More Than Half of US Workers Didn't Use Up Their Time Off Last Year (qz.com) 464
An anonymous reader shares an article: Americans, famously, take far less vacation time than their European counterparts: less than 17 days, on average, compared to 30 days in France, for example. But for many Americans, that's apparently all the time they need. More than half of all US employees (54%) didn't use all their days off last year, working a combined total of 662 million more days than required. Of those days, 206 million couldn't be rolled over or cashed out, meaning they were forfeited, costing the equivalent of $66 billion, according to a report (PDF) from Project: Time Off, a group funded by the travel industry. While it's a group with a strong interest in promoting more vacations, their findings are still revealing about America's unhealthy reluctance to take time off. Almost 60% of US workers who don't take their allotted vacation say they fear the amount of work they'll have to return to, according to the survey of 7,331 working Americans. Others (47%) say they stay put because they believe no one else can do their job, or because they want to impress their bosses with their dedication (36%).
Of Course (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Of Course (Score:5, Interesting)
Word. I get a lot of time off, but when I try to use it my boss is always "oh, we don't have coverage (BS), or "you are using it too fast/often" (also BS). Of course it doesn't roll over or get paid out at the end of the year, either.
Re: (Score:3)
Word. I get a lot of time off, but when I try to use it my boss is always "oh, we don't have coverage (BS), or "you are using it too fast/often" (also BS). Of course it doesn't roll over or get paid out at the end of the year, either.
Are you one of my co-workers?
Re:Of Course (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't want a company treating you as the adversary, and no company wants employees who treat the company as the adversary. Take be macho emotion bullshit out and determine what outcome you want. Do what is most likely to get you that outcome. Creating a finger-on-the-button scenario and betting on who will blink first will have an unpredictable outcome and is completely, 100% unnecessary.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, in my history of an incredibly unstable career, I'd have to say at least 85% of managers consider their resources to be potential adversaries.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a problem in your employment relationship, and it is likely really holding your career back. If it's the company, you should leave and find an employer who is less dysfunctional.
If it's not the company, then it's your own attitude.
Companies certainly are never perfect, but in general they operate in their interest, which in general is keeping their strong people happy. I worry about my strong people leaving all the time -- as I'm falling asleep at night, on weekends, etc.
There's also a group of peop
Re: (Score:3)
Boy, it's great to work in an industry where you have the option of leaving one job and being hired in another job in short order, sometimes even at a higher salary. In the US, in many sectors, I think most people are hanging on as best they can to a dysfunctional job because if they quit, they'd be like their out-of-work relatives who have been looking for a job for the past two years.
Terrible advice on terrible advice (Score:3)
If the boss was reasonable, this would not come up in the first place. If you talk it over with them then they will just not like you, and you will move up a slot on the potential redundancy list. Do not waste time talking to a bully unless you have power.
Getting a job elsewhere wont work. If the industry you are in had job openings then you would not have this problem in the fist place. You will find similar attitudes in other related employers, and moving will just look bad on your resume.
But the good
Re:Of Course (Score:5, Interesting)
In most EU countries the employer will be in trouble if they fail to let you take all your holiday. In fact they need to push you to use it all up, because if there is any significant amount (>1 day) left over it can open them up to legal problems.
And of course, EU citizens have a much higher minimum - in the UK it's 28 days, of which your employer can require you to take 8 on public holiday days like New Year's Day, but that still gives you 4 weeks a year. Currently if you do regular overtime that increases your holiday entitlement too.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on the state. Here in Michigan for break times.
Michigan does not require employers to provide breaks, including lunch breaks, for workers eighteen (18) years old or older. An employer who chooses to provide a meal, lunch, or break period must complete relieve employees of their work duties for the break period to be unpaid.
When it comes to vacation leave
In Michigan, employers are not required to provide employees with vacation benefits, either paid or unpaid. If an employer chooses to provide such benefits, it must comply with the terms of its established policy or employment contract.
Same with sick leave:
Michigan law does not require employers to provide employees with sick leave benefits, either paid or unpaid. If an employer chooses to provide sick leave benefits, it must comply with the terms of its established policy or employment contract.
Re: (Score:3)
If they use the bear minimum, at least they had time for some camping!
Where I am most people stick to the bare minimum.
Re:Of Course (Score:5, Insightful)
US workers are absolutely terrified of taking time off lest it gets used against them in a review and they get fired and replaced at a moment's notice. How many people really think anyone at Netflix or elsewhere takes advantage of the ludicrous notion of 'unlimited holidays'? But hey, the American dream........
Companies need to respect vacation. Otherwise, what in the FUCK is the point of issuing it out to every employee? Managers need to respect that their human employees need some time away from the high-stress workplace every now and then.
And no, I don't agree with companies having a policy of letting you cash out on unused vacation. That's just an excuse to keep you at your job. You need to take some time off every now and then. We ALL do.
In this particular aspect, the Europeans GET IT. And we Americans have completely lost that concept, to the detriment of our minds, our bodies, and the working society as a whole. FUCK simply dismissing this. American workers need to start demanding that their employers respect the concept of vacation. Taking vacation is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of sanity and common sense.
Re:Of Course (Score:5, Interesting)
And no, I don't agree with companies having a policy of letting you cash out on unused vacation. That's just an excuse to keep you at your job.
I once worked somewhere that went a step further than this... In addition to letting you cash out anything over X hours of accrued vacation time (or roll it over, if you really wanted), they included all the normal "company holidays" in the flexible vacation time balance. So while you did technically get X company holidays a year, plus a reasonable allotment of actual vacation time, it all came out of the same pot. That meant that you actually had to use your vacation time to take those holidays off.
In theory, this was great. You got more vacation time, and could use it however you saw fit to do so. No need to be limited by specific pre-scheduled holidays.
In reality, this was extremely annoying. It basically meant that you were discouraged from ever taking any of those normal holidays off, so you didn't ever get a long weekend break. (this all was extra annoying as a junior person who didn't accrue vacation at as high a rate as everyone else, and who didn't have a family to take actual scheduled vacations with.)
Re:Of Course (Score:5, Interesting)
From a corporate responsibility perspective, it is stupid to not force people to take two week contiguous vacations every year, fully disconnected from work. You basically need it for detecting fraud and lack of process redundancy. The challenge is how a company handles the vacancy-- OT on other people, temps, or something else... all of which are ineffective.
Re:Of Course (Score:5, Informative)
US workers are absolutely terrified of taking time off lest it gets used against them in a review ...
My manager told me that I could not use my vacation time so long as there was work to do on the project I was assigned to. It was a three year project;. HR was useless, telling me that I could take the vacation but refusing to tell my manger the same thing. I waited until a lull in the project (another department was the critical path for a while), gave a month's notice, and took a week vacation. A year later, I was included in the layoffs.
Re: (Score:3)
My manager told me that I could not use my vacation time so long as there was work to do on the project I was assigned to.
If my manager ever told me that they'd be getting a visit from an investigative team of the works council followed probably by a fine from the state.
Your manager is the reason other countries have laws protecting vacations.
Also the reason other countries have laws against unfair dismissal.
unlimited holidays = we can call you when on one (Score:2)
unlimited holidays = we can call you when on one of them to remote work if needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
well bob we have really have unlimited time out of the office but we want to be in for core hours for about 85-90% of the year. But some people like jay are in the office 125%-150% of the time and we want to be like jay on this job.
Re: (Score:2)
What seems to work better is mandatory holiday, where you boss is telling you to take time off. We don't want to be the guy who isn't a team player. but if our boss tells us to take time off, we are being a team player and doing what the bosses say.
Re:Of Course (Score:5, Interesting)
I work for a company that offers unlimited vacation. I use it, extensively and, as a leader, I encourage my entire team to use it extensively as well. Last year I took more than 8 weeks of vacation and I'm already expecting 7 this year.
From the article:
You know what impresses me? People who are refreshed and excited at work, not those who are so self-righteous to believe no one else can do their job (that's total and unadulterated bullshit) or who think I'd be impressed by slogging through half-awake at work.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't consider myself 'lucky'. I've worked in places like that (unionized environments were incredibly dramatic) and I made professional moves to place myself in organizations which meet my personal values.
Re: (Score:3)
15 years ago, I moved 700 miles from where I was living to the area I am at now because of better job opportunity. Since then I've increased my salary over 700% and the quality of workplaces has grown with each move.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Then you're just an hourly employee. If you track hours, and get paid by the hours that you work, you're an hourly worker, not salaried.
Sure you can accept a deal like that (at least in the US) but I wouldn't want to. If you need me to be there from 8-5, take lunch at noon and punch in and out, you're an hourly worker that got suckered into not getting overtime pay.
Re:Of Course (Score:5, Insightful)
They mention France in the summary. Employees there are guaranteed a minimum of 36 days off per year (including public holidays). They have basically free university education, free healthcare, and many other perks. There's no way you can persuade me they have "low government spending" - and their tax rates are suitably high to pay for all that.
Tell me again how "high government spending" means you can't take time off?
Re:Of Course (Score:4, Informative)
This doesn't make any sense - unless I'm completely missing your point. US government spending is lower than most countries with more 'socialist' labour laws. Including France, Germany, UK and most of Scandinavia. https://data.oecd.org/gga/gene... [oecd.org]
The worldwide average salary is dragged way down by countries with much worse labour rights than the US (e.g. none), not by those with better labour rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of Course (Score:5, Informative)
The company I work for frowns on workers who do not take time off. Management puts out on a regular occasion that paid time off is to be used, not stored.
And there is a legitimate reason management should do this. Perhaps they have studied the science behind this.
Numerous studies have shown that worker productivity increases with regular time off. The worker who takes 6 weeks of vacation in a year is going to get more done over the course of a year than a worker who takes 2 weeks. They may be out the office for an extra 4 weeks, but productivity increases enough that they get more done total.
Despite companies in the US resisting to increase vacation time, it's actually in their best interest to do so.
Re:Of Course (Score:4, Informative)
Nah, it is probably because paid time off is a liability on the financial books.
Re: (Score:3)
My company has it as an asset. They have two payroll budgets, one of which is the time off budget. If you take any time off, they don't pay you from the regular payroll budget and instead pay you from the time off budget, giving the regular payroll budget a surplus.
During recessions, they sometimes force you to take a week of time off if you have more than three weeks worth saved up so they can match revenues to expenses. They haven't done that in a long time though.
Re: (Score:3)
I think th
Re:Of Course (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, here's one from last summer: https://hbr.org/2016/07/the-da... [hbr.org]
It has plenty of links to other studies and important data points like this particular one which counters the premise of most of the comments I've seen thus far:
Re: (Score:3)
The company I work for frowns on workers who do not take time off. Management puts out on a regular occasion that paid time off is to be used, not stored.
And there is a legitimate reason management should do this. Perhaps they have studied the science behind this.
Numerous studies have shown that worker productivity increases with regular time off. The worker who takes 6 weeks of vacation in a year is going to get more done over the course of a year than a worker who takes 2 weeks. They may be out the office for an extra 4 weeks, but productivity increases enough that they get more done total.
Despite companies in the US resisting to increase vacation time, it's actually in their best interest to do so.
You see it's not about productivity but the illusion of control and maintaining a feeling of helplessness. If Employees felt empowered, they might start demanding other things like fair wages, paid overtime, reasonable working hours and worst of all, the boss would lose the ability to abuse them at his pleasure. The boss would have to start treating their workers with a modicum of respect, thus losing the illusion of control. If this happens, bonuses based on non-constructive KPI's will be lost, bosses will
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Of Course (Score:4, Informative)
This is common in companies whose paid time off is a liability on the accounting books. Not everyone knows there are different ways of accounting for paid time off. Beware of companies that gives you all your annual time off up front or in large increments periodically. Those are typically not considered a liability and are not paid off if you leave or are terminated. A place that gives you accruals, means they are accounting for the time and will want their employees using it, not having it balloon on the balance sheet. Basically, any time that PTO is accrued, it is a liability to the company and there is a builtin incentive for management to encourage employees to take time off. That is a good thing.
Re:Of Course (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
It is the same mistake people make in understanding banking.
When you deposit money into a savings account, the bank it taking on a liability. A thing they might have to pay back later! That's why it is a liability. They already got the money, but now they're liable for it. If somebody steals it from their vault, it was stolen from them, not the depositor. Worse, they don't know when you'll ask for it back.
When you borrow money from the bank, they're are receiving an asset. They already risked the money they
Re: (Score:3)
Looking back into history, I'd say around 1985 or 1986.
Re: (Score:3)
That sounds like a place where they need to hire more people because there's no excuse for single coverage of anything.
But this being the US, it means that if the company can get away with it (for various values of "get away") they will. Hope no one suddenly quits for a better job or has some sort of crippling accident because it sounds like everyone is going to be screwed if that happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of it like this: do you have a spare car in case one of your two cars breaks down? The answer of course being no. So why would you have a spare employee?
Redundancy is nice on paper. But in the long run I reckon it's rarely worth the $100K/year cost.
Re: (Score:3)
Cause and effects (Score:2)
It's not 'cause they didn't wanna. It's 'cause they died.
if we only had EU workers rights or an union! (Score:3)
if we only had EU workers rights or an union!
In the EU they can't block you from taking time off.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm required to take 3 weeks off by our labor laws in Norway.
That takes the blame away from the worker and puts it on the government as far as the company would be concerned.
Then again, the concept of a "joint vacation period" or "Fellesferien" is a thing here: http://articles.latimes.com/20... [latimes.com]
Cashing in Time off hours (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cashing in Time off hours (Score:4, Insightful)
And then there are those of us who don't get sick much and end up losing our "sick" days. At least PTO gives you a choice.
In my experience combined PTO that includes sick days means people who are sick come into the office and get other people sick rather than lose vacation days.
This hurts the company (and the employees who get sick more often as a result).
Re: (Score:3)
It's also an underhanded way to encourage people with chronic health conditions (probably older) to leave for other employment and encourage healthy (probably younger) employees to hire on. This reduces their health care risk pool and reduces costs.
Re:Cashing in Time off hours (Score:4, Insightful)
I probably laughed for 15min straight when I heard he injured himself
You might be a bad person. I hope the people in your life have more compassion for you when something bad happens to you, whether or not you deserve it.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of other people (and myself) have combined leave (sick and vacation) hours. I don't use all my leave because you never know when you might be sick, and if you get laid off it's nice to have some extra money that you get by cashing in your excess PTO hours.
I used to do this when we had combined PTO/Sick and year-to-year rollover. Due to my seniority I have a ton of PTO and I would keep at least 2 weeks, usually more, in reserve for an emergency. But last year my company got bought out and changed that, moving 7 days from PTO to dedicated sick time, and they eliminating year to year rollover. So now I let them build up from the start of the year and start taking time off towards the last half of the year just waiting for the axe to fall but not wanting to g
Use it before you lose it... (Score:2)
I don't use my vacation (Score:3)
...and it's not because I love work.
The simple fact is that if I'm gone for a day, the amount of work I come back to is more than a day's worth.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't take a week off... I take a day or two here and here, sometimes a Wednesday, sometimes a Friday or Monday to make a long weekend.
Why?
I already get a week off around my birthday when the college I work for closes for Spring Break, and again anywhere from 10 to 20 days when the college closes between the Fall and Spring terms (Winter break/Christmas).
Gaslighting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It'll be the awesome recession.
If you take vacation (Score:2)
Americans define themselves by their work. (Score:5, Insightful)
(This is a generalization, I don't want to see hundreds of posts stating that they are the exception)
In general Americans will define themselves on what they do. When meeting a new person, one of the first questions asked is what do they do for a living. We use the answer of this question to help define and place themselves in society. Before you realize how unfair this is, other cultures, will make the same judgments based on family, religion, race, political standing, their dress, their car...
Being that what we do for work is a key part of our identity, we prefer to spend a good portion in enforcing and strengthening it. While the numbers show the opposite, taking time off, we get the perception that we will be considered lazy, not a team player, and not productive if we take too much vacation. So we usually keep these vacation days, not as vacation but as emergency time off days.
Also we subconsciously control our work environment so we necessary as an individual to the institution, and poorly sharing your information with other workers. So if you take time off, you get back with a weeks worth of work that you will need to do, being an other intensive to not take time off.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's simply not true. In other countries people define themselves on what they do too, but they understand that there are other things in life and are reasonable.
Keep telling yourselves comforting lies. The rest of the world will live their lives happier while you waste your (only) life for your corporate overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
When meeting a new person, one of the first questions asked is what do they do for a living.
And if the person asking you the question doesn't really understand your answer, then they instead ask you "Where do you work?"
(Likewise, I've seen plenty of people give the "Where do you work?" answer in lieu of "What do you do?" in other situations.)
This has always made me somewhat uncomfortable, because maybe I don't want to tell someone I just met where I actually do work. (Especially so if you don't work for some large behemoth where you're one of thousands.)
Re: (Score:3)
A little from column A, and a little from column B...
Travelling sucks? (Score:2)
I noticed that the PDF did not list that travelling sucks as a reason. It could be that reason did not crack the top 5 or 10, but it's up there for me. The airlines and TSA have made travel an absolute nightmare. It used to be fun to hop on a plane. Now it's excruciating as I watch a TSA agent pat down my teenage daughter because she had a pudding cup in her backpack.
I actively avoid flying at all costs now. Screw that. Screw them. I haven't been on a cruise ship, but I hear mixed stories ranging from "amaz
I wonder how much is from the PTO "benefit" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I wonder how much is from the PTO "benefit" (Score:4, Informative)
Fortunately that's not the case (yet) around here. And the very LAST thing I need is a sick person coming to office and infecting the rest of the people here. I made it clear that if you're sick, you stay home and you better not even try to put a foot into the office before it's certain that you won't make the rest stay home for the next week.
I can do with one person being sick. I can't handle 5 people staying home because someone thought that the world stops revolving if he doesn't "push through". If you're sick, stay the hell away from me and anyone else in the office! If you feel like going to an office, try that of a competitor! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Glad that shit is illegal in Norway.
Re: (Score:2)
And do what? (Score:3)
Time off viewed negatively (Score:2)
I was told by a former boss that "If a person could be gone for two weeks from their job then that person's position in the company is unnecessary."
I was repeatedly denied vacation requests during my time there. It got to the point where I would just tell my boss to tell me what week would be best for them if I took a week off.
I'm at a much better place now that don't hold these views but they are quite common here in America.
I honestly think that given our history - a country founded by Puritans, an early
Rollover vacation... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Our government found a simple solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Time you don't take off before you quit has to be paid out. Now, to make sure that your company CAN actually pay the time they "owe" you if you quit today and they go bankrupt the same day, your company has to stash money in government bonds to the tune of what they'd have to pay their workers if all of them went out the door today.
Calculate about, say, 25 vacation days per worker, for a workforce of, say 10,000. Let's be conservative and say that a day/person is about 100 bucks.
Can you see how companies can have a HUGE interest in their workers actually going on vacation, and doing it as early as possible?
I MUST spend my vacation every year. They now even made it a bonus-valued goal, not to spend my vacation days and letting them roll over threatens my annual bonus. And since March I get weekly reminders from HR that I still have 10 unplanned days and that beautiful days are coming up, and whether I don't feel like taking some of the upcoming Fridays (with Thu being a holiday) off to enjoy a 4 days weekend.
I kid you not.
"rest" (Score:3)
>"Almost 60% of US workers who don't take their allotted vacation say they fear the amount of work they'll have to return to,"
Yep, that is me. When I take off time to "rest and recover", I come back to an even more stressful mess. Not exactly restful. The only true time off I get is when others in the facility are also off at the same time... meaning holidays. Except most of the facility is still "open" 24/7/365 so even that is a shot-in-the-dark.
Standard Holidays? (Score:2)
It's complicated (Score:3)
I worked in the US office of a European company and we got European vacation benefits on a PTO system. I loved it and thought it was great. I'd still be working there just for the vacation time had the company not gotten rid of a lot of US employees in my city to save money.
My current employer is a US based Fortune 500 company who treats us pretty well in general, but on the downside they have acted like every vacation day we take is stealing from their very soul. No PTO here. We don't get sick leave, but if you are sick for a day or two, you can just stay home and get paid - no vacation time used. If you're out for, I think, 4 days or more, you have to go on short term disability. We got a new, younger CEO a few years ago and he bumped up our vacation time a little bit and they stopped acting like taking vacation was almost like killing the company, but still it will never, ever equal what I was getting with the US government or the European company. They severely limit how much vacation time we can carry over (5 days) and pretty much force us to burn it up. If you really just refuse to take a vacation you can just throw your days in the trash I guess, but I've never heard of that. We get a lot of reminders to use vacation time and there is a policy in my organization that encourages you to use your vacation so you are better rested. I've never heard of anybody having anything negative happen to them because they used vacation time, which is good, but I still wish they were more generous with the amount we get. A lot of US companies are like mine, and they're just not all that generous with vacation time, but at least when we do use it there is no punishment for doing so.
I try to keep some in reserve (Score:3)
Personally, I don't use every single day of vacation because I'm never secure in my job. That's just the nature of the work we're in...if the MBAs ever get around to replacing us with someone cheaper, I'm out no matter how skilled and useful I am. We're only allowed to bank 5 days of vacation, but I tend to hang onto it because honestly that's an extra week of pay at a time where I might need it. The fact remains that the US is a very hostile environment to be unemployed in; unemployment insurance barely covers anything if you've had anything approaching a middle class job previously.
I work for an employer that treats people pretty well on balance...it's very true that there are a lot of sweatshops out there and people continue to work there for many reasons. Web startups and small businesses would probably be at the low end of the spectrum -- most businesses I've worked with in the small to medium category already treat non-family employees as "the help" and are extremely stingy when it comes to pay, time off and benefits. Web startups are their own brand of crazy because everyone's hoping to win the IPO or buyout lottery. At the other extreme end of the spectrum, I know a lot of people who work for the state and can actually bank all of their sick and vacation time, to be paid out at the end of their service. Most people use this windfall to buy into insurance that will last them through their retirement...and along with their pension they are able to enjoy a worry-free retirement just like the old days.
Most people I work with are older and fewer management "tricks" work on us. But, there are still plenty of younger domestic workers who haven't learned that employers will take anything they can from employees and fall into the trap of working crazy hours. I'm by no means a clock-watcher; my employer routinely gets tons of "free" work out of me, but I do this because they also offer me a lot of flexibility. Everyone's trade-offs are different; I trade off raw salary for better retirement benefits, a shorter commute and a better ratio of home to work time. Other workers might just want the money regardless of how bad the work environment is, or they may trade off even more salary for a more stable job working in something like government, or they absolutely have to work for the hottest Silicon Valley employer. I do think employers should staff accordingly so that people can actually take time off from work -- so many places I've seen will only hire one person skilled in some job function, effectively chaining them to their desks or slowing down everyone else when they do need to be off.
What can I Say? (Score:4)
Re:Europe vs. US (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US, we reward hard work with promotions and higher salaries. In Europe, they just tax the wealthy while the six hour work days and bans on checking email outside of work decrease productivity. It's hard work versus socialism taxing successful people. One of these leads to a strong economy, the other to massive debt. There's no incentive to be successful in Europe, anyway, because the government will just take your money away with taxes to pay for ridiculous social programs that would be unnecessary if people just had jobs and worked 40 hour weeks.
- snruter rotsac
Either this post is ironic, or you are so deep in the tank you don't even know there's a tank.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the US, I work 90h a week. Good healthcare for my family costs me $38k a year. I've trained overseas replacements six times, and been fired twice, only to be rehired as my overseas replacements quit due to lack of competency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Those poor, abused millionaires!
After all that heavy taxing at the end of the day all they have left is their millions.
Would someone please think of the millionaires?
Re:Europe vs. US (Score:5, Informative)
Either this post is ironic, or you are so deep in the tank you don't even know there's a tank.
Not that you could be troubled to even hint at why he's incorrect, and instead lazily attack the messenger.
No, I indeed could not be troubled. I gain no benefit from futile attempts to disabuse strangers on the Internet of their ignorant beliefs. But, since you bothered to respond, I'll count them down.
In the US, we reward hard work with promotions and higher salaries.
This is patently ridiculous. I hope I don't have to demonstrate the myriad examples of hard-working people not being promoted or getting higher salaries. Look at the people who clean your office, or pick your lettuce for examples.
In Europe, they just tax the wealthy while the six hour work days and bans on checking email outside of work decrease productivity.
Obviously Europe does more than tax the wealthy, and people work more than 6 hours a day (Yes, Sweden experimented with a 6 hour work day). Slightly reducing productivity (if a ban on after-work email even resulted in that) is not really a huge deal.
It's hard work versus socialism taxing successful people. One of these leads to a strong economy, the other to massive debt.
This is quite simplistic, I hope you would agree. Europe has a strong economy and the US has massive debt. I'm not saying Europe is better, or has no debt, or that the US is not hard working or does not have a strong economy. I'm just saying the OP has a very simplistic view of a complex interplay between business, labor, the social contract and the role of the state.
There's no incentive to be successful in Europe, anyway, because the government will just take your money away with taxes to pay for ridiculous social programs that would be unnecessary if people just had jobs and worked 40 hour weeks.
Again, this is ridiculous. There are many wealthy Europeans. This idea that taxation keeps people from being productive and building businesses, that they will just sit on their hands because taxes are just too damn high, is not borne out by evidence. The poster also ignores the fact that Capitalism has manifestly failed to provide for the majority of the population. Many people work 40 hours a week and still need social assistance. So the assertion that employing people at 40 hours will eliminate the need for social programs is just plain flat wrong.
As I said, the post is either sarcastic, or just stupid. I hope it is now more clear as to why.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, you're stupid. In the EU, we are intelligent. End of the discussion. Enjoy your shithole of a society, slave.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>In Europe, they just tax the wealthy while the six hour work days and bans on checking email outside of work decrease productivity
Nope. Having worked in both Europe and the US, I can confidently say that the high-performing people are equally productive. In Europe they actually go on holidays and take time with their families too.
My personal observations have led me to conclude that this american productivity thing is a total myth. It seems to me more about some fucked up 'I work harder than you' compet
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
My former colleagues in the USA were more concerned with NOT losing their job while on vacation than promotion or salary hikes. That was why they didn't take their vacation days. The thought of taking four weeks (20 days) holiday in one go was just not on their radar.
It is so easy to fire people in the USA compared to Europe. There are all sorts of legal procedures that you have to go through such as written warnings etc that firing someone for taking their legal vacation would not be allowed. If a company
Re:Misunderstood (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you "have" vacation on paper doesn't mean you can actually take vacation.
No. It means you should take vacation, which is a concept that fewer and fewer Americans can grasp or understand.
Some time away from the thing in your life that creates some of the worst stress and physical abuse would probably benefit an individual greatly. It would benefit an entire society greatly if that mentality were to become infectious, and help reset US workplace expectations and respect for what the hard working employees do provide when they are there.
Even if you could not actually afford to "go away" on vacation, just relaxing for a few days can have a considerable benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your job is creating that much stress and physical abuse, then you are in the wrong job or field of work.
Not all abuse is physical. I was also addressing the mental aspect, as even the simplest most repetitive tasks dictate a break. We are human, not robots.
Bottom line is vacation is an aspect of employment that should be rewarded and respected. If employers aren't going to do that, then remove it, not provide some bullshit illusion that it actually exists or you can take advantage of it. And that goes for ALL employees, including executives and managment.
Re: (Score:2)
We are human, not robots.
And there's why they're trying to replace you with robots right now.
the EU makes it a right to have paid time off in u (Score:2)
the EU makes it a right to have paid time off in usa under the unions they got that but to bad now days union jobs are going away.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet one side of the political idle thinks this sort of waste is completely exempt from any and all discussion on wasteful government spending. While they endlessly crusade to cut everything else the government is spending money on...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Vacation time is important. As is going home after 10 days. I get no use out of someone who is ruining his (mental) health over some perceived "requirement" who is gone for good with burnout half a year later. It takes almost a YEAR in my business until I can rely on someone. Hire and fire doesn't work here, and simply burning through people isn't an option. Not to mention that good security people are hard to come by in the first place.
And people who sit and work for 10+ hours increase their mistake rate.
Re: (Score:3)
"Why do you pick up the phone?" would be my first question.
The next ones would deal with questioning your mental health...
Americans are raised brainwashed. (Score:3)
Americans are raised brainwashed. Corporate culture has spread into the workers (the last place you'd imagine.) People brag about how little vacation they use - it's a point of pride! Letting work get into your private life is also the norm; the opposite of Germany where it's illegal to email you on vacation. Also we all cheer when "productivity" goes up completely unaware of what that usually means and how shallow those numbers usually are. The idea that jobs/employers/capitalism exists to provide work