Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Jim Ley on 17 Aug 2006 06:16 On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:51:01 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Tchiowa writes: > >> You should go to Paris again. > >The average Parisian speaks only a few words of English--certainly >nothing that can be considered useful for communication. I've sampled Parisian's and found that 100% speak fluent english, mind you I've never been so the sample is pretty much limited to the people who've come to visit. Jim.
From: Jordi on 17 Aug 2006 07:16 Tchiowa wrote: > Jordi wrote: > > > If you are unable to understand the difference between government > > > control and regulation then you have a real problem with economics. > > > > You keep telling 4 weeks holiday is 'control' > > ??? No I didn't. I cited that as one example that is part of a bigger > problem. 4 weeks holiday is not "control". Government ordering that > companies provide benefits that aren't related to performance is one > example of control. Pulling back now? You kept telling a 4 week holiday was unsustainable and government interference until provided with a couple of examples. > > In Europe it's part of a much, much bigger problem. > There is a problem with unemployment in Europe. It's not at all related to the vacation policy, as some countries (some of them in Europe) show. > > Australia's unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in decades, yet > still 10% higher than the US rate (4.6% - 5.1%, a .5% difference which > is 10% of 4.6% - had to do the math for you so we don't have to > exchange 20 more postings to get you to understand). 5% is usually considered a full employment figure. > > http://www.budget.gov.au/2005-06/overview/html/overview_06.htm > > Sweden's rate is about 6%, even higher. Recovering from a 90s economic crisis, and published at 5,8%. > http://www.indexmundi.com/sweden/unemployment_rate.html > > OK. "Other Scandinavian countries"? OK. > > Finland (2004, the most recent I found without spending hours proving > you don't know what you're talking about): 8.9%. Finland is not a Scandinavian country, better brush up your geography. > Norway (population 4 million, smaller than many American *cities*): > 4.4%. Roughly the same as the US as a whole. > Nearly a 5% lower, following your math on Australia. > And these are the *best examples* you can come up with. Again, as I > have pointed out before, you can try to chop pieces out of the whole to > try to prove something. But that is a distortion. I can cite parts of > the US where unemployment is around 3%. But, *TAKEN AS A WHOLE* the > unemployment rate in Europe is roughly double the rate in the US. But you don't seem to understand that Europe can't be taken as a whole, not even the EU. > > Further, your stats don't prove what you claim at all. Yes it's > possible to have high vacations and a competitive economy, but as I've > pointed out *repeatedly*, the vacation mandate is just *part* of the > problem. > Please, it works in other countries, you can't blame unemployment on vacation after seeing the figures in those other countries. > > > > Before you come up with the "smart" response, I've been to Europe > > > probably 100 times and visited a large number of European countries. > > > > > > > You've said that half a dozen times already, the only possible > > conclusion is that you can spend a considerable amount of time in a > > foreign country and not realise what's going on. > > Or that I *do* see it and you don't and thus you remain confused. > > > > > There's history, you see. Are you by any chance pretending the US is > > > > exempt from those? > > > > > > No. Just pointing out the fact that the reason so many Euros have > > > passports is due to hatred and bigotry, not some cultural superiority > > > as has been implied. > > > > Cultural superiority as having more different cultures in a reduced > > space, yes, that's it. > > But that wasn't the claim. The claim was cultural superiority (implied) > due to having a lot of passports and travelling between countries. > It was you who came with that term, you can think what you want. Let's go back to the Australians, they have an enormous diverse country just like the Americans and an extremely high % of passport ownership.. don't you think their 5-week holiday may have something to do with them? > > > > > > As do a lot of other things. Most Americans have "real" vacations and > > > most have more to spend on their vacations that Euros do. > > > > Sure you mean 'most Americans over 45'? > > No, I mean most Americans *PERIOD* have "real" vacations. > 2 weeks. Big deal. > > > > You can, just less. > > > > > > Quantity as opposed to quality? > > > > Quality is just on the individual. > > But you seem to be claiming that you can't have quality without > quantity. To me "quality" defines a "real" vacation. To you, if it's > not 4 weeks in the first year of your employment it's not "real". Exactly. I now see why you said holidays can be stressful, if you are trying to pack an international trip on your sole 2-week holiday you will very likely be stressed as a result. > > They seem to do pretty well, so the answer is no, as the cap on > > vacation is economic sense. > > "Cap"? It's a "floor", not a cap. The floor is there by law, the cap is economic sense, as different employers give an extra holiday allowance. J.
From: barney2 on 17 Aug 2006 08:49 In article <1155774074.440967.36070(a)m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com (Tchiowa) wrote: > *From:* "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> > *Date:* 16 Aug 2006 17:21:14 -0700 > > > Dave Frightens Me wrote: > > On 15 Aug 2006 18:48:12 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >I found that damn near everyone I met could speak English fairly > > well. > > > > That's due to your limited experience, probably limited to touristy > > areas. > > No, mostly business. Sorry. You're wrong again. What European languages, other than English, do you speak and understand with sufficient fluency to conduct a business meeting?
From: TOliver on 17 Aug 2006 10:14 "The Reid" <dontuse(a)fell-walker.co.uk> wrote ... > Following up to Hatunen > >>>Tourist spots??? English is the primary and *official* language of >>>government for the EU. >> >>So because memebrs of the EU bureacracy sometimes use English it >>means almost all Europeans speak English? Your logic escapes >>mmost of us. > > according to the EU it has 20 official languages, soon to be 21, > and 30% of Europeans can hold a conversation in English. (dont > know at what level) Of course that 30% are the educated people. > Tshower should try going to a small town in Spain and seeing if > the garage mechanic, taxi driver or police can understand him :-) > In restaurants I hear mixed groups of educated europeans speaking > in mixed language without english taking priority. In a business > meeting english may well be used, (nobody is denying it is > becoming the world language). But spoken on the street in non > anglophone countries? Total bollox. In France the idea would be > heretical. Having just returned from a modest consulting job in South Texas, I was amused by the above paragraph.... That close to the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo, there were no taxis, but the garage mechanics' English was fragmentary, and the Constable had to "hunt and peck" for English tewrms to describe how to reach a remote location in the county. There are large parts of Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, etc. where English is the distant second language, not well understood or spoken by all, and in Laredo or Del Rio, it's rare to hear English spoken "on the street". "Business" conversations are liable to be held in Spanglish, Post Hole Spanish, or a sort of Border Lingua Franca.... TMO
From: Tchiowa on 17 Aug 2006 10:36
Hatunen wrote: > On 16 Aug 2006 17:11:46 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >Dave Frightens Me wrote: > >> On 16 Aug 2006 01:40:52 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >The Reid wrote: > >> >> Following up to Carole Allen > >> >> > >> >> >and Europeans can travel between most countries without going through > >> >> >any kind of passport control. > >> >> > >> >> there's no place for common sense in this debate. > >> > > >> >Plenty of common sense in the discussion. It's your ability to > >> >comprehend that is at question. > >> > >> You're all alone here. No one seems to wants to support your point of > >> view, because you are not making sense. > > > >"No one"? You mean you and a couple of other US bashers who aren't > >happy because I pointed out a rather glaring inconsistency in your > >position. > > > >> >> The French speak English in the street, > >> > > >> >Many do. > >> > >> Many? Yes, maybe a whopping 1% speak some English in the street. > > > >You should go to Paris again. > > Now there's your problem. The assumption that the people in a > city like Paris are representative of the entire country. That > sort of dumb reasoning undermines everything you say. I see. So the people in Paris aren't French? How about Marseille? I found the same thing. You need to get out more. |