Ferie e Crisi Abstract In a crisis like this, and 'quite often, companies find that as a result of a decline in orders and profits, they resort to forms of shock absorbers designed to limit their losses.
fairly common operation that involves the workforce of a company are obviously built-in speaker (where possible), solidarity contracts' and smalitimento of remaining vacation prior years.
On this last point and 'discussion focused on the fact that in the case of leave accrued but not taken by the employee, the company has an increase in cost, which would not have had if the worker had received totally leave the mountain, even considering the fact that the holiday entitlements are "in" the salary of a worker (in the sense that the relationship with an employee and 'a mixture of money, rights, duties, days off etc ...).
From these premises, and 'came out the following question: leave accrued but not taken is a cost for companies?
These are the considerations in this regard: E 'well-established that leave not taken by workers are a cost burden on the financial statements of the aggravating come to terms with third parties (creditor banks).
In my opinion, and 'just the opposite, that' not only not 'cost, but' a debt that unlike ordinary debts to suppliers and 'much delayed' for a long time with the clear advantages of payments postponed.
To clarify the concept, back here in a number of considerations and examples which are based on two major assumptions that must hold throughout the discussion:
- For cost means an amount that is not covered a consequential revenue, but if it means limited to its meaning purely accountancy then we have gia’ trovato il punto di incontro, cioe’ in un bilancio c’e’ una voce di costo e siamo d’accordo sul fatto che questo ha portato a dei ricavi, quindi decade la domanda.
- Il lavoro di un lavoratore in un’azienda non e’ un costo ma piuttosto un ricavo, o meglio un fattore che per sua natura genera utile, se non si accetta questo assunto allora si va in contraddizione con le leggi di mercato, che porterebbe all’assurdo che non c’e’ la convenienza per un’azienda ad avere del personale, Quindi l’azienda ha un chiaro ritorno in termini di guadagno in base al maggior valore tra il bene prodotto dal lavoratore e il bene come merce di scambio (per il momento non si tratta l’ulteriore gain resulted from capital gains).
So if the previous two points are accepted then you can 'to compare them on objective data and comparable.
Here is a simulation game (double synthesized and offset),
In this scheme, the development of a year with an employee with a salary of 1000 to total 10 days of leave (no one enjoyed), over the years has produced a volume for a total of 365 assuming one for each day of work.
After making the burden on the exercise accrued leave is not a total loss of 645.
(Click per ingrandire)
In questo secondo schema lo stesso lavoratore con 1000 euro e 10 gg di ferie questa volta interamente goduti, e che ovviamente gravano sulla produzione di beni portando il quantitativo di merce venduta a 355 dato che 10 non sono stati prodotti, la perdita anche in questo caso e’ di 645.
(Click per ingrandire)
Da cio’ risulta chiaramente l’uguaglianza della situazione in termini di risultato di esercizio, ma solo nel primo caso, cioe’ con la rimanenza di ferie non godute l’azienda ottiene i seguenti vantaggi occult:
- The bank account and 'more then most in terms of interest income.
- The debt and its payment and 'moved over time by more than a year, so the best debt that a company can get away with a deferred payment 30/60/90 days of a regular payment to the supplier.
- It has limited production, as a result of al'elargizione leave entitlement of the worker.
I, the lending bank would much prefer the first budget than the latter.
Another trivial case aims to highlight the false concepts of cost of remaining vacation time is found in a hypothetical employment relationship in which a worker viene pagato un X per ogni giorno di lavoro e ogni giorno riesce a produrre un Y che poi viene rivenduto a 2Y, il rapporto lavorativo dura 10 gg. e per assurdo il lavoratore ha diritto a 2 gg. di ferie.
Nel caso in cui il lavoratore stesse 2 giorni in ferie la quantita’ di Y e’ pari a 8, il suo salario e’ 8X e il guadagno dell’azienda e’ 8 * 2Y = 16Y, quindi i costi per l’azienda sarebbero 16Y-8X, se X=Y avremmo 8X di guadagno per l’azienda.
Nel caso invece in cui il lavoratore lavorasse tutti e 10 i giorni, la quantita’ prodotta sarebbe 10Y il suo salario sarebbe 8X + 2X per la parte di pagamento delle ferie residue a fine rapporto, il guadagno dell’azienda sarebbe 10*2Y 20Y since then has 10 products, therefore the employee would have a gain of 10X, 20Y of the company with X = Y, and the gain '20X.
Then in the second case, that 'leave not taken, the company had a gain of 2X compared to the first case.
often having residual leave the door (also the employee) to say that for the remaining vacation time, the company and 'forced to pay in some cases, however, producing a cost or an expense for the company to this statement are the following controrisposte:
- any remaining vacation pay and 'totally offset by the proceeds of production had increased in the period of non-enjoyment of holidays from the worker.
- The disbursement and 'a mere conversion of a debt owed to the worker in a monetary consideration.
- Payment and also 'very late in time (even years).
- It 's a claim that the worker has no guarantee of protection (often said, and if the employee quits the company must pay for the damage by creating a holiday, but if' the company to fail? Usually and 'the debtor must give guarantees).
Conclusions Everything 'leads to the following conclusions, which the worker and' partially conscious.
The problem of the cost secret of remaining vacation and not 'a real problem for the company and' rather than a burden assigned to the employee, who takes care of it, perhaps unconsciously.
The real problem that leads from the company to demonstrate the need to take advantage of the leave residual and 'objectivity' of the cost of holidays, but rather a breakdown in the mechanisms of acquisition -> Production -> For Sale - > gain that leads to the need for flexibility 'reverse flows in the "not working" the mechanism of gain, compared to times of greater economic propulsion in which the greater flexibility' and 'request in order to maximize il profitto; ma di tutto cio’ il lavoratore non se ne deve far carico e non se ne deve sentire responsabile in quanto non detentore di mezzi di produzione.
Queste sono ovviamente considerazioni personali e opinabili, quindi ben vengano chiarimenti in proposito.
