Three Day Week

L

Lobby

Registered User
Messages
226
Hi,

I'm a principle in a small family firm (estate agency). The girl on reception (who looks after all typing etc.) has requested a three day week meaning we'll need someone for the other two days. There are no other employees (i.e. 3 principles and the receptionist)

From what I can see, both would now be eligible for public holiday pay (not a huge cost, but an extra cost nonetheless).

From my looking briefly into this, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to the employer, in fact, it seems to be all disadvantages. Main one being, the loss of continuity - as receptionist she also oversees the various comings and goings of the rest of us - she is the "constant" in the office.

Has anyone any experience of this from an employers perspective?

We'd like to be able to accommodate her request if reasonably possible.
 
Lobby said:
From what I can see, both would now be eligible for public holiday pay (not a huge cost, but an extra cost nonetheless)
Click to expand...

A) Works 3 days a week @ 100 per day = 300
B) Works 2 days a week @ 100 per day = 200

The person who was due to work on the public holiday would get a full days.
The other person is entitled to 1/5 of their pay
So if its A or B who dosen't work the holiday it would be.
A) = 60
B) = 40

The continuity is an issue, but you cannot rely on one person forever.
People who job share tend to be more productive, ie cramming more work into their reduced hours.
 
I'm not sure I see how that works. Assume A is working Mon-Wed, and B is Thurs and Fri.

On the week of a public holiday (say the Monday), is it not the case that A gets 3 days pay (300 in your example) and B also gets 300 that week as B has met the criteria of over 40 hours in the preceding 5 weeks? (8 hrs x 2 days x 5 weeks = 80 hours > 40 hours required)

At nine bank holidays a year thats an extra 900 euro cost.

I can live with that if thats the case.

I still cannot see the continuity issue being as easy to overcome.
 
In HSE, worksharers (those who work less than 5 days per week) don't get a full bank holiday. I work 4 days per week (free day Monday), and am entitled to 4/5 day in lieu for each Monday bank holiday. I disputed this, as I meet the 40 hour criteria which lobby outlined, but apparently that's the way it is! It's a similar story in Dublin City Council to my knowledge.
 
Hi Looby,

If you like Ill move this question to the jobs/careers forum. This type of question is asked and answered there on a regular basis although it is from an employment rights perspective.

aj
 
Yep, pls go ahead and move this over ajapale.

There's conflicting answers on the Bank holiday bit that might be resolved.
 
hhhhhh, maybe I'm reading you wrong here, but the link you posted says that if you work 40 hours in the previous 5 weeks then you are entitled to the full bank holiday pay (or a day off etc.).

But the example you give above is different?? What is the reference to the 1/5 pay in your example?
 
Lobby said:
Hi,
From my looking briefly into this, there doesn't seem to be any advantage to the employer, in fact, it seems to be all disadvantages. Main one being, the loss of continuity - as receptionist she also oversees the various comings and goings of the rest of us - she is the "constant" in the office.
Click to expand...

You need to consider the risk of losing this person full time. The advantage as an employer is that with a three day week you will have continuity. She is not leaving totally. People that look for a 3 day week have a genuine need and as a result of this they also tend to be very commited as they recognise these positions are not easy to find. You may also find that if 2 people are job sharing they may communicate mush more between themselves as they really need to rely on each other as much as on you. They may have to interchange days etc. The important thing to do is find somebody you trust to fill the other half of the position.
 
Lobby said:
hhhhhh, maybe I'm reading you wrong here, but the link you posted says that if you work 40 hours in the previous 5 weeks then you are entitled to the full bank holiday pay (or a day off etc.).

But the example you give above is different?? What is the reference to the 1/5 pay in your example?
Click to expand...
Did you read the link

"Part-time employees who are entitled to public holiday leave, but are not due to work on that particular day should receive one-fifth of their weekly pay instead of the actual day's leave."
from my link
Breaking it down nice and simply

Part-time employees who are entitled to public holiday leave
those who work 40 hours in the previous 5 weeks

but are not due to work on that particular day
so if B was to work Thu&Fri and not the Monday the holiday would fall on

should receive one-fifth of their weekly pay instead of the actual day's leave
B gets 1/5 of their weekly pay €40
 
Sunnyboy said:
Really. Not my experience. Some do others don't
Click to expand...
I agree. I have seen it where work will be left over till the next day when the other girl is on...
As a woman I think i may be shot for saying this but if it was my company i would not allow job sharing at request without a benefit to the company.
 
nelly said:
I agree. I have seen it where work will be left over till the next day when the other girl is on...
As a woman I think i may be shot for saying this but if it was my company i would not allow job sharing at request without a benefit to the company.
Click to expand...

I think the benefit here, as someone pointed out above, is that the employee is going to remain as an employee whereas if the request for a 3 day week is turned out, the employer knows that the employee is not happy and is likely to be looking around elsewhere, or to feel demotivated.
I've seen it happen before where employers forget that they don't hold all the cards. They refuse a request because they assume it will be detrimental, but the result is much worse, i.e. peeing off their "up to this" loyal employee. Unless it is an entirely unreasonable request I think it is good to consider it. I've had reasonable requests of my own dismissed out of hand as my employer has actually said to me that it would open the floodgates. Not a very pertinent excuse I think.
 
I worked in a job where scads of people were on job share - either sharing a job with another person who arrived in when they were leaving or working mornings in one section and afternoons in another - and it seemed to work very well. Communication between people who are sharing a job is absolutely crucial - messages, emails, post-its, phone-calls etc - so that that kind of continuity is carried through.

You can lose continuity through employing two receptionists working at the same time when your business expands or through losing an employee anyway, so I don't think that argument washes. A really good training period, where your first employee works alongside the new employee to show her the ropes, will help customers get used to a new person and allow the new employee to learn about the customers as well as the job.

If you hire the right person - someone motivated and hard-working - you won't have the problems of work being just left for the other half to do. Maybe if you involve your employee in the recruitment process to a certain extent, she would be able to spot someone suitable?

I'm a firm believer in making work more flexible wherever possible. It's not always possible but when it is, it can be great for employers and staff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top