Part time workers and bank holidays. Fair or unfair?

[crunchiesnuts]

I know that it’s completely legal and up to the employer, but I’m just curious about what people think about this.

I’m part of a small team (there are 7 of us in total). Everyone works full time, 5 days a week, except for one person who is part time, working 3 days a week. This person works Monday-Wednesday. When there’s a bank holiday, they switch their days and work from Tuesday to Thursday instead. Like I said, I know this is all above board and our manager is fine with it, but the rest of the team feels it’s a bit unfair since they don’t have a say and have to use their annual leave regardless.

I’m kind of torn on it. I know this person asked to work Mondays when she took the job, so it feels a bit like having the best of both worlds, but I also get not wanting to burn through almost all your annual leave just for the bank holidays. Recently, this person has mentioned how she doesn’t complain about the fact that the rest of us get more holidays and better pay (which is a bit confusing since we work more hours, so naturally, we would), but it’s stirred up some tension in the office, and I guess, some people think she’s rubbing it in their face. I’m just interested in hearing what others think. Even though it’s legal, do you see it as fair or unfair?

It's not a benefit that can be shared. As I've said, if ft were able to pick and choose in this way, it wouldn't be a problem.

Treating staff differently is always going to be an issue, especially when one has an advantage over others. I'm sure ft staff would love to have a week and a half to use at their disposal.

I only ever work Monday to Wednesday and get the bank holidays as bank holidays. I teach so can’t change teaching days

Our 4 days a week staff who dont work mondays get paid for the missed bank holiday

Yes of course it's happened to me. And as much as people want to say oh I don't mind at all - nobody will believe you when you say that when you personally are unable to go on holiday / a wedding / kids nativity because the leave is taken it isn't a problem.

It's also galling to have to cover part timers for an extra week and a half when they should be there because they're on holiday again so they do, in fact, cause a rise in workload for their colleagues.

Part-time people get the same lieu rules as everyone else - they apply to everyone so there's no argument there. Unlike picking and choosing bank holidays, which doesn't apply to full time workers.

One issue arises in that hr departments take a full time contract and then adjust the wording for part timers, often incorrectly.

so saying for a full timer

20 days holidays plus bank holidays is fine
saying for a part timer
20 days holiday (pro rata) plus bank holidays is incorrect. Leads to different treatment depending on which day you do or do not work.
needs to be 28 days (bank hold include) pro rata

same if you have people who work say Tuesday to Saturday, still 5 days but you need to say 28 days and they book off any bank holiday that falls on a working day.

So full timers get 20 days annual leave taken when they choose and 8 days public holidays.

PT would have 8.8 days A/L taken when she chooses (0.44 of what FTers get) if required to take all 8 days public holidays.

With the current arrangement she gets 14.8 days annual leave when she chooses (0.74 of what FTers get) if she takes 2 of 8 days public holidays.

I think FTers are U to begrudge 0.14 difference in the only PT colleague’s favour on ‘taken when you want’ days off.

PTer was unwise to openly compare her pay/conditions unfavourably to the whole team of FT colleagues. Either she doesn’t understand pro rata or some her pay and conditions are less favourable, which wouldn’t be in line with employment rights but happens.

It doesn't matter that it can't be shared. That is of zero real consequence.

It isn't an advantage "over others". There is no disadvantage to anyone else.

It isn't treating staff differently. It's just a logical consequence of the position.

This is quite a telling comment, and shows a reaction to PTers that is extremely common. You wouldn’t love it at all, because you’d be taking an enormous pay cut.

Surely that's because they must always have booked their leave first? If that is always happening, then that's the problem, not their slightly increased flexibility.

I always took the BH, which meant I lost 0.4 days of my Al for every Monday BH - which is also very unfair to the PT person,although I personally didn't mind - it really should be a bit of a mix and yes properly line managed if someone is taking the absolute hand out of it to the detriment if others... But I would say that is the exception, rather than the rule. Otherwise there must be a shed load of remarkably astute part timers who are great at negotiating and planning their time off in advance - leagues higher than their role.

The point about full time staff being able to get time off for say a hospital or doctors appointment for free is a good one (in most nice work places)
as a part Timer I will book stuff oh my non working days and if it falls on a working day move it around.
i have also not taken a day off sick since I went part time. I have been sick of course but I just then work another day instead. That’s fairly common if you are allowed to move days around to fit business needs.

But full time staff can’t pick and choose as they already work all the days.

and what if the business/management prefers the part time worker to switch their days as there is work to be done. Presumably after losing everyone for the bank holiday it is good to have that extra day of productivity from the part time worker

It is of course treating staff differently.

The disadvantages are the covering work and increased competition for annual leave, as discussed. So 'zero consequences' isn't accurate.

That's all been talked about, not sure why you're still pretending it's not factual. Again, if you don't mind, that's fine - although I suspect you would when it affects you directly - but to try and make everyone feel the same is absurd.

But if that part timer changed to full time there would be even more competition for leave

But full time staff can’t pick and choose as they already work all the days.

Quite.

and what if the business/management prefers the part time worker to switch their days as there is work to be done. Presumably after losing everyone for the bank holiday it is good to have that extra day of productivity from the part time worker

Possibly very true. Not really anything to do with the ft staff though, as much as it might benefit the bosses.

If they were full time, their bank holidays would be held in place, so they'd be taking exactly the right amount of leave - no increase in unfair competition.

Well they would have more leave days in total.

You could argue that by the part time worker switching their days that week they are making it easier for a full time workers to be able to add additional leave to the bank holiday and have a longer break without using as much holiday

They might get it in early, they might not, but when you've got a week and a half to play with there's always going to be a time when a part time worker has leave they wouldn't otherwise have been able to take at that time.

A mix would be perfect - 4.8 bank holidays taken as they should be, levelling the playing field. No one's asking for a disadvantage to either side, just fairness to all.

And if they don't want to take their annual leave then?

Explain to me how you are going to give this benefit to the FT members of staff?
Whether someone works FT because financially they need to or the role demands it if you’re working all the hours available the option isn’t there. Put another way:
If a car park has 5 available spaces and I need 3 I can choose and swap between the spaces. If you need all 5 you have no flexibility as you occupy all the spots. Flexibility depends on having spare capacity. The difference isn’t about fairness it’s about structural availability.
Ultimately if a PT employee does their contracted hours and their line manager is happy why should you even care? Just because someone gains something doesn’t necessarily mean someone else is losing it.

So you agree it is a benefit? Lovely.

Giving a benefit to one member is treating staff unfairly, that's an issue in itself. I'm not in the game of deciding how to structurally even it up, I'm just stating that it is objectively unfair, whether it bothers you personally or not.

The disadvantages to ft staff have been discussed.

That is how most part time contracts work out bank holidays. They are pro rata.

Someone working 2 days a week will only get 2/5ths of the bank holidays.

No, we don't know that covering leave is an issue in this particular situation. If it were, it would be a reason not to offer the flexibility. But it's equally possible that it makes things easier, depending on the workplace.

In thecsense you are talking about it, if people have different jobs, then of course they should be treated differently.

But why should anyone care if someone else gets a benefit if it doesn't impact them?

Getting upset about this is the height of mean - spiritedness.

Then they don't. But they now have an option that they previously didn't have.

We’re never going to agree. Enjoy your day.