For some reason, the vacation policy at work has changed. No longer is anyone allowed to take more than one week of vacation at a time. No more consecutive weeks of vacation, as it is considered "excessive and unfair". What this essentially means is, don't plan to go anywhere distant that takes a while to get to. About all you can manage on a week's vacation is a trip someplace that is but a few hours drive or flight time away. Trips overseas are right out, apparently, putting the kabosh on any chance I may have at ever returning to Germany to visit family over there. As it typically takes at least one long day to fly there, with layovers included, and a few days to recuperate from jet lag, having but a week overseas won't really allow you to do much of anything but be there for a few short days, which in no way is enough. And of course, you have to allow for any problems flying both there and back again such as missed or cancelled flights, bad weather, lost luggage and other unexpected travel glitches that could cause a travel delay of any kind. Having only a week off isn't enough to allow you to plan for such issues. For example, on a recent European trip, as he was traveling back home, my brother got waylaid in Paris for a day due to a missed flight connection. He was scheduled to arrive home on a Wednesday and instead got back on Friday night. These are just the kinds of things that happen particularly when you're flying anywhere, so this vacation policy basically means, don't dare fly anywhere unless you give yourself at least 48 hours lead time to get home, further cutting down on any vacation time spent anywhere.
I don't think it's at all excessive or unfair for someone to want two or three weeks off for travel, unless there is such a severe staff shortage that it would cause a problem, but that's rarely, if ever, the case at work unless you have more than one person off on a long medical leave, and even when we had two people - during the holidays - on lengthy medical leaves a few years ago, I was still able to take my usual two week Christmas vacation without too badly shorting out our department at work. So why all of a sudden is it unfair for someone to want a few weeks off work to take a trip someplace? Are there people expressing some kind of jealousy at those folks who are at leisure to do so while others are lucky just to spend a week at home doing laundry and yard work? I don't know what's at the root of this, and it certainly can't be the economy, because whether I take vacation or not, my employer is still going to pay me, so it's not like I'm double dipping by taking a vacation. I don't know, but it just seems to punish those of us who want to be able to do a bit of traveling instead of spending a vacation sitting at home doing housework. I wish we were like Europe and shut down for 6 weeks each year so that people could go "on holiday". It certainly doesn't seem to harm their economies by so doing. If anything, people there are more productive because they are happier, whereas America is still shackled to the idea of the Protestant work ethic. It's so deeply engrained in our social fabric that it would be nearly impossible for us to get away from that idea that work is your reward and that you are lucky just to have a job, period and that you'd better get down on your knees and thank God that you do. People in this country still seem to view leisure as somehow sinful and wrong, and that it's better to grind away one's life working until retirement, and only then are you entitled to leisure time. Only now, most folks return to the workplace after retirement because they can't afford to retire anymore, so......there's almost no such thing as retirement as we once knew it. That's more than likely the fate that awaits me in 2013 when I "allegedly" retire from my job. Sure, I'll "retire", but more than likely, I'll have to spend the rest of my days working just to make enough money to survive, because the cost of living by 2013 is bound to be many times what it is now, and to try to get by on 66% of my final income, which hasn't in reality increased a whole lot in many long years due to skyrocketing health insurance premiums, isn't bound to be enough money to support me. A part time job will probably be a necessity for the rest of my life just to supplement my pension. So no real leisure in life awaits me down the road, so why can't I enjoy myself now and take some real time off of my full time job while I am young enough and healthy enough to take a few long distance trips to far flung places, should I have the money to do so?
For some reason, the vacation policy at work has changed. No longer is anyone allowed to take more than one week of vacation at a time. No more consecutive weeks of vacation, as it is considered "excessive and unfair". What this essentially means is, don't plan to go anywhere distant that takes a while to get to. About all you can manage on a week's vacation is a trip someplace that is but a few hours drive or flight time away. Trips overseas are right out, apparently, putting the kabosh on any chance I may have at ever returning to Germany to visit family over there. As it typically takes at least one long day to fly there, with layovers included, and a few days to recuperate from jet lag, having but a week overseas won't really allow you to do much of anything but be there for a few short days, which in no way is enough. And of course, you have to allow for any problems flying both there and back again such as missed or cancelled flights, bad weather, lost luggage and other unexpected travel glitches that could cause a travel delay of any kind. Having only a week off isn't enough to allow you to plan for such issues. For example, on a recent European trip, as he was traveling back home, my brother got waylaid in Paris for a day due to a missed flight connection. He was scheduled to arrive home on a Wednesday and instead got back on Friday night. These are just the kinds of things that happen particularly when you're flying anywhere, so this vacation policy basically means, don't dare fly anywhere unless you give yourself at least 48 hours lead time to get home, further cutting down on any vacation time spent anywhere.
I don't think it's at all excessive or unfair for someone to want two or three weeks off for travel, unless there is such a severe staff shortage that it would cause a problem, but that's rarely, if ever, the case at work unless you have more than one person off on a long medical leave, and even when we had two people - during the holidays - on lengthy medical leaves a few years ago, I was still able to take my usual two week Christmas vacation without too badly shorting out our department at work. So why all of a sudden is it unfair for someone to want a few weeks off work to take a trip someplace? Are there people expressing some kind of jealousy at those folks who are at leisure to do so while others are lucky just to spend a week at home doing laundry and yard work? I don't know what's at the root of this, and it certainly can't be the economy, because whether I take vacation or not, my employer is still going to pay me, so it's not like I'm double dipping by taking a vacation. I don't know, but it just seems to punish those of us who want to be able to do a bit of traveling instead of spending a vacation sitting at home doing housework. I wish we were like Europe and shut down for 6 weeks each year so that people could go "on holiday". It certainly doesn't seem to harm their economies by so doing. If anything, people there are more productive because they are happier, whereas America is still shackled to the idea of the Protestant work ethic. It's so deeply engrained in our social fabric that it would be nearly impossible for us to get away from that idea that work is your reward and that you are lucky just to have a job, period and that you'd better get down on your knees and thank God that you do. People in this country still seem to view leisure as somehow sinful and wrong, and that it's better to grind away one's life working until retirement, and only then are you entitled to leisure time. Only now, most folks return to the workplace after retirement because they can't afford to retire anymore, so......there's almost no such thing as retirement as we once knew it. That's more than likely the fate that awaits me in 2013 when I "allegedly" retire from my job. Sure, I'll "retire", but more than likely, I'll have to spend the rest of my days working just to make enough money to survive, because the cost of living by 2013 is bound to be many times what it is now, and to try to get by on 66% of my final income, which hasn't in reality increased a whole lot in many long years due to skyrocketing health insurance premiums, isn't bound to be enough money to support me. A part time job will probably be a necessity for the rest of my life just to supplement my pension. So no real leisure in life awaits me down the road, so why can't I enjoy myself now and take some real time off of my full time job while I am young enough and healthy enough to take a few long distance trips to far flung places, should I have the money to do so? 
No comments:
Post a Comment