6 ms·

You pay your employer for days off. That's the most American thing I've ever heard. How about Americans start demanding tens of days of paid time off like in d

You pay your employer for days off. That's the most American thing I've ever heard. How about Americans start demanding tens of days of paid time off like in developed countries

dec0dedab0de 4y ago
Well I get 23 days off already, I paid extra to get 28, but yeah I hear you.
- Crusoe123 4y ago
  Sounds to me like a convoluted way to say - unpaid time off.
- tharkun__ 4y ago
  How about going on strike, unionizing etc. to get the 30 days off that are normal in tech in (parts of) Europe? I know for sure for example that 30 days is the usual everyone gets in most tech companies in Germany. Heck the minimum by law that even a cashier at the supermarket gets is 21 days. I know, very un-American to even think of that. It's so funny (actually, mind-boggling) when you first hear about how time off works in lots of North American companies. You get 10 days and then with tenure you get one more day per year. If you're working for a "good" company, you might start with 15 and get 1 per year. But always only up to a max, e.g. after 5 years of tenure, that's it, no more extra days. And the excuses and explanations employees make for this are mind-boggling. Like "yeah this makes total sense, you wouldn't want to give a recent-grad the same time off as someone with more experience" and such. To which I can just only reply: Why not?
  - thunky 4y ago
    > Why not? It usually has less to do with experience than it has to do with "time served". A company wants to incentivise their employees to not quit.
    - buck4roo 4y ago
      A company (read: the employer class) != what employees would choose if they designed an equitable workplace for themselves
    - tharkun__ 4y ago
      Same question. Why would you punish an employee that is going to be loyally staying at your company by giving them less and incentivizing them to leave you for a different company that gives more vacation from the start? If I have 10+5 max from tenure and I am in year 2, why would I stay at your company instead of jumping ship to another company that offers 15+5? Or even just flat 15 for that matter. What's next, you incentivise me not to quit by my health plan only paying 50% of the bills, going up by 10 percentage points with each year of tenure? Of course much of this gets muddled up in the general overwork culture. Culminating in the 'unlimited vacation' policies that use social pressure to not be 'the guy' that took the most vacation.
      - thunky 4y ago
        > Why would you punish an employee It's a free market so the employee can go to another company that has a better benefits package, as you implied. It happens all the time, although I would guess that higher pay is a greater incentive than more vacation days (in the US, anyway). And yeah, an employer has the option to give great full benefits from day one if they think it benefits their company. That happens all the time, too. Another example in the US that you probably won't like: as a benefit, your employer normally matches a percentage of 401k retirement contributions. But, if you quit you won't get the full amount they matched unless you're fully vested (normally takes at least 2 or 3 years). Rather than striking or unionizing for better benefits, I would rather decouple 401k from employers completely. For health care, the current situation already stinks. Companies reevaluate their health care plan every year and frequently hop to new providers/plans in order to cut costs. In the meantime employee benefits are always changing. It's not based on tenure, either, so you don't have a sure way to predict what your health care costs will be next year. I would prefer to also decouple health insurance from employers completely. I bet most employers would prefer not to have to deal with health insurance providers and 401k plan providers anyway.
  - dec0dedab0de 4y ago
    I wish there were an IT union. With apprentices and training and the whole bit. I think not tech businesses would go for it, it's so hard to interview/hire new employees, how nice would it be to just have the union send some more over with whatever skills we need. Sure it would cost more, but it would be worth it.
denimnerd42 4y ago
I get 40 off (30pto, 10 holidays) but pay for 45
torginus 4y ago
How does that essentially differ from unpaid leave?
- nradov 4y ago
  It doesn't differ at all. Different employers just use different terms for the same thing.
guywithahat 4y ago
Well he's probably salaried a flat amount for the year. So "buying time off" is probably more like "returning money for days I decided not to work"
- distances 4y ago
  So unpaid leave. Not super rare to take some of that in Europe, though quite often there are some limitations like max 3-6 month sabbatical every five years.
notahacker 4y ago
tbf the ability to buy days off isn't exactly rare in Europe either, it's just the number of starting days off is a lot higher.
dudul 4y ago
This is just unpaid time off, it exists everywhere, no need to pull out the "you dumb americans".

You pay your employer for days off. That's the most American thing I've ever heard. How about Americans start demanding tens of days of paid time off like in developed countries

dec0dedab0de 4y ago

Well I get 23 days off already, I paid extra to get 28, but yeah I hear you.

Crusoe123 4y ago
Sounds to me like a convoluted way to say - unpaid time off.
tharkun__ 4y ago
How about going on strike, unionizing etc. to get the 30 days off that are normal in tech in (parts of) Europe? I know for sure for example that 30 days is the usual everyone gets in most tech companies in Germany. Heck the minimum by law that even a cashier at the supermarket gets is 21 days. I know, very un-American to even think of that. It's so funny (actually, mind-boggling) when you first hear about how time off works in lots of North American companies. You get 10 days and then with tenure you get one more day per year. If you're working for a "good" company, you might start with 15 and get 1 per year. But always only up to a max, e.g. after 5 years of tenure, that's it, no more extra days. And the excuses and explanations employees make for this are mind-boggling. Like "yeah this makes total sense, you wouldn't want to give a recent-grad the same time off as someone with more experience" and such. To which I can just only reply: Why not?
- thunky 4y ago
  > Why not? It usually has less to do with experience than it has to do with "time served". A company wants to incentivise their employees to not quit.
  - buck4roo 4y ago
    A company (read: the employer class) != what employees would choose if they designed an equitable workplace for themselves
  - tharkun__ 4y ago
    Same question. Why would you punish an employee that is going to be loyally staying at your company by giving them less and incentivizing them to leave you for a different company that gives more vacation from the start? If I have 10+5 max from tenure and I am in year 2, why would I stay at your company instead of jumping ship to another company that offers 15+5? Or even just flat 15 for that matter. What's next, you incentivise me not to quit by my health plan only paying 50% of the bills, going up by 10 percentage points with each year of tenure? Of course much of this gets muddled up in the general overwork culture. Culminating in the 'unlimited vacation' policies that use social pressure to not be 'the guy' that took the most vacation.
    - thunky 4y ago
      > Why would you punish an employee It's a free market so the employee can go to another company that has a better benefits package, as you implied. It happens all the time, although I would guess that higher pay is a greater incentive than more vacation days (in the US, anyway). And yeah, an employer has the option to give great full benefits from day one if they think it benefits their company. That happens all the time, too. Another example in the US that you probably won't like: as a benefit, your employer normally matches a percentage of 401k retirement contributions. But, if you quit you won't get the full amount they matched unless you're fully vested (normally takes at least 2 or 3 years). Rather than striking or unionizing for better benefits, I would rather decouple 401k from employers completely. For health care, the current situation already stinks. Companies reevaluate their health care plan every year and frequently hop to new providers/plans in order to cut costs. In the meantime employee benefits are always changing. It's not based on tenure, either, so you don't have a sure way to predict what your health care costs will be next year. I would prefer to also decouple health insurance from employers completely. I bet most employers would prefer not to have to deal with health insurance providers and 401k plan providers anyway.
- dec0dedab0de 4y ago
  I wish there were an IT union. With apprentices and training and the whole bit. I think not tech businesses would go for it, it's so hard to interview/hire new employees, how nice would it be to just have the union send some more over with whatever skills we need. Sure it would cost more, but it would be worth it.

denimnerd42 4y ago

I get 40 off (30pto, 10 holidays) but pay for 45

torginus 4y ago

How does that essentially differ from unpaid leave?

nradov 4y ago
It doesn't differ at all. Different employers just use different terms for the same thing.

guywithahat 4y ago

Well he's probably salaried a flat amount for the year. So "buying time off" is probably more like "returning money for days I decided not to work"

distances 4y ago
So unpaid leave. Not super rare to take some of that in Europe, though quite often there are some limitations like max 3-6 month sabbatical every five years.

notahacker 4y ago

tbf the ability to buy days off isn't exactly rare in Europe either, it's just the number of starting days off is a lot higher.

dudul 4y ago

This is just unpaid time off, it exists everywhere, no need to pull out the "you dumb americans".