Forum menu
Odd how the grumpy childless middle-aged bell ends love to pile on a thread like this.
Draw your own conclusions.
Just because you have kids does not given you any entitlement to holidays, sorry.
One of those words doesn't ring true.
OP: You've got a right to time off work, not a right go on holiday with your family. It sounds harsh but I think what Drac was getting at is right. This isn't discriminatory because the rule is being applied evenly and fairly. You're being allowed your time off (as required by law), just not when you want it, but someone without kids could claim the same thing, "I wanted this week in particular to do a bike race" or "I wanted that week because the snow is better and I like skiing".
The way to fight it isn't to claim that you're being discriminated against, but to
go with the 1/9 rule being unnecessary and being potentially impossible given the number of days off that need to be taken.
@scotroutes i have worked in the tourism sector, i used to own a company taking people to Morocco for a living in an old converted Land Rover 101, it was a job for when i was young and it was done for the love of it, not the pay.
Again i have coached rugby for years, again done for the love of it not the money.
But i had to make lifestyle choices and i now work in a dull office, my issue is that i was employed on one basis, and there has been a set of rules that worked fine, but because of the abuses of some, now we all pay.
You know if you're a fireman you are employed to work unsociable hours, a nurse, a doctor etc, you know when you take those roles, the likely hours and pay, they are vocations
I worked unsociable hours as a soldier (work out the hourly rate for being at work 8 months a year on £17160.00.....
I would love to be still working in the tourism industry, i have MLTB qualifications, but you make life choices and take jobs suited to what is best for you and family at the time, to be away 8 months of the year now would be selfish.
So you cannot hold it against me for the choices i've made, the issue is one of the company i work for wholly changing the goalposts and leaving it near impossible to spend even a single day of the summer holidays with my family, when strictly it doesn't need to happen.
Was about to say that at 25 days holiday per person, that leaves 7 weeks of the year when you'll have a full team. Minus sickness and that'll be more like 4 weeks.
Yeah, nah.
So you cannot hold it against me for the choices i’ve made, the issue is one of the company i work for wholly changing the goalposts and leaving it near impossible to spend even a single day of the summer holidays with my family, when strictly it doesn’t need to happen.
I agree, but I'm just highlighting that you have no absolute "right". As above, it seems that you HR department needs to get the finger out and come up with something.
Everyone is treated the same, that’s not discrimination.
It *could* be, it's called indirect discrimination
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/indirect-discrimination/
However, i think discrimination only applies to a few things, such as discriminating on the basis of sexuality or gender. It's don't think its illegal to indirectly discriminate against people with children?
All the people with kids in your team should apply to HR for Flexible working with 6 weeks off in the summer.
If you have kids it’s your right to apply and, by law, they must consider it but can , and almost certainly will, reject it.
It might focus their minds a bit.
However, i think discrimination only applies to a few things,
Indeed, that's the protected characteristic bit, of which I believe being a carer is one in certain circumstances but the op will have to be recognised as Caring for his daughter (as opposed to caring which "every" parent does).
Edit
The point is though there are plenty of reasons to seek to get the policy overturned, indirect or direct discrimination on the basis of having children isn't one of them and, complaining for the wrong reason can do more harm than good sometimes.
The biggest ball-ache to be honest that one of nine "people" is actually two ladies that job-share, so they work part time because of their children, but they are then the first to always be able to book leave, i am always a little late to the party to book leave, as i do on the orders of my wife once she has her NHS rotas.
And don't get me started on my leave year being First of July onwards...
I'll stop ranting now and annoying Scotroutes and Drac, thanks for letting this stressed old dad sound off!!
I'm right with you until...
My point was that those younger ones without kids are free to book holiday whenever they want, they can book cheaper flights during term time, and they can book leave 365 days of the year as they have no constraints
Implying that preference should be given to those with children? It's no one's business when I take my holidays, least of all those with kids and I'll be buggered if I'm going to have my life outside of work dictated to because someone decided to have offspring.
As mentioned above, you have no 'rights' as such other than what everyone else has. However you do have circumstances which were I in your shoes I'd be tempted to go speak to HR about. Might go nowhere but worth having the discussion.
At the end of the day, the company exists to make money. If they've found that having a large number of people out of office during a given period affects company performance, then they're going to make changes to stop that happening. It's a balancing act between keeping staff morale up and remaining profitable and whilst banning people from taking time off at the same time seems like a poor solution to me, it's probably more effective and cheaper than getting temp staff in.
If you go in banding words about like 'discrimination' you're probably not going to do yourself any favors. Take a deep breath, book a meeting with HR and have a chat with them about your circumstances to see if they can do anything to help. If it's the insurer I'm thinking it might be (based on your location) then from what I've heard they're pretty decent to work for and normally pretty good at the work/life balance thing...
HI @flange, i did slightly back-track on my statement above, as i did say i have no issue with when anybody takes there leave at all, if someone without kids is the first to take a day in school holidays, then that is their right. I meant to phrase it, that they don't have the ties of specific dates, it is easier for them (and when i was sans child, i would actively avoid summer holidays and places with lots of kids!)
The issue is that in the team of youngsters, there is no issue, there "spread" of leave works for them, typically they want to go when it's cheapest..
Many of the youngsters in that team are really hacked off, as many socialise etc with each other and two or three of them holiday together and they can't do that anymore too.
For our team it is the opposite, we have a commitment we can't escape, we have to be at home for a share of the holidays.
What happens if someone in the team is hospitalized for weeks? Cancel anyone else's booked leave?
If 9 is the absolute minimum of people needed to be present to run the team then you need considerably more than 10 to staff it.
@Drac, sorry to have a pop i am a bit p**sed
I guess you were venting don't worry.
What happens if someone in the team is hospitalized for weeks? Cancel anyone else’s booked leave?
No, that's sickness absence not annual leave.
@simon-g One person being off for weeks hasn't been an issue up to now, as we always covered each other, we have one member about to be off for maternity leave, and her work will be covered.. that's the issue, there hasn't been a problem with covering work that's why this new ruling has only annoyed people who have worked hard to make sure colleagues work doesn't slip when they're off, knowing they'll do the same when you're on leave, now you have the super-mums here, who are now booking their leave into 2021 to make sure they're in first, i can't do that, as i need to know my wifes NHS rota first.
As above,. The issue here is a badly thought out and badly implemented policy change. To HR it is. It would be worth a group of you making a joint letter? Certainly you need to point out the issues this policy is causing and the impracticality of it. If one colleague has booked everything off then that too is manifestly unfair. 2 1/2 whole time equivalents of leave each week would seem a reasonable amount. so not 3 full-timers but 2 of the full-timers and one of the part-timers.
who has this come from?
If you have booked trips on the basis of approved holiday then that has to be honoured in all normal circumstances
Yup TJ has it.
These changes should be implemented for next year not this year.
Its not discriminatory, its just an unsustainable HR policy. In the situation you describe, who gets the best holidays is allocated on the basis of who is the keenest to book them, or who gets earlier to the office. On the other hand, your wife working in the NHS-as does my gf so I feel for you, shouldn't affect your companies policy.
Think strategically as what an ideal outcome looks like, and then assess what is actually achievable, only after speaking to HR.
edit: just noticed you said 2021, booking up all holidays that way when you know the rest of the team also has those needs is just being a right ****. Also you shouldn't have to cover for someones maternity, the extra workload involve isn't your problem.
Sounds terrible - I don't have kids but my mrs is a teacher, so I have the same constraints. To be honest I'm only working to keep a roof over my families head and to fund holidays.
With that in mind, if I were the OP i'd leave and go work for a more reasonable company.
I’ll stop ranting now and annoying Scotroutes and Drac, thanks for letting this stressed old dad sound off!!
LOL! Not annoyed, just hoping to pass on a bit of perspective to help you aim your HR rant in the right direction 😁
If the holiday year is starting in July, then this is likely to mostly be 'next year' even though its in 4 months time, still in 2019
Grow a pair of balls.
Talk to the other people with families, book a team meeting in the calendar for this friday with the title "Unworkable New Holiday Requirements" - make sure the idiot who said it is in the meeting and say exactly this:
"Your 1 of 9 off quota is utterly unworkable for these people with families, change it, or you'll find we'll book our holidays off and manage them as we see fit ourselves".
Unless you work with a bunch of spineless tits who are so unconfident of finding other work they have to back down. If not, then go above his/her head to their boss to explain the issue (calmly).
If they don't back down, book the time off and watch them deal with the fallout.
F*ck "talking to HR". I never understood why people did that - who does HR work for?
Sort the problem out. You're an adult. Expect to be treated like one. Instead of like a child slave.
I’ll stop ranting now and annoying Scotroutes and Drac, thanks for letting this stressed old dad sound off!!
It's just like being at work. 😬
Your 1 of 9 off quota is utterly unworkable for these people with families, change it, or you’ll find we’ll book our holidays off and manage them as we see fit ourselves”.
Yeah unauthorised absence great idea.
Blimey Chevychase, say what you think...!
You are half right though, i am always the one at work who will say "hang on this isn't right and will argue what i feel is correct" whilst others would not say boo to a ghost.
I had just come out of a meeting with my bosses boss as to how i felt we were dealing with the large amounts of litigation Brexit is causing badly, when i got the email about holiday.. otherwise she would of got both barrels on that too!
Chevychase has a point though. HR is not there for the employees. If you can't work it out with the policy writer (and it might be useful to point out that it disproportionately affects thsoe with families), ,then his/her boss and or HR.
Or suggest the teams get re-organised so that the family/single balance is better.
The point of going to HR is to find out how the policy was implemented - ie. unilaterally by department boss or centrally by HR.
If the former, leverage can be applied via HR.
We all know they are there to protect the business, no need to patronise us.
HR are there for both they will stop a manager from implementing something they can't.
You might want to look up the rights on parental leave. Whilst it is unpaid 9 applications for that all at the same time would focus most employers minds!
Not daft, she is just the kind of person that books 2019’s holidays in Jan 2018!
Like a prison officer then?
We had a leave sheet to submit each October on which you had to REQUEST (not demand/expect) any block leave for the next 16 months.
Why should people who have kids have any preferential treatment over those who don't?
Run this one by them, there are 10 in the team1, min hols 5 weeks 1day including stats, 10x26= 260 days needed for hols but only 261 days max in a year to take hols so if this has been intrduced part way thru a year not enough weeks in the year for everyone to take their hols.........denying people their statutory hols is illigal
Not patronising you at all. Merely pointing out that HR may not have any interest in leveraging the boss with an issue that offers no danger to the company but which the boss has suggested that his decision is based on protecting the ability of the business to do it's business.
For the record, everyone here may understand HR's role but the broader working world really doesn't.
When there were more people with kids working in my dept, we had a"prime time" rule for holidays. All the school holidays were classed as prime time and in any one year, each person was only allowed to book three weeks of prime time, unless no one else booked it then you could have more. It was also allocated on who's turn it was i.e. you had lots of prime time last year, it's someone else's turn this year. We also can't book leave more than a year-18 months in advance. This rule was self imposed by the staff, not by management and it mostly worked.
I'm the only one with a child now so it's not really an issue, but in all likelihood there'll be more kids along over the next few years!
Hmmm... having children is not a protected characteristic, but gender is. The women with children might have a case because women tend (generalisation) to do more of the child care. Of course if the company was then stupid enough to apply their rule to the men only...
Whether your daughter’s diabetes ought to be taken into account is another interesting one that I am not qualified to comment on.
You need a good employment lawyer for a proper opinion.
What’s indirect discrimination?
The law which says you mustn’t be discriminated against is called the Equality Act 2010. Discrimination which is against the Equality Act is unlawful. This means you can take action in the civil courts.
Indirect discrimination is when there’s a practice, policy or rule which applies to everyone in the same way, but it has a worse effect on some people than others. The Equality Act says it puts you at a particular disadvantage.
Run this one by them, there are 10 in the team1, min hols 5 weeks 1day including stats, 10×26= 260 days needed for hols but only 261 days max in a year to take hols so if this has been intrduced part way thru a year not enough weeks in the year for everyone to take their hols………denying people their statutory hols is illigal
A bit of a maths fail there. The OP's team only has 9 in it (although the other team has 10 I admit).
Also, if the business is closed on bank holidays all 9 employees would be off work on the same day. That soaks up 72 leave days over 8 days of the year.
So for a 5 day a week business closed on bank holidays that's 252 working days a year. Assuming just statuary 20 days of leave (in addition to bank holidays) and a team of 9 that's 180 days leave to arrange over 252 days so not impossible. Daft, but not impossible.
I'd say for a team of 3 or 4 it is reasonable for a line manager to stipulate no more that one off at a time. Loosing 50% or 66% of your work force at one time could make a real impact on your ability to function and also the rest of the team's sanity. Another one sick and it would effectively close the business. But for a team of 9 or 10 - jog on. Both unreasonable and unrealistic.
Parents expecting exclusive rights to the peak holidays seasons is also unreasonable imo.
This may be a good place to vent, but a bad place for advice. The above link is useful.
You have the right to request leave. Your employer has the right to refuse. Both parties have to give reasonable notice.
Outside of this is an area where the employer and employee have to find common ground.
Tbh the proposal sounds stupid and weighs heavily towards the employer. Whilst not being illegal or discriminatory, it will lead to a demotivated workforce and probably a rise in authorised absence.
Are you a member of a union?
cromolyolly
Member
Not patronising you at all.
Not aimed at you, I was responding to Mr Angry.
I avoided all this by having a term time contract. I'm not contracted or paid to work for those 10 weeks of the year.
For the record, everyone here may understand HR’s role but the broader working world really doesn’t.
Well the first aim is to avoid paying out settlements!! Followed by dealing with employees. So stopping a manager being a dick is right in their remit.
I've seen plenty defend one employee against another, both you and your manager are employees - both or you and neither of you are the company.
Simply though you are also looking to restrict other peoples time off choices to allow yours, people may have partners who are teachers, have commitments that fall in holiday time or want to go on a larger holiday with extended family.
However if there is a restriction of booking then you need a way of all having an equal chance of booking something. That is the issue you need to resolve first.
Ro5ey
Member
If its 5 weeks…. Are there enough working days in the year to accommodate everyone ?
My old boss in the bank brought in a "one off at a time" rule and when I pointed out that would need a year with over 400 days in it, I was told off for "always trying to find fault".
Anyway- leaving aside anything else, everyone is getting messed with by this, not just parents. if you want to get anything changed, don't make it about that, because that'll instantly make it about parents vs nonparents and you'd just dividing your own team and doing your arsehole management's job for them. And trying to assert rights you don't have isn't a great idea either. It only makes sense to make this about necessity and reasonableness and bring the whole team with you.
The law and rights aside any company that doesn't plan around employees having family commitments is going to have problems retaining those employees.
You might also want to explore article 8 of the EU Human Rights legislation with a professional. Mostly it appears to cover state vs individual but work does get mentioned for some things. You would need a good lawyer though!