Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

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.

43 of 455 comments (clear)

  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 _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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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...

    9. 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.

    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.
    15. 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.

  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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    3. Re: 10 days??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

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

    4. Re:10 days??? by q_e_t · · Score: 2

      he was a bit early for the USA

  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 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.

    2. 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 :)

    3. 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.
  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

  5. 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 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.
  6. 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 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.
    2. 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.
  7. 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. . . .
  8. Duh? by dasheiff · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Better job gets more benefits.

  9. 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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  10. Unionize! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Unionize!

  11. 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 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).

  12. Re:Wow... that's news to me. by mark-t · · Score: 2

    Not according to this.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  13. 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.]

  14. 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.