I'm sure there are jobs where this is true. I'm also sure it's not for 99.9% of people here.
Don't guilt people who happen to have lifesaving jobs for taking vacations.
In many cases taking that job means accepting you may be forced to come in and work. Often called 'unlimited liability' for example. If you can't accept that, then leave the job to someone who can.
> The buck stops somewhere.
In this case apparently it's fine for it to stop with a dead person.
People that do a job where they can save lives accept the fact that saving lives is not granted.
People don't die because someone is slacking.
Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
Not sure where you read this argument?
Free time is a right
If someone dies during your free time it's not your responsibility
Besides: US have the worst life expectation of the whole west.
You should ask yourself why.
I'm not apologising for anything. I never said anything about 'slacking'? Just confused where you got this idea.
> If someone dies during your free time it's not your responsibility
This isn't reality - look at how people criticise presidents who are golfing during a national crisis where people are dying.
> US have the worst life expectation of the whole west
This article is about the EU isn't it? What's the US got to do with it?
> You should ask yourself why.
I don't know why the US does anything. Why do I need to explain it?
Isn't the job of a president to handle crisis?
The job of a doctor is not to prevent any death, just those that they can prevent during their work hours.
> What's the US got to do with it?
Because they are the champions of working non stop and yet their results when it really matters (you brought up saving lives) are worse than anybody else
Do you think he stops handling the crisis at 5pm? No? Why do you think not?
Hints:
how many presidents any country has?
And who put them there?
Do they send CVs and get selected after a black board interview where they have to invert a binary tree?
How often do you believe people get asked to work extra hours to save lives in imminent danger? 1 in 10000?
This law would cover other 9999 cases.
The issue is escalated through different support levels up to the on-call person, if they can't handle it then MAYBE people are bothered during their vacation.
Or if production breaks at 1600 on a friday night, I can maybe work extra hours to solve the issue if it looks like I'm essential to solving it. It just means that I'm coming later on monday to make up for the hours.
It may not be the decision people will make, it may be an ethical quagmire etc etc but you can't just expect people to keep working past their limits forever.
There need to be reasonable bounds.
It doesn't work like that.
> Sometimes there is an emergency, and a professional saying 'sorry nope on vacation
Why are they relying on someone that is on vacation in the first place?
Are firemen supposed to not go on holiday ever during their work life?
That's simply the symptom of very bad management and on a larger scale of a very disfunctional society.
Sometimes there are only so many people who can solve a problem and society can't afford to have an excess number of them sitting around doing nothing in case there is an emergency.
> Are firemen supposed to not go on holiday ever during their work life?
Firemen, police, politicians, military, are all subject to getting recalled from leave if there is an emergency and they are needed to prevent life being lost. Nobody ever said they can't ever go on leave.
> That's simply the symptom of very bad management
No it's reality!
Look at how many people criticise presidents who are 'golfing' when there is a crisis and life is being lost.
Some people just need to be able to respond no matter what.
That's a very small subset of the entire workforce.
Maybe one in a million or less
> No it's reality!
It's not.
> Look at how many people criticise presidents who are 'golfing' when there is a crisis and life is being lost.
They are right.
The president is not a salaried worker, it's the president.
He works. He draws a salary. What do you think the difference is?
Why can't the Vice President delegate out of hours? Because that's not realistic? Well there you go... sometimes it's not realistic.
Well... Let's say that if I have to explain it too you, we have bigger issues to solve first.
> Why can't the Vice President delegate out of hour
Because that's not how it works
By the law
Applies for ordinary people as well - such as soldiers and police who are liable for recall at any time.
In my country they have 28 days of paid holidays every year
Ant it's still one of the few jobs left where they can retire after 15 years, 6 months, one day of work
> Police
In my country they have 28 days of paid holidays, 35 hours a week contract
In my country there are 1/10 of the homicides per 100 thousands people of the US
They are not liable if they don't go to work on their free time, ever.
Healthcare, public transportation, firemen, etc. they can't not provide the service, it's called (sorry the bad translation) "interruption of public service"
Yes, they can be re-called on duty, but it happens rarely.
They are payed extra time if that happens (sometimes the hourly pay is double of the regular one)
Soldiers can't even be sent on a war mission if they don't volunteer to it.
They usually do because the pay is astronomical (4-5 times the regular one, sometimes more)
But they are not supposed to.
They can still not show if they have reason: in this 2020 for example being COVID positive or simply sick.
It happened the opposite this year, many doctors and nurses volunteered to help.
They are employees of the State after all and they serve the public.
In the private sector you have to be compensated for working extra hours, if they don't, the employers are liable.
If they ask you to work on your free time, a judge could (and usually does) condemn the employer and the employee gets a compensation.
My parents worked for the national healthcare and when my mom was expecting me, she discovered she had a condition that caused two previous miscarriages.
My parents worked shift of 12 hours 5 days straight, they assumed it was too taxing on the body of a pregnant woman with a condition, so between me and my sister the hospital put her on paid sick leave for 36 months.
My country is Italy, our salaries are lower than countries like US where such protections don't exist, but at least we are protected from abuses (they still happen of course, but it's a risk for the employer)
One of the benefit of the system is that people know they have rights and will stand up for them
If you accept to work gratis in your free time, you're doing a disservice to the entire category.
Of course there are people abusing of these rights, but in general it's a good tradeoff that benefits the larger population instead of rewarding only the workaholics.
And don't even get me started on why being a workaholic society is bad for those who can't work more because they are not in good health or worse...
Do you realise in some fields work not getting completed on time could in some cases cause people to die?
Sometimes there is an emergency, and a professional saying 'sorry nope on vacation your fault for not having enough people to cover every eventuality' just isn't reasonable.