Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Jim Ley on 1 Aug 2006 03:13 On 31 Jul 2006 20:31:37 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> So if you're right and you need 5 years experience to get 3 or 4 >> weeks, then lots of people rarely attain this. > >"Lots of people"? Maybe. The majority of people end up staying at one >job for quite some time. Based on what? The statistics quoted from the Bureau of Labor statistics don't back that conclusion up. >You're right in your first conclusion that >young people often change jobs very frequently. If they do that, why >should their boss give them paid vacation? Or more than a week or so? I made no value judgement, I was simply giving evidence that made your claim that people get 3 to 4 weeks are normal, and getting less because they are new to the job was abnormal. >I would guess just from personal experience that by the time people are >25-30 years old, the vast majority are in the job that they are going >to be doing for a very long time. And then they are getting plenty of >vacation. Vacation that they have "earned". So your personal experience is not supported by the stastitcs from the bureau of labor statistics, so maybe you should stop talking from personal experience, and start looking beyond your small personal sample set. Jim.
From: Dave Frightens Me on 1 Aug 2006 03:16 On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:58:44 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Dave Frightens Me writes: > >> The money you can demand. > >What's the threshold of money that separates professionals from >non-professionals? What makes you think there's a threshhold? Professionals can demand more than non-professionals. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- --
From: Dave Frightens Me on 1 Aug 2006 03:19 On 31 Jul 2006 17:07:31 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Dave Frightens Me wrote: >> On 30 Jul 2006 17:55:23 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >Dave Frightens Me wrote: >> >> >> Yeah, blah blah blah... >> >> >> >> You seem to continually ignore that it's working just fine in a large >> >> number of very affluent countries. >> > >> >You seem to continually ignore the fact that it is in fact *failing* in >> >all those large, affluent countries. You can almost graph the level of >> >Socialism and the high rate of unemployment and see the parallel. The >> >more Socialism the slower the economy is growing and the higher the >> >unemployment. >> > >> >France. >> > >> >Germany. >> >> Japan? Australia? > >Australia is anything *but* Socialist, compared to France and Germany. With an excellent public health system and welfare. Aren't these the earmarks of a socialist nation? >Japan's economy has been flat for 2 decades. Flat? So far from failing then. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- --
From: The Reid on 1 Aug 2006 03:49 Following up to Mxsmanic >> You really don't know? > >What is the difference between professionals and non-professionals? professionals do it for money, amateurs do it for fun, thats one irrelevant definition, no doubt the one you would prefer. But in context its probably someone holding a qualification in a skill overseen by a professional body. -- Mike Reid Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
From: Jordi on 1 Aug 2006 03:59
Tchiowa wrote: > > "Lots of people"? Maybe. The majority of people end up staying at one > job for quite some time. You're right in your first conclusion that > young people often change jobs very frequently. If they do that, why > should their boss give them paid vacation? Or more than a week or so? Because, no matter your belief on the subject, it increases productivity and overall quality of life. Btw: your claim of 'majority' contradicts Jim's source. > > I would guess just from personal experience that by the time people are > 25-30 years old, the vast majority are in the job that they are going > to be doing for a very long time. And then they are getting plenty of > vacation. Vacation that they have "earned". Jim posted some interesting stats from a government source, do you have something to back this up? J. |