Hacker News Reader

I don't think this really answers the question either. The US has plenty of mandates on employers for things that seem "normal" here, like a minimum wage or maximum working hours or a safe working environment. In many other countries, mandatory PTO is on the same level as these things - for example, PTO is in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/31-fair-and-just....

I think we all agree that paid leave is not considered a fundamental right by the majority of Americans, but why not? I feel confident in saying that if paid leave were considered fundamental, the US would make it mandatory. Aversion to legal mandates is not the barrier here.

This is a good summary, thank you. There is also the (non-obvious to people from other countries) reality that this is the purview of the individual States, the Federal government doesn’t have much jurisdiction here. However, the interesting fact that no States have bothered to legislate it across the entire spectrum of their very diverse politics suggests a more fundamental American view that you allude to.

American PTO is insanely diverse in my experience, it varies wildly from one company to the next. You have to ask about it when you join a new company. What I think isn’t obvious, because it is not legislated, is that the variance is really high. Some companies have policies that are extremely generous even by European standards and some are extremely stingy. And then you have random things like summer hours (4 day weeks from May to September), shutting down for a couple weeks around Christmas (fully paid and separate from PTO), etc. It’s all over the map.

Not American, but for Americans I know who have theoretically limitless PTO - how generous - the reality turns out to be that social pressure and office politics sees workers take even less than they might have in a more limited arrangement.

Its discussed in a recent Planet Money podcast

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/17/1194467863/europe-vacation-ho...

> The answer is the USA is reluctant to put mandates on employers that would interfere with free association of entities due to our founding being largely influenced by the idea that individuals should be free to make contracts between others.

Mandating PTO wouldn't be forcing people to make contracts; it would only say that IF you make a particular kind of contract, you need to include the following terms.

You are correct that it would just be another kind of labor regulation, but the us is institutionally biased in favor of employers and against labor protections and it’s always been an uphill battle to enact them here. When they are enacted they are furthermore frequently rolled back or effectively neutered by lobbyist interventions in later congresses.

You can speculate and theorize about the reasons why, but the US is almost uniquely hostile to worker protections and benefits among developed countries.

Of course it does it does - people intentionally try to make contracts to provide flexibility around various labor laws and of course the government then tries to reclassify the employment relationship as falling under their purview.

It doesn't force people into contracts, but it bans two willing parties from making certain contracts.

I've always enjoyed being a contractor because I have unlimited vacation (within reason) and can balance how much time I want to take off with how much money I want to make.

> but it bans two willing parties from making certain contracts

That’s not in an of itself a bad thing. Other kinds of contracts that are banned include, but are not limited to:

- Contracts for the sale or distribution of controlled substances, such as drugs or drug paraphernalia;

- Agreements made for illegal activities, such as prostitution or gambling; and.

- Employment contracts that permit hiring underage workers.

Sure, I'm not arguing that we don't ban contracts between consenting adults. But I think we should be highly suspicious of them.

> - Contracts for the sale or distribution of controlled substances, such as drugs or drug paraphernalia; + Gambling

Consent is a gray area due to the addictive nature of the what the buyer is buying.

> Prostitution

We do ban this, mostly due to I think society finding it icky.

>- Employment contracts that permit hiring underage workers.

Not between consenting adults.

I think your conception of "willingness" on the labour-side of the equation is rosy at best. When the standard of offerings in the market is basically uniform, there isn't really any choice to be had for the worker.

Doesn't sound all that different from minimum wage protections. Any reason a PTO mandate wouldn't also pass constitutional muster under the same rationale?

Not sure your proposed answer is right, but I agree I was hoping for more of an explanation in the article for the US’ unusual position on vacation time.

Meta: Why is your comment sorted below the above downvoted (currently appearing in grey) comment?

I'm told good economists make crazy money and bad ones get a teaching job.

He gets his conclusion from US workers (who he refers to as American workers) while in stead he should be wondering why all of the (I'm sure equally greedy) Western countries have these "absurd" vacations.

In NL you have to request the vacation way in advance. (Officially it's 2 weeks but then they might turn it down. 6 months in advance is a good idea) The looking forwards to it gradually grows until they have to bring it up every day in ever greater detail. It reminds to request your own, make plans and start their own count down.

Secretly it's all about productivity. Like they give you a weekend to recharge for the Monday. Like they let you go home for the night to sleep. Like they give you a lunch break to eat.

I think it just have something to do with how in the US, unions are regulated to be powerless at best, infringe on class warfare at worst.

You can't have an union that span over multiple industries, thus unions will only fight for a single group on workers, sometimes against other workers. It makes it impossible to advocate for global labor rights. PTO is an old example, but for a more recent one, if an employer forced me to be available outside of my 40 weekly hours without comp, that would be illegal. I don't have to negociate for it. It's automatic. If your employer control your time, he has to pay you.

Clearly there are a number of federal laws passed by Congress that do impose regulations and restrictions on such free association. Whether or not those things are aligned with some of the views that influenced the drafting of the constitution, the question is why mandated PTO is not among the Federal Government's various such restrictions and regulations.

The USA is a continent sized country where the federal government doesn't control the individual states. State governments control things like PTO so the more liberal a state then the more likely you are to have socialist policies. Yes, PTO is a socialist policy. Right wing states see these types of control as anti-capitalist so the old "reds under the bed" still has a foundation to thrive in. Right wing states don't want any type of workers' rights as it drives up costs and allows labor to organize. Those all impact the capitalist ability to make money as any type of rights cost companies money.

I too was hoping for a “dig deep” piece that would eventually land on some of the capitalist government theories that drive a lot of this from a lawmaking perspective. It’s so disappointing how shallow reporting has gotten.