The ethics of loyalty to your workplace

I think any workplace now, regardless of size, should adjust their policies to be more multicultural and inclusive. They should also be cognizant that there are other calendars that are followed aside from Gregorian calendar. In this particular case, the employee should be allowed to take extra leave days over his/her allocated leave balance. (i.e. go into negative balance)

This exact same issue has happened to me. I am taking the 2 weeks leave over shutdown and will take leave without when I take my extended holiday overseas. I understand that it is a great time for the business to shut down, so I plan for this throughout the year.

I would have a conversation with my Manger about how am I feeling. Whilst I respect my organisation's policy I need to ensure that I am comfortable with what am I asked for. They still need to consider my priorities and should work for mutual benefit. I am not denying to use my leaves, I am only asking them to be considerate.

Westpac make us take 3 weeks.

I find it curious that respect is one sided here.

When these sorts of conditions are demanded, e.g. 'forced' leave, this is being disrespectful of the needs of the employee.

Is it disrespectful of an employee to raise this, or in effect demand that is unfair? Sure the employee could look for work elsewhere, more aligned to their needs, but I find it curious that employers (especially the big ones) are so quick to throw the 'you need to be more respectful of the business' line, when clearly it isn't being reciprocated.

Who's group being unethical here?

To state the obvious, this is a case of the employer giving primacy of its own interests ie financial performance. Killing off employee leave entitlements is one of the laziest/easiest ways to reduce liabilities and improve financial position. For poor performing senior managers and the executives it is a no-brainer to take advantage of employees in this way. And, never get in the way of an executive's performance bonus.
In the 3 businesses I have worked in that apply this type of policy it has always been cloaked beneath a message of providing employee time to switch off and their own well-being. This has always been rendered transparent and duplicitous by those same execs demanding employees cover lost productivity by working twice as hard and long in the lead up to Christmas.
I could respect the argument if the business' involved also made the decision to reduce the output required over the same period that resources were removed that are needed.
The business world still continues over Christmas, New Year and into January. The Banking and finance industry continues to perform the same functions.
Essentially, businesses adopting such employment practices are behaving unethically by requiring employees to work additional, unpaid hours pre and post their Christmas shutdowns to complete the output they demand must still be achieved.
For businesses this carries a double bonus - managing liabilities and reducing costs.
For employees, unless we all provide a firm 'No' the employer can continue to establish a culture and expectation that this is ok. Time to join a union don't you think?