What's your take on annual leave?

[McLovin]

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.

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]

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).

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?