Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Mxsmanic on 4 Aug 2006 22:04 Hatunen writes: > E.g.? Credentialism is used mostly to restrict the number of people who can legally practice a given profession. It's like a hazing ritual. Only those who are prepared to jump through the appropriate hoops are allowed to have a job. Often the number of hoops available is limited so that even those who are willing will not necessarily have an opportunity. While credentialism is often touted as an advantage for consumers, I've hardly ever seen any situations where this is actually the case. The real purpose is to protect people already in a profession, and limit the number of additional people who can enter it. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Mxsmanic on 4 Aug 2006 22:05 Dave Frightens Me writes: > You wouldn't be prepared to collect 50 million in person? You don't have $50 million, so the question is moot. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Tchiowa on 4 Aug 2006 23:24 Jordi wrote: > Tchiowa wrote: > > Nice snip, yeah. > > > Jordi wrote: > > > Tchiowa wrote: > > > > Why is 230 days "not excessive" while 240 days *is* "excessive"? > > Exactly where is the line drawn? Is 236 days "excessive"? 232.45168 > > days? > > So then why 7 days holiday is a 'right' and 21 days paid holiday is > 'something you have to earn'. Where's the line? When did I say that 7 days holiday is a "right". You get what you earn. > We're in the muddy terrain of social science. No lines, no absolutes. > > > The American system of work benefits (including but not limited to > > vacation) is based on what people "earn". Your rewards are directly > > related to your efforts including, yes, loyalty and time on the job. In > > Europe the benefits are considered "rights" and everyone gets them > > regardless of whether or not they have earned them. > > No. There is a legal minimum on vacation (that is, 4 weeks) starting > from there you can get more depending on loyalty, achievement, and > whatever else. And that is killing European businesses. Let me explain something that you apparently don't get. That vacation isn't free. Since it's paid then the employer has to pay you. But since you're not producing he's paying for work you're not providing. So he accrues an expense. What that means is that he is really paying you a bit for your vacation every month and putting it in an internal liability account that gets cleared when you actually take the vacation. So your "free" vacation is included in his cost of doing business. He has 2 choices: Pay you less or take less profit. If he takes less profit then his business is less likely to be stable. So he pays you less salary. Your income is lower so you spend less money (because you don't have it) and other businesses in your area suffer because you're not spending as much as you could. Excessive unearned vacation hurts the economy. Just that simple. You think you're getting a free lunch, but you're not. > And then there comes the ultimate motivation behind working: a salary > that is very likely to increase with time on the job (and not > necessarily along with productivity). Actually it increases by both. > > A system that rewards efforts produces results. A system where benefits > > are not tied to efforts produces mediocrity. > > What about getting paid more? More pay and more benefits. > > The first time I went to Europe a couple of decades ago most of what I > > saw was fairly close to the US level of living standards. The US has > > advanced quite dramatically while Europe has not. Stagnation might be a > > good word. The level of living standards in Europe is now noticeably > > below the US. > > After your first comments on quality of life I can understand why. > Thankfully there's more to that than pure income. Thankfully there's no rule that you can't have both. > > And the trend is pointing to an even wider divergence. > > > > You can talk all day about the benefits of getting something for > > nothing. But when people get something for nothing that's what they > > produce: nothing. And eventually they get nothing for nothing. And > > that's why Socialism fails and that's why it is failing in Europe right > > now today. > > Beware, the Commies are back! > > Laughable. Read the financial section of your newspapers today. Not quite as funny as you'd like to believe.
From: Hatunen on 5 Aug 2006 01:37 On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 04:04:57 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Hatunen writes: > >> E.g.? > >Credentialism is used mostly to restrict the number of people who can >legally practice a given profession. It's like a hazing ritual. Only >those who are prepared to jump through the appropriate hoops are >allowed to have a job. Often the number of hoops available is limited >so that even those who are willing will not necessarily have an >opportunity. > >While credentialism is often touted as an advantage for consumers, >I've hardly ever seen any situations where this is actually the case. >The real purpose is to protect people already in a profession, and >limit the number of additional people who can enter it. You haven't given me an example. Doctors? Lawyers? Teachers? ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: JohnT on 5 Aug 2006 04:27
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:i1v7d25bsuc4agk8hlje6dk6h1ccshmvin(a)4ax.com... > Hatunen writes: > >> E.g.? > > Credentialism is used mostly to restrict the number of people who can > legally practice a given profession. It's like a hazing ritual. Only > those who are prepared to jump through the appropriate hoops are > allowed to have a job. Often the number of hoops available is limited > so that even those who are willing will not necessarily have an > opportunity. > > While credentialism is often touted as an advantage for consumers, > I've hardly ever seen any situations where this is actually the case. > The real purpose is to protect people already in a profession, and > limit the number of additional people who can enter it. You are suggesting that one doesn't need to be qualified to perform brain surgery? JohnT |