time off

LegacyUser

Hi,
i currently work every sunday and bank holiday and i am allowed 4 sundays off per year, am i actually entitled to get any more off? i requested 1 sunday a month off before and was told no. and before someone has a go, i know i am lucky to have a job but i also would like a bit of a life.

Nody

It sounds about right to be honest; 8% of the time you worked would equal 4 days off based on 50 working days a year.

Mrs OBumble

How many hours do you work in total, and what other days do you have off each week?

What is stopping you from having your life on the other days off?

LegacyUser

I work on average of 40hours a week and usually off one day a week, can vary from week to week. I am a full time worker and think its wrong I have to work every Sunday and bank holiday.

davo10

Caughtinatrap1 wrote: »

I work on average of 40hours a week and usually off one day a week, can vary from week to week. I am a full time worker and think its wrong I have to work every Sunday and bank holiday.

OP if these are the hours/days your job has required you to work up to this, you are being paid above the legal minimum wage and you receive the legally entitled leave, then you have the option of working or leaving your job. Your employer is not required to give you particular days of the week off, especially if you work in the hospitality/retail sector when weekends are the busy time. With rising unemployment, there are huge numbers of people willing to work Sundays and bank holidays.

TheminxIRL

I read your post as in you only worked Sundays and Bank Holidays not a full week that included these!

gozunda

davo10 wrote: »

OP if these are the hours/days your job has required you to work up to this, you are being paid above the legal minimum wage and you receive the legally entitled leave, then you have the option of working or leaving your job. Your employer is not required to give you particular days of the week off, especially if you work in the hospitality/retail sector when weekends are the busy time. With rising unemployment, there are huge numbers of people willing to work Sundays and bank holidays.

That's a lot of assumptions tbh .the rising employment scenario dies not excuse all such practices...

grindle

It's [not very] odd that you're boss is being a bit of a dick, but you don't have any entitlements to certain days off. You might like to have Sundays and Bank Holidays off, others couldn't care less.

@gozunda: could you point out the assumptions please? The only one I can see is

if these are the hours/days your job has required...

I'm no fan of the kind of boss that rules without leniency, but I understand that they don't have to do anything beyond the minimum legal requirement. i.e. OP is stuck between a rock and a hard place, but it's not legally wrong.

This is what makes certain places crap to work for and others amazing. That's life.
40 hours a week isn't the worst.
Used to be in for 60 hours per week minimum when warehousing and as an apprentice electrician.
Oh, yay! Weekend off... Meant nothing to me as a deflated shell of a person.

chris85

gozunda wrote: »

That's a lot of assumptions tbh .the rising employment scenario dies not excuse all such practices...

What practice? Having an employee work days which are normal in the sector, its not like the OP is in an office job and they are forcing working all Sundays. He/she is in a sector where the job entails working Sundays.

If the OP's contract states they may be needed to work Sundays then thats that. No law to prevent this and why should there be? I dont work Sundays and wouldnt like to but if I get into a job and the contract says I may have to then I would take it on the chin as I am a grown up and know what I am getting into.

gozunda

chris85 wrote: »

What practice? Having an employee work days which are normal in the sector, its not like the OP is in an office job and they are forcing working all Sundays. He/she is in a sector where the job entails working Sundays.

If the OP's contract states they may be needed to work Sundays then thats that. No law to prevent this and why should there be? I dont work Sundays and wouldnt like to but if I get into a job and the contract says I may have to then I would take it on the chin as I am a grown up and know what I am getting into.

We have no idea what the OP contracts states. But there is also so something called work life balance that the OP is asking about. Is he the only employee - is there any flexibility in his role? We don't know tbh. But as the OP describes his workhours appear completely inflexible. Employment is a contract between an employee and an employer not just a one way street imo.

chris85

gozunda wrote: »

We have no idea what the OP contracts states. But there is also so something called work life balance that the OP is asking about. Is he the only employee - is there any flexibility in his role? We don't know tbh. But as the OP describes his workhours appear completely inflexible. Employment is a contract between an employee and an employer not just a one way street imo.

My opinion was based on a contract being in place which the OP should legally have. My point is if this states, and 99% of retail/hospitality employers do, that working weekends are expected then that is fair enough, employer has a busy period and want staff there for it.

Also work/life balance is an easy and poor argument, legislation allows for time off, the OP works 40 hours per week, enough for down time and outside interests, as well as having a set amount of Sundays off per year. To improve my work/life balance I would love to have Mondays off to allow myself a nice recovery from the week. Will I get this? No, because there is work required of me every day Mon-Fri.

gozunda

chris85 wrote: »

My opinion was based on a contract being in place which the OP should legally have. My point is if this states, and 99% of retail/hospitality employers do, that working weekends are expected then that is fair enough, employer has a busy period and want staff there for it.

Also work/life balance is an easy and poor argument, legislation allows for time off, the OP works 40 hours per week, enough for down time and outside interests, as well as having a set amount of Sundays off per year. To improve my work/life balance I would love to have Mondays off to allow myself a nice recovery from the week. Will I get this? No, because there is work required of me every day Mon-Fri.

we can only go on what the information the OP had provided to date. Hence my reply. We do not know what sector the OP works in tbh. No point in attempting to make up the remainder tbh. Again employment is a a contract between two parties and not just a one way street. That way it provides for for a good work relationship. Something that should be encouraged imo.

davo10

gozunda wrote: »

Again employment is a a contract between two parties and not just a one way street. That way it provides for for a good work relationship. Something that should be encouraged imo.

Maybe in a Utopian workplace. When you go for a job interview gozunda and you are offered a job based on the sector norm, I doubt you would be naive enough to trot out that nugget prior to the job offer being made. The employer is offering a job with certain parameters, if you say, "hold on there, this is a two way street, I want a social life ya know", your ass wouldn't hit the ground before the front door.

gozunda

davo10 wrote: »

Maybe in a Utopian workplace. When you go for a job interview gozunda and you are offered a job based on the sector norm, I doubt you would be naive enough to trot out that nugget prior to the job offer being made. The employer is offering a job with certain parameters, if you say, "hold on there, this is a two way street, I want a social life ya know", your ass wouldn't hit the ground before the front door.

No real life Dave - we do not know what sector I'f any OP occupies so less presumptions would help here

The ok 'yer lucky to have any job' is reminiscent of conditions some 200 odd years ago. So we going thru an economic downturn / doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater and go back to the dark ages. Does no one any favour employer or employer.

Work life balance is not 'I wished to get phished every other night '.. There is a reason for employment law - stop aggressive one way street practices. Can't believe this conversation is still ongoing on a this stage in the countries history tbh...

Alternative if we haven't learned its back to legal constraints - I prefer to employ people with lives not automans...

davo10

Regarding OPs situation gozunda, I don't think you understand employment law. Most office jobs involve the employee to work Monday to Friday, you are entitled to a minimum 20 days leave based on full time employment working hours above a certain threshold. The employee takes the leave on dates agreed by the employer.

In the retail/hospitality sector the working week may be Wednesday to Sunday with Monday and Tuesday off. The employee is again entitled to 20 days off or more if hours worked is above the threshold, 4 of these may be Sundays as this is part of their working week, this is the law and exactly as was put to the OP. The employer is not in any way legally required to agree to one Sunday off per month in the same way that an office employee is not legally entitled to one Friday off per month.

This is the law, now you can, as you have done on other threads argue that this is not fair nor right, but there is absolutely no legal basis for your argument.

Holiday leave has to be agreed by the employer and they have no obligation to agree to days off when trade is at its peak.

As for people not feeling lucky to have a job, are you on a different planet, have you seen the news or read a paper, dole ques are getting longer, job opportunities are scarcer, emigration is at famine levels, wake up and smell the coffee.

gozunda

davo10 wrote: »

Regarding OPs situation gozunda, I don't think you understand employment law. Most office jobs involve the employee to work Monday to Friday, you are entitled to a minimum 20 days leave based on full time employment working hours above a certain threshold. The employee takes the leave on dates agreed by the employer.

In the retail/hospitality sector the working week may be Wednesday to Sunday with Monday and Tuesday off. The employee is again entitled to 20 days off or more if hours worked is above the threshold, 4 of these may be Sundays as this is part of their working week, this is the law and exactly as was put to the OP. The employer is not in any way legally required to agree to one Sunday off per month in the same way that an office employee is not legally entitled to one Friday off per month.

This is the law, now you can, as you have done on other threads argue that this is not fair nor right, but there is absolutely no legal basis for your argument.

Holiday leave has to be agreed by the employer and they have no obligation to agree to days off when trade is at its peak.

As for people not feeling lucky to have a job, are you on a different planet, have you seen the news or read a paper, dole ques are getting longer, job opportunities are scarcer, emigration is at famine levels, wake up and smell the coffee.

Lot of 'may be's' s there tbh..,

You do not know what sector the OP is working in so maybe less of the preaching.
I understand Employment law thank you. One trotted out answer for a variety of posts does not answer all queries. The ol 'yet lucky to have a job' has no place in rational discussion tbh. That harks back to a time when the RCC ruled the roost and employers did what they liked. Get real - those times are gone. The attitudes perhaps remain - it does not make the right.

davo10

gozunda wrote: »

Lot of 'may be's' s there tbh..,

You do not know what sector the OP is working in so maybe less of the preaching.
I understand Employment law thank you. One trotted out answer for a variety of posts does not answer all queries. The ol 'yet lucky to have a job' has no place in rational discussion tbh. That harks back to a time when the RCC ruled the roost and employers did what they liked. Get real - those times are gone. The attitudes perhaps remain - it does not make the right.

The sector doesn't matter, the law is the same for all employees no matter what days of the week comprise their normal working week, in this case Sunday would appear to be one of those days. Right or wrong, it's not up to you and me, it is the law relating to employment. If you can quote a law that entitles an employee to take specific days off without agreement, I'm happy to concede my point of view and agree with you, if not, then the employment laws I refer to are valid.

Put up or shut up, you are giving advice based on what you feel is "right" not what is legally right. No "may be's" there, only facts.

gozunda

davo10 wrote: »

The sector doesn't matter, the law is the same for all employees no matter what days of the week comprise their normal working week, in this case Sunday would appear to be one of those days. Right or wrong, it's not up to you and me, it is the law relating to employment. If you can quote a law that entitles an employee to take specific days off without agreement, I'm happy to concede my point of view and agree with you, if not, then the employment laws I refer to are valid.

Put up or shut up, you are giving advice based on what you feel is "right" not what is legally right. No "may be's" there, only facts.

Oh deary me - no need for the abuse. Your the one quoting sector btw and included the 'may be's' in your analysis - take a look back.

At the end if the day you are making assumptions concerning the OPs situation. An employment contract at the end of the day is just that - a contact with rights and obligations on both sides. That said there is always a human element or at least there should be - the employee that goes that extra mile that stays in the emergency that undertakes extra responsibilities - that's where there will be give and take. Stick to the old rule of the rod and you quickly end up with a stupid situation that does the employer no good no matter what the minimum requirement of the law is. I am not advocating breaking 'any' law but treating people as humans and simply having a good working environment for employees. I know that does not always suit some stuck in the 1850s and still think of employees as akin to charity cases that are 'lucky' to have 'sir' as de boss. Get real. I thought We have has left that chapter behind us. But maybe I am being too hopeful in that regard.

chris85

gozunda wrote: »

Lot of 'may be's' s there tbh..,

You do not know what sector the OP is working in so maybe less of the preaching.
I understand Employment law thank you. One trotted out answer for a variety of posts does not answer all queries. The ol 'yet lucky to have a job' has no place in rational discussion tbh. That harks back to a time when the RCC ruled the roost and employers did what they liked. Get real - those times are gone. The attitudes perhaps remain - it does not make the right.

I am not preaching, I have an opinion on it so decided to post. If you dont like it I respect your opinion on it also. Wont bother posting on this anymore if thats the response I get to a rational debate. Good luck!

LegacyUser

Thanks for all your replies, much appreciated! Sorry for causing any arguements! I work in the retail industry and as of lately it has become very quiet as many places have and I do love my job. I would ate to be one of those unfortunate people who are desperately searching for a job. I know I have said one Sunday a month but to be honest I don't even need that just the option of taking a few extra ones off fen without pay. I can't say much here without possibly been identified but my Sunday hours have been reduced lately so that will tell you it's quieter.

gozunda

chris85 wrote: »

I am not preaching, I have an opinion on it so decided to post. If you dont like it I respect your opinion on it also. Wont bother posting on this anymore if thats the response I get to a rational debate. Good luck!

Look again -nothing personal / am replying to another poster on what was written. Afraid I didn't see your last post. & didn't mention any preaching with regard to yourself tbh. Opinion is good but not when it is the same answer to every problem imo.

davo10

gozunda wrote: »

Oh deary me - no need for the abuse. Your the one quoting sector btw and included the 'may be's' in your analysis - take a look back.

At the end if the day you are making assumptions concerning the OPs situation. An employment contract at the end of the day is just that - a contact with rights and obligations on both sides. That said there is always a human element or at least there should be - the employee that goes that extra mile that stays in the emergency that undertakes extra responsibilities - that's where there will be give and take. Stick to the old rule of the rod and you quickly end up with a stupid situation that does the employer no good no matter what the minimum requirement of the law is. I am not advocating breaking 'any' law but treating people as humans and simply having a good working environment for employees. I know that does not always suit some stuck in the 1850s and still think of employees as akin to charity cases that are 'lucky' to have 'sir' as de boss. Get real. I thought We have has left that chapter behind us. But maybe I am being too hopeful in that regard.

Which law are you referring to here to back up your argument?, I'm referring to The Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 to back up mine.

gozunda

davo10 wrote: »

Which law are you referring to here to back up your argument?, I'm referring to The Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 to back up mine.

Read what I wrote I'm talking about a good working environment that allows for both employee and employer - is that a problem?

davo10

gozunda wrote: »

Read what I wrote I'm talking about a good working environment that allows for both employee and employer - is that a problem?

What you are spouting is misguided drivel and trying to pass it off as fact with a basis in employment law. Contracts/agreements do not have to be two way streets, they must be legal, they can be accepted or rejected by the employee at the time of offer but not after they have been agreed too. Stop with the fanciful rubbish gozunda, employment law is there to protect the rights of the employee, not to allow them to have the social life they would like to have. When you post about employee rights and bad employers, know the facts and the relevant legislation, otherwise you are just drawing out threads with inane posts.

gozunda

davo10 wrote: »

What you are spouting is misguided drivel and trying to pass it off as fact with a basis in employment law. Contracts/agreements do not have to be two way streets, they must be legal, they can be accepted or rejected by the employee at the time of offer but not after they have been agreed too. Stop with the fanciful rubbish gozunda, employment law is there to protect the rights of the employee, not to allow them to have the social life they would like to have. When you post about employee rights and bad employers, know the facts and the relevant legislation, otherwise you are just drawing out threads with inane posts.

Attempting to change the argument after the fact does not help your case. You quite clearly stated that the destitute should be happy with whatever's crumbs are thrown at them. An employment contract in an agreement in law that carries obligations on both parties. Don't know what type of contracts you have been using tbh. The law stands as it is but that does not prevent employers and employees allowing for more than the bare requirements that the law states. If you can't understand this and the reasons behind creating a good working environment then you are clearly cannot see the wood for the trees . BTW I made no mention is 'bad' employers here. I believe the discussion was more centred on the rule of the rod as indicated as by yourself as the logical answer to any employee asking for consideration within reason.
Personally what you give - you get back. Explains a lot imo.

davo10

gozunda wrote: »

Attempting to change the argument after the fact does not help your case. You quite clearly stated that the destitute should be happy with whatever's crumbs are thrown at them. An employment contract in an agreement in law that carries obligations on both parties. Don't know what type of contracts you have been using tbh. The law stands as it is but that does not prevent employers and employees allowing for more than the bare requirements that the law states. If you can't understand this and the reasons behind creating a good working environment then you are clearly cannot see the wood for the trees . BTW I made no mention is 'bad' employers here. I believe the discussion was more centred on the rule of the rod as indicated as by yourself as the logical answer to any employee asking for consideration within reason.
Personally what you give - you get back. Explains a lot imo.

More drivel, the OP asked what he is "entitled" to in his first post. His entitlements have their basis in the legislation mentioned above, simple as that gozunda. I think you are trolling.

gozunda

More drivel, the OP asked what he is "entitled" to in his first post. His entitlements have their basis in the legislation mentioned above, simple as that gozunda. I think you are trolling.

I may not agree with you but do at least try not to throw about such ridiculous abuse and 'allegations'....it does no one any favours.

Yes the OP did ask about employment practises and was given the 'don't rock the boat your lucky to have a job Mumbo jumbo'

You really do fail to see that the standard reply of ''me - I am a captain of industry providing help for the destitute' type attitude is distasteful and frankly ridiculous in any modern working environment.

Employment as stated has rights and obligations on both sides. This is rightly covered by employment law.

As to the mechainics - The employer requires an employee to undertake specific tasks / roles to help the running of their business. An employee brings their skills, time, hard work and commitment to the job at hand. Any 'their lucky to have a job' type attidute is demeaning and even where the law sets down the minimum conditiions of employment it does not follow that you must slways use the Scrooge School of employment practises . What is bloddy obvious is that you still don't get that as in all employment situations there is a necessary give and take on both sides and one attitude does will never fit all employee requests for work / life balance no matter how much you believe you are doing them a favour.

Mrs OBumble

gozunda wrote: »

Yes the OP did ask about employment practises and was given the 'don't rock the boat your lucky to have a job Mumbo jumbo'

Gozunda, the OP did not ask about employment practises. They asked about entitlements, saying

" am i actually entitled to get any more off? "


They also explained that their employer's contract / policies allow them to have four Sunday's off per year, which is well in excess of an legal minimum which might apply or most recommended good-employment practicses. (two weeks continuous leave applies in some situations, I believe).

It's fine to give replies based on how you think the world should operate -but you need to be 100% clear in such posts about the difference between reality and your ideal world.

tatli_lokma

Gozunda, something which is a pattern with your replies is that despite being well able to argue your point ad-nauseum re: workers rights and employer responsibilities, what you have yet to do on any thread you contribute to is give actual practical useful advice to the OP as to how to handle the situation they are in.

Standing on a soap box admonishing work practices and advocating better employee/employer relationships is all well and good. And we are all by now more than well aware of your opinions and stance on these issues as you have repeatedly provided us with them. I don't disagree with in theory on some of your points. But I am also prepared to see things from more than just my own perspective. Whilst I agree with you on many things theoretically, it is naive to think that the real world works in such an idealised manner.

But I would honestly now like to see you give some actual advice to people? How do you suggest they go about claiming their rights? what techniques to you advise for getting a manager to listen to you without threatening your job? No one disputes that threatening someone with loss of a job for complaining is dreadful behaviour from an employer, but in reality many people are faced with that dilemma.

The situation being what it is, and not what we would like it to be in an ideal world, how do you suggest an employee approaches a situation where their rights and entitlements are being denied? Or in this situation where the OP is unhappy with the conditions of their current employment - how do you suggest OP approaches the situation? should they discuss it with management? how would they start that conversation? what tips an you give for negotiating a new deal on their leave? I genuinely am interested in what advice you would give others as to how to deal with the situation.

gozunda

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Gozunda, the OP did not ask about employment practises. They asked about entitlements, saying

" am i actually entitled to get any more off? "


They also explained that their employer's contract / policies allow them to have four Sunday's off per year, which is well in excess of an legal minimum which might apply or most recommended good-employment practicses. (two weeks continuous leave applies in some situations, I believe).

It's fine to give replies based on how you think the world should operate -but you need to be 100% clear in such posts about the difference between reality and your ideal world.

What you have said is technically correct however the OP received at least one reply that used the old 'yer lucky to have a job' tirade. That is what I was pointing out that this is unhelpful and unfortunately is indicative of the some replies when employees pose a question about entitlements etc

On an aside - I have aslo noted the strange use of the collective 'we' that some posts include to indicate pecific interests - who btw is this 'we'?

By employment practises I mean that which is agreed between an employer and an employee that creates mutual benefit to both. This is quite common practice in many good companies and therefore is something that should be considered. Again I note that there are a number of rather archaic mindsets being voiced in relation to these issues. There is no reason for anyone to state 'yer lucky to have a job' type rubbish in reply to such a query imo.

tatli_lokma

gozunda wrote: »

What you have said is technically correct however the OP received at least one reply that used the old 'yer lucky to have a job' tirade. That is what I was pointing out that this is unhelpful and unfortunately is indicative of the some replies when employees pose a question about entitlements etc

On an aside - I have aslo noted the strange use of the collective 'we' that some posts include to indicate pecific interests - who btw is this 'we'?

By employment practises I mean that which is agreed between an employer and an employee that creates mutual benefit to both. This is quite common practice in many good companies and therefore is something that should be considered. Again I note that there are a number of rather archaic mindsets being voiced in relation to these issues. There is no reason for anyone to state 'yer lucky to have a job' type rubbish in reply to such a query imo.

so based on one person's reply which you had an objection to, yet again a whole thread has been derailed so that you can argue your point (one that we have heard numerous times at this stage).

There is none so blind as those who will not see.

grindle

gozunda wrote: »

On an aside - I have aslo noted the strange use of the collective 'we' that some posts include to indicate pecific interests - who btw is this 'we'?

You might want to do a 'Find in Page' for 'we'.

You are (by far, to an extreme) the leader of the pack for use of the collective 'we'.

Who, btw, is this 'we'?

gozunda

Little Ted wrote: »

so based on one person's reply which you had an objection to, yet again a whole thread has been derailed so that you can argue your point (one that we have heard numerous times at this stage).

There is none so blind as those who will not see.

Did it really take you so long & actually reading my previous posts to come to that conclusion? I usually dont use trite expresions but in reply - There are none so deaf as those who will not listen....

And btw I have seen your own point argued ( one 'we' have heard again and again ...) perhaps you should take a good review of the That. I do not suggest however that you don't continue to do so - that's what a discussion entails - however that does mean giving others the same consideration.

tatli_lokma

still waiting to hear some actual useful proactive advice from you? or have you chosen to ignore that post I made?

When I say 'we' I mean the other posters. In particular on this thread I mean Chris85, davo10, Mrs Obumble and myself. (If I include you in the 'we' incorrectly please do say so) and on other threads I am sure amdublin, procrastastudy and others would be part of that we.

And IMO you are no longer 'discussing' anything, you are preaching and lecturing and yet not giving any advice. Generally this forum is to give advice and guidance to others, not just to hijack every thread into an opportunity to push your own agenda. Where is the advice you have given? Personally I have yet to see any useful advice given by your good self.

gozunda

Little Ted wrote: »

still waiting to hear some actual useful proactive advice from you? or have you chosen to ignore that post I made?

When I say 'we' I mean the other posters. In particular on this thread I mean Chris85, davo10, Mrs Obumble and myself. (If I include you in the 'we' incorrectly please do say so) and on other threads I am sure amdublin, procrastastudy and others would be part of that we.

And IMO you are no longer 'discussing' anything, you are preaching and lecturing and yet not giving any advice. Generally this forum is to give advice and guidance to others, not just to hijack every thread into an opportunity to push your own agenda. Where is the advice you have given? Personally I have yet to see any useful advice given by your good self.

You may not like hearing any voice of 'dissent' from the collective but I will continue if possible to reply to matters a) of interest and b) by reason of omission or other derogation merit comment. as in the case of the regular bellowing at all and Sundry that they ought to keeps heads down and say nowt...

You may not like it, you may disagree with it however that does not put you in the right.
The Barraging of those who seek advice with doom and gloom and sometimes one sided opinion does not make for a fair or balanced discussion. Neither does casting insult at any who dares to differ.


There is advice and then their is advice - unfortunately the two don't always marry well.

tatli_lokma

gozunda wrote: »

You may not like hearing any voice of 'dissent' from the collective but I will continue if possible to reply to matters a) of interest and b) by reason of omission or other derogation merit comment. as in the case of the regular bellowing at all and Sundry that they ought to keeps heads down and say nowt...
You may not like it, you may disagree with it however that does not put you in the right.

I think you will find that I acknowledged that some of your points have merit and on some points I do agree with you that in an ideal world this is how it would work.

gozunda wrote: »

The Barraging of those who seek advice with doom and gloom and sometimes one sided opinion does not make for a fair or balanced discussion. Neither does casting insult at any who dares to differ.

where did I barrage with doom and gloom? In your world does realism equal doom and gloom? and here's a mad idea...for some people out there reality is doom and gloom and they are looking for helpful advice on how to deal with the gloomy situation they are in. We can't always be giving sweetness and light 'ah don't worry, it'll be grand, grab your coat and walk out, you deserve better'. When people have bills to pay they have to work within the system they find themselves in - even if that system is wrong. You don't give any useful advice to anyone as to how to fix the system from inside or stand up for yourself whilst protecting your job.

Nor did I insult you, to the best of my knowledge.

There is advice and then their is advice - unfortunately the two don't always marry well.

yes you're right - unfortunately you do not seem interested in giving either form of advice. All you want to do is preach.
There is advice, and then there is waffling on from a soapbox and giving no useful assistance to anyone.

Mrs OBumble

gozunda wrote: »

You may not like hearing any voice of 'dissent' from the collective but I will continue if possible to reply to matters a) of interest and b) by reason of omission or other derogation merit comment. as in the case of the regular bellowing at all and Sundry that they ought to keeps heads down and say nowt...

...

Neither does casting insult at any who dares to differ.

There is advice and then their is advice - unfortunately the two don't always marry well.

Gozunda, I have a reasonably wide vocabulary. So when people start using jargon ("derogation") that I don't understand, it always makes me wonder where exactly they're coming from, and how useful their input really is. Can you please tell us what your background / perspective is - are you currently, and have you been:

An employee?
A union delegate / shop-steward?
A trade union official?
A student in the HR area?
An academic in the HR area?
A manager?
A business owner?

How much experience do you have in actual workplaces? What sort of workplaces?


Also, fyi, in terms of insults / moderation, my approach is:

"you are rubbish" - is insulting / uncivil, and not acceptable behaviour here
"you are spouting rubbish" - is about the comments not the person, so is generally acceptable, unless the comments blatently are not rubbish.

gozunda

yes you're right - unfortunately you do not seem interested in giving either form of advice. All you want to do is preach.
There is advice, and then there is waffling on from a soapbox and giving no useful assistance to anyone.

....It would appear that you did not take in a single item of the last post. What you have said there is your opinion

Rather than viewing this as a class for self appreciation and clapping oneself on the back for dispensing 'advice' (which tbh may not be for the best interest of the individual especially where there is an inherent bias.) try and look at the issue objectively. Yes do certainly give such 'advice' and there I can put my hand up too! However It does not mean your advice is either gospel or that the way that it is put forward should go without comment. If you think that any critique is preaching then you have the wrong hymn book. You are in fact doing exactly what you have accused me of -preaching - especially Where no one else is allowed to comment on what is said. That may work for an individual in their role as a manager but here everyone has the opportunity to include their own views. If it does not suit your world view - well I can't help you there tbh

gozunda

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Gozunda, I have a reasonably wide vocabulary. So when people start using jargon ("derogation") that I don't understand, it always makes me wonder where exactly they're coming from, and how useful their input really is. Can you please tell us what your background / perspective is - are you currently, and have you been:

TBH I dont know that anyone should ever have to explain the (polite) use of the English language. Derogation is not jargon btw - it is a word that I am quite familiar with and hence use. The sentence was in context. I apologise if this was not understood.

As for my background etc I refer to the Boards Privacy statement on
Information posted. (See PM)

What I have posted may not be seen as towing specific party lines and whilst there are those who do like this I can only give my honest opinion in such matters. That is all.

davo10

gozunda wrote: »

TBH I dont know that anyone should ever have to explain the (polite) use of the English language. Derogation is not jargon btw - it is a word that I am quite familiar with and hence use. The sentence was in context. I apologise if this was not understood.

As for my background etc I refer to the Boards Privacy statement on
Information posted. (See PM)

What I have posted may not be seen as towing specific party lines and whilst there are those who do like this I can only give my honest opinion in such matters. That is all.

Still waiting on that relevant advice and legislation to back it up.

Here's a word for you gozunda, "obfuscation", its a favoured tactic of bluffers.

gozunda

davo10 wrote: »

Still waiting on that relevant advice and legislation to back it up.

Here's a word for you gozunda, "obfuscation", its a favoured tactic of bluffers.

So you still dont like anyone making comments on your "advice" No? sorry I really cant help you there. Dont like discussion? Ditto

Again if you cannot at least be polite - dont bother.

davo10

caughtinatrap1 wrote: »

Hi,
i currently work every sunday and bank holiday and i am allowed 4 sundays off per year, am i actually entitled to get any more off? i requested 1 sunday a month off before and was told no. and before someone has a go, i know i am lucky to have a job but i also would like a bit of a life.

Ok gozunda, here is the OP as you appear to have lost track of the questions asked, now what exactly in your opinion is the answer to his questions and what would you advise OP to do now that it is confirmed that he works in retail?

gozunda

davo10 wrote: »

Ok gozunda, here is the OP as you appear to have lost track of the questions asked, now what exactly in your opinion is the answer to his questions and what would you advise OP to do now that it is confirmed that he works in retail?

I will refer you to my last reply. You haven't answered that yet. Thanks.

tatli_lokma

I have to give it to you gozunda, your skill at evading the issue and dodging the question asked is unrivalled. I don't think I have encountered such a skilled troll in a long time. Kudos to you for that.

On the basis of others sound advice I'll leave you to it - well that and also the fact you are boring me now.

gozunda

Little Ted wrote: »

I have to give it to you gozunda, your skill at evading the issue and dodging the question asked is unrivalled. I don't think I have encountered such a skilled troll in a long time. Kudos to you for that.

On the basis of others sound advice I'll leave you to it - well that and also the fact you are boring me now.

More abuse because I have commented on what has been said? Well I can't help you there I'm afraid and all i can say is best of luck with that.

I hope the OP has a good outcome regarding the issue posted.

davo10

gozunda wrote: »

I will refer you to my last reply. You haven't answered that yet. Thanks.

Just as I thought, you are unable to formulate a response to a direct question, not my question by the way, the important one, the OPs question about entitlements. You are a troll, plain and simple, you have wasted everyone's time, most of all the OPs.

Mrs OBumble

Alright, enough.

The OP has had an answer, maybe not quite the one they hoped for, but enough to get the general drift.

This thread isn't going anywhere, so I'm closing it.

And I'd like to offer us all (including myself) one reminder: don't feed the trolls, it just encourages them.