So, today is 29 February. A lot of people have been arguing for a day's holiday today, on the grounds that they are providing a day of unpaid work for their employer. And some organisations are even going along with this, on somewhat pious grounds of "saving the environment". Of course, these employers cannot know if they are saving the environment or not, because they don't know what their employees are going to do on their day off. For example they could charter a private jet and take a round trip to a distant country (especially this year, when 29 February conveniently falls on a Friday).
Be that as it may, I don't agree with the premise that one works "for free" on 29 February, as the "day" is an artificial unit created by us. It does not properly fit reality (the natural world), hence the need for the four-yearly correction. An employee could just as easily think of it as receiving an extra quarter of a day's pay for nothing every three years, in preparation for the fourth year when she or he works the "extra" day.
There's some funny logic in there somewhere Naxine. If people are paid by the month, then most Februaries they probably get paid for days they don't actually work.
Me, I'm paid fortnightly so it really doesn't matter one whit how long the month is.
I'm a bit cynical here too. Is the National Trust actually paying people to stay at home? Or are we talking their many thousands of volunteers here?
Reminds me of when the education department I was working for decided to move payday from Friday to Thursday. What no-one expected was that their fortnightly pay cheque would be 13/14 of the previous fortnight's.
It apparently saved the government lots and lots of money, and no-one has ever been quite sure whether, when they finally resigned, that that 1/14 was ever made up. The local urban myth is that teachers are paid fortnightly to include the Friday, but that the employer in its generosity pays the money in on Thursday.
Posted by: Kerrie Smith | 29 February 2008 at 08:52
Hmm. Employment contracts (subject to law) usually ascribe to the notion of an annual salary, which is then paid monthly, sometimes four weekly, or weekly in this country. Any necessary calculations to take account of days, e.g. an employee leaves part way through the month of Feb, would have to take into account the number of days in the year. Thus, in a non-leap year, let's say someone leaves on 27 Feb and annual salary is X, Feb's closing pay would be:
(X/365) x 27.
For a leap year, the 365 would be replaced by 366.
If someone earns £20k p.a., the daily rate before tax and NI is £54.79 in a non-leap year; £54.64 in a leap year.
It would not make economical sense change all contracts to add a day every four years. Neither would it be green: think of all the paperwork. And I think employers would argue that existing contracts, on a p.a. basis cover the anomaly of a leap year's 366 days anyway.
Proponents of the "We're giving you an extra working day" philosophy are forgetting temps and contractors who get paid by the day or hour. Employees might benefit from a holiday, but these people would be forced to have a day's leave unpaid.
An interesting thought, but it's a very small rock to the boat. I don't think that either the private or public sectors would buy into this.
I find it quite a selfish thought, even if someone has signed a contract that specifies a weekly amount to be paid, as opposed to the norm of p.a.
My thoughts are with those who were born on 29/2. Officially, they have a birthday every four years. But, as one bright spark said optimistically and joyfully in the office today: "Well they can spread it over the two days for the other three years". In my mid-forties, that's the first time I've heard that. Before, it's always been "Pick your date".
We live in an ever-changing world.
Posted by: cfr | 29 February 2008 at 19:27