scrubbedexpat091

There has to be a good middle ground to be found.

I am also a jaded person in general when it comes to jobs, doesn't feel like there is any benefit when there is no way to enjoy life and basic essentials eat up everything and leave no room for any leisure time or hobbies or really any fun at all, so I am probably biased.

Michael

I'm not saying the system is fair since it isn't in any country. The US as a whole ranks near the top in median household income in PPP$ compared to individual European countries. If the US was broken out by states individually, probably over 1/2 would all be near or at the top.

You stated earlier that you sell back your 2 weeks vacation because you need the money but what would you do if you got 6 weeks vacation and a reduction in salary by 8% and couldn't sell those vacation days back? You may say that Europe has a better safety net than Canada or the US but much of that paid for by the middle class with 20%-25% VAT, $5 per gallon taxes on petrol, and one country's income tax rate is a flat 45% for all incomes. In every country there are the extremely rich with tax loopholes to keep them very rich.

We can't see behind closed doors so we don't know what the average life is like in any country. Personally I've been behind those closed doors where my father had a middle class income and very little extra money for 5 children. I felt deprived since there wasn't money for vacation and even things that many would consider the basics of life.

Over the past month, I met a guy that asked me to help him find a better job. When I met him, he was single and making about $24,000 per year because his work hours were cut by one day per week. He shares a place with another guy but besides his low salary, he is carrying baggage that made things worse. For the last month he was over my place just about every day and I was showing him how to use the computer so he could search and find a better job, teach him why he was carrying that baggage and how to get out from under it, and to establish goals that he can accomplish. He claims he is willing to work long hours to get out of the hole he dug himself.

There are currently about 5 million unfilled jobs in the US and he can see the light if he works hard enough and has started to remove some of the baggage. The biggest question is whether he will follow through with his goals

Michael

The French did a great job of that. They reduced the maximum work week to reduce unemployment and it backfired since it is difficult for an employer to layoff employees, demand dropped, and unemployment rates rose.

When I lived in Geneva, my company had a plant in Ferny Voltaire that was inefficient and when the company started losing money, layoffs had to occur and the brunt of the layoffs were Americans since to close the plant in Ferny Voltaire would require severance packages of a minimum of one year and the company couldn't afford the cost at that time. When the company again became profitable, Americans were hired but the Ferny Voltaire plant was closed and the company never again opened another plant in France.

When the great recession hit, 700,000 American jobs were lost per month very quickly and the unemployment rate rose quickly but within a year, companies were hiring again and the unemployment rate started to drop. In Europe, job losses occurred at a slower rate due to employee protection laws but 4 years later, the unemployment rate was still rising.

American companies overall are currently very profitable and are hiring but European companies overall are barely scraping by. The following is a 5 year comparison chart between FEZ (Euro zones 50 largest companies) and DIA (the American DOW 30) and which companies do you think will be hiring sooner?

FEZ Compared to DIA

Prior to the oil shock in the 1970s, Europe had a low unemployment rate but after the shock it rose above 10% and couldn't get below 10% for the rest of the century. That seemed to be an accepted norm. What will be the accepted norm for the 21st century?

If you were an employer in France, what would you do? Would you take the risk and expand and hire workers that have short work weeks, are very difficult and expensive to lay off, and require long vacations? What do you do if the expansion fails to attract enough business to be competitive and profitable?

amideislas

I'll just say this and get out:

First, competition is good. It gives you a lot more choices, and better ones, too.

If you don't like the vacation offered in a job, then (especially in the US) you can go elsewhere. The US has a pretty low unemployment number. Nobody is holding a gun to your head, and it isn't as though there are no other jobs (as is in Spain, for example, where if you're lucky enough to have a job, you better suck it up, 'cause there just ain't any other choices, but that's our social system at work).

I believe anybody who has skills and brings value to a company always has the ability to leverage it in their favour. If your company doesn't recognise your value, then offer that value to their competitor for better conditions. That's competition.

But if you're worthless, well, then why should you be rewarded with a "guarantee"?

For christs' sake, since when has anything been guaranteed in life? Perhaps all people (even the worthless) should be guaranteed to have a minimum of 6 weeks paid time off? 12 Weeks? Blimey! why work at all? We're entitled. Besides, it's not my problem. The ****** government is responsible for everything that I don't get.

Right, then.

dakota44

That is totally different than a profit sharing program. Shortening a work week and making reasonable dismissal too costly are not good ideas, whereas healthy profit sharing gives the employees a vested interest in the companies success.

retzie

Good on you for believing it; doesn't mean it's true. In my experience, ~competition~ in the US has a tendency to work in the other direction: employers/service providers compete to reduce the lowest point the market will stand, eg. health insurance, cell phone services, consumer banking, home internet, etc.

Nobody said you get to decide who plays 'supply' and who plays 'demand'...

Hotscot

[QUOTE=amideislas;11506752]I
I believe anybody who has skills and brings value to a company always has the ability to leverage it in their favour. If your company doesn't recognise your value, then offer that value to their competitor for better conditions. That's competition.

/QUOTE]

How naive....

Pulaski

That's more or less how America works though.

Hotscot

It should be. But as you know the individual can have very few opportunities for leverage.
She makes out that it's easy to transfer to another employer when it's not at all, for the majority of employees.

amideislas

I said I'd get out, but I have to answer this.

So, you're saying that if you have talent, and your company doesn't reward it, you are forced to stay with that company? Their competitor wouldn't like to have that resource in their pocket? Or are you suggesting that all competitors collude with one another to prevent that from happening?

Do you think a company achieves success by employing a completely unmotivated workforce that they pay slave wages for? That it doesn't matter?

OK then, why is it that of all the monster successes where people enthusiastically claim to love to work (and consistently rate in the top 10 list of "best companies to work for"), the vast majority of them are from the US?

I'd contrast that with Europe, where far more people hate their jobs, and the larger employers are run like government bureaucracies and treat employees like enemies. In fact, apathy and pessimism are a rather a chic attitude to hold. If you love your job, you must be some kind of idiot.

But to be fair, if you're untalented, unenthusiastic, apathetic, pessimistic, and generally aren't much of an asset to your company, Europe is an excellent place to have a job (if you can get one). Lots of things guaranteed under the law, even if you're worthless. I reckon that helps explain Europe's employment situation.

Hotscot

Many highly qualified valuable employees get laid off for 'business'' reasons while the competition may not have any vacancies.

Foe example Adobe laid off 1500 in one go....you think they can just go to a 'competitor'.

Same has happened with Microsoft Intel AT&T Cisco and many other high tech companies

Competition for jobs is ferocious
Competition for employees not so much

Employers market

Pulaski

Those are specific and atypical examples. That said when the unemployment rate here was up around 10% for the population as a whole, the rate for experienced mid-career graduates and professionals was negligible, less than 2%, so "yes" most experienced, qualified people laid off from good jobs very soon find alternative employment.

Hotscot

But that's not the case today

And yes it can be industry specific also regional issues

However it is not as simple as she claims

She tends to see things in black and white.

Bob

Sorry...

Bob

I wouldn't say that.

Happens very regularly for a lot of markets in the weeks leading up to a quarterly financial...especially around Christmas and end of year tallys.