Only Two Weeks Vacation Per Year In The Us???
Oct 28th 2004, 5:03 pm
#316
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] writes:
> > I don't know where you got that idea from. In Western Europe you can
> > buy a colour TV with the income from a few days work.
> In France, it would take me almost a month's pay to buy a color TV, and
> that's only if I had nothing else to pay for.
So I guess you must want a large plasma screen then.
Lana
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] writes:
> > I don't know where you got that idea from. In Western Europe you can
> > buy a colour TV with the income from a few days work.
> In France, it would take me almost a month's pay to buy a color TV, and
> that's only if I had nothing else to pay for.
So I guess you must want a large plasma screen then.
Lana
Oct 28th 2004, 5:04 pm
#317
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:48:07 -0500, in rec.travel.europe, "me" <nospamhere> arranged some
electrons, so they looked like this :
...
... So is taking vacation time.
Not taking vacations once in a while is a matter of deficient mental health.
electrons, so they looked like this :
...
... So is taking vacation time.
Not taking vacations once in a while is a matter of deficient mental health.
Oct 28th 2004, 5:24 pm
#318
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
Jonathan <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<483un0lc2o3rmp3kju8enknp9h845l1v50@news>...
> When an American friend told me people in the US only have two weeks
> of paid leave PER YEAR I could scarcely believe it. He said yeah but
> we get paid public holidays.
>
> In the UK we get 4 to 5 weeks paid leave plus public holidays . Other
> countries like France get 5 to 6 weeks plus public holidays. Plus
> they only work 35 hours per week yet they are one of the most
> productive countries in the world.
>
> If this is true about the US, how can the average American live under
> such a system and not lose their mind???
>
> Life can't all be about work. It seems such a system would breed
> highly neurotic and hysterical people. I wouldn't want to live like
> that no matter how much they paid me.
I don't know what the average is, but on my last job I got 26 paid
workdays off a year, plus public holidays. Extenuating circumstances
- jury duty, military duty, death in the family - were cause for
additional paid time off. I've just started a new job, and I confess
I haven't paid any attention to the policy here yet.
As for France and the UK being among the "most productive countries in
the world", maybe yes, maybe no, but with OECD unemployment rates
close to double US rates and economic growth rates about half that of
the US, I'd lean towards the maybe no.
> When an American friend told me people in the US only have two weeks
> of paid leave PER YEAR I could scarcely believe it. He said yeah but
> we get paid public holidays.
>
> In the UK we get 4 to 5 weeks paid leave plus public holidays . Other
> countries like France get 5 to 6 weeks plus public holidays. Plus
> they only work 35 hours per week yet they are one of the most
> productive countries in the world.
>
> If this is true about the US, how can the average American live under
> such a system and not lose their mind???
>
> Life can't all be about work. It seems such a system would breed
> highly neurotic and hysterical people. I wouldn't want to live like
> that no matter how much they paid me.
I don't know what the average is, but on my last job I got 26 paid
workdays off a year, plus public holidays. Extenuating circumstances
- jury duty, military duty, death in the family - were cause for
additional paid time off. I've just started a new job, and I confess
I haven't paid any attention to the policy here yet.
As for France and the UK being among the "most productive countries in
the world", maybe yes, maybe no, but with OECD unemployment rates
close to double US rates and economic growth rates about half that of
the US, I'd lean towards the maybe no.
Oct 28th 2004, 5:32 pm
#319
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
The Reids <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed [email protected] wrote
>> The Reids <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Ive been given the impression US workforce is very mobile
>>> and change jobs and location much more than Europeans?
>> Irrelevant when most get 2 weeks in that 2-5 years.
> you are very fond of saying "irrelevant".
If its irrelevant, I point out that its irrelevant. This may be a rather novel
concept for you but I expect you will be able to grasp it sometime.
> Are you saying getting the derisory amount of two weeks off before
> 5 years makes the matter of starting again from zero "irrelevant"?
Nope.
news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed [email protected] wrote
>> The Reids <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Ive been given the impression US workforce is very mobile
>>> and change jobs and location much more than Europeans?
>> Irrelevant when most get 2 weeks in that 2-5 years.
> you are very fond of saying "irrelevant".
If its irrelevant, I point out that its irrelevant. This may be a rather novel
concept for you but I expect you will be able to grasp it sometime.
> Are you saying getting the derisory amount of two weeks off before
> 5 years makes the matter of starting again from zero "irrelevant"?
Nope.
Oct 28th 2004, 5:36 pm
#320
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> The Reids wrote
>> Rod Speed [email protected] wrote
>> The Reids <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed [email protected] wrote
>>>>> it's actually very common for people with less than 2-5 years at a company
>>>>> to only get 1 week's vacation, and that isn't necessarily paid vacation.
>>>> Small subset of 'people in the US'
>>> Is it a small subset?
>> Yep.
>>>> Ive been given the impression US workforce is very mobile
>>>> and change jobs and location much more than Europeans?
>>> Irrelevant when most get 2 weeks in that 2-5 years.
>> you are very fond of saying "irrelevant". Are you saying getting the
>> derisory amount of two weeks off before 5 years makes the matter of starting
>> again from zero "irrelevant"?
> Not irrelevant but simply one of the things to consider when thinking of
> changing jobs. Usually not one of the major considerations.
Its irrelevant to the original claim that its one week for most,
which he carefully deleted from the quoting and I have restored.
in message news:[email protected]...
> The Reids wrote
>> Rod Speed [email protected] wrote
>> The Reids <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed [email protected] wrote
>>>>> it's actually very common for people with less than 2-5 years at a company
>>>>> to only get 1 week's vacation, and that isn't necessarily paid vacation.
>>>> Small subset of 'people in the US'
>>> Is it a small subset?
>> Yep.
>>>> Ive been given the impression US workforce is very mobile
>>>> and change jobs and location much more than Europeans?
>>> Irrelevant when most get 2 weeks in that 2-5 years.
>> you are very fond of saying "irrelevant". Are you saying getting the
>> derisory amount of two weeks off before 5 years makes the matter of starting
>> again from zero "irrelevant"?
> Not irrelevant but simply one of the things to consider when thinking of
> changing jobs. Usually not one of the major considerations.
Its irrelevant to the original claim that its one week for most,
which he carefully deleted from the quoting and I have restored.
Oct 28th 2004, 5:38 pm
#321
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
Icono Clast <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yaofeng said:
>> You think outsourcing is bad? The way I see it, if those guys in India and
>> in China who earn 1/10 or less salary than us but can do the same work we do,
>> we don't deserve the high pay and the life style that goes along with it.
> What a terrible way to think and an awful thing to say.
Nope. Thats the real world.
> If they earn less than we, their earnings should be elevated to be similar to
> ours.
Nope.
> It is the job that has value,
The value of that particular job is what someone is prepared to do it for.
> not the person or nationality of that person.
Precisely.
> Ellie C wrote:
>> Many people only get *one* week,
> I have never heard of such a thing.
>> I never worked anywhere long enough to qualify for the three weeks vacation
>> level.
> How odd. It's the job that qualifies for vacation, not the person. You should
> be credited with about a day's vacation for every eleven days you work whether
> those are your first eleven days or your hundredth eleven days. If you quit or
> get fired, you earned that money and it should be paid to you.
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Our plan is 4 weeks for everyone and 9 holidays.
> Sounds fairly normal t'me.
> > Here's a link for the website explaining the [overtime] changes:
> >
> > http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpay/
> >
> > Odd to me that the website claims to strengthen overtime
> > protections. I guess it's all in how you spin it, eh?
> And here's what oughta be:
> <http://geocities.com/iconoc/Articles/Overtime.html>
> found at the site at Right in the sig.
> __________________________________________________ ___________
> A San Franciscan who's stickin' t'the union!
> http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
> ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net
news:[email protected]...
> Yaofeng said:
>> You think outsourcing is bad? The way I see it, if those guys in India and
>> in China who earn 1/10 or less salary than us but can do the same work we do,
>> we don't deserve the high pay and the life style that goes along with it.
> What a terrible way to think and an awful thing to say.
Nope. Thats the real world.
> If they earn less than we, their earnings should be elevated to be similar to
> ours.
Nope.
> It is the job that has value,
The value of that particular job is what someone is prepared to do it for.
> not the person or nationality of that person.
Precisely.
> Ellie C wrote:
>> Many people only get *one* week,
> I have never heard of such a thing.
>> I never worked anywhere long enough to qualify for the three weeks vacation
>> level.
> How odd. It's the job that qualifies for vacation, not the person. You should
> be credited with about a day's vacation for every eleven days you work whether
> those are your first eleven days or your hundredth eleven days. If you quit or
> get fired, you earned that money and it should be paid to you.
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Our plan is 4 weeks for everyone and 9 holidays.
> Sounds fairly normal t'me.
> > Here's a link for the website explaining the [overtime] changes:
> >
> > http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpay/
> >
> > Odd to me that the website claims to strengthen overtime
> > protections. I guess it's all in how you spin it, eh?
> And here's what oughta be:
> <http://geocities.com/iconoc/Articles/Overtime.html>
> found at the site at Right in the sig.
> __________________________________________________ ___________
> A San Franciscan who's stickin' t'the union!
> http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
> ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net
Oct 28th 2004, 5:40 pm
#322
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:42:26 -0400, "Tom Bellhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>(snip)
>> > Heart disease is the leading cause of death in developed countries.
>> Irrelevant to the amount of time spent at work.
>> Much of that is due to smoking.
>> Japan has in fact a significantly lower heart disease rate than
>> many modern first world countrys, and they tend to spend more
>> time at work than in most other modern first world countrys too.
>They tend to smoke like chimneys, too. Perhaps it's diet?
An American guy I met that had been living in Tokyo for years said
that stomach cancer killed more of them than the cigarettes, because
the pickles and stuff they love to eat is hard on the gut.
---
DFM
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>(snip)
>> > Heart disease is the leading cause of death in developed countries.
>> Irrelevant to the amount of time spent at work.
>> Much of that is due to smoking.
>> Japan has in fact a significantly lower heart disease rate than
>> many modern first world countrys, and they tend to spend more
>> time at work than in most other modern first world countrys too.
>They tend to smoke like chimneys, too. Perhaps it's diet?
An American guy I met that had been living in Tokyo for years said
that stomach cancer killed more of them than the cigarettes, because
the pickles and stuff they love to eat is hard on the gut.
---
DFM
Oct 28th 2004, 5:46 pm
#323
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:23:24 -0700, yes <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I don't like to travel. Sometimes I'll take a day or two or five to work
>> on my house or garden. At Christmas I usually take off the week between
>> Christmas and New Year's and hang around the house with my husband. Once
>> in a great while, I'll take off a day and read or something (especially if
>> there's a new Terry Pratchett novel out).
>>
>> There's nothing stopping me from taking my vacation days, except I don't
>> want to. I have plenty of time to do everything I want. I don't have any
>> children, so my time is pretty much my own.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>Hopefully some day you will realize there is much more to live and
>experience than you currently seem to think there is. And then you will
>want those vacation days. I hope that day comes soon.
It sounds like her expectations for life have been nicely lowered to
the point where vacations are a bit of a nuisance. This is not
uncommon from what I have seen in the US. I don't know why, but they
seem to feel guilty (or something) if they are not either working or
spending money.
**** that, I would rather be on a beach, walking the mountains,
boozing with someone in Swahililand, eating food that I can't
pronounce or just wasting an indefinite amount of time in some
paradisical tourist void somewhere in the developing world!
---
DFM
>>
>> I don't like to travel. Sometimes I'll take a day or two or five to work
>> on my house or garden. At Christmas I usually take off the week between
>> Christmas and New Year's and hang around the house with my husband. Once
>> in a great while, I'll take off a day and read or something (especially if
>> there's a new Terry Pratchett novel out).
>>
>> There's nothing stopping me from taking my vacation days, except I don't
>> want to. I have plenty of time to do everything I want. I don't have any
>> children, so my time is pretty much my own.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>Hopefully some day you will realize there is much more to live and
>experience than you currently seem to think there is. And then you will
>want those vacation days. I hope that day comes soon.
It sounds like her expectations for life have been nicely lowered to
the point where vacations are a bit of a nuisance. This is not
uncommon from what I have seen in the US. I don't know why, but they
seem to feel guilty (or something) if they are not either working or
spending money.
**** that, I would rather be on a beach, walking the mountains,
boozing with someone in Swahililand, eating food that I can't
pronounce or just wasting an indefinite amount of time in some
paradisical tourist void somewhere in the developing world!
---
DFM
Oct 28th 2004, 5:47 pm
#324
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
N <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] om...
> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote
>> me writes
>>> one would think with a new baby, that would be the time
>>> you'd want to have a few days of personal time stashed.
>> Having a baby is a personal choice and voluntary;
> Not exactly. It's a normal part of life
Yes, but so is choosing not to work for whatever reason.
> and it shouldn't be treated by employers as a vacation
> or sick leave. Most Americans grow up, marry,
And the employer of one of them shouldnt have to fund that stuff.
If an employee wants to get married and have some time off after
that, its welcome to use its vacation time for that etc or take time
off without pay if they dont have any vacatiion time left etc.
> and Interestingly, employers with a supportive attitude
> towards new moms get the moms back at their jobs
> sooner, so the employer comes out ahead in the end.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to substantiate that claim.
> Speaking as a parent myself, I'll say that parenthood is
> such a watershed event in anyone's life that many (most?
> all?) parents reassess things and look at things differently,
> because a child gives most parents a new and higher priority.
And they are welcome to change their job if that
suits them, or decide that one of them wont work
while the brats arent in school, or while they are too.
> Therefore, parents may reassess their job situation and be less
> likely to go back to work at a place that doesn't support parents well.
And it may well be that one of them would be better off with
a different type of work once the kids start to show up etc too.
> If employers seem less loyal and supportive to employees as they
> go through normal life events, such as becoming a parent, employees
> are less likely to be loyal and supportive to the employer, IME.
Sure, but plenty dont have much loyalty to the employer
anyway, even when the employer does do stuff like that.
And when an employer choose to pay for the marraige,
that may well see quite a bit of loyalty towards that
particular employer, but most employers dont do that.
Thats what freedom of choice is all about after all.
>>it's not an illness.
> Correct. It's as normal as breathing and living.
So is getting married. Why should the employer have to pay for that ?
news:[email protected] om...
> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote
>> me writes
>>> one would think with a new baby, that would be the time
>>> you'd want to have a few days of personal time stashed.
>> Having a baby is a personal choice and voluntary;
> Not exactly. It's a normal part of life
Yes, but so is choosing not to work for whatever reason.
> and it shouldn't be treated by employers as a vacation
> or sick leave. Most Americans grow up, marry,
And the employer of one of them shouldnt have to fund that stuff.
If an employee wants to get married and have some time off after
that, its welcome to use its vacation time for that etc or take time
off without pay if they dont have any vacatiion time left etc.
> and Interestingly, employers with a supportive attitude
> towards new moms get the moms back at their jobs
> sooner, so the employer comes out ahead in the end.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to substantiate that claim.
> Speaking as a parent myself, I'll say that parenthood is
> such a watershed event in anyone's life that many (most?
> all?) parents reassess things and look at things differently,
> because a child gives most parents a new and higher priority.
And they are welcome to change their job if that
suits them, or decide that one of them wont work
while the brats arent in school, or while they are too.
> Therefore, parents may reassess their job situation and be less
> likely to go back to work at a place that doesn't support parents well.
And it may well be that one of them would be better off with
a different type of work once the kids start to show up etc too.
> If employers seem less loyal and supportive to employees as they
> go through normal life events, such as becoming a parent, employees
> are less likely to be loyal and supportive to the employer, IME.
Sure, but plenty dont have much loyalty to the employer
anyway, even when the employer does do stuff like that.
And when an employer choose to pay for the marraige,
that may well see quite a bit of loyalty towards that
particular employer, but most employers dont do that.
Thats what freedom of choice is all about after all.
>>it's not an illness.
> Correct. It's as normal as breathing and living.
So is getting married. Why should the employer have to pay for that ?
Oct 28th 2004, 5:49 pm
#325
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
Magda <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not taking vacations once in a while is a matter of deficient mental health.
Crap. Plenty of small business owners and others choose not to
bother with them, because they dont find them of any interest to them.
news:[email protected]...
> Not taking vacations once in a while is a matter of deficient mental health.
Crap. Plenty of small business owners and others choose not to
bother with them, because they dont find them of any interest to them.
Oct 28th 2004, 5:51 pm
#326
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
"N" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] om...
> "me" <nospamhere> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected] >...
>> "Magda" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:26:44 -0500, in rec.travel.europe, "me"
>> <nospamhere> arranged some
>> > electrons, so they looked like this :
> (snip)
>>I myself have
>> never been out for more than two days at a time. But it does mean that a
>> lot of people go to work sick, and end up making others sick.
> I'm in the US. I'll eventually need surgery and my MD tells me to plan
> to take 2 weeks off from work. I work by the hour and won't get paid
> for that time, and I also pay for my own health insurance. I make
> enough money to be OK, but this would be a nightmare for anyone being
> paid a low wage. (See Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed.") As it
> is, I'm postponing the surgery indefinitely.
>>It also means
>> you try and find a doctor / dentist with evening and weekend hours.
> Yep.
>> One of the worst policies I've seen is for people that take maternity leave
>> (and this was the policy for the last two companies I worked for, I don't
>> know how prevalent it is). They would get x amount of time (unpaid) for
>> family leave. But before that time kicks in, the time off FIRST comes out
>> of their accrued vacation and personal time off days. So if they have a
>> week of vacation accrued before they go on leave, the first week of leave is
>> counted as their vacation. So a person coming off of leave under that
>> policy comes back to work with zero days accrued for personal time off, one
>> would think with a new baby, that would be the time you'd want to have a few
>> days of personal time stashed.
> I've read a study that showed that the more supportive and generous
> an employer is to new moms, the sooner they come back to work.
And thats not necessarily a good thing with a new baby.
> Stingy employers lose. Somewhat counterintuitive, I realize, but it makes
> more sense to lure back experienced employees when they need time off.
Its much more complicated than that in the real world.
>> Again, just my experience from the places I've worked. YMMV
> It can be much worse, especially for the many Americans who work
> by the hour and are among the 40 million with no health insurance.
Yep, your health insurance system is completely stupid.
Worst in the entire first world.
news:[email protected] om...
> "me" <nospamhere> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected] >...
>> "Magda" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:26:44 -0500, in rec.travel.europe, "me"
>> <nospamhere> arranged some
>> > electrons, so they looked like this :
> (snip)
>>I myself have
>> never been out for more than two days at a time. But it does mean that a
>> lot of people go to work sick, and end up making others sick.
> I'm in the US. I'll eventually need surgery and my MD tells me to plan
> to take 2 weeks off from work. I work by the hour and won't get paid
> for that time, and I also pay for my own health insurance. I make
> enough money to be OK, but this would be a nightmare for anyone being
> paid a low wage. (See Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed.") As it
> is, I'm postponing the surgery indefinitely.
>>It also means
>> you try and find a doctor / dentist with evening and weekend hours.
> Yep.
>> One of the worst policies I've seen is for people that take maternity leave
>> (and this was the policy for the last two companies I worked for, I don't
>> know how prevalent it is). They would get x amount of time (unpaid) for
>> family leave. But before that time kicks in, the time off FIRST comes out
>> of their accrued vacation and personal time off days. So if they have a
>> week of vacation accrued before they go on leave, the first week of leave is
>> counted as their vacation. So a person coming off of leave under that
>> policy comes back to work with zero days accrued for personal time off, one
>> would think with a new baby, that would be the time you'd want to have a few
>> days of personal time stashed.
> I've read a study that showed that the more supportive and generous
> an employer is to new moms, the sooner they come back to work.
And thats not necessarily a good thing with a new baby.
> Stingy employers lose. Somewhat counterintuitive, I realize, but it makes
> more sense to lure back experienced employees when they need time off.
Its much more complicated than that in the real world.
>> Again, just my experience from the places I've worked. YMMV
> It can be much worse, especially for the many Americans who work
> by the hour and are among the 40 million with no health insurance.
Yep, your health insurance system is completely stupid.
Worst in the entire first world.
Oct 28th 2004, 5:54 pm
#327
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:21:28 +0200, "szozu" <hoppbunny at hotmail com>
wrote:
>"AcydSkull" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> If you get a new boss and he/she doesn't like your face out the door you
>> are. In fact most businesses are a scourge to society despite popular
>> opinion to the contrary.
>You don't even need a new boss for that to happen. I've seen people who've
>worked for many years at a company be called in on Thursday to hear a "don't
>bother coming in on Monday" message and the quality of their work was not
>the issue. Management just felt that they could economize by redistributing
>the work among the remaining workers. At the same time, someone who spent
>all day jabbering on the phone, constantly calling in sick and coming in
>late was allowed to remain. I've also seen middle-management being cut for
>the same reason and escorted back to their desks by a security guard to pick
>up their personal belongings and leave the building.
And then both will be re-hired later as consultants. It's called
'moving the cheese', and it's utter bullshit.
>> The salsry disparity is incredible, the difference between the highest
>> paid executive and the lowest paid employee and be hundreds of percentage
>> points.
>I've seen business expense reports that were double a secretary's annual
>salary.
I have made such reports!
>> Companies routinely "merge" in order to "bring greater variety to the
>> consumer". The end result are massive "layoffs" with complete disregard
>> for the employees, some of which could be of an age that would make it
>> difficult to find a new job.
>I used to work in a Swiss company in New York and there was no end to the
>resentment whenever we would get their holiday schedules at the beginning of
>the year. They had twice the number of days off and of course, far more
>vacation days and endless benefits that we didn't have.
And you were probably just as productive in a full year as someone
without all those perks. Merely being present at work for extended
periods of time doesn't necessarily get stuff done!
---
DFM
wrote:
>"AcydSkull" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> If you get a new boss and he/she doesn't like your face out the door you
>> are. In fact most businesses are a scourge to society despite popular
>> opinion to the contrary.
>You don't even need a new boss for that to happen. I've seen people who've
>worked for many years at a company be called in on Thursday to hear a "don't
>bother coming in on Monday" message and the quality of their work was not
>the issue. Management just felt that they could economize by redistributing
>the work among the remaining workers. At the same time, someone who spent
>all day jabbering on the phone, constantly calling in sick and coming in
>late was allowed to remain. I've also seen middle-management being cut for
>the same reason and escorted back to their desks by a security guard to pick
>up their personal belongings and leave the building.
And then both will be re-hired later as consultants. It's called
'moving the cheese', and it's utter bullshit.
>> The salsry disparity is incredible, the difference between the highest
>> paid executive and the lowest paid employee and be hundreds of percentage
>> points.
>I've seen business expense reports that were double a secretary's annual
>salary.
I have made such reports!
>> Companies routinely "merge" in order to "bring greater variety to the
>> consumer". The end result are massive "layoffs" with complete disregard
>> for the employees, some of which could be of an age that would make it
>> difficult to find a new job.
>I used to work in a Swiss company in New York and there was no end to the
>resentment whenever we would get their holiday schedules at the beginning of
>the year. They had twice the number of days off and of course, far more
>vacation days and endless benefits that we didn't have.
And you were probably just as productive in a full year as someone
without all those perks. Merely being present at work for extended
periods of time doesn't necessarily get stuff done!
---
DFM
Oct 28th 2004, 5:55 pm
#328
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
The Reids <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed [email protected] wrote
>>> Only americans are that stupid, and only the
>>> Americans who support George 'WMD' Bush.
>> Blair is an american eh ?
> He's that rare breed, a member of the UK religious right.
Nope. And clearly the OP is just plain wrong anyway even if he was.
>> Has anyone bothered to tell him ?
> I think he is aware his pro american lap dog
> stance is not playing well with the labour party.
He doesnt appear to care if it does or does not.
He didnt give a damn when he put one hell of a bomb
under the labour party and dragged it kicking and
screaming into the real world and made it electorally
appealing enough to actually get it elected to govt too.
news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed [email protected] wrote
>>> Only americans are that stupid, and only the
>>> Americans who support George 'WMD' Bush.
>> Blair is an american eh ?
> He's that rare breed, a member of the UK religious right.
Nope. And clearly the OP is just plain wrong anyway even if he was.
>> Has anyone bothered to tell him ?
> I think he is aware his pro american lap dog
> stance is not playing well with the labour party.
He doesnt appear to care if it does or does not.
He didnt give a damn when he put one hell of a bomb
under the labour party and dragged it kicking and
screaming into the real world and made it electorally
appealing enough to actually get it elected to govt too.
Oct 28th 2004, 5:56 pm
#329
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
The Reids <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed [email protected] wrote
>> I'm not even an american, stupid.
> In English you put the adjective in front of the noun.
Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic effort.
news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed [email protected] wrote
>> I'm not even an american, stupid.
> In English you put the adjective in front of the noun.
Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic effort.
Oct 28th 2004, 5:57 pm
#330
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
The Reids <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed [email protected] wrote
>>> Now, you *have* to be kidding us. Are you
>>> telling us that slave work is legal over there??
>> Slaves dont get paid at all, stupid.
> Who's stupid?
You. Cant even manage a viable insult.
> Perhaps one who cant grasp things are not always
> said purely literally and is keen to jump in with insults?
It aint an insult, stupid. Its a statement of fact.
news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed [email protected] wrote
>>> Now, you *have* to be kidding us. Are you
>>> telling us that slave work is legal over there??
>> Slaves dont get paid at all, stupid.
> Who's stupid?
You. Cant even manage a viable insult.
> Perhaps one who cant grasp things are not always
> said purely literally and is keen to jump in with insults?
It aint an insult, stupid. Its a statement of fact.