Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been reading through the latest socialized health care thread, and something that's being mentioned a lot is paid vacation.
Some are claiming that it's a "right". I know that in many European countries, a certain amount of paid time off is a legal requirement. As far as I know, there are no states in the U.S. with the same type of laws (if you know of one, let me know).
Most U.S. companies offer their full time employees some amount of paid time off. They call it vacation, sick time or most commonly, some combination of the two. The "vacation" portion usually starts at two weeks per year, and in some companies, it increases with time.
The last company I was a regular employee of, I started with two weeks of paid vacation and when I left, I had four. If I needed more time for a trip or something, they were fine with letting me have it - I just didn't get paid for that extra time off.
I don't believe that paid time off should be mandated by the government. The relationship between an employer and employee should be determined by the two parties involved. The employer offers the employee a paid position in the company, with a specified compensation package, and the employee has the option of accepting or rejecting that offer. If the package, which typically includes monetary compensation as well as a number of "benefits" such as vacation, health insurance, maybe a company car, etc., isn't as good as the one another company is willing to offer, then the employee will reject the offer and move on. This is how it should be, IMHO. I know that some people disagree.
What are your thoughts? Do you think that paid vacation (let's not include sick time, maternity leave, etc. - those are completely separate issues) should be between an employer and employee as contractual obligation, mandated by the government or some combination of the two? Why?
I've been reading through the latest socialized health care thread, and something that's being mentioned a lot is paid vacation.
Some are claiming that it's a "right". I know that in many European countries, a certain amount of paid time off is a legal requirement. As far as I know, there are no states in the U.S. with the same type of laws (if you know of one, let me know).
Most U.S. companies offer their full time employees some amount of paid time off. They call it vacation, sick time or most commonly, some combination of the two. The "vacation" portion usually starts at two weeks per year, and in some companies, it increases with time.
The last company I was a regular employee of, I started with two weeks of paid vacation and when I left, I had four. If I needed more time for a trip or something, they were fine with letting me have it - I just didn't get paid for that extra time off.
I don't believe that paid time off should be mandated by the government. The relationship between an employer and employee should be determined by the two parties involved. The employer offers the employee a paid position in the company, with a specified compensation package, and the employee has the option of accepting or rejecting that offer. If the package, which typically includes monetary compensation as well as a number of "benefits" such as vacation, health insurance, maybe a company car, etc., isn't as good as the one another company is willing to offer, then the employee will reject the offer and move on. This is how it should be, IMHO. I know that some people disagree.
What are your thoughts? Do you think that paid vacation (let's not include sick time, maternity leave, etc. - those are completely separate issues) should be between an employer and employee as contractual obligation, mandated by the government or some combination of the two? Why?
I'm heavily involved in that healtinsurance debate..
That "paid vacatino" was brought up by a French American. I think his point was we're talking about howe we can't have a UHI for cost etc, but France is doing that AND more, etc.
I don't believe it's a right.. and that is a perk left to employers.. but any employer that doesn't offer some good incentives like paid vacation will be hard pressed to find people willint to work and stay.. I don't think paid vacations will ever need to be addressed by the government..
Hm... a right, for EVERYONE, at some minimum. Further than that, you negotiate.
Why? MANY people get NO vacation at all. Zero.
First of all, overworking destroys your health(which in turn is costly for HI), and possibly relations in family.
Americans are extremely stressed out. Many get no choice but, take it or leave it.
In some countries, there have been gradual increases in vacation... it DID not collapse the economy, or have any adverse effects.
In fact, fresh workers may be able to perform better.
As i said, tens of millions of workers CAN'T make a choice. People in shops,
low paid people, EVERYONE has right to be with family, kids etc.
At least 25% workers in private sector get none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
I've been reading through the latest socialized health care thread, and something that's being mentioned a lot is paid vacation.
Some are claiming that it's a "right". I know that in many European countries, a certain amount of paid time off is a legal requirement. As far as I know, there are no states in the U.S. with the same type of laws (if you know of one, let me know).
Most U.S. companies offer their full time employees some amount of paid time off. They call it vacation, sick time or most commonly, some combination of the two. The "vacation" portion usually starts at two weeks per year, and in some companies, it increases with time.
The last company I was a regular employee of, I started with two weeks of paid vacation and when I left, I had four. If I needed more time for a trip or something, they were fine with letting me have it - I just didn't get paid for that extra time off.
I don't believe that paid time off should be mandated by the government. The relationship between an employer and employee should be determined by the two parties involved. The employer offers the employee a paid position in the company, with a specified compensation package, and the employee has the option of accepting or rejecting that offer. If the package, which typically includes monetary compensation as well as a number of "benefits" such as vacation, health insurance, maybe a company car, etc., isn't as good as the one another company is willing to offer, then the employee will reject the offer and move on. This is how it should be, IMHO. I know that some people disagree.
What are your thoughts? Do you think that paid vacation (let's not include sick time, maternity leave, etc. - those are completely separate issues) should be between an employer and employee as contractual obligation, mandated by the government or some combination of the two? Why?
If vacation, and especially paid vacation, are important to a prospective employee, they should inquire about such during the employment interview process.
If the employer does not offer paid vacation, or, insufficient vacation (in the employees way of thinking), then, if there is an offer of employment, the employee can either accept employment knowing that there is no paid vacation (or insufficient) or, decline the offer of employment.
Either way, the issue should remain solely between the prospective employer and employee - and the government should have no input into the issue.
The only laws I’m aware of related to vacation time are ones that “protect” your vacation time that you have already earned/acquired through your employment. I’m not aware of any laws that mandate you get them. That’s a private issue between the employee and employer.
Vacation time is not a Right, it is a benefit of employment.
Vacation pay, holiday pay, bonuses, sick leave and severance pay are examples of wage agreements which may be made between employers and employees as a part of the employee´s total compensation. There is no requirement to offer these benefits.
I dont get a paid vacation & dont think it should be mandated. Its certainly not a right.
I feel I have a right to get paid & recieve the benefits agreed on when I took the job.
Heck you dont even have a right to get a job. Its something you get because you prove your worth.
So far, the thread's pretty much gone the way I anticipated. I expected at least one European to chime in early on and say it should be a right, and we got one. The rest seem to be in agreement with me that the government shouldn't be intervening in that part of the employer/employee relationship.
I did expect a little more pro-intervention coming from at least one or two people on this side of the pond - it's nice to see that (so far), the Americans seem to all agree. That's rare, eh?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
