so, what's the difference between

1) getting paid an hourly rate, with no paid time off, and taking unpaid time off

and

2) getting a lower hourly rate, and taking paid time off?

Its clear that to compensate for paid time off where there was none, pay will decrease (or not increase when it might have previously).

Who's lining up for that?

Totally agree. It seems like this is just another government attempt to protect people from the consequences of their own financial irresponsbility. You want to be able to take a week off without being set back finacially? Save 1/51 of your take home each week, and withdraw it to cover the down week. And if I want to work all 52 weeks, why shouldn't I make more than someone who doesn't?

Some amount of unpaid time off should be mandatory, but the economic arrangements are not a governmental affair.

This is crap. Salaried workers don't have that kind of economic freedom. I can't buy a week off of my F500 company. I'm 28 and I have to look forward to 2 weeks off for the next 40 years. If I ever want to take 4 weeks vacation (and properly travel say, Asia) I'd have to quit my job and go through the risk of a job hunt.

This is really miserable to me and honestly, I want to move to Europe or Australia and get my 4-8 weeks per year off. And we wonder why Americans are fat, depressed and angry. We don't have time to relax.

Yes in France they get weeks of paid vacation. The country also enjoys an unemployment rate of 7.5%. Spain 8% Germany 8%. All the newsmedia are railing how bad our economy is because unemployment is 5.5%. More paid time off here will do one of several things.

1.) Increase outsourcing.

2.) Enjoy a lower salary and "paid time off."

3.) Lose your job (see higher unemployment in Europe.)

4.) A bunch of part timers (without paid time off) who cycle through for those on paid leave.

It's not like passing these laws are going to mandate an increase in your salary in addition to the new benefit of paid time off. Business will always adjust to be as efficient as possible.

Government mandated time off is yet another government progarm to pander to the voters. Alexis De tocqueville said it best. "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. ..."

Companies wouldn't outsource if we stopped buying their products and services if they did. We could all get paid time off if, as a country, we demanded it. The CEO's wouldn't walk away with multi-million dollar bonuses while their employees made minimum wage if we didn't allow them to (which we subconsciously do thinking that one day, we'll be the ones making all that money). Employers can only get away with what we employees allow them to. Why should it be up to the government to stand up for us?

It should be noted that European countries calculate unemployment differently than the USA. Therefore, if they were to use our standards, it would be much lower.

<link>

I agree that choosing who to include in the statistics can vary the numbers. Including inmates is really rather ridiculous. The US govt. does keep track of underemployed individuals and other than this "source" I am not privy to those numbers at this time. I don't think that part time employees can be included. My spouse works part time because she chooses too. She is not looking for a full time job, so including her and others like her, in the unemployed statistics is misleading. Obviously there are those who may be looking for a full time job, and can only manage to find part time work (an argument could be made to include these individuals.) The bottom line is you have to draw the line somewhere, as you could argue to add stay at home moms since in the technical sense of the word they are not earning any money. I chose the way the governments (at least in western civilization) choose to report them.

Using statistics to meet your needs (like including inmates in the unemployed.) reminds me of the anecdote about a rocket car race between the US and the former Soviet Union. The American media reports the race as a victory for the United States. The Soviets report that they finished second, and the US finished second to last. Both statements are true, but there were only two cars in the race.