Minimal government. Remember that the "paid" part of having a commemorative (sp?) holiday is the part that says to employers, "You SHALL pay your workers for doing NOTHING today, or you will be in violation of law, potentially going to jail or at least incurring large monetary penalties that put at risk your competitiveness." I think that such a power should be used sparingly. Refrain: It is perfectly okay to have a national UNPAID holiday -- one on which one may choose to take the day off if one wishes, unpaid.
Actually the goverment does not require by law on a state, national, or local level that private employers give paid holidays off, the government 'rules' for paid days off only apply to the people employed by them. If an private sector employer chooses not to pay the employees for those days off, there is no legel recourse for the employee, no fines, penelties, etc. All paid holidays are fringe benifits. That's why the amount vary from employer to employer. Some do not give any. When I worked at Amoco, we had no paid holidays, we did get double time for working them instead, but this was a company policy (Shell only gave time and a half for example).
Fairness. One must consider the viewpoint of those who are *paying* for the paid holiday. In the case of private employers, it's the private employer. "Stick to the man" may be very hip, but it's doesn't make much economic or moral sense, except in the crassest relativist sense (i.e., "better him than me"), IMO. In the case of public employers, we all pay. (Insert refrain here.)
Well since its a fringe benifit based on company policy, it is the company who decided on their own to pay for particular days off. The main reason for this of course is compitition for employees, the same reasons for bonuses, stock options, and any other perks. In a world where there is compititon between employeers of the same market this is just one more benifit for the general population and one less if the world simply consisted of monopolies and trusts.
As for getting something for nothing, employers do that now to the employees. In the wonderful world of salary, you get paid the same no matter how many hours they may require you to work at certain times. And I can safely say that though they may often 'request' one to work well over 40 hours for weeks at a time, they won't 'make it up' by letting one work well under the 40 hour standard in any giving week
Some very good points inasmuch as my facts were obviously off on the law with respect to private employers. I wonder if I was thinking of the law in some European countries? That is, aren't most larger employers in, say, Norway, required to give certain (or a certain number of) paid days off, on pain of ... legal sanctions? Anyway. You are right and I was wrong there.
Back in the USA, though, what about public-sector employers? Is there a limit to how many holidays taxpayers should be made to fund for public-sector employees? If so, what is that number of days? (After all, whether by law or by custom, those employees do get all of these national holidays off -- and paid.) Speaking as a federal employee myself, I'll take 'em, but at some point I will feel guilty about it -- and feel like people who know of my employment will look at me resentfully. "There goes that federal employee. How was that nice holiday I paid you for? grumble grumble ..."
(re something for nothing) I fail to see how the fact that some individual employers exploit workers justifies anything other than employees' quitting (or otherwise taking action in grievance against) those specific employers. In any case, that misbehavior certainly doesn't prompt me to agree that a proposed national holiday should be enacted or that, if it is enacted, it should be paid (... or, to limit the point per your correction: that it should be "paid" only for public-sector employees).
If we as a nation and a culture have too few national, paid holidays -- a matter that is too impossibly subjective to prove or disprove logically -- then I ask: what cardinal number of them is the right number, neither too many nor too few
Some very good points inasmuch as my facts were obviously off on the law with respect to private employers. I wonder if I was thinking of the law in some European countries? That is, aren't most larger employers in, say, Norway, required to give certain (or a certain number of) paid days off, on pain of ... legal sanctions? Anyway. You are right and I was wrong there.
Very likely. Many European nations do have varying government laws dealing with these issues Depending on the nation one lives in, the laws may encompass mandated vacation time, paid holidays, additional protections from firings/layoffs, as well as several additional pay benefits. In France for example, everyone gets six weeks of vacation time I believe. In Sweden one gets 50% of their pay when on maternity leave and receives 90% of their pay while only working 50% of their hours during the first 10 years of the child's life (only applies to mothers). Now employers do not have to pay for all of these worker benefits (they don't pay in the case of the latter two examples), the government will instead, but the flip side of that (other then loss of productivity for the employers in either case) is a very high tax rate. Personally I think taxes here are high enough, I wouldn't ever want to pay into the tax system many Europeans have to.
As for how many paid holidays public sector employees receive. My guess is the best system is to have them on par with what the average private sector employee receives doing a similar job perhaps. I suppose it is truly up to the voters of the nation, state, etc. to decide this since, at least in theory, the government works for them and therefore the people though their representatives can set such policies.
If we as a nation and a culture have too few national, paid holidays -- a matter that is too impossibly subjective to prove or disprove logically -- then I ask: what cardinal number of them is the right number, neither too many nor too few
That is a very hard question to answer. It really depends on what us as a culture basically feel what holidays are important enough to generally push for as standard holidays off. Since they is no actual requirement by employers to give any holidays off its really a decision by mass consensus. Employers general do what they think will be a benefit to the employees and themselves (as bosses like to have time off too).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feren
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Leave it to a lawyer to pick nits
Date: 2002-04-19 01:11 pm (UTC)Minimal government. Remember that the "paid" part of having a commemorative (sp?) holiday is the part that says to employers, "You SHALL pay your workers for doing NOTHING today, or you will be in violation of law, potentially going to jail or at least incurring large monetary penalties that put at risk your competitiveness." I think that such a power should be used sparingly. Refrain: It is perfectly okay to have a national UNPAID holiday -- one on which one may choose to take the day off if one wishes, unpaid.
Actually the goverment does not require by law on a state, national, or local level that private employers give paid holidays off, the government 'rules' for paid days off only apply to the people employed by them. If an private sector employer chooses not to pay the employees for those days off, there is no legel recourse for the employee, no fines, penelties, etc. All paid holidays are fringe benifits. That's why the amount vary from employer to employer. Some do not give any. When I worked at Amoco, we had no paid holidays, we did get double time for working them instead, but this was a company policy (Shell only gave time and a half for example).
Fairness. One must consider the viewpoint of those who are *paying* for the paid holiday. In the case of private employers, it's the private employer. "Stick to the man" may be very hip, but it's doesn't make much economic or moral sense, except in the crassest relativist sense (i.e., "better him than me"), IMO. In the case of public employers, we all pay. (Insert refrain here.)
Well since its a fringe benifit based on company policy, it is the company who decided on their own to pay for particular days off. The main reason for this of course is compitition for employees, the same reasons for bonuses, stock options, and any other perks. In a world where there is compititon between employeers of the same market this is just one more benifit for the general population and one less if the world simply consisted of monopolies and trusts.
As for getting something for nothing, employers do that now to the employees. In the wonderful world of salary, you get paid the same no matter how many hours they may require you to work at certain times. And I can safely say that though they may often 'request' one to work well over 40 hours for weeks at a time, they won't 'make it up' by letting one work well under the 40 hour standard in any giving week
Re: Leave it to a lawyer to pick nits
Date: 2002-04-19 02:54 pm (UTC)Back in the USA, though, what about public-sector employers? Is there a limit to how many holidays taxpayers should be made to fund for public-sector employees? If so, what is that number of days? (After all, whether by law or by custom, those employees do get all of these national holidays off -- and paid.) Speaking as a federal employee myself, I'll take 'em, but at some point I will feel guilty about it -- and feel like people who know of my employment will look at me resentfully. "There goes that federal employee. How was that nice holiday I paid you for? grumble grumble ..."
(re something for nothing) I fail to see how the fact that some individual employers exploit workers justifies anything other than employees' quitting (or otherwise taking action in grievance against) those specific employers. In any case, that misbehavior certainly doesn't prompt me to agree that a proposed national holiday should be enacted or that, if it is enacted, it should be paid (... or, to limit the point per your correction: that it should be "paid" only for public-sector employees).
If we as a nation and a culture have too few national, paid holidays -- a matter that is too impossibly subjective to prove or disprove logically -- then I ask: what cardinal number of them is the right number, neither too many nor too few
Re: Leave it to a lawyer to pick nits
Date: 2002-04-19 11:06 pm (UTC)Some very good points inasmuch as my facts were obviously off on the law with respect to private employers. I wonder if I was thinking of the law in some European countries? That is, aren't most larger employers in, say, Norway, required to give certain (or a certain number of) paid days off, on pain of ... legal sanctions? Anyway. You are right and I was wrong there.
Very likely. Many European nations do have varying government laws dealing with these issues Depending on the nation one lives in, the laws may encompass mandated vacation time, paid holidays, additional protections from firings/layoffs, as well as several additional pay benefits. In France for example, everyone gets six weeks of vacation time I believe. In Sweden one gets 50% of their pay when on maternity leave and receives 90% of their pay while only working 50% of their hours during the first 10 years of the child's life (only applies to mothers). Now employers do not have to pay for all of these worker benefits (they don't pay in the case of the latter two examples), the government will instead, but the flip side of that (other then loss of productivity for the employers in either case) is a very high tax rate. Personally I think taxes here are high enough, I wouldn't ever want to pay into the tax system many Europeans have to.
As for how many paid holidays public sector employees receive. My guess is the best system is to have them on par with what the average private sector employee receives doing a similar job perhaps. I suppose it is truly up to the voters of the nation, state, etc. to decide this since, at least in theory, the government works for them and therefore the people though their representatives can set such policies.
If we as a nation and a culture have too few national, paid holidays -- a matter that is too impossibly subjective to prove or disprove logically -- then I ask: what cardinal number of them is the right number, neither too many nor too few
That is a very hard question to answer. It really depends on what us as a culture basically feel what holidays are important enough to generally push for as standard holidays off. Since they is no actual requirement by employers to give any holidays off its really a decision by mass consensus. Employers general do what they think will be a benefit to the employees and themselves (as bosses like to have time off too).