>You misunderstand: the Swiss already have 4 weeks of leave and voted against increasing to 6 weeks. 6 weeks might be outrageous and uncompetitive, but 4 weeks apparently is fine.
>
>No, I knew they had four to begin with. You assumed.
>
>The lesson here is tied to something I said earlier today - the Swiss unions lobbied aggressively for 6 weeks, basically exaggerated early polls that said the vast majority of voters would definitely vote for it, and they didn't. Then they made the most outrageous excuses on why voters went against it. That's pretty indicative of the ridiculous stances/positions taken by many unions around the world. At one time, unions served a important role. Today they are more a joke punch-line.
>
>If a company/institution wants to offer 4 weeks, even to new employees, plus 10 days of holiday, plus sick days, that's fine. It should be their choice. A company needs to define what model works best for them, and where they'd want to offer exceptions to get/retain specific talent. These are decisions the government has no business dictating (though I agree with wage/payment collection laws when employers try to stiff employees on what was initially agreed). I personally think a guideline for a full time position should be 10 days in the first year, 15 in the second year, and maybe 20 after 3-4 years. Part time is far more complicated.
>
>On Tamar's point - yes, companies do not always do what is best. That is one of the reasons I.T. professional in the U.S. switch employment on the average of 16 months. But the market tends to sort that out. I can't name companies, but I know a well-known company in the U.S. that has lost talent to a competitor because of vacation policy and hours expected. I would rather see the market work that out than have government bureaucrats (who usually don't understand the specifics) dictate. The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises shattered the concept of "economic calculation" in a bureaucratic environment, and history has proven him to be right.
>
>Also - this 40 hour a week thing. It really depends on the industry and the type of work. Certainly working 60 hours consistently will negatively affect most people. It's unrealistic to expect certain positions will only need to work 40 a week at all times - sometimes you have crunch times a company indeed needs "all hands on deck". This IS an area where I wish companies would pay more attention - I see organizations that pay lip service to creeds of "we don't want people to work weekends, we want people to have quality of life" but repeatedly break it. So I understand where Tamar is coming from.
>
>In many ways I see this as a greater problem - and also a complicated one. Some who are pushed into working heavy hours often feel trapped they CAN'T take their vacation. Now I'll play Satan's sidekick: Sometimes employees wind up doing more harm by permitting it to happen (and even encouraging it). I was guilty of this for years and it took becoming a father (and some pointed feedback from others) to realize I was fueling bad management practices. But once again, I'd rather see the market sort this out. Once again, govt has no business getting involved - it only makes it far worse.
>
>Role of a govt - protect the liberties of its citizens, implement certain public works, manage a reformed welfare system for those who need it, and let the people decide the rest within the framework of a constitution that focuses on individual rights .

Companies could think more about rewarding exceptional effort with equity in the comapny.