We should get more legal annual leave.

[Theworried2]

Even though we currently get 5.6 weeks leave as a minimum for full time employees plus weekends, this still means we spend 64% of days in our working lives in work.

Surely to ensure better mental and physical health, this amount should be raised (perhaps closer to the 13 weeks children get at school).
it doesn’t make sense that as soon as you leave education, your free time dramatically reduces.

At the very least, to reduce additional costs for employers, everyone should have a legal minimum weeks (e.g.5 per annum) of unpaid leave if they want it. This shouldn’t just be confined to parents.

if people are properly rested, productivity may rise which could help solve the UK’s productivity puzzle.

Covid is a pretty terrible example to try and draw conclusions about productivity from, because a substantial minority of the population had to look after children at the same time as working, and there was also a lot of sick leave taken then for obvious reasons.

The realism argument isn't realistic if it doesn't also address the labour market we currently have. More workers have got more choices. Changes are happening already. You can believe people should have to demonstrate X and Y before being allowed some particular provision or flexibility, meanwhile those people have no reason to accept that. Not when they have other choices.

People are already working less and we have whole cohorts who are less able to participate because of chronic illness and/or caring responsibilities. For those people to work/work more, they'll need roles more flexibility not less. Whether that's palatable or not. We need to do a better job at thinking outside the box, because telling people they're just going to have to work more will achieve the square root of sod all.

You seem to have gone from the original OP's argument that we should all work less to a new argument where you are implying that I am saying we should all work more - not sure how you got there!

I will keep reiterating what I have said - I posted to demonstrate the actual time on average people are working - which is 1/3 of waking hours rather than the implied 2/3 in the OP's original claims...

no-one has to like it, but unless you can offer some better maths, it is quite simple - an 8 hour day at work based on minimum legal holidays means 1/3 of waking time is at work and 2/3 is not. Sure, there is commuting to account for - though for many that can be a lifestyle choice and as others have posted - ironing clothes etc. (i.e. being an adult!) - but it still asks the question, what are people doing with their time if they only work 1/3 and yet still feel they have no spare time?

arguments about WFH are of course irrelevant to the OP as that is still work, and while we all like to have flexibility in how we work there are a mixture of people out there - some for whom it is critical to their ability to juggle home, work, family and others for whom it is an excuse to go for a dog walk during work and work less.

ultimately we have a society that is precariously balanced economically - if anything it is on a gradual negative decline - arbitrarily giving everyone extra time off is not going to rebuild that economy, and while people feel smug in arguing that they don't wish to be a corporate cog in a capitalist society - ultimately someone has to pay the bills - and if you are a compassionate caring society then it is even more important that the bills are paid by those who can to allow for and to support those who can't.

The arguments for reduced work weeks / more holiday are generally spurious:

• it increases productivity - sure, there are studies showing that, but look at the context it works for certain types of people and those tend to be the more driven workers anyway - there is no evidential study out there to show it works for everyone and plenty of evidence to show that there are large chunks of society who given the opportunity reduce their productivity on an entitled belief that someone owes them
• there are companies where you can take as much holiday as you want - sure, there are, but in all of them it is conditional on still delivering your workload and in the vast majority of cases that means that people rarely take more holiday
• if I am more productive I should be allowed to stop earlier - sure, if your job is paid on productivity (e.g. making a widget - once you have done you hundred in the week you have earned your salary), but for a vast majority of people, jobs don't work in that way - e.g. the example above about nurseries
• flexibility is needed for those who have difficult circumstances - children who have to visit hospital regularly, people who are carers, those who are disabled. Sure, that is the ideal, and a good employer will do what they can to help that work, but it doesn't mean that all of society need that flexibility and the more that the workforce builds the economy, the more we can be compassionate and support those who through no fault of their own need that support.
• Workers are in demand, so we can choose what to do - sure, have fun when the economy changes and the workforce is not so in demand ;) employers are not stupid, they know which people take advantage...

I am totally with you in terms of loving the idea of a better balanced life - but we also need to be realistic - cutting swathes of time out of jobs and expecting to have the same pay just isn't going to happen - the economy can't afford it - it is living in an idealistic world with no sense of reality.

Sure, lets adopt flexibility when possible - but that already exists, any worker is legally allowed to approach their employer for that discussion, I have employed people who have worked unusual hours, I have supported people through periods of ME and other illnesses and made it possible for them to build a life financially where otherwise it would have been tricky - but unilateral rules saying that everyone should be able to work less and earn the same amount - not going to happen.

You said work harder not less. What did you have in mind? Nothing you've really written so far has spwlled that out, and there's still the general problem that our work models increasingly don't function well for a lot of us and the workforce are already voting with their feet. Again, a realistic approach has to address these elephants in the room. Continuing to repeat that the economy can't afford it doesn't do that. Neither can we afford a scenario where jobs don't work for so many people, but we've got it.

So for example, we've had posters talking about managing chronic medical conditions when they've run out of leave. Clearly the NHS is not imminently going to start providing more specialist clinics outside of the standard office week. So meanwhile, what to do? I'd like to see more flexible solutions so people in that position don't feel compelled to reduce working hours- which again, is already happening. It's fine when an employer is sensible and understanding, but when they're not...

I haven't been setting out a platform for what we should do differently - only challenging the concept that somehow there is a magic money tree which will suddenly pay for everyone to work less...

I am all for flexibility - but it can't always work as individuals might wish. If your job is not dependent on others in your team / clients etc. then sure it may allow you to be flexible and work evenings / other times - there are a number of jobs like that, but the vast majority need people to work with other people / be available at known times - there is little point a school teacher saying they wish to only work 6pm - 9pm (though might be good for some teenagers!) or train drivers all saying they only wish to work mon-wed, etc.

Anyone who demands that their own view of flexibility / their needs is met, regardless of anyone else is naive - society can not operate like that. There is also a lot of talk about the workforce voting with their feet - really - everywhere / high % of workforce? Not sure that is really true. There are not many people out there who can financially afford to just walk if work is not set up to suit their needs, and while we might be in a good employment place currently for the workforce, that is not a historic pattern and it is quite possible that it will change in the short term future.

It does often seem that the current trend for discussion is how all of life should be altered to revolve around the individual - common sense will show that doesn't work. If you want a plan for what should be done (and again it would be idealistic) the better option would be to do what on the surface would appear to be the opposite - look to build a society which is a better form of community - look at how you can encourage or support not needing both in a partnership to work / look at how you can provide better child support for those without family nearby / look at how you can support the vulnerable, elderly, infirm in society - but you do that by building a more supportive society, not a fragmented society where the cult of the individual rules - all that brings is 'success' to the most vocal at the expense of others.

If you have those who struggle to meet medical appointments because of a lack of annual leave - then there is clearly an issue there - is the answer to give everyone including the healthy more time off? Of course not - the answer is a society which can support those people - and to do that may mean the healthy actually needing to shoulder more of the load and working harder.

At a simplistic level:

• everybody working full time makes the economy £100 p/a
• giving everyone 1/5 more time off simply reduces the economy by 1/5 to £80 per person - it is now harder to support those who need it as there is less wealth in the economy.

• instead, if the expectation is to work 1% harder to bring in £101 to the economy - then you buy the ability for 1 in 100 to not work, or 1/10th to have 1/10th more time off work for medical appointments...

but it doesn't work to be more compassionate / supportive to those who need it unless others work harder - not something the me me sections of society like to hear!

so the issues are completely different - the OP was posting saying that everyone should have more time for holiday - I would challenge that and say that:
a) average work is only 1/3 of waking hours, so it is hardly tough currently
b) if we want a better society, and more flexibility for those who need it (and the same wealthy lifestyle we currently have) then others have to step up and will have to work harder...

time for a reality check

I know you hadn't, that's why I asked.

Ultimately though, I go back to my initial point is that people do not 'need' to do the things you think would benefit the economy. Given the shortage of workers at present, the precise opposite is true. It doesn't matter whether you have a well articulated explanation for why you want them to or not. Your approach is not realistic if you don't start from this point. There is no 'have to about it.

In terms of people voting with their feet, yes this is happening. The number of early retired has increased. The number of part timers has. The number of people working less because of health and/or caring responsibilities is also higher than it was a few years ago. We have fewer workers than we did. Something doesn't need to affect the entire population for it to be a problem.

Where I work the higher grades get a shit ton more holiday than the lower grades. That pisses me off as we do all the work! So 1-5 get the least holiday and the place couldn't run without them.

people at an individual / selfish level can indeed make those choices
people as a society can't afford to - if you want a society which will support those who need support, then others need to work to do that - it is pretty basic maths / economics.

you then mention that early retired has increased / more people have health and caring responsibilities - that makes exactly the same point - how do you support those people in society unless others are working to build the economy, or should we allow everyone to make selfish choices and not worry about those who need help and support?! I don't think you are saying that, but it is the consequence - if we all decide to look after self and forget everyone else, society breaks down

5.6? Most people I know get 4 weeks.

Why are you taking annual leave for blood tests? Surely that should be sick leave.

the legal position is 28 days - which might or might not include bank holidays...
that is often framed as 20 days leave & 8 bank holidays (2 Christmas / 1 New Year / 2 Easter / 2 May / 1 August) = 28 days.

that is for a full time contract - a part time contract will basically be pro-rata
if you really know people who only get 4 weeks and don't get the bank holidays, then that is not lawful.

@gingerguineapig no because I'm not sick, I just need regular blood tests and I can't ring in sick for that

Ah ok, yes I wasn’t expecting the 8 bank holidays that you legally get on top of the minimum 20 days

The USA is worse, usually for the 1st few years they only get 2 weeks! Plus the public holidays. Once working for a few years they can usually negotiate more when they change jobs, 4 weeks seems to be the maximum usually though