Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Jim Ley on 22 Jul 2006 06:22 On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:15:17 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >The Reid writes: > >> there were a number of new fields discovered in my lifetime, >> there is also the issue of using shale oil at much higher prices. >> Are the worlds resources finite? >> Is the worlds ability to absorb pollution finite? > >I think the real limiting factor on the use of fossil fuels is the >pollution produced by burning them, not the actual amount available in >the ground. So if the pollution was captured and stored, there'd be no problem with them? Jim.
From: Dave Frightens Me on 22 Jul 2006 07:12 On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:14:18 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Dave Frightens Me writes: > >> Believe it or not, they are two very different things. > >They are both extremes of temperature, and their physiological effects >cannot be eliminated by mere education. Ha ha! I got you on that one! :o) Squeal like a pig! -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- --
From: Iceman on 22 Jul 2006 09:13 Dave Frightens Me wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 02:49:50 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > >Dave Frightens Me writes: > > > >> Your logic is broken. No-one said anything about heating. > > > >You say that education can compensate for excessive heat. Logically, > >then, education can also compensate for excessive cold. Thus, there's > >no more need for heating systems than there is for air conditioning > >systems. > > As cold does not mean hot, your logic is broken. > > Believe it or not, they are two very different things. Heating is a necessity. Air conditioning is a luxury.
From: des small on 22 Jul 2006 09:55 "Stephen Dailey" <smdailey(a)seanet.com> writes: > On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:50:08 -0500, erilar > <erilarloFRY(a)SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > > > In article <1153360366.190217.24550(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, > > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Again, simply not true. Workers in the US on the job more than a few > >> years get a month vacation every year just like in Europe. > > > > Not very many that's true of outside of teaching or very highly-paid > > jobs(which teaching isn't). > > Every employer I've worked for has offered 4 weeks of vacation after a > specified period of employment. I've never been with one employer long > enough to earn 4 weeks, though. I get 42 days (i.e., more than 8 weeks) at my brand new company in the Netherlands. Of course, the higher reaches of USAian leave are widely rumoured to be largely fictional anyway, since it is allegedly not considered "team-spirited" to take them. Des
From: des small on 22 Jul 2006 10:08
Martin <me(a)privacy.net> writes: > On 22 Jul 2006 14:55:57 +0100, des small <vonbladet(a)yahoo.co.uk> > wrote: > > >"Stephen Dailey" <smdailey(a)seanet.com> writes: > > > >> Every employer I've worked for has offered 4 weeks of vacation after a > >> specified period of employment. I've never been with one employer long > >> enough to earn 4 weeks, though. > > > >I get 42 days (i.e., more than 8 weeks) > > including 12 days public holidays? No, those are extra. > > at my brand new company in the Netherlands. > > You have a brand new company? Congratulations! Well, new to me. > I had 47 days leave, incl. 12 days public holidays plus a variable > number of extra days at Xmas because it wasn't worth keeping the > building open between Xmas and New Year PLUS 5 days home leave every > two years. I can feel a new ambition coming on... Des |