Annual Leave
Pages: 12
Hi, I was just looking into how much holiday time you get in different countries - I'll finish uni in May and haven't a clue where I want to live, thought I would factor this in. Anyway I came across this wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_employment_leave_by_country
Got to close to the bottom and something shocked me
Is this true? That seems crazy.
Just wondering what people thought about taking holidays from work? Where are you from? How does annual leave work there? And would you want it to be more, or do you not even feel comfortable taking what your allowed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_employment_leave_by_country
Got to close to the bottom and something shocked me
| United States - none |
Is this true? That seems crazy.
Just wondering what people thought about taking holidays from work? Where are you from? How does annual leave work there? And would you want it to be more, or do you not even feel comfortable taking what your allowed?
Last edited on
For some countries that have natural disaster say thunder-storms, heavy rain flooding etc those are "additional holiday" isn't it ? These are on top of the country declared holiday.
In my country, we are sheltered by neighboring countries so major natural disasters does not affect us. At most we have very heavy rain. And I think we have on average about 12 holidays each calendar year.
As for employment leave it varies between 7-21 days. And on top of those, we have childcare,maternity,paternity(this depend on employer),compassionate(death in family),national service,no pay aka sabbatical leave.
In my country, we are sheltered by neighboring countries so major natural disasters does not affect us. At most we have very heavy rain. And I think we have on average about 12 holidays each calendar year.
As for employment leave it varies between 7-21 days. And on top of those, we have childcare,maternity,paternity(this depend on employer),compassionate(death in family),national service,no pay aka sabbatical leave.
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
I work in the automotive industry in the United States. It's not your typical 9-5 job however. There have been times that I've put in 12-18 hours per day in order to keep schedule. My personal reputation (as well as the company's reputation) rides on the fact that we will execute repairs quickly and without error.
Quality control in modern business seems to be horribly lacking with the whole " 9 to 5 don't give a rats @%#" and "I hate my job" attitudes that so many people have. I'm proud to say that if the situation calls for it, I work straight through most holidays (and get paid very well for it).
Quality control in modern business seems to be horribly lacking with the whole " 9 to 5 don't give a rats @%#" and "I hate my job" attitudes that so many people have. I'm proud to say that if the situation calls for it, I work straight through most holidays (and get paid very well for it).
If I had to guess why we have none here, it'd go back to the pure capitalism we used to have and the semi capitalist system we have now. The corporations wouldn't be too happy if the government told them they have to give their employees a minimum of so so days of vacation each year.
closed account (10oTURfi)
When I read about my country I laughed.
Such thing as minimum annual leave doesnt exist here: If you do "lesser" jobs(such as waiter) and demand for annual leave, your employer will fire you, mainly beacuse there is ALWAYS someone who will be happy to do your job without annual leave.
Such thing as minimum annual leave doesnt exist here: If you do "lesser" jobs(such as waiter) and demand for annual leave, your employer will fire you, mainly beacuse there is ALWAYS someone who will be happy to do your job without annual leave.
| Quality control in modern business seems to be horribly lacking with the whole " 9 to 5 don't give a rats @%#" |
I actually have argued the exact opposite. And in fact when I see people suggest that people don't work hard enough or that they should put more hours into their work, my stomach turns.
The amount of work that is expected of people is ridiculous. 8 hours a day 5 days a week is waaaay to much time to spend on a job. And a lot of people work more than that.
People hate their job because it consumes their life. Your life should not be about working. It should be about pursuing your dreams and doing what you enjoy.
And really, when you think about it, there's no reason why people should have to work as much as they do. Very few jobs are actually time critical where it absolutely has to get done within a certain timeframe. Farming, medicine, emergency, and possibly transportation/freight jobs are really the only ones that have real deadlines with real consequences if the deadline is missed. All other deadlines are totally fabricated.
Corporate deadlines are imposed because they want to get a product on the market before their competitors, because the first one on the market gets the most profits. But really it doesn't make any difference whether the product arrives on the market or not. I mean it's completely superficial.
The problem is rooted in the fact that capitalism rewards all the wrong things. We live in a world where "creating jobs" is considered a good thing, which is completely backwards if you think about it. Wouldn't an ideal world have no jobs?
The way it should be ... everyone should work way less (3 maybe 4 days a week, and maybe 5 hrs a day) and the jobs should simply be shared by more people. You can have a 24/7 workforce all the same -- the only difference is more employees taking shifts. Why hire 1 person and run them ragged working 9-5 when you can hire 2 people and spread them out 9-1, 1-5?
Sure, some of the work might not get done as fast. But who cares? It'll still get done, and everyone will live happier, healthier lives.
Of course this is all a fantasy, as the current economic structure of our society has already pushed us so far down the wrong path that I don't think we'll ever come back.
closed account (1yR4jE8b)
| The amount of work that is expected of people is ridiculous. 8 hours a day 5 days a week is waaaay to much time to spend on a job. And a lot of people work more than that. |
I work 45 hours a week, 5 9-hour shifts, and I do not find I spend too much time working. What *is* ridiculous, is that many employers expect you to cram 90 hours of work into a 45 hour week.
| People hate their job because it consumes their life. Your life should not be about working. It should be about pursuing your dreams and doing what you enjoy. |
If you work a job that consumes your life and you are unhappy, you are working the wrong job and should find a new one and/or educate yourself to get a better one that will make you happy. If someone isn't willing to do that, then suffer and stop whining.
Some people are also just workaholics...
| And really, when you think about it, there's no reason why people should have to work as much as they do. Very few jobs are actually time critical where it absolutely has to get done within a certain timeframe. Farming, medicine, emergency, and possibly transportation/freight jobs are really the only ones that have real deadlines with real consequences if the deadline is missed. All other deadlines are totally fabricated. Corporate deadlines are imposed because they want to get a product on the market before their competitors, because the first one on the market gets the most profits. But really it doesn't make any difference whether the product arrives on the market or not. I mean it's completely superficial. |
If a company A invests millions of dollars into developing a system, and another similar system arrives on the market first because of a missed deadline the lost revenue could mean that A might not recoup the cost of developing the system or make enough money to continue paying the employees, which leads to layoffs and whatnot, in the worst case the company may shut down putting hundreds/thousands of people out of the job.
| The problem is rooted in the fact that capitalism rewards all the wrong things. We live in a world where "creating jobs" is considered a good thing, which is completely backwards if you think about it. Wouldn't an ideal world have no jobs? |
Yeah, and in the 24th century we'll have grown as a species and won't use money anymore and people will work just to "better themselves".
| The way it should be ... everyone should work way less (3 maybe 4 days a week, and maybe 5 hrs a day) and the jobs should simply be shared by more people. You can have a 24/7 workforce all the same -- the only difference is more employees taking shifts. Why hire 1 person and run them ragged working 9-5 when you can hire 2 people and spread them out 9-1, 1-5? |
Unless you are paid an hourly wage, then 15-20 hours a week is completely unreasonable to make even basic living costs for 1 person. Wages would at the least need to double for each employee. Then all of sudden, hiring more people to fill in the shift gaps becomes completely unreasonable.
If I'm working on salary, and I make 40k a year. If I'm only working 20 hours a week, then someone else needs to be hired to fill the other 20. So cost becomes 80k a year assuming this guy gets paid the same, you can say goodbye any kind of profit margin the company had.
Do you think money for payroll just appears out of nowhere?
| Sure, some of the work might not get done as fast. But who cares? It'll still get done, and everyone will live happier, healthier lives. |
Not if they can't afford basic necessities to live because they aren't working enough hours in a week.
| Of course this is all a fantasy, as the current economic structure of our society has already pushed us so far down the wrong path that I don't think we'll ever come back. |
Let me guess, you think Communism can work?
You're thinking in terms of our current economic system. And I agree, in the current system none of this would work. And I also realize that this will never happen because the change it requires is too radical to ever take effect.
That said...
You are in the minority. Most people wish they could spend less time at their jobs, and more time with their family and friends.
If people want to work more, then they should be able to. But those who want to work less should also be able to.
This is a flawed argument because:
1) Not everyone has a job that would make them happy. The reality is that not everybody finds happiness in work. To think that everyone has a dream job that would make them happy is akin to thinking that everyone has a soul mate that they were meant to be with. It's absurd.
2) There are tons of jobs that need to be done that nobody would be happy doing. If everyone has a job they love, then these jobs wouldn't get done. So by advocating the "get a job you love" system you are effectively dooming many people to misery.
3) In our current economic system, "educating yourself" can be borderline impossible for people stuck in difficult situations.
4) Things many people enjoy doing are not productive/lucrative. Artists and musicians are good examples. Lots of people love doing it, but good luck making a living off it.
Again you're speaking in terms of our current economic system. And I agree with you.
When all this emphasis is put on money, then yes, all these fabricated deadlines appear to make sense.
It's like I said, capitalism rewards all the wrong things. Emphasis and importance gets put on things that make absolutely no sense.
You're missing the point.
And since you're bringing in Star Trek, let's use some hypotheticals from it:
If someone invented a teleportation device that was reliable, and cheap enough so that everyone could afford their very own. That would be amazing, right? Imagine being able to just hop to the store and back instantly. Think of what it would do for emergency response.
The problem is, it would utterly destroy the economy. Nobody would need cars anymore. Everything in the automotive, oil, transportation, and freight industries would go belly up overnight. A quarter of the country (maybe more) would be out of work.
So instead, what should be a miraculous invention that would benefit society is actually a poison that would destroy it. This is what I mean by capitalism putting emphasis on the wrong things. What makes money is not what's better for people. In fact, quite often, profitable things are bad for people.
What about replicators? Another miracle. They would put an end to world hunger, improve overall health, help cure obesity, etc, etc. But again, they would destroy the economy. MASSIVE industries would get brushed aside and millions of people out of work.
I know that. That's kind of my point. The other half of that point is that there's no reason that should be true other than the fact that it's just the way it's been for so long.
It kind of does. Money is whatever we want it to be. We mass produce however much of it we need, and its value fluxuates at our whim (watch the stock market for a while -- it shows pretty clearly how contrived money actually is. It's comical and frieghtening at the same time).
All it would take is for us to change what we decide money's value to be.
But again, I realize this can't happen because it would be too radical of a change and would break everything in the current economic system.
Well that was the point. 15-20 hrs a week would give them a livable wage.
On large scales? No, communism is a disaster.
Socialism, on the other hand, works wonders.
That said...
| I work 45 hours a week, 5 9-hour shifts, and I do not find I spend too much time working |
You are in the minority. Most people wish they could spend less time at their jobs, and more time with their family and friends.
If people want to work more, then they should be able to. But those who want to work less should also be able to.
| If you work a job that consumes your life and you are unhappy, you are working the wrong job and should find a new one and/or educate yourself to get a better one that will make you happy. |
This is a flawed argument because:
1) Not everyone has a job that would make them happy. The reality is that not everybody finds happiness in work. To think that everyone has a dream job that would make them happy is akin to thinking that everyone has a soul mate that they were meant to be with. It's absurd.
2) There are tons of jobs that need to be done that nobody would be happy doing. If everyone has a job they love, then these jobs wouldn't get done. So by advocating the "get a job you love" system you are effectively dooming many people to misery.
3) In our current economic system, "educating yourself" can be borderline impossible for people stuck in difficult situations.
4) Things many people enjoy doing are not productive/lucrative. Artists and musicians are good examples. Lots of people love doing it, but good luck making a living off it.
| If a company A invests millions of dollars into developing a system, [snip] |
Again you're speaking in terms of our current economic system. And I agree with you.
When all this emphasis is put on money, then yes, all these fabricated deadlines appear to make sense.
It's like I said, capitalism rewards all the wrong things. Emphasis and importance gets put on things that make absolutely no sense.
| Yeah, and in the 24th century we'll have grown as a species and won't use money anymore and people will work just to "better themselves". |
You're missing the point.
And since you're bringing in Star Trek, let's use some hypotheticals from it:
If someone invented a teleportation device that was reliable, and cheap enough so that everyone could afford their very own. That would be amazing, right? Imagine being able to just hop to the store and back instantly. Think of what it would do for emergency response.
The problem is, it would utterly destroy the economy. Nobody would need cars anymore. Everything in the automotive, oil, transportation, and freight industries would go belly up overnight. A quarter of the country (maybe more) would be out of work.
So instead, what should be a miraculous invention that would benefit society is actually a poison that would destroy it. This is what I mean by capitalism putting emphasis on the wrong things. What makes money is not what's better for people. In fact, quite often, profitable things are bad for people.
What about replicators? Another miracle. They would put an end to world hunger, improve overall health, help cure obesity, etc, etc. But again, they would destroy the economy. MASSIVE industries would get brushed aside and millions of people out of work.
| Unless you are paid an hourly wage, then 15-20 hours a week is completely unreasonable to make even basic living costs for 1 person. |
I know that. That's kind of my point. The other half of that point is that there's no reason that should be true other than the fact that it's just the way it's been for so long.
| Do you think money for payroll just appears out of nowhere? |
It kind of does. Money is whatever we want it to be. We mass produce however much of it we need, and its value fluxuates at our whim (watch the stock market for a while -- it shows pretty clearly how contrived money actually is. It's comical and frieghtening at the same time).
All it would take is for us to change what we decide money's value to be.
But again, I realize this can't happen because it would be too radical of a change and would break everything in the current economic system.
| Not if they can't afford basic necessities to live because they aren't working enough hours in a week. |
Well that was the point. 15-20 hrs a week would give them a livable wage.
| Let me guess, you think Communism can work? |
On large scales? No, communism is a disaster.
Socialism, on the other hand, works wonders.
Last edited on
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
@Disch
I think you misinterpreted the point I was bringing across.
I speak of quality of work, not quantity. The main beef that I have is with people that just scrape by on QC by the skin of their teeth as not to get fired simply because they don't care about putting out the best effort that they can. In my particular case, when the company orders a re-manufactured major component such as an engine or transaxle, if the component was defective because of a QC error on the vendor's part, the entire (8-20 hour remove and reinstall labor time) is not covered by the vendor's warranty. Sometimes, this even outweighs the cost of the component itself! That means that a small independent shop, like the one I'm with, is out of (8 - 20 hours * $65/hr) $520 - $1,300. You might think that it's just a freak occurrence when that happens, but 3 out of the last 10 parts ordered (non-OEM) were deemed defective within our shop's warranty period. The "9-5 don't give a rat's #$% people that I'm referring to are either incompetent, or really don't care about the quality of the components that they build.
PS. I do agree with you on the Socialism bit.
I think you misinterpreted the point I was bringing across.
I speak of quality of work, not quantity. The main beef that I have is with people that just scrape by on QC by the skin of their teeth as not to get fired simply because they don't care about putting out the best effort that they can. In my particular case, when the company orders a re-manufactured major component such as an engine or transaxle, if the component was defective because of a QC error on the vendor's part, the entire (8-20 hour remove and reinstall labor time) is not covered by the vendor's warranty. Sometimes, this even outweighs the cost of the component itself! That means that a small independent shop, like the one I'm with, is out of (8 - 20 hours * $65/hr) $520 - $1,300. You might think that it's just a freak occurrence when that happens, but 3 out of the last 10 parts ordered (non-OEM) were deemed defective within our shop's warranty period. The "9-5 don't give a rat's #$% people that I'm referring to are either incompetent, or really don't care about the quality of the components that they build.
PS. I do agree with you on the Socialism bit.
Last edited on
closed account (1yR4jE8b)
While I disagree with everything you've said, it made my day that you knew I was talking about Star Trek ;)
I think I even know the episode. That was the TNG ep where they ran into that busted up ship and found some cryogenic capsules and thawed out those people from the past, right?
Man, I haven't seen that show in ages!
;D
Man, I haven't seen that show in ages!
;D
@ OP: To answer your implied question that statistic is skewed. As an American I can tell you that there is no minimum employment leave AS DEFINED IN THAT ARTICLE because we allow our businesses to pay employees more in order to work on what we call "Federal Holidays". For example: Christmas is pretty big in our country, it is what is called a Federal Holiday and all of the post offices, municipal buildings and even the privately owned banks are closed because the employees of these places have the day off. Now if my company wants me to work on this day, and this year they do, they will have to pay me at least 1.5x my hourly wage in order for me to legally work that day. This is a private agreement, between myself and my company, backed up by law, to ensure that I have some platform to argue from, for the benifit of all of those involved, my company and our clients\customers have the benefit of my services on a day when everyone else is at home, and I get more money for doing the same amount of work.
We also have legal minimum leave for things like Family Emergencies and Paternal Leave (Which is avalible to both Men and Women). This is a minimum set amount of time where if I come back with in it, my company leagally has to hire me back at the wage I was making when I left. In addition to this there are also more obvious things that you would expect like if someone serves in the Military Reserves then they cannot be fired because they get deployed\called up and stuff like that. Certain particular things also very from state to state and in some cases the type of work that you do.
So to say that the United States has NO minimum employment leave is misleading because it is not based on set dates and we generally require a REASON for them to be leaving. We do not allow people to leave their jobs and resposibilities for extended periods of time just because they are having a mid-life crisis or whatever.
We also have legal minimum leave for things like Family Emergencies and Paternal Leave (Which is avalible to both Men and Women). This is a minimum set amount of time where if I come back with in it, my company leagally has to hire me back at the wage I was making when I left. In addition to this there are also more obvious things that you would expect like if someone serves in the Military Reserves then they cannot be fired because they get deployed\called up and stuff like that. Certain particular things also very from state to state and in some cases the type of work that you do.
So to say that the United States has NO minimum employment leave is misleading because it is not based on set dates and we generally require a REASON for them to be leaving. We do not allow people to leave their jobs and resposibilities for extended periods of time just because they are having a mid-life crisis or whatever.
Last edited on
Muhahahahaha Bulgaria (my home country) has 20+12 days, and the Czech republic (where I work atm) has 4 weeks (=28 days). The two countries I am related most to are both top 10 muhahahahaha....
Gimme welfare, I don't wanna work! Just sit all day on my ass and do my hobby (which is, well, programming :).
Gimme welfare, I don't wanna work! Just sit all day on my ass and do my hobby (which is, well, programming :).
Last edited on
tition said:
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not but I personally don't think this is a bad thing. If for some reason a person gets bored and starts becoming a problem in my neighborhood then I will "remove them from the equation", but that is no different then the way things are now. I really don't see a problem with a wellfare state as long as we don't drift into enslaving the middle class. It should be the responsibility of the government to provide the best it can for it's people and right now none of them are doing that.
| Gimme welfare, I don't wanna work! Just sit all day on my ass and do my hobby (which is, well, programming :). |
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not but I personally don't think this is a bad thing. If for some reason a person gets bored and starts becoming a problem in my neighborhood then I will "remove them from the equation", but that is no different then the way things are now. I really don't see a problem with a wellfare state as long as we don't drift into enslaving the middle class. It should be the responsibility of the government to provide the best it can for it's people and right now none of them are doing that.
Last edited on
If you don't want to work, that's fine, don't... but don't expect the government to pay your way. If you're disabled or temporarily out of a job, that's different, and the government should support you (if you're out of work but not disabled, then the government would either give you a public sector job [it'd be manual labour - something always needs fixing or cleaning] or give you an allowance provided you are looking for a job [in the UK it's called Jobseeker's Allowance]. This would depend on whether there is a public sector job available that you can do, if not you get the allowance, because apparently in the USSR's airports, for example, you'd get your passport checked several times just so that all the passport-checking people could have a job).
Last edited on
| apparently in the USSR's airports, for example, you'd get your passport checked several times just so that all the passport-checking people could have a job). |
See what I mean? That's completely retarded.
No vamo' a trabajar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crdVBKyjnDE
¿can you reject it?
| Now if my company wants me to work on this day, and this year they do, they will have to pay me at least 1.5x (...) |
@ ne555: Yes but at the same time our government hasn't found a way to regulate inner-office politics. So I'd say as long as you're not on the bottom rung of the ladder then yes, you have the option to decline the offer.
@ chrisname: I don't advocate letting people sit at home and collect $1,000 a month or anything like that, but forcing useless people to get a job in the private or public sector just ends up making my life miserable if or when I have to interact with them. I think the world would be far better off if we could remove them from the workforce. If they are happy collecting some meager check worth less then what I spend on beer in a month, and living in some municiple housing shack then why shouldn't we let them? In your world, the world that we live in now, people who I honestly would not trust to be smart enough to scrub my toilet are working at places like a local fastfood resturaunt. They are taking twice as long to do a simple task as a normal person does AND they are screwing it up on top of that. Why should we have to put up with the these people? Because of some antiquated idea that says "They should be working"? I'm not a communist or a Marxist by any means, but I don't think I should be forced to interact with the absolute dregs of society due to someone elses principles.
@ chrisname: I don't advocate letting people sit at home and collect $1,000 a month or anything like that, but forcing useless people to get a job in the private or public sector just ends up making my life miserable if or when I have to interact with them. I think the world would be far better off if we could remove them from the workforce. If they are happy collecting some meager check worth less then what I spend on beer in a month, and living in some municiple housing shack then why shouldn't we let them? In your world, the world that we live in now, people who I honestly would not trust to be smart enough to scrub my toilet are working at places like a local fastfood resturaunt. They are taking twice as long to do a simple task as a normal person does AND they are screwing it up on top of that. Why should we have to put up with the these people? Because of some antiquated idea that says "They should be working"? I'm not a communist or a Marxist by any means, but I don't think I should be forced to interact with the absolute dregs of society due to someone elses principles.
Last edited on
Pages: 12