[James Malloch]

This isn’t impacting myself but a friend’s work are enforcing a policy which seems a bit draconian. I wondered if anyone knew the legalities (though I’m assuming it’s all above board due to the size of the company...).

Employees are being forced to take annual leave (I think c.10 days) which, whilst annoying, is all above board and makes sense.

People who have holidays booked in already have to keep these booked. Again this makes sense.

What seems wrong is that you must take the 10 additional days on top of those you already have booked. And, if this exceeds your annual entitlement, instead of being allowed to cancel a few, days are being taken away from next year’s leave entitlement.

So if you get 20 days holiday a year, have 15 booked already, then forced to take 10 you’ve used more up than you have. Therefore you only have 15 left for next year...

Seems very unfair, and wrong - morally if not legally... It’s really been winding me up so thought I would see if anyone knew if it was even allowed.

[Coops_13]

That sounds outrageous, it isn't an American company is it?

I've cancelled one week of planned holiday so far (and will likely be cancelling another shortly)...

[Ru]

I'm not an employment lawyer, but this seems like a decent blog post on the subject:

https://www.clydeco.com/blog/the-hive/article/covid-19-employment-update-on-employee-holiday-issues

[Yossarian]

That happened to quite a few of my wife’s colleagues, and TBH I thought it was pretty reasonable considering...

In comparison, they offered her furlough with a 50% pay cut on returning. When she asked for some time to think about it, they just sacked her. She’d been there less than 2 years so obvs that was fine.

She was EA to an insanely wealthy guy - the company was a boutique law firm.

[spidermonkey09]

Sounds like bollocks. Its probably legal but its definitely a shitty way to treat staff.

I am currently furloughed and had wondered how this affects my holiday entitlement; thanks for the link Ru. Looks like I can probably accrue mine as normal and carry it over the next few years if required...unlikely as I suspect, like most, I will be booking a holiday as soon as I am able!

[Will Hunt]

In comparison, they offered her furlough with a 50% pay cut on returning. When she asked for some time to think about it, they just sacked her. She’d been there less than 2 years so obvs that was fine.

She was EA to an insanely wealthy guy - the company was a boutique law firm.

I work in a utility that, despite the usual gripes that people often have about their employers, is pretty good. Whenever I peep through the curtains at the whirling hellscape that is employment in the world outside, I quickly shut the curtains and put the kettle on.

[Camo]

Sounds like bollocks. Its probably legal but its definitely a shitty way to treat staff.

Exactly. Pisses me off when big companies take advantage of the law and give their staff the shitty end of the stick. Just because they can doesn’t mean they should.

[SA Chris]

We've been told we need to use a a certain amount of holiday by certain points of the year, have to take public holidays instead of them being added to annual leave, and taken a paycut. Given the current state of oil industry i'm happy to be working.

Sounds like JM and Yoss's wife are being stitched up.

[abarro81]

From a trustworthy expert: LOTS of questions wrapped up in this, not straightforward, you would need advice specific to the details of the situation, if they're on furlough it comes with all sorts of other questions. If it takes you below 5.6 weeks (statutory) for the following leave year there's probably legitimate grounds to question it. If it wouldn't take you below statutory for the next year then you're probably at their mercy. Apparently ACAS has a helpline which may be useful...

[T_B]

Sounds like bollocks. Its probably legal but its definitely a shitty way to treat staff.

Exactly. Pisses me off when big companies take advantage of the law and give their staff the shitty end of the stick. Just because they can doesn’t mean they should.

Don’t work for them then? I’m sure there are benefits in the good times that people are happy to enjoy.

It’s so easy to knock big companies but for many people they offer a career path and opportunities.

[gme]

Whether it’s legal or not suggest it won’t be look on very well if employees take all there holidays as soon as we are allowed with no consideration for there employer.
Most companies have taken a tight kicking from this and people need to realise that. All in it together needs to be the same when stuff gets going again.
We are really flexible with holidays and it really pisses me off if that isn’t reciprocal.

[James Malloch]

Thanks for the responses - I’ll have a look into the links and the ACAS.

And coops - yes it’s a big American company I believe.

Luckily it isn’t me (I work elsewhere - likely to be out of work soon in a few months but that’s the risk you take contracting). Really shit for your wife, Yoss, sorry to hear that!

GME - I completely agree that employees need to take the impact this is having on their employer into account. I’m completely cool with the idea of forced holidays etc. What I think is a massive dick move is that for those unlucky enough to have book holidays already later in the year are now facing having much less holiday entitlement next year than their colleagues who didn’t. People are going to burn out next year if they’ve not got the ability to take leave.

[spidermonkey09]

Sounds like bollocks. Its probably legal but its definitely a shitty way to treat staff.

Exactly. Pisses me off when big companies take advantage of the law and give their staff the shitty end of the stick. Just because they can doesn’t mean they should.

Don’t work for them then? I’m sure there are benefits in the good times that people are happy to enjoy.

It’s so easy to knock big companies but for many people they offer a career path and opportunities.

Offering a career path and opportunities is not justification for acting like a twat at other times though is it? No reason why a sensible conversation couldn't be had to avoid the scenario GME mentions. Or allow the employees to spread the leave they have accrued over the next few years. Forcing them to take any is poor. Forcing them to take next year's is the behaviour of wankers.

As GME said its all about reciprocity. Unilaterally imposing forced leave is not a good start is it?

[Camo]

Don’t work for them then? I’m sure there are benefits in the good times that people are happy to enjoy.

It’s so easy to knock big companies but for many people they offer a career path and opportunities.

I don’t. I have never worked for a large company - only ever small, often family run business. So I haven’t experienced forced leave or anything like that.

Still despite it not being ‘my’ problem it isn’t nice to see mates and people in general being mugged off by corporate giants.

Edit for typo

[T_B]

Edit.

[Paul B]

Sounds like bollocks. Its probably legal but its definitely a shitty way to treat staff.

Exactly. Pisses me off when big companies take advantage of the law and give their staff the shitty end of the stick. Just because they can doesn’t mean they should.

Don’t work for them then? I’m sure there are benefits in the good times that people are happy to enjoy.

It’s so easy to knock big companies but for many people they offer a career path and opportunities.

Offering a career path and opportunities is not justification for acting like a twat at other times though is it? No reason why a sensible conversation couldn't be had to avoid the scenario GME mentions. Or allow the employees to spread the leave they have accrued over the next few years. Forcing them to take any is poor. Forcing them to take next year's is the behaviour of wankers.

As GME said its all about reciprocity. Unilaterally imposing forced leave is not a good start is it?

What if it protects the bloke you sit next to from losing their job?

My former employer did something recently where they asked everyone to accept 80% of their salary before they would decide who was getting furloughed.

At the time I thought this was pretty unreasonable but then chatted to a friend/ex-colleague who has his head screwed firmly on (and who, with plenty of kids and living in an expensive city will feel the effects of this). The initial cut was due to overhead recovery (all that additional stuff like pensions etc.; for a company with a decent benefits package, overhead is/was quite significant) which is something that I hadn't considered and also to try and minimise how many staff members needed to be furloughed. At this point its a trust thing in that you're believing they won't then furlough you thereby putting you on a MUCH reduced income.

Their dick move was sending an email around saying "if you haven't accepted by Fri we're going to assume you've accepted" upon which they have previous form. 

[Falling Down]

We’ve encouraged everyone to take holiday during lockdown and to try and use half of our annual allowance before the end of June.  We’re very flexible with hols and will give people the option to not do that if they have good reason. 

As a consultancy business, our revenue depends upon people working for clients so it would kill us if everyone saved their holiday and then took three weeks off as soon as lock-down restrictions were eased.

I took a couple of days leave and didn’t realise how much I actually needed the time off from the intensity of the day job.

I’ll be taking a full week in May and intend to spend it sitting in the backyard with books and a well stocked beer fridge.

[spidermonkey09]

I was asked to accept a 1/3 pay cut as soon as the crisis hit before being furloughed, which obviously reduced the cut to 20%. I reluctantly accepted it for precisely the reasons you describe, but to be honest I don't see that forcing people to take holiday is motivated by a lot other than companies trying to pull a fast one on their staff. A better solution would have been to send an email around explaining that obviously they can't have everyone taking holiday at the same time and stating how many can be off at any one time. This is how it works where I work; I can't be off at the same time as the people in my team so if they already have a week off, I can't go on holiday that week. Seems fair to me!

FD; I suppose it depends how you define a holiday! What you describe sounds nice, don't get me wrong, but I would object to being forced to do it. Also I'm not proposing a free for all which could result in what you describe; I think there is room for a more nuanced approach.

[tomtom]

I took a couple of days leave and didn’t realise how much I actually needed the time off from the intensity of the day job.

I’ll be taking a full week in May and intend to spend it sitting in the backyard with books and a well stocked beer fridge.

That sounds heavenly!

For us - it means that whoever is on holiday then does all the childcare and the other can catch up with their work backlog :D

Today is my work day!! Its LIKE A HOLIDAY!! Time for another zim zam zoom........

(I have attended at least two meetings with video and audio muted doing problems on the board :D)

[Paul B]

I was asked to accept a 1/3 pay cut as soon as the crisis hit before being furloughed, which obviously reduced the cut to 20%. I reluctantly accepted it for precisely the reasons you describe, but to be honest I don't see that forcing people to take holiday is motivated by a lot other than companies trying to pull a fast one on their staff. A better solution would have been to send an email around explaining that obviously they can't have everyone taking holiday at the same time and stating how many can be off at any one time.

But at any point in the year the overall 'output' (in whatever form) will be less as there's X% of staff on leave. Having two weeks where that's not the case may have a significant benefit? This is pretty marked at our place as there's only a handful of us and you really feel it when others are on leave. However, right now, I imagine that I could take two weeks off and the remainder of the staff could likely manage output as 'normal'.

[SA Chris]

intend to spend it sitting in the backyard with books and a well stocked beer fridge.

And maybe even reading one or two of them!

[spidermonkey09]

I was asked to accept a 1/3 pay cut as soon as the crisis hit before being furloughed, which obviously reduced the cut to 20%. I reluctantly accepted it for precisely the reasons you describe, but to be honest I don't see that forcing people to take holiday is motivated by a lot other than companies trying to pull a fast one on their staff. A better solution would have been to send an email around explaining that obviously they can't have everyone taking holiday at the same time and stating how many can be off at any one time.

But at any point in the year the overall 'output' (in whatever form) will be less as there's X% of staff on leave. Having two weeks where that's not the case may have a significant benefit? This is pretty marked at our place as there's only a handful of us and you really feel it when others are on leave. However, right now, I imagine that I could take two weeks off and the remainder of the staff could likely manage output as 'normal'.

I suppose I come at this less from the view that holiday is a drain on business output and more that holiday is really important for employee wellbeing. It is a contractual right after all. If you piss off the workforce then you run the risk of output decreasing anyway due to demotivation/people leaving which is much more disruptive. I am not all that career focused though so others may be different. 

[abarro81]

Guess it depends a lot on what position the business is in too right? Our business is doing fine at the moment, so if my boss said I had to take holiday in the lockdown I'd be well pissed off. If we'd just lost 50% of our clients I'd figure it was fair enough...

[fatneck]

We're encouraging our staff to take at least a day's leave per month. I've cancelled two holidays and the last thing I want to do is take a holiday to sit at home while the wife tries to work and the lad needs home schooling! However, when I have taken a day off in the middle of the madness I have really appreciated that I needed it...

I'm pretty sure the government at some point said that people could carry leave over? We don't usually offer this but may do if we need to. My wife works for the council and they have told staff they can carry leave over for 2 years...

[SA Chris]

I'm pretty sure the government at some point said that people could carry leave over?

That was only for key workers who are going flat out to meet current demands, but some companies have offered.