Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: The Reid on 14 Aug 2006 06:07 Following up to Mxsmanic >> expensive watches seem to have some sort of reversed logic. > >Watches over $200 or so are essentially jewelry. I agree! >All mechanical >watches keep extremely poor time, depends if you use a real world definition of keeping time or are concerned with spurious accuracy. -- Mike Reid I will agree bendybuses are a good idea when they build bungalows on Mayfair 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"
From: Tchiowa on 14 Aug 2006 06:43 Jordi wrote: > Tchiowa wrote: > > Jordi wrote: > > > Tchiowa wrote: > > > > > > That's a gross oversimplification. Every economy (even the US) is a mix > > > of free market and government intervention, is the US also distorting > > > the market? > > > > Do you understand the difference between "intervention" and "control"? > > The difference between setting boundaries that can't be crossed and > > defining the detail of individual transactions? > > In this context, it's a matter of grade and word choice. No, in this context it's the core of what works and what doesn't work. > > Yup. In part. But they still have their passports. But my statement > > still stands. Europeans travel "abroad" more than Americans because > > damn near everything in Europe is "abroad" for Europeans? Brussels to > > Amsterdam is a foreign trip. New York to LA isn't. Which is the greater > > travel? > > In terms of distance, it is, in cultural terms a trip from Athens to > Berlin is a greater 'distance'. Nonsense. The difference in culture between New York City, San Francisco, Miami, New Orleans are every bit as great. > The boundaries are there for a reason. Hate, bigotry, a millienium of murder, how are those for starters? > > I didn't say that. But we were discussing spending money on vacation. > > You seem to be surrendering. > > > No, we're talking two completely different things. All this came after > you said more or less 'what's the use of holidays if people don't have > money to spend', Europeans do have enough money to keep a... say > 'western' lifestyle without having to work 51 weeks a year, that's all. But their "western" lifestyle is lower than American's. > > And we have just about as much time to enjoy it together. > > I don't think so if people have to wait until they're 50 to get 4 weeks > vacation. They don't. Some do, some don't. But are you saying that you can't enjoy time with your family and still work???? > > > > No, same subject. The vacation policy is hurting the workers. > > > > > > So you say. > > > > Me and the official unemployment statistics. > > Oversimplificating again. Unemployment has very deep roots. And the government mandated benefits that have no relation to effort and productivity are part of those roots. > > > > > It's simple: excessive work causes stress but there is no way to > > > > > calculate how much is excessive as it depends on every individual and > > > > > work position. > > > > > > > > Define "excessive". That was the question. > > > > > > Excessive is easy to define the point is how much is excessive. > > > > OK. I'm waiting for the definition and the point. > > "there is no way to calculate how much is excessive as it depends on > every individual and work position." Then how can you say that the amount Americans work is "excessive"? > > Most. Read the studies. Vacations are times of high family violence due > > to stress. > > Do you have any cite or this is 'personal experience' again? Lots of stats. I'll dig some out for you. Although I expect that you won't believe them. > > > No, especially in France, the problems in hiring new people is because > > > it is quite hard to send them off if the worker turns out to be less than okay. > > > > That's certainly part of it. But it's part of the same problem: laws > > requiring that workers receive benefits (vacation, job guarantees, > > etc.) that are not justified by their performance. > > Once they're written down by law they're not benefits any more, they > become rights, and are the same for everyone. There are other benefits > beyond those that businesses own to motivate them. ???? Of course they are benefits. Just because they are government mandated doesn't change that. And since those benefits have no direct relation to productivity they are a burden on the employer.
From: Tchiowa on 14 Aug 2006 07:00 Sarah Banick wrote: > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1155257645.367072.245410(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > Instead try asking how many people in the US travel away from home and > > how far the typical trip is and compare with Europe. You'll find that > > Americans travel more. > > Do you have actual numbers on this? I am really curious to see if that is > true. There are many Americans who have never been out of their state or > region, especially those at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder. Their > typical trip is to the nearest beach or amusement park. You're wrong about that. There was a study done a few years ago about Americans living below the poverty line and the majority of them took annual vacations away from home. > I still agree with the others. An American driving from say, Virginia to > California, may cover a lot of territory, but he's still in the same culture > (all California jokes aside), he's still watching the same television > programs, speaking the same language, and not using a passport or being > exposed to the many quirks (for lack of a better word) of international travel. Culture the same in New Orleans and New York? I don't think so. Now go compare the cultural differences between Amsterdam and Brussels.
From: Tchiowa on 14 Aug 2006 07:09 Mxsmanic wrote: > mrtravel writes: > > > A lot of them are time synced. My phone changes timezones when turned on > > after arriving in a new timezone. > > To what source are they synced? My Sprint phone in the US does that. It's a setting on the phone.
From: Mxsmanic on 14 Aug 2006 07:13
The Reid writes: > depends if you use a real world definition of keeping time or are > concerned with spurious accuracy. Six seconds a day is poor time by just about any definition of the past century or so. That's half an hour a year. I had an inexpensive little quartz watch from Texas Instruments for years that was accurate to about two seconds per year. One day it slipped off my wrist while I was putting it on and it hit the floor, and it was off by several minutes per hour thereafter. It was thus about a thousand times more accurate than a Rolex, and given its price, it provided 164,000 times more accuracy for the price. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |