Deprived or oversupplied?

The headline says New Zealanders holiday deprived

It’s a story on the annual vacation deprivation survey which found 42% of New Zealanders failed to take all the annual leave to which they were entitled and the report says:

New Zealanders received an average of 21 annual leave days from their employer in the past year, but took only 18 days, the survey found.

Of the surveyed countries, New Zealanders were given the fifth-fewest annual leave days by their employers.

Received? Given? What about requested?

There is a difference. Four weeks annual leave has been the minimum entitlement since April 1, 2007. If employers haven’t been offering their staff the legal minimum, or have prevented them from taking it,  they’ve broken the law.

But is that the case or have workers chosen not to take their full entitlement?

Half of New Zealanders said they wanted to carry over their holidays to use the following year, while a third said work commitments were too great to take a break.

Half of those supposedly holiday-deprived appear to have chosen to postpone their leave, presumably to have a longer break, the following year.

As for those who say work commitments are too great, is that their choice or their employers’ requirement because if it’s the latter, again the employer would be breaking the law.

The report doesn’t mention statutory holidays either. New Zealanders are entitled to 11 of these each year and if they are requried to work on a stat. day they get a day off in lieu so those who took only 18 days annual leave ought to have had a total of 29 days off.

Four of the stat. days fall over the Christmas-New Year period so it’s possible to have three weeks away from work but, taking in weekends and stat. days, use only 11 days of the annual holiday entitlement. Two come at Easter and if you add a couple of weekends plus Good Friday and Easter Monday you get a 10 day break that uses only five days’ leave.

Time for  quiz:

1) Are New Zealanders really holiday deprived or do they choose not to take their full entitlement?

2) Is it relevant that the survey was conducted by an on-line travel company?

3) If the answer to 2 is yes is the story an example of spam journalism: The spurious use of sensational headlines to add spice to an otherwise pointless article. (MacDoctor definition)?