Only Two Weeks Vacation Per Year In The Us???
Oct 30th 2004, 4:28 pm
#706
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
Dennis G. Rears wrote:
> "john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 02:27:50 GMT, "Dennis G. Rears"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected] ...
>>>>Many of the federal government employees couldn't get a job outside at
>>>>anywhere near the salary they are getting from the government.
>>> This is true for a variety of reasons. It is also true for a lot of
>>>career public sector employees. Reasons include competence, being over 40,
>>>type of job, etc. I work in the IT area. The bottom dropped out of my
>>>market in 98/99. I probably get paid more now than I could get on the
>>>outside. That was not true in the early 90s. If you look at my 17 years
>>>as
>>>a government civilian employee, the public sector would have paid me much
>>>more over the whole period.
>>> A lot of federal workers do jobs that have no civilian equivalents. Is
>>>there much of a market for Armaments Engineers, Lethality Analysts,
>>>Weapons
>>>testers, etc in the public sector? I don't think so.
>>>dennis
>>You didn't mention the huge bureaucratic hierarchy to support the
>>above mentioned "jobs".
>
>
> You are correct. There is a bureaucratic hierarchy to support jobs in
> corporations and government employment. It is called personnel or HR (Human
> Resources).
>
> dennis
Actually it's more called management.
> "john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 02:27:50 GMT, "Dennis G. Rears"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected] ...
>>>>Many of the federal government employees couldn't get a job outside at
>>>>anywhere near the salary they are getting from the government.
>>> This is true for a variety of reasons. It is also true for a lot of
>>>career public sector employees. Reasons include competence, being over 40,
>>>type of job, etc. I work in the IT area. The bottom dropped out of my
>>>market in 98/99. I probably get paid more now than I could get on the
>>>outside. That was not true in the early 90s. If you look at my 17 years
>>>as
>>>a government civilian employee, the public sector would have paid me much
>>>more over the whole period.
>>> A lot of federal workers do jobs that have no civilian equivalents. Is
>>>there much of a market for Armaments Engineers, Lethality Analysts,
>>>Weapons
>>>testers, etc in the public sector? I don't think so.
>>>dennis
>>You didn't mention the huge bureaucratic hierarchy to support the
>>above mentioned "jobs".
>
>
> You are correct. There is a bureaucratic hierarchy to support jobs in
> corporations and government employment. It is called personnel or HR (Human
> Resources).
>
> dennis
Actually it's more called management.
Oct 30th 2004, 4:30 pm
#707
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
>Following up to Maren Purves
>>> ... So are you proud to admit to being lazy in front of thousands of
>>> ... people? Interesting...
>>>
>>> Life is too short to work so much. You have to enjoy it once in a while.
>>umm, I enjoy my work. At least most of the time.
I enjoy my work most of the time. But life is about balance. I also
enjoy travleing, going to the beach and playing golf.
barb
>>> ... So are you proud to admit to being lazy in front of thousands of
>>> ... people? Interesting...
>>>
>>> Life is too short to work so much. You have to enjoy it once in a while.
>>umm, I enjoy my work. At least most of the time.
I enjoy my work most of the time. But life is about balance. I also
enjoy travleing, going to the beach and playing golf.
barb
Oct 30th 2004, 4:31 pm
#708
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
Dennis G. Rears wrote:
> "john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:23:55 GMT, "Dennis G. Rears"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>Leave it to public employees to get 4 weeks vacation after only
>>>>working 3 years.
>>>It's a tradeoff. Federal employees tend to make less than their public
>>>sector counterparts but the benefits are better. I joined the civil
>>>service
>>>after I left the military in 1987. I turned down a job that would have
>>>paid
>>>50% more than the government job I took. The reason is that I valued time
>>>off more than money. Since my military time counted for the 3 years
>>>requirement I started with 4 weeks off a year. Not bad for someone in
>>>their
>>>20's.
>>>dennis
>>So you haven't really "worked" since 1987, correct?
> Of course I have. The work day ends quicker when there is real work to be
> done. I do find it interesting that you assumed I worked when I was in the
> military but did not when I an Army civilian. BTW, Military members
> (soldiers, sailors, airmen, & marines) get 30 days paid vacation a year.
> Vacation days include embedded weekends. They do not get overtime/comp time
> and are subject to duty 24 hours a days to include weekends. Do you include
> military as your overpaid do-nothing government employees?
> dennis
Of course, after all how often do we have a war and need them.
> "john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:23:55 GMT, "Dennis G. Rears"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>Leave it to public employees to get 4 weeks vacation after only
>>>>working 3 years.
>>>It's a tradeoff. Federal employees tend to make less than their public
>>>sector counterparts but the benefits are better. I joined the civil
>>>service
>>>after I left the military in 1987. I turned down a job that would have
>>>paid
>>>50% more than the government job I took. The reason is that I valued time
>>>off more than money. Since my military time counted for the 3 years
>>>requirement I started with 4 weeks off a year. Not bad for someone in
>>>their
>>>20's.
>>>dennis
>>So you haven't really "worked" since 1987, correct?
> Of course I have. The work day ends quicker when there is real work to be
> done. I do find it interesting that you assumed I worked when I was in the
> military but did not when I an Army civilian. BTW, Military members
> (soldiers, sailors, airmen, & marines) get 30 days paid vacation a year.
> Vacation days include embedded weekends. They do not get overtime/comp time
> and are subject to duty 24 hours a days to include weekends. Do you include
> military as your overpaid do-nothing government employees?
> dennis
Of course, after all how often do we have a war and need them.
Oct 30th 2004, 4:35 pm
#709
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:
>Dennis G. Rears wrote:
>> "john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:23:55 GMT, "Dennis G. Rears"
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>Leave it to public employees to get 4 weeks vacation after only
>>>>>working 3 years.
>>>>It's a tradeoff. Federal employees tend to make less than their public
>>>>sector counterparts but the benefits are better. I joined the civil
>>>>service
>>>>after I left the military in 1987. I turned down a job that would have
>>>>paid
>>>>50% more than the government job I took. The reason is that I valued time
>>>>off more than money. Since my military time counted for the 3 years
>>>>requirement I started with 4 weeks off a year. Not bad for someone in
>>>>their
>>>>20's.
>>>>dennis
>>>So you haven't really "worked" since 1987, correct?
>> Of course I have. The work day ends quicker when there is real work to be
>> done. I do find it interesting that you assumed I worked when I was in the
>> military but did not when I an Army civilian. BTW, Military members
>> (soldiers, sailors, airmen, & marines) get 30 days paid vacation a year.
>> Vacation days include embedded weekends. They do not get overtime/comp time
>> and are subject to duty 24 hours a days to include weekends. Do you include
>> military as your overpaid do-nothing government employees?
>> dennis
>Of course, after all how often do we have a war and need them.
Every time we get a Republican president.
And sometimes for more than one war per said president.
>Dennis G. Rears wrote:
>> "john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:23:55 GMT, "Dennis G. Rears"
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>Leave it to public employees to get 4 weeks vacation after only
>>>>>working 3 years.
>>>>It's a tradeoff. Federal employees tend to make less than their public
>>>>sector counterparts but the benefits are better. I joined the civil
>>>>service
>>>>after I left the military in 1987. I turned down a job that would have
>>>>paid
>>>>50% more than the government job I took. The reason is that I valued time
>>>>off more than money. Since my military time counted for the 3 years
>>>>requirement I started with 4 weeks off a year. Not bad for someone in
>>>>their
>>>>20's.
>>>>dennis
>>>So you haven't really "worked" since 1987, correct?
>> Of course I have. The work day ends quicker when there is real work to be
>> done. I do find it interesting that you assumed I worked when I was in the
>> military but did not when I an Army civilian. BTW, Military members
>> (soldiers, sailors, airmen, & marines) get 30 days paid vacation a year.
>> Vacation days include embedded weekends. They do not get overtime/comp time
>> and are subject to duty 24 hours a days to include weekends. Do you include
>> military as your overpaid do-nothing government employees?
>> dennis
>Of course, after all how often do we have a war and need them.
Every time we get a Republican president.
And sometimes for more than one war per said president.
Oct 30th 2004, 4:54 pm
#710
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:16:02 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>That's true. The UK doesn't have enough population who are starving
>huddled masses to compete with the volume of Indios who are moving north.
What's an Indio?
<[email protected]> wrote:
>That's true. The UK doesn't have enough population who are starving
>huddled masses to compete with the volume of Indios who are moving north.
What's an Indio?
Oct 30th 2004, 5:16 pm
#711
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jane Sitton wrote:
>
>
>>I ended my last job because I didn't get along well with my boss, and
>>because the company I worked for imposed a stupid dress code. (I worked
>>in an office, and never saw vendors or customers, so why do they care if
>>I wear white socks, fergawdssake?)
>
>
> Your employer actually specified the color of the socks you must wear?
My employer specified that no one could wear white socks, as they were
not part of the "business casual" dress code. I wonder if someone
actually wore white socks with a suit and that caused the panic.
I always wore white cotton socks with casual slacks or jeans (We could
wear jeans on Fridays.), and trouser socks or knee highs with dressy
pants or trousers. I sat at a desk almost all day long, only getting up
to fetch papers from the printer or send a fax. So my feet were under
the desk almost all day.
Why anyone cared is beyond my comprehension. I was never offended if
anyone else wore white socks. I was offended when women were allowed to
wear sandals (leather only, of course -- hell if you're a strict
vegetarian or vegan) WITHOUT any sort of hosiery. That just didn't look
professional to me. A woman who sat near me often wore sandals without
hose, and she had very dry heels, varicose veins, and ugly yellow
toenails. GAG!
Also bad was when sleeveless blouses and dresses were allowed. If you
have huge arms with the skin hanging down and flapping every time you
move your arms, PLEASE do not wear anything sleeveless!
I just think the company wasn't focusing on the bottom line if they
spent any time worrying about socks. Just be glad I'm wearing them,
ferchrissake!
Luckily, I start a new job Monday, and since we don't see vendors or
customers, they don't care what we wear, as long we don't show too much
skin.
--Jane
> Jane Sitton wrote:
>
>
>>I ended my last job because I didn't get along well with my boss, and
>>because the company I worked for imposed a stupid dress code. (I worked
>>in an office, and never saw vendors or customers, so why do they care if
>>I wear white socks, fergawdssake?)
>
>
> Your employer actually specified the color of the socks you must wear?
My employer specified that no one could wear white socks, as they were
not part of the "business casual" dress code. I wonder if someone
actually wore white socks with a suit and that caused the panic.
I always wore white cotton socks with casual slacks or jeans (We could
wear jeans on Fridays.), and trouser socks or knee highs with dressy
pants or trousers. I sat at a desk almost all day long, only getting up
to fetch papers from the printer or send a fax. So my feet were under
the desk almost all day.
Why anyone cared is beyond my comprehension. I was never offended if
anyone else wore white socks. I was offended when women were allowed to
wear sandals (leather only, of course -- hell if you're a strict
vegetarian or vegan) WITHOUT any sort of hosiery. That just didn't look
professional to me. A woman who sat near me often wore sandals without
hose, and she had very dry heels, varicose veins, and ugly yellow
toenails. GAG!
Also bad was when sleeveless blouses and dresses were allowed. If you
have huge arms with the skin hanging down and flapping every time you
move your arms, PLEASE do not wear anything sleeveless!
I just think the company wasn't focusing on the bottom line if they
spent any time worrying about socks. Just be glad I'm wearing them,
ferchrissake!
Luckily, I start a new job Monday, and since we don't see vendors or
customers, they don't care what we wear, as long we don't show too much
skin.
--Jane
Oct 30th 2004, 6:02 pm
#712
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
> >>I ended my last job because I didn't get along well with my boss, and
> >>because the company I worked for imposed a stupid dress code. (I worked
> >>in an office, and never saw vendors or customers, so why do they care if
> >>I wear white socks, fergawdssake?)
> >
> >
> > Your employer actually specified the color of the socks you must wear?
> My employer specified that no one could wear white socks, as they were
> not part of the "business casual" dress code. I wonder if someone
> actually wore white socks with a suit and that caused the panic.
> I always wore white cotton socks with casual slacks or jeans (We could
> wear jeans on Fridays.), and trouser socks or knee highs with dressy
> pants or trousers. I sat at a desk almost all day long, only getting up
> to fetch papers from the printer or send a fax. So my feet were under
> the desk almost all day.
> Why anyone cared is beyond my comprehension. I was never offended if
> anyone else wore white socks. I was offended when women were allowed to
> wear sandals (leather only, of course -- hell if you're a strict
> vegetarian or vegan) WITHOUT any sort of hosiery. That just didn't look
> professional to me. A woman who sat near me often wore sandals without
> hose, and she had very dry heels, varicose veins, and ugly yellow
> toenails. GAG!
> Also bad was when sleeveless blouses and dresses were allowed. If you
> have huge arms with the skin hanging down and flapping every time you
> move your arms, PLEASE do not wear anything sleeveless!
> I just think the company wasn't focusing on the bottom line if they
> spent any time worrying about socks. Just be glad I'm wearing them,
> ferchrissake!
> Luckily, I start a new job Monday, and since we don't see vendors or
> customers, they don't care what we wear, as long we don't show too much
> skin.
> --Jane
I wouldn't fixate too much on what you think you did wrong or how you
dressed. Sounds to me like that company used its dress code as part of a
"catch all" clause, which companies all too often use as a ruse to quickly
and easily "re-organize" out employees when they feel like it, thus avoiding
any potential litigation. All too common these days, unfortunately, since
it's hard to prove.
> >>because the company I worked for imposed a stupid dress code. (I worked
> >>in an office, and never saw vendors or customers, so why do they care if
> >>I wear white socks, fergawdssake?)
> >
> >
> > Your employer actually specified the color of the socks you must wear?
> My employer specified that no one could wear white socks, as they were
> not part of the "business casual" dress code. I wonder if someone
> actually wore white socks with a suit and that caused the panic.
> I always wore white cotton socks with casual slacks or jeans (We could
> wear jeans on Fridays.), and trouser socks or knee highs with dressy
> pants or trousers. I sat at a desk almost all day long, only getting up
> to fetch papers from the printer or send a fax. So my feet were under
> the desk almost all day.
> Why anyone cared is beyond my comprehension. I was never offended if
> anyone else wore white socks. I was offended when women were allowed to
> wear sandals (leather only, of course -- hell if you're a strict
> vegetarian or vegan) WITHOUT any sort of hosiery. That just didn't look
> professional to me. A woman who sat near me often wore sandals without
> hose, and she had very dry heels, varicose veins, and ugly yellow
> toenails. GAG!
> Also bad was when sleeveless blouses and dresses were allowed. If you
> have huge arms with the skin hanging down and flapping every time you
> move your arms, PLEASE do not wear anything sleeveless!
> I just think the company wasn't focusing on the bottom line if they
> spent any time worrying about socks. Just be glad I'm wearing them,
> ferchrissake!
> Luckily, I start a new job Monday, and since we don't see vendors or
> customers, they don't care what we wear, as long we don't show too much
> skin.
> --Jane
I wouldn't fixate too much on what you think you did wrong or how you
dressed. Sounds to me like that company used its dress code as part of a
"catch all" clause, which companies all too often use as a ruse to quickly
and easily "re-organize" out employees when they feel like it, thus avoiding
any potential litigation. All too common these days, unfortunately, since
it's hard to prove.
Oct 30th 2004, 6:32 pm
#713
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Frank F. Matthews writes:
>> The usual reply would be a much better
>> salary and a more interesting job.
> Jobs in the U.S. aren't any more interesting,
Some of them are, particularly at the cutting edge of technology
and other areas which the US dominates like say PC software.
> but they often pay better.
news:[email protected]...
> Frank F. Matthews writes:
>> The usual reply would be a much better
>> salary and a more interesting job.
> Jobs in the U.S. aren't any more interesting,
Some of them are, particularly at the cutting edge of technology
and other areas which the US dominates like say PC software.
> but they often pay better.
Oct 30th 2004, 6:37 pm
#714
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
Deep Frayed Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> Deep Frayed Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed writes
>>>>>> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed writes
>>>>>>>> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed writes
>>>>>>>>>> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Ted Ng <ted_ng@[nospam].com> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. That's why so many Europeans move here.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 255,976 *legal* immigrants from Europe alone in 2002.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In just 4 years, over a million Europeans moved to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the United States to seek permanent legal residency.
>>>>>>>>>>> From which countries?
>>>>>>>>>> The site he cited lists that at any detail level you want.
>>>>>>>>> That doesn't answer my question.
>>>>>>>> Then you'll have to use that site to get your answer.
>>>>>>> I don't have to do anything.
>>>>>> You do if you want that question answered.
>>>>> If the question is not answered,
>>>> Pity it was. With that site providing that particular answer you wanted.
>>> So might Google.com, but that is hardly proving your point.
>> I made no point at all, except that the question he asked is readily
>> answered.
> Readily??? That link does most certainly not 'readily' answer your claim!
I made no claim at all. I JUST pointed out where the answer can be found.
> You provided it
I didnt even provide it, Ted did.
> because it was ambiguous in the extreme.
Obvious lie.
It aint ambiguous at all on the particular question Mxsmanic wanted answered.
Try again.
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> Deep Frayed Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed writes
>>>>>> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed writes
>>>>>>>> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed writes
>>>>>>>>>> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Ted Ng <ted_ng@[nospam].com> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. That's why so many Europeans move here.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 255,976 *legal* immigrants from Europe alone in 2002.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In just 4 years, over a million Europeans moved to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the United States to seek permanent legal residency.
>>>>>>>>>>> From which countries?
>>>>>>>>>> The site he cited lists that at any detail level you want.
>>>>>>>>> That doesn't answer my question.
>>>>>>>> Then you'll have to use that site to get your answer.
>>>>>>> I don't have to do anything.
>>>>>> You do if you want that question answered.
>>>>> If the question is not answered,
>>>> Pity it was. With that site providing that particular answer you wanted.
>>> So might Google.com, but that is hardly proving your point.
>> I made no point at all, except that the question he asked is readily
>> answered.
> Readily??? That link does most certainly not 'readily' answer your claim!
I made no claim at all. I JUST pointed out where the answer can be found.
> You provided it
I didnt even provide it, Ted did.
> because it was ambiguous in the extreme.
Obvious lie.
It aint ambiguous at all on the particular question Mxsmanic wanted answered.
Try again.
Oct 30th 2004, 7:15 pm
#715
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:03:35 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Ellie C wrote:
>> Lennart Petersen wrote:
>>
>>> "Al" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
>>> news:[email protected] om...
>>>> [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote in message
>>>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>> Al <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Following up to Rod Speed
>>>>>>>>> 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? Ive been given the impression US workforce
>>>>>>> is very mobile and change jobs and location much more than
>>>>>>> Europeans?
>>>>>> I think this is true, but people don't change jobs for worse
>>>>>> benefits/pay.
>>>>> Not until the Bush administration anyway.
>>>> Let's look at this:
>>>> http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
>>>> AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF PRODUCTION WORKERS
>>>> The average hourly wage was $14.27 when he took office. Now it's $15.78.
>>> $14.27 was equal to about SEK140 at that time, $15.78 is equal to
>>> SEK110 only today, inflation not counted. Euro and $ was on par just
>>> a few y ago, now the rate is about 1.27
>>> Good news for those travelling and paid outside U.S but can't be fun
>>> for people with $ salaries?
>> Really awful for people retired on US $. ;-(
>Then again when the Euro started it was just under $1.20 so the euro has
>been up about 10% and down about 25% over it's short life span.
http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eu...ph-usd.en.html
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Ellie C wrote:
>> Lennart Petersen wrote:
>>
>>> "Al" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
>>> news:[email protected] om...
>>>> [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote in message
>>>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>> Al <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Following up to Rod Speed
>>>>>>>>> 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? Ive been given the impression US workforce
>>>>>>> is very mobile and change jobs and location much more than
>>>>>>> Europeans?
>>>>>> I think this is true, but people don't change jobs for worse
>>>>>> benefits/pay.
>>>>> Not until the Bush administration anyway.
>>>> Let's look at this:
>>>> http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
>>>> AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF PRODUCTION WORKERS
>>>> The average hourly wage was $14.27 when he took office. Now it's $15.78.
>>> $14.27 was equal to about SEK140 at that time, $15.78 is equal to
>>> SEK110 only today, inflation not counted. Euro and $ was on par just
>>> a few y ago, now the rate is about 1.27
>>> Good news for those travelling and paid outside U.S but can't be fun
>>> for people with $ salaries?
>> Really awful for people retired on US $. ;-(
>Then again when the Euro started it was just under $1.20 so the euro has
>been up about 10% and down about 25% over it's short life span.
http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eu...ph-usd.en.html
--
Martin
Oct 30th 2004, 7:17 pm
#716
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 08:24:37 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Jane Sitton wrote:
>> I ended my last job because I didn't get along well with my boss, and
>> because the company I worked for imposed a stupid dress code. (I worked
>> in an office, and never saw vendors or customers, so why do they care if
>> I wear white socks, fergawdssake?)
>Your employer actually specified the color of the socks you must wear?
He actually specified that Jane had to wear socks?
--
Martin
wrote:
>Jane Sitton wrote:
>> I ended my last job because I didn't get along well with my boss, and
>> because the company I worked for imposed a stupid dress code. (I worked
>> in an office, and never saw vendors or customers, so why do they care if
>> I wear white socks, fergawdssake?)
>Your employer actually specified the color of the socks you must wear?
He actually specified that Jane had to wear socks?
--
Martin
Oct 30th 2004, 7:19 pm
#717
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:16:02 GMT, Jane Sitton
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Jane Sitton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I ended my last job because I didn't get along well with my boss, and
>>>because the company I worked for imposed a stupid dress code. (I worked
>>>in an office, and never saw vendors or customers, so why do they care if
>>>I wear white socks, fergawdssake?)
>>
>>
>> Your employer actually specified the color of the socks you must wear?
>My employer specified that no one could wear white socks, as they were
>not part of the "business casual" dress code. I wonder if someone
>actually wore white socks with a suit and that caused the panic.
>I always wore white cotton socks with casual slacks or jeans (We could
>wear jeans on Fridays.), and trouser socks or knee highs with dressy
>pants or trousers. I sat at a desk almost all day long, only getting up
>to fetch papers from the printer or send a fax. So my feet were under
>the desk almost all day.
>Why anyone cared is beyond my comprehension. I was never offended if
>anyone else wore white socks. I was offended when women were allowed to
>wear sandals (leather only, of course -- hell if you're a strict
>vegetarian or vegan) WITHOUT any sort of hosiery. That just didn't look
>professional to me. A woman who sat near me often wore sandals without
>hose, and she had very dry heels, varicose veins, and ugly yellow
>toenails. GAG!
>Also bad was when sleeveless blouses and dresses were allowed. If you
>have huge arms with the skin hanging down and flapping every time you
>move your arms, PLEASE do not wear anything sleeveless!
I'd have changed jobs just to get away from them :-)
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Jane Sitton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I ended my last job because I didn't get along well with my boss, and
>>>because the company I worked for imposed a stupid dress code. (I worked
>>>in an office, and never saw vendors or customers, so why do they care if
>>>I wear white socks, fergawdssake?)
>>
>>
>> Your employer actually specified the color of the socks you must wear?
>My employer specified that no one could wear white socks, as they were
>not part of the "business casual" dress code. I wonder if someone
>actually wore white socks with a suit and that caused the panic.
>I always wore white cotton socks with casual slacks or jeans (We could
>wear jeans on Fridays.), and trouser socks or knee highs with dressy
>pants or trousers. I sat at a desk almost all day long, only getting up
>to fetch papers from the printer or send a fax. So my feet were under
>the desk almost all day.
>Why anyone cared is beyond my comprehension. I was never offended if
>anyone else wore white socks. I was offended when women were allowed to
>wear sandals (leather only, of course -- hell if you're a strict
>vegetarian or vegan) WITHOUT any sort of hosiery. That just didn't look
>professional to me. A woman who sat near me often wore sandals without
>hose, and she had very dry heels, varicose veins, and ugly yellow
>toenails. GAG!
>Also bad was when sleeveless blouses and dresses were allowed. If you
>have huge arms with the skin hanging down and flapping every time you
>move your arms, PLEASE do not wear anything sleeveless!
I'd have changed jobs just to get away from them :-)
--
Martin
Oct 30th 2004, 8:34 pm
#718
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:03:35 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Ellie C wrote:
>>>Lennart Petersen wrote:
>>>>"Al" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
>>>>news:[email protected] le.com...
>>>>>[email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote in message
>>>>>news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>>>Al <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Following up to Rod Speed
>>>>>>>>>>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? Ive been given the impression US workforce
>>>>>>>>is very mobile and change jobs and location much more than
>>>>>>>>Europeans?
>>>>>>>I think this is true, but people don't change jobs for worse
>>>>>>>benefits/pay.
>>>>>>Not until the Bush administration anyway.
>>>>>Let's look at this:
>>>>>http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
>>>>>AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF PRODUCTION WORKERS
>>>>>The average hourly wage was $14.27 when he took office. Now it's $15.78.
>>>>$14.27 was equal to about SEK140 at that time, $15.78 is equal to
>>>>SEK110 only today, inflation not counted. Euro and $ was on par just
>>>>a few y ago, now the rate is about 1.27
>>>>Good news for those travelling and paid outside U.S but can't be fun
>>>>for people with $ salaries?
>>>Really awful for people retired on US $. ;-(
>>Then again when the Euro started it was just under $1.20 so the euro has
>>been up about 10% and down about 25% over it's short life span.
> http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eu...ph-usd.en.html
That's right. Just click on Since January 1999.
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:03:35 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Ellie C wrote:
>>>Lennart Petersen wrote:
>>>>"Al" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
>>>>news:[email protected] le.com...
>>>>>[email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote in message
>>>>>news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>>>Al <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Following up to Rod Speed
>>>>>>>>>>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? Ive been given the impression US workforce
>>>>>>>>is very mobile and change jobs and location much more than
>>>>>>>>Europeans?
>>>>>>>I think this is true, but people don't change jobs for worse
>>>>>>>benefits/pay.
>>>>>>Not until the Bush administration anyway.
>>>>>Let's look at this:
>>>>>http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
>>>>>AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF PRODUCTION WORKERS
>>>>>The average hourly wage was $14.27 when he took office. Now it's $15.78.
>>>>$14.27 was equal to about SEK140 at that time, $15.78 is equal to
>>>>SEK110 only today, inflation not counted. Euro and $ was on par just
>>>>a few y ago, now the rate is about 1.27
>>>>Good news for those travelling and paid outside U.S but can't be fun
>>>>for people with $ salaries?
>>>Really awful for people retired on US $. ;-(
>>Then again when the Euro started it was just under $1.20 so the euro has
>>been up about 10% and down about 25% over it's short life span.
> http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eu...ph-usd.en.html
That's right. Just click on Since January 1999.
Oct 30th 2004, 8:39 pm
#719
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:16:02 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>That's true. The UK doesn't have enough population who are starving
>>huddled masses to compete with the volume of Indios who are moving north.
> What's an Indio?
Southern version of Native Americans. NA's are only allowed to be from
US or Canada.
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:16:02 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>That's true. The UK doesn't have enough population who are starving
>>huddled masses to compete with the volume of Indios who are moving north.
> What's an Indio?
Southern version of Native Americans. NA's are only allowed to be from
US or Canada.
Oct 30th 2004, 8:42 pm
#720
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: ONLY TWO WEEKS VACATION PER YEAR IN THE US???
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:34:44 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:03:35 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Then again when the Euro started it was just under $1.20 so the euro has
>>>been up about 10% and down about 25% over it's short life span.
>> http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eu...ph-usd.en.html
>That's right. Just click on Since January 1999.
and then compare to
http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eu...ph-chf.en.html
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:03:35 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Then again when the Euro started it was just under $1.20 so the euro has
>>>been up about 10% and down about 25% over it's short life span.
>> http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eu...ph-usd.en.html
>That's right. Just click on Since January 1999.
and then compare to
http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eu...ph-chf.en.html
--
Martin