*slopes off for a fag*

Have you people never heard of the “sit down piss”?

Have you people never heard of the “sit down piss”?

How very uncouth.

In polite society we refer to a “China Cruise”

No Neal – its you that does not understand. 11 hours off is mandatory. Hence the use of MUST and No opt out

Still – if you think its right to let your employer take advantage of you thats up to you. However these regulations are here to protect us but if you do not want to be protected then I guess its up to you

there is no doubt at all tho that without that 11 hour break you are in breach of the WTD

This thread is making me want to start smoking again and I quit over twenty years ago.

11 hours off is mandatory

The ability to take 11 hours off is mandatory.

there is no doubt at all

… in your opinion.

Remember that ‘binary’ thing, TJ? You might well be right, but I don’t know how else I can keep saying the same thing in slightly different ways for you to countenance the notion that you might not be.

This thread is making me want to start smoking again and I quit over twenty years ago.

I’ve never smoked even I’m considering it.

Because I have quoted the EU, HR experts, TUC, ACAS etc stating that is the position. If there is no opt out then you must have that rest time ( except in certain circumstances which do not apply to the vast majority)
Even if you do not for exigent circumstances have that 11 hour rest then you MUST have compensatory rest.

If there is no opt out then you must have that rest time

If there is no opt out then you must be allowed that rest time. Nothing you have quoted appears to be saying what you’re asserting it’s saying.

Actually, I’m going to step away from this for tonight. I get the impression I’m winding you up, and that’s really not my intention. I’ll check back in tomorrow.

If there is no opt out then you must have that rest time

There is no opt out, agreed.

This means employers can’t rota set working times that contravene the 11 hour rules, by asking employees to Formally opt out (as they can with the 48 working week)

Employees working extra hours by their own choice does not constitute “opting out” in the sense referred to in the regulations.

Opting out (as referred to in the regulation) is a formal written agreement that is available for the 48 hour max week. But not for the 11 hour break.

This means employers can’t rota set working times that contravene the 11 hour rules, by asking employees to Formally opt out (as they can with the 48 working week)

Yup that’s how we do it and late finishes mean they get 11 hours off so start late the next but are paid if they’d started on time.

We discourage anyone from breaking this rule but some are happy to come in for the sake of 30 minutes or so, the unions have never said they can’t just also discourage them.

Oh Christ now I’m involved.

I’ve never smoked even I’m considering it.

Same here, and I’m going straight onto Capstan lung rippers. Chained.

Spice anyone?

Hark at Perchy with his heirs and graces

and a clause that says that an employee cannot choose to waive their rights (like, for instance, signing an employment contract which says they don’t want it). No matter how often you copy and paste the same text there is nothing, anywhere, that I can see which says that an employee is obliged to exercise those rights if they don’t want to.

Cougar, I think this is were the point lies, and isn’t being explained very well.
If an employee works in a capacity that stops them having their entitled rest period, while not officially (as in forms, contracts etc) waiving their right, they are PRACTICALLY waiving their right (each and everytime they work like this). It isn’t a blanket waiver, but a ‘daily waiver’ as it were. Its a Health and Safety issue, and so isn’t just there to protect the employee, but also those who may be effected by said employee.

Can we have that CAPITALS guy back on? I prefer him to this WTD stuff.

Ok

One final post. This got me obsessed ( who me – don’t ban me mods!)

The best I could find was that the employees do not have a legal obligation to take all their break time. However if they do not then the employer is open to claims for compensation if there is the slightest duress not to take them ie peer pressure, workload, artificial deadlines etc

A few recent legal decisions creating case law and advice from the attorney general have made this clearer so the latest advice to employers from employment law experts is to insist that the employees take their breaks in line with WTD as if they allow employees to work outside the WTD the employer could be liable for civil action even if the employee appeared to consent at the time. A part of this is its a health and safety issue ie if the employer accepts working practices that put the h&s of the employees at risk they are liable – similar to employees removing safety equipment

The effect of this is that the employer has a responsibility to ensure not only can breaks be taken but that they ARE taken.

I have not got the references to hand ‘cos I closed the tabs and really I have wasted enough of my and others time on it.

I remain convinced that this was not the intention of the folk who drew up the WTD.

I had a problem guy once, team of 8 on an IT help desk.

Basically had a gentleman’s agreement that they could take thier breaks whenever suited them as long as there were at least 2 people at the desk, or if a major incident was running then they don’t take a break until things settle a bit(as TL I didn’t really care who did what as long as there was sufficient cover.

One guy though would purposefully wander off at these times so I had to introduce a lunch rota on a whiteboard where the guys just pencilled in when they wanted lunch break.

That didn’t go down too well with the whole team but they accepted it when it was pointed out that certain nameless individuals were forcing the situation. (I’d rather the team manage thier own time sensibly like grown ups, personally).

Then problem guy decided to complain above my head that I was forcing him to take lunch at certain times (which I absolutely could do, but this wasn’t the case, I was just making them choose a lunch slot at the start of shift).

Then he started playing the line that I was forcing him to take a break full stop.
So I played the line that I’m not (and can’t force him) to take a break but he would always have the opportunity to take proper breaks.

He then complained about my 3 or 4 x10min smoke breaks per day, so I had to spell out that I don’t take a lunch break.

Never came to anything, Some people are just dicks.

One problem employee can realy be a pain, not so much in proving them wrong, but probably 20% of my time was taken up in doing so and ensuring the rest of the team were treated the same.

The effect of this is that the employer has a responsibility to ensure not only can breaks be taken but that they ARE taken.

Not sure how that would be practical, in the case of my problem guy, he was a big guy, body builder with an attitude to match.. I wasn’t going to lock him out of the office for his breaks, all I could realistically do was provide a break window for him that he could choose, ot failing that stipulate his exact break times for him.

It’s far easier of everyone’s adult about it and it can flex both ways.

Yes that’s pretty much it TJ which is why we actively discourage it, that and having been the hero in the past it’s actually no good god for you at all.

Body builders aren’t always that flexible

Our smoking breaks are from 11.30 till 11.44 and 1.20 till 2.10. Other than that there is an expectation they will come to class.

At work I can buy or sell up to five days holiday days per year. I can carry over up to five into next year (though this might be affected if I buy / sell, I can’t remember exactly). Any that I don’t take beyond that are simply lost.

Drifting off topic, we had the same, except that it was subject to taking at least 20 days off per year, or 28 if public holidays were included.