Another Bank Holiday Question, Don't moan, read on.....

[steven87gill]

And before you say anything, i .know. how employment recognises bank holidays.

i.e It doesn't

To follow on from this response......

'Public holidays have no significance whatsoever in employment law. they're 'just another day'.

Then why do they exist in the first place? Isn't it a tad insulting to the workers (mostly in retail, although there are others) who have to work it.

I'm not being provocative here, it's a genuine question, unless we're going to have a law that says all private business (save for a few vital public services) must close on bank holidays, then why not get rid of them and just increase minimum holiday entitlement to 8 weeks.

[steven87gill]

Thanks for all the responses guys considering this is just my first post!!!

8 weeks isn't as much as it sounds, but i'm a fair man, i'll setlle for 6 :)

Just to clarify, your annual holiday entitlement is worked out by multiplying the number of days you work by 5.6, so you work 2 days a week you get 11.2 days leave, if you work 4 a week, it would be 22.4 and so on. And 5.6 weeks seems like a weird figure to have anyway.

It just seems silly to me for public holidays to be recognised as such, if not everyone is automatically entitled to the day off then it isn't .really. a public holiday then surely.

From a personal standpoint, i'd actually go for the cannot trade during bank holiday option, vital public services would be allowed to function, but staff who worked it would get a day off in lieu. I'm sure there a there a greater economic minds on here than me who think that's a ridiculous, nannying and anti business thing to do, but hey ho, agree to disagree and all that :)

[Buenchico]

It sounds good in theory but it could make for some boring bank holidays. If only staff working in essential public services could be at work, that would mean that (on, say, a rare sunny August Bank Holiday) a trip to the seaside would have to be without any ice creams, fun fair rides, meals in restaurants, drinks in pubs or shows in theatres. Indeed, unless public transport was designated as an essential public service, those without cars wouldn't even be able to go to the seaside.

Similarly, a day spent on DIY or gardening would have to be planned in advance, since it would be impossible to buy wallpaper paste or potting compost on the day.

The multiplier of 5.6, which you refer to, was chosen for a specific reason. Under the original rules, employees were entitled to 4 x the number of days they worked each week as their annual holiday entitlement. Some employers took that as excluding public holidays (or days in lieu of public holidays) and gave their employees (who worked 5 days per week) 28 days paid leave. Others took that as including such days, and only gave their employees only 20 days. In order to provide conformity, the rule was changed (in two stages) to 5.6 x the number of days worked each week (but with the stipulation that public holidays, or days in lieu, were included), thus ensuring that all '5 day' workers got 28 days holiday per year. The entitlement was also capped, so that people who work 6 days per week still only get 28 days statutory holiday entitlement.

Chris

[steven87gill]

BTW

I not .that. delusional and i don't .actually. think that's ever going to happen though, so i'll stick with the more annual leave option (but one can dream!)

[steven87gill]

BTW Thanks for the response, the explanation for 5.6 weeks is genuinely interesting.