Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Jim Ley on 1 Aug 2006 10:49 On 1 Aug 2006 07:31:39 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Actually most job changes *do* have a period of unemployment. Could you cite your statistics, the statistics I've previously seen for the UK is that most people move jobs without any period of unemployment. >But >regardless, the stats you posted don't say one way or the other. But >they clearly say that people over 28 tend to stay employed and not move >around which is what I said. After the early 30s something like 70% or >more stay in their jobs. Cite your statistics, the BLS stats do not say that. Jim.
From: Jordi on 1 Aug 2006 11:53 Tchiowa wrote: > Jordi wrote: > > > > But, luckily, your personal belief is not consistent with reality. > > It has nothing to do with "personal belief". It has to do with reality, > not some hope of reality that comes from a fantasy about getting > something for nothing. Bollox. That's sweatshop reasoning, presence does not correlate with productivity except in extremely manual and low-tech jobs. We've come a long way from that. > > > There are plenty of US-produced materials on overworking and lack of > > vacation provoking stress and other health problems (for which you have > > to pay for afterwards, btw). > > And there are plenty of material showing the opposite. Of course, there are still people saying the Earth is flat, but the general convention is not. > > Work is good. > > Sorry if you find that offensive. Not at all, work is good, but there's much more to life than work. It's fun how you publicly claim having several months vacation and then basically saying the rest of the word is a lazy bunch for four weeks. > > People jumping from one job to the other (as is the case when changing > > for a better paying job) don't count as having an unemployment spell > > and still will get back to 1or 2-week vacation. Reading the numbers is > > just the first step. > > If you work for a year and change jobs then work for another year then > jump and work for another year you may have worked for 3 years but for > your current employer you have only worked one year so you get one week > vacation. I already knew I was right, you don't need to prove it any more. > > Not magic. Maturity. And I tell you again. There's something about statistics: you need to be able to interpret them. You have one chart telling you people average 10 jobs between 18 and 38. Then you have another chart telling you how many times people get unemployed on a given age. You can't infere people don't change jobs after a certain age just by looking wether if they're unemployed or not because the chart does not take into account those people 'jumping' directly from one job to the other. That's statistics 101. > > If you haven't been a reliable employee prior to that, yes! If you have > been changing jobs once a year and been unemployed part of that time > then you've had plenty of time off. > > I think it's a perfect thing to earn vacation. I think that expecting > something for nothing is not a good thing. Luckily, the latest trends in business management call for not having people in their desks for more time than strictly necessary. Motivation nowadays is much more than just salary. J.
From: The Reid on 1 Aug 2006 12:35 Following up to Tchiowa >>They were no more socialist than the USSR was communist. >Well, since the USSR was definitely Communist......... "Communism embraced a revolutionary ideology in which the state would wither away after the overthrow of the capitalist system." "Communism - A social and political ideology advocating that authority and property be vested in the community, each member working for the common benefit according to capacity and receiving according to needs." but those naughty russkies didnt stick to the principles of communism. >The Nazis nationalized many businesses. Socialist by definition. and supported the right in Spain rather than the socialists, "national socialism" is to socialism what the german democratic republic was to democracy. "The Nazi Party was formed in Munich after the First World War. It advocated right-wing authoritarian nationalist government" Next you will be telling us New Labour are socialists. -- 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: Tchiowa on 1 Aug 2006 19:58 Jim Ley wrote: > On 1 Aug 2006 07:31:39 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Actually most job changes *do* have a period of unemployment. > > Could you cite your statistics, the statistics I've previously seen > for the UK is that most people move jobs without any period of > unemployment. > > >But > >regardless, the stats you posted don't say one way or the other. But > >they clearly say that people over 28 tend to stay employed and not move > >around which is what I said. After the early 30s something like 70% or > >more stay in their jobs. > > Cite your statistics, the BLS stats do not say that. They say exactly that. I cited the specifics.
From: Tchiowa on 1 Aug 2006 20:08
Jordi wrote: > Tchiowa wrote: > > Jordi wrote: > > > > > > But, luckily, your personal belief is not consistent with reality. > > > > It has nothing to do with "personal belief". It has to do with reality, > > not some hope of reality that comes from a fantasy about getting > > something for nothing. > > Bollox. That's sweatshop reasoning, presence does not correlate with > productivity except in extremely manual and low-tech jobs. We've come a > long way from that. Earning something is "sweatshop reasoning"????? Experience in fact correlates directly with productivity. In all jobs. The longer you're in the job (up to limits, of course) the better you can perform and the more productive you are. Working with your mind is probably more like this than working with your hands. You can teach a factory worker to do his repetitive job fairly quickly but an analyst or engineer gets better with experience. One of the reasons that I get a lot of vacation (that you completely misunderstand below) is that I have tons of experience so I can walk into a job in just about any country and resolve problems in days that people have been working on for months. I'm not any smarter, just more experienced. I've usually seen their problem before (or something similar) and know from experience what works and what doesn't. > > > There are plenty of US-produced materials on overworking and lack of > > > vacation provoking stress and other health problems (for which you have > > > to pay for afterwards, btw). > > > > And there are plenty of material showing the opposite. > > Of course, there are still people saying the Earth is flat, but the > general convention is not. Yes. Which is why your theory of "hard work causes stress" is considered laughable. > > Work is good. > > > > Sorry if you find that offensive. > > Not at all, work is good, but there's much more to life than work. Never said there wasn't. > It's fun how you publicly claim having several months vacation and then > basically saying the rest of the word is a lazy bunch for four weeks. I never said anyone was lazy. I said that giving people paid vacations that they hadn't earned was bad economics. Do you understand the difference? > > > People jumping from one job to the other (as is the case when changing > > > for a better paying job) don't count as having an unemployment spell > > > and still will get back to 1or 2-week vacation. Reading the numbers is > > > just the first step. > > > > If you work for a year and change jobs then work for another year then > > jump and work for another year you may have worked for 3 years but for > > your current employer you have only worked one year so you get one week > > vacation. > > I already knew I was right, you don't need to prove it any more. Except that proves you wrong. > > Not magic. Maturity. > > And I tell you again. There's something about statistics: you need to > be able to interpret them. > > You have one chart telling you people average 10 jobs between 18 and > 38. Then you have another chart telling you how many times people get > unemployed on a given age. And it goes down *DRAMATICALLY* with age, does it not? Put the stats together and the answer is quite obvious. As I said, it's not magic, it's maturity. > You can't infere people don't change jobs after a certain age just by > looking wether if they're unemployed or not because the chart does not > take into account those people 'jumping' directly from one job to the > other. No it doesn't directly. But jumping directly from job to job is not as common as losing a job and getting another. And while there isn't a direct correlation there is a statistical relationship. You missed that and now you're grasping at straws. This is the point where you say "I missed that part of the chart, sorry, I was wrong" and leave it at that. > That's statistics 101. Yes it is. And it's as plain as day if you bother to look. > > If you haven't been a reliable employee prior to that, yes! If you have > > been changing jobs once a year and been unemployed part of that time > > then you've had plenty of time off. > > > > I think it's a perfect thing to earn vacation. I think that expecting > > something for nothing is not a good thing. > > Luckily, the latest trends in business management call for not having > people in their desks for more time than strictly necessary. Motivation > nowadays is much more than just salary. And what better motivation than increasing the amount of your vacation in payment for company loyalty and staying on the job? And what worse way of motivating people than saying that their pay and vacation has nothing to do with performance and time on the job? |