Map Enthusiasts

4888 readers

439 users here now

For the map enthused!

Rules:

post relevant content: interesting, informative, and/or pretty maps
be nice

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

zksmk@sopuli.xyz

garfaagel@sh.itjust.works

318

Which country gets the most paid time off? (jlai.lu)

submitted 3 days ago by oce@jlai.lu to c/map_enthusiasts@sopuli.xyz

91 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Source: https://www.moorepay.co.uk/the-ultimate-guide-to-countries-with-the-most-paid-time-off/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Cannot understand American employer's reluctance to give out PTO. Someone check my logic?

Regardless of PTO granted, the employer is going to be paying $X for 40-hours a week, 52 weeks a year. They're out nothing!

The obvious counter is that they're out that employees productivity. Now think about the places you've worked. Unless it's a fairly high-end, specialized job, the work is getting done regardless. When someone on your team takes PTO, everyone else picks up the slack.

For a large company there is an argument to be made that they have to hire more people to fill in the rotating PTO gaps through the year. A new employee is a significant cost. Recruiting, advertising, HR and IT onboarding, training, and one no one thinks or knows about, the upfront costs of unemployment insurance.

[–] ILoveUnions@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As much As I agree that pto needs to be required, it's simply pure white collar thinking to think that more people don't need to be hired to cover for vacations. In blue collar, labor jobs, the employer needs to hire temp workers (as my area does) or give other employees considerably more hours(some locals have flex employees that do pt most of the year and ft during vacation periods). The employer is out the wages it costs to pay the cover, it is not free. And the employer should be paying that.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

New employees cost real money. Posted this yesterday:

Advertising, interviewing, HR and IT onboarding, extra unemployment taxes on the initial income, training, all that stacks. Also, consider how useless a new employee is vs. one that's been on task for some time. And that employee is taking valuable time from an experienced worker!

People are a pain in the ass, I'm sure we'll agree. :) More people, more pain in the ass. The woman who handled scheduling at Lowe's caught grief every day. Well fuck me, she's not trained in HR and has to deal with 200 people's wants and needs. I felt sorry for her.

But back on topic,

The employer is out the wages it costs to pay the cover

That's the point I can't get my head around. The employer is already paying X people for Y job. Someone getting PTO costs them nothing as the remaining people work harder to cover. Does that make sense? I feel my argument is lacking common sense I'm not seeing.

[–] ILoveUnions@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Does that make sense? I feel my argument is lacking common sense I'm not seeing.

There's a couple issues with it. For specialized trainings, you'll only have a few people with them, and with vacations you'll need more. Training costs money.

People will not work harder to cover. Longer, sometimes. Harder, rarely. The company still needs to make certain timelines. There's an extent to witch employees can work "harder". The more people off, the less you can just cover it with working harder.

If you're not going to hire people, the longer hours the employees work to do the work will be paid at over time rates. Those are not cheap