snoozequeen1

Well. Oh ye of little faith. Ask, and it shall be granted unto thee. Seek, and ye shall find. The spirit of Easter flourishes verily. On pointing out the sharply felt anomaly of being required to work on Easter Sunday, parted from friends, family and excess chocolate, said workers have instantly been granted not just one day, but additional annual leave equivalent to the full 8 bank and public holidays enjoyed by their Mon-Fri working colleagues. Heavens to Betsy, etc.

(just to mention, this is not an enquiry about self, but on behalf of another) There is no mention in the contract. When the person accepted the post, the company in question listed Easter Sunday as a firm holiday on the firm website. They have subsequently removed that listing, but did not tell any of the employees that they were doing this. Other staff working on bank or public holidays are paid triple time. No extra pay has been offered to employees expected to work on Easter Sunday. Employee argument is that Easter Sunday is exactly the same as Good Friday, ie it is a customary public holiday, and is not listed as such in govt lists simply because Sunday has always been taken for granted as a day off.

According to the UK govt website Good Friday is not a bank holiday but a customary public holiday (the same as Christmas Day, which I was a bit surprised to find is not a bank holiday either).

Are there any employment lawyers who would be so kind and so bold (what an exciting, Mills and Boon, combination) as to venture an opinion on this? A firm employs a skeleton staff at the weekends. (One or two people). All the staff who have Friday as one of their normal working days, are given Good Friday as a firm holiday, but the firm tells the staff who have Sunday as one of their normal working days, that they must work on Easter Sunday. Good Friday is not a bank holiday and so the decision to give staff the day off is discretionary. Easter Sunday is not an official public holiday, but at the time when bank holidays were introduced and at the time when the law was amended, Sunday was a working day for very few people. A survey of the first 10 googled websites purporting to list UK holidays, shows that most of them do list Easter Sunday as a public holiday, i.e there is a widespread custom to treat it as such. A straw poll of 15 employers in the same sector as the employer in question, reveals two distinct approaches to this issue by employers. Some firms grant both Good Friday and Easter Sunday as holidays. Some firms grant only those holidays which, as far as we can tell, they are obliged to by law, ie bank holidays, and those which do not grant Easter Sunday as a holiday, do not grant Good Friday either. How strong is the argument that a firm which gives Friday workers Good Friday as a holiday, but denies Easter Sunday to Sunday workers, is discriminating against the Sunday workers? Especially as it can be shown that the firm is very unusual, and may be unique, in adopting this practice? Opinions welcome.

flong Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've yet to come across a vixen that sounds like > Lorraine Chase losing it on the Campari. Sounds like it was one of our SE15 vixens. They are much harder over here. Likewise the rats and the gentlemen in the public houses who offer to fix up your car for you. Or somebody else's car for you.

Cars? Cars are now? Cars, now (or to be precise from April 15 2008), mean biofuel. Biofuel comes from grain and soy that's being grown on land in the poorest parts of the world, bought up by the super rich and hedge funds in the US and the UK, foodstuffs shipped out of countries where people are going hungry. Anyone heard a whisper of food riots in Mexico, people going without meals in El Salvador? Let them eat cake? Is that now? Because it seems to me that although we were born in the 20th century, we are very willingly rerunning the 18th and the 19th. And if the hungry react as the hungry always have, we will certainly deserve it.

Actually they don't seem to be falling that much round here (Nunhead). Roomy 3 bed Victorian houses in Nunhead were selling for ?385,000, top, in Oct 2006. By June 2007 they were being marketed at up to ?480,000 and were selling at that price. It looked crazy to me and I don't see why, even if some of that extreme bubble rise disappears, anyone should be crying about a "crash". It has been suggested that much of the 2007 rise was fuelled by estate agents arranging fraudulent mortgages - setting up buy to let mortgages, through which you can buy a property based just on its potential rental income, without reference to your salary, for people who could not possibly claim to be earning the 50k per annum each they would otherwise need. I declare an interest - I am going to be selling - but was also going to be buying again, and am trying to work out what to do now. . The current problem is that few owners are putting their houses on the market. There are fewer houses for sale here than I have seen since the housing crash of the late 80s/early 90s, when I was actually gazumped, despite it being supposedly the bottom of the market. There were only two houses for sale across several streets of Victorian terraces and both needed extensive work. I suppose the problem is that when the credit dries up the merry go round stops and while there will be repossessions, other people can't move or have a fixed idea that their house is worth the peak price and don't want to sell for less. So those who do really have to buy, because of a breaking up or expanding family, still can't find a lot to choose from. Looking at the South London Press, the housing ad supplement actually seems a bit thinner than it usually is at this time of year. There isn't a single 3 bed family house advertised to let around here either.

If anyone out there has any books in French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Russian or Swedish, including old dictionaries, reference books or encyclopedias, that they don't want, I would be very happy to take them off your hands. Not bothered about the condition of the books as long as they don't actually have those little weevil things running about in them.

Just wondering which golf course you mean?

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The White Company would be nice? ED Sinks Under Sheer Weight Knickknacks

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > my future prediction for Olivia Chessel aged 30 - > Senior partner at Goldman Sachs Mr 4 Quid (or Ms), I'm thinking maybe you are overestimating odds of any female person becoming partner at Goldmans. from the Washington Post, 2007: > Bless them, in 2001 they had a minuscule number of female partners, and by 2007, they had double a miniscule no of female partners! Suspect double minuscule is probably one of those tricky maths things that turns out negative. Olivia more likely to turn out as Chief Exec of BAA. Perhaps also there is very good reason for persons from ED to be protesting, she seems to be only one who has read the report that shows just how noisy it will get in SE22 and SE15 if plans go ahead. Even the middle classes entitled to a bit of hush?

shops run out of organic semiskimmed