Cashing in the 4th week of leave
Good to see John Key confirm that National will implement their election policy of allowing workers and employers to decide to cash in the 4th week of annual leave, if they both agree.
What this means is the default is 4 weeks leaves. So you may be on $50,000 and have four weeks leave. You could ask your employer to pay you an extra 2% or $1,000 and drop down to three weeks leave.
Many people will want to keep a fourth week of leave (and will) but equally many would like the option of earning some extra money. This is why choice is a good thing.
And please don’t even try pushing the “Some employers will pressure employees and the poor employees will have no choice” line. Apart from the unlikely motivation of an employer wanting to increase its costs by 2%, you can argue against all and any choice on the grounds that someone may possibly try to pressure someone illegally. Using that logic the state should set all pay rates, as some employers may pressure employees to take a pay cut.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:06 am
“And please don’t even try pushing the “Some employers will pressure employees and the poor employees will have no choice” line. Apart from the unlikely motivation of an employer wanting to increase its costs by 2%, you can argue against all and any choice on the grounds that someone may possibly try to pressure someone illegally. Using that logic the state should set all pay rates, as some employers may pressure employees to take a pay cut.”
That’s right, employers are all nasty people and care only about profit and have little regard for their employees. Please lets hear what the shit stirring, scaremongering bullshit artists from the Standard have to say about this!
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:13 am
Check this: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10200279-93.html
Sorry for the hijack, but this is going to weigh in heavy.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:26 am
I work for an international comapny that has asked us to take a 5% pay cut. And beneficiaries and government workers want pay rises? I will have less income and still be paying the highest rate of tax so that other’s can get a pay rise. Fucking brilliant.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 am
Grizz, you watch to see what the Standard tossers have to say about it.
I can’t be bothered.
Personal observation has shown that they have never had an original thought in their lives and the party line of if the Nats do it it’s wrong will be tirelessly produced once again.
For me this move provides a measure that when I worked for others I would have used and expect others to voluntarily take up this option.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:42 am
Oh, you mean that some people are only now waking up to the fact that having a holiday is a cost burden on the employee?
Invariably you spend more in a week of holiday than your holiday pay provides (= what you would have earned if you were working.)
FORCIBLY making people take holidays (often against their will) imposes an avoidable financial burden on the employee.
The avoidance measures available are: a) shut yourself up at home and eat only baked beans: b)get a part-time job for the week and earn some extra bucks: c) don’t take the holiday, get paid double-time to stay at work for the week. What kind of choice is that! Bloody capitalists, offering choice to the workers – don’t they know that making people take holidays is good for ……… ????? …………. buggered if I know !!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:48 am
I see it is pay back time for National’s supporters. Shame it is going to run against one of the few policies that National has to address unemployment.
The 9 day working fortnight is meant to share the work around so that more workers can keep their jobs. This latest announcement runs totally counter to this because workers will be urged to work longer and the work will NOT be shared around and more workers will lose their jobs.
You really do the the feeling that the 9 day fortnight was a PR exercise for the masses and the holiday buy back a PR exercise for National’s friends. And both will work against each other.
We seem to have precious little left in terms of Government activity. A string of projects started by the previous Government and a cycleway? And continued blundering (or is that sabotage?) in areas such as Auckland’s rail projects that will delay the upgrade at a time when the environmental outlook demands firm decisive action.
Makes you feel all nostalgic about Helen.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:05 am
This is a very good idea.
Fact is that many employees simply can’t afford to take a holiday.
So now if they wanted to take a week in the gold coast for instance, they take one weeks leave and cash in another week for a proper break with some speanding money.
Another very good move for the low-middle income earners!
Another nightmare move for Labour!
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 am
“Makes you feel all nostalgic about Helen.”
Speak only for yourself micky
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:51 am
Im not keen on this. Holidays are vital if you want a productive work force. we should be aiming for more, not less.
As for holidays costing the employee – bullshit. Just because you have a week off, doesnt mean you have to go away.
If an employee wants to sell back a weeks holiday, does the employer have to accept?
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:00 am
Correct. Simple math really. Like I’ve said before, when National start doing the simple math and treating the recession as a real threat, I’ll start believing that there is a clear and present danger. Until then they can go play with their ideologies in an ad-hoc and contradictory manner. Plain. Simple.
uh? Depending on the industry, I can see that employers would want all hands on deck around the holiday period, especially in retail and hospitality. They stand to make far more than 2% by being open. Many of those employees won’t be on $50,000 and will have the usual choice of go to work or move on.
Heavy industry won’t be in too much of a bind for our traditional chrismas holiday period, depending on if they export/import and when their euro or american suppliers take their holidays.
It will depend on how fast any particular product moves, or the level of demand for the service.
Lastly, never underestimate the bizarre behaviour of a manager whose business is going to the wall or who lives their life in a panic just so they feel alive or in control. I’ve met enough to see that they’re a definate demographic. They must do something right to stay in business, but they’re not employee friendly by any measure of the phrase and it astounds me the way they break employment law and get away with it on a regular basis. I guess they know what a stupid or desperate employee looks like. In any case, this type of employer will demand the extra week and not pay for it either. It doesn’t mean that all employers are bad, but there is plenty of everyday action in crappy employer/employee relations.
You certainly cannot say that there is a blanket good/bad result with this change for all industries. This change will have some effect on what currently exists – the subjective judgement depends entirely on the indidivual.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:04 am
Why not just cancel the fourth week?, a lot of businesses simply cannot afford the extra week, yes there might be some resistance from the left but most would understand why this has to be done.
As long as Key does not change the Easter and Xmas trading hours I do not see a huge backlash against a cancellation of the fourth week given the current economic climate.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
What is the practical difference between:
“Your pay is $x with 4 weeks leave, increasing to $y if you only take 3 weeks.”
and
“Your pay is $y with 3 weeks leave, decreasing to $x if you want an extra week.”
Is it just that they have to advertise the lower rate?
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:06 am
Makes you feel all nostalgic about Helen.
I can’t imagine such a scenario, sorry. I have no problem with this, whats the big deal? If I want my 4 weeks holiday I get it. If I don’t then I get paid out. So what?
As for the stalinists over at the standard, I only look at their site to remind myself of what a blessing sanity is.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:09 am
Dime “Im not keen on this. Holidays are vital if you want a productive work force. we should be aiming for more, not less.”
Lets follow that logic through Dime. Lets make 364 days of the year holidays and the last day a work day. According to your logic the country will be absolutely booming.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:13 am
This is an outrage! Some employers will pressure their workers into accepting large sums of cash that they do not want. Holidays are vital if you want a productive work force. If we have 50 weeks paid holidays, think how much productivity will rise! And it will eliminate unemployment too! With so many people on holiday employers will be forced to employ all the sickness beneficiaries, Mongrel Mob members and P-users to fill in for the brain surgeons, childcare workers, engineers and police who are on holiday.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:24 am
“Makes you feel all nostalgic about Helen”
Which one ?
The “real” one, with scowling eyes, grumpy mouth – generally sour butch feminist.?
Or the spunky young one as shown on the billboards?
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:29 am
tknorriss – youre an idiot.
bruv – are ya all amped up for our yearly argument with dave about easter trading? heh
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:30 am
“spunky”???
Fuck that is sick!
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
Dime
“bruv – are ya all amped up for our yearly argument with dave about easter trading? heh”
Nah, it is not in my nature to be cruel Dime, frankly I have hammered DPF for two years in a row, to do it again would be plain nasty.
Anyway, you know how he gets when he cannot get his decafe soy latte 365 days a year.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Dime “tknorriss – youre an idiot.”
Just following the logic of your own unreasoned assertion, Dime.
Obviously, there is a link between efficiency and holidays. However, the link is obviously not a direct linear relationship. My statement in my previous post demonstrates that you can’t keep on adding holidays and increasing productivity. Eventually, adding holidays will tip you over to the downward side of the productivity curve.
You have not given the slightest argument to support your view that more holidays will increase productivity rather than tip towards the downward slope of the productivity curve. What would be good to know is the optimum ratio of holidays to productivity. How about doing a bit of research before spouting forth.
Back up your own assertions before you go calling other people idiots.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Employers and workers decide !
That was a Crosby Textor line that was used ‘sex up’ the original policy which was to repeal the extra week.
of course 4 weeks was the minimum as some people got more for all sorts of reasons. (Most MPs probably get more)
In 3 years time , the voters are not stupid, they will be able to vote based on whether they ‘decided’ or not.
Wage Cuts, Holiday Cuts. That will make great billboards
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
What not more common sense coming from the government, please say it’s not possible. Is it no wonder noddys like MickySavage are having brain implosions, as we all know the left doesn’t do common sense.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
DPF said: You could ask your employer to pay you an extra 2% or $1,000 and drop down to three weeks leave.
Hmmm, I guess that is what many employers would offer, and what many employees would accept. But it would be ripping off the employees. The reason it would be a rip-off is that each and every week of the year the employee is not only is paid $1000 but also accrues 1/12 of a week annual leave. So a fair buy-back for an employee on $1000 a week would actually be $1083.33 – not $1000. If you didn’t pick this up DPF, you can bet that lots of employees won’t either.
And what if you are an employee who, say, has children, and doesn’t want to sacrifice the time with them or cannot obtain school holiday care? In a time of recession, your perception will be that if you do not agree to an employer request for a buy-back, your job will be at risk. You will see yourself as being at the top of the list if redundancies occur. It is not a matter of employers “illegally” pressuring workers to take the buy-back, it is that those who refuse a request will perceive their job security as being undermined.
I’m with you, Dime, on this one. We need more holidays, not less.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
How does Andrew Little justify saying that this takes away workers choices?
Surely it offers them more choice?
EITHER keep your 4 weeks leave OR take 3 of them as leave and get a weeks pay to make up for the 4th week.
BEFORE : No choice
AFTER: 2 choices.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
side show bob said: …as we all know the left doesn’t do common sense.
Ah, but we do do figures (as in my post above), which no-one on the right here seems to have done.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Toad
More holidays would be nice, care to tell me how we are going to pay for them?
Or is this another uncosted Green party bribe?
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Toad
More holidays would be nice, care to tell me how we are going to pay for them?
By stealing what little you have left, after all, anyone with so little sense doesn’t deserve money.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Jacob van hartog (aka David Cunliffe) said “Employers and workers decide !
That was a Crosby Textor line that was used ’sex up’ the original policy which was to repeal the extra week.”
Flippin’ heck – you’re not still banging on about Crosby Textor are you? You lost! The sooner you accept that and move on, the sooner the pain will start to subside
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Toad, where do you figure you do the numbers? I went on your site and can’t see numbers. By the way, what is happening to the black guy in the chair in the picture you posted?
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Look, over the last 8 years or so, the NZ GDP has been artificially inflated to the tune of about 10% per annum, by the effect on consumer spending, of property values also artificially inflating. If it wasn’t for that, the economy would already have been shrinking years ago.
All the luxuries enacted by the Clark government, like WFF and student loan subsidies and nationalising corporations and assets, and employer contributions to kiwisaver and 4 weeks leave and costly impositions on employers and strangulatory environmental protections; were things that we truly could not afford: we should have been tightening our belts, not loosening them. We now need to tighten twice as much, and we just aren’t home when it comes to getting this message.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Toad, your argument is wrong.
The employee has 4 weeks leave, valued at $1,000 per week. They sell one back to the employer so then get $53,000 per annum gross, and 3 weeks annual leave. This leave still accrues over the 12 months, so why would there be an extra $83.33 to pay?
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
” So a fair buy-back for an employee on $1000 a week would actually be $1083.33 – not $1000. If you didn’t pick this up DPF, you can bet that lots of employees won’t either. ”
Toad, again you are talking through a hole in your head. If you were to voluntarily work that extra week you would get double time, ie $2000/week. If you took the week off, you would get your normal pay. That $83.33 you talk about is money the employer needs to put aside to cover your job when you are not there or to cover your double time payment for your 4th week of leave should you choose to work it.
The reality is for employers, the cost of covering leave is more as we have forgotten that in addition to the standard 4 weeks annual leave, there are also 11 statutory holidays as well.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
I am hoping this change will allow me through my union to negotiate more leave from my employer. As it is unlikely a salaries increases will happen under the current administration
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Inky
Why bother with the union?, speak directly to the employer.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I realise my employer will give me more leave if I ask for it. However I am realistic that a group is much stronger than an individual.
My gain will be stronger with a collective approach
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Inky
How can the group be “much stronger” than the individual if you know both will achieve the same result and how will your “gain” be much stronger.
Why do you need a union to do what you can obviously do yourself?, hell, you would even have more money in your pay packet every week.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I would be better off if I didn’t pay insurance too, yet still I do. Curious that.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:53 pm
But you need insurance Inky, you do not need to pay union dues for something you can negotiate yourself (as you obviously have the ability to do)
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Firstly my employer isn’t going to negotiate individually with all 850 staff.
My employer will negotiate with the union and offer those conditions to other staff. The only way I can have a say in my conditions is to be a member of an Union.
Secondly the HR department of my employer try to push the boundaries (change clear rules in the collective agreement to the employers favour) . On numerous occasions they have returned the conditions to what was agreed after talkng to union delegates and organisers.
Thirdly if my employer decides he doesn’t want me, the union will be their in insure my job.
I like working where I do, I like my employer but I know that he could easier move on and leave us in the lurch. Paying Union fees is an insurance and only and idiot doesn’t have insurance
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Inky
Your employer has to negotiate with the representatives of the 850 staff, I fail to see why you and a few others cannot represent the rest of the staff and save on the union fees that you currently fork out to people who do very little for that money.
The BEST way you can have a say in your conditions is to talk directly to the employer, hell, you may even find that they are reasonable people who do not eat babies for lunch.
The HR department can push all it likes, you guys (and you in particular from what I have read here) are not the type to be bullied around , you do not need the union to do your bidding for you when you know the problems and issues first hand.
The union can do NOTHING about saving your job Inky, these are tough times and the days of unions standing over employers to keep the job of a sub standard worker (not that I am suggesting you are sub standard) are well and truly over, if they decide to lay you off then there is not much that you or the union can do about it.
HOWEVER, if you as the local and on site bargaining agent has developed good relations with the bosses and HR people they may well feel inclined to come to you guys with the real problem and work out a way of keeping everybody’s job, a shit stirring union bludger will NOT GIVE A TOSS about you or your other union members.
Paying union fees borders on theft, you can and would do a far better job negotiating on behalf of your fellow workers yourself.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:41 pm
toad is probably right in that the entitlement is more than the 2% DPF mentions (though I don’t think his figures were meant to be to accounting standard) but talking bollocks as this stuff gets caught in the standard payroll process.
Between kiwisaver, holiday entitlement, student loans and marital support to mention a few – the average employer already deals with many complications (as well being an unpaid tax collector) and this is exceedingly unlikely to miss it out – it’s one of the simpler payroll calculations – but good on toad for living up to his namesake.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:50 pm
No. Your gain will be stronger if you can demonstrate to your employer that you can add value beyond what you’re paid for today. Most workers can combine thought and determination to effect this.
Your collective comment is just what’s holding many employers and employees back. I recommend reading Maverick by Ricardo Semler for a look at what can happen then business, workers… and yes unions can do when they collaborate rather than wage war against each other
March 24th, 2009 at 1:16 am
Regardless of quibbles about how much money or how much leave there is, I think it is a wonderful idea to provide the option of less holidays for more pay.
Forget about the pressure from employers to employees to ‘cash in their holidays’ or anything of the sort, but judging by quite a few of the people I’ve known (father, supervisors, husband etc), some employees put a lot of pressure on themselves to stay in the office, and end up having their holidays expire without using them.
The way my husband puts it, whether they get somebody else to come in or not, he would have to catch up on things so much when he got back, that it would mean lots of (unpaid) overtime, redoing things, etc etc.
While I think he’s just being dramatic and would love to actually go away, I think this is pretty common for people in sole charge or supervisory roles … I feel it myself sometimes, but have been lucky enough to have supervisors who force me to take my holidays.
Basically, for those who don’t feel able to take a substantial quantity of holidays, I think it’s only fair for them to be able to negotiate alterations giving them compensation. It’s a choice that can lead to a lot less disgruntlement.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:39 am
How weak is that that you cannot negotiate your own agreement? Unions don’t mean strength. All they mean is that there are hundreds of nodding heads in agreement with whatever the union tells them. I have always negotiated my own contract in small and enormous work environments and have done very well. In fact I SAVED money as I didn’t pay union fees to those idiots.