
America’s national vacation problem - m-i-l
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34123906
======
michaelt
It's impressive how big cultural the gap is between people not taking their
full vacation entitlement and people not taking their full salary.

I've had people try to hand back vacation days - but I've never had anyone try
to hand back salary.

Personally I try to take all my vacation because, as a professional, I have an
obligation to make sure the company could keep going if I change jobs or get
hit by a bus. Doing routine tests for bus factor resiliency is as important as
testing your backups restore and your backup power works right :)

~~~
eru
Bankers in many countries are even required to take off two weeks in a block
each year; and no communication with the office. That's to make the books
harder to cook, but I am sure it helps many of them stay sane.

------
onion2k
All the people in the video who say they check in with work while they're on
vacation 'in order to help out their colleagues' \- if you _really_ want to
help out your colleagues, pick up their work when they're on vacation so they
don't need to do work when they're on holiday.

~~~
Already__Taken
Checking in with work like this is a sign you aren't well organised or the
structure of the company isn't correct.

Why aren't you keeping colleagues informed enough to cope without you for even
a week.

Why are you the only person contactable for certain issues. etc.

Drives me mad when schools shut for summer and the only person who can
purchase things has sodded off.

~~~
yummyfajitas
It's not always easy or possible to have redundancy for every role. At a
company with 20 devs, hiring 2pms, 2 data scientists and 2 DBA just to handle
vacation coverage is not realistic. At MS or FB this makes sense, but lots of
places are much smaller.

Sometimes the best business decision is not the most convenient one for the
employees - life is full of tradeoffs.

~~~
CaptainZapp
So, how do you handle this in a country, in which you're legally obliged to
provide vacation to your employees?

Just flout the law?

~~~
yummyfajitas
I'd just avoid hiring in such countries. India and the US have lots of great
developers. I don't see a reason why I'd ever hire devs in Europe.

~~~
wfo
You're right, we should just move our businesses to whichever countries
currently allow the most exploitation and abuse of workers and race to the
bottom. Why not just cut to the chase and implement slavery already? It's the
most economically efficient method of production after all.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Slavery is not economically efficient at all. The fact that economists pointed
this unpleasant fact out is what got economics tagged with the phrase "the
dismal science".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dismal_science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dismal_science)

~~~
wfo
I think you misunderstand the article, the term comes from Carlyle rejecting
the free market as a philosophical principle, not some efficiency analysis.
And in fact his essay was a defense of plantation owners whose businesses were
failing because they had just lost access to extremely efficient slave labor
thanks to inconvenient regulations.

If the economy were a little more global back then, those plantation owners
should have moved their businesses to different, more slavery/business-
friendly countries rather than adapt to the new human rights the workers had
been given, no?

~~~
yummyfajitas
Yes, the "philosophical principle" Carlyle was rejecting is economic
efficiency. Slavery is not efficient because the world might contain a more
productive employment opportunity for a slave, which the slave would freely
choose if given the opportunity.

I have absolutely no idea why you wish to portray slavery as economically
efficient. Is it truly your belief that welfare is maximized with some people
enslaved? (I suppose this is not a particularly uncommon left wing view, but
it's very rarely stated so explicitly.)

~~~
wfo
I think the ways we are using the phrase 'economically efficient' are
different, and that's where much of the disagreement lies. In fact I'd reject
the notion of the existence of a universal objective welfare function. If you
include the welfare of slaves in your calculation certainly I'd agree that the
system is inefficient; but since when has any slave owner done that?

It's actually an extremely uncommon (nonexistent) left wing view that welfare
is maximized with some people enslaved. Literally nobody believes that and I
certainly hope for your sake that you don't believe anyone believes that and
are just trying to be incendiary. It is a very common view among most people
(since it's the truth) that the welfare of /certain people/ is maximized with
/certain other people/ enslaved. And then we can conclude if the first group
has economic power and is subject to no regulation and act according to
maximizing their economic welfare, they will implement it.

The contention is that your position, that businesses should refuse to operate
in countries which regulate rights into existence since these rights have
costs which hurt the bottom line of the business, if adopted leads directly
and immediately to slavery. Slavery is unquestionably disgusting and
reprehensible, so therefore your position, which leads to an unacceptable
result, cannot be accepted.

So I'm suggesting that the /subjective/ welfare of people in a position to own
slaves (wealthy business owners) is maximized under slavery. And from that I
conclude the maximization of the welfare of wealthy business owners -- the
natural result of unfettered capitalism -- is something to be categorically
rejected. So we need fetters.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_It 's actually an extremely uncommon (nonexistent) left wing view that
welfare is maximized with some people enslaved. Literally nobody believes
that..._

Simply not true. Several elected officials believe or previously believed
that, and some proposed legislation for that purpose:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act)

[http://thehill.com/policy/defense/236365-rangel-renews-
call-...](http://thehill.com/policy/defense/236365-rangel-renews-call-for-war-
tax-national-draft)

[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr5741/text](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr5741/text)

[http://www.infowars.com/obama-camp-scrubs-website-to-
remove-...](http://www.infowars.com/obama-camp-scrubs-website-to-remove-
references-to-mandatory-community-service/)

 _And then we can conclude if the first group has economic power and is
subject to no regulation and act according to maximizing their economic
welfare, they will implement it._

Yet strangely, that doesn't seem to happen. Multinationals with huge economic
power and subject to minimal regulation tend to treat employees _better_ than
smaller and weaker local companies (at least in India, the US, and other
places I'm familiar with).

I don't dispute much of what you wrote about why we shouldn't do business with
those who practice slavery. I'd draw a very clear bright line: do workers
agree to their terms of work? In India or the US, the vast majority of IT
workers do. I guess you want to go further and tell my employer/me what work
conditions are acceptable?

~~~
wfo
Okay, if you define a required short limited period of service for public good
as slavery then sure most civilized and uncivilized countries implement it and
many people support it. I'll concede this point, though I don't think there's
very many people in this universe who would use the word 'slavery' to describe
this so you may be a unique snowflake in this regard.

I think the reason multinationals treat employees better is because that since
they are multinational, they are a single company subject to the laws of every
nation: it is more efficient for them to treat EVERYONE by the same rights as
the most stringent (Europe) whereas companies local to India or the US can
abuse the lack of rights these countries give workers since they only deal
with local workers.

And I would agree with you about consent being the big bright line. Except I
think consent is very complicated. If you allowed people to sign themselves
into slavery, people would consent to slavery. No matter how awful something
is, if it's allowed, people will "consent" to it -- the most desperate in
society are forced by circumstances to consent to it. I think the word consent
only has meaning when there are other meaningful options available. Which I
think is the fundamental difference: the definition of consent. We all agree
if someone puts a gun to your head and demands consent it's not consent: but
what if a faceless nameless system forces you to die or consent to whatever
some collection of business owners demand and you agree: is this consent or
not? I say not really.

------
mirsadm
I personally am strongly against any kind of "unlimited" vacation days or
other such perks. In my experience hardly anyone takes advantage of them
because they are made to feel guilty. Even most places that claim to offer
working from home rarely have people take advantage of it due to the culture
(not at desk means you're lazy).

I prefer the employer just to be upfront and if I want to work from home then
I'll negotiate to do that once a week upfront.

~~~
StavrosK
These are two different issues. What you have a problem with isn't the
"unlimited", it's the "no minimum". Would you have a problem with "unlimited
vacation days, four weeks a year mandatory minimum?".

As in, if you haven't taken any vacation when December rolls in, see you after
new year's.

~~~
mirsadm
That is a reasonable point. It is definitely one way to fix that particular
perk.

------
Tepix
So telling you that I have 30 days of paid vacation here in Germany wouldn't
actually make a difference because you wouldn't take your 30 days if you had
them? Btw, when I'm on sick leave that is also paid.

~~~
anon4
Also, I don't know how it's in Germany, but in other parts of Europe, your
employer can _force_ you to take your vacation days. Most do it at the end of
the year, because if you have unused vacation days and you quit, they have to
pay you extra for the vacation days you lose by quitting. And as you noted,
sick days aren't counted in that. In fact, I can take a one-day sick leave
whenever I want without so much as a doctor's notice (company policy mainly
due to the fact that taking a sick leave with a doctor's notice creates more
administrative work which isn't worth it for a single day).

~~~
i_don_t_know
I don't know either if your employer can force you to take your vacation. But
I heard that your health insurance may deny benefits for stress related issues
if they find out that you didn't take all of your vacation days.

~~~
mamon
Here in Poland he can force you, and often does, because if it is found out
that employees didn't take all of their vacation time the company can pay a
substantial fee for that.

------
simonh
I'm a UK employee of a US bank and manage 3 employees based in NY. To be
perfectly honest I've not noticed any significant pressure on my US colleagues
and team to not take vacation days. If anything my own US based manager is
frequently reminding everyone to plan their vacations and not leave too much
of their allowance until the end of the year. So clearly this culture of not
taking full vacation days isn't ubiquitous, and of course the culture may be
different in other parts of the bank - I work on the tech side. Maybe it's
partly because as a global organization the US side has absorbed some of the
vacation culture from other regions. Don't know.

Having said that, contract employees are only paid for the days they attend,
and they tend to take much fewer days off in the US than UK based contractors,
typically maybe 2-5 or so per year. But that's their decision.

~~~
tallanvor
Banks are a slightly different entity... It wasn't long ago when bank
employees were actually required to take at least 2 weeks straight off once a
year. Of course, this wasn't for the employee's health, rather it gave the
bank time to catch any sort of embezzlement or other such activities the
employee may have been up to. These days there are more controls and
technology has ended some of common ways to try and hide bad transactions
(such as sending checks to the wrong processing center or structuring
transactions such that they'll take longer than they normally would).

A lot of banks have removed this requirement now, but the culture of planning
vacations remains in that industry.

------
Bonogongo
What I found interesting in the past compared to the US:

"Why Germans Work Fewer Hours But Produce More: A Study in Culture"

[http://knote.com/2014/11/10/why-germans-work-fewer-hours-
but...](http://knote.com/2014/11/10/why-germans-work-fewer-hours-but-produce-
more-a-study-in-culture/)

------
hellofunk
After moving to the Netherlands, my wife and I were astounded and rather
impressed by the extraordinary attitude towards holidays here. Every single
person we know on our street and acquaintances we have met since being here
takes nearly an entire month off during July or August. Now that is quite
refreshing! People actually leave work around 430 or five in the afternoon.
The one difference however is that everyone is usually at work quite promptly
no later than 8 AM.

~~~
datalist
The minimum leave in the Netherlands is 20 days, four weeks. So that would
mean that those people take their entire vacation in one go, not having
anything (or barely anything) left for the rest of the year (eg. end of
December, ....).

~~~
dagw
How many professional only have the minimum leave in the Netherlands? Most
people I know in Sweden have more than the minimum after a few years of work.

~~~
datalist
Cant tell how common additional days above the minimum leave are in NL (you'd
need to know these numbers). But even if you consider the usual five to eight
days it would come as a surprise to me if it really was common to take off an
entire month in one go as even then one would be barely left with any
remaining days (as compared to none before).

Some people will certainly do it, but not everybody.

------
throw09072015
I've always been one to take full advantage of my vacation, since I don't
define myself by my work. Everyone looks forward to the weekend, right? Then
why not take a few vacation days to make your weekend longer, or 2 weeks off
to totally refresh?

Downside is that one time I was "let go" while out of the country and told I
didn't need to come back to the office. I guess sometimes the vacation days in
your contract are more of a threat than a perk.

------
newman314
Which is why work is a social contract. Well, it used to be but the pendulum
has swung too far in one direction.

------
daxfohl
I'll stand up for the US system. I personally like it. I don't like
"vacations". What do you really gain just spending a couple weeks elsewhere? I
don't even particularly care for weekends.

I'd far rather be able to really focus on work, really getting stuff done, not
have to deal with coworkers all being on vacation, saving hard for retirement
or whatever, and then every couple years, go off and do something completely
different (paid or unpaid).

And I'm certainly not saying this from a "this proves American workers are the
most hardworking" junk attitude. I simply find life more enjoyable this way.

Then, that's my young, single self talking. Perhaps with a family moderation
is more important.

EDIT: People are misunderstanding my post, assuming I mean I don't do anything
but work. On the contrary I've been to 30+ countries, lived in 5, biked across
Asia, spent a year teaching English in Korea. This is difficult with just
"vacation time". PLUS this style allows me to be really focused on /
interested in my work when I'm in that phase of life.

~~~
ctolsen
Good for you, and maybe you're an outlier, but everything we know about work
tells us that this is counterproductive.

It's good for productivity, health, and well-being if people get to disconnect
completely from work. As a company, it doesn't even make sense to have people
work like you do, because they are more creative and productive if they do
take time off.

One study reported on here:
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyamohn/2014/02/28/take-a-
vaca...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyamohn/2014/02/28/take-a-vacation-its-
good-for-productivity-and-the-economy-according-to-a-new-study/) – and there
are plenty of similar results elsewhere.

But, by all means, if this is how you enjoy life then go right ahead. I and
many other people wouldn't like that lifestyle though.

~~~
daxfohl
The odd thing is, I don't see how someone can disconnect completely from work
for just a week or two. I recently took a two-week trip to BC and even ditched
my laptop for the 2nd week, but nonetheless was thinking about work a good
portion of that time.

------
staticelf
Wow. Work-life-balance reallys sucks in the US and A.

Get your shit together // Sweden.

------
thearn4
As a federal employee, I already know I would probably have a hard time
adjusting to the terrible work/life imbalance common in American private
industry. I don't think closing the pay gap (probably about $10k-$15k
difference in my case) would change my mind much either.

I work a very honest 80 hours per two-week pay period, and use my 4 weeks of
annual leave far removed (at least mentally) from the workplace. Seldom do I
feel any push back on that, either.

------
5555624
I may be the only one, but I see a difference between "vacation" and "vacation
days." It's been a long, long time, since I took a "vacation," where I had a
week to ten days off. On the other hand, I use all of the 26 vacation days I
get. While I take a few days here and there, mostly I take Fridays off and
make three-day weekends. (Sometimes four-day weekends.)

------
greggman
Met a French woman who gets 4 months off a year. 4 MONTHS!!! Apparently 2
months is the minimum in France. I will note she hates her job (some kind of
auditing). I don't hate my job but at the same time the more I hear about many
European countries vacation policies the more I question the USA's typical
policies.

~~~
greggman
WTF was this downvoted? What did I say that pissed people off so much they
felt this was worth of a downvote?

First off 7 French natives have told me the minimum is 2 months. 3 work at
Nintendo of France and brought this up in relation to their Japanese co-
workers in Japan. Even though Nintendo is a Japanese company it has to abide
by French laws for it's office in Paris. 1 works at a Nuclear Power Plant.
She's the one that gets 4 months off a year. Yes, she actually gets 4 months
off paid vacation. This is not a lie. 3 others are currently working in Japan,
2 in Kyoto, 1 in Tokyo, not working for French companies, frustrated at the
lack of vacation relative to France. They might have been wrong but that's
what they believe.

Second it doesn't matter if it's 40 days off a year or 25. That's still
INFINITELY MORE THAN THE USA which is has a mandatory minimum of ZERO days off
and still entirely makes the point that lots more vacation than is typical in
the USA is at least something to be considered.

