Stupid (but sincere) Questions about the USA

[IrisAlthea]

One rather welcome change to the typical American practice described above by Moochienanu is happening in the digital/technical sector, such as software development companies. Some such firms simply allow their employees to take time off as needed with no set limits on either personal days off/vacation days or sick-time days off. At the moment, this is a relatively rare practice across all of American industry (as noted, government employees work under different rules than those who work in the private sector) but I suspect that it will spread with the general spread of working from home.

It's my view that many of these rules regarding time off originated in a very paternalistic system where time off was granted to employees only with considerable reluctance. As industrial employees formed labor unions, the unions gained time-off for their members as concessions from management and most other employers eventually followed suit. Over the last forty years, membership in labor unions has declined significantly here and more restrictive employee work-time arrangements set by management have increased. I fully believe that this will change over time, but slowly. For a country founded by a violent and fairly fast revolution, we change very, very slowly.

That’s interesting! In Sweden a lot of things regarding the relationship between worker and employer is regulated by negotiation between union and employer. Vacation though is one of those things that that actuallt is regulated by law and that you can’t (in almost all parts) negotiate away from the worker. The rules apply to everyone who is employed with very strictly regulated exceptions for military employes in some very specific situations and those working in radiology.

Here you get 25 days if you work a full year and it doesn’t matter if you work parttime. You only gave to use those days for days you would normaly work on.
You have the right, with few exceptions for very special circumstances, to use your vacation days so you get a period of 4 weeks off during the summer months. The exact time you get to use your vacation time is negotiated but except for the summer thing, the employer has final say.

Sick leave is regulated separately. You get no pay the first day, the employer pays 2 weeks and after that, you get money from a tax financed social ensurance. You don’t get full pay though.

Membership in unions is declining here too and you see a lot of people being surprised about how much of what they take for granted depends on negotiations.

 

[seela]

That’s interesting! In Sweden a lot of things regarding the relationship between worker and employer is regulated by negotiation between union and employer. Vacation though is one of those things that that actuallt is regulated by law and that you can’t (in almost all parts) negotiate away from the worker. The rules apply to everyone who is employed with very strictly regulated exceptions for military employes in some very specific situations and those working in radiology.

Here you get 25 days if you work a full year and it doesn’t matter if you work parttime. You only gave to use those days for days you would normaly work on.
You have the right, with few exceptions for very special circumstances, to use your vacation days so you get a period of 4 weeks off during the summer months. The exact time you get to use your vacation time is negotiated but except for the summer thing, the employer has final say.

Sick leave is regulated separately. You get no pay the first day, the employer pays 2 weeks and after that, you get money from a tax financed social ensurance. You don’t get full pay though.

Membership in unions is declining here too and you see a lot of people being surprised about how much of what they take for granted depends on negotiations.

We also have the right by law to get four weeks in summer months, and by law have to take at least two successive weeks off during summer months. There are some exceptions, mostly for seasonal work.

Yes, pay for sick days comes from social insurance after ten days here as well. The pay isn’t docked for first sick day though, although every now and again someone suggests that we should start doing that.

And membership in unions is declining here as well.

 

[IrisAlthea]

We also have the right by law to get four weeks in summer months, and by law have to take at least two successive weeks off during summer months. There are some exceptions, mostly for seasonal work.

Yes, pay for sick days comes from social insurance after ten days here as well. The pay isn’t docked for first sick day though, although every now and again someone suggests that we should start doing that.

And membership in unions is declining here as well.

in germany it's somewhat similar to sweden although the social insurance is mostly financed by dues here and also that summer month rule doesn't exist here

Is it regulated federally in Germany or by state?

And I find the summer months rule differences interesting. Seasonal depression is a bitch both for the individual and for society perhaps?

 

[seela]

Is it regulated federally in Germany or by state?

And I find the summer months rule differences interesting. Seasonal depression is a bitch both for the individual and for society perhaps?

Okay, our law doesn’t exactly restrict it to summer months. But the employer has to offer the possibility to take four weeks off in the period between 2 May - 30 Sep and at least two weeks must be consecutive by law.

The two week thing is binding for both the employer and the employee, so even if an employee said that they want to only have a week during that period, the employer can’t accept that, except for certain limited reasons (not enough vacation days, seasonal work etc.).

 

[MeekMe]

What baffles me is that separate sick day quota. How can you know how many days you're sick? I've never understood it... Do you have to bring a doctor's note or something to prove that you're sick to be able to use your sick days? What if you're not sick at all?

Not the OP, but in my experience you can take maybe one to two days before they require a doctors note. You could be subject to disciplinary actions otherwise. And this rule still applies, even if you’re part time and do not qualify for health insurance benefits. Hope there’s an SO with insurance you can be added to, or a free clinic nearby. Some employers have weird points systems that will count against you for every sick day you take. It’s heavily encouraged not to get sick in the US.

It all sure looks like a complicated mess from my point of view, but I'm used to a completely different system.

It looks the same from inside.

 

[seela]

Not the OP, but in my experience you can take maybe one to two days before they require a doctors note. You could be subject to disciplinary actions otherwise. And this rule still applies, even if you’re part time and do not qualify for health insurance benefits. Hope there’s an SO with insurance you can be added to, or a free clinic nearby. Some employers have weird points systems that will count against you for every sick day you take. It’s heavily encouraged not to get sick in the US.



It looks the same from inside.

What if you're not sick at all and don't need to use your sick days, can you use them just as vacation days at the end of the year or something? What happens if you go over your sick day quota? What's the outcome of the points system you mentioned?

Is giving birth a sick day thing? Do you have to take a vacation thing? Do you get a paid day off from some other quota? I know maternity leaves aren't really a thing there, but do you get at least some time to be with the baby?

So.Many.Questions!

 

[MeekMe]

What if you're not sick at all and don't need to use your sick days, can you use them just as vacation days at the end of the year or something? What happens if you go over your sick day quota? What's the outcome of the points system you mentioned?

Is giving birth a sick day thing? Do you have to take a vacation thing? Do you get a paid day off from some other quota? I know maternity leaves aren't really a thing there, but do you get at least some time to be with the baby?

So.Many.Questions!

It’s very difficult to say with certainty what one is entitled to without going specific to state. Some companies active in more than one state may adopt the strictest state’s regulations across the board for easier policy enforcement. But some take advantage of the states with weaker regulations.

Some employers keep sick and vacation separate and any unused hours are lost at the end of the year (some employers allow rollover). Some employers combine the two, for example: my last employer combined my sick/vacation into 2 weeks and I could take it whenever needed for sick days. I would also accrue more time for hours worked (I don’t remember the rate) every pay period which was biweekly. Going over sick days can result in disciplinary actions from getting “coached” or written up to being fired depending on the industry and worker protections. Right to work states can usually give you the boot without much reason.

Points system basically allows you to accrue so many points before the company takes action against you. So if you call out sick too many times in a certain period they can use those as the reason for your firing. Clock in 2 minutes late? Points deducted. Call off sick? Points deducted. Work overtime when asked? A fraction of points added. Over production quota? A fraction of points added. Work 15 minutes late because you couldn’t get off the phone call with a client? Gonna need to remove some points.

I don’t know how maternity leave usually works. I know in low wage jobs I’ve often witnessed women that can’t afford to take much leave for having a baby. I knew women that have only taken a week or two off for the birth and had to get right back to it or risk being homeless so... You can apply for FMLA which extends the time allotted (basically saves your position until you return) but is a bare minimum of assistance. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla

 

[IrisAlthea]

federally my Stepbro says

He says employees with kids have usually a privilege to take vacation days off during school holidays but that's not a written law as far as He knows but quite usual

a lot is also regulated through negotiations between unions and employers' associations and sometimes between unions and a big employer He said and added that here the numbers of union membership among employees is similar to what you and seela said

Thank you both!

Not the OP, but in my experience you can take maybe one to two days before they require a doctors note. You could be subject to disciplinary actions otherwise. And this rule still applies, even if you’re part time and do not qualify for health insurance benefits. Hope there’s an SO with insurance you can be added to, or a free clinic nearby. Some employers have weird points systems that will count against you for every sick day you take. It’s heavily encouraged not to get sick in the US.



It looks the same from inside.

They are pretty creative here too when they want to get rid of someone who is seen as sick too often.

What if you're not sick at all and don't need to use your sick days, can you use them just as vacation days at the end of the year or something? What happens if you go over your sick day quota? What's the outcome of the points system you mentioned?

Is giving birth a sick day thing? Do you have to take a vacation thing? Do you get a paid day off from some other quota? I know maternity leaves aren't really a thing there, but do you get at least some time to be with the baby?

So.Many.Questions!

Yes, the rules around pregnancy and staying home with kids in the US would interest me too.
What I have heard makes me confused about why people ever wonder why millennials don’t get settled down and have kids.

 

[MeekMe]

Thank you both!


They are pretty creative here too when they want to get rid of someone who is seen as sick too often.

Yes, the rules around pregnancy and staying home with kids in the US would interest me too.

What I have heard makes me confused about why people ever wonder why millennials don’t get settled down and have kids.

Yes, as a millennial I once considered having children. But then I realized the floor could fall out at any moment and I became unwilling to put a child in that situation. That and having health insurance tied to a job has resulted in such inconsistent healthcare I’d be afraid my body might just fall apart at any moment. I’m still slowly working on the list of ailments I’ve had for decades because I’m only recently having consistent insurance coverage. The only problem keeping it from being more consistent is that the companies offering the insurance are constantly changing. So one year you may have great coverage with your employer, but next year they might cut costs and switch to a different insurance provider that may not be as good and may not be accepted by your current network of doctors.

OTOH, I know lots of people my age that have had children. They seem happy?

 

[seela]

Yes, the rules around pregnancy and staying home with kids in the US would interest me too.
What I have heard makes me confused about why people ever wonder why millennials don’t get settled down and have kids.

I find the whole stay at home parent thing fascinating, because here it never happens. It just makes no sense here. If you don't have kids under the age of 3, you're not a stay at home parent, you're simply unemployed. That's how the society views it and that's how it usually (like 99%) is in practice. All the stay at home parents with no little kids I know have been unemployed and collected unemployment benefits. I don't think they'd ever refer to themselves as stay at home parents and I think you'd have to search wide and far to find someone else to call them that even if they did call themselves a stay at home parent.

Similarly housewives aren't a thing.

I've only ever known one person who was what could have been called a housewife somewhere else. She was a college drop out who never found a job and at some point stopped looking for a job and now her husband takes care of her. It was never a decision that she stays home, it just sort of happened like that. I know he has struggled with that a lot, to the point of not divorcing her out of responsibility for her even though he really wanted to.

Not trying to imply that that is what usually happens with housewives. Just illustrating the mindset here. It's just so, so rare that someone stays at home and doesn't collect unemployment benefits. Maybe with the richy rich people it's a thing, but among regular folks, as a legitimate decision, nope. Really doesn't happen.

 

[MeekMe]

how comes the employer chooses the health insurance for their employees? how's that freedom? here the employee chooses the insurance company (out of a long list of 'registered' ones) and they have to provide a long list of things (95% or so of benefits) by law and may (or not) provide some additional things (such as tcm and some other things) if i remember it correctly

Benefits are tied to and at the discretion of the employer. Health insurance is an employer provided benefit. The employer is only obligated to offer the bare minimum required by government and has the freedom to offer more if they want to. The idea is the employers are supposed to offer benefits as incentive to get the best candidates for employment. Those benefits can get quite nice, but is seemingly rare as usually you have to negotiate for more as an individual.

This appears to be slowly changing as Americans start to realize just how much they’re being scammed out of any kind of balanced, quality life.

 

[Primalex]

this explains it quite well for germany i guess

A pity the authors can't do math or law.

- It's 24 paid holiday days for a six day work week, not 25.
- "If you are sick during your holiday, some companies will let you count this as sick leave rather than holiday leave." -> this is not upon the discretion of the company, it is law that sick days during a holiday leave don't reduce your holiday days.


*shrugs*

 

[Blue]

British healthcare perspective in case anybody is interested;

Here we don't really have an insurance system in the usual sense. The national health service is funded entirely by a pool from taxes - a portion of our income gets taken as 'national insurance' (NI) - so everyone usually receives healthcare they need, ostensibly the same standard of care, without a charge, regardless of whether or not they actually pay the NI. There's about a million exceptions including both minor and major ailments, but if you need hospital care then 99.9% of the time the cost of treatment isn't something you need to think about.

You can also opt to get private health insurance (PI) to pay for treatment at a private hospital if you want, but most people don't get private insurance because the NI already covers more than PI's do, and for most people you'd probably end up paying more for PI than you'd otherwise spend on the exceptions without it.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Yes, as a millennial I once considered having children. But then I realized the floor could fall out at any moment and I became unwilling to put a child in that situation. That and having health insurance tied to a job has resulted in such inconsistent healthcare I’d be afraid my body might just fall apart at any moment. I’m still slowly working on the list of ailments I’ve had for decades because I’m only recently having consistent insurance coverage. The only problem keeping it from being more consistent is that the companies offering the insurance are constantly changing. So one year you may have great coverage with your employer, but next year they might cut costs and switch to a different insurance provider that may not be as good and may not be accepted by your current network of doctors.

OTOH, I know lots of people my age that have had children. They seem happy?

I would be dead several times over from pregnancy and childbearing and he would be in the street if we hadn’t had good health care for a symbolic fee.
I have lots of friends who could have had their kids at home without any problem. It’s just hard to know in advance how it’s going to be for you.

I find the whole stay at home parent thing fascinating, because here it never happens. It just makes no sense here. If you don't have kids under the age of 3, you're not a stay at home parent, you're simply unemployed. That's how the society views it and that's how it usually (like 99%) is in practice. All the stay at home parents with no little kids I know have been unemployed and collected unemployment benefits. I don't think they'd ever refer to themselves as stay at home parents and I think you'd have to search wide and far to find someone else to call them that even if they did call themselves a stay at home parent.

Similarly housewives aren't a thing.

I've only ever known one person who was what could have been called a housewife somewhere else. She was a college drop out who never found a job and at some point stopped looking for a job and now her husband takes care of her. It was never a decision that she stays home, it just sort of happened like that. I know he has struggled with that a lot, to the point of not divorcing her out of responsibility for her even though he really wanted to.

Not trying to imply that that is what usually happens with housewives. Just illustrating the mindset here. It's just so, so rare that someone stays at home and doesn't collect unemployment benefits. Maybe with the richy rich people it's a thing, but among regular folks, as a legitimate decision, nope. Really doesn't happen.

Yes, it’s the same here.
People are taxed as individuals, not as a family. One income living is difficult for most and even when the one inkome is really good, it still means a much lower standard than orhers in the same bracket with a second income.
The system here was pretty much built with the intention to get both partners to work outside the home, to help the economy. Women’s lib had very little to do with it.

I always thought it would be impossible for me to stay at home with kids or as a housewife. I was actually worried about the months I was going to be at home with kids. I found out that I was wrong actually. We split the stay at home time more or less down the middle and found out that we could both be ok with that role.

Just got the taxes done and helped oldest kid do it for the first time.
When I had to do taxes the first times it involved a lot of paper work and some head scratching. Now it is pretty much sign and send digitally as long as you are employed, make sure your employer reports correctly and you don’t sell a house or bonds or something like that.
What does doing the taxes involve for you? Do you have to do taxes as soon as you start making money or is there a minimum income bracket where you don’t have to declare your income?

 

[FGB]

This brings me to another question... What's with the checks? Is it not possible to have your money go straight to your bank account? And do you pay your bills by sending checks in mail? I remember at least Penny in The Big Bang Theory say that she sent topless photos of herself instead of a check to pay for a bil. (See, I told you I learned everything I "know" from TV.)

I've only once in my life seen a check. I graduated from highschool (11 years ago) and my dad's gazillion-year-old aunt thought it wasn't classy to give money, so she gave me a check instead. I had to go to a bank to get the money for it.

Here you pay your bills online, and usually you can get your regular bills delivered straight to your electronic bank account. Then you only have to confirm the payment. Or you can have the bills delivered on your email, then you have to click a couple of more buttons to pay for them and input a code number thingy from the bill. Or you can have them sent in mail, too, but that's getting rare.

When i helped my Ex wife buy a house...at the closing they wanted a check four hundred USD NOT cash, Not plastic but a paper check dated with MY signature on it. Somehow it sealed the legal part of the deal.

She turned pale.

I quite enjoyed it all because my Ex Never carried checks with her and insisted on keeping the check book. ( We were 150 miles from home.)



She freaked out. Then I mentioned that I kelp a couple in my truck because of things like this...naturally, with a sniff because I am a smart-ass.
If looks could Kill!

 

[seela]

When i helped my Ex wife buy a house...at the closing they wanted a check four hundred USD NOT cash, Not plastic but a paper check dated with MY signature on it. Somehow it sealed the legal part of the deal.

She turned pale.

I quite enjoyed it all because my Ex Never carried checks with her and insisted on keeping the check book. ( We were 150 miles from home.)



She freaked out. Then I mentioned that I kelp a couple in my truck because of things like this...naturally, with a sniff because I am a smart-ass.
If looks could Kill!

When was this? Interesting that a signature on a check would somehow make it more official than just paying using some other method and signing a contract or whatever.

I just bought an apartment. Never saw a single person face to face through the entire experience - it was all "click here, swipe here, congrats you have an apartment". I only talked with the bank on the phone once briefly.

The best bit of the whole thing was when I had to tell a specific code to the bank person on the phone and then see if the code they told me back matched. That was fun, felt very espionage-y.

 

[seela]

Lately I’ve been seeing tweets from teachers sharing their Amazon wishlists. They mostly have stuff for decorating their classrooms but also books, calendars, crayons, games and such.

Is the teacher responsible for buying the things in the classroom or are these teachers just wanting to buy something extra? Is this the way it’s commonly done, ie. crowd funded by strangers rather than the school community?

 

[gracie920101]

Lately I’ve been seeing tweets from teachers sharing their Amazon wishlists. They mostly have stuff for decorating their classrooms but also books, calendars, crayons, games and such.

Is the teacher responsible for buying the things in the classroom or are these teachers just wanting to buy something extra? Is this the way it’s commonly done, ie. crowd funded by strangers rather than the school community?

Unfortunately, the budget most teachers have for educational and classroom supplies will last about half the school year. In fact, children are now required to bring so much more to school than what I had to bring. The child now has to bring such things as dry erase markers and tissues which will be stored for use by the whole class.

If the teachers want extras to aid teaching, rewards, or maintain attention, they scoop into their own pockets for those supplies. I routinely watch for my teacher friends' lists to help out at the beginning of the school year.

Sad but true.

 

[MeekMe]

Lately I’ve been seeing tweets from teachers sharing their Amazon wishlists. They mostly have stuff for decorating their classrooms but also books, calendars, crayons, games and such.

Is the teacher responsible for buying the things in the classroom or are these teachers just wanting to buy something extra? Is this the way it’s commonly done, ie. crowd funded by strangers rather than the school community?

It depends on the state and institutions. It seems more and more education is underfunded and teachers (who are definitely underpaid) have to rely on donations, children bringing more supplies, or their own pay check.

In my state funding has been made more complicated and funds are continuously moved away from education. The state approved lottery with the condition that funds be used for education. The lottery no longer funds k-12 education and is now only funding scholarships for college.

It’s a constant fight to have taxes properly levied and distributed to institutions and programs that benefit the commoners. Now we have public schools competing with charter schools for a piece of the tax dollar pie. The private institutions don’t offer a superior schooling experience but they would have you believe it’s somehow better. They’re not regulated the same as public schools and they aren’t held to the same standards but still get a piece of the pie. It’s a scheme to privatize the education system and funnel money to individuals and corporations.

It doesn’t help that this particular state is a haven for the retired elderly who feel their taxes shouldn’t go to paying for children they no longer have in school. Classic ‘I got mine so fuck you.’

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It depends on the state and institutions. It seems more and more education is underfunded and teachers (who are definitely underpaid) have to rely on donations, children bringing more supplies, or their own pay check.

In my state funding has been made more complicated and funds are continuously moved away from education. The state approved lottery with the condition that funds be used for education. The lottery no longer funds k-12 education and is now only funding scholarships for college.

It’s a constant fight to have taxes properly levied and distributed to institutions and programs that benefit the commoners. Now we have public schools competing with charter schools for a piece of the tax dollar pie. The private institutions don’t offer a superior schooling experience but they would have you believe it’s somehow better. They’re not regulated the same as public schools and they aren’t held to the same standards but still get a piece of the pie. It’s a scheme to privatize the education system and funnel money to individuals and corporations.

It doesn’t help that this particular state is a haven for the retired elderly who feel their taxes shouldn’t go to paying for children they no longer have in school. Classic ‘I got mine so fuck you.’

I'm not sure it's so dependent on the state or district anymore. I have some friends who teach in some relatively well-to-do districts and they have their wishlists for basic supplies too. It's more severe in less wealthy areas, but it's a problem across the board.

 

[seela]

Thanks for the answers!

I don't know if it's the same in all cities here, probably not, but I have a few teacher friends and in their case they don't have to pay themselves for any classroom decorations and such.

That said, the classrooms are a lot more spartan here than they are there based on what I've seen on TV and magazines. There it looks like everything needs to be colorful and stimulating for the child, whereas here things are a lot more calm. Colorful things happen, yes, but they're not everywhere in the classroom.

And as far as I know, the kids don't need to bring things to share with everyone, like tissues or pens or notebooks.

Schools lacking resources and teachers being underpaid is sadly universal.

 

[base10]

Schools lacking resources and teachers being underpaid is sadly universal.

Far too many people in the US (and likely elsewhere) don't consider education a priority, especially in poorer communities that greatly need the investment in education for the next generation of kids.

 

[MeekMe]

Thanks for the answers!

I don't know if it's the same in all cities here, probably not, but I have a few teacher friends and in their case they don't have to pay themselves for any classroom decorations and such.

That said, the classrooms are a lot more spartan here than they are there based on what I've seen on TV and magazines. There it looks like everything needs to be colorful and stimulating for the child, whereas here things are a lot more calm. Colorful things happen, yes, but they're not everywhere in the classroom.

And as far as I know, the kids don't need to bring things to share with everyone, like tissues or pens or notebooks.

Schools lacking resources and teachers being underpaid is sadly universal.

Colorful posters on the walls aren’t really what’s draining the coffers. Unfortunately, teachers are often trying to make up for students not having the most basic supplies. The schools are underfunded and likely the poorer children attending are lacking in the very basics. Teachers try to make up for that by having shared supplies available. It used to be for kids that forgot something and needed to borrow it, but it’s become more of a thing for children who just can’t afford to have their own set of pencils, paper, books, etc.

From experience: our classrooms were also quite Spartan beyond elementary school. And you were lucky if you got a regular classroom and not a “portable.”

https://www.willscot.com/portable-classrooms

These were never temporary and all of my schools would put them in the fields surrounding the school. Getting assigned to the portables was the worst.

TV and magazines tend to show the nicest examples but the reality is much different.

Just curious, do other countries make their school children sell candy to raise money for things like school trips or anything like that?

 

[seela]

Colorful posters on the walls aren’t really what’s draining the coffers. Unfortunately, teachers are often trying to make up for students not having the most basic supplies. The schools are underfunded and likely the poorer children attending are lacking in the very basics. Teachers try to make up for that by having shared supplies available. It used to be for kids that forgot something and needed to borrow it, but it’s become more of a thing for children who just can’t afford to have their own set of pencils, paper, books, etc.

From experience: our classrooms were also quite Spartan beyond elementary school. And you were lucky if you got a regular classroom and not a “portable.”

https://www.willscot.com/portable-classrooms

These were never temporary and all of my schools would put them in the fields surrounding the school. Getting assigned to the portables was the worst.

TV and magazines tend to show the nicest examples but the reality is much different.

Just curious, do other countries make their school children sell candy to raise money for things like school trips or anything like that?

Do you have to buy all your books yourself or does the school supply some/all of them?

We have similar portable classrooms here, too. Supposed to be temporary, but there are kids who have passed elementary school and never studied in a "real" school. Here they're used when the school building is renovated or rebuilt, but often those projects tend to last much longer than planned. Some of the portable classroosm are really nice, but some are very problematic, like too cold in the winter.

School children sell various things and organize bake sales at PTA meetings or on voting days (most schools have a polling station here when there's an election) to raise money for trips, yes. I remember selling special May Day pins, magazines, candy etc. We also had to go to local stores to ask for donations for a ruffle. I was in a music-oriented class so we also organized concerts. The money was used on field trips that mostly weren't educational. We did day trips to an amusement park and took a lake cruise, went skiing for 4 days and took a longer trip to Denmark. On the 6th grade we spent a week in "school camp" where we had some basic biology lessons and such, but mostly it was just for entertainment and socializing.

The school pays for trips to museums and other purely educational outings.

 

[MeekMe]

Do you have to buy all your books yourself or does the school supply some/all of them?

We have similar portable classrooms here, too. Supposed to be temporary, but there are kids who have passed elementary school and never studied in a "real" school. Here they're used when the school building is renovated or rebuilt, but often those projects tend to last much longer than planned. Some of the portable classroosm are really nice, but some are very problematic, like too cold in the winter.

School children sell various things and organize bake sales at PTA meetings or on voting days (most schools have a polling station here when there's an election) to raise money for trips, yes. I remember selling special May Day pins, magazines, candy etc. We also had to go to local stores to ask for donations for a ruffle. I was in a music-oriented class so we also organized concerts. The money was used on field trips that mostly weren't educational. We did day trips to an amusement park and took a lake cruise, went skiing for 4 days and took a longer trip to Denmark. On the 6th grade we spent a week in "school camp" where we had some basic biology lessons and such, but mostly it was just for entertainment and socializing.

The school pays for trips to museums and other purely educational outings.

The school supplied the books, there’s no way families could afford to purchase books. Honestly, a large portion of families where I came from relied on charities for basic supplies.

I can’t imagine a portable in snow. Those things are seriously not meant for anything but fair weather. Ours weren’t for renovations, they were just a permanent part of the school. So much so they eventually put in sidewalks to some of them.

I think maybe I grew up in a particularly poor school district. We never took more than a day trip and it was always required that the student pay at least half of their ticket (there were bake sales and candy selling to help). Sometime in those years they actually passed rules that made all school trips educational only so no going to a theme park (or anything “fun”) unless it was an educational one or one they could justify as educational like Disney Epcot (which is the least fun of all the parks for children). There weren’t many trips beyond the local museum/science center. I have heard of others going on school sponsored trips to other countries but definitely not from my district, and I imagine the cost is quite steep. If my school had such trips I wouldn’t have been able to afford it.

I used to think it was like a “TV magic” kind of thing when they showed students going on what seemed like extravagant trips for school.