Holiday booked before getting job - Help needed ASAP

JimiTime

Chinafoot wrote: »

Apologies on getting the date wrong. 2 weeks, 6 weeks it's pretty much the same to them. You'll be very new and most likely have just completed your training.

In your first post you said the following..



"Ok" is an acknowledgement of the dates not a confirmation that it won't be a problem.



Again, not a confirmation that leave would be granted.



Again, not a confirmation as the job has not been offered to you. If your argument is "I was told in the interview/on the phone it wouldn't be a problem" then you're barking up the wrong tree. You weren't told that. Im sure if you had been told that you would have mentioned it in your first post, no?

The fact of the matter is you were offered the job on the condition that you do not take the holiday. You can either accept the job or you can keep your holiday.

Oh and in my experience OP, HR organise the details of hiring new staff. Going to a team leader to complain that you can't have your holiday if you take the job was unprofessional. As it calling the HR person names on a public message board in a thread that contains details that could easily identify you.

Welcome to the real world dear. It contains tough choices and you don't always get what you want. The fact that you're considering prioritising a 5 day holiday over a job with the state the employment market is in this country leads me to believe you have a lot of growing up to do. All the best.

Oh I lament for the employees of this country, I really do!

I love this little explanation of stickler company types.

An Explanation of Company Policy wrote:

Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result; all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.

Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it. Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they are not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey every again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been done around here. And that, my friends, is how a company policy begins.

OP, I think its all been said really. Legally, no leg to stand on as everyone has said. Its really just about weighing up if you are desperate for this job, or if you think you could find another. I really hope it works out for you, and I think you are being wholly reasonable in asking the question you did. It seems like very odd behaviour from the company in question, but maybe it is just down to a jobsworth HR person, and the company is actually ok. If you start, you'll be able to see for yourself, and once you're in, and if your boss is OK, he'll likely sort out something with you and HR can get on with doing the only thing they're good for, organising the Christmas party:)

Shelflife

Heres a senario, 3 people working in a dept, 2 book holidays at the same time and 1 person subsequently leaves. lets say it takes one person to keep the dept ticking over until the others return from holidays.

they decide to hire and know that they will have the newby trained up enough to cope for the week that the other 2 are out.

Maybe thats why the HR dept are so picky about the days.

Bottom line Job was offered with a condition attached, you either accept it or you dont.

What was said/agreed in the interview is now irrelevant, the only thing that matters now is the contact on the table with the condition of being available to work those particular days.

Personally i think the Op has shot herself in the foot here by trying to get around the HR dept.

BostonB

Shelflife wrote: »

Heres a senario, 3 people working in a dept, 2 book holidays at the same time...

Really smart that would be, if cover is critical.

fat__tony

scudzilla wrote: »

That ^ ^

This.

tenchi-fan

fat__tony wrote: »

This.

These ^^

Chinafoot

JimiTime wrote: »

Oh I lament for the employees of this country, I really do!

The OP isn't an employee and thats the point. Feel free to point out anything in my post that was incorrect regarding the OP's situation. Or is it easier for you to go for the smart-arse-comment-no-substance approach? She is owed absolutely nothing and has been offered the job with a condition attached. Why is this so hard to grasp?

JimiTime wrote: »

I love this little explanation of stickler company types.

You may love it but you clearly are unable to apply it to appropriate scenarios.

amdublin

Nicole, by your username I am guessing you are 22/23 years of age.

You have plenty of years left in you for holidays. Venice isn't going anywhere.

Do you want this job or not? Choose between it or the holiday.

I know what one I'd be picking!!!!

BroomBurner

Just to add a slightly different perspective, OP, I found myself in the same position as you a few years ago. I was leaving one job for a new one, and had holidays booked for a few weeks after. I explained this to the overall HR person for the organisation, who said it wouldn't be a problem. The HR person for the section I was to work in, however, told me (on the day I started) that I wouldn't be able to take the holidays. Was very adamant, and offered no help or explanation whatsoever. They even said that I had had a week off prior to starting there and should have used that time for holidays (which I hadn't, the previous company put the wrong end-date on my P45).

Anyway, I spoke to my direct manager about it, and they said it was grand - took the leave, and enjoyed the trip.

The only difference here, is the timing with which you were told it was either the job or the holiday, and the timing I was told. I think you were right to approach your future direct manager, as they will be the one to decide ultimately, whether you can take the leave or not.

strandroad

OP you sound awfully young and the feeling of entitlement is pouring out of your post.
Employers may or may not honour your previous holiday arrangements, depending on what exactly they hired you for. There are ways to negotiate if you suspect it's just the HR person on a power trip (but seeing how warped your understanding of the process is, I'm not too sure about that) but you have chosen just about the worst option - you came across as trouble and I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to take on the next person in line instead. Using your boyfriend to get behing the HR person's back before you're even employed screams trouble. Plus as mentioned earlier it doesn't seem that they gave you permission to take the holiday at all, they just acknowledged your request.

What you should have done:
- flag your holiday dates at the interview stage
- accept the job if you want it even if it means no holiday but tell them you'd appreciate notifying you if this was subject to change as you have no way of cancelling it
- a week or two after you start and get to know your line manager bring it up with him and ask whether they really can't spare you
- if it turns out they can spare you after all, use his support to sort it out with HR and enjoy your holiday
- if they genuinely cannot spare you, forgo the holiday and think of all the future holidays you will be able to take being in a full time job.

BostonB

The OP did tell them at interview stage and that it was booked (even though it wasn't). While it certainly makes sense to get in their first, then get them to agree to change the date. It means you have to cancel the holiday, if they still said no. I can't see what HR has go to do with approving peoples holidays. I also find it hard to believe that they can't work around 3 days. Seems a lot of nonsense to me.

JimiTime

Chinafoot wrote: »

The OP isn't an employee and thats the point. Feel free to point out anything in my post that was incorrect regarding the OP's situation.

All factual details are correct and it has been stipulated by everyone including me regarding the fact that she has no leg to stand on officially or legally. You didn't merely state the facts though, you also gave opinion. Its the opinion, and the attitude behind it that I resent. Its also the attitude of the company that I resent (though hopefully its just some jobsworthy HR person)

Or is it easier for you to go for the smart-arse-comment-no-substance approach?

There is nothing smart @rse about it. I resent legalistic attitudes like the one on display. As i said, we know she isn't 'entitled' to anything, no-one has said otherwise.

She is owed absolutely nothing and has been offered the job with a condition attached. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Again, EVERYONE grasps it. However, not everyone maintain the legalistic attitude. You believe that because she is not entitled to these holidays, that thats all there is to it. You may be forgetting this little doozy of condescension from your post:

"Welcome to the real world dear. It contains tough choices and you don't always get what you want. The fact that you're considering prioritising a 5 day holiday over a job with the state the employment market is in this country leads me to believe you have a lot of growing up to do. All the best."

At the end of the day, its not about 'growing up'. Its about a level of reasonableness, and I for one am delighted to see people who don't go running scared from bully tactics (if thats what is) in an employers market. Funnily enough, IF this is an example of the companies attitude rather than just HR, then they'll probably have staff that are constantly looking to get out of there. I've seen that a lot in my time. At one point I was working for a company that were unpleasent to work for, and interviewed for a job elsewhere. the company I interviewed for said to me, 'What is going on in *****, you are the 5th person in the last two weeks we've interviewed from there.'

Most people have told her to weigh up her options and decide based on her own circumstance and to start there to see if its an issue company wide. I myself stipulating if she needs the job, then she needs the job. This idea that she's somehow immature, or needs to get with real life etc are way out of line. People should always stand up for themselves when they feel it necessary, and in this particular case, if it can be afforded, then I would be 100% behind the OP in questioning the stance of the company. Just because the company hold all the cards, does not mean that they must automatically stop taking the human factor into account. As someone previously mentioned, its not all about entitlements etc. i mean, I'm entitled to go home at 5.30, but sometimes I stay beyond that if circumstance requires it. Its called being reasonable. Similarly, I am entitled to 5 days paid sick leave a year, but the company have waived that in the past due to coming down with flu etc. So while the OP is entitled to nothing, it would be reasonable to question why the company are being so rigid on the issue.

You may love it but you clearly are unable to apply it to appropriate scenarios.

Its very appropriate. It may not be a situational parallel, but the attitude displayed is parallel. The 'this is just the way it is' attitude.

filthymcnasty

mhge wrote: »

OP you sound awfully young and the feeling of entitlement is pouring out of your post.
Employers may or may not honour your previous holiday arrangements, depending on what exactly they hired you for. There are ways to negotiate if you suspect it's just the HR person on a power trip (but seeing how warped your understanding of the process is, I'm not too sure about that) but you have chosen just about the worst option - you came across as trouble and I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to take on the next person in line instead. Using your boyfriend to get behing the HR person's back before you're even employed screams trouble. Plus as mentioned earlier it doesn't seem that they gave you permission to take the holiday at all, they just acknowledged your request.

What you should have done:
- flag your holiday dates at the interview stage
- accept the job if you want it even if it means no holiday but tell them you'd appreciate notifying you if this was subject to change as you have no way of cancelling it
- a week or two after you start and get to know your line manager bring it up with him and ask whether they really can't spare you
- if it turns out they can spare you after all, use his support to sort it out with HR and enjoy your holiday
- if they genuinely cannot spare you, forgo the holiday and think of all the future holidays you will be able to take being in a full time job.

This is nothing to do with the OPs youth or sense of entitlement - although I wouldn't go getting her boyfriend to canvass on her behalf either.

It is about some petty employer who for fcuk knows what reason is attempting to deny someone a short holiday before she has even started working there.

I fail to see how someone who has not even commenced work can be so vital to a companies apparatus that they would require her to start work at the drop of a hat. Say the OP was with already employed- would they expect her to the start without giving a notice period to that employer??
I have worked with many MNC's and have never heard of such petty shiite.

COYW

amdublin wrote: »

Nicole, by your username I am guessing you are 22/23 years of age.

You have plenty of years left in you for holidays. Venice isn't going anywhere.

Do you want this job or not? Choose between it or the holiday.

Wanting the job or not, is not the issue for me. The OP was open and honest in her dealings with the company but the same cannot be said of the company in relation to her. OP is 22 or so and needs to find a company that will teach her good business practice; so I think she should take the holiday and steer well clear of this shoddy outfit.

Chinafoot

JimiTime wrote: »

You didn't merely state the facts though, you also gave opinion. Its the opinion, and the attitude behind it that I resent. Its also the attitude of the company that I resent (though hopefully its just some jobsworthy HR person)

Ah I must have missed the note that said opinion was not allowed. And here was me thinking we were on a message forum.

JimiTime wrote: »

There is nothing smart @rse about it. I resent legalistic attitudes like the one on display. As i said, we know she isn't 'entitled' to anything, no-one has said otherwise.

There is nothing legalistic about it. Its a realistic attitude. She does not work for the company nor was she given any confirmation that she was being given the time off for the holidays. You may not like that "attitude" but such is life tbh. As for nobody saying the OP is entitled to anything..every post by her so far is dripping with a sense of entitlement. Her attitude is appalling to be frank. She's calling the HR person names on a very public message board and she herself has a username that could very easily identify her. So yeah, she does need to grow up in that regard.

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, EVERYONE grasps it. However, not everyone maintain the legalistic attitude. You believe that because she is not entitled to these holidays, that thats all there is to it. You may be forgetting this little doozy of condescension from your post:

"Welcome to the real world dear. It contains tough choices and you don't always get what you want. The fact that you're considering prioritising a 5 day holiday over a job with the state the employment market is in this country leads me to believe you have a lot of growing up to do. All the best."

At the end of the day, its not about 'growing up'. Its about a level of reasonableness, and I for one am delighted to see people who don't go running scared from bully tactics (if thats what is) in an employers market.

And there it is. She's the working class hero sticking it to the man. :rolleyes: Had the OP been given actual confirmation that her holidays would be granted then I would agree that she absolutely should fight them. She should push for what she was promised and not be walked over. The point is they were quite clear in offering her the job as to what the situation regarding the holiday would be.

JimiTime wrote: »

Funnily enough, IF this is an example of the companies attitude rather than just HR, then they'll probably have staff that are constantly looking to get out of there. I've seen that a lot in my time. At one point I was working for a company that were unpleasent to work for, and interviewed for a job elsewhere. the company I interviewed for said to me, 'What is going on in *****, you are the 5th person in the last two weeks we've interviewed from there.'

Given that we know absolutely nothing about this company other than one disgruntled interviewee, thats a pretty big assumption to make.

JimiTime wrote: »

This idea that she's somehow immature, or needs to get with real life etc are way out of line.

And I disgaree. Her actions on this thread have shown her to be immature IMO.

JimiTime wrote: »

People should always stand up for themselves when they feel it necessary, and in this particular case, if it can be afforded, then I would be 100% behind the OP in questioning the stance of the company. Just because the company hold all the cards, does not mean that they must automatically stop taking the human factor into account. As someone previously mentioned, its not all about entitlements etc. i mean, I'm entitled to go home at 5.30, but sometimes I stay beyond that if circumstance requires it. Its called being reasonable. Similarly, I am entitled to 5 days paid sick leave a year, but the company have waived that in the past due to coming down with flu etc. So while the OP is entitled to nothing, it would be reasonable to question why the company are being so rigid on the issue.

Again, some big assumptions being made about this company's view of the human element. You can pop the OP up on some pedestal representing all those who hate the big corporations where everyone is just a number, or you can actually look at her specific situation (her situation, not yours) whereby she was offered a job with a condition attached. We have no idea why the holiday can't be given but it does happen. Accepting that taking your holidays at a certain date is not a god given right does not mean you are just another "monkey" who accepts that thats the way things are. As I already said, had she been given confirmation that she could have her holiday then I would back her fight 100%. She wasn't so I don't.

JimiTime wrote: »

Its very appropriate. It may not be a situational parallel, but the attitude displayed is parallel. The 'this is just the way it is' attitude.

And again, knowing when you don't actually have a case to fight is not the same as "this is just the way it is". Nobody is telling her to turn into some office drone once she gets in there, only talk to people from your team, never speak to this manager, only go for promotion after Mary gets it because she has been here longer...and whatever other bullshít you seem to think I'm promoting.

She does not have a battle to fight here and she should edit her posts to remove the horrible comments she has made about a potential work colleague.

strandroad

filthymcnasty wrote: »

This is nothing to do with the OPs youth or sense of entitlement - although I wouldn't go getting her boyfriend to canvass on her behalf either.

It is about some petty employer who for fcuk knows what reason is attempting to deny someone a short holiday before she has even started working there.

I fail to see how someone who has not even commenced work can be so vital to a companies apparatus that they would require her to start work at the drop of a hat. Say the OP was with already employed- would they expect her to the start without giving a notice period to that employer??
I have worked with many MNC's and have never heard of such petty shiite.

The thing is that we have no way of knowing if they really need her then and why. I would assume that if they hire someone, it is for him/her to work and especially with handovers or training scheduled yes they may need someone to be present on certain days and not others. Most companies will accommodate prebooked holidays if they can, but it's not a given.

Even if they can indeed spare her then, she went in with all guns blazing, demanding a favour that doesn't seem to have been confirmed at all, using insider knowledge to contact her line manager, and basically making her joining the company all about the holiday and kicking up the fuss. Great first impression indeed, very professional (not); and her "plan B" (to join just to quit immediately out of spite) really says it all. There is some serious amount of growing up to do in order to learn about all the different ways to skin the cat...

COYW

Chinafoot wrote: »

And I disgaree. Her actions on this thread have shown her to be immature IMO.

As someone who interviews and employs people, I really don't see how. What has happened is that some so-and-so, with a little bit of power, is trying to make him or herself look important. The OP has been 100% transparent and honest in her dealings with this company. She never lied about to the potential employer about the holiday. As I said before, the young lady should go on holiday with her b/f and enjoy herself and forget this job.

BostonB

+1

Actually it was the HR person who made it all about the holiday. If the person was vital, as they are suggesting, they shouldn't have offer the OP the job at all.

westies4ever

COYW wrote: »

As someone who interviews and employs people, I really don't see how. What has happened is that some so-and-so, with a little bit of power, is trying to make him or herself look important. The OP has been 100% transparent and honest in her dealings with this company. She never lied about to the potential employer about the holiday. As I said before, the young lady should go on holiday with her b/f and enjoy herself and forget this job.

i totally agree. i have been involved in the interviewing and hiring of staff in the past and have come up against this before. i've always let them go. no-one is indispensable, the company isnt going to collapse! happy staff make for loyal and productive staff.

JimiTime

Chinafoot wrote: »

Ah I must have missed the note that said opinion was not allowed. And here was me thinking we were on a message forum.

Opinion not allowed?? Resenting the attitude present in your opinion, and correcting you on your implication that your post was simply the facts is not saying that opinion is not allowed. What an odd thing to take out of my post *scratches head*

There is nothing legalistic about it. Its a realistic attitude. She does not work for the company nor was she given any confirmation that she was being given the time off for the holidays.

Again, this is not about the obvious, which everyone has realised. Its about the human element. Yes, she's entitled to squat, but most realise that on face value, the company in question seem to be acting like turds.

You may not like that "attitude" but such is life tbh. As for nobody saying the OP is entitled to anything..every post by her so far is dripping with a sense of entitlement.

Well, in the beginning she probably seen it as unfair that she mentioned it, and thought it would be ok. Everyone has told her shes not entitled to anything, and she probably knew this would be the case. To then think its poor form from the prosective employer is quite a fair assessment of things. She certainly doesn't deserve the accusations being levelled against her from yourself about being immature, and the condescension about real life etc.

Her attitude is appalling to be frank.

Oh ffs. She thinks its poxy that they are being so rigid. Its not unreasonable to think that.

She's calling the HR person names on a very public message board and she herself has a username that could very easily identify her. So yeah, she does need to grow up in that regard.

Thats not a case of 'growing up', thats a case of being more aware of the pitfalls of public message boards. A 50 year old could do the same thing.

And there it is. She's the working class hero sticking it to the man. :rolleyes:

Ah jaysus, are you just looking to pick a fight?

Had the OP been given actual confirmation that her holidays would be granted then I would agree that she absolutely should fight them.

Why? She's still not entitled to anything. So whats the difference? I've been in interviews where there was no resounding, 'Yes we will honour prebooked holidays', but implicit 'OK's' etc. IMO, if there are issues about not honouring holidays, and the holiday thing is raised at interview then it should be stated at interview. Again though, the company don't HAVE to do anything. Entitlements is not what this is about. Its about being reasonable and empathetic.

She should push for what she was promised and not be walked over. The point is they were quite clear in offering her the job as to what the situation regarding the holiday would be.

Indeed, which is why she feels the need to ask if there is anything she can do. She obviously wants the job, but also the holiday and feels aggrieved that they're being so rigid. I completely empathise with that. A bitter taste is going to be left now whatever she chooses, and its not down to the OP IMO, its due to a rigid and unreasonable prospective employer.

Given that we know absolutely nothing about this company other than one disgruntled interviewee, thats a pretty big assumption to make.

And I'm clear in that I know its working on an assumption. I've used 'IF' a bit. Like IF its not just the HR person etc.

And I disgaree. Her actions on this thread have shown her to be immature IMO.

And you are entitled to that opinion:) Just as I am entitled to resent it.

Again, some big assumptions being made about this company's view of the human element. You can pop the OP up on some pedestal representing all those who hate the big corporations where everyone is just a number

Oh get out of it will ye. You'd swear you were talking to Ché Guevara.

, or you can actually look at her specific situation (her situation, not yours) whereby she was offered a job with a condition attached. We have no idea why the holiday can't be given but it does happen.

Indeed, but we are working with the information we are given.

Accepting that taking your holidays at a certain date is not a god given right does not mean you are just another "monkey" who accepts that thats the way things are. As I already said, had she been given confirmation that she could have her holiday then I would back her fight 100%. She wasn't so I don't.

Again, who cares if she was given explicit assurances about her holidays, she'd still not be entitled. The principal in this is people being reasonable. Now if the company come back and say, 'listen, we're really sorry, but it is very important that you are in those days so we really can't have the person in that position on holidays. But, we just thought we'd offer you the job as you were our first choice but unfortunately need you those days'. THAT would be a personable approach, that would display an empathetic attitude. However, according to the info given here, its been a 'take it or leave it' no ifs buts or maybes. A 'tough sh!t' approach. Whoever is entitled to whatever, THAT attitude stinks, and its not unreasonable to stand up to it and say, 'Oi, this attitude stinks'.

She does not have a battle to fight here

No she doesn't, you're right. This is what most people have said. All she can do is appeal to them, accept it, refuse the job, or start the job and see what happens.

Again, I empathise with her, and think the attitude of 'thats life', 'you're immature', 'you ooze a sense of entitlement' etc are ridiculous.

amdublin

COYW wrote: »

Wanting the job or not, is not the issue for me. The OP was open and honest in her dealings with the company but the same cannot be said of the company in relation to her. OP is 22 or so and needs to find a company that will teach her good business practice; so I think she should take the holiday and steer well clear of this shoddy outfit.

Okay. If you say so.

Good luck on the dole Nicole!

amdublin

JimiTime wrote: »

No she doesn't, you're right. This is what most people have said. All she can do is appeal to them, accept it, refuse the job, or start the job and see what happens.

Again, I empathise with her, and think the attitude of 'thats life', 'you're immature', 'you ooze a sense of entitlement' etc are ridiculous.

Cool.

Sure you can empathise with her after her little city break while she's on the dole.

:pac:

notsobusy

This happened to me a few years ago. I had booked 3 days off and started a new job after this. I told them at the interview about these 3 days and they said it was fine to take them as it was a small company and generally quite quiet.

I started my job reminded the boss about the 3 days and he said no problem. Two months later a couple of weeks before my 3 day holiday I reminded the boss about the holiday, he said no problem then came into me an hour later and told me I couldn't take those days off. I was livid. When I asked for a reason he said that I had only been there a wet week and wasn't entitled to the days off. I was fuming but I bit my lip and looked for another job and got one!!! A much better one aswell.

And when it came to giving in my notice I gave him a week, he went mental and told me I couldn't do that that I had to give him a month.....I just said that I could and I would and that's that.

Moral of the story, take the job, forget the holiday for now and see how it all pans out. If you don't like the job start looking for a new one, it's much easier to get a job when you have a job!!!

trellheim

This comes up all the time. Nobody is right. Candidate isn't entitled to squat, HR behaving like dicks.

Simplest : If you are interviewing then make sure it comes up. If you are offered then in the salary negotiations then make sure it is included in the written contract offer. ( as an add-on note, sometimes ) - e.g. it is agreed between the parties that leave will be granted (paid/unpaid ) between 01/07/11 and 14/7/11, notwithstanding any company leave procedures in force and not affecting any leave accrual )

Once you have started a job it is next to impossible to get these things agreed.

Eoin

A lot of sarcastic, smartarse-y and personal remarks going on here; please tone it down folks.

keanooo

OP, my sympathies. I was in the exact same situation a few months ago. I had been working for a construction company in Dublin on a job in the city centre. I am big reggae fan and make it rule to go to Reggae Fever on Saturday night and Dancehall Styles every Sunday night. I was with the company long enough that I could make my working schedule fit in around that.

I took redundancy last September and went for an interview for a job in the Middle East in December. The interview went well and it all seemed good. The HR guy asked me at the end of it if I had any questions. I mentioned about my love of reggae/dancehall and how - while, of course I understood I can't still attend every week - I still wanted to stay in touch with the reggae scene in Dublin on a regular basis. He gave me a bit of a quizzical look, but I inferred from his silence that he was acquiescing to my request should I be offered the job.

Fast-forward to today. I am out here in Riyadh for 3 months and have yet to be afforded even 1 flight home! It's not as if I'm asking for 3 days off. I brought it up with the HR guy and he's all "I don't recall any serious discussion on the matter...". My advice (and it's too late now) is to get everything in writing in advance of signing anything. I should have copped it when there were no "Reggae break weekends" clause in my contract.

Now I have to decide between my job and music. I know which one I'll be choosing.

Kimia

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, I empathise with her, and think the attitude of 'thats life', 'you're immature', 'you ooze a sense of entitlement' etc are ridiculous.

+10000 and I loved the monkey analogy.

SO unfair to make the OP out to be a feckless chancer who swans off on holidays with no regard for how cruel and unfair life is.

My god, we are not slaves to the corporate machine. The OP was more than transparent about her holidays, they were confirmed before she got the job, so therefore they are a condition of her starting.

I've never heard of a company putting their foot down about this before - people are entitled to holidays and if you move companies say in May, you will more than likely have a holiday booked or planned and you won't have the holidays in the new company worked up. Companies usually allow for this because having a bit of flexibility would ensure loyalty and happiness in the employee.

Forcing the OP to choose is the worst possible thing the company could do. Yes in this day and age in Ireland it's an employer's market but at the same time it's important to remember that company's still need talent to survive and to grow. If they use these rigid scare tactics with a new hire you can only imagine what they are like with the rest of the workforce - must be a horrible demoralised hell hole and one that I would avoid like the plague.

BostonB

keanooo wrote: »

... I should have copped it when there were no "Reggae break weekends" clause in my contract.

Now I have to decide between my job and music. I know which one I'll be choosing.

The weed apparently.

davey122

Id try and speak with the person who held the interview and remind them of what was said on all 3 occassions. Its really unfair. In the end your probably going to have to make a decision but this could be a blessing in disguise. Im just finished college and searching for a job every day so I know how difficult it is to even get an interview. If you REALLY need the job then the holiday will have to be sacraficed. If you decide to turn down the job and go to Venice then you should get on to the local radio station or newspaper and name and shame the company when you come home.

p.s. dont be wasting ur time replying to those idiots that posted who havent even fully read your post that are no help whatsoever.... :mad:

keanooo

davey122 wrote: »

If you decide to turn down the job and go to Venice then you should get on to the local radio station or newspaper and name and shame the company when you come home.

OP, this is very bad advice. If you do that you'll end up getting a lot of stick yourself from people who don't agree with you.

boogerballs

keanooo wrote: »

OP, my sympathies. I was in the exact same situation a few months ago. I had been working for a construction company in Dublin on a job in the city centre. I am big reggae fan and make it rule to go to Reggae Fever on Saturday night and Dancehall Styles every Sunday night. I was with the company long enough that I could make my working schedule fit in around that.

I took redundancy last September and went for an interview for a job in the Middle East in December. The interview went well and it all seemed good. The HR guy asked me at the end of it if I had any questions. I mentioned about my love of reggae/dancehall and how - while, of course I understood I can't still attend every week - I still wanted to stay in touch with the reggae scene in Dublin on a regular basis. He gave me a bit of a quizzical look, but I inferred from his silence that he was acquiescing to my request should I be offered the job.

Fast-forward to today. I am out here in Riyadh for 3 months and have yet to be afforded even 1 flight home! It's not as if I'm asking for 3 days off. I brought it up with the HR guy and he's all "I don't recall any serious discussion on the matter...". My advice (and it's too late now) is to get everything in writing in advance of signing anything. I should have copped it when there were no "Reggae break weekends" clause in my contract.

Now I have to decide between my job and music. I know which one I'll be choosing.

Not trying to be smart Keanooo but it is only me or was this one of the most random quotes I have ever seen on Boards??