# What's your take on annual leave?



## Tyler Durden (10 March 2012)

My colleagues were surprised to learn the other day that I have 8 weeks of annual leave saved up. My mindset is that that is the minimum level I want to keep it at, as if I ever leave my job, I would like a pay out. My mindset also is that using up your leave during a year should be done sparingly.

However, obviously others differ, as some in my office encouraged me to take a month off every year, and I even think in the past a politician encouraged the same in an attempt to boost domestic tourism.

So due to the differing views, just thought it'd be interesting to see how others here view their annual leave? Do you use it all up, or do you keep a minimum for a rainy day?


----------



## DocK (10 March 2012)

Husband and I are self-employed, so a different perspective I guess.   We work in an industry that more-or-less shuts down over the Xmas/New Year period, so our employees don't really have much choice but to take at least 2 weeks leave at that time.  The lead-up to Xmas is our busiest period so generally we're all well and truly ready for a break by then.  Unfortunately this is also the peak period for most domestic  tourism areas so going away becomes more expensive than mid-year breaks - which can be difficult to fit in sometimes.   

I do think it is important to take some time away from work annually if possible,  to de-stress and give the mind and body a change of scene.  I can see why it would be desirable for some to have a buffer in case of unexpected unemployment etc, but I would think that working more than a couple of years without an extended break would take a toll on most people.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 March 2012)

Personally I think the whole concept of "annual" leave is outdated in the extreme. I mean, life is for living, you work to live not live to work, and for most people they're going to need at least two or three periods of leave each year in order to attend interstate events, have an extended Easter or whatever. 

I've been known to do 100 hours in a week and between Long Service and Recreation leave I'd have about 150 days in total saved up. I'm certainly willing to work and do my bit (I'm working this long weekend...). Likewise I haven't had a sick day for a few years now and only ever take them when genuinely sick. 

But if anyone comes up with some plan to force the taking of leave in one extended break rather than several times a year then I'll either be ignoring it or resigning. I'm paid reasonably well, but not enough to justify missing out on the things I'd miss out on if that were the case.

Had a few days off last October and anther few days in November, both for completely different reasons. Worked over Christmas and New Year (on-call 24/7). Had a few days off very recently and went to Adelaide. Planning No doubt I'll be taking at least a couple of more short breaks during the year. I always do things whilst on holiday, hence the timing needs to suit when those things are happening.


----------



## sptrawler (10 March 2012)

Tyler Durden said:


> My colleagues were surprised to learn the other day that I have 8 weeks of annual leave saved up. My mindset is that that is the minimum level I want to keep it at, as if I ever leave my job, I would like a pay out. My mindset also is that using up your leave during a year should be done sparingly.
> 
> However, obviously others differ, as some in my office encouraged me to take a month off every year, and I even think in the past a politician encouraged the same in an attempt to boost domestic tourism.
> 
> So due to the differing views, just thought it'd be interesting to see how others here view their annual leave? Do you use it all up, or do you keep a minimum for a rainy day?




It's a very personal thing, I know guys that have 2000hrs and I know guys that in the same jpb have none, with the same amount of service.
Some may have double income no kids and holiday all the time, others may be nearing retirement and have adult children living at home with disabilities. Two completely different scenarios requiring two different stratergies.
Everyone is different, everyone lives with their choices.


----------



## Eager (10 March 2012)

I have about 500 hours saved up, so if I wanted to, I could take about 6 weeks every year between now and retirement. I had a week off in January, took a day off yesterday to give me a 5 day Labour Day weekend with an RDO, I will take another single day on Tuesday 24th of April to give me another 5 day weekend including RDO and Anzac day, and I intend to take 4 weeks of long service in October for a rambling road trip and a week in Noosa. And, I am fully intending to apply for the days off between Xmas and New Years this year, and I should get it, since it is well and truly my turn!

Our arrangement at work is a little different in that we work a 72 hour fortnight but only get paid 70, which means that we accrue an extra 2 hrs per fortnight besides our annual leave entitlement of 140 hrs. Long service leave also accumulates fortnightly but can only be taken after 10 years of service.

I agree with smurf in that the term annual leave is a bit of a misnomer nowadays. Perhaps it is still called that because our leave balance increases by a set amount annually?


----------



## McLovin (10 March 2012)

I used to rarely take my full annual leave (I was working in the UK for a few years so I had 6 weeks) but I insisted that if I was going to be be giving up my annual leave then I wanted the cash instead. It is money owed to you, afterall.

These days I pretty much work for myself so I take between 4 and 8 weeks off each year depending on how much travel I'm planning on doing.


----------



## pixel (10 March 2012)

Not only do circumstances differ from one person to the next; but they're also varying at different stages in one's life.
fwiw, when we had reasons/ incentives to occasionally visit folks back in the Old Country, my wife and I would save up two or three years' entitlements and take six or eight weeks off Overseas. That still left the odd week in between years for short R&R breaks.

At other times, we might go a year or two without private trips, but spend a fortnight here and there showing friends and family from abroad the beauty and vastness of Australia. Trying at the same time not to become too blase and visit regions that were new to us as well.

There were also times - e.g. 2 years in the Pilbara - that felt like two years of holidays because of 9-day fortnights and frequent trips between mine sites. When you really enjoy the job you're doing and make the most of time off, even the odd 50-hour week doesn't leave you exhausted the way a nine-to-five job in the city does - with two lots of peak hour traffic thrown in for good measure.

Contrariwise, when you're fed-up with stupid politicking and ignorant co-workers, even four weeks off don't provide enough R&R to matter a great deal; if that happens to be at a stage in your life when early retirement becomes an option, but finding a new job does not, one may well accumulate the odd extra week, throw in a long-service leave as a bonus, and pull the pin a year or two early. Whether you then take the leave as a lump sum pay-out or take it as paid leave becomes a matter of choice - possibly assisted by doing the sums for some alternative scenarios with your tax consultant.

Finally, as a sole trader - getting close to becoming the longest-lasting "career" in my life - it's a matter of "Will the ASX survive if I take a week or five off?" If SWMBO decrees she would like a change of scenery, I close out any open short-termers, turn the power off, security on, load the car, lock the door, and we drive. (And if I get a chance at the destination, I'll crank up the laptop to check what you guys have done to Ms Marquette while I wasn't looking. Maybe even login and give you a piece of my mind.) :


----------



## Bill M (11 March 2012)

My wife is still working, she has 2 and a half Months Long Service Leave and 6 Weeks annual leave up her sleeve but she is reluctant to waste it. Plans to retire next year and wants the $$$$ as a going out the door boost to the bank balance.


----------



## breaker (11 March 2012)

Pain in the ass I gotta pay a bloke to have 4 weeks off + 17 1/2 %

Then pay someone else to do his job ,so it costs me, no you twice as much.

same with public holidays Australia does'nt go back to work till after Easter

Our lifestyle will come to a sudden halt some time.

We are to well paid and have it to easy compaired to other countries.

Wait till Indian workers are flown in for mine labor, then shes buy buy to EB's


----------



## sptrawler (11 March 2012)

breaker said:


> Wait till Indian workers are flown in for mine labor, then shes buy buy to EB's




I think there is a shock coming breaker. Apparently the government wants to relax the 457's further.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (11 March 2012)

People work waaaaay too much these days. It's absolutely amazing that we all still work the same hours we did in 1900 given that productivity has improved tremendously since then. The very very few have gotten extremely rich of the slavery of others.

My point is, everyone should take as much leave of all sorts available to them as possible. Some places you can take twice the annual leave for 1/2 the salary during your leave period. Sometimes you can even get unpaid leave. I would definitely do both.


----------



## McLovin (11 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> People work waaaaay too much these days. It's absolutely amazing that we all still work the same hours we did in 1900 given that productivity has improved tremendously since then.




Unlimited wants and limited resources will tend to do that...


----------



## IFocus (11 March 2012)

pixel said:


> Not only do circumstances differ from one person to the next; but they're also varying at different stages in one's life.
> fwiw, when we had reasons/ incentives to occasionally visit folks back in the Old Country, my wife and I would save up two or three years' entitlements and take six or eight weeks off Overseas. That still left the odd week in between years for short R&R breaks.
> 
> At other times, we might go a year or two without private trips, but spend a fortnight here and there showing friends and family from abroad the beauty and vastness of Australia. Trying at the same time not to become too blase and visit regions that were new to us as well.
> ...




From a purely investment outlook saving annual leave / long service leave is one of the better investments going from a grow perceptive as long as the company keeps paying pay rises or you move up in responsibility and salary.

Of course in the company goes to the wall you get burnt.

Personally have always taken leave as I would have blown up if I didn't. Would dearly loved to have had a career where I didn't need to take the break.


----------



## waimate01 (11 March 2012)

Here's my take:

Work like hell in your early 20's. Go every extra mile and establish your rep. 25-30, making sure you're being paid appropriately but still go every extra mile. But from 30 on, ensure you take the time to smell the roses. And holidays are a big part of that.

Consider this: on average (over the life of the universe) you are dead. The brief period you are alive is kinda unusual, cosmically speaking. Also, think of all the people who were intercepted by the condom and never came to be. Aren't you lucky? 

Now, given you're alive and it's wonderfully fortunate and fleetingly brief, are you honestly saying that the best; the VERY BEST thing you can think of to do with this time is chase dollars and pound square pegs into round holes? Live a little! By all means work as well, but try to optimise the relationship between the two to maximise the experience of your 80 years on earth. 

No value in being the richest man in the cemetery, and I suspect not much fun living in a cardboard box. There's a sweet spot, and it's different for everyone. But don't lose sight of the bigger picture. Take the holiday. Stay somewhere nice. Fly business if you can. 

It's entirely possible (gods forbid) that you'll suddenly find you've got some dreadful disease and be dead a year from now, and that year certainly won't be relaxed and cheerful. If you put things off, it's entirely possible to put them off too long. When you're in a position to spend your own money living life, do so. 

Because tomorrow may never come. Indeed we are guaranteed one day it won't.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 March 2012)

waimate01 said:


> Work like hell in your early 20's. Go every extra mile and establish your rep. 25-30, making sure you're being paid appropriately but still go every extra mile. But from 30 on, ensure you take the time to smell the roses. And holidays are a big part of that.



Get a job somewhere that offers extra shifts etc and get the mortgage out of the way. 

Then spend the rest of your 30's and the rest of your life after that not too fussed about it all. Leave the fancy cars, expensive suits and heart attack at 40 to someone else.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> Unlimited wants and limited resources will tend to do that...




It's certainly not justifiable...imagine if everyone worked 20 hours? Unemployment instantly solved worldwide.


----------



## McLovin (12 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> It's certainly not justifiable...imagine if everyone worked 20 hours? Unemployment instantly solved worldwide.




As economies develop they become more serviced based. Labour is still the key component of the economy, what has changed is the value of a unit of labour in the economy.

If everyone worked 20 hours/week then peope would have 1/2 their current spending power. That doesn't sound like a great thing.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> As economies develop they become more serviced based. Labour is still the key component of the economy, what has changed is the value of a unit of labour in the economy.




I do not see how that changes anything.


----------



## McLovin (12 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I do not see how that changes anything.




The premise of your argument is that there is a surplus of labour (ie if people worked 20 hours/week there would be no unemployment) because of productivity gains. I'm saying that is not true, those productivity gains have been passed to workers in the form of higher wages, increased benefits etc. In 1900, people didn't have holiday leave, long service leave, superannuation, a state pension, sick leave, wages anywhere near today's in real terms, unfair dismissal legislation, maternity leave, the eight hour day, penalty rates...I could keep going but you get the idea.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> The premise of your argument is that there is a surplus of labour (ie if people worked 20 hours/week there would be no unemployment) because of productivity gains. I'm saying that is not true, those productivity gains have been passed to workers in the form of higher wages, increased benefits etc. In 1900, people didn't have holiday leave, long service leave, superannuation, a state pension, sick leave, wages anywhere near today's in real terms, unfair dismissal legislation, maternity leave, the eight hour day, penalty rates...I could keep going but you get the idea.




That's not nearly enough compared to the growth of economic output per person.

There is no particular reason why there can't be a 20 hour working day which solves unemployment. Except of course it is against the vested interests of the rich and powerful.


----------



## McLovin (12 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> That's not nearly enough compared to the growth of economic output per person.




Income inequality has been falling for the last 100 years that would seem to indicate that the average worker is taking more of the pie today than he was 100 years ago.



Starcraftmazter said:


> There is no particular reason why there can't be a 20 hour working day which solves unemployment. Except of course it is against the vested interests of the rich and powerful.




Why is it in there interests to have people work 20 hours/week? Surely, zero unemployment and more free time for people with jobs would be good for the majority of businesses.

On the other hand, if I was a working for someone, why would I want to only work 20 hours/week? As a unit of labour, I want to maximise my own revenue.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> Income inequality has been falling for the last 100 years that would seem to indicate that the average worker is taking more of the pie today than he was 100 years ago.




This is a tricky statement to make... income inequality differs significantly country to country. In the USA for example, income inequality is as high now as before the great depression - it has been growing for a few decades. The story is similar in many countries (especially developed countries).




McLovin said:


> Why is it in there interests to have people work 20 hours/week? Surely, zero unemployment and more free time for people with jobs would be good for the majority of businesses.




Many reasons. They don't want people to have free time...they want them to be slaves all their life to interest payments. This way they can stay preoccupied. The wealthy also desire a very impoverished underclass to scare the **** out of everyone else. Lastly it's change unneeded and perhaps incompatible with the unsustainable way economics currency works - in order to benefit the people at the top.



McLovin said:


> On the other hand, if I was a working for someone, why would I want to only work 20 hours/week? As a unit of labour, I want to maximise my own revenue.




Your revenue will not be changed. If everyone has an equally smaller opportunity to bid up prices, then prices relative to income stay the same.

Also because revenue is the least important thing in life? Would you not rather spend time doing the things you enjoy? Perusing intellectual and spiritual enlightenment? Spending time with family and friends? Have more time to maintain physical and mental health?

It is almost criminal to be working as much as people do. It's hard to make a living when all we do is work.


----------



## McLovin (12 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> This is a tricky statement to make... income inequality differs significantly country to country. In the USA for example, income inequality is as high now as before the great depression - it has been growing for a few decades. The story is similar in many countries (especially developed countries).




Sorry, I thought we were discussing Australia, maybe because we are conversing on two seperate threads. Yes, in many other countries income inequality has really grown, especially in the US. The US situation is pretty bad, the minimum wage is below where it was in the 70's, iirc.






Starcraftmazter said:


> Many reasons. They don't want people to have free time...they want them to be slaves all their life to interest payments. This way they can stay preoccupied. The wealthy also desire a very impoverished underclass to scare the **** out of everyone else. Lastly it's change unneeded and perhaps incompatible with the unsustainable way economics currency works - in order to benefit the people at the top.




Woah, easy there Karl.




Starcraftmazter said:


> Also because revenue is the least important thing in life? Would you not rather spend time doing the things you enjoy? Perusing intellectual and spiritual enlightenment? Spending time with family and friends? Have more time to maintain physical and mental health?




The vast majority are motivated by money. Keeping up with the Joneses is as alive as it ever was.

Me, I'm not so interested. The only thing I waste my money on is traveling business class, I just can't deal with economy.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> Sorry, I thought we were discussing Australia, maybe because we are conversing on two seperate threads. Yes, in many other countries income inequality has really grown, especially in the US. The US situation is pretty bad, the minimum wage is below where it was in the 70's, iirc.




Well when I say everyone should work 20 hours, that is not limited to Australia - and indeed, it would be far better if all countries did it at once so as to maintain relative competitiveness with one another.

In terms of Australia, income inequality is not very good here as well, but he have other problems - such as intergeneration wealth inequality as a result of the housing bubble. The mining industry is obfuscating our economy and income equality as well.


----------



## McLovin (12 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Well when I say everyone should work 20 hours, that is not limited to Australia - and indeed, it would be far better if all countries did it at once so as to maintain relative competitiveness with one another.




Maybe you should pick a few random companies and have a look at what happens to P&L if you double employee expense...Especially for service businesses, like lawyers, accountants, hair dressing salons etc etc.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> There is no particular reason why there can't be a 20 hour working day which solves unemployment. Except of course it is against the vested interests of the rich and powerful.



Oil.

That along with electricity is the key that has given us such massive leverage of human labour and resulted in such an enormous rise in economic output per hour worked over the past century.

As the oil supply per capita declines (and this trend is already established), either we come up with something at least as good or we're faced with a reversal of the situation going forward.

Thus far, all the alternatives we've come up with offer reduced leverage of human labour, such that it's either less output, longer working hours or some combination of the two.


----------



## poverty (12 March 2012)

I like to keep a minimum of around 6 weeks of annual leave saved up, I think of it as money in the bank in case of unemployment or prolonged sickness.  I took 1 week off in january this year and probably won't have another until next january.


----------



## Eager (12 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> The vast majority are motivated by money. Keeping up with the Joneses is as alive as it ever was.
> 
> Me, I'm not so interested.



I am finding the money = motivation phenomenon increasingly hard to understand as well. I said in another thread a while ago that no-one has ever laid on their deathbed and bemoaned the fact that they didn't work that extra night's overtime way back when.

It is the prospect of time off, and planning holidays, that motivates me more than the money I make from time on!


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 March 2012)

One thing that is arguably wrong with the modern economy is the practice of working longer and longer in order to spend on pointless consumption.

I've heard people complain that under this, that or some other scenario we'd all become poorer and forced to take drastic steps. Things like having the same TV for 5 years or wearing clothes that are 6 months old. You know, drastic things like that.

Well pardon me! What, exactly, is wrong with a 5 year old TV? And nobody can possibly say that there's been some major innovation in clothing manufacture so as to warrant replacing things which aren't even slightly worn out just because they're 6 months old.

My TV is 4 years old and it works just fine so I see no reason to buy a new one. Likewise most of my other household goods are a few years old. They're going fine and I won't be replacing them just for the sake of it. I've got better things to do with my time and money than worry about replacing perfectly good fridges or lounge chairs.


----------



## Bill M (12 March 2012)

What I actually don't like is when the bosses come to you and tell you that you have to take leave as you have to much. 

Really, it's no skin off their nose if their staff save it up. Eventually they have to pay it out anyway so who cares.


----------



## inq (12 March 2012)

In the last four years the longest leave I've taken is 6 days (weekend inclusive) from work, and it was unpaid. It is the only leave I have ever taken since high school.

The next time will be in 12 months when I go on my honeymoon. If I had paid leave, I'd probably just continue to accrue it so I could cash it in.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 March 2012)

Bill M said:


> What I actually don't like is when the bosses come to you and tell you that you have to take leave as you have to much.
> 
> Really, it's no skin off their nose if their staff save it up. Eventually they have to pay it out anyway so who cares.



It's about power. 

No leave balance = boss has all the power. Assuming they do need to be paid, the employee has no option other than to turn up for work either for their current employer or a new one.

High leave balance = employee has greater power. At the very least, they can always simply take some of the leave to which they are entitled, and that alone is a credible bargaining chip in several situations I've seen. And of course if they do get the sack, well then the leave has to be paid out. Either way, there's some degree of power shift when the employee has a high leave balance.

From a "hard line" boss' perspective, the best course of action is to get rid of leave by getting employees to take it at a time that suits the boss. Keep the balances as low as possible, but do it in a manner that doesn't disrupt production. Those with a bit more sense will realise that this is a truly dud approach to managing staff, it's a bean counter mentality not a bean growing one, but it's not that uncommon in practice.


----------



## Julia (12 March 2012)

My suggestion is to try to find a job which allows you flexible working hours, i.e. where you are given a target of productivity but left to work your own hours to achieve this.

Then you can work really hard for a couple of weeks then have a four day weekend, or work flat out Monday to Thursday and have Friday, Saturday, Sunday off.

Depends a fair bit, I guess, on how stressful your job is.   If you're just marking time in a job that doesn't stress your capacity, then I suppose the need for time off is minimal.
But if you're working in a really high stress, competitive environment, you need time off for balance imo.


----------



## prawn_86 (13 March 2012)

I had 2 months leave built up (after 2yrs of work), so managed to get another month unpaid and am now on a 3 month break


----------



## Tink (13 March 2012)

I have quite a few accrued, but I usually take a month off all at once, usually in summer, and another 3 blocks of 2-3 weeks during the year.


----------



## Bill M (13 March 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> I had 2 months leave built up (after 2yrs of work), so managed to get another month unpaid and am now on a 3 month break



That is how I use to do it too, well done.


----------



## Eager (13 March 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> High leave balance = employee has greater power. At the very least, they can always simply take some of the leave to which they are entitled, and that alone is a credible bargaining chip in several situations I've seen. And of course if they do get the sack, well then the leave has to be paid out. Either way, there's some degree of power shift when the employee has a high leave balance.



A reason that employers don't like to see their workers have a high leave balance is that when the leave is actually taken, it is paid at the current rate and not the rate at which it was accrued.


Smurf1976 said:


> From a "hard line" boss' perspective, the best course of action is to get rid of leave by getting employees to take it at a time that suits the boss. Keep the balances as low as possible, but do it in a manner that doesn't disrupt production. Those with a bit more sense will realise that this is a truly dud approach to managing staff, it's a bean counter mentality not a bean growing one, but it's not that uncommon in practice.



Very common with shift workers to have their leave built into the roster. Long service leave is still accrued separately though and can be taken by arrangement.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (13 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> Maybe you should pick a few random companies and have a look at what happens to P&L if you double employee expense...Especially for service businesses, like lawyers, accountants, hair dressing salons etc etc.




I'm not suggesting they be paid the same, they can be paid less by the amount of hours less they'd be working. But again, because the relative income of everyone stays the same, nobody loses - that's the best part.




Smurf1976 said:


> And nobody can possibly say that there's been some major innovation in clothing manufacture so as to warrant replacing things which aren't even slightly worn out just because they're 6 months old.




+1 , this is a line I simply must remember. Couldn't agree more.


----------



## McLovin (13 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I'm not suggesting they be paid the same, they can be paid less by the amount of hours less they'd be working. But again, because the relative income of everyone stays the same, nobody loses - that's the best part.




It doesn't really work like that. You want your plumber to come out and fix your toilet, he's still going to be charging you the same hourly rate but you're going to be earning half as much as you were before. So relative to your income, the cost of the plumber has doubled.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (13 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> It doesn't really work like that. You want your plumber to come out and fix your toilet, he's still going to be charging you the same hourly rate but you're going to be earning half as much as you were before. So relative to your income, the cost of the plumber has doubled.




I don't see this as a very big problem. How often do you need a plumber, how much does it cost, and how overpriced are contractors in Australia anyway?


----------



## McLovin (13 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I don't see this as a very big problem. How often do you need a plumber, how much does it cost, and how overpriced are contractors in Australia anyway?




The plumber was just an example. In a service based economy, if the cost of labour remains the same then the purchasing power of a dollar is unlikely to change much but your ability to earn dollars will have halved.

That of course assumes that everyone is happy to work only 20 hours/week. I would envisage a thriving black market for labour.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (13 March 2012)

Well I just can't help but disagree. I don't take credit for the idea either, I believes Kaynes does. It was also the conclusion of a very recent study by a UK think tank. They said it will improve both productivity and people's lives.


----------



## McLovin (13 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Well I just can't help but disagree. I don't take credit for the idea either, I believes Kaynes does.




There's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Do you have some source for that? I'd be interested to read it.

ETA: I found this article...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/08/cut-working-week-urges-thinktank

It all seems a bit pipe dreamy. If people want to work 60 hours/week, I don't see why the government should tell them they can't. Unless we want to head down the road of collective farming and 5 year plans.

The EU imposes a 48 hour working time directive to member nations. First day at my first job in London, I signed a Working Directive Waiver which meant I agreed to work over 48 hours. Didn't bother me one bit. I liked my work. And I was well remunerated for it.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (13 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> The EU imposes a 48 hour working time directive to member nations. First day at my first job in London, I signed a Working Directive Waiver which meant I agreed to work over 48 hours. Didn't bother me one bit. I liked my work. And I was well remunerated for it.




That's simply because it's the current paradigm and you like many others have gotten used to it.

Imagine all the same....but working only 20 hours a week. Who would be against it? That would be crazy.


----------



## McLovin (13 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Imagine all the same....but working only 20 hours a week. Who would be against it? That would be crazy.




I would be. It would get pretty boring pretty quickly. A lot of people actually enjoy what they do. I doubt I'm alone. If someone came along and said you will now earn 50% less than you did, I don't think you'd get many takers.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (13 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> I would be. It would get pretty boring pretty quickly. A lot of people actually enjoy what they do. I doubt I'm alone. If someone came along and said you will now earn 50% less than you did, I don't think you'd get many takers.




No, but you need to put it in perspective...again if everyone earned 50% less it would make no difference at all - it would be a pointless condition.

How can it get boring? The world is pretty big and there are infinite things to do out there, more than you can do in a hundred lifetimes.

There's also nothing to say that you can't do what you like in the comfort of your house in the precise way that you want - without having to have your employer telling you the how, when and where, etc.


----------



## McLovin (13 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> No, but you need to put it in perspective...again if everyone earned 50% less it would make no difference at all - it would be a pointless condition.




That's not true. Under your scenario, the cost of labour doesn't fall, you just cap the amount of time people can work. You won't create cheaper goods. Have a look at what drives costs in businesses, very few of them would be lower in your scenario. Maybe you could give me an example of what inputs would fall?



Starcraftmazter said:


> How can it get boring? The world is pretty big and there are infinite things to do out there, more than you can do in a hundred lifetimes.




Sure, but if you're working 20 hours/week you still need to be around for 20 hours/week. You'll also be earning significantly less so international travel will be relatively more expensive.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (13 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> That's not true. Under your scenario, the cost of labour doesn't fall




Really, the cost of labour has fallen dramatically in the last 100 years. How many workers does it take to run a big farm compared to back then? My point is that simply speaking the workers themselves have not reaped the benefits of these productivity increases that have occurred.

Everything is becoming more mechanised and computerised - the amount of labour being required for everything is less and less. It only makes sense then to have people work less and less to keep up - otherwise more and more would become unemployed.



McLovin said:


> you just cap the amount of time people can work. You won't create cheaper goods. Have a look at what drives costs in businesses, very few of them would be lower in your scenario. Maybe you could give me an example of what inputs would fall?




That really depends on the type of business. I am not suggesting that everything about how businesses operate will be identical. But it is possible for this to happen and for the economy to adjust itself.



McLovin said:


> Sure, but if you're working 20 hours/week you still need to be around for 20 hours/week. You'll also be earning significantly less so international travel will be relatively more expensive.




I don't see why? The demand and supply will be exactly the same so the costs will simply adjust to match it. That is what I am suggesting - the costs of everything will go down the same as everyone's salary, so the end result is little change for consumers.


----------



## McLovin (13 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I don't see why? The demand and supply will be exactly the same so the costs will simply adjust to match it. That is what I am suggesting - the costs of everything will go down the same as everyone's salary, so the end result is little change for consumers.




OK, I'll run through this one more time.

Assume I run a hairdressing salon.

I charge $10 for a haircut and the average hairdresser can do 2 haircuts/hour. They generate $20/hour in revenue (and I take $10, which I need to pay for overheads etc). For arguments sake, they earn $10/hour and work 40 hours/week, earning $400/week. Now assume that they are limited to working 20 hours/week. Their wage remains unchanged at $10/hour. I now need to employ two units of labour to do the work of one only because of legislation not because of a loss in productivity. In total they still earn $400/week, but now that is split between the two of them. The cost to me (the employer) has not changed. I can't lower my prices (my expenses haven't changed). So whereas a haircut used to cost $15/$400 = 3.75% of a hairdressers wage, it now costs 7.5% of the their weekly wage. Repeat that across the economy.

I don't know how else to explain it. Your conclusion is incorrect. If _hourly wages fell_ by half then, perhaps, the price of goods and services would too. The actual cost of selling a product is not in the manufacture it's in all the services required to get it from factory to consumer.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (13 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> The cost to me (the employer) has not changed.




Why not? The cost of what will not change?

This theory will see that rent, electricity and tax all drop by the same amount.


----------



## McLovin (13 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Why not? The cost of what will not change?




The cost of providing a hair cut.



Starcraftmazter said:


> This theory will see that rent, electricity and tax all drop by the same amount.




Why would it? You're assuming that only the demand side drives prices.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (13 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> The cost of providing a hair cut.




Well we don't really know that do we, perhaps the haircutter will be happier because they only need to work 20 hours and do haircuts quicker?

Additionally, it's quite probably the the cost of labour and the price of a haircut will converse to enable the business to maintain it's margin.



McLovin said:


> Why would it? You're assuming that only the demand side drives prices.




Well I don't suspect people working half the amount of time will devour rental space or reduce the temperatures at which coal burns...


----------



## McLovin (13 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Well we don't really know that do we, perhaps the haircutter will be happier because they only need to work 20 hours and do haircuts quicker?
> 
> Additionally, it's quite probably the the cost of labour and the price of a haircut will converse to enable the business to maintain it's margin.
> 
> ...




I give up. This is like arguing that the sky isn't blue.


----------



## RandR (13 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I don't see this as a very big problem. How often do you need a plumber, how much does it cost, and how overpriced are contractors in Australia anyway?




$85 an hour


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (13 March 2012)

I've got wayyyy to much leave accrued. I frequently work weekends and have accrued a significant amount of time in lieu over the last few years. I took six weeks off over Xmas...and didn't actually use any of my annual leave. I worked out the other day I've got enough leave to take a long weekend every weekend for the next three years...not that I will I love my job.

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## nulla nulla (13 March 2012)

I can take it or leave it.....


----------



## Starcraftmazter (13 March 2012)

RandR said:


> $85 an hour




Far too much - that number can easily be cut in 3. Don't even need to go to university to be a plumber!


----------



## breaker (13 March 2012)

RandR said:


> $85 an hour




$100 an hour here


----------



## breaker (13 March 2012)

McLovin said:


> I give up. This is like arguing that the sky isn't blue.




He doesn't drink

And stargazer there are less people on a farm because we can't afford the labor


----------



## Starcraftmazter (13 March 2012)

breaker said:


> He doesn't drink
> 
> And stargazer there are less people on a farm because we can't afford the labor




Nonsense.


----------



## breaker (13 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Nonsense.




Whatever


----------



## RandR (13 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Far too much - that number can easily be cut in 3. Don't even need to go to university to be a plumber!




hahaha. 

okay.

Your correct, you dont need to go to university.

But it does take* 6* years to get a plumbing licence. 6 years of work and study. Id expect anybody that puts 6 years into achieving a qualification be suitably remunerated above that of someone that hasnt.

On the topic. I like annual leave, but I try my best not to take it. Working in construction job security can be a bit of a minefield at times so I tend to keep my leave and bank it for when its needed.

I would actually love to move into an industry where I can use leave of my own accord.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (13 March 2012)

RandR said:


> But it does take* 6* years to get a plumbing licence. 6 years of work and study. Id expect anybody that puts 6 years into achieving a qualification be suitably remunerated above that of someone that hasnt.




It takes 6 years to become a plumber? I find this hard to believe. Very hard.

What exactly is done during these 6 years?


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> No, but you need to put it in perspective...again if everyone earned 50% less it would make no difference at all - it would be a pointless condition.



Petrol, for example, would still cost the same since it's a globally traded commodity. I my income is halved then I now have to spend twice as much of it in % terms on fuel. Same goes for everything else that is commodity based (eg food staples).



> How can it get boring? The world is pretty big and there are infinite things to do out there, more than you can do in a hundred lifetimes.



I'm sure that the average person would love to do these things. But they don't have enough money, and wanting to do things like travel etc is a key reason that motivates people to work longer.

Looking at my own immediate work group of 10 people:

1 person does no overtime and is not interested. He is 67 years old.

The other 9 work varying amounts of overtime, all of it on a "voluntary" basis in that they are not forced to do it.

1 person has taken significant leave without pay. Another two have suggested this ought not have been allowed, and another one has stated they are personally opposed to the idea but have no objection to others taking it.

My take on that is people want the money more than they want some extra spare time.


----------



## RandR (13 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> It takes 6 years to become a plumber? I find this hard to believe. Very hard.
> 
> What exactly is done during these 6 years?




Believe it.

4 year plumbing apprenticeship.
Followed by a 2 year period as a 'provisional' plumber, during which time additional study is needed to then attain an actual plumbing licence. The studying component can be completed in about 18 months. But your still generally required to complete 2 years as a provisional plumber before you can apply for the full licence. (a provisional licencee can 'generally' only work under someone else for eg, in a wages role within a plumbing company)

In case you havnt noticed. In this country we take our plumbing quite seriously :O There's not too many places in the world you can safely drink the water from a tap


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Really, the cost of labour has fallen dramatically in the last 100 years. How many workers does it take to run a big farm compared to back then? My point is that simply speaking the workers themselves have not reaped the benefits of these productivity increases that have occurred.



There's that massive leverage from oil / mechanisation.



> I don't see why? The demand and supply will be exactly the same so the costs will simply adjust to match it. That is what I am suggesting - the costs of everything will go down the same as everyone's salary, so the end result is little change for consumers.



If it takes 100 man hours of labour to produce something then it takes 100 man hours of labour to produce it. If you cut working hours in half, then you just have to employ twice as many people. 

Simply dividing the hours across more people doesn't reduce either the time or the cost, if anything it will increase the time due to lost efficiencies associated with greater "hand over" time especially in more intellectual roles.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (13 March 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Petrol, for example, would still cost the same since it's a globally traded commodity. I my income is halved then I now have to spend twice as much of it in % terms on fuel. Same goes for everything else that is commodity based (eg food staples).




No no no - that doesn't even make sense. If everyone has half the buying power, than it must drop by half - isn't it obvious? 



Smurf1976 said:


> My take on that is people want the money more than they want some extra spare time.




I think these sorts of people are too consumerism focused and don't understand that the best things in life are free. Perhaps once they are 67 years old they will realise - but by then most of their life will have passed by. It is quite sad, I feel sorry for them.



RandR said:


> 4 year plumbing apprenticeship.
> Followed by a 2 year period as a 'provisional' plumber, during which time additional study is needed to then attain an actual plumbing licence. The studying component can be completed in about 18 months. But your still generally required to complete 2 years as a provisional plumber before you can apply for the full licence. (a provisional licencee can 'generally' only work under someone else for eg, in a wages role within a plumbing company)
> 
> In case you havnt noticed. In this country we take our plumbing quite seriously :O There's not too many places in the world you can safely drink the water from a tap




Sounds like a lot of red tape to unjustifiable increase their pay.

Also, would you not make money during these 6 years anyway? And so then it is quite irrelevant.



Smurf1976 said:


> Simply dividing the hours across more people doesn't reduce either the time or the cost, if anything it will increase the time due to lost efficiencies associated with greater "hand over" time especially in more intellectual roles.




That need not be a problem - you can simply have people work on and off by project. Ie. Work 40 (or even more?) hours a week on a project, then take a holiday next project, etc.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Far too much - that number can easily be cut in 3. Don't even need to go to university to be a plumber!



Rubbish. The plumber would be lucky to earn the equivalent of a $30 per hour job charing that much due to the overheads and the sheer volume of time spent complying with all manner of rules and regulations.

If that were cut by two thirds, the plumber would be earning less than zero and hence we'd have no plumbers.

As for the university bit, that is indeed true but I don't see the relevance of it. You don't need to understand how to spin up and synchronise a machine (at a power station) or play the violin to be a lawyer. But I'm sure there's plenty of lawyers who use electricity and who listen to music.

Working in a place that has a lot of contact with engineers, one thing I've noted is that new people on both sides (trades or engineers) always start with a bit of apprehension toward those on the other "side". Give it a year or two and they end up with massive respect once they see for themselves what the other role really does involve.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> No no no - that doesn't even make sense. If everyone has half the buying power, than it must drop by half - isn't it obvious?




Only if consumption falls. 

If it takes x amount of labour to extract a barrel of oil (for example) using currently available technology and the oil fields we actually have today then that's how much labour it takes. Changing the working hours doesn't reduce this.



> think these sorts of people are too consumerism focused and don't understand that the best things in life are free.



Unless you count bushwalking etc then most recreational activities cost money. Given that most people would have already done the free ones, since they can afford to, they need money to do more.



> That need not be a problem - you can simply have people work on and off by project. Ie. Work 40 (or even more?) hours a week on a project, then take a holiday next project, etc.



Whether or not that works will depend on the project. If the project runs for 3 months then maybe it would work. If the project runs for 10+ years then I can't see the idea catching on.


----------



## drsmith (13 March 2012)

breaker said:


> Pain in the ass I gotta pay a bloke to have 4 weeks off + 17 1/2 %
> 
> Then pay someone else to do his job ,so it costs me, no you twice as much.
> 
> same with public holidays Australia does'nt go back to work till after Easter



I don't wanna work for you. 

All part of the cost structure to consider when hiring an employee, although I do understand, that list is rather long.


----------



## RandR (13 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Sounds like a lot of red tape to unjustifiable increase their pay.




Red tape ? in this country ? never.

For the most part it does make the standard of plumbing within Australia the envy of the plumbing 'world' ... and deliveres to the workforce a steady stream of tradespeople any industrialised country would be happy to have .. but ... lets cut the tape !



> Also, would you not make money during these 6 years anyway? And so then it is quite irrelevant.





People that go to university generally make money during years spent studying too. So should we assume you come to the same conclusion that the length of time one takes to acquire a tertiary degree irrelevant ?

Ive studied at university and completed a trade. I made more money whilst studying at uni then during the formative years of my trade.


----------



## Julia (13 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> How can it get boring? The world is pretty big and there are infinite things to do out there, more than you can do in a hundred lifetimes.



If so many people now retired had so much to do in the way of leisure opportunities, you would not see the current level of volunteerism in communities all throughout Australia.   Working is how many people get their sense of identity and usefulness.
Many people, when they retire, feel bored and lost and can't wait to fill their lives up again with working for no financial reward, such is their need to feel part of society.



Starcraftmazter said:


> Well we don't really know that do we, perhaps the haircutter will be happier because they only need to work 20 hours and do haircuts quicker?



Do haircuts quicker?  (should actually be "more quickly" if we are pedantic).
The fact that you can make such a comment probably means you cut your own hair and have little understanding of the skill that's required for a good haircut.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (14 March 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> If it takes x amount of labour to extract a barrel of oil (for example) using currently available technology and the oil fields we actually have today then that's how much labour it takes. Changing the working hours doesn't reduce this.




Honestly, labour is pretty insignificant when it comes to oil. An oil rig would cost more than what it would cost to employ everyone working on it for the rest of their lives. Increasingly, oil rigs are becoming unmanned or requiring very little labour to operate them.

Productivity improvements in technology will ensure less people need to be employed. 

I would wager a bet there are a lot of businesses that are just itching to lay people off and replace them with technology. This will be a great excuse - and will unleash an unprecedented wave of productivity growth. Of course because everyone will be working a lot less, there should still be plenty of jobs.



RandR said:


> People that go to university generally make money during years spent studying too. So should we assume you come to the same conclusion that the length of time one takes to acquire a tertiary degree irrelevant ?




I don't really agree. I doubt an engineer would make money building bridges while he's studying, or a doctor make money doing surgery while they are studying. And so on and so forth.

A plumber can do the same thing they are studying while studying and I am betting they will get more than the minimum wage doing it.


Personally I never worked during uni as there was simply no time to, indeed it is a ridiculous notion to me. A uni student's studies are *never* finished.




Julia said:


> If so many people now retired had so much to do in the way of leisure opportunities,




One of my key points is that it is important to do a lot while you are still young, as you lose both physical and mental capacities by the time you retire.

It is very difficult to learn new concepts, new languages, new fields of study when you are 70 - but much easier in the 20s, 30s and 40s. That is why I say people should work much less.

Likewise it is difficult to do a lot of physical activities when you are old...



Julia said:


> you would not see the current level of volunteerism in communities all throughout Australia.   Working is how many people get their sense of identity and usefulness.




And volunteering may well be one activity younger people can do more of - if they had the time to do it. There is no need to be formally employed in order to be useful. Going back to plumbing, if a plumber worked 20 hours a day - they would have a lot of time to do volunteer plumbing for those not fortunate enough to afford $80/h :



Julia said:


> Many people, when they retire, feel bored and lost and can't wait to fill their lives up again with working for no financial reward, such is their need to feel part of society.




I would perhaps theorise that it's due to their long-time of remedial and repetitive work. If only people had more free time spread across their lifetime, I am sure they would have a lot more to do at all stages thereof. But instead work has really killed the human inside of them - and turned them into a machine with but a single purpose. Or something philosophical like that.



Julia said:


> Do haircuts quicker?  (should actually be "more quickly" if we are pedantic).
> The fact that you can make such a comment probably means you cut your own hair and have little understanding of the skill that's required for a good haircut.




What? That makes no sense. I also don't cut my own hair, I do not understand how it is possible to do that (well). When I get a haircut, it only takes 5 minutes though, not 30. Now there's some productivity


----------



## breaker (14 March 2012)

you probly have no hair


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 March 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Honestly, labour is pretty insignificant when it comes to oil. An oil rig would cost more than what it would cost to employ everyone working on it for the rest of their lives. Increasingly, oil rigs are becoming unmanned or requiring very little labour to operate them.



And the money to build then goes where, exactly?

We don't pay the earth for it's resources, meaning that paying for labour and returns on capital are where the money goes.


----------

