Would more holiday be good for America?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Apr 25, 2002
4,446
494
83
#42
I knew you had it bad in the US because I heard you could only take 2 weeks max per year or so. Is this true? And 0 payed.... damn... There is no 'happy worker policy' in America....

This is not true. It depends on the employer you work for and the job you work. It is true in America there are some corporations that are better than others. New Years Day, MLK, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, day after Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve are all examples of paid holidays depending on what your line of work is (9). In addition, I would argue that for a salaried position, most employers offer two weeks paid time off (10) bringing the total to (19). This of course, isn't offered to all employees, and again, depends on the Company you work for. I was offered a total of 24 days paid time off with one year seniority at a company I worked for, but I worked a lot of those holidays to rake in more cash. I am not denying the results of the study, just simply pointing out this is an alternate case. Sure you could offer an hourly cashier 19-24 days paid time off, or you could hire someone for the same position to do the same thing without as much time off. America...ruthless....

Most places in Spain they start working around 10.00 in the morning. They take a 2 hour lunch break and then they work until around 8 in the evening.

Most offices as I know of still do this. They also eat dinner around 11 or 12.
At least this was still going on very much in 2006. I am not really sure if it's entire Spain though..
It would be interesting to know if an economy like Spain's was more productive than the USA. I believe the key to successful economies like the US and Britain, like Spain, Italy, and others...is that we drink excessively.

It's not mandated though. If a company wants you to work on xmas you're working on xmas.
What do we do, let the whole country shut down? I've work every year on Thanksgiving and XMas. I see your point but I have a job and I'm not complaining about it.



@ 2-0-Sixx That's messed up man. Also with so many unemployed you'd think hiring an extra person would be the most logic thing to do, to bad that guy's paycheck will lower your boss bonus. Otherwise he might have hired one.
To be honest, every employee you hire drives up the cost of your business because each employee has overhead cost. It's cheaper to have less workers and pay overtime than it is to hire, train, uniform, provide healthcare and benefits and paid time off, 401K / retirement, and pay payroll taxes for additional workers. This, in turn, actually makes the Company more healthy and the workers more secured than if you hired too many people and loss profit. When you lose profit, you cut heads.


What happens if you also run out of vacation day's though?
That would depend on state policy or Company policy. Many Companys allow employees to run "negative" paid time off and still take paid days.

are there really regulations against unions? If not those should be propagandized like crazy.
There are some regulations against unions one of the biggest and most cited is the RLA involving transportation sector and organizing/striking. There's also certain thresholds which can make it virtually impossible to represent a bargaining unit, like having 50% or more of each craft (across the country) being a part of the bargaining unit.



But if people mention or thinking about joining a union and they get fired over that, surely they get fight that in court, no?
The idea isn't that you fire people. Its this "it'd be cheaper to just close up shop than let a union penetrate my 100,000+ hourly employee corporation and cause more problems. Shop closed. Have fun kids." Nothing legally obliges an employer to continue operating anywhere and its an easy fix to stop what an Employer considers a cancer.


I dont know how many states have it, but here in Washington, you can fired without explanation. However, that does not mean you cant sue a company for a firing that may be wrong.
You can terminate someone without explanation in Wash but in reality you need to have just cause or evidence of misconduct or else you open yourself up to litigation or your just a horrible person.

The least employee friendly state in the US is Georgia.


But in the case for wal mart, isn't there an umbrella union for all retail employees they could join? So wal mart wouldn't be involved directly.
For example; the wal mart employees become a member of this union for a small monthly fee.
There are large unions like this, the SEIU is an example of a union which represents employees of several trades/crafts under one umbrella. The effect of their representation can be questionable. Many union folks applaud the SEIU for their organizing tactics and ability to control hundreds of thousands of members. For example, they do janitors but they also do nurses. This can be particularly effective when both janitors and nurses work in the same building, but less effective if the two crafts are unrelated. They also do service workers from multiple companies under the same umbrella.

"Small Monthly Fees," and this can be debated, but from my empirical experience are 2% or more gross income.

And if the case will be they 'suddenly close the store' because they are afraid of the union, they should be obliged to open up their books!
Employers are not required to explain why they cease operation except perhaps in instances where they are public owned Companies. The closure of 1 of 6,000 Walmarts would not even be a blip on the radar for that Company anyways.
 
Jun 27, 2005
5,207
0
0
#46
I don't know about Seattle but the weather here is similar to the weather in London.
Cold by itself isn't that bad. But combined with wind and rain is hell.

Every winter it's either a lot of rain and wind or through the bone chilling cold hard strong winds coming from the North Sea. Grey and depressing really...
sounds like Seattle to me
 
May 14, 2002
6,278
6,950
0
42
#49
It would be interesting to know if an economy like Spain's was more productive than the USA. I believe the key to successful economies like the US and Britain, like Spain, Italy, and others...is that we drink excessively.
So alcohol is to blame, that makes kind of sense I guess. Although the Spanish, French, Italians and Belgium's do like their wines.
A lot of people in Belgium drink wine during their lunch break at work.
The Germans also like to have a beer or more, not to mention the Polish love their vodka.

To be honest, every employee you hire drives up the cost of your business because each employee has overhead cost. It's cheaper to have less workers and pay overtime than it is to hire, train, uniform, provide healthcare and benefits and paid time off, 401K / retirement, and pay payroll taxes for additional workers. This, in turn, actually makes the Company more healthy and the workers more secured than if you hired too many people and loss profit. When you lose profit, you cut heads.
I disagree;
Yes you will have all the additional cost with an extra employee but you also have someone you can cover for you when you are sick.
So that your work doesn't pile up and you have to think and worry about your work when you are vomiting diarrhea out of you for two weeks.
Or you can take turns so both of them can take day's off for longer periods of time and more often.
I believe it takes a lot of stress out of people.

It can also be someone who approaches certain aspects of the job from a different angel.


There are some regulations against unions one of the biggest and most cited is the RLA involving transportation sector and organizing/striking. There's also certain thresholds which can make it virtually impossible to represent a bargaining unit, like having 50% or more of each craft (across the country) being a part of the bargaining unit.
How can there be regulations against unions? That is just inhumane.
Why are those regulations there anyway?

The idea isn't that you fire people. Its this "it'd be cheaper to just close up shop than let a union penetrate my 100,000+ hourly employee corporation and cause more problems. Shop closed. Have fun kids." Nothing legally obliges an employer to continue operating anywhere and its an easy fix to stop what an Employer considers a cancer.
Why are they so afraid of unions anyway?
Is it really a better choice to close shop instead of losing a % of your income for better working conditions for their employees?

There are large unions like this, the SEIU is an example of a union which represents employees of several trades/crafts under one umbrella. The effect of their representation can be questionable. Many union folks applaud the SEIU for their organizing tactics and ability to control hundreds of thousands of members. For example, they do janitors but they also do nurses. This can be particularly effective when both janitors and nurses work in the same building, but less effective if the two crafts are unrelated. They also do service workers from multiple companies under the same umbrella.
So you have them too then, how are they in organizing strikes?

"Small Monthly Fees," and this can be debated, but from my empirical experience are 2% or more gross income.
I didn't have the numbers with me.

Employers are not required to explain why they cease operation except perhaps in instances where they are public owned Companies. The closure of 1 of 6,000 Walmarts would not even be a blip on the radar for that Company anyways.
Not even the unions you've mentioned earlier mention something about that?