USA Work and Quality of Life Issues

[randomrogue]

Inspired by a thread in the P/N section.

How do you guys feel about some of the things lacking in our American workplace?

1. Most people get 2 weeks vacation. This is incredibly low. I have friends with 8.5 weeks. I took like 5 months off last year. Standard in Europe is around 30 days. Americans also have the fewest paid national holidays around.

2. No maternity leave. I don't understand this at all. I got jobs in the states when I was in college covering for women who just had a baby. They came back almost immediately and were lactating all over themselves, pumping breast milk and generally unhappy and still sore. In Europe you get a very long time. Over a year in many places. We get paternity leave here too.

3. No health care. To be fair I have never had a job that didn't offer healthcare but I did have to pay for it myself at a number of jobs. Either way a large percentage of Americans do not have healthcare. If I go home to visit I have no healthcare in the USA.

How do you guys feel that this affects your quality of life?

 

[ivwshane]

I responded in the other thread but to summerize:

Americans have been trained to feel bad for wanting or taking time off. The mentality is that you take what the company gives you or you leave. The mentality is that if you take vacation then you are lazy or at best not a good worker.

Americans quality of life has taken a back seat to profits in this country and we even have a whole party pushing that agenda.

Wages have been stagnant while profits have been growing as well as worker productivity, anyone see any issues with that?

 

[CycloWizard]

You can get all of these things at a job in the US if you can negotiate them with your employer. Should McDonald's give paid time off to someone who has a kid? How much paid vacation should they give to someone flipping burgers? Why should a woman get the same pay as a man plus paid maternity leave?

 

[Murloc]

Why should a woman get the same pay as a man plus paid maternity leave?

yeah that's an issue and also creates discrimination against women, that's why there are people promoting paternity leave, to close this gap and let it be equal for real.

1. I think this affects quality of life big time
2. yeah this is stupid
3. healthcare is completely related to the workplace only in the US so it doesn't apply. Everywhere else I know it's personal.

 

[randomrogue]

You can get all of these things at a job in the US if you can negotiate them with your employer. Should McDonald's give paid time off to someone who has a kid? How much paid vacation should they give to someone flipping burgers? Why should a woman get the same pay as a man plus paid maternity leave?

Culturally I was never able to get more than 3 weeks off. Ever. You simply have "too much work, responsibility, and people are depending on you". Work never stops. You are expected to prioritize work.

Why does the job have anything to do with their vacation? If you make $10/hr then you'll be paid $10/hr during your vacation. If you make $120/hr then you'll be paid that instead.

Men and women both get M/Paternity leave. It's not one, the other, or neither. It's both.

Should McDonalds give time off for a new mom? Absolutely. At least for full time employees. During this leave you don't get paid your full salary but I think we owe it to new parents to treat them with dignity and not prioritize work over family.

 

[pauldun170]

Culturally I was never able to get more than 3 weeks off. Ever. You simply have "too much work, responsibility, and people are depending on you". Work never stops. You are expected to prioritize work.

Why does the job have anything to do with their vacation? If you make $10/hr then you'll be paid $10/hr during your vacation. If you make $120/hr then you'll be paid that instead.

Men and women both get M/Paternity leave. It's not one, the other, or neither. It's both.

Should McDonalds give time off for a new mom? Absolutely. At least for full time employees. During this leave you don't get paid your full salary but I think we owe it to new parents to treat them with dignity and not prioritize work over family.

I live in the United States.

I get 3 weeks vacation and I can buy more weeks if I choose. My coworkers who have been here longer or have higher ranks get 4-5 weeks.
For each of my children, I took 8 weeks paid paternity.

Do I think that is something that should be mandatory?
Absolutely not.

I receive those benefits because my company has the ability to offer them.
Not every company in the US has that ability in our hyper competitive market.

While it is beneficial to companies offer employees benefits like that, it is counterproductive if work life balance policies impact overall performance of the company. Vacation is compensation. It is real dollars and time.

The European model may work in the European market and if you are fine with economic conditions in "country x" that mandates X time off then that is where you should go.

As for the Health care system in the US, it is a complete wreck and I would prefer they focused on national insurance program. Something closer to the Canadian model.

 

[Craig234]

I live in the United States.

I get 3 weeks vacation and I can buy more weeks if I choose. My coworkers who have been here longer or have higher ranks get 4-5 weeks.
For each of my children, I took 8 weeks paid paternity.

Do I think that is something that should be mandatory?
Absolutely not.

I receive those benefits because my company has the ability to offer them.
Not every company in the US has that ability in our hyper competitive market.

While it is beneficial to companies offer employees benefits like that, it is counterproductive if work life balance policies impact overall performance of the company. Vacation is compensation. It is real dollars and time.

The European model may work in the European market and if you are fine with economic conditions in "country x" that mandates X time off then that is where you should go.

As for the Health care system in the US, it is a complete wreck and I would prefer they focused on national insurance program. Something closer to the Canadian model.

'I got mine Jack, too bad for you'.

'Competitive pressure' is mostly BS - when every comany offers it, there's no such pressure.

'But China!!'

Ya, other than this, the compensation is about the same for US and China, good point.

 

[pauldun170]

'I got mine Jack, too bad for you'.

'Competitive pressure' is mostly BS - when every comany offers it, there's no such pressure.

'But China!!'

Ya, other than this, the compensation is about the same for US and China, good point.

Its not a matter of "I got mine, too bad for you"


I work in an American workplace that offers work life balance. The premise OP brings up does not apply to all.
In the United States, we treat things like vacation and leave policies as part of the compensation package.
In Europe they treat it as an entitlement.

Should a McDonalds offer vacation and paid leave policies to all employees?
No, unless the value of the individual to the company warrant a compensation package.

 

[Craig234]

Its not a matter of "I got mine, too bad for you"

Yes, it is. Just look who agrees:

I work in an American workplace that offers work life balance.

Putting up some flimsy justification for 'I got mine, too bad for' doesn't change that.

 

[pauldun170]

'I got mine Jack, too bad for you'.

'Competitive pressure' is mostly BS - when every comany offers it, there's no such pressure.

'But China!!'

Ya, other than this, the compensation is about the same for US and China, good point.

Yes, it is. Just look who agrees:



Putting up some flimsy justification for 'I got mine, too bad for' doesn't change that.

OP asked

How do you guys feel about some of the things lacking in our American workplace?

In regards to vacation policies, family leave and healthcare.
I answered that.


I guess the issue here is that I don't see your actual point.

 

[CycloWizard]

Culturally I was never able to get more than 3 weeks off. Ever. You simply have "too much work, responsibility, and people are depending on you". Work never stops. You are expected to prioritize work.

If you don't want to prioritize your job, then you have the option to find a job that will accommodate your lack of commitment. Instead, you seek a law mandating that a company tolerate your lack of commitment. There is a sea of difference.

Why does the job have anything to do with their vacation? If you make $10/hr then you'll be paid $10/hr during your vacation. If you make $120/hr then you'll be paid that instead.

Again, you are trying to use the force of law rather than negotiation. If you are really valuable to a company, they will give you vacation. If any bum off the street can do your job then they will fire you rather than give you time off. This isn't rocket science - it's common sense. The job has everything to do with vacation because you get vacation from your job. Why would McDonald's pay you $10/hour to sleep on the beach when they could fire you and hire another burger flipper with no loss of productivity?

Men and women both get M/Paternity leave. It's not one, the other, or neither. It's both.

Not at every job. Some jobs give maternity leave, some give both, some give neither. Your factual statements are at odds with the facts.

Should McDonalds give time off for a new mom? Absolutely. At least for full time employees. During this leave you don't get paid your full salary but I think we owe it to new parents to treat them with dignity and not prioritize work over family.

Why? If the individual chooses to prioritize family over work, then work can choose to fire them in favor of someone who will be more committed. Your socialistic paradise is at odds with common sense. All of the time, money, and productivity lost to the company has to come from somewhere. If you mandate giving people take time off, the company has to either hire more people (i.e. lose money), get more productivity out of other workers (i.e. they effectively lose), or jack up prices (i.e. the customer loses). All of these result in a net loss for someone else because of a choice made by an individual. You simply don't want to give individuals the choice to prioritize work. This tells me that you do not prioritize work and you know this puts you at a competitive disadvantage to those who are willing to work harder than you. You therefore take the step of using the force of law to take away that advantage rather. If someone is willing to bust his/her hump to get ahead, why are you so insistent on holding them back?

 

[pauldun170]

If you don't want to prioritize your job, then you have the option to find a job that will accommodate your lack of commitment. Instead, you seek a law mandating that a company tolerate your lack of commitment. There is a sea of difference.

Well put

 

[ivwshane]

If you don't want to prioritize your job, then you have the option to find a job that will accommodate your lack of commitment. Instead, you seek a law mandating that a company tolerate your lack of commitment. There is a sea of difference.

Again, you are trying to use the force of law rather than negotiation. If you are really valuable to a company, they will give you vacation. If any bum off the street can do your job then they will fire you rather than give you time off. This isn't rocket science - it's common sense. The job has everything to do with vacation because you get vacation from your job. Why would McDonald's pay you $10/hour to sleep on the beach when they could fire you and hire another burger flipper with no loss of productivity?

Not at every job. Some jobs give maternity leave, some give both, some give neither. Your factual statements are at odds with the facts.

Why? If the individual chooses to prioritize family over work, then work can choose to fire them in favor of someone who will be more committed. Your socialistic paradise is at odds with common sense. All of the time, money, and productivity lost to the company has to come from somewhere. If you mandate giving people take time off, the company has to either hire more people (i.e. lose money), get more productivity out of other workers (i.e. they effectively lose), or jack up prices (i.e. the customer loses). All of these result in a net loss for someone else because of a choice made by an individual. You simply don't want to give individuals the choice to prioritize work. This tells me that you do not prioritize work and you know this puts you at a competitive disadvantage to those who are willing to work harder than you. You therefore take the step of using the force of law to take away that advantage rather. If someone is willing to bust his/her hump to get ahead, why are you so insistent on holding them back?

Exhibit A ^ I rest my case.

 

[randomrogue]

If you don't want to prioritize your job, then you have the option to find a job that will accommodate your lack of commitment. Instead, you seek a law mandating that a company tolerate your lack of commitment. There is a sea of difference.

Again, you are trying to use the force of law rather than negotiation. If you are really valuable to a company, they will give you vacation. If any bum off the street can do your job then they will fire you rather than give you time off. This isn't rocket science - it's common sense. The job has everything to do with vacation because you get vacation from your job. Why would McDonald's pay you $10/hour to sleep on the beach when they could fire you and hire another burger flipper with no loss of productivity?

Not at every job. Some jobs give maternity leave, some give both, some give neither. Your factual statements are at odds with the facts.

Why? If the individual chooses to prioritize family over work, then work can choose to fire them in favor of someone who will be more committed. Your socialistic paradise is at odds with common sense. All of the time, money, and productivity lost to the company has to come from somewhere. If you mandate giving people take time off, the company has to either hire more people (i.e. lose money), get more productivity out of other workers (i.e. they effectively lose), or jack up prices (i.e. the customer loses). All of these result in a net loss for someone else because of a choice made by an individual. You simply don't want to give individuals the choice to prioritize work. This tells me that you do not prioritize work and you know this puts you at a competitive disadvantage to those who are willing to work harder than you. You therefore take the step of using the force of law to take away that advantage rather. If someone is willing to bust his/her hump to get ahead, why are you so insistent on holding them back?

What you have basically said is that money is more important that human beings and quality of life.

You went as far to say that you feel that people who think vacation and family is important are not committed to their jobs. Why would you prioritize work over family? Those types of people make the worst coworkers.

When you are really valuable to a company you are needed there all the time. That's the way it works. Been there, done that. Try negotiating time off when there is nobody else who can do your job. In other countries you simply don't dump all the responsability on one person and therefore you can get time off or you make sure that you close down the whole company for a month or two of the summer so that everyone can take time off.

In the USA they do not mandate a single day of M/Paternity leave. It's not a legal right. In other countries it is. I have friends who got 15 months off for each child.

What you wrote quite frankly disgusts me since you show no regard whatsoever for the human part of a workplace. It's all money and productivity.

 

[LumbergTech]

Well put

That isn't entirely fair in my opinion. You could be incredibly dedicated and committed but still want more time off. I know people that hang around work just to seem important, but aren't really getting a whole lot done. It isn't quite as cut and dry as you guys are trying to make it seem. I can respect your opinion about whether or not it should be law, but it is a little ridiculous to claim that someone isn't dedicated because they might not do things exactly how you think they should.

 

[pauldun170]

That isn't entirely fair in my opinion. You could be incredibly dedicated and committed but still want more time off. I know people that hang around work just to seem important, but aren't really getting a whole lot done. It isn't quite as cut and dry as you guys are trying to make it seem. I can respect your opinion about whether or not it should be law, but it is a little ridiculous to claim that someone isn't dedicated because they might not do things exactly how you think they should.

I think that you are talking about poor management and a general mediocre corporate culture.
That s hasn't anything to do with "work life balance" as what you describe occurs at European companies as well.

I'm wondering if the bigger issue is expectations among different generations of workers.

 

[pauldun170]

What you have basically said is that money is more important that human beings and quality of life.

You went as far to say that you feel that people who think vacation and family is important are not committed to their jobs. Why would you prioritize work over family? Those types of people make the worst coworkers.

When you are really valuable to a company you are needed there all the time. That's the way it works. Been there, done that. Try negotiating time off when there is nobody else who can do your job. In other countries you simply don't dump all the responsability on one person and therefore you can get time off or you make sure that you close down the whole company for a month or two of the summer so that everyone can take time off.

In the USA they do not mandate a single day of M/Paternity leave. It's not a legal right. In other countries it is. I have friends who got 15 months off for each child.

Can you list the countries that you are referencing?
Have you worked internationally?
It might help your argument if you had a bit more meat to it.

 

[ivwshane]

Can you list the countries that you are referencing?
Have you worked internationally?
It might help your argument if you had a bit more meat to it.

Here is a nice article on the subject:
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/05/europes_amazing_vacation_laws/

 

[randomrogue]

Here is a nice article on the subject:
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/05/europes_amazing_vacation_laws/

That's a good link. I should also mention pensions but quite frankly I'm not that familiar with how they work overall in Europe. I know that what I get in the USA is not enough to cover rent while in Europe it's a huge percentage of your salary covered by taxes (the state) and then an additional percentage that's generally covered by your employer. The recession has ate into some of the pension benefits and ages have changed. I think several countries are looking at changing the retirement age to 70 for example. Overall though it's pretty good and you can live comfortably off of it. My friends just sell their flats in the city and buy a house in the country and live really well.

The link above has external links that are worth looking at. Maternity leave in particular is one that I think Americans are very naive about.

I lived in California that required you give mothers 6 weeks off at 50% of their pay. Compare that to Europe where some countries give THREE YEARS paid time off for mothers. In Scandinavia they mandate that the father needs to take time off as well and their total leave is a year to 16 months paid at about 80%. The UK gives about a year.

It's such a huge quality of life increase.

 

[Craig234]

That's a good link. I should also mention pensions but quite frankly I'm not that familiar with how they work overall in Europe. I know that what I get in the USA is not enough to cover rent while in Europe it's a huge percentage of your salary covered by taxes (the state) and then an additional percentage that's generally covered by your employer. The recession has ate into some of the pension benefits and ages have changed. I think several countries are looking at changing the retirement age to 70 for example. Overall though it's pretty good and you can live comfortably off of it. My friends just sell their flats in the city and buy a house in the country and live really well.

The link above has external links that are worth looking at. Maternity leave in particular is one that I think Americans are very naive about.

I lived in California that required you give mothers 6 weeks off at 50% of their pay. Compare that to Europe where some countries give THREE YEARS paid time off for mothers. In Scandinavia they mandate that the father needs to take time off as well and their total leave is a year to 16 months paid at about 80%. The UK gives about a year.

It's such a huge quality of life increase.

Ya, but how many Europeans can buy their own island? It's the 1% that matter.

/sarcasm

 

[randomrogue]

Can you list the countries that you are referencing?
Have you worked internationally?
It might help your argument if you had a bit more meat to it.

I work in Europe now. I never mention which country since I appreciate my privacy so instead will just talk in generalities for all of Europe.

The benefits here DOMINATE what I got in the USA. Salaries are a bit lower than what I could get in something like Silicon Valley and the taxes are a bit higher but I get all these benefits so it's worth it. The biggest thing is that people are actually happy here.

Think about this for a moment, if you got the maximum amount of social security you would get $2500 a month. That's not enough to do shit with on the coast where I lived. Unlike my friends that sell their flats and move 25 minutes outside of the city I'd have to move to a different part of the country. I pay about 2% of my salary into pension here (the employer pays the rest) and will get I think 60% of my salary as pension. These numbers change but it's way better than $2500. If you make less money your SS benefits will of course be less.

 

[pauldun170]

I work in Europe now. I never mention which country since I appreciate my privacy so instead will just talk in generalities for all of Europe.

The benefits here DOMINATE what I got in the USA. Salaries are a bit lower than what I could get in something like Silicon Valley and the taxes are a bit higher but I get all these benefits so it's worth it. The biggest thing is that people are actually happy here.

Think about this for a moment, if you got the maximum amount of social security you would get $2500 a month. That's not enough to do shit with on the coast where I lived. Unlike my friends that sell their flats and move 25 minutes outside of the city I'd have to move to a different part of the country. I pay about 2% of my salary into pension here (the employer pays the rest) and will get I think 60% of my salary as pension. These numbers change but it's way better than $2500. If you make less money your SS benefits will of course be less.

I believe the argument against that is that in the US, the preference is lower tax rates and the freedom to do with your money as you choose.
Higher take home + you are responsible vs lower take home + government benefits.

 

[CycloWizard]

What you have basically said is that money is more important that human beings and quality of life.

You went as far to say that you feel that people who think vacation and family is important are not committed to their jobs. Why would you prioritize work over family? Those types of people make the worst coworkers.

When you are really valuable to a company you are needed there all the time. That's the way it works. Been there, done that. Try negotiating time off when there is nobody else who can do your job. In other countries you simply don't dump all the responsability on one person and therefore you can get time off or you make sure that you close down the whole company for a month or two of the summer so that everyone can take time off.

In the USA they do not mandate a single day of M/Paternity leave. It's not a legal right. In other countries it is. I have friends who got 15 months off for each child.

What you wrote quite frankly disgusts me since you show no regard whatsoever for the human part of a workplace. It's all money and productivity.

You have completely bastardized what I said. My argument is simply that if I want to prioritize work over family, that's my choice. You simply refuse to own up to your own choice of prioritizing family over work. There's nothing wrong with your choice, but you need to own it. If you value the lifestyle afforded by countries with more socialistic tendencies in this area, why are you still here? My guess is that you enjoy keeping more of the money you earn and the opportunity to make more of it by working harder. You have yet to realize that this opportunity stands directly in opposition to mandating all of the things you've championed in this thread. Here in the US, I am happy that I have the right to choose to put my career ahead of family or vice versa. I can also choose to change that prioritization with time as I age, have children, or whatever other factors that I hold to be important in making that decision.

 

[CycloWizard]

That isn't entirely fair in my opinion. You could be incredibly dedicated and committed but still want more time off. I know people that hang around work just to seem important, but aren't really getting a whole lot done. It isn't quite as cut and dry as you guys are trying to make it seem. I can respect your opinion about whether or not it should be law, but it is a little ridiculous to claim that someone isn't dedicated because they might not do things exactly how you think they should.

I am simply arguing that they can do things however they like as long as both the employer and employee agree. I decided a long time ago that I would never work another job that required me to warm a seat for 8 hours a day. I want to be able to get my stuff done on my own schedule and come and go as I please. Invariably, I've found that lots of hard work and dedication are required to land such jobs because they require an implicit trust between the employer and employee. I proved that, left to my own devices, I will get things done. I didn't need an act of congress to get this type of freedom on the job - I earned it through hard work and negotiation.

 

[randomrogue]

I believe the argument against that is that in the US, the preference is lower tax rates and the freedom to do with your money as you choose.
Higher take home + you are responsible vs lower take home + government benefits.

I made a couple hundred grand a year in the USA.

1. I could not take more than 2 weeks vacation
2. I could not take paternity leave