Jump to content

Annual Leave


Tarne
 Share

Recommended Posts

My post is the cold, hard reality of employment. A business works under fixed costs (rent primarily, those costs that are pretty constant regardless of revenue) and variable costs that are directly linked to revenue. You can't do much about the fixed element but you have to tinker with the variable to maximise revenue, contribution to the fixed overhead and produce a profit. The biggest variable cost is labour, so you have the up and down factor slide within that element to cover costs and produce a profit.

 

So, the net effect is more holidays, pension contribution etc. = less pay in the pocket so, overall, the cost is the same.

 

That is the reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My post is the cold, hard reality of employment. A business works under fixed costs (rent primarily, those costs that are pretty constant regardless of revenue) and variable costs that are directly linked to revenue. You can't do much about the fixed element but you have to tinker with the variable to maximise revenue, contribution to the fixed overhead and produce a profit. The biggest variable cost is labour, so you have the up and down factor slide within that element to cover costs and produce a profit.

 

So, the net effect is more holidays, pension contribution etc. = less pay in the pocket so, overall, the cost is the same.

 

That is the reality.

That is what is sad!

People are not a commodity and society is going backwards whilst employers still think they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When working for someone else, I've enjoyed the entitlement to paid leave. Now that I'm self-employed again, I'm not entitled to anything (and my employer is a real prick about benefits).

 

But when you think about it, why should ANY employer have to pay people to sit on a beach (or whatever). I understand that workers probably need time off (I've had about 5 days total in three years) and a happy workforce is possibly more productive (although I remain to be convinced). But - and this is only a bit of lateral thinking and hoping for a debate rather than a position - isn't there a disconnect between paying someone to work and also having to pay them NOT to?

 

Maybe the question is: shouldn't the income tax/N.I. formula be changed so that those who benefit from paid leave (the employees) are the ones to actually pay for it somehow? Removing the burden from employers would make businesses profitable (thus paying more taxes) and may also reduce unemployment.

 

 

Or, how about an employer looks at the total annual cost of someone, including holiday, versus the value to the business. Within that total amount the employer slides up and down the various elements to present a package.

Yes, why not turn the clock back 50 years on employment rights whilst you're at it.

Employment has gone mad this last few years, with thousands on zero hours, part time jobs on the up and job security down to almost zero.

The world has gone mad and employers hold most of the aces.

I sort of agree with new and up and coming businesses paying lower wages to get established and getting a foothold in the "market", but I saw an ad. today on the Gov. website for cleaners for one of the Island's largest employers, paying minimum wage.

WTF is that about? Is this a trend now, paying the least that can be got away with?

Very sad.

 

 

There are certain skillsets that are valuable to an employer - a great salesman usually generates many times his salary. A rocket scientist or brain surgeon is highly educated and has endured years of training to be able to do those jobs. People on minimum wage are being paid what they're worth because they have limited skills which are widely available. I was on less than minimum wage (if it existed then) 15 years ago when the only work I could find quickly was driving a taxi. This ersatz class war you seem to believe in where employers are all greedy overpaid fat cats and employees are underpaid, hard working and dedicated is not the reality in most of the small businesses I've ever been involved in. It's the owner going without weekends, holidays and pay, not the employee. A business (despite all the CSR bull and facile 'mission statements') is there primarily to make money. Offering a product or service and looking after customers is way down the list of priorities after that. An employee is a leased asset just like a photocopier or computer network. If somebody doesn't like making minimum wage, they simply need to work better, harder or longer - the responsibility lies with them to improve their lot, not their employer.

 

 

says the owner of a probably near minimum wage paying coffee outlet

1 cup of coffee = near an hours wage for 1 employee

 

 

We employ 2 people on a competitive wage and a part-timer. The part-timer has made vastly more out of the business over the last 2 years than either of the owners (who also work evenings and weekends and hold down other jobs) and has had paid holidays which we haven't. And we've also still got our life savings invested in the business. A cup of coffee is less than £3 which isn't half what we pay any member of staff, then you've got expensive rent, energy, stock, staff, taxes, rates, professional fees and all the rest of it. So please wake up, smell the coffee, think for once in your lives and forget the notion that it's easy money selling posh coffee.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When working for someone else, I've enjoyed the entitlement to paid leave. Now that I'm self-employed again, I'm not entitled to anything (and my employer is a real prick about benefits).

 

But when you think about it, why should ANY employer have to pay people to sit on a beach (or whatever). I understand that workers probably need time off (I've had about 5 days total in three years) and a happy workforce is possibly more productive (although I remain to be convinced). But - and this is only a bit of lateral thinking and hoping for a debate rather than a position - isn't there a disconnect between paying someone to work and also having to pay them NOT to?

 

Maybe the question is: shouldn't the income tax/N.I. formula be changed so that those who benefit from paid leave (the employees) are the ones to actually pay for it somehow? Removing the burden from employers would make businesses profitable (thus paying more taxes) and may also reduce unemployment.

 

Stu, there's a thing called Work Life Balance and it's bloody important. Letting people slave for you without mercy won't necessarily bring you the desired profitability. The way you treat your staff defines your company and its success and your above post is somewhat troll like, which is unusual for you. Are you ok? :) FWIW, you'd probably get a heart attack if you saw how some Asian companies operate. A lot of work, but also a very family like atmosphere, and everyone is part of the success if it all works out. Happy staff means a healthy company. Staff who feel the company doesn't give a shit about them and even wants them to pay for their own holidays in some way won't be very good for your business. Victorian times are over.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

When working for someone else, I've enjoyed the entitlement to paid leave. Now that I'm self-employed again, I'm not entitled to anything (and my employer is a real prick about benefits).

 

But when you think about it, why should ANY employer have to pay people to sit on a beach (or whatever). I understand that workers probably need time off (I've had about 5 days total in three years) and a happy workforce is possibly more productive (although I remain to be convinced). But - and this is only a bit of lateral thinking and hoping for a debate rather than a position - isn't there a disconnect between paying someone to work and also having to pay them NOT to?

 

Maybe the question is: shouldn't the income tax/N.I. formula be changed so that those who benefit from paid leave (the employees) are the ones to actually pay for it somehow? Removing the burden from employers would make businesses profitable (thus paying more taxes) and may also reduce unemployment.

Or, how about an employer looks at the total annual cost of someone, including holiday, versus the value to the business. Within that total amount the employer slides up and down the various elements to present a package.

Yes, why not turn the clock back 50 years on employment rights whilst you're at it.

Employment has gone mad this last few years, with thousands on zero hours, part time jobs on the up and job security down to almost zero.

The world has gone mad and employers hold most of the aces.

I sort of agree with new and up and coming businesses paying lower wages to get established and getting a foothold in the "market", but I saw an ad. today on the Gov. website for cleaners for one of the Island's largest employers, paying minimum wage.

WTF is that about? Is this a trend now, paying the least that can be got away with?

Very sad.

There are certain skillsets that are valuable to an employer - a great salesman usually generates many times his salary. A rocket scientist or brain surgeon is highly educated and has endured years of training to be able to do those jobs. People on minimum wage are being paid what they're worth because they have limited skills which are widely available. I was on less than minimum wage (if it existed then) 15 years ago when the only work I could find quickly was driving a taxi. This ersatz class war you seem to believe in where employers are all greedy overpaid fat cats and employees are underpaid, hard working and dedicated is not the reality in most of the small businesses I've ever been involved in. It's the owner going without weekends, holidays and pay, not the employee. A business (despite all the CSR bull and facile 'mission statements') is there primarily to make money. Offering a product or service and looking after customers is way down the list of priorities after that. An employee is a leased asset just like a photocopier or computer network. If somebody doesn't like making minimum wage, they simply need to work better, harder or longer - the responsibility lies with them to improve their lot, not their employer.

 

says the owner of a probably near minimum wage paying coffee outlet

1 cup of coffee = near an hours wage for 1 employee

We employ 2 people on a competitive wage and a part-timer. The part-timer has made vastly more out of the business over the last 2 years than either of the owners (who also work evenings and weekends and hold down other jobs) and has had paid holidays which we haven't. And we've also still got our life savings invested in the business. A cup of coffee is less than £3 which isn't half what we pay any member of staff, then you've got expensive rent, energy, stock, staff, taxes, rates, professional fees and all the rest of it. So please wake up, smell the coffee, think for once in your lives and forget the notion that it's easy money selling posh coffee.

Well that's the line of business you decided to go in to, just because you don't get much time off doesn't mean everyone else is the same! To be honest stu, id say you've had more time of than you say you have! And why should it be easy money selling coffee? If you ask me I can't understand why people use coffee shops like yours, extortionate prices, for fancy coffees, give me a home brew any day of the week, no disrespect Edited by yee haa yessir!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

My post is the cold, hard reality of employment. A business works under fixed costs (rent primarily, those costs that are pretty constant regardless of revenue) and variable costs that are directly linked to revenue. You can't do much about the fixed element but you have to tinker with the variable to maximise revenue, contribution to the fixed overhead and produce a profit. The biggest variable cost is labour, so you have the up and down factor slide within that element to cover costs and produce a profit.

 

So, the net effect is more holidays, pension contribution etc. = less pay in the pocket so, overall, the cost is the same.

 

That is the reality.

That is what is sad!

People are not a commodity and society is going backwards whilst employers still think they are.

Why is it sad, necessarily? Just because an employer takes an analytical approach to how they structure their business (and most would because the business has to work) doesn't mean they are heartless bastards just that the economics of the business have to stack up or everyone is out of a job.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm currently entitled to 16 days holiday, that excludes bank holidays, which in reality means I'll probably have around 21 as I have to work some bank holidays. I really can't imagine having 28 days holiday excluding bank holidays that is just nuts, basically you only work for 11 months of the year!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stu Peters, on 14 Apr 2015 - 10:01 PM, said:

 

When working for someone else, I've enjoyed the entitlement to paid leave. Now that I'm self-employed again, I'm not entitled to anything (and my employer is a real prick about benefits).

 

Stu, you don't seem to know whether you are employed or self-employed.

 

If your "employer is a real prick about benefits", is that in relation to you as a self-employed person? If so, surely you are not entitled to any benefits they may or may not give to employees. If you are truly self-employed, you do not have an "employer".

 

As a self-employed person, taking time off for holidays is a matter for you to sort out yourself, and you should factor in some non-working time for the benefit of your health and well being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your "employer is a real prick about benefits", is that in relation to you as a self-employed person? If so, surely you are not entitled to any benefits they may or may not give to employees. If you are truly self-employed, you do not have an "employer".

We have an early winner in the "Completely missing the joke" category for the forum this year I see.

 

On topic, I struggle to use the holidays I get. I already had to seek permission to carry over more than I was supposed to last year and I've not taken a day off so far this year so I've basically had to stick a pin in a calendar and take random weeks off here and there. I certainly don't want any more, I don't have the option to take the pay for them so they'd just go to waste.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When working for someone else, I've enjoyed the entitlement to paid leave. Now that I'm self-employed again, I'm not entitled to anything (and my employer is a real prick about benefits).

 

Annual leave up to a certain number of days is a legal right, not a "benefit".

 

But when you think about it, why should ANY employer have to pay people to sit on a beach (or whatever). I understand that workers probably need time off (I've had about 5 days total in three years) and a happy workforce is possibly more productive (although I remain to be convinced). But - and this is only a bit of lateral thinking and hoping for a debate rather than a position - isn't there a disconnect between paying someone to work and also having to pay them NOT to?

 

Why? Because the law says so. Are employers outside of the law? No. Workers don't just "need" time off; they have a right to time off. You speak in terms of necessity and utilitarianism, how it relates to the best interest of the company, but the reason why people don't work 24/7/365 is because human beings don't exist purely to facilitate the profit motive of private enterprise. Human beings are also individuals whose lives have value and meaning outside of capitalist utility. They are also social beings who build families which together make up a society. Businesses exist because of society. Businesses therefore have a social contract to allow their employees time to exist as individuals and as social beings. You speak as if "workers" are grown in a petri dish and only exist for the purpose of working for people like you. It's the other way around - businesses exist to serve society.

 

That being said, annual leave entitlement is also a way to attract the best quality workers. You can't expect to constantly have a one-way situation where the employer sets the conditions and workers are desperate so have to accept what they're offered; you have to compromise in order to attract and retain good quality workers, because while there is competition between workers, there is also competition between employers - although I can understand how that wouldn't apply to low paid coffee shop workers where you can take advantage of low skilled workers who are stuck around the minimum wage salary range. But if you want the best lawyers, accountants, architects, engineers, teachers, doctors, you must compromise.

 

Maybe the question is: shouldn't the income tax/N.I. formula be changed so that those who benefit from paid leave (the employees) are the ones to actually pay for it somehow? Removing the burden from employers would make businesses profitable (thus paying more taxes) and may also reduce unemployment.

 

Are you trolling or serious? You seem to assume workers exist only to serve business interests. You seem to assume that business profitability has a priority over individual and social interests. Like it or lump it, businesses exist because of society; they have an inherent social contract, and part of that social contract includes allowing their employees time outside of the business to be individuals and to be part of a society which transcends myopic business interests. Anyway, annual leave entitlement is factored into your yearly renumeration so everything you have said in the quoted bit above is meaningless. There is no burdon on the employer, beyond the agreed upon salary and terms of employment.

 

Thank you TJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You work for half your life, 5/7ths of a week.

 

In a day you work a 3rd of a day, sleep a 3rd and live a 3rd.

 

Out of a wage, you save a 3rd, spend a 3rd on a roof and lodgings and live on a 3rd.

 

You pay tax, up to a 5th of what you earn over what they think you need to exist, national insurance, pay to get to work, pay to get home, pay to maintain yourself so you can work.

 

You pay to have an income when you finish working for half your life.

 

You pay for those less fortunate and for those who cannot be bothered.

 

..and they only let you have 1/12th of a year off.

 

#bastards.

😊

Edited by x-in-man
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are certain skillsets that are valuable to an employer - a great salesman usually generates many times his salary. A rocket scientist or brain surgeon is highly educated and has endured years of training to be able to do those jobs. People on minimum wage are being paid what they're worth because they have limited skills which are widely available. I was on less than minimum wage (if it existed then) 15 years ago when the only work I could find quickly was driving a taxi. This ersatz class war you seem to believe in where employers are all greedy overpaid fat cats and employees are underpaid, hard working and dedicated is not the reality in most of the small businesses I've ever been involved in. It's the owner going without weekends, holidays and pay, not the employee. A business (despite all the CSR bull and facile 'mission statements') is there primarily to make money. Offering a product or service and looking after customers is way down the list of priorities after that. An employee is a leased asset just like a photocopier or computer network. If somebody doesn't like making minimum wage, they simply need to work better, harder or longer - the responsibility lies with them to improve their lot, not their employer.

 

 

Stu, you do realise even the most "unskilled" person has spent at least 11 years of their life in public education? Selling coffee is a skill. Coffee salespeople can have "assets". For example, a nice young lady who is "well endowed" could bring in more customers and she should be adequately compensated because she's contributing to your market share. Someone who is nice and friendly to the customers is likewise doing the same. If I found staff unfriendly, I wouldn't go to a shop. Stu, you talk about responsibility to improve their lot - you need to stop thinking in an employer/empeloyee sense and realise you're talking about human beings. They are not a resource to be exploited, they are part of a society, a society which enables your company to exist in the first place. You have a social contract which comes with responsibilities.

 

 

 

 

We employ 2 people on a competitive wage and a part-timer. The part-timer has made vastly more out of the business over the last 2 years than either of the owners (who also work evenings and weekends and hold down other jobs) and has had paid holidays which we haven't. And we've also still got our life savings invested in the business. A cup of coffee is less than £3 which isn't half what we pay any member of staff, then you've got expensive rent, energy, stock, staff, taxes, rates, professional fees and all the rest of it. So please wake up, smell the coffee, think for once in your lives and forget the notion that it's easy money selling posh coffee.

 

 

When you say "competitive wage", what does that mean? Competitive for you? Or competitive for them? Do you mean it's low, because there's competition for jobs; or do you mean it's high, because there's competition among employers to employ the right people? Say what you want about your coffee and the price, but I'll never buy one unless you start using Manx milk again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Coffee salespeople can have "assets". For example, a nice young lady who is "well endowed" could bring in more customers and she should be adequately compensated because she's contributing to your market share.

 

Ah, this explains why Mr K enjoys meeting me for a coffee at the sea terminal Costa flowers.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...