Slashdot Mirror


The Higher Your Salary, the More Time Your Employer Will Pay You Not To Work (qz.com)

The best-paid workers in the US not only make more money than many of their colleagues, they also tend to get more paid vacation days. An anonymous reader shares a report: An annual survey of of employee benefits conducted by the US government shows that, in 2017, nearly half of the people in the top 25% of earners received at least 10 days of paid vacation. The bottom 25% was not so lucky -- only around a tenth of them received such generous leave. Paid vacation time is often overlooked in measures of pay inequality in the US, because the value of time off does not appear in the household income statistics.

455 comments

  1. In other words. by will_die · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In other words, the more you are a value to a company the more they will pay you in salary and benefits.
    Vacation leave is nothing more than additional pay and in most companies is negotiable.
    If you are working as a burger flipper your salary is not that high and the extra benefits are the same.

    1. Re:In other words. by swb · · Score: 2

      I've been told that vacation is less negotiable than salary with the rationale that vacation is measurable/noticeable by peers and can create friction when one employee is deemed "away too much".

      I haven't had luck with employers negotiating vacation unless they were being really minimalist about it. You can usually get it up to the "max" for that position, but not beyond that. I had one employer tell me flat out that vacation was 100% non-negotiable but willingly gave up $10k in salary to make up for the vacation they wouldn't provide even though the time off would have cost them 5x less.

      I'm kind of surprised there aren't more employers willing to go the opposite direction, "sell" time off at some multiple of the weekly salary rate. I suspect even though the math would ultimately be in their favor, vacation allotments aren't counted in middle management salary accounting and outside their negotiating ability.

      I'd pretty easily take a cut in salary for more time off, even if it came with a bunch of restrictions on consecutive days off or days off per month.

    2. Re:In other words. by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      I worked for major financial institution for a long time and found that the salary budget was very limited but that they would, and could negotiate time off without adding to the budget. Before I left I had 5 weeks of vacation and they had a program that allowed employees to pay for an week off by setting aside a small amount of money from each pay check leaving me with 6 weeks of paid vacation each year plus my sick leave which I used all of as genuine sick days or spontaneous mental days. As others have mentioned I viewed it all as part of my compensation package. Most of my co-workers had 3 weeks vacation.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    3. Re:In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, maybe not. My employer was recently acquired by a company that no longer provides
      separate 5 days Sick leave and 14 days vacation leave and simply provides all employees a single
      unified "Paid time Off" pool Everybody regardless of position gets a maximum of 15 days Per Year
      Plus 1 extra Day per Year of Service (That maxes out after 11 years of service), So we actually
      are allowed technically fewer days off no longer getting the separate "sick" time, and the PTO accrues over the
      course of the year and resets to Zero remaining on January 1 the following year ----- and taking a day off
      or some number of hours off during a day must be scheduled in advance and approved, except in case of
      taking off for an Illness, Otherwise they take it as unpaid leave or the same as if no PTO is remaining
      and reduce the amount of Salary paid for that month by some amount that would correspond to the
      number of "Lost hours", If by some accounting fiction our pay was Hourly (Although, we're still Salaried exempt,
      so we can work more than hours many weeks but don't get any extra pay for that..... On the other hand, if we miss
      half a day, we can be docked "4 hours worth", even if we had worked hard 12 extra hours the preceding day).

    4. Re:In other words. by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      I had a job that let you purchase additional PTO. Mostly these days now, I just get "unlimited PTO" because it doesn't show up as a liability on the books, you can't cash it out if you leave, and most people won't take as much as they probably could. Current job insists that I take "At least three weeks a year" and also does a holiday shutdown. no complaints here so far.

    5. Re:In other words. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      That can be an actual benefit for you. Companies must legally pay you for any unused but accrued vacation/PTO, but do NOT have to pay for unused sick leave. By bundling the two together, you could get a bigger pay out if you leave the company.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:In other words. by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If your manager is letting them charge you for PTO in a week you've worked at least 40 hours in, then it's time you either say down and had a talk with him about expectations, or started shopping for a new manager.

      If you are unable to shop for a new manager, then you're either under-qualified for your job or you're getting something from your job more valuable to you than the extra PTO time would be. You're not a slave.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    7. Re:In other words. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      That's why I much prefer the contracting route, 1099 vs W2.

      Upfront, you negotiate your bill rate, which you base on how much it will take to make you happy, save for retirement, medical insurance, AND....to allow you to miss work for sick/vacation time.

      I usually plan for 3 weeks sick/vacation time.

      So, I have my minimum number and negotiate for as much above that as I can.

      And that way, no one has much to say about when I work, what hours...etc....and if I get the work in on time, and want to take a bit of time off, no one argues much with you.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:In other words. by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Vacation leave is nothing more than additional pay and in most companies is negotiable.

      Only in most American companies is it negotiable. In the rest of the world they are mandatory, and we laugh even at the top 25% of earners.

    9. Re:In other words. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      vacation was 100% non-negotiable but willingly gave up $10k in salary to make up for the vacation they wouldn't provide even though the time off would have cost them 5x less.

      Accounting can force that. Vacation time can occur long after a project that pays for the employee ends, but ongoing salary always comes from the current project.

      I have more than 30 days of vacation accrued on the books (and before the current limit was enacted, I had almost 60.) I get paid from the current project money for any vacation I take, even if I accrued vacation a year ago on a long-expired one. It's hard to explain to a funding agency why the person who is funded by their grant isn't actually there doing anything.

    10. Re:In other words. by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2

      >I worked for major financial institution for a long time and found that the salary budget was very limited but that they would, and could negotiate time off without adding to the budget.

      I had a similar experience in the insurance industry. The last six years before I retired I had 22 vacation days and 13 paid holidays. I also required people in my organization to actually take their vacation. People in sensitive financial positions were required to take two consecutive weeks off at least once a year.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    11. Re:In other words. by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      That's only true in a few states - California being one.

      Most companies do not pay out vacation / sick time when you leave. In fact many stop you from even using that time the moment you put your notice to leave in.

    12. Re:In other words. by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      If your manager is letting them charge you for PTO in a week you've worked at least 40 hours in, then it's time you either say down and had a talk with him about expectations, or started shopping for a new manager

      My last job was like this (United Health Group - specifically UMR.) I was salary and even during weeks that I worked 50 hours, I'd be required to use PTO if I had a doctor's appointment. That or mark down the time as unpaid. It sucked working 48 hours and getting paid 38 hours.

      Of course, all that did was end up making me not want to ever work more than 40 hours. My previous and current job I can easily work 50 hours a week for a deadline knowing that on a week without a crazy deadline I could work 30-35 hours. I easily end up working more than 40 hours on average but it doesn't bother me because I know my job has my back when I need it.

      UMR was a strange experience of working for a corp that made it clear it didn't care about it's employees - even to the point of discussing the greatness of outsourcing during town hall meetings with the people who were getting outsourced.

    13. Re:In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People in sensitive financial positions were required to take two consecutive weeks off at least once a year.

      Which coincidentally is just enough time for the CXO types to cook to the books w/o leaving too many breadcrumbs for the finance people to discover...

    14. Re:In other words. by Raisey-raison · · Score: 1

      In other words, the more you are a value to a company the more they will pay you in salary and benefits. Vacation leave is nothing more than additional pay and in most companies is negotiable. If you are working as a burger flipper your salary is not that high and the extra benefits are the same.

      CEOs sit in each other's compensation committee or otherwise signal to other executives that they will approve excessive pay in return for reciprocal arrangements. For example Steve Ballmer was an epic failure of a CEO. He wasted countless billions of dollars. Remember the Zune?

      Forbes reported that Microsoft shareholders had a negative total return of nearly 17.6%, with the stock down 36%, according to data from FactSet, from the day Ballmer took over as CEO in January 2000 until he retired.

      At his retirement he was worth $17.2 billion.

      CEOs don't receive pay cuts when they fail and indeed often receive eight figure salaries and it's one of the well known paradoxes of labor economics. People should in fact be paid up to the margin product of their labor. In fact they are not. Lowly retail workers for example have more than doubled their productivity since 1973. However their real wages have declined. Measured by their contribution to GDP they should be paid much more than they are currently paid. But Amazon and other retailers are able to distort the labor market.

      Remember the recent stories about their workers peeing in a bottle and working in prison-like conditions? That would not occur at full employment if the law and other social constraints weren't heavily tilted in the favor of corporations and CEOs.

      Sometimes people have leverage to demand very high pay. However for very highly compensated individuals (> $2 million a year in wages + bonus + stock etc) that may not reflect their true economic value. They sometimes can distort the labor market to their advantage. It's well known in labor economics that physicians are overpaid because the supply of residencies in the USA is capped by Congress. Conversely the high salaries paid to developers right now does reflect their economic value and the market is not distorted because you don't need a license to program.

      It's comforting to think everyone has the lot they deserve, unfortunately such a notion is patently false.

    15. Re:In other words. by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      "I've been told that vacation is less negotiable than salary with the rationale that vacation is measurable/noticeable by peers and can create friction when one employee is deemed "away too much"."

      That is non-science...and some may even say nonsense.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    16. Re:In other words. by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually it was to have someone else do their job long enough to see if they were cooking the books. We had annual, independent financial audits, and not doing this would trigger an audit finding.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    17. Re:In other words. by AndyKron · · Score: 1

      You had to pay them not to work? Very strange.

    18. Re:In other words. by greenwow · · Score: 1

      > Companies must legally pay you for any unused but accrued vacation/PTO,

      Depends on the state. Here in Washington state, the law only requires less than 2/3 be paid out. In CA, we have to pay out 100%. That's why in CA we require employees to take PTO to get it off of the books, but in WA we basically don't allow vacation time. My entire adult life, I've only had one "real" vacation if you define it as a whole week off. Every company I've worked for, and that's since the mid-1970s, has had several problems with finding tech employees. My current employer, like several before, has more open tech positions than tech employees!

    19. Re:In other words. by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      True. It is not hard for engineers to fire a manager.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    20. Re:In other words. by swb · · Score: 2

      I had two different people tell me that, a friend of the family who ran a fairly successful recruiting agency and a friend with hiring responsibility.

      I suppose a lot of it depends on how time off is scheduled. Some places can have a kind of contentious scheduling process for time off and the schedule can be highly visible and easy to count who has how many days off. New hires waltzing in with the "after 5 year" time off package creates some resentment.

      Give the new guy $20k more than everyone else and it's totally invisible.

    21. Re:In other words. by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

      Only in most American companies is it negotiable. In the rest of the world they are mandatory,

      Which is why for the most part America still leads, and laughs at the rest of the world.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    22. Re:In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you would have got paid 5x less for the vacation time doesn't mean it would have cost your employer 5x less. Remember they make money off of you.

    23. Re: In other words. by guruevi · · Score: 2

      Everything in the US is negotiable. It's the American dream. Being truly salaried, I get unlimited PTO which is more than I ever did in Europe being "salaried" which doesn't really exist there and at a higher rate too. The PTO reporting is just for statistics and rate calculations and comes out to ~35% across the workforce when you include sick and holidays.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    24. Re: In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what? Misery?

    25. Re:In other words. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'm Europe holiday buy-back schemes are popular for these reasons. You have the option to buy extra holiday time and it comes out of your salary, so it's effectively unpaid but you have a right to it.

      Then again in the UK you get 25 days minimum plus national holidays by law, and I'm up to 30 days with the option to buy an extra 5.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re:In other words. by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      You get a lot of vacation; we live in the place most people want to go to and has in most cases the highest standard of living.

      https://fee.org/articles/most-...

      "...Most European countries (including Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Belgium) if they joined the US, would rank among the poorest one-third of US states on a per-capita GDP basis, and the UK, France, Japan and New Zealand would all rank among Americaâ(TM)s very poorest states, below No. 47 West Virginia, and not too far above No. 50 Mississippi. Countries like Italy, S. Korea, Spain, Portugal and Greece would each rank below Mississippi as the poorest states in the country...."

      So yeah, enjoy those days off in the one bedroom apartment you don't own, the tiny car you drive, with the one kid you can afford.

      --
      -Styopa
    27. Re:In other words. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      There's more to life than big cars and McMansions... at least there's time to spend with the one kid and show them something other than an iPad screen. Travel itself is cheap if you travel like a student...

    28. Re:In other words. by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      Then again in the UK you get 25 days minimum plus national holidays by law, and I'm up to 30 days with the option to buy an extra 5.

      No, the minimum in the UK is 5.6 weeks = 28 days including bank holiday, but a good employer will give you 23-25 days PLUS eight days bank holiday.

    29. Re:In other words. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The last job I had, was 20 days annual leave, 1 paid rostered day off every four weeks (to give me a chance to do stuff you can only do on week days) and long service leave accrual for 90 days off every 10 years on top of any accured annual leave and of course that years annual leave (so long service leave provided me something like 120 PAID days off plus of course those rostered days off which are still included). I worked to live, I did not live to work, that's too much like being a slave. I was a work on time and left on time, the company didn't give me money for free, so I did not work for free. Do you know that is typical for my country, sucks to work in your country, why do you allow it.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    30. Re:In other words. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I think you are right actually. My mistake. In any case, 30+ days plus bank holidays plus buy-back option is negotiable I find, although on the continent a lot of companies just give everyone the buy back option anyway.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    31. Re:In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds more like "Give back the paycheck you would have gotten".

    32. Re: In other words. by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      Basically. We got 3 weeks off bankable. We could buy back another week by deferring pay up front and then cashing it out when you took the time. It was a little weird. And it made for getting extremely mad if a problem got escalated when i was on purchased pto. One of many reasons i am not there anymore (or doing ops at all)

    33. Re:In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In any sort of highly compensated, competitive work environment, there is a point where more vacation days are useless because you can't take them anyway due to demands of the job.

      If someone offers to give you 40 vacation days, 10 PTO days, and 10 holidays, in a demanding job, it usually isn't worth much. This would work out to taking a week (5 working days) off every month. In most companies, people woudn't tolerate someone who is out 25% of the time (there are exceptions).

      This level of vacation is useful at places that have no cap on accumulated days. Then, you can just keep accumulating until you retire/quit. There are some jobs where people basically get a year+ of salary when they retire due to hundreds of accumulated vacation days.

    34. Re:In other words. by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 2

      You start off saying "standard of living", and then proceed to list things that aren't measuring standard of living at all. That "study" doesn't factor in health and education costs.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    35. Re:In other words. by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      I'd pretty easily take a cut in salary for more time off, even if it came with a bunch of restrictions on consecutive days off or days off per month.

      Work for the government. Decades ago unions and management negotiated weird concessions in lieu of raises which translated into ungodly amounts of time off. Want three weeks each of vacation time and sick time as a brand new employee, bankable with high maximums? Done. 12 paid holidays a year, paid lunch? Yup. How about other categories of time completely separate from vacation and sick, requiring no notice or reason to use? Sure! Great for shitty weather and public transit woes.

      In exchange, ~25% less pay, and prepare for a lot of slow projects due to... well with all that time off, the likelihood of everyone you need actually being in on a given day is pretty slim.

    36. Re: In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll, PTO often goes along with years served and years served often means a higher income. People with years of experience often also negotiate the same or more PTO.

      Film at 11 captain obvious

    37. Re: In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always heard the "we have to give everyone the same benefits or they'll sue". It's in the handbook.

    38. Re:In other words. by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      So your company decided that instead of letting people not be there for a few weeks in a year, it's better not to have them at all? Or is there some other reason to have a bunch of open positions, like getting over the H1B legal hurdle?

    39. Re:In other words. by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      Why would you use per-capita GDP? The US has a highly skewed wealth distribution, which means most people will not see anywhere close to their share of GDP as disposable income. The bottom 50% only has 15% of the nation's income, so if you're in that bucket, you can immediately ignore 85% of the GDP since you won't ever see any of it in your hands.

      The metric that really matters for the average Joe is disposable median income adjusted for purchasing power parity, because that's how much buying power at least half of the population will have. By that measure, the US is still near the top, but about the same as many other first-world countries such as Germany and Australia.

    40. Re:In other words. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well, I get paid well, but I haven't had a vacation in ages. I think they keep dumping enough emergencies on me that it ties me up. If I leave for two weeks I come back to 5 weeks worth of piled up urgent email. Meanwhile when soemone who doesn't provide much value says "I'm on vacation for 3 weeks" then no one minds too much.

    41. Re:In other words. by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      The old system worked better for me. The use-it-or-lose-it was a good incentive to actually use the vacation. You'd even get a reminder from HR that you have too much vacation on the books. For me it was mostly end of the year, add a week onto the holiday break. And you can always tell the boss you gotta use it NOW instead of waiting until things aren't as hectic. But with off-the-books it removes the incentive, and the boss doesn't feel like she's stealing your vacation if she says no.

    42. Re: In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I live in NZ. I earn >120k NZD per year.

      Per year I get 22 vacation days, and 10 paid sick days. 11 paid public holidays every year.

      Sick leave accrues yearly up to 50. All unused vacation days are paid out if I leave the company. I, and everyone in this country, get free public healthcare. My employer pays for private health insurance and life insurance. I get free broadband, mobile phone etc.

      I'll stick to my country thanks. The USA doesn't hold a candle the the standard of living in New Zealand.

    43. Re: In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PTO isn't really PTO. Most truly aggressive American companies will push you so hard to get things done that you can't afford to take the time off anyway. If you are gone "too much" you suffer.

      for the source weenies: http://www.projecttimeoff.com/research/state-american-vacation-2016

    44. Re:In other words. by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      I get the same, and it seems about right.

    45. Re:In other words. by q_e_t · · Score: 2

      If you routinely cannot take your vacation then you are understaffed,or have issues with project management or delegation.

    46. Re:In other words. by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      If 12 days a year slow down projects then there is a issue with project management or communication.

    47. Re:In other words. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      the tiny car you drive

      I think this of all things most strongly illustrates the root of your misconception.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    48. Re:In other words. by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      It's not the 12 holidays which everyone gets at the same time, it's the other 35 days which can be taken as desired (vacation), needed (sick), or under various other circumstances (weather, time off for specific medical screenings, etc). And since the two main categories of vacation and sick roll over year over year, some people will go whole years never touching them, and before you know it they take an entire season off.

    49. Re:In other words. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 2

      $85K/year, 6 weeks + 1 day paid vacation, insurance all paid by my company, flexible working hours (nominally 34.5 hours per week), paid lunch break, 6 months severance if they fire me, and a whole host of other benefits.

      I think I'll stay right here, instead of trying my luck in The American Nightmare.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    50. Re:In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But those with a higher salary are said to do so because they generate more wealth than cheaper labour. If this is so, then the company is losing more by letting the "worthier" employees have more time off than if they let the poorer ones have time off. This harms profits more, and therefore hurts shareholder profits, THE OWNERS OF THE COMPANY.

      Extra time of is an exponential increase in value, since the more time off you have, the more your pay is worth, and the more your pay is worth the more your pay is worth, so if the more you get paid, the more time you get off, you get pay worth more worth more.

    51. Re:In other words. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Then again in the UK you get 25 days minimum plus national holidays by law, and I'm up to 30 days with the option to buy an extra 5.

      No, the minimum in the UK is 5.6 weeks = 28 days including bank holiday, but a good employer will give you 23-25 days PLUS eight days bank holiday.

      Correct. For a long time here in the UK any half-decent employer has given you 20 days + 8 days bank holiday as a minimum anyway. So the legal minimum is just enshrining in law what is normal.

      Sorry, my mistake, it's another blatant interference with the Will Of Parliament from crazed EU officials trying to destroy the British way of life, which will be cancelled once we reach the Sunlit Uplands of Brexitania.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    52. Re: In other words. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of ways around that. In some cases, just say "no" and find a company that will negotiate. In other cases they will let you "work from home" even though everyone knows you are in Florida for the week. Another thing you can do is "borrow" vacation days from the future. That works surprisingly well, actually. A related technique is to tell your boss that you are going on vacation. The real secret is to always have plenty of excuses that aren't entirely logical but have plausible deniability. Watch Sargent Bilko for an example. In the end, if you are willing to work a weekend or late night in an emergency, it's only fair for the company to give you an extra vacation here or there.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    53. Re: In other words. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Don't let your boss manipulate you like that. Take your vacation, even if it's only to stay home and read.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    54. Re:In other words. by DethLok · · Score: 1

      Yep.

      I, and pretty much everyone else Downunder, get 20 paid recreation days of leave.

      Plus 10 paid sick days (may or may not need a doctors note to prove you're not just taking a "doona day"). And these accumulate - for most people - if not used. If I have a serious illness I have over 30 weeks of paid sick leave I can use (I've been with my employer a few decades).

      Plus the long weekends we get about 10 times a year (New Years Day, Australia Day, Easter (Good Friday and Easter Monday, so a 4 day long weekend), ANZAC Day, Queen's Birthday (which amusingly varies by which state you are in), Royal Show day, some places have the local big horse race day as a holiday, ie Melbourne Cup Day, and... there are others as well.

      My employer just closes down between Xmas and New Year, no point in staying open as more than half the staff are on holiday anyway, and it enables software and hardware updates, serious building maintenance and costs less than opening (lower security costs, aircon and other power costs etc).

      Then there is the long service leave, kicking in at generally either 7 or 10 years of constant employment, and being a full 3 months of paid leave.

      I don't know what USAnian workers unions have been doing, but making workers better off doesn't seem to be their aim, that's for certain. Because pretty much all of these conditions - and many more that millions of Aussie workers enjoy - are the result of Australian unions & workers standing up to the employers and demanding better conditions for the workers.

      And getting them.

      Reading this thread has just been one jaw dropping moment after another...

    55. Re: In other words. by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      Unlimited PTO is common in Europe. I have no idea how you failed to negotiate it here. I prefer not having it, since unlimited PTO also means no overtime compensation, which I will otherwise get instead.

    56. Re:In other words. by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      I'll stick to having quality of life you can't even dream of.

      https://www.weforum.org/agenda...

    57. Re:In other words. by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      What happened is that when the Labour government implemented the EU Working Time directive they expected it to be 20 days plus Bank Holidays. Some employers took that to court claiming that as written the EU Working Time directive was 20 days including Bank Holidays.

      This went all the way to ECJ and the employers won. The government simply went back and changed the law to 28 days. The mind boggles at the what the employers thought they where going to achieve.

      I can't imagine that any government would try and change that now even with Brexit. It would be political suicide to try and take holiday away from millions of people.

      Personally I get 31 days PLUS the eight days bank holidays. On top of that I seem to get an extra day most years for some milestone or other achieved by one department or another. However you are right any decent employer will offer something over and above the legal minimum.

    58. Re:In other words. by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      See my other post. The 20 days plus bank holidays is actually the will of parliament. It came about from the 1997 Labour government with the largest landside victory in a generation enacting the EU Working Time directive in 1998 and then finding to their horror that the Working Time directive only gave 20 days combined. They promptly fixed that almost immediately they lost the case in the ECJ by issuing a Statutory Instrument 2007 No. 2079 The Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2007 which was approved by both the Commons and the Lords. I can't be bothered however to look up the actual vote.

      Note under UK and probably EU law you become entitled to your full annual leave on your first day of employment.

      The chances of this changing anytime soon even after Brexit is somewhere around Ä

    59. Re:In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most well-paid people are well-paid because they're in positions in the company close to where the decisions on pay are made. Companies are run by the people at the top for their benefit, using the people at the bottom as resources. The further to the bottom you are, the less power you have to skim off a bit of the cream. The people at the very top might inflate their working hours for social status, but those hours tend to be filled doing almost nothing, whatever work they do is less taxing mentally and physically, and their pay tends to be obscene.
      (Before you jump to all kinds of conclusions about my political or economic views, I'm not opposed to capitalism. I just think it isn't applied right, that's all.)

    60. Re:In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leads?

      You should travel more.

      I wonder what will become of your "lead" when your little petrodollar scheme is no more.

      That's the only thing semi-shielding you from being a full 3rd World country.

    61. Re: In other words. by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      That's really no different than where I work. Where I work everyone is hourly and you are allowed up to 10 hours a week of unpaid time off. Basically, as long as your hours stay above 30 for health insurance it's not a problem. You aren't directly paying for vacation but it works out the same because if you use unpaid vacation instead or paid vacation to make up the hours then your paycheck drops. Buying vacation is really no different that taking unpaid time off.

    62. Re:In other words. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      we live in the place most people want to go to

      LOL, you live in a bubble of delusion. Many people no longer even want to *visit* let alone live in the USA.

      So yeah, enjoy those days off in the one bedroom apartment you don't own, the tiny car you drive, with the one kid you can afford.

      There is so much wrong with that but let me educate you:
      - Most people own their apartments with just enough bedrooms for the number of people living there. McMansions are truly bizarre concepts.
      - The tiny cars we drive are the tiny cars we want. Sure I could buy a dodge charger, but I prefer a car that fits in normal parking spaces and isn't an absolute pain in the arse. Sure my car is second hand, it only cost me $10k. But it doubles in value every time I step into it wearing my wristwatch. But keep waving your tiny dick ....err sorry I mean big car around like it matters to anyone other than you.
      - As for the one kid we can afford. We're socialist, don't you remember? The government will support us to afford as many kids as we want. But popping little shits out of our vaginas only serves to decrease quality of life. It's quite ironic that the birth rate is highest in the poorest countries of the world yet you criticise us (without knowing who us is) for our low bithrate.

      Keep living the dream mate. I'll send you a postcard.

    63. Re: In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      G gg to ggggy yy

    64. Re: In other words. by Monster_user · · Score: 1

      Walmart had an system where sick leave would accrue over time, and eventually convert to PTO at a fraction of the time. I think I had a months worth of sick leave, a weeks worth of PTO, and two weeks paid vacation when I quit.

    65. Re: In other words. by Monster_user · · Score: 1

      Being understaffed saves money.

    66. Re:In other words. by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Also disregarding Europe as a place to start a business is equally mandatory

    67. Re: In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American here... 180K a year, âoeunlimitedâ vacation, paid shit breaks, total autonomy and completely self-directed work. Also I like in NH, a very low cost of living state. Welcome to my nightmare!

    68. Re: In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very stupid headline. Very stupid response.

      Higher level (management) employees have benefit packages that may include over the common 10 days of paid vacation.

      If this is a fucking surprise to you. You are a damn retard and part of the problem.

    69. Re: In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A CHP friend of mine has 3 months paid vacation. Big woooop. Time people stare minding their own business.

      Want more paid vacation? Do a job that gives you more. Not good enough? Tough shit, stupid.

    70. Re:In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha ha. Where I work just went to "unlimited" vacation a year ago (right as I "earned" my sixth week). People have been reprimanded for using (employees) or approving (managers) more unlimited vacation than would have been "earned" in the old system.

      We also now have a smaller fixed amount of sick/personal time (when before it was what was needed as long as it wasn't abused). If you have more than a year's worth at the end of the year you lose the excess when they fill to the two-year cap in January.

      This is all an accounting trick. Since you're limited to the old amount then all that's being done is eliminating a pay liability from the books, and magically better numbers! Even better, if you get toward the end of the year and some deadline changes, then your pre-approved "unlimited" vacation just disappears and you have to work. Since you aren't being deprived of an "earned" benefit then they don't have to compensate you in any way at all.

      Plus if you have time to take vacation then how valuable can you actually be? Why aren't you working the 10% to 15% free overtime that we have the lower-level managers tell you verbally in team meetings is "expected" (but that we'll never, ever put in an email or any other form of persistent communication)? (This only applies to exempt employees, of course, since it would be illegal to do this to non-exempts.) If you object to any of this, then obviously you are not a "team player".

      After getting people used to this crap I fully expect (insert my company's name here) to tell us in a couple of years that they expect a lot less vacation if you expect an acceptable review. Again, only verbally.

      You know, maybe a manager should get the idea that something is crap when his most conservative and most liberal team member are objecting to the same thing. I can't really blame him though. He's just doing what he's been ordered to do by his manager.

    71. Re: In other words. by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      You're confusing us with "buy back". It just sounds like they take a small bit of money each week that will eventually add up to a whole week of vacation that you still get a paycheck for. In other words, normal vacation pay.

    72. Re: In other words. by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      What country is that? In both US and Canada, my experience is the more valuable you are, the more benefits you get. The company would say health benefits kick in after 3 months probation and start with the legal minimum of two weeks vacation a year, but good developers and engineers would start with 3-5 weeks annual vacation or benefits start immediately.

    73. Re: In other words. by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      At least you don't become the scapegoat.

    74. Re:In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're up to over a hundred devs and QA now, and I think only one person has quit so far over vacation time, but that was only because his wife worked for Holland America that's based here in Seattle and she got a bunch of free cruises they couldn't use.

      It will be a problem in the future since HR decided a couple of years ago to only pursue female candidates because they're usually cheaper and a female dev complained that she was the only female at her location.

    75. Re: In other words. by Murasaki+Skies · · Score: 0

      Andromedan here... $380K every Planck unit of time, forced endless vacation of above maximum quality, paid breathing breaks, and way faster than light travel. I live in the Andromeda galaxy in general. My home is mobile but is a sphere the size of Saturn's average orbital distance to Sol (a radius to radius comparison, to be clear; I'm not one of those pathetic $95K/Planckers). It has an octuple star system within it, of course. I fire people like you for brunch!

      --
      Waiiii!!!!!! I have bad karma!
    76. Re: In other words. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      People that can't manage their jobs without either telling their bosses to get more people or leaving the abusive environment are not salaried. I recently got a promotion and I'm now in contact with a higher strata of managers, I manage the expectations of managers as much as they manage me, it's part of being in that position. If someone is forcing me to work 60h/week to get the "job done" just because I'm salaried, I would definitely negotiate to work hourly.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    77. Re: In other words. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Where and when I lived, Unlimited PTO was not a thing, the government pretty much dictated the number of hours I was allowed to work and allowed to take off and what range of income I was allowed to make as part of a "negotiated contract", it was basically government-negotiated collective bargaining for an entire industry or an entire company, including what eventually became IT. This is fairly common in Austria, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Portugal etc.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    78. Re: In other words. by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      I know what they are; we have them as well. They are not negotiated with the government, but with the unions. And you can always negotiate an exception, as long as you are not in a union.

      We have one of those where I work, and I have an exception for maximum allowed overtime.

    79. Re: In other words. by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Not really. Errors or failures become more likely or severe, opportunities cannot be exploited, staff turnover is higher. These things don't often appear on the same spreadsheet as staff costs, but they are real costs.

    80. Re:In other words. by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      If people can roll over to that extent then the policy is wrong. In the UK being able to carry over five or ten days is typical. Time off otherwise doesn't seem to cause an issue, so I don't see why it should be a problem in the USA.

    81. Re: In other words. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      And is that normal, or even just reasonably common in the US? Nope.

      With a couple of exceptions (normal work week is 37 hours), what I get is the standard here.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    82. Re: In other words. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Because it's soooo easy to land a job like that in the US.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    83. Re:In other words. by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      The rollover is incredibly useful. People bank time for a few years, have a baby, and take half a year off to bond with their kid. One woman used her sick time plus donated time from other employees to stay at full pay for 2 years while undergoing cancer treatment.

      The system is fantastic for employees. And really the only reason it actually slows down projects is the number of single-person-of-failure scenarios due to chronic understaffing; there should be a minimum of 2 employees and 1 manager who can do any given job (so that 1 can be on a planned vacation, one can have an unplanned emergency, and things still get done by the manager). This can be done with overlap (Employee 1 does A & B, Employee 2 does B & C, employee 3 does A & C; manager can do A B & C). But what happens is employee 2 retires and is not replaced, and suddenly there's a hole in the redundancy.

    84. Re:In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We dont have this (multi national) and trying to educate HR on on it is pointless as they dont want to listen.
      Come xmas the place is like a ghost ship and we effectively shutdown for the 4 weeks due to various people cramming in 3-4 days here and there.
      Made much worse by multinational teams different amounts of holiday and taking it without planning.

      The proposal (as put across by many people) is to allow carrying forward or backward up to 5 days holiday per holiday year (different to our financial year and to the actual year!)
      The first time out you get some degree of pain. Different pain to what we have now. People fear change.
      The year after you find that people are generally saving a few days then taking them into the next year. And they do this pretty much every year from that point on.
      So you've given the illusion of taking holiday over whilst people actually take holiday at more sensible time and roll over what they have left if they do, but they pretty much roll over 4-5 days every year so it's a zero sum game.

      Contrast the system now of enforced leave or backroom deals being made to "work from home" in the next year.
      Naturally they wont pay us for unused holiday and they have a policy of forcing people to take it. Thus creating the mess in the first instance.

    85. Re:In other words. by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      In other countries you get time off to bond with your kid, and time off for cancer treatment anyway.

    86. Re:In other words. by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Thank you, my friend, for the best laugh I've had all day.

      I live within 30 miles of the Canada - US border, yet I very rarely visit the US. Sometimes work takes me over the border, but that's the only thing that can get me to go.

      I live near one of the poorest cities in Canada. Yet even the poorest city's poorest neighbourhoods are palatial compared to what I've seen in America.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    87. Re:In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To a degree, for a full time job the legal minimum in the UK is 28 days annual leave. 8 of those are public holidays which can either be mandated as being taken on the public holidays, or granted in lieu. I get 41 days though, 33 base + the 8 public holiday days, because I negotiated up. I asked for a higher salary than I expected to get, got given a salary offer that was what I wanted and expected, but then asked for extra leave to make up for not getting the salary I asked for and didn't get, and got it, so I got the salary I wanted + more leave.

      Even though we have a good minimum, the amount we get is still very much up for negotiation. I always factor leave and working hours into salary negotiations because I agree they're part of the package. The difference between working a 37.5 hour week and a 40 hour week for example rounds up to 7% extra hours, thus, I would expect the salary to be 7% higher, because otherwise I'm taking a 7% pay cut in my hourly rate, which is a substantial cut. The same applies to leave - if they offer less, then the headline salary better damn well at very minimum make up for it in an equal amount, else it's not worth taking the job.

  2. 10 days??? by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here in Europe we get 120 paid days off per year! What a country!

    1. Re:10 days??? by barrywalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here in Europe we get 120 paid days off per year! What a country!

      Europe isn't a country. You must be an American.

    2. Re:10 days??? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Sure it is. With Big Ben and the Eiffel Tower and stuff.

    3. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Europe we get 120 paid days off per year! What a country!

      Capped out at my company "use it or lose it" at 160 hours. Suck on that one.

    4. Re:10 days??? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You meant USian. Because America is a continent! Am I hitting all the right themes here?

    5. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pretty sure that's 16 the way the article is measuring it.

      In the US, it's pretty typical to get 10 vacation, and 5 personal/sick days (for the top people that get any).

    6. Re:10 days??? by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's pretty typical. I've never been there but I heard USians work 22x7 and only get 10 vacation and 5 sick days and aren't allowed to take any of them. They must be exhausted.

    7. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Europe we get 120 paid days off per year! What a country!

      Here in Africa, we don't. What a shitty country!

    8. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe is a continent

    9. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Written, apparently, by a UKian or an EUian.

    10. Re:10 days??? by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      About 130-160 for most salaried jobs in the US, not counting weekends and holidays it's usually a month worth.

    11. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all be Terrans, aka Dirt dwellers!! Get with it!

    12. Re:10 days??? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      That's not possible. That would be like different people can get different amounts of vacation time based on various factors. We all know that isn't possible, and Americans only get 10 days off a year at the most and everyone else gets 120 days off. Read it on the Internet.

    13. Re:10 days??? by JustOK · · Score: 1

      He was talking about America, not Themerica

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    14. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sympathize. As an American, you must indeed find it embarrassing that many European countries enjoy a much higher standard of living than you do.

    15. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      120 days > 160 hours - you must be the janitor, ehr-uhm - Custodial Engineer

    16. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No doubt the US is a harsher work environment especially for the shit jobs, but I wonder if that number is just trolling a bit.. 10 days vacation is basically entry-level for office jobs. 3 weeks is more typical for the average "white-color" Joe and that turns to 4 weeks after 5-10 years of seniority. 5+ weeks, I think is quite rare.

      Or is the US now at the point where the vast majority of people work at Amazon warehouses or are on "gig" jobs? I don't rule out that all IT workers and other professionals are in a bubble.

    17. Re:10 days??? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Definitely. That is why Americans are migrating to Europe and Europeans never come to America to live.

    18. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not only that, Europeans live longer, are healthier, happier, and have more (and better) sex than Americans.

    19. Re:10 days??? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I live in America, yet I'm not American. I'm Canadian! Get your own name for your own citizens, U.S.A.!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    20. Re:10 days??? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      You may be a Terran but I'm a Protoss.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    21. Re: 10 days??? by orlanz · · Score: 1

      If you guys lived a bit further from the line, people may not be confused! Right now, it looks like you are just outside the US to say "We are outside the US". You guys are like the froth on top of the beer... it's still beer!!

      Serious note: The above is in jest, I actually do like my Canadian coworkers and their culture. Summers up there are awesome.

    22. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself monkey boy.

    23. Re:10 days??? by r1348 · · Score: 1

      120 would be obviously insane, but here in Italy I get 26.

    24. Re: 10 days??? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I actually do like my Canadian coworkers and their culture. Summers up there are awesome.

      Yeah, those 19 days of the year are the best, aren't they?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    25. Re:10 days??? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      26?? Here in Sweden the most junior people get 30! Mamma mia!

    26. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't live in America then.... You might live in North America, but that would make you North American, not American.

      Deal with it, its not going to change no matter how much you whine and stomp your feet.

    27. Re:10 days??? by butchersong · · Score: 1

      Wait... there are only 262 work days in a year. If you get 120 days paid off a year then you're essentially only working half the year. I realize of course that vacation is generous to the point where things often shut down part of the year in the EU but... that seems excessive.

    28. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is incorrect! The law stipulates a minimum of 25 days. Many collective bargaining agreements have a minimum of 27. But in no way is 30 the standard for junior positions or other low wage jobs.

    29. Re:10 days??? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No, it is required by European Law! You know, the law of Europe. You silly Americans, you don't know how great it is here. Did I mention we get free ice cream on Fridays too?

    30. Re:10 days??? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      What? You mean you can make an agreement with your employer in order to get more vacation? I wish we could do that in America (I mean the US, not the continent of course)!

    31. Re:10 days??? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      120 would be obviously insane, but here in Italy I get 26.

      That must be miserable. Nearly everywhere on the planet, you get at least 104 days off per year....

      [Pauses to wait for you to get the joke.]

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    32. Re:10 days??? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      You Earthlings are so petty.

        - A Martian

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    33. Re: 10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      In France, they make wine when they stomp their feet.

    34. Re:10 days??? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      je viens des les États unis

    35. Re: 10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually do like my Canadian coworkers and their culture. Summers up there are awesome.

      Yeah, those 19 days of the year are the best, aren't they?

      How Y'all ain't got this straight by now ain't none of my business but its 'Yeah, those 19 days of the year are the best, aren't they, eh?'

    36. Re:10 days??? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Who really want to be called an uasian? They can not pronounce Uranus properly, the planet. Same word for an ancient god. No wonder they are god forsaken if they can not speak/utter their names ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    37. Re:10 days??? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well,
      they tried to introduce "sick days" here about 10 years ago. I think it was 3 sick days.
      They miserably failed.

      If you are sick, you are sick. If your child is sick and you need to take days off: you take days off. End of story.

      Obviously: full payed. Obviously not obvious for american anti socialism morons.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    38. Re: 10 days??? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Yeah... you're speaking like a Texan now, not a Canadian.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    39. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweden! I knew you were a EUian.

    40. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get 26 here at my job in the states, though that's after 10 years at the same company. Started at 13, went to 19 after 2 years, and then 26 at 10. It's a long wait to get there, but it's pretty nice when you do.

      We also get 13 sick days (from the start, never changes).

      A former job at a university got me a couple more, maybe 41 per year, from day one, but their salary was sub-par.

      I also worked at a place that only did 10 vacation and 3 sick; that was miserable. I'm really glad they laid me off and forced me to move on to better things.

    41. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name another country that has America in its name. I'm waiting...

      Also, names like USian don't really work because Mexico is officially the United States of Mexico (Estados Unidos Mexicanos or United Mexican States).

    42. Re: 10 days??? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Yeah, those 19 days of the year are the best, aren't they?

      Sure are. That's why when people joke "Canada has two seasons, Winter and Summer." It isn't a joke, it's been 8 months of straight winter.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    43. Re:10 days??? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      If your child is sick and you need to take days off

      Kids? That's the wife's job.....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    44. Re:10 days??? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well,
      here it is common that the wife works at a bank and produces the income.
      While the man is working in a repair shop and gets payed for his hobby.

      Just saying :D

      (P.S. that means, she pays for the house and he pays for the vacations)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    45. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Europe we get 120 paid days off per year! What a country!

      Europe isn't a country. You must be an American.

      Are you an inexperienced Russian troll or someone on the spectrum trying to catch up to a *woosh*?

    46. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USAsians not USians.

    47. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's pretty typical. I've never been there but I heard USians work 22x7 and only get 10 vacation and 5 sick days and aren't allowed to take any of them. They must be exhausted.

      That's cute that you are still trying to make the word USian happen

    48. Re:10 days??? by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and in America if the kid gets sick they have to leave it home alone, because you know that is how it works. I've never been to America, but I read it on Facebook.

    49. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get free ice cream, but it's only vanilla. And it's artificial vanilla at that. In fact it's really just snow, with some vanilla syrup.

      It's true that I have to pay for my ice cream, but at least I can have chocolate.

      That's what you get for being an EUian.

    50. Re:10 days??? by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      North America is part of America. Columbus discovered America by landing in Hispaniola, he never set foot in the actual USA.

    51. Re:10 days??? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Not in East Asia, where a 6-day work week is the norm for about half the world's workers.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    52. Re:10 days??? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You get ice cream? We get only kanelbullar, and they're usually stale by afternoon.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    53. Re: 10 days??? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, those 19 days of the year are the best, aren't they?

      Are you sure you're living in Canada and not in Seattle?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    54. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you agree to give up your sovereignty when you joined the European Union?

      I

    55. Re:10 days??? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      This could explain the high suicide rate in those countries.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    56. Re: 10 days??? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      You guys are like the froth on top of the beer... it's still beer!!

      That's not froth it's snow and, since Canada is bigger than the US, if you have that much snow on top of your beer it is definitely not still beer although given typical US beers I can understand your confusion.

    57. Re:10 days??? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well,
      I know you are trolling. But in America the first 5 (or more?) sick days are not payed by the employer or by health insurance. (Regardless if the employee or kid is sick)
      So if you want to troll, troll somehow funny ... just saying.

      If a single mother's kid is sick in Germany, the health insurance pays the employer for her sick leave ... go figure. And the health insurance covers for her lost wages *and* her kids health bills.

      I really wonder what kind of troll you are :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    58. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IT's called USAian. It is a country for US nice people. Only self entitled smug liberals call the USA America. Real geography luvin USAians call it the USA. It is the kindest most racially diverse nation on the planet.

      Calling the USA America might have made some sort of sense maybe in 1900 when the USA really was central to 'America' in some metaphysical way. Today there are like 35 countries in the Americas. Each of those countries except the USA and Venezuela is gaining in prominence. The Liberal media, which is run by Mexican, Chinese, and Russian stock holders loves keeping the people of the United States watching sports and believing that the USA is the center of the world, while Russia, Mexico, and China divide up the world.

    59. Re: 10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simplement "...des Ãtats-Unis", pas "des les".

    60. Re: 10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grrrr. Dumb American Slashdot messing up accents again.

    61. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to wonder if he's even American.
      It is actually totally normal to leave your kid at home sick. Every kid knows that when a new game came out you'd rent it in secret after school and then pretend to be sick in the morning so you could stay home playing nintendo all day.

      I have to wonder where he's really from where he imagines that people would find anything sad about leaving your sick kid at home alone. Like what the fuck is your mom going to do for you? Breast feed you until you get better?

    62. Re:10 days??? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      "But in America the first 5 (or more?) sick days are not payed by the employer or by health insurance"

      What are you talking about? You guys are hilarious. You guys think you know about America, but you know nothing. Do you think all American employees only get 5 paid sick days? Too stupid.

    63. Re:10 days??? by Lorens · · Score: 1

      For all those who say that 120 days off in a year is insane... just count the weekends!

      I'm at about 55 days off per year (30 vacation days instead of the legal minimum of 25, 35 hours a week, spread out into roughly eight-hour days with one day off every fortnight) plus the weekends and national holidays, so that's easily 160 days of out of 365. And job security that most Americans can only dream of. Pay... well. I upgrade my vacations with a second job, which I wouldn't be able to do if my 35-hour week was five 7-hour days. That hour's difference per day works out to some 25 days off in the year, not too shabby.

    64. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and in America if the kid gets sick they have to leave it home alone, because you know that is how it works. I've never been to America, but I read it on Facebook.

      There is no way you're american. Most people do leave their kids at home alone when they're sick.
      What the fuck is your mom going to do for your diarrhea and runny noses? Breast feed you back to health?

      Fuck man you must live in a pussy ass mollycoddled country. I really thought russians were tougher than this.

      Yeah, it's pretty typical. I've never been there but I heard USians work 22x7 and only get 10 vacation and 5 sick days and aren't allowed to take any of them. They must be exhausted.

      Hahaha oh wow. It's actually common to start off with 5 vacation days a year and 2 sick days. If you add up all my time off it adds up to 22 days which stuns most americans.

      As for not taking sick days? I had a job where I only got 5 days off and when I quit I had 12 days saved up. That was a job where going to a drs appointment counted as a day off. I should also mention that our company actually had a meeting to tell us to stop going to the doctor when we're merely sick and "don't have to" because insurance costs were killing us. Next topic... the company is doing great good job workers we're buying up the competition and blah blah blah. I should mention of course that the people going to the doctor were typically the spouses and kids and not the workers because like I said we barely had enough sick days to get an annual doctor and dentist appointment.

      It's fucking hilarious to listen to you parody what a hell america is like and watch you fall short of how shitty things actually are for most people here. The only reason I have it a little better is because I am a highly educated guy in a strongly left part of the country.

    65. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been calling them "Usaliens" for years.

      For some reason, it doesn't seem to have caught on.

    66. Re:10 days??? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I live in America, yet I'm not American. I'm Canadian! Get your own name for your own citizens, U.S.A.!

      There is one: Landwhales

    67. Re: 10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three. North, Central, and South America. Hence 'the Americas'.

      If you're going to be a pedantic twat at least get your facts straight.

      And when somebody refers to a nation as 'America', they're talking about the good ole USA. Not C-eh-N-eh-D-eh, Mexico, or Brazil.

    68. Re:10 days??? by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Be glad you're not in India, even a 7-day work week is too short for them!

    69. Re:10 days??? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Europe isn't a country. You must be an American.

      An American citizen is a person from the American continent. You must be from the USA.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    70. Re:10 days??? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      My Indian colleagues tell me that they generally work 6 days.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    71. Re:10 days??? by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      The joke~~



      Your head

    72. Re:10 days??? by Unnamed+Chickenheart · · Score: 1

      Actually, there's North American and South America. :)

      --
      urd
    73. Re:10 days??? by q_e_t · · Score: 2

      he was a bit early for the USA

    74. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Joke.

      Your head.

    75. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those 104 days aren't typically paid, though. You can't work or call in sick on a Saturday if your workdays are Monday–Friday.

    76. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course! In general it is the unions who negotiate this, but in some cases one can negotiate to trade salary increase for more vacation days as an individual.

    77. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Canada" is just a Laurentian word for "settlement". We all live in canadas! Get your own name for your own country, Area North Of The Great Lakes!

    78. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can indeed, but you either need a strong union (hence collective bargaining) or really make a good case for it.

    79. Re:10 days??? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Here in Europe we get 120 paid days off per year! What a country!

      Europe isn't a country. You must be an American.

      It's. A. Joke.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    80. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I am an American.

      North or South?

    81. Re:10 days??? by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      of course but we still say he discovered America, and we don't refer to the USA but to the continent.

    82. Re:10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be american as you didn't get the 'whoosh' here.

    83. Re:10 days??? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      No, but if you're on a salary, your employer can call you on a Saturday. Also, some people who get sick on a weekend do fudge their sick days to get a free day on Monday when they aren't sick. It certainly isn't approved behavior, but it happens a lot more than you might expect.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    84. Re:10 days??? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      We don't even HAVE opinions on the planet I come from

    85. Re:10 days??? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Not just for new games. Haven't you seen the 1986 documentary about an American teenager called Ferris?

    86. Re: 10 days??? by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Lower Mainland, BC ftw. 2-3 days of snow, 150 days of rain and the rest sun. You don't have to shovel rain.

    87. Re: 10 days??? by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      The kids were loving Iceberg Beer on my last Mexican vacation.

    88. Re: 10 days??? by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      So what are the motherfucking laws for EVERYONE, not just a negotiated number that varies from state to state. I think that was their point.

    89. Re:10 days??? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Here in Europe we get 120 paid days off per year! What a country!

      Europe isn't a country. You must be an American.

      No, he's in Europe. I guess they are brain washed with the European Union so they think it's a country and the countries over there don't matter. STFU and do what they say.

    90. Re: 10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just another cock-sucking cuck. 120 days? Unrealistic. Go fuck yourself, you god damn son of a bitch

    91. Re: 10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America isn't a country either.

  3. Generous? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 5, Informative

    10 days is considered generous? That seems pretty low to me, and I'm sure it's considered uncivilized by most other modern countries.

    Also, first ever first post?

    1. Re:Generous? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      I'll second that. At where I work, you get 10 days as soon as your probationary period is over which is usually 3-6 months after your hire date. More vacation comes with years in the company and not related to your pay grade. I personally think this is silly but that is how they operate. I think giving out vacation based on merit is actually the way to go.

    2. Re:Generous? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      If you actually lived in a modern, civilized country you would get first post.

    3. Re:Generous? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I knew it was unlikely, but there weren't any posts showing up literally 3 seconds before I clicked submit.

      I'm just gonna blame Slashdot. Because why not.

    4. Re:Generous? by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Funny

      It is well known that the US has the highest percentage of first post. It is the reward we get in exchange for only getting 10 days of vacation per year.

    5. Re: Generous? by orlanz · · Score: 1

      I think it's a poor enumeration. I have never had less than 15 days at any of my positions in the past 20 years. BUT, I never had sick leave. I think many companies have weeks of sick leave on top of the 0-10 PTO days.

      But I agree with the general gist of the post thou. Every interview I went to said PTO was not negotiable. Even the type of businesses where the employees would mostly work during Dec/Jan, they wouldn't officially give make up or extra days.

      I thought it was kind of stupid. I declined such places and I am sure their HR policy cut out a lot of good talent they could have had.

    6. Re:Generous? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Sorry, not this time, will_die beat you by a minute.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    7. Re:Generous? by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Funny

      I get 37 days and I sure as hell am not anywhere near the top 25% of earners in my country.

      Greatings from socialist Europe.

      Was that a typo or just a play on words, you can decide :)

    8. Re:Generous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Philly and got 17 days Paid Time Off starting after my probationary period (60 days,) at a tech firm no less. If you get offered anything less than 15, you need to seriously consider finding a new job if not a new industry.

    9. Re:Generous? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      >I'm just gonna blame Slashdot. Because why not.

      That would make an excellent sig.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    10. Re:Generous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But do you know anyone in tech that actually takes that much time off? With the demand for developers and how nearly every company is short staffed right now, I don't think I know anyone that's taken more than a long weekend off in about the past twenty years. The last full week I had off was in 1993, and that was only because our two largest customers shut down their plants for the entire week for maintenance/upgrades. Even my friends that work at Microsoft can't get time off since their teams are 50% staffed since they can't find good people.

    11. Re:Generous? by greenwow · · Score: 1

      If you can actually take the ten days off per year, it is pretty generous. I've been a programmer for just over forty years(!), and everywhere I've worked we haven't been able to find enough people despite having the budget to hire them so everyone else has to make-up the slack. I think there was only one year I was able to take off more than five days, and that was twenty-five years ago.

    12. Re:Generous? by subk · · Score: 2

      I get 50 days and I sure as hell am not anywhere near the top 25% of earners in my country. Greetings from a socialist University in the US.

      --
      Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
    13. Re:Generous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greetings!

      How are you doing.

      Not so well I see.

      Socialist Venezuelans get 156 days off a year (2 day work weeks).

    14. Re:Generous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even understand how that's the average for the top 25%. I had 14 days when I worked retail full time. Hell Waffle House gives you 3 weeks. I have somewhere around 28 and I'm probably just barely in the top 25%

    15. Re:Generous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you don't want the vacation, but prefer to take high paid consulting gigs year round instead? Is that legal in Europe or are you mandated to take the vacation whether you want to or not? Some people would rather have the money than the time. Should that choice be illegal? Is it illegal in Europe?

    16. Re: Generous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are self-employed, you can take as little or as much holiday leave as you want.

    17. Re:Generous? by DethLok · · Score: 1

      The paid holidays do accrue, though, if you don't use them?

      So if you get 10 days holiday per year but take none, next year you have 20 days holiday to use?

    18. Re:Generous? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      As I say to my wife who is a teacher: Damn you and your excessive leave. Normally that is just met with a cynical stare. :-)

    19. Re: Generous? by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      You motherfuckers don't even work the summer!

    20. Re:Generous? by greenwow · · Score: 1

      It greatly depends on the company. Even CA allows for accrual limits. My employer limits accrued PTO time to 1.75 times the annual cap. From our handbook which was copied from Amazon, "Once this cap is reached no further paid time off will accrue until some paid time off is used." I think I've lost 27 weeks of vacation time here due to accrual limits. I make just under $200k per year so that means I've lost over $100,000 worth of time off. Yes, I'm bitter about that.

  4. So why is it surprising? by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So why is it surprising? It seems like basic economics to me. People with more in-demand and marketable skills can obtain both a higher salary and more benefits.

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

    1. Re:So why is it surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why is it surprising? It seems like basic economics to me. People with more in-demand and marketable skills can obtain both a higher salary and more benefits.

      How cute that you believe that.

      Ability and qualifications aren't as important as connections and ability to bullshit/negotiate yourself into a position. Then again bullshitting is a marketable skill, but not one employers are willing to admit.

    2. Re:So why is it surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again bullshitting is a marketable skill, but not one employers are willing to admit.

      Sales and marketing is a pretty well recognized field at this point.

    3. Re:So why is it surprising? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      It's not quite that simple. Some people who are well-paid are that because they do something really critical that no one else can do, so that every day they're on vacation without a phone is risky. Bad situation for the employer to be in, sure, but it happens. Similar but less extreme cases can be a reason why many employers are reluctant to offer vacation as a benefit.

      In other businesses, where there is high risk of corruption, people are sometimes forced to take vacations. This is because they've noticed that it's very hard to keep your clever embezzling scheme running without access to your office.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    4. Re:So why is it surprising? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So why is it surprising?

      The surprising part is that even the top people in America still get less paid vacation than the mandatory minimum in many countries.

    5. Re:So why is it surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because in the rest of the developed world it's considered a human rights issue. Why is that so surprising? It seems like basic reason for working is to live...

    6. Re:So why is it surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people who are well-paid are that because they do something really critical that no one else can do, so that every day they're on vacation without a phone is risky.

      Know what's even more risky than your critical employee being on vacation?

      Your critical employee accepting a better offer with more vacation days.

    7. Re:So why is it surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because in most of the world there are laws about paid vacation and breaks, I'm from the UK and I get 21 days a year which is on the low end for Europe.

    8. Re:So why is it surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again bullshitting is a marketable skill, but not one employers are willing to admit.

      Sales and marketing is a pretty well recognized field at this point.

      Except most of them are only marketing themselves to their employer while using the secondary skill of scapegoating their failures while claiming other's sweat as their success.and marking that off as leadership to the next company.

  5. This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Good jobs have good benefits.

    1. Re:This just in by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      10 days is shit benefits. I got more than that in an entry/level position straight out of college.

  6. That's nothing by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm in Canada and I get 365 days off per year!

    Oh wait, I'm homeless...

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:That's nothing by belthize · · Score: 1

      Lucky you, your'e saving a fortune in rent or mortgage payments.

    2. Re:That's nothing by epine · · Score: 1

      I'm in Canada and I get 365 days off per year!

      Or you've out-Ferrissed Tim Ferriss, and you've managed to have some extremely productive 1/4 days.

      You probably make ends meet on the proceeds from your best-selling book The 6-Hour Workyear, into which you invested a monumental twenty-hours of finger-blurring energy over the past four years.

      (The other four hours were spent reorganizing your pop-up office TV tray.)

    3. Re:That's nothing by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      As long as internet is working in your iglu in winter, you are not really homeless!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re: That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're in Vancouver or Toronto you can work full time, make $50K a year and still be homeless.

    5. Re:That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in Canada and I get 365 days off per year!

      Ha! When I'm a fat cat running my own nefarious corporate empire, I'll give myself 400 paid days off a year. I can stop working last week!

    6. Re: That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is that you, craemer?

    7. Re:That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a surprising number of people working full-time yet homeless in Vancouver... I've got one sleeping on my couch at night.

    8. Re: That's nothing by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      There's homelessness in Fort McMurray. I have no fucking idea how or why. I saw a guy outside of a corner store open a beer. The next day when I returned, the bottle was still there, but the beer frozen out the top. I don't think he made it past the neck before it froze. It was around - 40 degrees.

  7. I knew it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work very little since becoming an officer.

    The rest of ya, get your lazy humps to work!

  8. Work/Life balance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    10 vacation days is not a lot.

    The work/life balance in the US is horrible. The typical 9-to-5 doesn't exist-it's closer to an 8-to-7 schedule if you're salaried.

    1. Re:Work/Life balance by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Definitely. All Americans work 8-7 and get 10 days of vacation a year. I've never been there, but I read it on the Internet.

    2. Re:Work/Life balance by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      10 vacation days is not a lot.

      The work/life balance in the US is horrible. The typical 9-to-5 doesn't exist-it's closer to an 8-to-7 schedule if you're salaried.

      I guess I'm lucky then. 7:30-4 with an hour for lunch. 10 years with the company and have 3 weeks vac(get 4 next year, it tops out at 5 weeks), plus 14 days paid time off earned each year with unused time rolling to the next year (up to a certain amount). Of course, I only make about 60k w/ bonus so the pay could be better.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Work/Life balance by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      3 Weeks vac, does that mean 15 work days or 21? (A week has 7 days, if you only get the 15 work days between weekends as vacation, you are a poor sod.)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Work/Life balance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have 21 day and I will get another day in 7y and another 10 after that.
      Unionized software engineering Rock, union politics suck !!
      32hr/w 1.5x salary after 40h (never happens) I am paid 100 for working that few hr and we have on of the best managed pension plan in Canada.

    5. Re:Work/Life balance by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      That's pretty close to what I get as well.

    6. Re:Work/Life balance by Kjella · · Score: 1

      3 Weeks vac, does that mean 15 work days or 21? (A week has 7 days, if you only get the 15 work days between weekends as vacation, you are a poor sod.)

      I've never heard anyone count their weeks of vacation different from their work week, besides who has four work weeks and a day of vacation? Here in Norway it's a 25 day minimum, it's a lot but I would imagine it's reflected in the pay and the practical effect is that most people take July off. It's one of very few decent summer months here anyway and people really do need to recharge for the cold and dark winter.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Work/Life balance by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      In Europe, and that includes Norway, vacation is usually counted in "work days".
      So if one says "3 weeks" it is a bit ambigous, don't you think so?
      As "3 weeks" would be 21 days, and that would translate to more than 4 calendar weeks and as the parent is obviously an american and by law only has 10 days vacation, I guess the question is valid.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:Work/Life balance by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      So if one says "3 weeks" it is a bit ambigous, don't you think so?

      No, because a week is not a unit of measure of 7 days, but instead 7 consecutive days. It obviously means 7 consecutive days. You were going to get 2 of them off anyway.

      BTW, I've always seen it phrased formally as days, but informally as weeks because the standard use is to go away on a Friday and return on a Sunday while being somewhere else (an island or something) for the intervening 9 days.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    9. Re:Work/Life balance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an American. I've always heard people measure their paid vacation in weeks, by which they mean work weeks. e.g. the 10 days in the summary would be "2 weeks of paid vacation per year".

    10. Re:Work/Life balance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plus 14 days paid time off earned each year

      How is this different from vacation? Isn't vacation jus that - paid time off?

    11. Re: Work/Life balance by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's probably ambiguous like much of language, but when we say 3 weeks we mean 15 days, and although that can be confusing the first time you hear it, once you know, then you know (again, like much of human language).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Work/Life balance by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Business growth and jobs in Europe are horrible.

      Europe is an impoverished land by US standards.

  9. On the other hand ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The number of vacation days you receive often increases with your number of years at a company, as, often, does your pay. New(er), perhaps younger, employees often start out with lower salary and fewer vacation days. How is this a revelation? In addition, people higher up the salary scale may have more experience, perhaps from somewhere else, and negotiated more vacation days during the hiring and/or annual review process. Less experienced employees don't have that leverage.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:On the other hand ... by Drethon · · Score: 1

      The number of vacation days you receive often increases with your number of years at a company, as, often, does your pay. New(er), perhaps younger, employees often start out with lower salary and fewer vacation days. How is this a revelation? In addition, people higher up the salary scale may have more experience, perhaps from somewhere else, and negotiated more vacation days during the hiring and/or annual review process. Less experienced employees don't have that leverage.

      I would hope the study took that into account, if not, your thoughts have merit.

    2. Re:On the other hand ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck your slave mentality!

      Captcha: straps

    3. Re:On the other hand ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get a metric crap ton of paid leave. Maybe I should be CEO.

    4. Re:On the other hand ... by hipp5 · · Score: 1

      I don't think the point of the report was to point out that this is some kind of amazing revelation, but rather that statistics on income only include income. This is problematic for certain uses of that statistic, because for some things you might actually want to measure "total compensation", which would include vacation time.

    5. Re:On the other hand ... by eth1 · · Score: 1

      My experience is that you normally start getting more vacation at about 5 years. That's also about the time you should start looking for either a major promotion, or a jump into a much higher-paid position at another company, so it's always hard to take advantage of for long. Staying at one place much longer than that will hurt you in the long run at most places, since they tend to give you 3% raises each year, instead of the often 30% you can get by going somewhere else.

    6. Re:On the other hand ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BLS does not show that they controlled for length of service so higher positions should have more vacation. It is actually more interesting if vacation days are flat across employment grades because that would mean a trend to fill senior positions with new employees. Also, would expect the difference is slightly shrinking over the next several years with the increase in Boomer retirements.

    7. Re:On the other hand ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would be nice if that were true here. I'm going on 6 years without a raise, and I get about 20 HOURS of PTO per year. Just about ready to quit.. Though I basically have the skills of an EE, I don't have a degree, kinda tough to find a job..

  10. Duh? by dasheiff · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Better job gets more benefits.

  11. Never had vacation by iamhassi · · Score: 1

    I've never had a job that offered vacation days. The woes of being a IT contractor, never hired, always used awhile and thrown away

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    1. Re:Never had vacation by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Get out of IT. Seriously. Run away from that field as fast as you can. Parlay into Data Science which is growing and in high demand.

    2. Re:Never had vacation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're not charging several hundred dollars a day you're doing it wrong, if you are, you've nothing to complain about.

    3. Re:Never had vacation by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I'd recommend finding 2 other IT contractors that you don't mind working with and form a 3-person consultant business. Then you can either charge more or you can accept more than 3 jobs at once. Sometimes 5 small jobs pays better than 3 full time ones.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re:Never had vacation by PPH · · Score: 1

      The woes of being a IT contractor

      You are responsible for your own vacations. They are the time between gigs. If you can't afford to take some time off, you are just bad at budgeting and planning.

      An advantage: At the end of your contract term, when your customer asks to renew, you just say, "I have a two week job to take care of right now. See you when that's over." When they scream about the inconvenience, you just tell them that this wouldn't have happened if you had been a direct employee.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Never had vacation by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      I've never had a job that offered vacation days. The woes of being a IT contractor, never hired, always used awhile and thrown away

      PTO is a myth - employers look at the total cost of an employee, and factor time off into the salary equation. Employers aren't being generous by giving you "PTO" since it is already factored into the equation. If you work for a lose or use employer and don't use your vacation you essentially are giving them a discount on your salary. It's simple economics in the end. A contractor, in many ways, is the most transparent pay situation since you are getting all teh money up front to decide how you want to use it.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    6. Re: Never had vacation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last bit doesn't seem like a great plan...

    7. Re: Never had vacation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're an independent contractor, it is completely up to you how much holiday leave you take.

  12. Time off is a monster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once you can pay for a reasonable living, time off lets you live your life.

    Departments are usually more ok with increasing it over salary, as it doesn't change how much is charged to their section.

    And when it the cost cutters are looking for employees to axe, the high salary guy usually gets picked before the extra vacation guy

  13. Military Leave is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Military Leave is good

  14. Part Timers, Temp Workers, Service Workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would dare say that in that bottom 25% are also where the part timers are. Part timers don't get vacation, traditionally.
    Next group in there is going to be low wage factory/retail/service workers.
    The highest paid "workers" are generally those with "relationships" and other "business skills" that bring much more to the table than day after day productivity.
       

  15. Strange.... by tacokill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's almost as if employees are being offered pay and benefits that are directly proportional to the value they bring to the company. Huh. Whoulda thunk

    1. Re:Strange.... by sinij · · Score: 1

      It's almost as if employees are being offered pay and benefits that are directly proportional to the value they bring to the company. Huh. Whoulda thunk

      This is because sexism and racism! We all know the only reason top employees earn more and given more perks is because of entrenched patriarchy and white privilege (Never mind that many of top earners in tech are Chinese and Inidan). Down with the white hetero males!

    2. Re:Strange.... by supernova87a · · Score: 1

      True. More vacation, but also much more pressure not to take vacation because of your responsibilities.

    3. Re:Strange.... by DaveyJJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's almost as if employees are being offered pay and benefits that are directly proportional to the value they bring to the company. Huh. Whoulda thunk

      Except that's not how it has worked in the real world since the late 1960s in the USA.

      For that you might want to look at a few facts about pay (NY Times, Economic Policy Institute, UN economics reports, etc). 1) What the average US worker would be earning if their salary had increased at the same pace as CEO's salaries? Slight more than $160,000. 2) The fact that the average US worker is earning slightly less than their 1970 counterpart when adjusted for inflation, 4% less, in fact. 3) The average US CEO earned 20x an average workers salary in 1970, and now that's closer to 350% It was 296% in 2013, and has neared 380% since then. 4) While the average worker's productivity has risen 248% since 1973, wages have only risen 108%. 5) Real average hourly wages of young college graduates has fallen every year since 2000. 6) If minimum wage in the US has matched productivity gains, it'd be over $18/hour.

      But please, keep thinking pay structure is all about the actual monetary and intangible (brand) value someone brings to an organization if you like. I'd suggest that those who are making more money, might possibly be doing that since the system is becoming increasingly rigged for them (and by them) to do so.

      --
      DaveyJJ
    4. Re:Strange.... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It's almost as if employees are being offered pay and benefits that are directly proportional to the value they bring to the company. Huh. Whoulda thunk

      You'd think so, but you'd be wrong. The most vacation you get in the USA is based on tenure. You don't need to be valuable, you just need to slug away living your meaningless life in the rat race to get vacation in the USA. Oh and don't think of quitting your job or you back where the fresh meat start.

    5. Re:Strange.... by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      You have to remember the job pool was much smaller in the 70s so people would get paid more.

      The fact that most women now work (nothing wrong with that so don't read into this) means that the available employee pool doubled.

    6. Re:Strange.... by greenwow · · Score: 2

      Correct. Simple supply and demand. Plus since women are typically willing to work for less, many companies, like mine, prefer women candidates over males. The last eight developers I've interviewed were all women. None could do the job which isn't unexpected since you're picking from a much smaller pool of candidates. Add in the fact that the last three women we hired were either pregnant when we hired them or got pregnant shortly after, it screws over the rest of the team. I finally got enough people to where I could take some time off finally, but then two of the women scheduled months of maternity leave off so no one in the team can take any time off now.

    7. Re:Strange.... by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      Those who are in the top 25% are able to negotiate larger amounts of vacation time, without requiring additional tenure. I never accept a position that offers less than 15 days PTO, and have always been granted this, even when the normal company policy offers 15 days only after 5 years.

    8. Re:Strange.... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I never accept a position that offers less than 15 days

      Neither have I. Doing so would be in breach of the law in every country I have lived, .... and that list of countries continues to get longer.

    9. Re:Strange.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      2) The fact that the average US worker is earning slightly less than their 1970 counterpart when adjusted for inflation, 4% less, in fact.

      Could you please provide your data source for item 2.

      According to this https://www.reference.com/history/average-salary-1970-b1c31356a944dd35 the average salary was $6,186. According to this https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html the average salary was $48,642 for 2016. When I plugged the salary information into this calculator http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ is said $6,186 after inflation in 2016 would be $38,256.

      So it looks like wages went up by 25% compared to 1970. Did I miss something?

    10. Re:Strange.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost as if employees are being offered pay and benefits that are directly proportional to the value they bring to the company. Huh. Whoulda thunk

      Except that's not how it has worked in the real world since the late 1960s in the USA.

      For that you might want to look at a few facts about pay (NY Times, Economic Policy Institute, UN economics reports, etc). 1) What the average US worker would be earning if their salary had increased at the same pace as CEO's salaries? Slight more than $160,000. 2) The fact that the average US worker is earning slightly less than their 1970 counterpart when adjusted for inflation, 4% less, in fact. 3) The average US CEO earned 20x an average workers salary in 1970, and now that's closer to 350% It was 296% in 2013, and has neared 380% since then. 4) While the average worker's productivity has risen 248% since 1973, wages have only risen 108%. 5) Real average hourly wages of young college graduates has fallen every year since 2000. 6) If minimum wage in the US has matched productivity gains, it'd be over $18/hour.

      But please, keep thinking pay structure is all about the actual monetary and intangible (brand) value someone brings to an organization if you like. I'd suggest that those who are making more money, might possibly be doing that since the system is becoming increasingly rigged for them (and by them) to do so.

      The numbers you cite are no in way in contradiction to what tacokill wrote. Someone can be twice as productive today as before and bring no more value to the company, e.g. if an increase in productivity across the industry has made the product a commodity that sells for half as much profit. Though of course what tacokill wrote is not exactly true, it's just that the arguments you provided do little to show that. In fact companies pay based on what they believe that they have to pay to attract labor in a way that works for the company (e.g. some companies also need to retain labor, in other companies that's less of a need).

      It's hard to say what the value someone brings is, e.g. if the trash doesn't get collected, eventually productivity goes to zero, but you wouldn't say that the trash collectors are responsible for the entire output of a company, even though their service is absolutely vital and the company could not function without them. However, if they didn't want to do their job without CEO-level pay, then there are qualified people who would be happy to replace them for less than a million-dollar salary, so them demanding CEO-level pay wouldn't work out for them, and that's what it really comes down to for the company.

      If I tell you that you can either pay $100 for the insulin that you need to live, or $10k dollars for precisely the same thing, you know what you'll pick. But if only the $10k offer is available, you'll pick that one because you have to. Same thing for companies. So tacokill wasn't exactly right, but what he wrote works as a short-hand for what's really going on in companies that know what they are doing.

      The system is not being rigged, it's working in the intended way, allocating capital to where it needs to go economically. The effect of that is that highly qualified people are getting richer and less qualified people are getting richer, too, but at a slower rate, and unqualified people are being left behind. This is what your numbers are actually showing. This is happening because technology slowly increases productivity and the returns to competence. Your real argument here should not be that the system is being rigged, it's that the economic efficiency of the system does not inherently take care of everyone to the standard that a civilized society requires and that too extreme inequality is not in anyone's best interests, not even the people at the top - those are strong arguments. Suggesting that companies are throwing money into a hole and intentionally over-paying some employees for no good reason ("rigging the system") is not a strong argument, in contrast. Such companies would just find themselves bankrupt after a while.

    11. Re:Strange.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But of course you have to remember that none of this matters because men and women are equal...

  16. The Data lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because you get more time, does not mean you can take it. I was given unlimited vacation time in my senior management role, but that does not equate to taking 2 months off and enjoy boat drinks.

  17. Huh? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    It's almost like vacation and other benefits are part of the salary negotiation. Once your basic needs are covered you can divert more of your compensation in to these instead of base pay.

    I am a bit concerned that someone is just figuring this out now.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:Huh? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Of course, its Quartz, so they are just trolling on social status, gender, race, and wealth memes. The very next article trolls on about how whites are racist because a higher percentage of them own homes than blacks.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  18. But how many do they actually use? by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

    For those higher paid employees, an equally interesting question is how many days of vacation do they actually use?

    1. Re:But how many do they actually use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of them. 21 days/year, and an extra 1 month sabbatical every 4 years. We are expected to take them, as they are part of our benefits.

    2. Re:But how many do they actually use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of them, when the company sets the maximum number of billable hours at total work hours minus holidays and vacation time.

    3. Re:But how many do they actually use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those higher paid employees, an equally interesting question is how many days of vacation do they actually use?

      At least in Finland: All of them - otherwise the leftovers spill over to the next year, and company doesn't like too long vacations, so the HR pushes people to have the vacation when it is due.

  19. Who would have thought? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    It's almost like benefits and salary are both part of the compensation an employer gives you in exchange for your labor, and so more valuable (to the employer) or lower supply labor ends up getting higher benefits and salary than less valuable/higher supply labor.

  20. Full Time v Part Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I feel like this doesn't take into account fulltime vs part time either. In general in the US, part time workers get very little paid time off. This is largely because some can flex their scheduling to take time off (albeit unpaid).

  21. Generous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, did you refer to 10 days of vacation as "generous leave"? I wouldn't even consider a job that didn't have at least 4 weeks of vacation.

  22. Water is wet. Grass is green. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, the sky is blue (when not obscured by clouds).

    Seriously, people who are getting paid a lot have managed to convince somebody they deserve rewards. Paid vacation days are a reward. If somebody has managed to get their boss to pay them a high salary, wouldn't they also ask for good vacation days?

  23. Wow... that's news to me. by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Of course, I'm not an American.... but being neighbours, I didn't realize that our labour laws were actually *THAT* different in this regard (I knew about some differences, of course. but I didn't think they were different about vacation time).

    Here in Canada, employees are entitled to a paid stat holiday, regardless of whether you are scheduled to work that day or not, if you have been employed for more than 30 days, and have worked at least 15 of the last 30 days. If you are not scheduled to work on a stat for which you will be paid, then you are entitled to an average day's pay for the stat, and if you work on that day, you are entitled to time and a half for the hours worked PLUS an average day's pay. There are 6 nation-wide stat holidays in Canada per year, and most provinces have their own stat holidays in addition to these, bringing the total to around 10 stat holidays per year for any employee.

    Employees who have been with a company for more than one full year are also entitled to 10 additional paid time off days per year, although the employer has freedom to dictate when some or all of those days are, or to choose to offer the employee payment in lieu of those days. An employer is not obligated to pay an employee for unused vacation days unless the employer restricted the employee from taking a vacation. Some employers allow employees to accrue unused vacation days for several years, although this varies from employer to employer, and the law is neutral on this point. After 5 years with a company, the number of vacation days per year increases to 15. These are the legal minimums... employers are at their discretion to offer more if they choose.

    1. Re:Wow... that's news to me. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Wow. That is terrible. Here in Europe we get 160 paid days off a year. It is the LAW!

    2. Re:Wow... that's news to me. by mark-t · · Score: 2
    3. Re:Wow... that's news to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do companies get anything done if they only get 100 days per year out of their employees? At that rate, you need to hire two people to fill every position, even if you're closed for two months every year (or only have 4 workdays per week). Nice work if you can get it, I guess.

    4. Re:Wow... that's news to me. by hipp5 · · Score: 1

      Wow. That is terrible. Here in Europe we get 160 paid days off a year. It is the LAW!

      Are you counting weekends as paid days off? I mean, I guess we could do that too by averaging our weekly income over seven days instead of five.

    5. Re:Wow... that's news to me. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      They don't.... the only way his remark makes any sense is if you add in weekends to his paid days off per year, and amortize his entire week's pay over an entire week instead of only the five other days worked so that effectively, he is paid for two days off each week, albeit at a lower rate of daily pay than what his actual hourly wage would dictate based only on hours worked. It may be the case, although I do not know this for sure, that their actual minimum hourly rate must be large enough that after such amortization, it is still higher than some threshold.

    6. Re:Wow... that's news to me. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      All I know is that here in Europe we take a lot of vacation and are much happier than anyone else. Did I mention we are happy? And that we get a lot of vacation (European law and all that). Our happiness is mandated by law as well. We are required at least a 4 out of 5 on the happiness scale.

    7. Re:Wow... that's news to me. by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Ignore the unserious replies.

      In the U.S., there is a set of legal holidays pretty much all companies recognize and pay for their employees to take off. It can vary slightly from State to State or company to company (for example, some companies will treat the Friday after Thanksgiving as a holiday, while others might consider it a work day, but then everyone ends up only working a half-day 'cause the managers aren't stupid and don't want to work either). For example, in the major corporation I work for, everyone gets 12 paid holidays, separate from PTO days. If you have to work on a paid holiday, then you either get 1.5x pay (on top of the holiday pay), or else you take it some other day as a "floating" holiday, basically bonus PTO. For PTO, your first year with our company is 15 days, then you get more based on position or seniority, with the biggest bump of 5 more days coming after 3 years (when they decide you're sticking around, basically). I've been with the company for 6 years as an FTE and am up to 25 days PTO. So I get a total of 37 paid days off a year. You must take them each year (and your manager must allow you to take them), or else you lose anything more than 5 days PTO (which can be "banked"). That's mostly to prevent people from saving up PTO for decades by never taking a vacation, then getting it all paid in a lump sum at their highest salary before they quit/retire.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    8. Re:Wow... that's news to me. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the link is wrong.

      France is 30 days and Germany 24.

      No idea from where thy pull their info and how they calculate it down (e.g. sometimes, as in Germany's case, it is calculated on the work days per week, and Germany by law still has 6, so perhaps the 20 days on wikipedia are a normalization down to 5 work days, but that looks implausible)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Wow... that's news to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At Microsoft I think I officially get 129 days off a year for PTO, bank holidays, and weekends, but we can't find enough people so we can't take time off and have to also work weekends. Mandatory Saturday or Sunday meetings suck. I seriously doubt that 160 day claim.

    10. Re:Wow... that's news to me. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      LOL. "Bank holidays". Good one.

    11. Re:Wow... that's news to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I grew-up in England, and that's what we called them. Is there another name the USA uses? That's what I've heard them described as here at Microsoft, but then again my boss is from northern England like me.

    12. Re:Wow... that's news to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We get that you're envious of Europe's actual 1st world conditions, but the joke becomes boring after the 4th time.

  24. Moral of the story by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Get an education and earn experiences that companies will value. If you are valued then you will be compensate monetarily as well as in perks like additional time off.

    If you are not valued, then you'll be treated like a cog in the system and discarded as soon as a cheaper, younger cog is available.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Moral of the story by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      If you are valued then you will be compensate monetarily as well as in perks like additional time off.

      You will be compensated at the minimum level that the employer can get away with. I'm not sure why you think that how valuable you are matters. How valuable you think you are is far more important.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re: Moral of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most important lesson is: don't live in the US.

    3. Re:Moral of the story by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      No that's what happens when you aren't valued.

      If you have 1 week of PTO and make the industry average for your title, then you aren't really valued are you? That's not to say that you as a person don't have value, but if your employer doesn't recognize it, then what do you expect?

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re:Moral of the story by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I wasn't saying look up industry averages (although more data is more better) and just ask for that. I was saying you have to have confidence. Your perceived value will determine hat you ask for, and what you get.

      Most bosses don't volunteer to raise your salary over what you ask for

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:Moral of the story by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I was saying you have to have confidence.

      That doesn't always translate into better pay and more time off.

      Your perceived value will determine [w]hat you ask for, and what you get.

      Ideally yes. Practically no.

      Most bosses don't volunteer to raise your salary over what you ask for

      As both an individual contributor and manager I have several examples where this is not true. The best places give raises to people who are performing above their current position. The discussion of a raise can be automatic if someone is a senior software engineer and start taking on additional responsibilities such as handling the project's architecture, the software schedule estimates, or providing technical know-how to their peers. If you're not sure what more you can do, then a manager that can guide and mentor you in career growth is essential. If you aren't performing consistently with these responsibilities then no matter how "smart" you think you are, or how insistent you are with pestering your boss about it, you probably don't deserve a raise.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  25. oh the unfairness of it all! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    In actual fact, high income earners tend to work substantially more than low income earners, so the fact that that they nominally more vacations hardly matters. People working around 60h/week make a median of $63000, whereas pepole working 40h/week make a median of $38000. A week or two of extra paid vacation isn't even a blip compared to 20h/week differences in work.

    1. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Is that a useful way to look at the data? You've just stated twice that the median compensation is $20 an hour.

    2. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You can not compare two medians.
      And based on the amount of people involved, you can not even calculate it or "estimate" it.

      You either mean mean or average (which are the same) but most certainly not median, unless the US is experiencing a meaning shift of the word median.

      Hint:
      -100,000,000 5 10 (note the minus)
      1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 100,000,000

      Both sequences of numbers have the same median. Completely meaningless if you don't know about how to apply it.

      BTW: the median in both cases is: 5.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You can not compare two medians. And based on the amount of people involved, you can not even calculate it or "estimate" it. ... Both sequences of numbers have the same median.

      So you just first tell us that you "can not compare two medians" and that you "can not even calculate the median", and a few lines down you calculate and compare two medians!

      How about you rethink that and say what you're actually trying to say.

    4. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      If you like to look at it that way, it tells you that the value of the extra paid vacation days is small; that is, it may raise the hourly salary by maybe $1-2. Either way, I fail to see what I'm supposed to be outraged about. People who make more money... evidently make more money.

    5. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      The bigger problem is the stupidity, as continually working more than 40 hours results in major drops in productivity.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The bigger problem is the stupidity, as continually working more than 40 hours results in major drops in productivity.

      You're packing quite a few fallacies into one sentence there: (1) you're confusing correlation and causation, (2) you're ignoring Simpson's paradox, and (3) whether it's rational or stupid to work more is not decided by productivity but by the marginal utility of extra work.

    7. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1
      1) A causal relationship has been found, and is pretty obvious. Overtime causes stress. Stress reduces productivity.
      2) Not relevant here.
      3) The claim isn't that you get less utility out of overtime hours, but that overtime hours cut into the productivity of the first 40 hours of the next week. For extended periods of time, estimated at roughly two months, you get more TOTAL utility from working 40 hours than 60.

      Your reasoning is why overtime can be useful for SHORT PERIODS OF TIME. That, along with time-and-a-half pay, can be utilized to meet deadlines. But as a norm, exceeding the 40 hour week is unsustainable, and worse for everyone.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    8. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I believe his point is that two medians are not useful points of comparison to each other, not that they literally can't be compared.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    9. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      1) A causal relationship has been found, and is pretty obvious.

      Has been found by who? Where is your data? Where are these studies? You're making up things out of thin air.

      The claim isn't that you get less utility out of overtime hours, but that overtime hours cut into the productivity of the first 40 hours of the next week

      No, your claim is that it is "stupid" to work more than 40 hours because your productivity drops. As an employee who gets overtime pay ("time-and-a-half"), my productivity doesn't matter at all to me. And if I'm self-employed, I make more money for every extra hour worked as long as I make a non-zero salary.

      So, even if you could find studies that demonstrate that individual productivity necessarily drops when people work more than 40h (instead of what you obviously did, which is conflate population studies with individual numbers), that doesn't show that working more than 40h is irrational ("stupid"). So, try again.

    10. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I believe his point is that two medians are not useful points of comparison to each other, not that they literally can't be compared.

      Well, then that's what he should say. But that statement is false too. Comparing medians can be very useful. There are statistical tests for comparing medians because it's so useful. And for income distributions, which we are talking about here, the median is an excellent statistic, giving you the distributional parameter and ignoring outliers.

    11. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Has been found by who? Where is your data? Where are these studies? You're making up things out of thin air.

      Pretty much all studies done on overtime and productivity. which is a big part of why the overtime rules were allowed to exist in the first place.

      No, your claim is that it is "stupid" to work more than 40 hours because your productivity drops. As an employee who gets overtime pay ("time-and-a-half"), my productivity doesn't matter at all to me. And if I'm self-employed, I make more money for every extra hour worked as long as I make a non-zero salary.

      True, but damage to your brain and heart, which overtime creates, should matter to you, not even considering that free time should be valuable to you on its own. If you had balls and a boss that wasn't an idiot, tell him to fuck off, pay you 75% more per hour, and let you rest, because that'd be better for everyone.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    12. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You seem to be pretty dumb.

      If you want to calculate the median income of a German, you need the income of every single German person. Good luck in getting that.

      Depending where you live you might have a trick to get the income of every person in your country ... but unless you do that, you can not calculate the median.

      How you calculate it is up to you. Point is: comparing two medians from different sources make no sense unless you also know: max, min, average, size of input set.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      and for income distributions, which we are talking about here, the median is an excellent statistic,
      No it is not. It is completely meaningless. Unless you know the average and size of evaluated data and the min and max. Who cares what the numbers in a sorted list of wages are in the middle of the array? Interesting is e.g. the total money they earn.

      People use median because the number might look more impressive than the average.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      No it is not. It is completely meaningless.

      For income distributions, the median is the exponential of the mu parameter.

      People use median because the number might look more impressive than the average.

      For income distributions, the median is usually lower than the the mean.

    15. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      If you want to calculate the median income of a German, you need the income of every single German person. Good luck in getting that.

      The median of a sample from a population is normally distributed around the true median of the population, just like the estimator for the mean.

      I'm not sure what's more impressive: your mathematical illiteracy, or the assertiveness with which you display it.

    16. Re: oh the unfairness of it all! by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Most people find this out anecdotally. Very smart and capable people get dumb and make silly mistakes after 13 hours. The good ones recognize this and plan accordingly. That's why people who constantly operate this way are fucking dumb. So many times, long hours are wasted and the next morning after a good rest, someone comes up with the solution that solves the problem. I know some really, really smart people who forgotten more than most people know. Describe a difficult problem and they can offer a few useful suggestions that usually turn out right. Ask this person at hour 10, and the answer is no where as good. The other thing, so many people include their travel time as their work day, which is wrong. Leaving your house at 7am and returning at 7pm is not a 12 hour day if you work 8:30-5pm.

    17. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The median of a sample from a population is normally distributed around the true median of the population, just like the estimator for the mean.
      How do you come to that idea?
      You would need to hand pick samples and know the number before hand to achive that. And in the end comparing two medians still would be meaningless. If you accidentally have a sample that only contains people above average or above median or below, does not matter, the median and average would be completely elsewhere.

      I'm not sure what's more impressive: your mathematical illiteracy, or the assertiveness with which you display it.
      Your attempts to insult me are obviously the most impressive.

      Hint: I know what a median is, and how to use it. But I'm not a statistian. I'm a software developer. My math skills are in algreba and calculus. Of you think your skills in statistics are so superior, let me point out: your skills in explaining anything are ZERO.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Pretty much all [igda.org] studies [iza.org] done on overtime [inc.com] and productivity. which is a big part of why the overtime rules were allowed to exist in the first place.

      Those articles take original results out of context. Overtime rules don't apply to most higher earners, which by your own reasoning tells you that those results only apply to a subset of workers, namely those doing repetitive and boring tasks.

      True, but damage to your brain and heart, which overtime creates, should matter to you,

      Plenty of artists, scientists, engineers, musicians, and others experience no stress from their work, and spending time on their work is the most valuable thing they can do with their time. I'm sorry if your job is so dull and boring that you don't get that.

      In any case, this is a strawman you put up anyway; my original point remains, namely that those extra paid vacation days, when translated into hours worked per week or hourly wage, make very little difference. So, if you desire extra vacation days, take unpaid vacations.

    19. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      How do you come to that idea?

      Introductory statistics

      Hint: I know what a median is, and how to use it

      You have proven conclusively that you don't.

    20. Re: oh the unfairness of it all! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Very smart and capable people get dumb and make silly mistakes after 13 hours

      Very smart people are still smarter than average even after losing a dozen IQ points to fatigue.

      So many times, long hours are wasted and the next morning after a good rest, someone comes up with the solution that solves the problem.

      What makes you think those long hours are wasted? Intense concentration likely helps you find the solution overnight.

      In any case, here is an idea: why not just trust that individuals and their employers know best how they carry out their work? Why not trust that they can negotiate the best conditions for work, vacation, and salary between them? Why do people constantly feel like they need to poke their noses into other people's life and work arrangements?

    21. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Would you have a second paper to support your "idea"? :D

      The end of the question is: if you have a median income of 30 bakers and I have one, what would it mean to compare the two? Obviously it is meaningless, but you try to argue it has a meaning, but give no argument :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    22. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The end of the question is: if you have a median income of 30 bakers and I have one, what would it mean to compare the two?

      No, the question we are discussing is: if you have the median income of several hundred people working around 60h/week and you have the median income of several hundred people working around 40h/week, how do their hourly wages compare? And dividing the median income by the hours worked answers that question.

      Would you have a second paper to support your "idea"? :D

      Very good that you put "idea" in quotes there, because it's not an "idea", it's a simple mathematical fact. It's in fact the kind of math that is part of basic computer science education both in the US and in Europe. Which makes it surprising that you are having such a hard time with it.

    23. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Those articles take original results out of context. Overtime rules don't apply to most higher earners, which by your own reasoning tells you that those results only apply to a subset of workers, namely those doing repetitive and boring tasks.

      I never said that employers weren't stupid and acting against their own interest. Pretty of studies show that as well in many decisions made. What you are arguing is that because they gave in to unions on a matter where statistics show that they would be losing money to not agree anyway, that they will thus accept all arguments on overtime, which does not follow with human behavior and cognitive biases.

      No, the context is pretty clear: humans are machines, and machines need proper maintenance and limits to wear caused in order to continue to function at optimal efficiency.

      Plenty of artists, scientists, engineers, musicians, and others experience no stress from their work, and spending time on their work is the most valuable thing they can do with their time. I'm sorry if your job is so dull and boring that you don't get that.

      If they experience no stress, they are probably anhedonic or suffering from some other medical condition. They definitely experience stress if they are capable of healthy range of feelings and emotions.

      The intelligent way of phrasing your claim is that the levels of stress are considerably lower for certain people on certain passion projects. There are still limits, but they would fall outside of norms. And in regards to the tech industry, if it isn't your pet project or your startup, it almost certainly doesn't apply. Hell, even if it is, it probably doesn't apply unless you have at least one diagnosis from the DSM-V.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    24. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I never said that employers weren't stupid and acting against their own interest.

      No, you said that employees were stupid if they worked 60h/week.

      If they experience no stress, they are probably anhedonic or suffering from some other medical condition. They definitely experience stress if they are capable of healthy range of feelings and emotions.

      Typical of leftist attitudes: when people say that they'd like to make their own choices, you first call them stupid and then you call them crazy.

      There are still limits, but they would fall outside of norms

      Yes, imagine that! People who make unusual amounts money have an unusual tolerance for stress and long work hours and have an unusual willingness to sacrifice health and personal comfort for their careers. And you're so consumed by your greed and envy that instead of accepting their choices and being happy for them that their sacrifices pay off, you declare them crazy. Because that's the kind of guy you are.

    25. Re:oh the unfairness of it all! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      No, you said that employees were stupid if they worked 60h/week.

      Yeah, because it's against their own interest by any rational and informed assessment. There's nothing to the contrary.

      Typical of leftist attitudes: when people say that they'd like to make their own choices, you first call them stupid and then you call them crazy.

      No, typical of realists who care how words are used. Feeling stress is an inherent factor in any biological action taken, and stress is a necessary part of being a functional human. If you don't experience stress, you would have an experience almost parallel to one that doesn't feel pain. People who don't feel pain have to structure things like urination and constantly check themselves for wounds.

      Yes, imagine that! People who make unusual amounts money have an unusual tolerance for stress and long work hours and have an unusual willingness to sacrifice health and personal comfort for their careers.

      No, most of the people working overtime are just falling prey to collective delusions of office environments, and have min-maxed their work patterns to beast one or two metrics, regardless of the actual utility of their output. The biggest exception to overtime rules is management, which studies also show is mostly useless, and at the top, has an inverse correlation between utility and compensation. The other exception would be programmers, and even if they were mentally set for that overtime, there are enough physical strains to need rest. The people who are really exceptions are the people like Stallman, likely on the Autistic sprectrum, and an idealogue for free software, viewing his work with practically religious importance. He was mentally able to maintain an exception due to that factor, and worked the kind of week that your delusions are based off of. Even still, he ended up wrecking his hands

      And you're so consumed by your greed and envy that instead of accepting their choices and being happy for them that their sacrifices pay off, you declare them crazy. Because that's the kind of guy you are.

      I didn't call them crazy. I said that anybody who was a real exception would be in the DSM-V, and I meant that more as a compliment than as an insult. Neurotypicals pretending that they are exceptional means sloppy, wasteful work, because it's based on a cargo-cult understanding of the accomplishments of the neurodiverse. Even worse, the culture based off of the imitations generally gets in the way of the real thing.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  26. 10 Day is not much by cnaumann · · Score: 1

    There are 52 weeks in a year. 10 days is two weeks. That is only 4%... the difference between making $100,000 a year and $104,000.

    1. Re:10 Day is not much by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Genius!

  27. People who get paid more get paid more? by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

    NO WAI, thanks for the insight.

  28. Unionize! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Unionize!

    1. Re:Unionize! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      A contractor can not unionize ... how should that be possible?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Unionize! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      You get together with a bunch of other contractors...

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Unionize! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in the process get blacklisted as troublemakers unfit to be hired.

    4. Re:Unionize! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      If you fail in your attempt, yes. If you manage to achieve a union, then not. Union development is, and always has been, extremely dangerous. 100 years ago you wouldn't be blacklisted, you would be beaten (maybe by police).

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:Unionize! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Then it would be a guild and not a union ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Unionize! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Sure... that's true. I mean, the difference seems to be fairly semantic and historical, but yeah.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:Unionize! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The differences are:
      in a union you pay a percentage of your wage to the union
      in a union you can go on dtrike, and then the union pays your lost wages

      as a contractor, you get fired if you 'strike'

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:Unionize! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      in a union you pay a percentage of your wage to the union

      Also true in guilds where the primary purpose is collective bargaining (e.g. SAG) as opposed to limit competition via standard (e.g. AMA)

      as a contractor, you get fired if you 'strike'

      The last famous strike (other than various teacher's strikes) in US history was by a guild (The hollywood writer's strike was done by a guild.)

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    9. Re:Unionize! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Joining an established guild is easy.

      Founding a new one is not.

      And during the 'holiwood writers strike' none of the writers 'gained' any money.

      If you are in a union you can go on strike without loss of income.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  29. Meritocracy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    I'm not trying to make any of you feel bad about your life choices, but I worked my entire adult life getting three months' vacation every year, plus a week for Spring Break and a week over the holidays.

    As others here have said, you get paid what you're worth, I guess.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Meritocracy by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      That isn't possible. We all know that in the US everyone gets 10 days of vacation or less, and in Sweden they get at least 25. Read it on the Internet.

    2. Re:Meritocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not trying to make any of you feel bad about your life choices, but I worked my entire adult life getting three months' vacation every year, plus a week for Spring Break and a week over the holidays.

      As others here have said, you get paid what you're worth, I guess.

      For teachers in Finland, that sounds pretty standard. Of course in the summer it isn't officially vacation, but as the schools are closed for close to three months, there's not much to work on during that time...

    3. Re:Meritocracy by hipp5 · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to make any of you feel bad about your life choices, but I worked my entire adult life getting three months' vacation every year, plus a week for Spring Break and a week over the holidays.

      Guessing you're a teacher? There are definitely some perks to that life, though the downside is that you'll never get vacation at other times of year (e.g. going on a ski trip in January).

    4. Re:Meritocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spring Break? How old are you, 25?

    5. Re:Meritocracy by butchersong · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you're in public education. Meritocracy isn't a label I'd normally assign to such an august institution.

    6. Re:Meritocracy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Spring Break? How old are you, 25?

      Do you think faculty has to work during Spring Break?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Meritocracy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Guessing you're a teacher? There are definitely some perks to that life, though the downside is that you'll never get vacation at other times of year (e.g. going on a ski trip in January).

      There is an academic break that usually runs four weeks from the second week of December to about January 7. That four weeks is enough time to squeeze in a little skiing.

      https://registrar.calpoly.edu/...

      So, to summarize: Three months' vacation during the summer. A week during Spring. A month in the Winter. I'm trying to figure out a time of the year where I might miss a vacation. Maybe I can't make it to New England during the Autumn.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Meritocracy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you're in public education. Meritocracy isn't a label I'd normally assign to such an august institution.

      Public education, private education, the vacation time is about the same. In fact, teaching at private universities is probably when I've had the most vacation time. And, it depends on what you'd mean by "merit". If you consider being smart worthy of merit, of course.

      I know I'm smart enough not to have to work all summer long.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:Meritocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the faculty normally create lesson plans and prepare course materials. Summer is also not just a long vacation, because faculty normally have meetings, continuing education requirements, etc.

      So, wanna try that again?

    10. Re:Meritocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends where you teach. Here in the UK, teachers get atleast a week or two off about every six or seven weeks.

      I spent nearly 15 years in N. America, but can't see myself ever moving back there due to the stupid attitudes towards working. The EU has a mandatory 20 days (not including public holidays, which are additional to this), although I've never had less than 25 days in my time in the UK, even as a new employee.

    11. Re:Meritocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PopeRatzo never Anonymous Coward feel bad, Anonymous Coward feels bad for PopeRatzo.

    12. Re:Meritocracy by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Do you think faculty has to work during Spring Break?

      yes. Certainly if they're in the grant grind (i.e. almost all of them these days).

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re: Meritocracy by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      If you don't work for more than a quarter of a year, you should be called part-time FFS. Was hoping you meant weeks, not months.

    14. Re: Meritocracy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If you don't work for more than a quarter of a year, you should be called part-time FFS. Was hoping you meant weeks, not months.

      Well, technically, summer vacation is a little less than three months. All the grades have to be in by the third week of June and the next academic year starts the second week of September. And since I have to prepare for the next quarter, Winter Break is really only about three weeks' long. And I usually have to do yard work during Spring Break, so that doesn't really count as vacation.

      Personally, I don't care if someone wants to call it part-time or full-time. As long as I get paid year round and have full benefits and a pension, you can call it whistling dixie. I don't exist to meet your work requirements.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    15. Re: Meritocracy by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      Well, technically, summer vacation is a little less than three months. All the grades have to be in by the third week of June and the next academic year starts the second week of September. And since I have to prepare for the next quarter, Winter Break is really only about three weeks' long. And I usually have to do yard work during Spring Break, so that doesn't really count as vacation.

      Oh dear god, Jim -- are you pretending to be in academia again? That's just too cute.

    16. Re: Meritocracy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Oh dear god, Jim -- are you pretending to be in academia again? That's just too cute.

      There you are! I keep missing you. We must be on different schedules.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  30. Unpaid time = vacation time by Doogie+Howser · · Score: 1

    Higher salaried personnel also tend to work above the normal 80-hour biweekly standard on which their salary is based, so it's no surprise they also might get more vacation time to compensate.

  31. 10 days, sorry bros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    10 days paid vacation?! In Sweden (and Im sure its pretty much the same in the other Nordic countries) weve had 15 days since 1951, and 25 days since 1978. Minimum. Ive got 35 days as a regular networking guy, and all overtime is paid, either in time (2 hours for every hour worked) or money, I get to choose

  32. So... by xlsior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    'Nearly half' of the top earners get 10 or more days of vacation, meaning that more than half of them get less than 2 weeks a year off - and it's much worse for low earners.

    That's pretty darn embarrassing for a first world county: in Europe even a minimum wage McDonald's drive through worker can expect around 5 weeks of paid vacation in his first year of employment, plus a dozen or so days for national holidays.

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The price for policies like this might be the unemployment rate of nearly double that of the US.

    2. Re:So... by malkavian · · Score: 2

      Not so much. The UK has all those policies and has a rate comparable to the US (not quite sure which is the real value, 4.1 or 8.6 for the US; UK has only 4.2%).
      Over here, 25 days annual leave (plus bank holidays, which is another 6 I think) is standard. And it goes up from there..
      The price paid is generally lower overall pay packet (I know I could earn a lot more in the US, but I like my vacation days too much to worry about that).

    3. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said Europe, not the UK... you know, with brexit it's quite clear the UK doesn't give a rats pitute about human rights anymore and you have to look at the major EU countries like Germany to know what's up in Europe these days.

    4. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might, but in practice it's not.

    5. Re: So... by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      I was lead to believe shorter work weeks means more employment. Shit can't come to a standstill during all this vacation, so additional workers get employed.

  33. oh crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm making over $90k working 36.25 hrs a week.. 3 weeks vacation to start, (4 after 5 years) when I worked longer hours I was making 30k les. (so your 60 hrs 60k seems to fit) but if you find a good employer, you can get paid well and have a good life.

  34. If you're worth more you get compensated more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This required a study?

  35. 2 Week is Standard! by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    Not the exception. Who wrote this fucking article.

    1. Re:2 Week is Standard! by sinij · · Score: 1

      Who wrote this fucking article.

      Probably Jeff Bezos trying to squeeze extra out of his warehouse workers.

    2. Re:2 Week is Standard! by hipp5 · · Score: 1

      Not the exception. Who wrote this fucking article.

      For salaried employees. But do hourly employees get paid vacation? Or contractors?

    3. Re:2 Week is Standard! by kenh · · Score: 1

      But do hourly employees get paid vacation? Or contractors?

      No.

      Hourly workers are, by and large, only paid for the hours they work, the same for contractors.

      If paid time off is important to you, get a salaried position. A wise contractor adjusts their hourly rate to cover anticipated time off.

      --
      Ken
  36. 10 days is NOT a lot! by Tomahawk · · Score: 1

    Here is Europe the legal minimum number of days of for anyone is 20 days. Plus national holidays.

    I really can't understand how you can think 10 days is a lot. I get 9 days a year just as national holidays

    You guys are screwed over!

    1. Re:10 days is NOT a lot! by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      What? Here in Sweden the minimum legal number is 25 days!!!! You guys are totally screwed!!! It is almost as if different people get different benefits based on different factors! The insanity!

    2. Re:10 days is NOT a lot! by irrational_design · · Score: 1

      It depends on the company. I get 36 days of vacation every year, plus a 6 week sabbatical every 5 years. Plus from memorial day to labor day (basically june, july, and august) we only work half days on Fridays (so that's essentially an extra 7 days of vacation). Plus if I work late I usually get comp days. And my vacation rolls over, so if I don't use it all one year I can use it the next.

    3. Re:10 days is NOT a lot! by irrational_design · · Score: 1

      It depends. I get 45+ days off every year, plus a 6 week sabbatical every 5 years (I work for a Fortune 150 company).

    4. Re:10 days is NOT a lot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4 weeks (20 working days), if you don't use them - they stack, and if you leave - you get paid for any unused average salary of last 6 months

    5. Re:10 days is NOT a lot! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      The ten days does not include national (or state) holidays. There aren't that many, but at least they're all on Friday or Monday.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    6. Re: 10 days is NOT a lot! by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      National holidays are not included in vacation days, if that's what you thought.

    7. Re: 10 days is NOT a lot! by Tomahawk · · Score: 1

      Like I did, 20 days, plus national holidays. In Ireland that amounts to a legal minimum of 29 days. Other countries vary.

      And, as many pointed out, it varies by country, company, and job. But the legal minimum is the same across the EU.

      There're also legal limits on hours worked per day and per week, though typical averaged over a number of days or weeks. But, yeah, many laws in place to protect workers.

  37. The salary scale is just 3x in USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Union there ware no difference in pay for Women and Men. There ware categories of specialists and fixed pay for every category. All employees of the same type had the same paycheck.

    The general difference between categories was also interesting.
    The engineer started as grade I and the start salary was 120 RUR per month after taxes (taxes ware approximately 90-95%) the maximum grade was 3 and compensation was 300 RUR per month.
    The regular factory worker in position of mechanic had the same grades I, II, II and started from 60 RUR up to 120 RUR
    Where is the trick? The trick was that mechanic's grades ware growing up to grade 25 and salary up to 600-700 RUR. So highly proficient worker was more precious than engineer with university degree.

    So what I want to say that Salary Scale was from 60 up to 600 for regular single individual contributes in USSR. It was total soviet equalization by gender, age and etc.

    Now coming back to North America, engineering salaries here starts from 55K up to 150K, see glass door if I am wrong, so my question is! Who is more Sovietic USSR with 10x salary scale or USA with 3x salary scale? I don't account for progressive tax scale at all.

    1. Re:The salary scale is just 3x in USA by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      If you were getting paid a max of 700 RUR a month, you'd obviously prefer the U.S. system, because even as a first-year employee at the lowest level, you'd be paid more than the most senior and experienced employee would for that job in the USSR.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  38. Duh by jtara · · Score: 1

    Somebody had to do a survey to discover this?

  39. 30 days by law by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Here we have close to 30 days by law.
    Most people have 32 to 35 days.

    I personally would not go below 90 days ... but that is not fully vacation, half of it is sports the majourity of the rest is studying new stuff, mostly project related.

    The USA is a place completely out of question for working as a European (unless you want to do rocket science, work for Intel or Apple etc.)

    I can not "relax" at a wok place, even if we would run on "low demand", and I should be present, I would always be kind of "high alert". Other people just sit at their workplace and are half asleep, nothing for me.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. Re:30 days by law by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      It is funny in every post by a European there is a different number of days "required by law". So far I have heard 20 days, 25 days, 30 days. Is it based on level of smugness?

    2. Re:30 days by law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that there is more than one country in Europe right?

    3. Re:30 days by law by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Say what? That's amazing! That would mean that different people get different things. Truly groundbreaking discovery. Thanks for the tip!

    4. Re:30 days by law by abies · · Score: 1

      It is funny in every post by a European there is a different number of days "required by law". So far I have heard 20 days, 25 days, 30 days. Is it based on level of smugness?

      EU itself requires that each of the member countries need to give at least 20 days off per year in paid holidays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Anything over that depends on country. In Poland you got 20 if you are just starting to work, 26 with few years of experience (this is leftover from communist times, your entire job experience+education counts, not time spent with single employer). Plus 13 national/religious holidays.
      Sweden has 25 days.France 25 days as well, but they have 35-hour work week by default and if you work more - as much as 39 hours !!! - you get up to 22 days extra.
      Maybe other countries in EU have just 20 days.

      I don't see anything close to 30 days - maybe somebody is counting public holidays as well (then you can easily get in range of 40 days).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    5. Re:30 days by law by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      By law it is 24 days (work days, but based on a 6 day wok week, means it is something like 2,5 days per work month ... did not research it perfectly) in Germany. However I never heard about an employer offering less than 30 days (because the longest school holidays in summer are 30 days, and many vacation laws are obsolet because of contracts with the trade unions)

      There is no Europe wide law about vacations.
      In France the minimum is e.g. 30 days.

      I guess in the UK they have no right for vacations ... that is why they riot during soccer games I guess (just kidding, surprisingly they have the second most vacation days. In UK the minimum is 28 days.)

      Unfortunately googeling gives no good results as newspapers mix up laws with trade union agreements and "how it is lived".

      Less than something around 45 days in France is unthinkable. First of all, the before mentioned summer holidays, are already 6 weeks, and of course they have easter and winter holidays, too.

      On the other hand, obviously a burger flipper wont get 45 days vacation.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:30 days by law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So now you're replying to yourself? Ever thought of seeing a psychologist?

    7. Re:30 days by law by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It is funny in every post by a European there is a different number of days "required by law". So far I have heard 20 days, 25 days, 30 days. Is it based on level of smugness?

      Well, gee it's almost like Europe is a bunch of countries with different laws on top of those legislated by the EU. A tough concept, I know. Maybe you should study it on your day off.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:30 days by law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they are different countries, but must have a minimum. I know geography is usually not your strongest point.
      What is funny is that you're posting the same joke again and again. Are you jealous of actual civilized countries?

    9. Re:30 days by law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The groundbreaking dicovery for USians is that they live in a 3rd world country.

      Once the petrodollar is done, you're set up for a good time indeed.

  40. No big surprise. Plus an idea. by imperious_rex · · Score: 1

    Yeah this isn't exactly a big surprise when you give the topic a few seconds of thought. To incentivize employee retention, companies often raise paid vacation time. My previous employer raised paid vacation time to 3 weeks after 5 years, 4 weeks after 12 years, and 5 weeks after 18 years. During that time, pay increased at about 3% annually. So more senior employees get higher wages and increased paid vacation time. No big surprise there.

    The problem for employees is that "paid vacation" is really something of a fraud. It's baked into your salary and you're just claiming the amount you're due when you request time off. Don't believe me? Try asking your boss for unpaid time off and see how far you'll get. "Paid vacation" is really just another shackle employers use to keep you on the job. But if workers can have an IRA (Individual Retirement Account) that's independent of employers, why couldn't they also have a vacation account that's also independent? I've been a dividend investor for nearly 10 years and my dividend income could, in theory, buy my vacation time (I say "in theory" because in practice, my employer limited vacation time to one's allotted paid vacation time. No unpaid vacation time!). When limited to 4 weeks' paid vacation and capable of buying 8 weeks of time, I began to see "paid vacation" for the bullshit it truly is. If paid vacations were eliminated, employees could invest money into their own vacation fund and have true paid vacations. The only flaw I see with this idea is that younger workers would only afford very very little vacation time and older workers would have a boatload of accrued vacation time.

    1. Re:No big surprise. Plus an idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, this is a dumb pile of shit.

  41. Was seniority correlated as a factor? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    The way I understand it, generally people with more seniority are paid more. They also have more vacation days.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  42. This is absolutely true by PPH · · Score: 1

    One of my past employers paid me a huge sum just to go away and never come back.

    Unfortunately (for them) the state department of labor and industries still found me and I filled them in on the working conditions there.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:This is absolutely true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of my past employers paid me a huge sum just to go away and never come back.

      You must have been TERRIBLE at your job.

  43. 10 days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would quit my job if my company only gave me 10 days of paid vacation.

    1. Re:10 days? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I didn't even know they celebrated MLK day in Europe! /s

  44. Bad Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a ridiculous comparison. Most long-term employees will naturally be paid more and have higher vacation amounts.

  45. WTF??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF? My first job in the US after school, I had 15 days a year. Granted, I was a developer, so not the lowest-end job, and it was sick+vacation days together, but still... Now I am in the UK as a senior developer and I get 26 days a year just for vacation (sick is separate), while the minimum for non-developers is 24 days/year.
    I've never heard anyone getting 10 days or less per year...

  46. Good old days as a Gazetted Officer in India by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    Indian Civil Service vacation rules were by the British Raj. It took a week to go to England from India, vacation for those officers were two months every other year. Remnants of such generous leave policies are still there in India.

    Fresh out of college and got into Govt Service as a Gazetted Officer (civilian equivalent of a Commissioned Officer, your name gets published in the Gazette, the official publication of Government of India). I got 30 days of "Earned Leave", and then 30 days of half pay medical leave, convertible to 15 days of full pay leave, 2 days of casual leave, 16 national holidays, two days of "restricted holidays". 65 days off! not counting 104 weekend.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Good old days as a Gazetted Officer in India by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I always find it amusing when taxpayer paid civil "servants" brag about how little they work.

    2. Re:Good old days as a Gazetted Officer in India by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Gazetted officers are on duty 24/7. They might not be at their regular work place. But they serve the The President at all times. The code of conduct and behavior applies all the time.

      OK once you stop laughing, you need to agree technically, on paper we were on duty all the time.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  47. Failed because the chicks weren't free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dire Straits knew how to do this decades ago.

  48. 10 days? by irrational_design · · Score: 1

    Wow. My company gives everyone the same 10 days off every year (typically things like MLK day, Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc. +1 day of the employees choice). Plus employees get another day of vacation every pay period, so that is an additional 26 vacation days a year. Vacation rolls over from year to year. Plus employees get a 6 week sabbatical every 5 years. Right now I could take 3 months of paid vacation off if I wanted. But, I love my job and don't really have any incentive to take time off. I actually regret the weekend.

  49. 10 whole days? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

    Wow, will the generosity of US employers never end?

  50. Wow who thought by oshkrozz · · Score: 1

    That teachers were in the top wage earners at over 80 paid days off a year ...
    Oh wait ...
    In all the tech companies I have interviewed for they offered 15 paid days a year minimum.
    In the various retail jobs I worked at they had maybe 5
    Mostly it comes down to, when you work by the hour, companies can pay you ... by the hour, once you move to a salaried position vacation gets factored into that pay.

  51. Salary versus wages by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    I get a salary. traditionally the distinction between wages and salary work is that in salary work you are paid to get an ever evolving job done on time, and wages is by the hour not the deadline. THat's why salaried workers don't get overtime. While I do fill out a time card it's not how my performance is judged.

    So technically, I have as much time off as I want as long as I meet expectations. But of course meeting expectations requires me to show up for work when everyone else is there too, so hours do matter.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  52. Part timers by dtphoto · · Score: 1

    Has nobody considered that the bottom 25% are likely part time or temporary workers?

  53. NEWSFLASH: USA still a shithole! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only people surprised by your shitty workers rights are morans. You guys fucking suck.

  54. OMG, it's so unfair! by kenh · · Score: 1

    So this "study" found that well-paid employees have better benefits than those at low-paying jobs? Mon Dieu! how can this be?

    Next you "find" that 401K and pension plans are reserved for top earners, while minimum wage earners are left with no mechanism other than self-directed savings...

    Thank you captain obvious, it never would have occurred to me that people with more valuable skills, people that demand higher salaries, get more vacation days than those without valuable skill and that receive lower wages.

    --
    Ken
  55. Union! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God bless the IBEW. We get 25 vacation days, 11 holidays, 4 personal days and 10 sick days per year.

  56. AKA The Rich Get Richer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it shocking to anyone that the members of our working society that have the lowest wages also have the lowest benefits?

    Forget vacation, these are the same folks taking no pay for days they are sick or need to care for sick dependents.

    It is systemic and institutional poverty, it keeps the lowest members at the bottom and enables the top members to remain there without doing much.

  57. Senority influences vacation time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typically for the first 5 years its 2 weeks then 3 till 10 years, 4 till 20 and 5 if over 30 years. So since longevity at work also influences salary, the result is completly expected. (Note that this is for large companies)

  58. Two weeks is normal by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    I've always started a job with two weeks vacation and I['m neither in the top, nor bottom 25%.

  59. 10 days of vacation is terrible. by shess · · Score: 4, Informative

    My first real employment gave 10 days, rising to 15 days after a few years of tenure, which was the same package my wife had for her first few fulltime jobs. Then I got a job at a place which STARTED at 15 days, and built to 25 days, and I realized - 10 days of vacation isn't some blessing for top performers, it's a sign of how broken American employment is. With only 10 days it becomes really challenging to cover your various life events (sibling's graduation, niece's wedding, etc) and also take any sort of worthwhile vacation. So you end up spending it in dribs and drabs, maybe with a one-week block somewhere, or you don't take minimal vacation for a few years to bank time for something longer in the future.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people should just be slackers. But 10 days per year is unhealthy.

    [And I realize that this is #firstworldproblem, given the many people who completely lack control over their working time and have effectively zero vacation days, which is also completely broken of us as a society.]

    1. Re:10 days of vacation is terrible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people should just be slackers. But 10 days per year is unhealthy.

      That has been obvious to most non-Americans since decades ago.

      I live in Asia (not saying where to protect my privacy), and many jobs for fresh graduates offer 15-20 days per year (10-15 for the less generous or smaller companies) and that's NOT counting sick days (sick leave is protected by law, and you will be entitled to one if you get a note from your doctor).

      Only in the sick America would sick leave count towards your annual leave days.

  60. You don't get it by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's why when people joke "Canada has two seasons, Winter and Summer." It isn't a joke, it's been 8 months of straight winter.

    You clearly don't get it. The reason it's a joke is that really there is only one season. We had a _high_ of -11C the other day which is not bad given it's about the 109th January today.

    1. Re:You don't get it by DethLok · · Score: 1

      It was 11C (positive!) when I went to work this morning, brrrrrr, with a high of about 24C, niiiiice.

      Why do people live in places where you NEED heating simply to stay alive?

      Seriously, what is it about people who choose to live where ice is something that exists in nature, and not just inside a freezer?

      What's the worth of living in a place where you can die of exposure (or get eaten by a moose*/bear/wolf)?

      Here I just stay out of the ocean and I'm safe from sharks. I stay out of rivers if they are north of the tropic and I'm safe from crocodiles. Kangaroos or emus may kill me but at least they won't eat me!

      I don't need heating in winter (though I do have it if I feel decadent) and I don't need cooling in summer (though this room and one other in my house are air-conditioned, and most others have ceiling fans). And it's quite pleasant here. I could ride my bicycle to work all year round, and some people do.

      * I understand that moose don't actually eat people but they are massive big critters that look as if they'd like to try...

    2. Re:You don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people live in places where you NEED heating simply to stay alive?

      Most of us were just born here and we are too lazy/unwilling to uproot and move.

      Kangaroos or emus may kill me but at least they won't eat me!

      Are you in Australia? A facebook friend from down under has recently been posting pictures of the python that has been hanging out near her porch and ate the possums that were living in her attic. That's scary as fuck and it's not even deadly to humans, unlike almost everything else down there.

    3. Re:You don't get it by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      What's the worth of living in a place where you can die of exposure (or get eaten by a moose*/bear/wolf)? Here I just stay out of the ocean and I'm safe from sharks. I stay out of rivers if they are north of the tropic and I'm safe from crocodiles. Kangaroos or emus may kill me but at least they won't eat me!

      Ah yes, Australia. Well known for its completely safe wild life and environment. A place so popular to many of the early settlers only got to move there after fighting a court case.

    4. Re:You don't get it by DethLok · · Score: 1

      Pfft, that's mainly on the east coast.

      So stay in the west and out of the ocean and she'll be apps, mate!

      Oh, and before putting them on, bang your shoes upside down the shake the spiders and scorpions out. And the burrowing wasps.

      Shake the towel as you take it off the towel rail, too, Huntsman spiders like hiding in their cool shade. Yes, I mean in the bathroom.

      Fires? Pfft, that was a piddly one in, again, Sydney (or at least NSW).

      If you want bushfires, go back 9 more years and head south to the state of Victoria.

      http://www.nma.gov.au/online_f...

      I'd think I'd rather be paralyzed and unable to breathe after being bitten by a blue ring ocky.

      And yes, I've seen one in the wild - at a children's beach. How do I know it was a real blue ring? Well, I was a kid, so I poked it, of course, it lit up with blue rings and I lit up the beach at very high speed.

      But mauled by a huge vicious animal? And then eaten? No thanks...

      PS, at least our many scorpions won't kill you - they are just painful.

    5. Re:You don't get it by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Being mauled and then eaten while trekking through the wilderness sounds a better way to go than being poisoned and paralyzed before suffocating to death by something that might be in your house and then having your body rotting in the baking temperatures you get. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure I really care too much about what happens after the death part. Still, each to his own! ;-)

    6. Re:You don't get it by DethLok · · Score: 1

      I hope I don't ever slip and fall, knocking myself unconscious, while getting into the spa!

      Can you imagine the soup I'd be when found days later? :(

      It really comes down to fate, I suppose?

      Perhaps we'll all simply die in a flash of heat and light, if things on a certain peninsula or in a desert country (or countries) don't turn out well?

      Ideally everyone dies peacefully in their sleep, at home, though, at a ripe old age :)

    7. Re:You don't get it by DethLok · · Score: 1

      I think this Facebook photo post I just saw pretty much sums up Australia?

      https://www.facebook.com/TheBe...

      Comments to the FB post are largely by Aussies, may be worth reading. Or not.

  61. Get paid for 100% of my vacations; greater than 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I however didn't jump on the first opportunity out of college. When I didn't get what I demanded with one offer and I didn't feel like getting screwed around with any longer during interviews I went it alone. I originally got offered a decent salary for a kid out of school, but I knew I was worth more so I demanded a bit more, and slightly beyond what was reasonable. Didn't work, but no big deal, and one of the best decisions of my life. After doing multiple interviews with one more company and being dicked around with I said fuck it (4 interviews with ONE BIG company only to find out that the final decision maker really had a person they were going to hire and were just following BS corporate procedures, so many hours of my time were wasted, wish I could have charged em for that).

    I wasn't lazy or self-entitled. I instead took a part time job (of my own choosing, I told them 30 hours max) near minimum wage ($9 in 2008) and simply spent another 30 hours or so building up two business. One that I knew I could get off the ground within months and another that I figured would take a few years. You got to have the money to pull off a startup and so I did the rational thing.

    It's 10 years in now and I'm well off compared to pretty much every other human being around me- with one or two exceptions- people who did similarly. However I didn't stick to living in the most expensive part of the country- and neither did my well-off friends. I shut one of my businesses down that was local-focused and profitable and moved the other even more profitable business to New Hampshire- because taxes are low- costs of living are low- and even more importantly because I believe in freedom and the Free State Project- the migration of freedom minded people to NH- (and my employees get paid decently too relative to what the jobs require anyway- not that it matters-because here cost of living is so low someone near even if not at minimum wage can afford to buy a house still)- and I can afford to take off as much time as I want and I still get paid. Business doesn't stop when I take a vacation. And I take full advantage of that to travel and enjoy life.

    It's possible to make six figures in New Hampshire working for someone else and we actually have a lot of people moving from the silicon valley area and actually all over the US and world even. This is mostly due to the Free State Project though and its amazing the difference between how well people are doing after they've moved from a place like Silicon Valley or New York City / New Jersey metro / Boston region and now. A bunch of people I know literally own mansions. They just don't know what to do with there wealth and have to make decisions like- buy the biggest camp ground in New Hampshire or buy a mansion- or maybe even both really. They have a lot more money here and they have to find different ways to invest it. People living in small one or two bedroom apartments making six figures now owning mansions. Who would have thought smarter decisions result in more off time and a better standard of living!

  62. If you're salary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... you're most likely putting in extra time throughout the year compared to hourly staff who punch out and leave work behind.

  63. Vacation is just one category of time off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vacation is just one category of time off. To be useful, all categories need to be listed, vacation, sick time, personal days, and weekends. Some people barely get any of those days off.

  64. Value does not equal compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are lots of CEO's getting all kinds of compensation, who end up bankrupting a company. Some smuck mopping floors is much better that a CEO drives a company into the ground. This is the problem way modern USAian capitalism works. The best do not rise to the absolute top. Instead the most connected politically rise to the top of a corporate social club.

    Why is it that Lenova can take over the Think Pad line and suddenly start turning profit. Is it because China has better engineers and office staff ? No it is because they have better corporate officers, who can look at something other than share holder value when building a company. Yet the corporate types are getting vacation while they are taking away the vacation of the Janitors.

  65. Europeans get more days, but are impoverished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most Europeans are poor even where they get more days (and this isn't even always true). More of the money Europeans make is stolen from them by government. I know because I have businesses in both Europe and the United States. They pay more for goods and pretend like they are wealthy. I'm sorry- but if your living in an 10x10 room your not wealthy. If you can't afford to travel the world your not wealthy. If your dependent on government for educating your children your not wealthy. If your dependent on government for babysitting your not wealthy. The same thing applies to people in New York/New Jersey metro area, California, Boston, etc. where socialism is rampant and well educated "upper" "middle" class really means impoverished. People of means can afford things like cars and houses and travel.

    1. Re:Europeans get more days, but are impoverished by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Travel is cheap. Sublet your home for a month, pack light, and it's basically free.

    2. Re:Europeans get more days, but are impoverished by ledow · · Score: 1

      Ha.

      You really need to spend more time in your European businesses. I get 30 days holiday a year. Pretty much everyone I know gets at least 20, even gardeners, janitors/cleaners, drivers, etc.

      I can only speak for UK and Italy, but I don't know a single working person who doesn't have time off and money enough to run a car, a house and travel. They may piss it away or not be able to find an affordable house near their workplace, but that's supply-and-demand given limited urban building, nothing to do with how much they earn.

      The house-size has NOTHING to do with how much you earn... have you SEEN how expensive our houses are per square foot? Much more than anything in the US. That's because there's less of them and we don't have the luxury of space, in general. I couldn't afford a Central London apartment in a million years but neither could I afford one in New York.

      I'd actually argue that if you live in a 10x10 room, you are equally to be wealthy, if you're in a city. There are single-room apartments going for nearly a million pounds ($1.4m) in areas of London that you will have heard of. But Greater London, 9 million people live there, and I have bought two houses in there at various points in my life.

      I have a friend who paid STUPENDOUS amounts of money for a tiny apartment in Notting Hill. Five miles away, 3-bed houses are available to people on half his wage.

      You even contradict yourself. If you depend on the government to pay for education, HEALTHCARE, etc. you're not wealthy. Not necessarily true. But that's because that's what our higher-taxes pay for. The rich AND the poor pay to provide healthcare to both. You can pay MORE to a private institution if you don't think the standard care is enough, but you can consume as much of the standard care as you need for as long as you need. Made bankrupt tomorrow? You still get all those expensive cancer drugs until the day you die.

      I've never paid a penny for education, and I have a university degree. "College funds" are for the wealthy only, because nobody else needs them. Paying your way through university is basically "living alone for the first time", everything else is covered by a government loan that you basically NEVER pay back in any significant fashion but drip-feed back while you're earning money in later life. Oh, and if you are suddenly out of work or earning below a threshold for any reason... you don't have to make a single payment on it whatsoever.

      I've never paid a penny for healthcare in my life, and I'm 38. Nor has ANYONE that I know. Because you don't need to pay for it when it's just given to you, unless you have something really seriously expensive that the NHS won't cover (which is almost nothing - 40 years of cancer care? Yep, free. You don't even need to fill out any paperwork) I pay my tax to pay for that, and collectively my fellow human beings pay for me too. Same way I don't pay "per crime committed against me" but fund a police force, a fire department, waste collection, etc.... collectively with my fellow human beings who also benefit from it. That's what tax is for. Otherwise the rich people would have their own private police forces, and the poor would live in anarchy.

      I think you need to actually spend more time in Europe. Possibly over in Eastern Europe they might be poor, but that's doubtful. To be honest, the Polish etc. have a fabulous reputation for being hard-workers, sending money home and sustaining their families. Some of the Polish houses I've seen are extraordinary, built by ordinary people for their families. Countries in Western Europe may have rural areas (like any country has). You're just not comparing like-for-like.

      But America is the only place I've been to where you can't exist without money.

      P.S. "If *YOU'RE* dependent on government for educating your children *YOU'RE* not wealthy" - I rather be dependent on a government for educating my kids if they learn to spell properly along the way and get the ability to conduct some impartial empirical research on opinions they form in their life.

      Honestly... you couldn't pay me enough to go live in the US compared to Europe. If wealth was our goal, maybe we'd be like the US. Thank fuck that it's not.

  66. Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 1

    "An annual survey of of employee benefits conducted by the US government shows that, in 2017, nearly half of the people in the top 25% of earners received at least 10 days of paid vacation."

    Seriously? Your country is very broken.

    I've just had to go look up my contract for my workplace, a place which is considered very harsh on time off, driving for results, after-hours working and getting every drop out of employees, even on weekends if they can convince people to come in.

    Six weeks, guys. That's 30 working days.

    1. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am in the US and get 6 weeks of personal time off a year plus 10 (or 11) paid holidays which can be deferred. Admittedly, I have 30 years experience but the leave rate hasn't changed since I hit 15 years.

      If they are just counting "vacation" and not "holidays" or "sick leave", then 10 days is horrible. Personal time can be used for vacation or sick leave.

    2. Re:Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 1

      "Personal time can be used for vacation or sick leave."

      I stand by my original statement.

      Sick leave should NEVER come out of any personal allocation. It's not through choice.

      That's 6 weeks of holidays, not including bank holidays, etc. and not including sick-leave. And aside from the actual number of weeks, that's pretty standard across the board. But nobody is even allowed to be working full-time and only get 10 days holiday, I'm fairly sure. Things like the Working Time Directive put a stop to that even being legal, let alone accepted by people:

      In general the Working Time Regulations provide rights to:

      - a limit of an average 48 hours a week on the hours a worker can be required to work, though individuals may choose to work longer by "opting out"
      - paid annual leave of 5.6 weeks' a year
      - 11 consecutive hours' rest in any 24-hour period
      - a 20-minute rest break if the working day is longer than six hours
      - one day off each week
      - a limit on the normal working hours of night workers to an average eight hours in any 24-hour period, and an entitlement for night workers to receive regular health assessments.

      Seriously. That's the LEGAL MINIMUM YOU CAN GIVE in the UK.

  67. Pay based on benefit to the company by jlgreer1 · · Score: 0

    When a company is paying an employee at higher rates it is because that employee makes more money for the company. The higher paid employee surely has a higher skill set and is in more demand by all similar companies. Hence, the company is willing to provide more benefits to obtain and and retain that valuable employee. Lower paid employees are much easier to find due to a lower skill set. Why would a company give more benefits to an employee that does not have a high value to a company? Big surprise....

  68. UK here! by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

    Jesus H Christ America! We may have shitty dental care but even our temps have about 20 days paid holiday.

    1. Re:UK here! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Our dental care tends to be comparable to the UKs, except for our cosmetic dentists who tend to be superior.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  69. Hahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One more of those theories not based on facts.
    They get better 'contracts' because they are better employees, very especialized (means they have at least estudied more than the average) and they indeed have higher leves of stress. Also seems that those special employes have a higher production than the average.

  70. 100% true for where I work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The higher ups have sex with each other and are rarely in the office.

  71. America is so cute by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    So, PTO... nifty terminology. What is it with people insisting that everyone thinks they're some sort of a root vegetable? First you try to explain to me that you're a potato and then you refer to taking time off as something that's associated to PoTatOs? Just teasing, I actually think of PTO as being PTSD from being worked to the point of snapping. I would like to recommend GTC as a description of what you would send me e-mails about when I try to contact you and you've "Gone To the Can". Or maybe GBH for "Giving Boss Head" to let us know you're asking for a raise.

    Of course the entire American culture is corrupted. I hear kids yelling "Momma, let's get these. There's a BOGO" in the grocery stores.

    It really doesn't matter how absolutely stupid these things make people sound, they'll use those terms anyway.

    Yep... so 5 weeks paid vacation a year here. And once a year, your employer has to pay you 10.2-12% of your entire previous year's salary with a major tax break instead of your normal salary to make sure you have money to travel and have fun. This is whether you're a burger flipper or a doctor or a billionaire. Everyone gets 5 weeks paid vacation.

    Then there's 10 paid sick days by default.

    Then there's 10 additional paid sick days in case you need to stay home with your kids.

    Then there's Christmas week, Easter week, lots and lots of long weekends.

    Altogether, it's nearly 20% of the year you're paid to not work... as a rule in Norway.

    I haven't come close to using all my days except for a year when I had the worst boss EVER.

    For all of those who have read this. I want you to know that because of the way you treat your poor, while not official, it has become common in Europe to refer to the U.S. as a third world country. Only a third world country would exploit their weak instead of developing them into real assets. Only a third word country would punish their people for getting sick instead of investing in making them well and able to contribute again.

    BTW... I am an American, I just left before I was old enough to see how bad it really is. And I have traveled to far less developed countries than the U.S. and they would never let their people live the way America does... and even worse, only a third world country would elect a casino owner as their leader.

  72. Totally funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Denmark everybody has at least 5 weeks paid leave annually (except the first year of your first job), and many have six or even seven weeks - excluding bank holidays.
    Work time is usually 37 hours per week.
    And some gets paid when having lunch also.
    When you become a parent, the parents get a year off to be shared between them, but you get paid a lower salary during this time.

    So like somebody else said, spend time with your family, not work.

  73. It's called "specialisation". by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    Duh.

    You're welcome.
    Did we really need a study for this insight?

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  74. Sucks to work in the US, I guess... by azrael29a · · Score: 1

    List of minimum annual leave by country (wikipedia)
    Here in Europe most workers get 20-25 days of paid vacation per year, as mandated by each countries' law.

  75. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Water is wet. News at 11

  76. 10 days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that total 10 days? If so that is bleak, we get 30!

  77. 10 days is a lot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the U.K. I started on 20 days' leave, after five years it went up to 25, then I got an extra day for each further year I stayed with the company until I got 30 days' leave a year, and I've had that for the past 20 years. You Americans are crazy, putting up with such nonsense. How much leave do the lower paid workers get? None?

  78. Why do you let them complain about working that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They complain how many more hours they work still, yet according to you, this is their choice, so why do you let them whine about it and feel sympathy? Why do you let them say they get paid less because they do more hours when they apparently want to? And why the jezus fuck are companies offering more days off if the days off are going to make the employee have to stay behind and do unpaid overtime? Just cut the number of days off, FFS! Do 60 hours a day over 160 days instead of 80 hours a day over 120. Not fucking rocket science!

    And as that maths demonstrates, their complaint that they aren't being paid THAT much more "because I work later" is not true: they work later for fewer days. Zero difference, therefore zero excuse.

  79. Captain Obvious has been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Getting paid by the gov't, again.

  80. Thanks, Captain Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Companies pay more in salary and benefits to the employees they value more. That is such ground-breaking research.

    Phew, you guys really are the smartest of the smartest. Now, go chug down some 'raw' water and launch your new cryptocurrency, DoucheCoin.

  81. I'm happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ~160k
    13 days sick (carries over)
    19.5 or 20 pto depends on who runs the white house (carries over)
    Forced to work 10 holidays at double time.

    I'm grateful.

  82. I'm fine. by jf_moreira · · Score: 1

    Come to Brazil: my salary is bigger than 80% of the people in this country (considered a Medium salary here, since I am not rich). But, I get 30 days of paid vacation days per year, PLUS 33% of my salary as a bonus to go on vacation. I usually split my vacation into two waves of 15 days per year. Cheers!