I am right in saying this, aren't I? V simple question!

[hopefully]

If my employer pays me in lieu of holiday taken, it will cost them more than if they don't pay me and make me take the holiday? This seems incredibly obvious, but I have just informed my employer this, and they seem surprised.

Incidentally, flowery et al, before you tell me to take my holiday before my maternity leave, I am, I promise! I just had a meeting with my bosses in which we briefly discussed me getting paid a couple of days in lieu of holiday if my deadlines end up running a bit late before I stop. When I mentioned that this would obviously cost them more than if I just took it, they were horrified and said I would have to take my full holiday allowance. Was I talking out of my bottom?

I think you're right.

You mean if they pay you for your holiday they'll have to pay you your normal daily rate, plus the holiday pay - i.e. pay you double? But in return you work for longer and can meet the deadlines.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Obviously they would have the benefit of my fantastic capabilities for an extra couple of days, but it would cost them.

I feel sure I am right, and I am astounded that it hadn't occured to them (at one point they were going to pay me for 3.5 weeks in lieu, so it would have come as a nasty shock!)

How will it cost them more? They are paying you for (say) 3 weeks during which you don't work, that's what holiday is, no?

Either they pay it you now and you don't work now, or they pay it you at the end of your employment, and you don't work it then either.

Am I missing something?

But if I work for, say, one week of my holiday allowance (holiday year runs from jan-dec), and then they have to pay me in lieu in dec (as there's not any danger I'll be back in work then, so they can't tack it onto the end of my maternity leave), won't they be paying me to be in the office for that one week, and then again at the end of the year?

What I mean is, won't they be paying me for 53 weeks of the year rather than 52, as they are having to pay me for one week twice, once to work and once for my week holiday that I didn't take?

I am so not explaining this well...

I can see what you mean, but either way they are forking out one week's money for you not to work. Either you are being paid but not working now, or you are being paid but not working in December. There is no week where you are being paid twice, just 4.8 weeks of any year where you are being paid and not working.

I can see where you are coming from, it feels like that, but actually it's not! In terms of their convenience it's better for you to get that week's pay at the end of your maternity leave rather than now, as there is no disruption. But I still think you should take it!

Been reflecting. I think what you mean is that they will pay out more money to you as an employee if you don't take your holiday.
So in terms of actual cash, it will cost them more.

But although they'd be paying you for one more week, they'd also be getting one more week's work out of you. Clearly they think a week's work out of you is worth more to them financially than the week's pay it costs them, otherwise they wouldn't employ you iyswim. I think definitely at a time where you are going off and have deadlines etc, it's probably a very worthwhile investment from their point of view - paying you as an employee for effectively one extra week to minimise the hassle and disruption of you taking a week off now.

I don't understand this at all. Some people never take their full holiday allowance in the UK. The employer benefits because they pay the same pay all year as you do when someone is on holiday but they get an extra week or two out of that person. If you're in a job where your services say earn the employer 10X what they pay you (not that unusual) then every day you work when otherwise you'd be on holiday the employer is quids in.

Flowery, you've got it right. It will cost them more in pure cash terms, but they would get more work out of me.

Apparently however I am not fantastic enough for them to want that extra work from me! Ah well, just means that I have to make sure my work's all done before my leaving date, or I will have to do the handover from hell with my imaginary maternity cover - apparently I'm also so unecessary that they can do without maternity cover for me!

Xenia, you are right, my employer is being silly. I don't earn money for the company in an obvious way (I'm not a sales manager, for example), but I do bring in revenue by what I do. Apparently they haven't noticed this!