What pissed you off today?

[cramx3]

Vacations are encouraged to be taken; the reason for not allowing vacation to accrue is so that people DO take time off.

I'd bet you a buck that at least 2/3 of the Americans on this forum have been made to feel bad for actually using their PTO, or been denied it until a time of the company's convenience, normally the last minute before the rollover date. Companies might actually appreciate that time off is good for the employees at a philosophical level, but in my experience practical matters always take precedence.

My current company is very encouraging to use our PTO as it doesn't roll over, but in my past, I've definitely experienced the issues where it's not a good look to take the time off.  I agree with you that it really depends on your employer.  It really shouldn't be that way,  but that's the reality sometimes.

[Stadler]

It's kinda funny seeing all these US responses/perspectives (no offense guys, really), towards employment issues, when the US (law) treats employees no better than they do pregnant women  .

Cheap shot; the error isn't in how US law treats employees, it's the idea that we as employees are entitled to anything.  Breaking that mindset is a big step in the direction of that "go with the flow" you talk about.

And changing that mindset to a paradigm where people can at least be entitled to not be miserable in their servitude might address the "why people shoot up their neighborhood" question.

Not unreasonable at all.  I don't put that on corporations though.  We've always had to work - that is, do something we don't want to do for less than we feel we're entitled to - and we didn't have the emotional angst that we do now.  What's changed isn't corporations, but that rising entitlement, that rising feeling of being fucked over, that rising feeling of "I'm special and someone better fucking notice it!"

Vacations are encouraged to be taken; the reason for not allowing vacation to accrue is so that people DO take time off.

I'd bet you a buck that at least 2/3 of the Americans on this forum have been made to feel bad for actually using their PTO, or been denied it until a time of the company's convenience, normally the last minute before the rollover date. Companies might actually appreciate that time off is good for the employees at a philosophical level, but in my experience practical matters always take precedence.

Maybe; that's the way it was at GE for sure.  And there, vacations weren't sacrosanct even when you took them.  I still tell the story of being down in Disney and crawling through the trees over by the old Simpsons ride looking for a spot where they weren't piping in that casino music that's everywhere so I could take a work call.  Almost got tossed out of the park by Paul Blart at one point.  In my current company, it's quite the opposite (then again, it's a quid pro quo of sorts; my boss doesn't bug me when I'm on vacay, and I go out of my way to make sure we don't bug him when he is).

[King Postwhore]

7th interview in a row that's a no show.

[jingle.boy]

Vacations are encouraged to be taken; the reason for not allowing vacation to accrue is so that people DO take time off.

I'd bet you a buck that at least 2/3 of the Americans on this forum have been made to feel bad for actually using their PTO, or been denied it until a time of the company's convenience, normally the last minute before the rollover date. Companies might actually appreciate that time off is good for the employees at a philosophical level, but in my experience practical matters always take precedence.

I'll definitely lean towards team Barto on this matter.

In an effort to shorten the quote pyramid to respond on other points of yours, Bill:
- you and I have a different definition of "bare minimum".  It's like Minimum Code Requirement in my books.  It's meeting expectations.  It wasn't meant to imply "the minimum work / output possible while treading the line of termination for poor performance".
- yes, the comment comparing worker protections to pregnant women was DEFINITELY a cheap shot.  Sorry/Not-sorry.
- imo, "the error" is in the limits that US has in place around worker entitlements, and the corresponding culture/thinking/acceptance of that by employees
- "cynical" or "pragmatic"? 
- how is it that MANY other nations can operate and maintain their economy just fine when people take extended leaves, but "the US isn't setup that way"??  FFS, France basically closes for the month of August every year.  Canada's mat-leave is 12 months, to be split anyway parents want maternally or paternally.  Dear lawd!  How do we make it work!?!?!?
- I have no problems with conditions begin put around severance packages.  I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
- I didn't think you were argumentative at all - just pointing out your viewpoint as you see things through a different lens (as usual  )

[El Barto]

It's kinda funny seeing all these US responses/perspectives (no offense guys, really), towards employment issues, when the US (law) treats employees no better than they do pregnant women  .

Cheap shot; the error isn't in how US law treats employees, it's the idea that we as employees are entitled to anything.  Breaking that mindset is a big step in the direction of that "go with the flow" you talk about.

And changing that mindset to a paradigm where people can at least be entitled to not be miserable in their servitude might address the "why people shoot up their neighborhood" question.

Not unreasonable at all.  I don't put that on corporations though.  We've always had to work - that is, do something we don't want to do for less than we feel we're entitled to - and we didn't have the emotional angst that we do now.  What's changed isn't corporations, but that rising entitlement, that rising feeling of being fucked over, that rising feeling of "I'm special and someone better fucking notice it!"

Perhaps not on corporations directly, but I'd put it on the American work paradigm that gave corporations all of the leverage. And that points to the rising feelings of being fucked over. Kade has upwards of 50 weeks of PTO that is his. He's earned it. It's in the bank. Europeans essentially take August off, along with myriad other perks and benefits. I think there's a real connection between the way American workers are handled and the rest of the world, and our comparative happiness. Perhaps the entitlement isn't coming from within, but rather seeing how poorly we have it compared to the rest of the world. That's long been where I put the blame for American disillusionment, which be both consider a key factor in the kill-crazy rampages we're seeing.

Maybe; that's the way it was at GE for sure.  And there, vacations weren't sacrosanct even when you took them.  I still tell the story of being down in Disney and crawling through the trees over by the old Simpsons ride looking for a spot where they weren't piping in that casino music that's everywhere so I could take a work call.  Almost got tossed out of the park by Paul Blart at one point.  In my current company, it's quite the opposite (then again, it's a quid pro quo of sorts; my boss doesn't bug me when I'm on vacay, and I go out of my way to make sure we don't bug him when he is).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were for Krauts now, don't you? 

[ProfessorPeart]

Vacations are encouraged to be taken; the reason for not allowing vacation to accrue is so that people DO take time off.

I'd bet you a buck that at least 2/3 of the Americans on this forum have been made to feel bad for actually using their PTO, or been denied it until a time of the company's convenience, normally the last minute before the rollover date. Companies might actually appreciate that time off is good for the employees at a philosophical level, but in my experience practical matters always take precedence.

The prior administration at my work was like that. PTO was not your time if they deemed it not to be. Can't tell you how many times I would be called/paged/whatever on PTO. A coworker was in Vegas one year with her husband and ended up spending the whole vacation in her room processing requests and it was not made up to her.

The new bosses are a completely different beast. They scream work/life balance and have several free mental health/therapy things we can take advantage of. It's night and day and I am in the same job.

[Stadler]

In an effort to shorten the quote pyramid to respond on other points of yours, Bill:
- you and I have a different definition of "bare minimum".  It's like Minimum Code Requirement in my books.  It's meeting expectations.  It wasn't meant to imply "the minimum work / output possible while treading the line of termination for poor performance". FAIR ENOUGH
- yes, the comment comparing worker protections to pregnant women was DEFINITELY a cheap shot.  Sorry/Not-sorry.
- imo, "the error" is in the limits that US has in place around worker entitlements, and the corresponding culture/thinking/acceptance of that by employees  What "limits"?  The thinking is only the result of first-person selfishness.
- "cynical" or "pragmatic"?    CYNICAL.  There's nothing "pragmatic" about a subjective opinion that only takes one side into consideration.
- how is it that MANY other nations can operate and maintain their economy just fine when people take extended leaves, but "the US isn't setup that way"??  FFS, France basically closes for the month of August every year.  Canada's mat-leave is 12 months, to be split anyway parents want maternally or paternally.  Dear lawd!  How do we make it work!?!?!?   Well, because you don't.   Our GDP (that is, the goods and services produced within our borders) is almost $60K per capita. Canada? $44.8K, or 25% less PER PERSON.  France?  $39.8K, or almost 34% less. 
- I have no problems with conditions begin put around severance packages.  I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
- I didn't think you were argumentative at all - just pointing out your viewpoint as you see things through a different lens (as usual  )  It's less about SEEING it through a different lens than it is pointing out that there IS a different lens.   The truth is somewhere in between.  I'm writing from a pure corporate perspective, and my personal position isn't that rigid.  It's a pretty common, and in my view, incomplete, position to take that "Corporate America" is a pack of blood-sucking leeches out to drive the lowly worker into the ground.

[Stadler]

Perhaps not on corporations directly, but I'd put it on the American work paradigm that gave corporations all of the leverage. And that points to the rising feelings of being fucked over. Kade has upwards of 50 weeks of PTO that is his. He's earned it. It's in the bank. Europeans essentially take August off, along with myriad other perks and benefits. I think there's a real connection between the way American workers are handled and the rest of the world, and our comparative happiness. Perhaps the entitlement isn't coming from within, but rather seeing how poorly we have it compared to the rest of the world. That's long been where I put the blame for American disillusionment, which be both consider a key factor in the kill-crazy rampages we're seeing.

I'm not sure what the point is there; if the system allows for that PTO, and he did earn it, then he's a fool if he doesn't take it.  I'm leery about comparing apples and oranges here.  We get different benefits in different ways.   It's always problematic to focus on one variable without considering ALL the variables in the equation.  No, I can't get 50 weeks consecutively. BUT... I get a lot of my licenses and what not paid for.   I have a robust retirement package with matching.  My insurance coverage means my family wants for little, medically speaking.   In my position, I'm not required to fill out a time card or chain to a desk.  I'm going to Keith Urban tomorrow, and I'll leave at 2:30, 3:00 for the hour and a half drive, and as long as I keep my phone on, I'm "working" and no one will say boo.  Those are all advantages that have to be weighed when evaluating whether the five weeks vacation, with only ten days carried over, is fair.  Or the lack of paternity leave (we're not having any kids any time soon). 

Maybe; that's the way it was at GE for sure.  And there, vacations weren't sacrosanct even when you took them.  I still tell the story of being down in Disney and crawling through the trees over by the old Simpsons ride looking for a spot where they weren't piping in that casino music that's everywhere so I could take a work call.  Almost got tossed out of the park by Paul Blart at one point.  In my current company, it's quite the opposite (then again, it's a quid pro quo of sorts; my boss doesn't bug me when I'm on vacay, and I go out of my way to make sure we don't bug him when he is).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were for Krauts now, don't you? 

Nope; Frogs.

[El Barto]

Nope; Frogs.

I think my point stands, n'est pas?   

I think I am trying to factor in different variables. One is that you've spent a great deal of time, money, and effort to get to where you are now. Way to go, sincerely. That's not a route available to everybody, though. Many different obstacles can make the position you've attained unattainable for others, and that includes the Dave Manchester Problem. I'm not knocking you, and I'm not suggesting that everybody should have it just as good. You should be rewarded for what you've accomplished. I am suggesting that maybe there are some things at the bottom end that we should be entitled to. More importantly, suggesting that American workers' feelings of entitlement is part of the problem is, in fact, part of the problem.

[Stadler]

Nope; Frogs.

I think my point stands, n'est pas?   

I think I am trying to factor in different variables. One is that you've spent a great deal of time, money, and effort to get to where you are now. Way to go, sincerely. That's not a route available to everybody, though. Many different obstacles can make the position you've attained unattainable for others, and that includes the Dave Manchester Problem. I'm not knocking you, and I'm not suggesting that everybody should have it just as good. You should be rewarded for what you've accomplished. I am suggesting that maybe there are some things at the bottom end that we should be entitled to. More importantly, suggesting that American workers' feelings of entitlement is part of the problem is, in fact, part of the problem.

Your point DOES stand.  I get it, and it's a factor.  Not an absolute one, but certainly a meaningful one.

As for the rest, maybe so. I didn't list what I did as a brag; there are people better off than me, and there are people worse off than me.  I do know that it's not all dumb luck, and I do know that IN MY EXPERIENCE, I always gave what I could regardless of the tea leaves.  I told my boss on my first day of working for him, "I want to be the guy you go to when you have no idea where to go", and I've finally gotten to that point.  I'm more or less his number two, at least in certain respects.  That doesn't happen because you're white, or male, or hung like a horse.  That comes with good judgment and measurable results, even if I initially got the job because I was white, male, or hung like a horse (I don't believe that to be true, but you never know; his staff is 60% female). 

The problem with entitlements, though, at least of the kind we're talking about here, is that they have to apply to everybody regardless of tenure, stature, or accomplishment. That's what "entitlement" means; it's independent of anything earned, anything subjective.  "Entitlements" aren't based on productivity, or metrics, or anything else.  You get them from showing up and breathing.  So much of our system would have to be recalibrated to accommodate those kinds of additions to the cost model.  It can be done, and has been done in the past, but it does no one any good to underestimate or ignore what those recalibrations might look like.

[wolfking]

I'm realising how lucky we do have it over here with out leave benefits reading all this, appreciate the discussion.  Everyone has valid points in relation to my situation.  I get what Chad means with 'bare minimum,' we know each other well enough that I can take that term and run with it, without it diminishing my work performance that it suffers and creates another problem for myself.  I know what he means by that term.

To put it in a little more perspective, the company do have limits on how much paid leave you can bank, however, my role as Supervisor covers rostering, managing people, booking and running programs like school groups, school carnivals, groups wanting pool space, ordering food and merchandise for sale, venue presentation and running the pool plant systems and making sure the water quality is at standard.  making sure multiple venues open 7 days a week with everything at standard is ongoingly stressful.  From that point of view, I am the only person across all the centres that knows how the plant operations work too.  We have a maintenance team for major breakdowns, but for day to day stuff, that's me. 

As some of you know from the past, there is supposed to be another one of me to spread the load, but I've been solo now for maybe 2 years.  To be fair, this new guy is trying to put ads out to hire another Supervisor, and interviews were supposed to be two days ago.  3 no shows, so I do have a bit of pulling power that if I just took extended leave, that would create a big hole.  The industry itself is struggling and finding someone to cover what my PD says these days is impossible and I'm the idiot for still doing it.

Like Bill said, I'm under no illusion that I'm irreplaceable, but I'm somewhat enough of a figure that if I wasn't there, in the short term would certainly be noticed and cause some pain.  I am indeed the fool for not taking my leave, I know that now.

[wolfking]

I just want to say again I appreciate all the support and love from everyone, especially this year, you guys are all exceptional people.   

When I drag my ass away and take the leave I really should come and visit some of you.

[KevShmev]

7th interview in a row that's a no show.

You sound like my boss.  It's unreal how many potential employees schedule interviews nowadays and simply don't show up.  I am sure those people will make great employees somewhere.

wolfking, a lot of good points here, and I definitely agree to take some time off.  It seems like most people where I work take their vacation days in chunks, but I am a fan of random days and half days off.  I call them mental health days, and we all need them. I know I do, this year especially.

[Glasser]

Kade, You're an awesome dude! Much love my brother 

[wolfking]

7th interview in a row that's a no show.

You sound like my boss.  It's unreal how many potential employees schedule interviews nowadays and simply don't show up.  I am sure those people will make great employees somewhere.

wolfking, a lot of good points here, and I definitely agree to take some time off.  It seems like most people where I work take their vacation days in chunks, but I am a fan of random days and half days off.  I call them mental health days, and we all need them. I know I do, this year especially.

Happens with us all the time with Learn to Swim Instructors and Lifeguards, just don't turn up, WTF?  Gets worse every year.  Or what happens is they do turn up, start and then pull out a week later as they've secured something somewhere else.

To your second point Kev, 'mental health days/sick days' are something I'm thinking of starting to take.  The almost year I have of paid leave does not include sick days which is another few months plus banked up.  Never taken a single one.  Yes, I'm an idiot.  I'm thinking for my situation too using some and calling them 'mental health days' would be wise, incase anything ever does eventuate.  I don't like using that term personally but I know that's an ego thing on part I need to get over.  But I think that comes from working in a large Government organization, I see people do it all the time and then don't come back from their stress leave, yet from what I see, and not to be judgmental, but people milk it more often then they should and the 'stress' leave isn't warranted, but I'm wired a little differently.  I guess my year would definitely warrant some time off like that though lol.

The time off then comes with, 'what the fuck do I do with myself now everyday', that's the fear.

Kade, You're an awesome dude! Much love my brother 

Thanks Tom!   

[El Barto]

7th interview in a row that's a no show.

You sound like my boss.  It's unreal how many potential employees schedule interviews nowadays and simply don't show up.  I am sure those people will make great employees somewhere.

wolfking, a lot of good points here, and I definitely agree to take some time off.  It seems like most people where I work take their vacation days in chunks, but I am a fan of random days and half days off.  I call them mental health days, and we all need them. I know I do, this year especially.

I'm a fan of this going back to my childhood when my mom would occasionally keep me out of school on some random day. She also called them mental health days. For a long while I liked to take a random Wednesday off in the Spring and go some place to take some pictures or whatnot. I've found that the more I travel the less inclined I am to do that here in Dallas, however. I still do enjoy the occasional meaningless day off, though.

[jingle.boy]

- imo, "the error" is in the limits that US has in place around worker entitlements, and the corresponding culture/thinking/acceptance of that by employees  What "limits"?  The thinking is only the result of first-person selfishness.

US workers have all kinds of entitlements - minimum wages, safe working environments, freedom from harassment, FMLA, workers comp etc...  Many other countries go well beyond what the US provides.  Ergo, the US limits the entitlements to employees (relatively speaking).  First-person selfishness?? I don't know what that means / what you're trying to say.

-- "cynical" or "pragmatic"?    CYNICAL.  There's nothing "pragmatic" about a subjective opinion that only takes one side into consideration.

then that makes us both cynical I suppose.

- how is it that MANY other nations can operate and maintain their economy just fine when people take extended leaves, but "the US isn't setup that way"??  FFS, France basically closes for the month of August every year.  Canada's mat-leave is 12 months, to be split anyway parents want maternally or paternally.  Dear lawd!  How do we make it work!?!?!?   Well, because you don't.   Our GDP (that is, the goods and services produced within our borders) is almost $60K per capita. Canada? $44.8K, or 25% less PER PERSON.  France?  $39.8K, or almost 34% less. 

<sigh>  Really?!?!  I know I don't need to remind you that correlation is not causation  .  I'm stunned that you want to use GDP/capita as the yardstick by which to measure best practices in employment standards.  If that's the case, then why doesn't the world aspire to Qatar's or Kuwait'a employment practices - shit Brunei has a higher GDP/capita than the US.  By your logic, then the US employment practices 'don't work' (compared to those nations with a higher per capita GDP)?.  C'mon man, you're smarter and better than that.  I could point out numerous flaws in this logic/reasoning, but the only other thing I'll say is it's a tad arrogant to imply that the labor practices 'don't work' for nations with a lower GDP/capita than the US.  I know you're not that arrogant, so I'll assume it was a slip of the fingers and loose wording.

[jingle.boy]

I'm not sure what the point is there; if the system allows for that PTO, and he did earn it, then he's a fool if he doesn't take it.  I'm leery about comparing apples and oranges here. 

Again... this is a very AMERICAN viewpoint.  Other nations pay it out at the end of employment - LEGALLY... whether voluntary or involuntarily.  So why is anyone a fool for not taking their vacation when they are LEGALLY entitled to it at anytime up to and including the end of their employment?  Maybe the plan is to take a year long sabbatical (ostensibly, with pay)?  Maybe this is someone's retirement plan (ie, to retire at 64 instead of 65).  There are plenty of reasons to not take vacation - and luckily, in some countries that benefit doesn't have a yearly expiration date.  Imagine if your paycheque expired if you didn't spend it before the next payday.  Ludicrous, right?  Well, in some regards that's how some non-Americans view the lack of PTO carry-over.

We get different benefits in different ways.   It's always problematic to focus on one variable without considering ALL the variables in the equation.  No, I can't get 50 weeks consecutively. BUT... I get a lot of my licenses and what not paid for.   I have a robust retirement package with matching.  My insurance coverage means my family wants for little, medically speaking.   In my position, I'm not required to fill out a time card or chain to a desk.  I'm going to Keith Urban tomorrow, and I'll leave at 2:30, 3:00 for the hour and a half drive, and as long as I keep my phone on, I'm "working" and no one will say boo.  Those are all advantages that have to be weighed when evaluating whether the five weeks vacation, with only ten days carried over, is fair.  Or the lack of paternity leave (we're not having any kids any time soon).

All fair points.  Many of those are employer offered benefits in the US, and at the discretion of each company.  Some are legally mandated (vacation, paternity), with the point being that most 1st world nations offer much more to employees than the US does.  National laws certainly favor the corporations moreso than employees (again, relatively speaking) in the US.

[jingle.boy]

I just want to say again I appreciate all the support and love from everyone, especially this year, you guys are all exceptional people.   

When I drag my ass away and take the leave I really should come and visit some of you.

:

You fuckin better!

[King Postwhore]

When it comes to vacation, my company would cut you down to 50 hours end of the fiscal year and pay out the hours cut.  Next year, you just keep collecting and what you don't use they pay out when you leave.

They also accrue more vacation time per hour next year.

[XJDenton]

At my university they mandate a minimum number of holidays per year you have to take each year, and you can only carry over a certain number of days to next year if you don't use them.

[TAC]

In my company we cash out 40 hours and roll over 40, but lose anything over the 80 hours.
I think all companies have different policies.

The only time you'd get denied would be requesting a vacation around a major holiday or during an Inventory, or if multiple people in the same department requested the same week off.

I only brought up the PTO, because I would not want to see Kade get screwed over the FOUR YEARS worth of PTO that he has accumulated because his company tried to fire him for "just cause", and try and wiggle out of paying him.

[jingle.boy]

In my company we cash out 40 hours and roll over 40, but lose anything over the 80 hours.
I think all companies have different policies.

The only time you'd get denied would be requesting a vacation around a major holiday or during an Inventory, or if multiple people in the same department requested the same week off.

I only brought up the PTO, because I would not want to see Kade get screwed over the FOUR YEARS worth of PTO that he has accumulated because his company tried to fire him for "just cause", and try and wiggle out of paying him.

Uh... it was 48 weeks, not 48 months.  It's still a lot, but not quite an entire leap-year cycle.   

[TAC]

In my company we cash out 40 hours and roll over 40, but lose anything over the 80 hours.
I think all companies have different policies.

The only time you'd get denied would be requesting a vacation around a major holiday or during an Inventory, or if multiple people in the same department requested the same week off.

I only brought up the PTO, because I would not want to see Kade get screwed over the FOUR YEARS worth of PTO that he has accumulated because his company tried to fire him for "just cause", and try and wiggle out of paying him.

Uh... it was 48 weeks, not 48 months.  It's still a lot, but not quite an entire leap-year cycle.   

 

[wolfking]

In my company we cash out 40 hours and roll over 40, but lose anything over the 80 hours.
I think all companies have different policies.

The only time you'd get denied would be requesting a vacation around a major holiday or during an Inventory, or if multiple people in the same department requested the same week off.

I only brought up the PTO, because I would not want to see Kade get screwed over the FOUR YEARS worth of PTO that he has accumulated because his company tried to fire him for "just cause", and try and wiggle out of paying him.

Haha, if we include sick leave which isn't paid out, it would be a year and a half.  But as Chad said, if I were fired or left, that 48 weeks would get paid out.

Chad is right, older workers that are heading into retirement would bank it up and leave work early but still obviously be on the payroll.  I took Bills comment about being a  'fool' was from my own welfare and sanity viewpoint.  The more I bank up though, the more I like to see the buffer I have if I ever walk away.

Like Tim, we can cash out too.  I've done it a few times but prefer not as the tax is astronomical.

[Stadler]

Kade, You're an awesome dude! Much love my brother 

I agree; love to catch a show and a beer in New York City, home of the namesake band here.

[Stadler]

7th interview in a row that's a no show.

You sound like my boss.  It's unreal how many potential employees schedule interviews nowadays and simply don't show up.  I am sure those people will make great employees somewhere.

wolfking, a lot of good points here, and I definitely agree to take some time off.  It seems like most people where I work take their vacation days in chunks, but I am a fan of random days and half days off.  I call them mental health days, and we all need them. I know I do, this year especially.

I'm a fan of this going back to my childhood when my mom would occasionally keep me out of school on some random day. She also called them mental health days. For a long while I liked to take a random Wednesday off in the Spring and go some place to take some pictures or whatnot. I've found that the more I travel the less inclined I am to do that here in Dallas, however. I still do enjoy the occasional meaningless day off, though.

Every couple weeks, a friend of mine from high school would ditch off one afternoon and go to a local strip club for lunch (according to him, their ziti was top shelf) and then rent a room at a local hotel and take a nap for most of the afternoon (no, he wasn't bringing the strippers back; he was absolutely the kind of guy that would have admitted that if he had).  We used to laugh at him, but I'm a little older now and I find great joy in putting a blue box on my outlook calendar in the afternoon and just walking away from work.  Sometimes I walk the yard, sometimes I play PS4, sometimes I nap, sometimes I take a drive.  Depends what my head needs. 

[Stadler]

- imo, "the error" is in the limits that US has in place around worker entitlements, and the corresponding culture/thinking/acceptance of that by employees  What "limits"?  The thinking is only the result of first-person selfishness.

US workers have all kinds of entitlements - minimum wages, safe working environments, freedom from harassment, FMLA, workers comp etc...  Many other countries go well beyond what the US provides.  Ergo, the US limits the entitlements to employees (relatively speaking).  First-person selfishness?? I don't know what that means / what you're trying to say.

"First person selfishness" = "feeling entitled to more than what you're getting, independent of any standard for whether you're actually worth it or not". 

-- "cynical" or "pragmatic"?    CYNICAL.  There's nothing "pragmatic" about a subjective opinion that only takes one side into consideration.

then that makes us both cynical I suppose.

No, because I'm not putting forth my own subjective opinion that only takes one side into consideration.  I'm giving you the other side - that's already in my analysis - that YOU'RE missing.  This applies in part to the answer below, but I'm not looking for corporations to trample workers.  I think it has to be a balance, and the first step in that balance is recognizing there are two sides.   How many posts have there been here over the years about how "my boss and his bosses are fucking idiots; I could do their job in my sleep!  I tell them to do this and they ignore me!"    If I've heard that once, I've heard it a million times, and what we fail to account for is 995,000 of those million times, those "idiot bosses" are the very same people that five years ago were saying "my boss and his bosses are fucking idiots, etc. etc. etc.".  How many posts over the years have treated corporations like they are sentient thinking beings, ignoring that each and every decision is made by a human, like you, that goes home every night to their wife and kids and has to look himself/herself in the mirror every morning just like you. Doesn't mean that every decision is a good one, but it also means that not every decision can be based around maximizing one employee's income, job satisfaction and retirement fund.

- how is it that MANY other nations can operate and maintain their economy just fine when people take extended leaves, but "the US isn't setup that way"??  FFS, France basically closes for the month of August every year.  Canada's mat-leave is 12 months, to be split anyway parents want maternally or paternally.  Dear lawd!  How do we make it work!?!?!?   Well, because you don't.   Our GDP (that is, the goods and services produced within our borders) is almost $60K per capita. Canada? $44.8K, or 25% less PER PERSON.  France?  $39.8K, or almost 34% less. 

<sigh>  Really?!?!  I know I don't need to remind you that correlation is not causation  .  I'm stunned that you want to use GDP/capita as the yardstick by which to measure best practices in employment standards.  If that's the case, then why doesn't the world aspire to Qatar's or Kuwait'a employment practices - shit Brunei has a higher GDP/capita than the US.  By your logic, then the US employment practices 'don't work' (compared to those nations with a higher per capita GDP)?.  C'mon man, you're smarter and better than that.  I could point out numerous flaws in this logic/reasoning, but the only other thing I'll say is it's a tad arrogant to imply that the labor practices 'don't work' for nations with a lower GDP/capita than the US.  I know you're not that arrogant, so I'll assume it was a slip of the fingers and loose wording.

It wasn't meant to be arrogant.  It was meant to show simply that focusing on one variable is a fool's game.   Maybe GDP is the metric, maybe it's not, that's not for me to say.  But every decision, every decision POINT, has a consequence. For better or worse, we DO live in a society here in the States where returns and productivity matter.   You mentioned two other countries, presumably because their employment policies were so much better than the U.S. and that's what I responded to.  I don't know if they are better or not, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, but pointing out that there is an impact to productivity. I have no idea what the employment practices are in Qatar or Kuwait; they may be sacrificing their children at blood altars for that GDP for all I know, or it could be something like a function of the particular economies in question.   We can dig in to Qatar and Kuwait if you like...

[Stadler]

I'm not sure what the point is there; if the system allows for that PTO, and he did earn it, then he's a fool if he doesn't take it.  I'm leery about comparing apples and oranges here. 

Again... this is a very AMERICAN viewpoint.  Other nations pay it out at the end of employment - LEGALLY... whether voluntary or involuntarily.  So why is anyone a fool for not taking their vacation when they are LEGALLY entitled to it at anytime up to and including the end of their employment?  Maybe the plan is to take a year long sabbatical (ostensibly, with pay)?  Maybe this is someone's retirement plan (ie, to retire at 64 instead of 65).  There are plenty of reasons to not take vacation - and luckily, in some countries that benefit doesn't have a yearly expiration date.  Imagine if your paycheque expired if you didn't spend it before the next payday.  Ludicrous, right?  Well, in some regards that's how some non-Americans view the lack of PTO carry-over.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing.  The "fool" comment was agreeing with Bart and, I presume, you, in the context of corporate versus employee decision-making.  I was only really talking about leaving the money on the table out of principle.  You're talking about various other ways of seeing the benefit; that's a different conversation.

And yes, I'm taking a very American point of view.  One, I'm American.  Two, the comparisons were TO America (at least that's what Bart and I were talking about).  So in that context, an American point of view is not only appropriate, but dare I say, necessary.

We get different benefits in different ways.   It's always problematic to focus on one variable without considering ALL the variables in the equation.  No, I can't get 50 weeks consecutively. BUT... I get a lot of my licenses and what not paid for.   I have a robust retirement package with matching.  My insurance coverage means my family wants for little, medically speaking.   In my position, I'm not required to fill out a time card or chain to a desk.  I'm going to Keith Urban tomorrow, and I'll leave at 2:30, 3:00 for the hour and a half drive, and as long as I keep my phone on, I'm "working" and no one will say boo.  Those are all advantages that have to be weighed when evaluating whether the five weeks vacation, with only ten days carried over, is fair.  Or the lack of paternity leave (we're not having any kids any time soon).

All fair points.  Many of those are employer offered benefits in the US, and at the discretion of each company.  Some are legally mandated (vacation, paternity), with the point being that most 1st world nations offer much more to employees than the US does.  National laws certainly favor the corporations moreso than employees (again, relatively speaking) in the US.

And I'll repeat what I've been saying all along: that they offer them doesn't make them the standard we should always follow. It's a complicated multi-variable system, and every action has a corresponding reaction.  Also, bear in mind that some of the "decisions" taken here in the States are NOT driven by law, they are driven by the market.  What laws purport to do (and fail, I can explain why) is to level the economic playing field.  For example, a company might WANT to offer paternity, but because of the market they are in, it may be an untenable expense if none of their competitors do the same.  Laws attempt to lower the playing field by making all the companies subject to that law have to absorb the same expense.  (I've provided a hint in that answer as to why that approach doesn't generally work; our ACA is another hint, as is global warming). 

[jingle.boy]

You're arguing for the sake of arguing.  The "fool" comment was agreeing with Bart and, I presume, you, in the context of corporate versus employee decision-making.  I was only really talking about leaving the money on the table out of principle.  You're talking about various other ways of seeing the benefit; that's a different conversation.

Fair points.  I didn't mean to come across argumentative, but see how it could be taken that way.

And I'll repeat what I've been saying all along: that they offer them doesn't make them the standard we should always follow. It's a complicated multi-variable system, and every action has a corresponding reaction. 

Fair point again.  I just have trouble with this notion of American exceptionalism.  I fail to see how the USA is so unique that the beneficial things other nations do "wouldn't work here".  Not meant to be argumentative, I just cannot be sold that  argument (ie, belief/perspective) - so don't try 

[Stadler]

I didn't say anything about American exceptionalism and I didn't say anything about "those things not working here".  I did question what "success" meant.   The only variable here, for better or worse, isn't "what maximizes the experience for the employee". 

Having said that, while I didn't mention "American exceptionalism", and I wouldn't, there is an element that we HAVEN'T discussed, and that is, America's role on the world stage.  We are unique, in a way, in that we DO fund a fair amount of activity around the world that other countries don't.  It's benevolent, I guess, on it's face, but it DOES serve us.  The military-industrial complex is, in a very real way, a welfare program of sorts. But even that is just another variable to be considered, not an absolute thing.

[jingle.boy]

I didn't say anything about American exceptionalism and I didn't say anything about "those things not working here".  I did question what "success" meant.   The only variable here, for better or worse, isn't "what maximizes the experience for the employee". 

If it wasn't implied, then I apologize for interpreting these statements with a little whiff of 'but we're different':
"Plus, we're not equipped here in the States (usually) to have someone just fuck off for three months"
"It's a complicated multi-variable system, and every action has a corresponding reaction"

Having said that, while I didn't mention "American exceptionalism", and I wouldn't, there is an element that we HAVEN'T discussed, and that is, America's role on the world stage.  We are unique, in a way, in that we DO fund a fair amount of activity around the world that other countries don't.  It's benevolent, I guess, on it's face, but it DOES serve us.  The military-industrial complex is, in a very real way, a welfare program of sorts. But even that is just another variable to be considered, not an absolute thing.

You literally go from confirming not to mention "exceptionalism", to using the word "unique" in one sentence  .  You're correct in that you didn't literally use the word "exceptionalism"... but I think "unique" accomplishes the same intent.  And I never thought I'd see the US referred to as "benevolent" when it comes to the world stage.  Where's Dave when he's needed most?   

[El Barto]

You literally go from confirming not to mention "exceptionalism", to using the word "unique" in one sentence  .

Used in the context of American exceptionalism, I believe that 'exceptional' also imparts a value judgement. We're not exceptional because we're unique. We're exceptional because we're unique in a way that makes us better than the rest of you filthy socialist bastards. I think Stadler is relying on that distinction.

[wolfking]

7th interview in a row that's a no show.

You sound like my boss.  It's unreal how many potential employees schedule interviews nowadays and simply don't show up.  I am sure those people will make great employees somewhere.

wolfking, a lot of good points here, and I definitely agree to take some time off.  It seems like most people where I work take their vacation days in chunks, but I am a fan of random days and half days off.  I call them mental health days, and we all need them. I know I do, this year especially.

I'm a fan of this going back to my childhood when my mom would occasionally keep me out of school on some random day. She also called them mental health days. For a long while I liked to take a random Wednesday off in the Spring and go some place to take some pictures or whatnot. I've found that the more I travel the less inclined I am to do that here in Dallas, however. I still do enjoy the occasional meaningless day off, though.

Every couple weeks, a friend of mine from high school would ditch off one afternoon and go to a local strip club for lunch (according to him, their ziti was top shelf) and then rent a room at a local hotel and take a nap for most of the afternoon (no, he wasn't bringing the strippers back; he was absolutely the kind of guy that would have admitted that if he had).  We used to laugh at him, but I'm a little older now and I find great joy in putting a blue box on my outlook calendar in the afternoon and just walking away from work.  Sometimes I walk the yard, sometimes I play PS4, sometimes I nap, sometimes I take a drive.  Depends what my head needs.

I should do stuff like this, just take an afternoon.  I'm so robotic in my routine and it's hard to crack.

Kade, You're an awesome dude! Much love my brother 

I agree; love to catch a show and a beer in New York City, home of the namesake band here.

You're on my list mate.

[Stadler]

I didn't say anything about American exceptionalism and I didn't say anything about "those things not working here".  I did question what "success" meant.   The only variable here, for better or worse, isn't "what maximizes the experience for the employee". 

If it wasn't implied, then I apologize for interpreting these statements with a little whiff of 'but we're different':
"Plus, we're not equipped here in the States (usually) to have someone just fuck off for three months"
"It's a complicated multi-variable system, and every action has a corresponding reaction"

Those things aren't necessarily "different" though.  I guess.  I think Bart is right, in that you're inserting a value judgment that I don't necessarily intend to make.  "Unique" isn't, in and of itself, "exceptional".  Ask my wife (about me). 

Having said that, while I didn't mention "American exceptionalism", and I wouldn't, there is an element that we HAVEN'T discussed, and that is, America's role on the world stage.  We are unique, in a way, in that we DO fund a fair amount of activity around the world that other countries don't.  It's benevolent, I guess, on it's face, but it DOES serve us.  The military-industrial complex is, in a very real way, a welfare program of sorts. But even that is just another variable to be considered, not an absolute thing.

You literally go from confirming not to mention "exceptionalism", to using the word "unique" in one sentence  .  You're correct in that you didn't literally use the word "exceptionalism"... but I think "unique" accomplishes the same intent.  And I never thought I'd see the US referred to as "benevolent" when it comes to the world stage.  Where's Dave when he's needed most?   

Yeah, and again, I'm not making the value judgment you are.  We ARE unique in the ways I pointed out: who else spends what we do globally on the military (I'm talking things like NATO and the UN, not our domestic military spend).   One of the things that Bernie NEVER accounted for in his "I want to be SWEDEN!" is that Sweden doesn't play the role we do on the world stage. Not better, not worse, that's up to you to decide based on your politics, but it IS different.

And I worded that section very carefully:  I said "it's benevolent I GUESS, ON ITS FACE, BUT IT DOES SERVE US."  I don't know that it's benevolent, but that's the reason given for it's happening, and even if it's not - and it may not be - it STILL serves a purpose.  Many purposes for us, actually.  Most things in life aren't single-asset-entities.  I hold the door open for my wife for many reasons, all at once: it's what a man does, she likes it, I'm teaching my kids to be gracious, I'm looking for a little action this weekend, it gives me a chance to survey the store to see if there's anything to be concerned about, it let's me check out her can as she walks through the door... ALL of those are true all at the same time.