Overall I think it's a good thing, but one problem is that systems like these are really starting to create two tiers of workers, as is discussed in the end of the article. Generally one has to have a permanent contract for programs like these (e.g. in Finland you can go to study for two years and get paid a nice fraction of your pay from the unemployment fund).
In theory this shouldn't be much of a problem because all jobs should be on permanent basis by default and fixed-term contracts should be only for very special purposes. In practice this is not enforced and especially for lower paying jobs (and some even higher educated fields, such as teachers or nurses) its quite common not to get permanent contracts at all.
Because of this, there's almost a new social class of permanent contract workers who have great benefits and programs, and beneath them a constantly growing underclass on temp contracts, shitty working conditions and little benefits. It's sort of absurd that some paper pusher can get paid for doing any studies they wish more than a cleaner or store clerk gets paid while working.
The systems were largely created before the neoliberal era started in Nordic countries in the 90's or so when employer protection was very strong across the board. But as the protection has crumbled for the "underclass", the system starts to at times look something like the olden privileges of the higher castes.
Essentially the same in Sweden. If you are well off you can enjoy many different systems and laws, from paid for private schools to secure employment and good benefits. While those young and worse off are facing cutbacks and insecurity. I really think it is a perversion of the welfare state at this point. Which can be hard to fully grasp for those that haven't experienced it.
That's the general argument against big government and even big business. It creates inefficiency because somebody else is spending the money that is removed from the current situation.
I think so too, I would love to have entrepreneur leave. Having quite my job to start a business before, the main thought in my head is that 6 months is not anywhere near long enough for the vast majority of business ideas to get off the ground, let alone succeed. In order to have any chance of success in 6 months, you would need to have launched your product before starting the 6 month period. You’d want to have secured financing, get any partners and/or employees in place, finish all legal paperwork, set up a payment system, build the product and begin marketing, all before you leave your day job. Any one of those things can easily eat more than 6 months. My startup was a 2 person software service -- just about the easiest thing you can do business wise -- and it took a year after quitting my job before we could even take money, and 2 years before we made enough money to pay our operational costs.
> My startup was a 2 person software service -- just about the easiest thing you can do business wise
This gave me a chuckle. To most people who aren't on HN a software service, no matter the size, is a major business undertaking.
I have a friend who started a pilates studio. She loves pilates and the startup costs are minimal - a few thousand dollars total mostly for a small inventory of yoga pants and athleisure gear to sell. She quit her finance job to get it off the ground thinking it would take at least a year. It took her six weeks to have enough membership subscriptions to make her business profitable. She's a brilliant businesswoman and was working the front desk at a pilates studio and teaching a few classes. After three months she was understandably very bored. Her company still hadn't found a replacement for her so she hired a college kid to sit at the front desk and went right back to work.
There are a lot of "analog" small businesses people could get off the ground in 6 months I just think they aren't the sort we're used to hearing about here because HN is so tech focused.
FWIW, the popular alternative to software I had in my mind is starting a restaurant. It's pretty hard to do that in 6 months and usually costs a lot more up front than software.
You have a good point. My wife started teaching piano lessons after I quit my job, and her studio was at full capacity before my business was making any money. She's been at it for a while, but like your friend she's also experiencing a loss of motivation to continue doing it.
You're right that single person & analog face-to-face services are very easy businesses to start. I have to wonder if those are the kind that Sweden is actually encouraging with their leave program. These kinds of businesses don't scale at all, there's a growth wall that most people never get over, even when they're among the few that survive the motivation problem. This is especially true when the business is initially launched as a personal service and needs very little planning or investment.
Well, the biggest argument against it will be a need to find and train a temporary replacement for the person. For many positions finding and training alone may take longer than that.
And then what do you do with the replacement once the original guy is back?
Overall though, I would agree that benefits overweight potential problems.
Exactly. It was briefly mentioned in the article too. Sweden already has a mature maternity/paternity system in place, and companies handle those just fine (in most cases, if they're doing any kind of planning and thinking). Thus they can handle these kinds of leaves as well - it's minor when you compare to the number of maternity/paternity leaves, there's much more of the latter. And (as it was mentioned in the article), it is possible to say 'no' to the leave if the employee's position is crucial (presumably there are definitions for what the actually means). Or hold it off for some time. Unlike with maternity/paternity leaves.
I wish there was something like this in my country as well.
The employeer should have a "replacement" ready anyway since people might also quit. Preparing for the pssobility of this or eg. paternity leave is a good anti-employee lock-in meassure for skilled workers.
A possible argument against the system is that there are many temp working contracts to fill in for the fulltimers on leave.
Even assuming there's a de minimis exemption for small businesses, one unintended consequence could be increasing employment costs which would negatively effect business formation by disproportionately favoring established entities that could afford the luxury.
The article doesn't have details, really— but as the leave is unpaid I gather most of the costs would come in the form of any production delays or HR/admin. This makes me curious as to whether there are grants or subsidies from the government in support of the program.
I wonder how such a policy isn't abused. Do you need to provide some kind of proof for your entrepreneurship? What's to stop me from just taking the occasional 6-month sabbatical to start a travel blog and travel the world? I'd love to be able to save up for 6 months of leave knowing I have a guaranteed job to come back to.
Also, what sort of employer benefits are provided during these periods? I'm assuming Sweden has socialized medicine so employers aren't on the hook, but that'd be a major reason why it couldn't work in the US.
I would have to guess that there's probably some small amount of abuse...but aside from that, i think it is the fact that it is unpaid leave. I think if the leave were paid, there would be tons more abuse. To be sure, there's still risk in trying to go off on your own. Imagine that you hate your current job, have this chance, then take the chance...and then you fail spectacularly...Would you really feel good about going back to your crappy job? Maybe because i'm thinking through the mind of a sad American (sad because we lack many social safety nets such as this program)...but returning to a shitty job after failing big time doesn't sound like the nicest of feelings. Still, as much as America thinks that we're entrepreneurial, i sure wish we had this system.
I remember some big tech company had sabaticals available for everyone, but cancelled it because most people were just using them to train for a different job, so quit straight after.
In theory this shouldn't be much of a problem because all jobs should be on permanent basis by default and fixed-term contracts should be only for very special purposes. In practice this is not enforced and especially for lower paying jobs (and some even higher educated fields, such as teachers or nurses) its quite common not to get permanent contracts at all.
Because of this, there's almost a new social class of permanent contract workers who have great benefits and programs, and beneath them a constantly growing underclass on temp contracts, shitty working conditions and little benefits. It's sort of absurd that some paper pusher can get paid for doing any studies they wish more than a cleaner or store clerk gets paid while working.
The systems were largely created before the neoliberal era started in Nordic countries in the 90's or so when employer protection was very strong across the board. But as the protection has crumbled for the "underclass", the system starts to at times look something like the olden privileges of the higher castes.