Sara

Vitaly Shmatikov wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, Sara <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>> Frankly, I'll trust the Economist over you (and ILO) every day of the
    >>> week, and twice on Sunday. In any case, ILO numbers are from 1999
    >>> (if I am to believe your link) and probably reflect recession in Japan.
    >>> OECD numbers used by the Economist are from 2003. But you are welcome
    >>> to write a letter to the Economist if you think they are lying.
    >>>
    >>Could you provide a link to cite please?
    >>
    > http://www.economist.com/printeditio...ory_ID=3109465
    > But I suspect you won't be able to read it unless you are a subscriber.
    > It's this year's August 21 issue with a belching dragon on the cover.
    >
I could read it and thank you for posting it.

--
"Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.'' -- George Bush, Sept 7

Rod Speed

"Sara" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >>"Sara" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >>>Rod Speed wrote:
    >>>>"
    >>>>>>>>worker there works longer hours than in the US.
    >>>>>>>I don't know about Australia but if you check recent data the
    >>>>>>>US is ahead of Japan.
    >>>>>>I got it from the August 21-27 issue of the Economist that's been
    >>>>>>lying around my office. It has a table of average annual hours per
    >>>>>>worker for all OECD countries, and lists Australia, New Zealand,
    >>>>>>Japan, and Spain ahead of the US. If you don't like the numbers,
    >>>>>>complain to OECD (they are credited as the source of the table).
    >>>>>Then they are not doing their fact checking.
    >>>>Is that right ?
    >>>>>The ILO says otherwise.
    >>>>The ILO is hardly an unbiased source on stuff like that.
    >>>>I'll take the OECD over the ILO any day.
    >>>Really?
    >>Yes, really.
    >>>Ok. Read it and find that you are wrong.
    >>>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/51/2080270.pdf
    >>You're lying, again. It says nothing like what you claimed.
    > You appear to be Rod Slow.

Any 3 year old could do better than that pathetic effort.

Get one to help you next time, if anyone is actually
silly enough to let you anywhere near one.

Rod Speed

"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:41:18 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
    > (Vitaly Shmatikov) wrote:
    >>In article <[email protected]>, Sara <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>> Two weeks is the average only for entry-level jobs. Bureau of Labor
    >>>> Statistics (www.bls.gov) has a ton of data on paid vacation time
    >>>> (nothing more recent than 1997-98, though). For example, the average
    >>>> paid vacation time (this doesn't include paid personal leave days and
    >>>> sick days) after 10 years of service is 16.9 days (almost 3.5 weeks)
    >>>> for employees in private establishments, 18.6 days for employees of
    >>>> state and local governments.
    >>>Average for 10 years of service! How many Americans are staying at
    >>>companies for 10 years these days?
    >> According to BLS, 31% of workers age 25 and over had 10 or more years
    >> of tenure with their current employer in January 2004. I personally
    >> know plenty of people who have been at their companies for 10 years
    >> or longer. When they leave, they usually negotiate a much higher
    >> salary *and* at least as much vacation time at their new place as
    >> they accumulated at the old place. You see, people whose skills are
    >> in demand are usually in a very strong negotiating position when it
    >> comes to switching jobs.

    > That's a joke.

Nope, you are.

    > You should talk to all the highly qualified software
    > engineers in Silicon valley who can't find a job.

Tiny subset of the entire labor market, stupid.

    >>> The average American worker gets two weeks and it does
    >>> not mean only entry-level workers. That statement is correct.

    >> That statement is a mathematical impossibility. Per BLS numbers,
    >> the average American worker *with 1 year of service* gets two weeks,
    >> and that doesn't even include government employees. Since the average
    >> includes people with more than 1 year of service, the average across
    >> all workers is certainly more than 2 weeks.
    >>>> Do Australia and Japan count as industrial countries? The average
    >>>> worker there works longer hours than in the US.
    >>>You are incorrect.
    >> My numbers come from OECD via the Economist (Aug 21-27 issue, you
    >> can find it at your local library). Somehow I trust them more than
    >> a bunch of no-name websites like ``Hartford Web Publishing'' and the
    >> ``Shalom Center.'' Sorry.
    >

Tazzy_gal

[email protected] (Georgette Mossbacker) wrote in message news:<[email protected]. com>...
    > Jacques Chirac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>.. .
    > > Jonathan wrote:
    > >
    > > >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.
    > > >
YAAAAAAAAAAAAWWNNNNNNN. I get five weeks paid, plus five holidays
paid, plus.....oh I forget. Too bad I took some of those valuable
weeks to visit the UK, now I know what they think of us. What a waste
of time....not really. I'm just attempting to be snotty. I'd go back
in a second, AFTER I returned (for the fifth time) to Paris. Lovely
people!

Next.....

Donald Newcomb

"Sara" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > I remember seeing a study that was done asking people if they could
    > choose between getting a few more weeks off or getting a few extra weeks
    > salary which would they take? Americans took the money.

This is consistent with the general attitude among us Americans that "He who
dies with the most toys, wins." You need the money to buy the cars, boats,
TVs, stereos, etc. that you don't have time to enjoy. 8-)

However, Americans are really in the middle of the global pack here. The
Japanese are far worse WRT vacation and work than Americans. We are
currently coming out of the effects of the generation of "The Great
Depression" To our parents and grandparents, having a job was equal to life
itself. Many of these people had to forced to retire in their late 80s
because they could not allow themselves to stop working. They had seen long
lines of jobless men waiting for soup and equated lack of work with
destitution. To them vaction was not a time for real living, it was a
necessary evil. Needless to say, I don't hold this view.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

Jeff Hacker

"nospam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ink.net...
    >> Two weeks is the average only for entry-level jobs. Bureau of Labor
    >> Statistics (www.bls.gov) has a ton of data on paid vacation time
    >> (nothing more recent than 1997-98, though). For example, the average
    >> paid vacation time (this doesn't include paid personal leave days and
    >> sick days) after 10 years of service is 16.9 days (almost 3.5 weeks)
    >> for employees in private establishments, 18.6 days for employees of
    >> state and local governments.
    > And in today's Bush environment, working for a single company for
    > ten years is almost impossible. Being laid-off is quite common. And
    > after you are laid-off, your vacation clock starts from scratch. I have
    > only received personal days from one of the companies I worked for.

That's not "today's Bush environment," but rather simply "today's
environment." The system has changed, and the changes started long ago.Long
before Bush.
    >> For what it's worth, I worked for a couple of private companies in
    >> the US, and both times my vacation started at 15 workdays per year
    >> plus several personal leave days, and increased at the rate of 1-2
    >> days per year.
    > And to counter that, I have worked for companies where vacation
    > started at two weeks and did not extend upwards for many years.
    > Sick time was lumped in with all categories of "lost time" and we
    > were expected to make up all lost time through unpaid overtime.
    > This was as a salaried employee for a Fortune 500 corporation,
    > by the way.
    > Pete
    >

Owain

"Rod Speed" wrote
    | My other reservation with these stats is that the bulk of
    | the aussies that do complain about longer hours are actually
    | salaried employees who dont get paid for the longer hours.
...
    | We (aussies) have seen a lot of movement to 12 hour working
    | shifts in industrys like mining etc particularly, tho those
    | hours are usually reasonably carefully counted for that level
    | of employee.

And with longer daily shifts, it's possible to have more holidays and still
build up the same number of annual hours.

There's some movement towards longer working days Mon-Thur and finish early
on Friday afternoons in some sectors of UK industry. Doesn't actually add
any holidays, but makes it easier to fly off somewhere for a weekend break.

Owain

[xpost to alt.gossip.celebrities,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh removed]

K. Reece

"Sara" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Gee, Roddy, you seem very good at calling people liars and spouting off
    > your own opinions, yet you've not backed up ONE assertion you've made with
    > any real citation. How odd.
    > Could you please provide a link to your sources? Your credibility is in
    > doubt. Since you feel the data is too old, please provide at least two or
    > three recent sources that support your opinions.

He's never provided a cite to back up any of his claims before. What makes
you think he'll start now? All he does is insult people when he can't back
up any claim.

Honestly, it's pointless to have any kind of discussion with him since he
hasn't clue one as to how to have a discussion.

As far as I can tell he never had any credibility to start with.

Kathy

Radio Edit

I used to get 30 days a year before I retired. And the military gets 30
days a year too.







"K. Reece" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Sara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> Gee, Roddy, you seem very good at calling people liars and spouting off
    >> your own opinions, yet you've not backed up ONE assertion you've made
    >> with any real citation. How odd.
    >> Could you please provide a link to your sources? Your credibility is in
    >> doubt. Since you feel the data is too old, please provide at least two
    >> or three recent sources that support your opinions.
    > He's never provided a cite to back up any of his claims before. What
    > makes you think he'll start now? All he does is insult people when he
    > can't back up any claim.
    > Honestly, it's pointless to have any kind of discussion with him since he
    > hasn't clue one as to how to have a discussion.
    > As far as I can tell he never had any credibility to start with.
    > Kathy
    >

Frank F. Matthews

Vitaly Shmatikov wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, Sara <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>> I got it from the August 21-27 issue of the Economist that's been
    >>> lying around my office. It has a table of average annual hours per
    >>> worker for all OECD countries, and lists Australia, New Zealand,
    >>> Japan, and Spain ahead of the US. If you don't like the numbers,
    >>> complain to OECD (they are credited as the source of the table).

    >>Then they are not doing their fact checking. The ILO says otherwise.

    > Frankly, I'll trust the Economist over you (and ILO) every day of the
    > week, and twice on Sunday. In any case, ILO numbers are from 1999
    > (if I am to believe your link) and probably reflect recession in Japan.
    > OECD numbers used by the Economist are from 2003. But you are welcome
    > to write a letter to the Economist if you think they are lying.

Actually when I found the OECD data for the past few years it was closer
to the Economist table but didn't appear to quite match it. If you want
to have some fun the OECD data does cover a good range of countries and
years. I haven't had time to look at their collection practices and
definitions though. As Rod mentioned hours worked by salaried folks are
hard to determine accurately.

Frank F. Matthews

Vitaly Shmatikov wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, Sara <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>> Two weeks is the average only for entry-level jobs. Bureau of Labor
    >>> Statistics (www.bls.gov) has a ton of data on paid vacation time
    >>> (nothing more recent than 1997-98, though). For example, the average
    >>> paid vacation time (this doesn't include paid personal leave days and
    >>> sick days) after 10 years of service is 16.9 days (almost 3.5 weeks)
    >>> for employees in private establishments, 18.6 days for employees of
    >>> state and local governments.

    >>Average for 10 years of service! How many Americans are staying at
    >>companies for 10 years these days?

    > According to BLS, 31% of workers age 25 and over had 10 or more years
    > of tenure with their current employer in January 2004. I personally
    > know plenty of people who have been at their companies for 10 years
    > or longer. When they leave, they usually negotiate a much higher
    > salary *and* at least as much vacation time at their new place as
    > they accumulated at the old place. You see, people whose skills are
    > in demand are usually in a very strong negotiating position when it
    > comes to switching jobs.

    >>The average American worker gets two weeks and it does not mean only
    >>entry-level workers. That statement is correct.

    > That statement is a mathematical impossibility. Per BLS numbers,
    > the average American worker *with 1 year of service* gets two weeks,
    > and that doesn't even include government employees. Since the average
    > includes people with more than 1 year of service, the average across
    > all workers is certainly more than 2 weeks.

Since by your data only 31% have 10 or more years tenure their situation
has no mathematical impact on the average. The only question is if
there are over 19% of the workers who have less than 10 years tenure and
get over 2 weeks vacation.

    >>> Do Australia and Japan count as industrial countries? The average
    >>> worker there works longer hours than in the US.

    >>You are incorrect.

    > My numbers come from OECD via the Economist (Aug 21-27 issue, you
    > can find it at your local library). Somehow I trust them more than
    > a bunch of no-name websites like ``Hartford Web Publishing'' and the
    > ``Shalom Center.'' Sorry.

Frank F. Matthews

Then again, with all the advice to find a new career when you retire,
they may simply have jobs which they like.

Donald Newcomb wrote:

    > This is consistent with the general attitude among us Americans that "He who
    > dies with the most toys, wins." You need the money to buy the cars, boats,
    > TVs, stereos, etc. that you don't have time to enjoy. 8-)
    >
    > However, Americans are really in the middle of the global pack here. The
    > Japanese are far worse WRT vacation and work than Americans. We are
    > currently coming out of the effects of the generation of "The Great
    > Depression" To our parents and grandparents, having a job was equal to life
    > itself. Many of these people had to forced to retire in their late 80s
    > because they could not allow themselves to stop working. They had seen long
    > lines of jobless men waiting for soup and equated lack of work with
    > destitution. To them vaction was not a time for real living, it was a
    > necessary evil. Needless to say, I don't hold this view.

"Sara" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

>>I remember seeing a study that was done asking people if they could
>>choose between getting a few more weeks off or getting a few extra
>>weeks salary which would they take? Americans took the money.

Lennart Petersen

"Owain" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email protected]...
    > "Rod Speed" wrote
    > | My other reservation with these stats is that the bulk of
    > | the aussies that do complain about longer hours are actually
    > | salaried employees who dont get paid for the longer hours.
    > ...
    > | We (aussies) have seen a lot of movement to 12 hour working
    > | shifts in industrys like mining etc particularly, tho those
    > | hours are usually reasonably carefully counted for that level
    > | of employee.
    > And with longer daily shifts, it's possible to have more holidays and
    > still
    > build up the same number of annual hours.
I'm working so. 12 h We,Thu,Fri,Su,Mo,Tue nights,then one week off.
Thus all vacations are extended in both ends and for example this year I had
two 5 week vacations and one 3 week. And all the off weeks may be used
for short trips in Europe.

Rod Speed

Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
    > Vitaly Shmatikov wrote:

    >> In article <[email protected]>, Sara <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>>> I got it from the August 21-27 issue of the Economist that's been
    >>>> lying around my office. It has a table of average annual hours per
    >>>> worker for all OECD countries, and lists Australia, New Zealand,
    >>>> Japan, and Spain ahead of the US. If you don't like the numbers,
    >>>> complain to OECD (they are credited as the source of the table).

    >>> Then they are not doing their fact checking. The ILO says otherwise.

    >> Frankly, I'll trust the Economist over you (and ILO) every day of the
    >> week, and twice on Sunday. In any case, ILO numbers are from 1999
    >> (if I am to believe your link) and probably reflect recession in Japan.
    >> OECD numbers used by the Economist are from 2003. But you are welcome to
    >> write a letter to the Economist if you think they are lying.

    > Actually when I found the OECD data for the past few years it was closer to
    > the Economist table but didn't appear to quite match it.

    > If you want to have some fun the OECD data does cover a good range of
    > countries and years. I haven't had time to look at their collection practices
    > and definitions though. As Rod mentioned hours worked by salaried folks are
    > hard to determine accurately.

And the Economist table has the hours worked suspiciously close
across countrys, for the most recent data on the 5 highest countrys.
I find it VERY hard to believe its actually as close as they claim it is.

Presumably its much harder to measure
accurately than the vacation entitlement.

Rod Speed

Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:%[email protected]...

    > Then again, with all the advice to find a new career when you retire, they may
    > simply have jobs which they like.

Yeah, and some appear to just prefer to work that not.

One fellow I know really hates retirement with a passion.
Used to be a bank manager, classic example of someone who
never did have much to do except his work, hates retirement.


    > Donald Newcomb wrote:
    >> This is consistent with the general attitude among us Americans that "He who
    >> dies with the most toys, wins." You need the money to buy the cars, boats,
    >> TVs, stereos, etc. that you don't have time to enjoy. 8-)
    >> However, Americans are really in the middle of the global pack here. The
    >> Japanese are far worse WRT vacation and work than Americans. We are
    >> currently coming out of the effects of the generation of "The Great
    >> Depression" To our parents and grandparents, having a job was equal to life
    >> itself. Many of these people had to forced to retire in their late 80s
    >> because they could not allow themselves to stop working. They had seen long
    >> lines of jobless men waiting for soup and equated lack of work with
    >> destitution. To them vaction was not a time for real living, it was a
    >> necessary evil. Needless to say, I don't hold this view.
    > "Sara" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >>I remember seeing a study that was done asking people if they could
    > >>choose between getting a few more weeks off or getting a few extra weeks
    > >>salary which would they take? Americans took the money.
    >