| HN Mirror

Why is mandated vacation considered a "right?" It's a right that I don't have to work? That should be an agreement between the employer and employee and not the business of government. I'm an independent contractor and I don't get vacation paid by anyone except me. If I don't work, I don't get paid. I'm not sure why that's controversial. Should a restaurant customer pay for meals they didn't actually order just because they eat at a restaurant regularly? Then why should companies be compelled by the government to pay employees who aren't actually working?

To be clear, I'm not opposed to vacations -- that's a benefit that companies could offer in their bid to compete in the market for labor. It absolutely ought not be any of government's business. This is one of the reasons it's so incredibly unattractive to start a business in France and some other EU countries. The amount of government largesse at the entrepreneur's expense makes it insane to want to hire anyone let alone try and grow a business there. At the end of the day, "paid" vacation is paid for by the employee and the customers in the form of lower salaries and higher prices. Look at pre-tax salaries in Paris versus Silicon Valley. SV pays 3-4 times more AND offers health care and "benefits." In France, it's very risky to hire anyone, so salaries reflect the amount of risk assumed when hiring that employee -- meaning they're paid much less because there's a chance you'll be stuck with that employee indefinitely. Taxes are higher, living costs are higher, yet salaries are lower -- by 300%. All that "paid" vacation and "paid" benefits aren't cheap. If you look at net salaries, the difference is even more dramatic. The disposable income of a European worker is dramatically less than that of an American worker -- at least in software and tech.

The only people that demand "basic rights" such as 4 weeks paid vacation are people that have never run a business. The moment these campaigners for government mandated benefits actually try to start a business of their own is the moment they suddenly realize how destructive government-mandated benefits can be to a company and the economy. Employers should be able to offer whatever benefits they choose to offer. If an employee doesn't like the offered terms, they can walk away. If a company wants to compete for top talent, they'll end up offering good benefits as a response to the market as opposed to government mandate.

Look at the benefits offered by Facebook and Google. No government mandates there -- it's the market. They want to attract the best, so they have to offer the best.