• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are Americans happy with having so little vacation?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: XMan
Originally posted by: CyberDuck
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I think that we could use more vacation. However, I wonder how the Europeans live with such little income and high taxes. It would be nice to have more vacation, but I wouldn't be able to go do anything exciting with no money to spend.

Well, we get extra money for taking vacation, and we don't have the option of working instead of taking a vacation.

That may depend on who you work for. In my company, if you don't take your entitled vacation, you can roll it over to the next year or cash it in. If you need more vacation, you can "buy" more vacation time, as well.


This kind of plan is declining. Depending on the nature of your company's accounting, carrying the vacation into the next year shows as a liabillity on the books ... so some/many companies are "requesting" that the employees take all of their vacation in the current year. If the FY starts in April or June, sometimes you can carry it into the next calendar year, but must use it before the end of the fiscal year.

The other (possible) trend I've been hearing is how/when your vacation is calculated. In the past, for X number of years, you usually get certain number of days. If you left (or were laid off / RIF'd) before the year was out, the balance of your vacation was added as a cash value to your last check (assuming you left in a way that qualifies you for the payout).

Now, many companies have changed the policy such that you earn the vacation as the work year progresses. You're still entitled to three weeks (or whatever) but if you leave at the six-month mark, you'd only get the cash-out for un-taken vacation accumulated through the six-month. If you have taken more than you've earned, it is deducted from the final check.

And finally, some companies are changing from calendar year (your vacation is granted on 12:01am Jan 1) to actual annversary dates ... some are going the other way to simplify the accounting.

Every company I've ever worked for (and the Navy) has had paid vacation.

FWIW


 
Actually, I see this as a reason the government should step in and mandate some kind of paid time off. It's clear in America that without the government's interference companies will work their employees into the ground. I have no doubt that if many businesses could get away with it, they'd revert to slave labor like we did 150 years ago.

35 hour work weeks and 5 weeks of vacation is extreme, but something modest such as 2 weeks every year should not be out of the question.

And before some start harping about "entitlement" and "lazyness," etc. I think this time should be given as a vacation/sick/personal time combined allowance. If you want to work for a company that offers no time off and die of heart failure when you're 62 while the people you worked for reaped the benefits of your labor, more power to you.
 
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Actually, I see this as a reason the government should step in and mandate some kind of paid time off. It's clear in America that without the government's interference companies will work their employees into the ground. I have no doubt that if many businesses could get away with it, they'd revert to slave labor like we did 150 years ago.

35 hour work weeks and 5 weeks of vacation is extreme, but something modest such as 2 weeks every year should not be out of the question.

And before some start harping about "entitlement" and "lazyness," etc. I think this time should be given as a vacation/sick/personal time combined allowance. If you want to work for a company that offers no time off and die of heart failure when you're 62 while the people you worked for reaped the benefits of your labor, more power to you.

Just because you work less hours for someone else, doesn't make you lazy.

Having a 35 hour week and extra vacation would allow for more entrepreneurial activity, or other things such as building the barn or building the next youtube.

Hell, people could take some courses with the time.
 
I haven't read the whole thread, but I would hope that the OP does realize that Europe's forced vacation laws are not there for the benefit of the workers, but as a way to artificially lower unemployment.
Practicially every country on earth uses government policy in some form or another for this purpose. For example, that's the true purpose of the drug prohibition here in the US. It forces "undesirables" out of the labor market while boosting a tremendous number of law enforcement/corrections-related jobs.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
I haven't read the whole thread, but I would hope that the OP does realize that Europe's forced vacation laws are not there for the benefit of the workers, but as a way to artificially lower unemployment.
Practicially every country on earth uses government policy in some form or another for this purpose. For example, that's the true purpose of the drug prohibition here in the US. It forces "undesirables" out of the labor market while boosting a tremendous number of law enforcement/corrections-related jobs.

If the people are making a decent living(or at least, decent enough), wouldn't that make it a good thing though?
 
Originally posted by: Vic
I haven't read the whole thread, but I would hope that the OP does realize that Europe's forced vacation laws are not there for the benefit of the workers, but as a way to artificially lower unemployment.
Practicially every country on earth uses government policy in some form or another for this purpose. For example, that's the true purpose of the drug prohibition here in the US. It forces "undesirables" out of the labor market while boosting a tremendous number of law enforcement/corrections-related jobs.

Vic, this is more an interpretation than a fact. In the early days of industrialisation, European employers had no problems with fifty hours weeks and mass unemployment, and worker movements were among the main causes for the changes in the system since then. So the laws aren't forced upon the workers by an alien government, but they actively helped design them. I for one look forward to my four weeks of vacation per year, once I start working.
 
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Shivetya

How can I live with this? Easy, we are a nation of doers.
This is exactly the problem. We are a nation of Doers. We can't be about being- we are defined by doing. The euros have the right idea. Life is not about work. Life is about being.

It's not about being lazy, it's about being healthy and balanced. An unbalanced person is one who wants to work all the time. Apparently we Americans have much more money and material possessions than we used to (longer work periods= more money) but people diagnosed with clinical depression are up 3 to 10 times since the 50s and people report being no happier despite all the material things we earn with our money. There are other sacrifices as well.

here's an interesting listen: NPR

QFT. People worry so much about making money and preparing for retirement that they forget to actually live life.
 
Back
Top