that's high enough to cope with just the odd larger order but is overkill for the rest of the time..well,you could but your business wouldn't last long..

 

If that's the situation then holiday pay should reflect the real average working pay of the employee's shouldn't it?

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2014 at 12:30 ----------

 

Yes it is, that's precisely how it works. What comes around goes around.

 

What goes around is that you constantly refuse to answer difficult questions... So what comes around is that nobody will answer yours.

[Mecky 10]

At the business I work at now, and all the businesses I've worked at previously, OT has been paid at time and a half or better. This should more than compensate for the fact that it is not paid to somebody on holiday.

 

Besides, as barleycorn highlighted, why should it be paid to somebody sat on a sun lounger in Spain but not somebody working the regular shift back in the factory?

 

The business I work for now has actually discussed employing more people with staff to eradicate OT and they don't want it. The employees like the flexibility as much as the employer does, they like the extra occasional money, and they don't want to be bored during the quieter periods.

 

OT for us was never about saving money, in fact it was more expensive. It was just simple.

 

This ruling might actually give some employees exactly what they don't want, no OT at all, and more companies introducing shift work. Our MD has just held a meeting this morning about introducing shift work.

 

It would be reasonable to assume that employers will spit their dummies out and challenge the decision anyway, so we'll have to wait and see what happens.

[Cyclone 10]

At the business I work at now, and all the businesses I've worked at previously, OT has been paid at time and a half or better. This should more than compensate for the fact that it is not paid to somebody on holiday.

 

Besides, as barleycorn highlighted, why should it be paid to somebody sat on a sun lounger in Spain but not somebody working the regular shift back in the factory?

 

The business I work for now has actually discussed employing more people with staff to eradicate OT and they don't want it. The employees like the flexibility as much as the employer does, they like the extra occasional money, and they don't want to be bored during the quieter periods.

 

OT for us was never about saving money, in fact it was more expensive. It was just simple.

 

This ruling might actually give some employees exactly what they don't want, no OT at all, and more companies introducing shift work. Our MD has just held a meeting this morning about introducing shift work.

 

Fair point I suppose. If OT is paid at a higher rate and really is optional, then the employee has already been compensated for it.

 

What were the comments of the judge when he made his ruling, I'm sure all these points came up in the hearing...

[Mecky 10]

What goes around is that you constantly refuse to answer difficult questions... So what comes around is that nobody will answer yours.

 

Thanks for that, but I didn't cast the first stone

[milquetoast1 10]

If that's the situation then holiday pay should reflect the real average working pay of the employee's shouldn't it?

 

But then surely weeks where there's no OT should also reflect the real average working pay?

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2014 at 12:45 ----------

 

Fair point I suppose. If OT is paid at a higher rate and really is optional, then the employee has already been compensated for it.

 

What were the comments of the judge when he made his ruling, I'm sure all these points came up in the hearing...

 

I've searched and I've searched and found nothing.

 

My experience of OT has only been of the voluntary nature which is paid at a higher rate.

 

I was pretty unaware that compulsory overtime, which isn't really overtime at all, even existed. I've learnt about another unacceptable method used by some employers to screw employees. I agree that anybody trapped in such a scenario should be paid their average wage when they take holiday.

 

I just hope that voluntary overtime, or overtime as it should simply be called, doesn't get chucked into the decision.

 

The reason I hope it doesn't is not because I'm an employer, but because I'm an employee who has to manage some aspects of running a business. A business whose employees a pretty happy with how overtime is used, and wouldn't like it to be taken away.

 

It will be taken away, and the working hours made less flexible, if this ruling includes voluntary overtime.

[Obelix 11]

Thanks for that, but I didn't cast the first stone

 

School playing fields, the economy halving in March 2013, your position on various aspects of the economy, if you would regulate the banks adequately...

 

All questions you refuse to answer, and then whine and pule and resort of abuse when people ask you for clarification. All these are stones that you cast first m'lad and you know it, I know, and the world knows it.

[lines 10]

School playing fields, the economy halving in March 2013, your position on various aspects of the economy, if you would regulate the banks adequately...

 

All questions you refuse to answer, and then whine and pule and resort of abuse when people ask you for clarification. All these are stones that you cast first m'lad and you know it, I know, and the world knows it.

 

Seconded !

[tinfoilhat 11]

At the business I work at now, and all the businesses I've worked at previously, OT has been paid at time and a half or better. This should more than compensate for the fact that it is not paid to somebody on holiday.

 

Besides, as barleycorn highlighted, why should it be paid to somebody sat on a sun lounger in Spain but not somebody working the regular shift back in the factory?

 

The business I work for now has actually discussed employing more people with staff to eradicate OT and they don't want it. The employees like the flexibility as much as the employer does, they like the extra occasional money, and they don't want to be bored during the quieter periods.

 

OT for us was never about saving money, in fact it was more expensive. It was just simple.

 

This ruling might actually give some employees exactly what they don't want, no OT at all, and more companies introducing shift work. Our MD has just held a meeting this morning about introducing shift work.

 

What's all this? Co-operation? You should be demanding more money and more holidays! You should be stood round a brazier or marching about with placards. The only good employer is one you can put out of business!

[El Cid 221]

Workers have won a ground-breaking case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal to include overtime in holiday pay.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29896810

 

But backdated claims have been limited, with the tribunal ruling that employees cannot claim more than three months after the last incorrect payment.

 

I get paid a standard 37 hours, and then fill in a overtime sheet every week, this has been the case for around 6 years, but not the last year.

In an equall pay claim for female workers at some councils, that got back-dated 6 years. Am I hoping for too much to get some back pay?

If this is up for appeal, how do I tell my employer to get their act together, from today?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-20054049