« On Legalization | Main | Obesity in International Perspective »
May 21, 2007
Vacation is Good for You
Courtney Martin writes, "in this cutthroat economic environment, vacation -- like parental leave -- goes the way of the wimp. Even if workers are employed by companies that guarantee vacation time, many of them are afraid to take advantage because they might be seen as slackers. A culture of self-sacrifice has cropped up in so many careers, leaving those who take their full two weeks looking uncommitted and ineffective." But are they? Martin continues:
Three-week vacations have proven to be a boost to productivity and profits at enlightened American firms where the culture truly supports the practice. Especially in the knowledge economy, clear thinking and a fresh perspective are critical to best practice. How can anyone expect to get the newest ideas and most innovative approaches from workers who only get the occasional weekend getaway, cell phones still permanently attached to their ears?
Some companies are already reporting hard-and-fast evidence of the phenomenon, according to Robinson. Jancoa, a Cincinnati-based cleaning services company, extended its vacation benefits for its 468 employees to three weeks at a total cost of seven cents. Productivity and morale increased so much that the company was able to eliminate overtime and cut its retention and recruiting costs. The H Group, a management firm founded in 1990 and based in Salem, Oregon, has seen profits double since owner Ron Kelemen pushed his three-week vacation program.
Of course, here I am, doing exactly what I regularly rail against, justifying a policy that's good for society but potentially costly for business based on its potential economic benefits. Curses! So let me be clear: Even if this was a costly policy, we should still implement it. The richest society in the world should guarantee three weeks of useable vacation to its members. George W. Bush, after all, is well-acquainted with the restorative effects of a summer month spent lounging on the ranch. Would that we all had such enlightened employers as, well, the American people.
May 21, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
I know you mean well, but you really shouldn't use Bush as an example of how vacations make us more productive.
Posted by: akaison | May 21, 2007 4:28:31 PM
What if a bank has a trader position that requires no vacation time, but is willing to pay more money in order to attract applicants. Should those types of contracts be illegal?
Often times, there is a tension between choice and protection. Giving workers choice, rather than mandating one single standard, in most cases works better.
Posted by: Jason | May 21, 2007 4:29:36 PM
Jason, what if a cleaning company has a janitorial position that requires paying someone below the minimum wage. Should those types of contracts be illegal?
A company is already at liberty to offer vacation time and then fire anyone who uses that vacation time regularly, of course.
Posted by: Tyro | May 21, 2007 4:33:32 PM
3 weeks? you're joking right? I want 10 weeks! Think how much more productive i'll be when i get 10 weeks off! I DEMAND 10 WEEKS!
LMAO
Posted by: joe blow | May 21, 2007 4:35:48 PM
"Jason, what if a cleaning company has a janitorial position that requires paying someone below the minimum wage. Should those types of contracts be illegal?"
What if that worker is willing to work for below minimum wage, and that job wouldn't exist unless they could pay a wage under the minimum wage?
What if we set the minimum wage to some absurd number, like $67 an hour. Wouldn't a lot of companies have to fire people because they couldn't afford to hire them?
Vacation time is a cost to employers. But people should be free to negotiate, say, a lower wage in return for more vacation time, and companies should be free to compete with vacation benefits in order to attract applicants.
Posted by: Jason | May 21, 2007 4:50:51 PM
It will never happen. Not in your lifetime, not in the lifetime of your grandchildren. This society is so inculcated with the work till you drop ethic (pushed and enforced by those who don't follow it) that it will never happen. I can think half a dozens clients of mine who rail, out loud, as though someone is mugging them, when their people take vacation time. Yet, when they leave, well, they deserve it. And in every case but one, the stingy fuckers who own the businesses dole out vacation time as though it were the blood of their children. So we're not talking about employees taking a months off. In some cases, we're talking about long weekends.
Vacations are only for the aristicocracy and you're a commie for thinking otherwise.
Posted by: ice weasel | May 21, 2007 4:53:44 PM
One of these days, Jason, you and joe blow need to learn to stop making reducto ad absurdum arguments when it comes to minimum wage. As any labor lawyer can tell you, some labor contracts are not enforceable. We can just as easily pass laws that mandate 3 weeks of vacation for fulltime employees as we can pass minimum wage laws.
Posted by: Tyro | May 21, 2007 4:59:04 PM
"One of these days, Jason, you and joe blow need to learn to stop making reducto ad absurdum arguments when it comes to minimum wage. As any labor lawyer can tell you, some labor contracts are not enforceable. We can just as easily pass laws that mandate 3 weeks of vacation for fulltime employees as we can pass minimum wage laws."
Reducto ad absurdum? I can point to some French immigrants who are suffering from this very problem.
My point is that a vacation mandate comes with tradeoffs, and those tradeoffs outweigh the tradeoffs that come with giving workers and employers choice.
Posted by: Jason | May 21, 2007 5:05:51 PM
The tradeoffs seem beneficial to me, Jason. I've very little interest in defending the rights of employees to "choose" vacationless jobs and "choose" working for sub-minimum wage. We, the people, are at liberty to make legal decisions regarding these tradeoffs, just as we do with copyright and patent law.
And, yes, saying, "ah, but what about raising the minimum wage to $100 an hour and mandating 50 weeks of vacation a year?" is reducto ad absurdum. While I do find conservatism inherently absurd, I do not feel that you simply "can't help yourself." Rather, I feel you should learn to control your behavior.
Posted by: Tyro | May 21, 2007 5:18:32 PM
What about shorter work weeks? Or shorter days?
The struggle for the eight-hour day produced the modern labor movement. Radicals like Paul Lafargue argued that in a humane and democratic economy, advances in technology ought to result in more free time for working folks. See: "The Right to Be Lazy" (1883)
Let's shoot for a twenty-hour work week by the year 2100.
Posted by: Adrian | May 21, 2007 5:26:48 PM
> What if a bank has a trader position that
> requires no vacation time, but is willing
> to pay more money in order to attract applicants.
> Should those types of contracts be illegal?
People with key positions in financial institutions are often _required_ to take 2 weeks off-site vacation per year to help prevent them from running scams that require insider access.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | May 21, 2007 5:34:25 PM
The tradeoffs seem beneficial to me, Jason. I've very little interest in defending the rights of employees to "choose" vacationless jobs and "choose" working for sub-minimum wage. We, the people, are at liberty to make legal decisions regarding these tradeoffs, just as we do with copyright and patent law.
Fair enough, but that is the essence of authoritarianism.
Myself, I'm in the J.S. Mill camp.
Posted by: Jason | May 21, 2007 5:46:25 PM
And, yes, saying, "ah, but what about raising the minimum wage to $100 an hour and mandating 50 weeks of vacation a year?" is reducto ad absurdum.
That kind of example illustrates the marginal workers that get hurt. Obviously the difference between $5.15 and $100 is a larger margin, but nevertheless the margin is still present.
Posted by: Jason | May 21, 2007 5:54:21 PM
"I know you mean well, but you really shouldn't use Bush as an example of how vacations make us more productive.
I dunno, akaison - imagine what Bush might be like if he hadn't been taking long vacations . . .
Posted by: Dan S. | May 21, 2007 6:10:27 PM
it's a bullshit argument jason- thats why you are being called on it. it's bs because even with minimum wage there still is a thing called a market despite such stupid arguments.
Posted by: akaison | May 21, 2007 6:13:14 PM
it's a bullshit argument jason- thats why you are being called on it. it's bs because even with minimum wage there still is a thing called a market despite such stupid arguments.
There isn't a market below the minimum wage.
Posted by: Jason | May 21, 2007 6:15:42 PM
it's a bullshit argument jason because there is a market above the minimum wage.
Posted by: akaison | May 21, 2007 6:42:54 PM
you are only left with extremes precisely because there is one. if you had a real argument you wouldn't need the extreme
Posted by: akaison | May 21, 2007 6:46:24 PM
Myself, I'm in the J.S. Mill camp.
You mean the On Liberty camp. From a utilitarian point of view it's very easy to argue for more restrictions on contracts than On Liberty would allow. It should also be pointed out that labor contracts aren't purely self-regarding in their effects. When you sign on to contract at a wage of $2/hour, and a bunch of others do too, that harms me in my $7/hour job, which suddenly becomes a $2.50/hour job.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 21, 2007 6:47:09 PM
The problem with the minimum wage is the workers who might be willing to work for less if that could get them a job, but can't because the law prevents them.
Posted by: Jason | May 21, 2007 6:48:27 PM
Fair enough, but that is the essence of authoritarianism. Myself, I'm in the J.S. Mill camp.
Actually, it's the essence of government. We look at policy tradeoffs and decide what we, the people, decide are going to accept. Vacationless and sub-minimum wage jobs and indentured servitude aren't things workers "choose." they are things thrust upon workers by employers using their monopsony power in the labor market.
Also, Jason, the "see, it's just an illustrative example" is a form of absurdity brought up year after year by right wing fanatics every time minimum wage issues come up. To date, we have seen few if any negative impacts to the economy and the labor market because of it.
To take your example, we could extend patent law to 100 years or eliminate it entirely, but we don't, nor do we argue against patent reform by saying, "Oh yeah? Why don't we just make patents permanent/nonexistent?" as a form of argument because it is absurd.
Posted by: Tyro | May 21, 2007 6:51:54 PM
Fair enough, but that is the essence of authoritarianism.
Wait a sec-- I'm only marginally familiar with you, here. Are you one of those guys who thinks that auto safety laws are the first step on the path down to Stalinist dictatorship? Because if you are, then I know you're silly.
Posted by: Tyro | May 21, 2007 6:54:28 PM
You mean the On Liberty camp. From a utilitarian point of view it's very easy to argue for more restrictions on contracts than On Liberty would allow. It should also be pointed out that labor contracts aren't purely self-regarding in their effects. When you sign on to contract at a wage of $2/hour, and a bunch of others do too, that harms me in my $7/hour job, which suddenly becomes a $2.50/hour job.
Umm...
First, On Liberty is a critique of democracy. It purports the people are limited by imperfect information, and tend to cling to tradition even if it is a dead dogma. Democracy is therefore inherently poisoned by the "tyranny of the majority." More importantly, the element of social change is knowledge, and that can only come about through dynamism, experimentation, and the free exchange of knowledge. The best government, then, is one with a limited role and broad freedoms for individuals.
The critique of minimum wage is that the government pretends to know what is a "living wage" even though there are vast differences of people with different standards of livings and different preferences.
As for the second part of your argument, umm... that doesn't make sense. But I guess that is just my psuedo-science Econ 101.
Posted by: Jason | May 21, 2007 7:05:00 PM
Jason - you really don't need to hijack a thread to repeat arguments all of us have heard before. You say things like "The problem with the minimum wage is the workers who might be willing to work for less if that could get them a job, but can't because the law prevents them," and I have to wonder what universe you live in. In the universe I live in, the main causes of unemployment don't include "frustrated sub-minimum wage workers". Your argument is entirely theoretical and bears little relationship to reality.
Posted by: RickD | May 21, 2007 7:27:26 PM
a) Re: incomplete information - see the prisoners dilemma, brinkmanship and other game theory to understand why perfect information is not possible.
b) You talk out of both sides of your mouth. In the another thread you are presently arguing you are a'process' person, but here you talk about strictly theorectical arguments for why not, without any real practicality behind it. As I said there, you change your argument as it suits the purpose of winning the discussion. You just do it poorly- hence why people are calling your arguments absurd. If you were a process person- then it would matter what mimimum wages actually does do, and what it has actually produced for our society. Period.
c) From your post I sense you are probably some kind of Randian libertarian- the whole bs about perfect information smells like objectivist libertarian thought to me.
Posted by: akaison | May 21, 2007 7:28:43 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
