And so it begins or continues. There is before congress, the "Paid Vacation Law" which would require one week of paid vacation for workers at businesses with 100 or more employees. Its sponsor is Orlando, Florida's Congressman, Alan Grayson.
Well, sure, why wouldn't he come up with this on the heels of a paid sick leave bill? He, as with most congressmen, has never run a business and never considered what this legislation would cost the smaller businesses. Ah, but you say, 100 employees isn't small. No, but (1) once enacted, it will filter down to 50 employees, and then 20 if history is any indicator, and (2) for the few companies that don't give paid vacation and have 100 or more employees, there's something so wrong that it must be assumed that they are having even greater economic difficulties in this recession than ever before.
I've been around for 40 years in the "personnel biz," and I've never seen a company of 100 employees that doesn't give paid vacation. And of the 400 or so clients I've had over the years, I've never had one with five or more employees that didn't give at least one week's vacation!
The "trick" is to make the policy meet company needs as well as the employee's. That's why there should always be a cap on accrual (unlike some government employee policies), and... well, just read the policies in "Vacation Policies" or "Labor Pains: Employer and Employee Rights and Obligations." Pardon the "laziness," but I've been over this so many times, that even my repetition is getting repetitious.
There are other things that you (and Congress) should realize before considering such a bill. The U.S. Department of Labor says that "only" 27 percent of U.S. companies give no vacation. And studies - the latest out of B.U. - found that more than 25 percent of all employees who have accrued vacation do not take even a day of vacation. They don't explain why, but here's what I found in my own survey (in my dissertation, too, if you're willing to carry clay tablets home to study):
1. Employees who do not take vacation prefer to get paid for what they've accrued. This was especially true for State of California and State of Nevada employees at the time (the two states that I could get cooperation from), as well as a number of municipalities in Oregon, California, and Nevada. That's wasn't a problem in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. But when companies and a few cities found out what it costs to buy out the vacation accrued by an employee after 15 years of service, private companies at least put a cap on accrual immediately. (Some of you may not realize it, but there are many states that require that all accrued but unused vacation be paid to an employee upon termination of employment - even termination for cause! See subscriber's article, "Vacation Pay Upon Termination."
2. Those who didn't take vacation took more sick leave than other employees. In government circles, this became known as "blue flu," starting with police departments, and not just as protests.
3. Many employees were afraid to be away from their offices (that's how long ago this was, i.e., pre-Dilbert) because someone might find out that the company could do without him or her, or that he or she was embezzling or stealing supplies but adequately controlling the cover up so long as they were present. Others were just plain paranoid but, as the old saying goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
4. Or 3a, many banks and savings and loans set a policy that made the employee leave on vacation for a minimum of one week a year, during which time, an audit was done of anything financial having to do with the job. One of the first things I learned and passed on to clients (and included in employee handbooks) was that the employee's desk or locker was the property of the company and could be opened without the permission of the employee. This was done most often while the employee was on vacation. Anyone who wasn't taking vacation was automatically suspect, usually with cause.
5. Last, if an employee in the good old days, had enough vacation and took three or four weeks, the company often called a temp agency and then found that the temp was twice as good as the regular employee. Then the employee had a right to be paranoid. It wasn't because of theft that employees didn't take vacations; it was because of incompetence. When I was an HR Director for a national company, when our A/P Clerk went on vacation and then maternity leave, we started getting calls and nasty letters from vendors saying that they hadn't been paid in months. But they also added that the checks were usually late, so they didn't call us until they were beginning to trust our company's ability to pay. No, she wasn't stealing from us. When we opened her desk, we found (literally) hundreds of checks filled out that hadn't been mailed. Some had incorrect amounts; others has misspellings of company names. When she returned from leave, she explained that she didn't know how to destroy the originals and make out a new check, so she just kept it quiet. Her 11 months of employment were over.
But, as usual, I digress. I listen to quite a bit of talk radio when the subject is HR related, or the day after the finals for "The Biggest Loser" or "American Idol" (though I called the Idol correctly three weeks ago, i.e., Kris is cute and most callers are girls in their teens with unlimited cell phone minutes or texting capabilities). Over the past 10 years, employees have called in to talk radio to question why U.S. companies don't give as much vacation or maternity leave as Germany, Italy, France, and (I think) Sweden. This is especially true for maternity leave where some countries give a full year of time off, mostly paid to boot. Why don't we do the same? Liberal talk show hosts can't understand why not either, and are usually wrong in their assumptions. Conservative talk show hosts don't discuss it. If they cover it at all, they tell employees to "grow up." (I know, but that's what I heard one day. As if the guy asked why do I have to go to work after 18 years of college?)
Let me give the reason, a reason which is my partial negative response to Grayson's "Paid Vacation Law:" The U.S. has (had?) the highest Gross Domestic Product compared to the more "liberal" countries of Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, and England. A partial discussion can be found by clicking here. I doubt that the U.S. remains in the lead, but Europe has its own set of problems - like buying into our neatly bundled bad asset packages.
But before getting into a "who's best" contest, every time a new bill comes before Congress, you should always look for motive! It's almost always money or power, and in Grayson's case, it's money: Alan Grayson is the representative from Orlando. I didn't make that a secret. What's in Orlando? Disney. Where do people go on vacations? Disneylands. Where do people go who don't get vacations? The beach for a day. There's no altruism involved. I have a hunch that Mr. Grayson may be up for re-election next year. In the meantime, his fear of losing his job (although he retains benefits, retirement, and a lifetime supply of Mickey Mouse ears), could well cost small employers money which they simply do not have in what has become the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Oh, by the way, I don't think this will pass, not because smaller businesses have much influence in congress, but "100 employees" is not a smaller business, and there is some clout therein with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (weak though it may be), and in the amount of money that comes out of those businesses and into Democratic and Republican coffers. There may also be a sufficient number of rational "representatives" in congress who understand that managing a business is difficult under good conditions. Under current economic conditions (hey, look at California, the "7th largest economy in the world" is close to broke), it's worse and we don't need interference in dictating benefits from Washington, D.C. (We don't need it from Sacramento, either, but that's really a whole 'nother story.)
As I get older, I become less trusting of "things done for my own good." Only my parents and my kids would do things for my own good. Congress wants to give me a lower interest rate on my credit card (I only have one), but first, arrrghhh, let me squeeze this thing about carrying weapons into national parks into the bill. [Sneaky insertions don't even have to be related nowadays. Bill are like some sort of mulligatawny stew.] So, somewhere in this paid vacation bill look for lowering the age of drinking to 12 or something equally omame. Maybe a $200 coupon for AK47s, just like the $40 coupon for high def cable box. Oh, I forgot to tell you: even if you can see channels 2-13 on your TV sets, anything above channel 13 will require a converter box, and gee, we're out of coupons.
I digress, but I just remembered, I'm ticked even though Comcast is sending them free. Gee, if only we still had a newspaper to tell us. Or news on TV that didn't come from a central source. What has this got to do with the vacation bill? Nothing, but why a bill, then law that forces everyone into high definition? Hmmm. Money? Power? Probably money. NOW do you see why I lose myself as often as possible in nature photography?
All Rights Reserved. Copyright 2009. Ethan A. Winning