Work hours and vacation around the world

[afro-elf]

Are you enjoying your two weeks of vacation this summer? In other countries, vacation can stretch a lot longer. Here are some examples:

Australia

Most workers in Australia work 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Australians earn significantly more vacation time than Americans, for example Australians have three months off after 15 years of services. Since Australia’s summer is in December and January, most Australians take their vacation then, combine summer break with the Christmas and New Year’s Day holidays.

Belgium

The standard work week in Belgium is Monday through Friday, 37.5 hours, and cannot exceed 40 hours. Overtime must be compensated by overtime pay and an equal amount of paid time off. Employees who have completed at least a full year’s service typically receive 24 days of vacation time annually.

China

China’s standard workweek is 40 hours long, with a mandated 24-hour rest period each week. There are seven paid public holidays, and employees usually get seven to 14 days of vacation each year.

France

Beginning in 2000, the legal workweek for companies with more than 20 employees is 35 hours; smaller companies have until 2002 to adjust to the new law. French vacation benefits tend to be very generous. Typically, workers earn around four weeks of vacation each year.

Hong Kong

After being employed continuously for 12 months, an employee is entitled to vacation leave, usually ranging from seven to 14 days per year. Senior staff and executives generally get four to six weeks off each year. The normal workweek in Hong Kong is 44 to 48 hours spread over six days.

Italy

The Italian work week, is 40 hours long. The regular work week should not exceed six days, and a work day shouldn’t last more than eight hours. Workers receive at least four weeks of paid vacation, with many getting up to six weeks off.

Korea

The maximum legal work week in Korea is 44 hours, with overtime pay when necessary. Each week, employees are legally entitled to a 24-hour rest period. Employees earn one paid vacation day each month, plus ten days after one year with perfect attendance.

Norway

Normal work hours are limited by law to 37.5 hours per week, usually running Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Norwegian law also provides for 25 paid vacation days per year and a legally mandated 28-hour rest period on holidays and weekends. Employees have a right to sick leave and women are entitled to maternity leave with full pay for up to 42 weeks, or 52 weeks at 78 percent of her pay.

Singapore

Most companies in Singapore operate on a five-and-a-half-day work week, with Saturday being the half day. The standard legal work week is 44 hours long. Employees are entitled to a minimum of seven days of vacation leave for the first year of service, with most enjoying two to three weeks of leave and paid sick leave.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by afro-elf
Norway

Normal work hours are limited by law to 37.5 hours per week, usually running Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Norwegian law also provides for 25 paid vacation days per year and a legally mandated 28-hour rest period on holidays and weekends. Employees have a right to sick leave and women are entitled to maternity leave with full pay for up to 42 weeks, or 52 weeks at 78 percent of her pay.

The maternity leave is full paid by the state for 42 weeks, or paid 80 percent for 52 weeks, but restricted up to 6G, where G is approx. 6500 Euro for 2003. Which means, if your wages are higher than about 40000 Euro a year, you'll get a cut in your income. Unless your company pays the difference, which many companies do.

The nice thing here is, 4 of the 42/52 weeks are reserved for the father. He must take them, they cannot be transferred to the mother. Only 9 weeks are reserved for the mother, the parents can share the rest of their leave between them as they want.

[afro-elf]

Go! Norway.

[jerseydevil]

The workers end up paying for it in one form or another. There are no free lunches.

[Artanis]

Through taxes and higher costs yes, but we think it's worth it. The positive sides are: Higher birth rates, more women in work, closer father/child relationships and happier children.

[Sheeana]

Wow. In New Zealand, you're entitled to a years maternity leave, but it's not paid. You're entitled to something like 12 weeks paid maternity leave, and an employer may wish to extend that to a longer period. In terms of holiday pay, most New Zealanders get between 3-4 weeks.

Just as an added note: we've just passed a bill to legalise prostitution! Finally!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Artanis
Through taxes and higher costs yes, but we think it's worth it. The positive sides are: Higher birth rates, more women in work, closer father/child relationships and happier children.

Sorry - but I think 3 months vacation is a bit much. Also - with putting so many rules on companies - they are less likely to want to hire unless absolutely necessary. I don't think children in Europe are any more happier than in the US either. Also - higher birth rates aren't necessarily a good thing. It puts a strain on school systems, hospitals, housing, etc - not to mention that then jobs have to be found for all these additional people once they grow up.

Many large companies offer day care at work in the US and also other beenfits. I don't think it's alway the governments job to put so many demands on companies. Abuse, child labor laws - yes. How many vacation days a company offers just isn't one of them.

[Artanis]

Well I'm talking about Norway, which is the country I know, and we don't have 3 months vacation here. We also need higher birth rates, because when I get old I expect to be taken care of by society in form of medical assistance and health care. Many eldrely people here live in institutions, which the state is paying for. There must be enough workers around to pay for this welfare. I know this is different from the USA, but this is our system. Norway is rich and unemployment is low, partly because of the oil industri, and we can afford a high standard of public welfare.

[Elvellon]

True, besides, higher birth rates anywhere in Europe are far from meaning excessive birth rates. Socially and economically, they would be positive.

The Neoliberal myth that State is necessarily bad and Private is necessarily good is just that; a myth. Companies are part of society, therefore they must work for the benefit of all society; otherwise their role should be rethought.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
True, besides, higher birth rates anywhere in Europe are far from meaning excessive birth rates. Socially and economically, they would be positive.

They're not always positive and each year more and more children would have to be born to support the preceeding generation. At one point there will be a time when the system crashes down on itself, because it can't be supported. The US has this problem with Social Security and the strain the Baby Boomer generation is going to be putting on government benefits.

The Neoliberal myth that State is necessarily bad and Private is necessarily good is just that; a myth. Companies are part of society, therefore they must work for the benefit of all society; otherwise their role should be rethought.

A company's role is purely to make money and produce a product or service at a competitive price.

Companies and employees both enter into "agreements" for vacation, pay rate, benefits, etc. It is in a company's best interest to provide people with competitive benefits. The companies which provides better benefits will attract better workers and happier ones. Government is just a beauracracy which the majority of times just gets in the way of free market forces. NJ has the highest car insurance costs in the country because of the rules the state has placed on the insurance companies. Most companies have left the state, which has caused rates to go up. When NY taxes companies heavily or puts demands on them - they move over to NJ. I hope NY continues to keep raising the taxes in NY - it's good for NJ. More people are coming hear to shop, eat and do business because of it - which generates tax revenue without us actually having to raise taxes.

All actions government takes on companies have a reaction on the free market. It also prevents companies from reacting efficiently to changing market conditions since so much of their expenses are fixed by the government. I'm not talking about safety requirements and all that - I'm talking about employee benefits. They're benefits - not supposed to be "requirements". When the economy slows down and it's haivng to pay people who aren't even working - it puts a heavy burden on the company. It then has to cut in other areas - possibly laying off people, instead of cutting benefits.

I'm not saying all companies work or treat their employees fairly - but the majority do. It's just that fairness isn't what gets on the news. It's the 1, 2, 3 companies which don't that make the news. Companies that make the news are the ones that have excessive executive pay as the company is failing - or some accounting scandal - not the 99% which don't.

[Elvellon]

They're not always positive and each year more and more children would have to be born to support the preceeding generation. At one point there will be a time when the system crashes down on itself, because it can't be supported. The US has this problem with Social Security and the strain the Baby Boomer generation is going to be putting on government benefits.

Your raise a good point, but not really applicable to the present European situation. Considering that most European countries have negative birth rates, an increase would most likely mean only a stable population or one slowly growing, nothing that would cause problems in the foreseeable future.

company's role is purely to make money and produce a product or service at a competitive price.

Absolutely. Yet, that is not the role of Society. The role of Society is to create conditions that are the most favourable to the greater possible number of its members. If a given company doings does comply with this, very well. If not, its role has to be reconsidered.

All actions government takes on companies have a reaction on the free market. It also prevents companies from reacting efficiently to changing market conditions since so much of their expenses are fixed by the government. I'm not talking about safety requirements and all that - I'm talking about employee benefits. They're benefits - not supposed to be "requirements". When the economy slows down and it's haivng to pay people who aren't even working - it puts a heavy burden on the company. It then has to cut in other areas - possibly laying off people, instead of cutting benefits.

As you implied before, what is best for the company (maximization of profits) is not necessarily what is best for Society (maximization of living conditions). It is part of the common beliefs of today that Market, if left by itself, will automatically regulate itself and will work in a state of Market Economy, or near such a state. But reality is different.
Many markets devolve into Oligopolies or into a state of Market Monopoly (not of Monopoly), this is usually due to the very conditions of the Market and not due to State Intervention.

You will also note that Social Democracies are traditionally capable to weather economic crisis better than more purely capitalist systems, (albeit have usually less growth in better times). Such societies are more stable, and less given to social extremes, (of poverty or wealth). It could be described, I believe, as a trade of, of greater potential wealth for greater tangible social security.

I'm not saying all companies work or treat their employees fairly - but the majority do. It's just that fairness isn't what gets on the news. It's the 1, 2, 3 companies which don't that make the news. Companies that make the news are the ones that have excessive executive pay as the company is failing - or some accounting scandal - not the 99% which don't.

Perhaps there it is so, but my perception elsewhere is somewhat different.

[Ararax]

Originally posted by Sheeana


Just as an added note: we've just passed a bill to legalise prostitution! Finally!

um why is that a good thing? do you really wanna get laid that bad?

[Sheeana]

Because it will get the off the street and into more safer 'havens', as well as ensuring that they are able to get regular checkups. Duh. And in keeping with the topic, maybe now they will be eligible for holiday pay, and sick leave, maternity leave, and set hours.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Absolutely. Yet, that is not the role of Society. The role of Society is to create conditions that are the most favourable to the greater possible number of its members. If a given company doings does comply with this, very well. If not, its role has to be reconsidered.

The sole purpose of a company is to produce products and services that people want. They are only ONE factor in a society.

As you implied before, what is best for the company (maximization of profits) is not necessarily what is best for Society (maximization of living conditions).

It is in a company's best interest to increase living conditions. Who do you think the consumers are? If people don't have money to buy the products - it then hurts the companies. Just like overtaxing has a negative impact on society. I am very much against graduated income taxes. Why should I get punished for working hard and becoming successful. I feel everyone should pay the same percentage rate in taxes.

It is part of the common beliefs of today that Market, if left by itself, will automatically regulate itself and will work in a state of Market Economy, or near such a state. But reality is different.
Many markets devolve into Oligopolies or into a state of Market Monopoly (not of Monopoly), this is usually due to the very conditions of the Market and not due to State Intervention.

That is true - some do. Look at Microsucks. They write terrible software, they always have. But what has made them so powerful is buying up their competitors and destroying their competition. How many people use IE instead of Netscape? I use Netscape - because I know that if Microsoft controls the browser market - they will vertually "control" the Web.

You will also note that Social Democracies are traditionally capable to weather economic crisis better than more purely capitalist systems, (albeit have usually less growth in better times).

If that is so true then why has Europe been in such terrible shape compared to America? France is in trouble and so is Germany. Much of Europe as well as Canada is feeling the pressure that social programs put on consumers and the workplace.

Such societies are more stable, and less given to social extremes, (of poverty or wealth). It could be described, I believe, as a trade of, of greater potential wealth for greater tangible social security.

Where is the proof of this? The world is still looking at America to pull it out of it's recession. While Europe has been in a stagnant period for years - America was going strong. America entered it's slow period 3 years ago and is moving out of it now. America is the largest consumer. Do you really think if American consumers stop buying that Europe will not fall further into a recession? Europeans can't buy as much as Americans because they're taxed so much.

Perhaps there it is so, but my perception elsewhere is somewhat different.

That's your perception - but the facts don't bare it out.

[Ararax]

but its a necessary evil not a cause to celebrate,

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Because it will get the off the street and into more safer 'havens', as well as ensuring that they are able to get regular checkups. Duh. And in keeping with the topic, maybe now they will be eligible for holiday pay, and sick leave, maternity leave, and set hours.

I thought they were mostly "free lancers" - unless of course they work for a pimp. I just don't see why a prostitute would get holiday pay, sick leave, etc.

I also don't think it is something to celebrate. I'm not against prostitution - I think it is something between two adults. Are they going to pay for the regulations and stuff required by legalising it or all ALL tax payers going to foot the bill? What benefits are they going to be bringing to society?

[Elvellon]

The sole purpose of a company is to produce products and services that people want. They are only ONE factor in a society.

No. That is only one of the roles of the company. Companies have a social role, as much as an economic one. They are providers of jobs, and can contribute greatly for social stability (or instability). That role is no less important, from the social perspective.

It is in a company's best interest to increase living conditions. Who do you think the consumers are? If people don't have money to buy the products - it then hurts the companies. Just like overtaxing has a negative impact on society.

So says the theory. But, in reality, if allowed to, many act as if the responsibility should be solely of others. For most the sole responsibility is to increase profits and diminish expenses. Now, if everyone does just that, then that may hurt future revenues of all, but that is something most don’t consider in the decision making of THEIR Company.

I am very much against graduated income taxes. Why should I get punished for working hard and becoming successful. I feel everyone should pay the same percentage rate in taxes.

That is a false problem. “You” are not being punished. “You” are part of a society, which means that “you,” as everyone else, have social obligations to that Society. “Your” success does not come out of the air, nor solely from your own work. The structure created and supported by society as a whole, and the work of many others allows it, and they benefit (and sometimes suffers) from it. The degree Society benefits is not for “You” to decide alone. Proportionality of contribution based of affordability is hardly unjust.

If that is so true then why has Europe been in such terrible shape compared to America? France is in trouble and so is Germany. Much of Europe as well as Canada is feeling the pressure that social programs put on consumers and the workplace.

JD, Europe is not in a terrible shape (that is as incorrect as someone saying that the US is presently in the brink of economical catastrophe), and the US situation is not so much more favourable, comparing it with. And do not forget that our cycle is not entirely coincident with yours; you entered into the crisis before us, it would be natural you get out of if first.

I’m aware of the problems with European economy but, the reasons you point are well of the mark, it is usually conveniently forgotten that many of the most competitive European economies actually have a greater social intervention level than those who don’t. It is usually forgotten that there have been in the past a significant reduction of the social role of the State in Europe, with dubious results.

Where is the proof of this?

Were the proof? That is a well-known economical fact. Just read the behaviour of the Western Economies in the post-WW2 period in any economic history book. You seem to forget the role of the State had then in re-launching the economy, or that the very same Social security you seem to oppose serves to maintain the consume level higher that would be otherwise during a crisis.

The world is still looking at America to pull it out of it's recession. While Europe has been in a stagnant period for years - America was going strong. America entered it's slow period 3 years ago and is moving out of it now. America is the largest consumer. Do you really think if American consumers stop buying that Europe will not fall further into a recession? Europeans can't buy as much as Americans because they're taxed so much.

I was saying that Social Democracies are less prone to excesses; recessions are likely to be smaller but growth also is likely to be smaller than in a purely capitalistic economy. Since there is also greater social redistribution of wealth there is necessarily less poverty and also necessarily less concentration of wealth.
Now, what does your answer have to do with this?

That's your perception - but the facts don't bare it out.

Funny thing, that is exactly my opinion about yours;

It is your opinion, but facts don’t support it.

[jerseydevil]

I can't answer everything right now - but I will answer this.

Originally posted by Elvellon

So says the theory. But, in reality, if allowed to, many act as if the responsibility should be solely of others. For most the sole responsibility is to increase profits and diminish expenses. Now, if everyone does just that, then that may hurt future revenues of all, but that is something most don’t consider in the decision making of THEIR Company.

Do you continue to buy things when you can't afford them just to help the economy out? People, by spending, helps to hire more people and so forth - yet people need to cut back during slow economies. PEOPLE ALSO attempt to increase THEIR proifits while reducing THEIR expenses. You think it's any different for companies or should be? Do you go into the store and think - "if I don't buy that DVD in this slow economy - it may affect the revues of a company - which will then require them to lay off people"? Or do you say - "the economy is tight and I need to save my money in case something happens to my job"? Companies also have to stay competitive in slow economies - or else they won't be around to have any employees.

That is a false problem. “You” are not being punished. “You” are part of a society, which means that “you,” as everyone else, have social obligations to that Society. “Your” success does not come out of the air, nor solely from your own work. The structure created and supported by society as a whole, and the work of many others allows it, and they benefit (and sometimes suffers) from it. The degree Society benefits is not for “You” to decide alone. Proportionality of contribution based of affordability is hardly unjust.

Sorry - but I disagree, You can look at it that way - but I don't. Why do yoy feel - just because I generally make more that I am more able to afford 30% taxes while someone else can only afford 10%? A flat income tax is fair - graduated income taxes are not. And yes - what I DO with MY money is my decision. It's not handed to me you know.

JD, Europe is not in a terrible shape (that is as incorrect as someone saying that the US is presently in the brink of economical catastrophe), and the US situation is not so much more favourable, comparing it with.

I didn't say that Eurpope was in terrible shape - it's in a stagnant period and has been for about 10 years.

And do not forget that our cycle is not entirely coincident with yours; you entered into the crisis before us, it would be natural you get out of if first.

Actually while we were enjoying the boom period over the last 10 years - Europe has been stagnant. Only during the last 2 years has Europe looked better - but not because of anything they really have done - it is mostly because the US economy took a dip.

I’m aware of the problems with European economy but, the reasons you point are well of the mark, it is usually conveniently forgotten that many of the most competitive European economies actually have a greater social intervention level than those who don’t. It is usually forgotten that there have been in the past a significant reduction of the social role of the State in Europe, with dubious results.

With dubious results - only because people RELY on the state to take care of them. It makes people lazy.

Were the proof? That is a well-known economical fact. Just read the behaviour of the Western Economies in the post-WW2 period in any economic history book. You seem to forget the role of the State had then in re-launching the economy, or that the very same Social security you seem to oppose serves to maintain the consume level higher that would be otherwise during a crisis.

The state had very little to do with the restarting of the European countries - it was America's investments and Marshal Plan which got the European economies back up. Currently with the social programs Europe has and having 70% taxes on the citizens - does not leave much for them to spend on other things they want. The ecomony of Europe is mostly controlled by beauracy. I'm for small government and limited taxes and more self reliance.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The state had very little to do with the restarting of the European countries - it was America's investments and Marshal Plan which got the European economies back up.

I think Elvellon was referring to how the money was managed and distributed, not where it came from.

Currently with the social programs Europe has and having 70% taxes on the citizens - does not leave much for them to spend on other things they want. The ecomony of Europe is mostly controlled by beauracy. I'm for small government and limited taxes and more self reliance.

Aren't you exaggerating a bit? 70% taxes, where do you get that from? Europeans are left with more than enough to spend. And if we can't afford everything that we want, so what. We don't really need it. But if I should be run over by a bus tomorrow, I'll get the best medical treatment there is at the nearest hospital, for free, and if I should become unable to work after the accident I'll get a fair amount of support by the state so my family won't suffer. That's what is really important. It has nothing to do with laziness.

Also, I'm gifted with intelligence, good health, and parents that are fairly well off. It's sheer luck, but these are all factors that has helped me to get an education and a well-paid job. IMO I think it's only fair that I should pay a higher percentage of my relatively high income to the benefit for those who haven't had such good fortune in life.

I've never been to the USA, so I guess you could put that against me, but I know many people who have, and they say USA is a marvellous country to live in - as long as you're a rich, healthy, white man. I'm sure they're exaggerating, but there seems to be some truth in it, also from what you're telling us here. I'm not saying that everything is perfect in Europe - it's certainly not - but I happen to prefer the European beurocracy before your kind of capitalist individualism anyway.

[Nazgul King Squirrel]

Woops wrong thread, sorry.