Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: JohnT on 1 Aug 2006 04:30 "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6vntc21silfe3lkqkml6iak233d9v448jf(a)4ax.com... > JohnT writes: > >> You have demonstrated very little knowledge in this ng. > > I've haven't seen anyone demonstrate much in the way of skills here. > If you want me to provide professional services, you'll have to pay me > for it. You have no skills to offer. JohnT
From: Keith W on 1 Aug 2006 05:09 "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:i1otc2tgi3m7k9a3j4cvpgkfb5tfj6omc0(a)4ax.com... > Keith W writes: > >> Dammed right they do, failure to do so leaves them open >> to a malpractise suit. > > No, it does not. The whole purpose of the lawyer is to interpret the > law for her client and make appropriate recommendations; if the client > could do that by just reading a list of citations, he wouldn't need a > lawyer. > And if they fail to do the research and give wrong advice they can be sued for malpractise. They dont go on memory. > Lawyers submit jurisprudence for the purpose of persuading other > lawyers (such as judges). That is the last thing they would normally > do for most clients, and if that's all they did, then they would > certainly be falling short of their duty to clients. > You think lawyers who dont tell their clients about case law are failing them ! You have a strange idea there . >> Those that do lose their cases and clients > > Unfortunately, no. Jury trials are usually decided by factors other > than citations of existing jurisprudence. > Jury trials are a minor part of the practise of law. 90% of lawyers work on civil law cases and contractural disputes where precedence is vital. Keith
From: Keith W on 1 Aug 2006 05:09 "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ddotc25u9dn4jmkh6uligplot2po6am6cj(a)4ax.com... > Keith W writes: > >> Since Chinese growth depends >> critically on energy availability I seriously doubt it can be sustained >> at >> current levels let alone increased. > > They can take energy from other countries. > Such as whom ? Keith
From: Tchiowa on 1 Aug 2006 05:10 Jim Ley wrote: > 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. Sure they do. Look at them again. After about age 28 the mean unemployment stint is far less than 1. > >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. It's the standard rule. The overwhelming majority of companies in the US have vacation structured like that. > >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. You need to take another look at the statistics and learn how to read them.
From: Tchiowa on 1 Aug 2006 05:12
Dave Frightens Me wrote: > 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? And their health care will fail eventually. Simply a matter of time. Those are not the *only* earmarks of a Socialist Nation. > >Japan's economy has been flat for 2 decades. > > Flat? So far from failing then. While the rest of the world has been increasing. Yes, that's a sign of failing. |