Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Stephen Dailey on 23 Jul 2006 23:53 On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:57:07 +0200, wrote: > On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:28:13 -0700, "Stephen Dailey" > <smdailey(a)seanet.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:15:00 +0200, wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 09:30:09 GMT, jim(a)jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote: >>> >>>> On 23 Jul 2006 01:29:51 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> If you read my >>>>> post I spoke rather specifically about *NEW* employees. And in that >>>>> case it makes a definite difference. >>>> >>>> No it doesn't, I've worked with lots of very good people who were more >>>> productive in their first months that later - the boredom outweighed >>>> the experience - indeed the experience caused the boredom. >>> >>> Indeed, I have seen this a lot. People get used to just going through >>> the motions, and playing the game. Their vacation time wont make any >>> difference to the company's profits. >> >> At many firms, employees who "just go through the motions" are invited >> to >> seek employment elsewhere. It's bad for morale, and office-wide >> productivity, to have employees who are just there to collect a paycheck >> and really don't give a damn about doing a good job. > > Utter rubbish. Once you learn the ins and outs of any job, you can > just coast along with it, delivering what's expected and no more. All > big companys are the same like that. It's all just a question of > figuring out the system. There are other employers than big companies. It's more difficult to coast at a small company. >> I've worked for both types of firms: (a) where you really, really have >> to >> screw up in order to get fired, and (b) where you are expected to be >> productive and to innovate. I prefer the latter. > > Except the latter don't actually exist - for long. It's interesting to know that I've worked for firms that don't exist. :-) > Once a few managers get in place, all the important decisions just get > left to politics. Amen, brother. === Steve Shoreline, Washington USA smdailey(a)seanet.com 23 Jul 2006, 2052 PDT
From: dgs on 24 Jul 2006 00:19 Stephen Dailey wrote: > On 18 Jul 2006 18:22:38 -0700, Tchiowa <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> a "hideous suburb"???? I'd much rather live in a suburb than in a city. >> I have a house, some land, grass for the kids to play on, streets that >> are safe, low crime, low pollution, low noise. > > Thanks, Tchiowa. I was trying to figure out the meaning of the phrase > "hideous suburb." IMHO there's nothing hideous about being able to > afford to live in my own building on my own lot. The meaning stands, based on the perception of American (and other rich-country) suburban developments as soulless cookie-cutter developments. The American suburb is part and parcel of the phenomenon called sprawl, and it is a significant factor in making the USA the energy-consuming hog that it is. Americans drive further than just about any one else in the developed world for most of their needs, whether commuting to work or just buying grocereis, and sprawl also means that delivery of services of all kinds - mail, delivery of goods to retail outlets in the 'burbs, and so on - uses up more fuel than just about anywhere else in the developed world. American style sprawlyburb development has been enabled by the widespread availability of cheap fuel for Americans' vehicles, and things are changing big-time. In the years to come - and they will come soon - we won't run out of fuel, but as we're already seeing, fuel will no longer be quite so cheap. No matter what you think about current fuel prices, the fact remains that they're still quite cheap, and automobile fuel consumption is still rising in the USA. With world oil production just about in balance with consumption, and too much of that production concentrated in certain parts of the world, it isn't going to take much to change things in a way that will make the oil embargoes of the 1970s seem like a walk in the park. -- dgs
From: dgs on 24 Jul 2006 00:20 Mxsmanic wrote: > Dying from the heat doesn't require medical care; it requires air > conditioning. Dying from the heat requires air conditioning? Amazing. Simply amazing. -- dgs
From: Tchiowa on 24 Jul 2006 00:36 Dave Frightens Me wrote: > On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:28:13 -0700, "Stephen Dailey" > <smdailey(a)seanet.com> wrote: > >At many firms, employees who "just go through the motions" are invited to > >seek employment elsewhere. It's bad for morale, and office-wide > >productivity, to have employees who are just there to collect a paycheck > >and really don't give a damn about doing a good job. > > Utter rubbish. Once you learn the ins and outs of any job, you can > just coast along with it, delivering what's expected and no more. All > big companys are the same like that. It's all just a question of > figuring out the system. Even worse rubbish. I'll grant you that there are people who believe like you do. But we have some terms for them. Losers. Failures. These are the people who never go anywhere, never advance, make lousy money and demand things like free health care because they'll never be able to afford it themselves. These are the people who simply don't deserve vacation. > >I've worked for both types of firms: (a) where you really, really have to > >screw up in order to get fired, and (b) where you are expected to be > >productive and to innovate. I prefer the latter. > > Except the latter don't actually exist - for long. You've got to be kidding!!! These are the companies that succeed. > Once a few managers get in place, all the important decisions just get > left to politics. Nonsense.
From: Tchiowa on 24 Jul 2006 00:39
Jim Ley wrote: > On 23 Jul 2006 18:27:05 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> Except of course there are lots of countries without high unemployment > >> and also much higher employment counts than the US. > > > >Really? Name them. > > > >You tried with 2 and you were wrong. Any more suggestions? > > Interesting you choose to quote March 2005 statistics for the EU, but > June 2006 figures for the USA, - completely ignoring the figure for > the US on your out of date list you quoted, showing it higher than 5 > EU countries, all of which also have higher employment rates, the UK > was included... maybe if you learnt to read simple charts, or use up > to date statistics, you'd get up to productivity speed quicker 2 or 3 > years. I didn't "choose" anything. I did a Google Search and reported what came out at the top of the page. If you have better numbers let's see them. > I also note you decided to completely ignore the employment part of > the discussion, the number of unemployed is influenced by the number > of people who consider themselves part of the workforce, something > which is much higher in many EU countries. No it's not. Just the opposite. Earlier retirement, more people on "permanent dole". |