More vacation time for Americans?

[Trevize1138]

I figure this is somewhat related to mountain biking, as most of us see it as our liesure activity.

MPR's Mid Morning had a program about a guy who's lobbying congress to mandate 3 weeks of vacation for all American workers. I'm certainly in favor of this, but there were a couple callers who thought lobbying wasn't the answer and even one who just thought more vacation would turn America into a 3rd world country overnight! Sheesh.

What's everyone else's thoughts on this? It'd certaily be nicer to have more vacation, and the research this guy pointed to shows that employees are more productive when they're not being worked to death. Personally, I've never gone in for the whole attitude of working nights and weekends to buck up to management. I tend to believe that's what the 13th Ammendment was all about, but despite that legislation employers continue to find "legitimate" forms of slavery.

Europe's average vacation time is 6 weeks a year! A big cause of this discrepency seems to be a culture in our own country of valuing only what you produce at work, leading to burnout, high turnover rates and lowered productivity.

[BrightYellow]

When I started with my current company (which was based in the UK), we got 4 weeks of personal time, to take however you needed. That's 20 days, right from the start. We also got 9 paid holidays a year. I can tell you, that was nice!

I think it definitely helped around the office to know that you had that much time to play with. People were less likely to call in sick for no reason and were able to schedule vacations ahead of time, that didn't interfere with our deadlines.

Our company was aquired this year by a Canadian company and we got switched to 15 days vacation and unlimited sick time. I think people are "sick" more often now then they used to be. Before it would come out of your 20 days, so there was less incentive. Now though, I think there are less colds running rampant in the office, because you can just stay home with no penalty.

I'm not sure which way is better... but, I'm not complaining. It's nice to have the vacation.

[socrates]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
I figure this is somewhat related to mountain biking, as most of us see it as our liesure activity.

MPR's Mid Morning had a program about a guy who's lobbying congress to mandate 3 weeks of vacation for all American workers. I'm certainly in favor of this, but there were a couple callers who thought lobbying wasn't the answer and even one who just thought more vacation would turn America into a 3rd world country overnight! Sheesh.


Simply put....keep the govt out of stuff like this....I get 5 weeks year these days...why? Because 1) my employer can afford to pay it 2) because of my length of service with my company...govt is there to protect it's people...not sure how this fits that role (of course we all know in reality a govt's role is really to grow the size of the govt)

[jkalla]

If it wasn't for the governement's involvement in labor laws we would still have a 6 day , 50 + hour work week and no right to organize labor unions.

FMLA, minimum wage, overtime pay - these are all government mandated labor regulations.

[funky-funky-chicken]

There is an agreement between employer and employee. The company offers a wage and benefits for the work required; people have the choice of either accepting or rejecting the offer. If no one is willing to accept the offer, or it is determined that the company cannot retain qualified and talented workers for the given wages and benefits, they would logically need to provide a more attractive offer. Sounds like economics to me… If that neighbor kid won’t cut your grass anymore because your other neighbor is offering $30 instead of your $20, I guess you will need to either offer more money to the kid or find someone else.

The argument for “more productive” employees certainly does not apply for all circumstances and cannot be applied universally. Sure, people might be a little less "burned out" if they had more time off, but that doesn't necessarily mean more productive. Take a hypothetical situation of a small business with one production machine and one operator to run it. In the absence of the operator, the machine could not be run. Without the machine running, the company will receive no revenue. Mandating that the operator must take three weeks versus two would mean that the company would be less productive.

I may not explain it well, but I really think the idea is not good. I have had jobs without any time off, or jobs in which my responsibilities were such that I never felt like I could take the time off that I was given. Of course, I say this all as I will be leaving tomorrow morning to use one of my 5 weeks of paid vacation
:banana: :banana: :banana:

[nicnac]

I think it would be great to carry over some of Europe's work ethics. Unfortunately, in my opinion, some of the fundamental elements that will forever block that are these....

Love of money:

When it comes down to it, American's just simply love their money. And the more the better. They love it more than anyone else.
Very few places in the world would consider working 60+ hrs a week for someone else.
Corporations have created the billable hrs. concept, (at first presumably to protect the client) and employees now find themselves coming to work on Sundays because they don't have enough billable hrs according to company guidelines.

And speaking of work I suppose I had best get back to it before I'm worrying more about finding a new job instead of how much vacation we have! heh

[gopherhockey]

I enjoy time off, but am always annoyed when I can't get something done because people are all gone... like during the 4th of July weekend... or around the holidays.

I'm guilty of wanting stores open 24/7 and businesses always available to process orders, answer questions, etc. I can take time off - but nobody else can... ;) (just kidding)

[TrailDale]

Then again, I just got two MORE weeks off this year from my employer. How? Simple. I took a pay reduction of 5% to get two more weeks off. Of course I just spend that all that extra time off time building mountain bike trails. Doh!

My employer figured that if I wasn't there another 5% of the time, that my contribution to the company was worth 5% less. Hard to argue with that.

DG

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by socrates
Simply put....keep the govt out of stuff like this....I get 5 weeks year these days...why? Because 1) my employer can afford to pay it 2) because of my length of service with my company...govt is there to protect it's people...not sure how this fits that role (of course we all know in reality a govt's role is really to grow the size of the govt)

The whole idea of "Always keep the government out at all costs" is over-simplification at its best.

Corporations left to their own devices without government regulations have, historically, proven themselvs incapible of treating workers humanely. That's why we have things like a nationally mandated minimum wage.

The argument "It's a free country, corporations should do whatever they want without government regs!" rarely pans out. If it's a free country and you should be able to do whatever you want, then we shouldn't have any laws against murder or theft, right? Hey, it's a free country, if I wanna kill someone it's my God-given American right! It's a free country, so if I wanna force someone to work for no pay that's my right, too?

Uh ... sure ...

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by jkalla
If it wasn't for the governement's involvement in labor laws we would still have a 6 day , 50 + hour work week and no right to organize labor unions.

FMLA, minimum wage, overtime pay - these are all government mandated labor regulations.

John Kalla! 'Sup, dude! Long time no see/write/ride ... How goes you and Jodie these days?

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by funky-funky-chicken
The argument for “more productive” employees certainly does not apply for all circumstances and cannot be applied universally. Sure, people might be a little less "burned out" if they had more time off, but that doesn't necessarily mean more productive. Take a hypothetical situation of a small business with one production machine and one operator to run it. In the absence of the operator, the machine could not be run. Without the machine running, the company will receive no revenue. Mandating that the operator must take three weeks versus two would mean that the company would be less productive.

Problem with this argument is assuming that this is the proper way to manage people. The best way to manage this situation is have a 2nd employee capable of operating that production machine. That employee's main job is a different machine, but they'd be able to cover in the case of planned time off. That's the way it's done in countries with more time off.

I think it's poor management at any rate to have only one person in your company know how to do one crucial task. You open yourself up for failure that way. At my office we try as much as possible to make sure there's plenty of cross-over in the knowledge of what everyone else's main priority is. If someone takes a vacation, someone else can take over for them during that time. You don't lose productivity in the meantime and you get employees less likely to burn out or leave which in the end only saves your company $$.

Rotate shifts. Hire extra workers. In the end, it's the best way to manage.

[socrates]

Originally posted by jkalla
If it wasn't for the governement's involvement in labor laws we would still have a 6 day , 50 + hour work week and no right to organize labor unions.

FMLA, minimum wage, overtime pay - these are all government mandated labor regulations.

So your basically saying the new regulations which are about to be put in effect regarding overtime are a good thing?

The work place is a very different place today than it was decades ago when the very laws/regulations you mention were put into place and I seriously doubt that individuals could ever be taken advantage of the way they were back then (again the govt's role is to protect it's citizens-which is did by making those restrictions....I don't see how this would protect anyone)

[socrates]

Originally posted by funky-funky-chicken
Mandating that the operator must take three weeks versus two would mean that the company would be less productive.


Gosh you just reminded me of "Auto Car Shutdown"....it use to be in the early 90's and before that every auto factory & office (including the HQ's) would shut down for 2 weeks every July for model year change over (even if the model your plant was producing wasn't changing at all)....I remember trying to deal with them (big 3) during this time.....basically Detroit just shut down for 2 weeks because the big 3 said "your taking your vacation the first 2 weeks of July and if you don't like it tuff"...absolutely no automotive related business got done....thankfully it now only effects the plants not the offices

[jkalla]

No - I don't think the expanded definition of exempt employees is a good thing. The fact that overtime pay is mandated at all is a good thing. It wasn't always that way.

[socrates]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
The whole idea of "Always keep the government out at all costs" is over-simplification at its best.

Corporations left to their own devices without government regulations have, historically, proven themselvs incapible of treating workers humanely. That's why we have things like a nationally mandated minimum wage.

The argument "It's a free country, corporations should do whatever they want without government regs!" rarely pans out. If it's a free country and you should be able to do whatever you want, then we shouldn't have any laws against murder or theft, right? Hey, it's a free country, if I wanna kill someone it's my God-given American right! It's a free country, so if I wanna force someone to work for no pay that's my right, too?

Uh ... sure ...

Chris...you're over simplifying what I said...but I challenge you to find any employer paying the national minimum wage these days....fast food surely isn't....hotel's aren't....as far as letting companies do what they want...why not? with the economics of today's economy I doubt much would change, matter of fact many of the enhancements over the past few years haven't even been government mandated....I can tell you my employer (with over 130,000 associates) firmly believes in "take care of the associate and they will in-turn take care of the customer"....I've received many job offers from competitors (with large pay increases) over the years but I refuse to even consider leaving because of the way my employer has taken care of me over the years...you must always consider "total" compensation not just the paycheck amount.....if anyone isn't happy with the total compensation they are currently receiving they should leave...if enough employees leave guess what happens...the total compensation will increase...know what this is called??? Free Market (as said below)

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by socrates
So your basically saying the new regulations which are about to be put in effect regarding overtime are a good thing?

The work place is a very different place today than it was decades ago when the very laws/regulations you mention were put into place and I seriously doubt that individuals could ever be taken advantage of the way they were back then (again the govt's role is to protect it's citizens-which is did by making those restrictions....I don't see how this would protect anyone)

Socrates you ignorant slut ... :crazy:

You can't deny that there is a very real intimidation factor in the American workplace. I've experienced it myself: I actually had a manager complain to me that I wasn't working nights and weekends *proving* my devotion to the company, even though I was getting all my work done. I've seen people in my previous company work themselves for 60 or 70 hours a week and then brag about it. That is just plain wrong!

Sure, you could quit that job ... and then take another job that has the same atmosphere. It's everywhere! On occasion, you find a place (like my current employer) that doesn't take that attitude. But, that's rare because most of the time employers are trying to squeeze as much "unpaid" work out of people as possible.

And, why would you think workers won't be taken advantage of like they were in the past? I think you overestimate the general morals of people these days. The average American CEO makes 400X the annual salary of their average employee. The average Swiss CEO (such as heads of those Swiss banks) makes only 14X. And you're telling me employers aren't taking advantage of employees in this country?

[socrates]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
Problem with this argument is assuming that this is the proper way to manage people. The best way to manage this situation is have a 2nd employee capable of operating that production machine. That employee's main job is a different machine, but they'd be able to cover in the case of planned time off. That's the way it's done in countries with more time off.

I think it's poor management at any rate to have only one person in your company know how to do one crucial task. You open yourself up for failure that way. At my office we try as much as possible to make sure there's plenty of cross-over in the knowledge of what everyone else's main priority is. If someone takes a vacation, someone else can take over for them during that time. You don't lose productivity in the meantime and you get employees less likely to burn out or leave which in the end only saves your company $$.

Rotate shifts. Hire extra workers. In the end, it's the best way to manage.

You know...I think we should pass a law saying companies can't cross-classify anyone (similar to the old'n day union restrictions) that would create job security for everyone....and increase # of jobs..hmmm

Disclaimer-if I ever really think this someone can come beat reality back into me

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by socrates
Chris...you're over simplifying what I said...but I challenge you to find any employer paying the national minimum wage these days....fast food surely isn't....hotel's aren't....as far as letting companies do what they want...why not? with the economics of today's economy I doubt much would change, matter of fact many of the enhancements over the past few years haven't even been government mandated....I can tell you my employer (with over 130,000 associates) firmly believes in "take care of the associate and they will in-turn take care of the customer"....I've received many job offers from competitors (with large pay increases) over the years but I refuse to even consider leaving because of the way my employer has taken care of me over the years...you must always consider "total" compensation not just the paycheck amount.....if anyone isn't happy with the total compensation they are currently receiving they should leave...if enough employees leave guess what happens...the total compensation will increase...know what this is called??? Free Market (as said below)

No, the difference is you seem to think somehow the corporate world and the free market are benevolent and the government is evil.

I'm saying it's checks and balances. Corporations are supposed to think "How can I make more money?" and not consider anything else. Nothing wrong with that, that's what they do best. Government is there to, like you said, protect the people. Often, that means protecting the people from corporations out to make money at all costs. Corporations are the engine driving us forward. Government is the brakes preventing us from crashing.

[jkalla]

You don't realize how good you have it. In MN we have typically pay higher than the national min wage but that's not the case everywhere. Funny how it's the people who already have their vacation and benefits package that are objecting to any changes. It's the old "I've got mine - I don't care about the rest of you" attitude. These labor laws are to protect the most vulnerable. If they don't affect you, then be thankful - don't assume they are irrelevant.

[socrates]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
Socrates you ignorant slut ... :crazy:

You can't deny that there is a very real intimidation factor in the American workplace. I've experienced it myself: I actually had a manager complain to me that I wasn't working nights and weekends *proving* my devotion to the company, even though I was getting all my work done. I've seen people in my previous company work themselves for 60 or 70 hours a week and then brag about it. That is just plain wrong!

Sure, you could quit that job ... and then take another job that has the same atmosphere. It's everywhere! On occasion, you find a place (like my current employer) that doesn't take that attitude. But, that's rare because most of the time employers are trying to squeeze as much "unpaid" work out of people as possible.

And, why would you think workers won't be taken advantage of like they were in the past? I think you overestimate the general morals of people these days. The average American CEO makes 400X the annual salary of their average employee. The average Swiss CEO (such as heads of those Swiss banks) makes only 14X. And you're telling me employers aren't taking advantage of employees in this country?

Yes I agree that is wrong, if your work is complete in 20 hours and they are paying you for 40 then they should give you 20 hours more; if your work is complete in 60 hours but they are paying you for 40 they should take 20 away (yes I know this will only rarely happen)...but you must realize that today's employee is much better educated than in the 20's when these laws were created....communication is much faster and accessible today, I just don't see how we could ever think someone would be able to force society back to a 7 day work week norm

[socrates]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
No, the difference is you seem to think somehow the corporate world and the free market are benevolent and the government is evil.

I'm saying it's checks and balances. Corporations are supposed to think "How can I make more money?" and not consider anything else. Nothing wrong with that, that's what they do best. Government is there to, like you said, protect the people. Often, that means protecting the people from corporations out to make money at all costs. Corporations are the engine driving us forward. Government is the brakes preventing us from crashing. Hmm...you seem to think companies can only maximize their profits by screwing their employees when the exact opposite is true-my employer tracks turn over very closely because of the high cost associate with a high turn over rate...you also seem to think that the government is only good...how many little people has the US government screwed over the years.....I'm not saying the government should stay 100% out, but there's things I just don't trust them to control...remember the last time the IRS code was "simplified" it ended up adding 2000 pages!

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by socrates
Chris...you're over simplifying what I said...but I challenge you to find any employer paying the national minimum wage these days....fast food surely isn't....hotel's aren't....as far as letting companies do what they want...why not? with the economics of today's economy I doubt much would change, matter of fact many of the enhancements over the past few years haven't even been government mandated....I can tell you my employer (with over 130,000 associates) firmly believes in "take care of the associate and they will in-turn take care of the customer"....I've received many job offers from competitors (with large pay increases) over the years but I refuse to even consider leaving because of the way my employer has taken care of me over the years...you must always consider "total" compensation not just the paycheck amount.....if anyone isn't happy with the total compensation they are currently receiving they should leave...if enough employees leave guess what happens...the total compensation will increase...know what this is called??? Free Market (as said below)

Facts are facts:

We have the LEAST ammount of vacation time of the industrialized world. And, our productivity IS suffering as a result. The free market has many merits, but left *entirely* to its own devices it's self-destructive (like the engine/brakes analogy I just gave).

It's hard to "vote with your feet" with jobs, too, especially these days. You said it yourself, you don't want to leave your job because of the benefits you have. That says to me you believe the rest of the job market isn't on-par with what's acceptible.

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by socrates
Hmm...you seem to think companies can only maximize their profits by screwing their employees when the exact opposite is true-my employer tracks turn over very closely because of the high cost associate with a high turn over rate...you also seem to think that the government is only good...how many little people has the US government screwed over the years.....I'm not saying the government should stay 100% out, but there's things I just don't trust them to control...remember the last time the IRS code was "simplified" it ended up adding 2000 pages!

No, I think both the government and corporations have just as much potential to be corrupt, hence the checks and balances system.

I'm pointing out the flaw in thinking that one should be so independant from the other. Big difference.

[socrates]

Originally posted by jkalla
You don't realize how good you have it. In MN we have typically pay higher than the national min wage but that's not the case everywhere. Funny how it's the people who already have their vacation and benefits package that are objecting to any changes. It's the old "I've got mine - I don't care about the rest of you" attitude. These labor laws are to protect the most vulnerable. If they don't affect you, then be thankful - don't assume they are irrelevant. You do realize that in MN food servers actually make $20 an hour while in vacation because of that MN Min Wage laws!!!! I think that's alittle excessive and is a great example of why govt should stay out of certain things....min wage was never designed to be a living wage!

Now unfortunately I have to go to a meeting (where I'm sure Chris will assume I'm going to screw a few associates to increase profits ) :eyeroll: J/K Chris

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by socrates
You do realize that in MN food servers actually make $20 an hour while in vacation because of that MN Min Wage laws!!!! I think that's alittle excessive and is a great example of why govt should stay out of certain things....min wage was never designed to be a living wage!

Well, probably one of the reasons why MN has one of the healthiest economies in the midwest. ;) (at least, compared to Wis and Iowa, states that our lovely Governor thinks are just wonderful models ... uff da!)

[Kingbozo]

Originally posted by socrates
You do realize that in MN food servers actually make $20 an hour while in vacation because of that MN Min Wage laws!!!!

What? Care to explain that one? I know quite a few servers who would be verrrrrry interested to find out how to sign up for this.

[socrates]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
Facts are facts:

We have the LEAST ammount of vacation time of the industrialized world. And, our productivity IS suffering as a result. The free market has many merits, but left *entirely* to its own devices it's self-destructive (like the engine/brakes analogy I just gave).

It's hard to "vote with your feet" with jobs, too, especially these days. You said it yourself, you don't want to leave your job because of the benefits you have. That says to me you believe the rest of the job market isn't on-par with what's acceptible.

I agree completely except you need to add that govt can screw up things just as bad as the free market

As far as leaving my employer...my industry is full of mom & pop companies and small companies, very few mid sized and fewer large companies...and I happen to work for the largest company in the industry (fortune 50, 13 billion in revenue, 130,000 associates - so not really large in revenue but large in associates) which has a family type culture...because of our size we're able to offer a total compensation package larger than most others while I might be able to earn a larger paycheck the total value would be less than I currently get...I've been here for 12 years, been transferred 5 times for 3 different states....the culture is the same everywhere

[jkalla]

Originally posted by socrates
You do realize that in MN food servers actually make $20 an hour while in vacation because of that MN Min Wage laws!!!! I think that's alittle excessive and is a great example of why govt should stay out of certain things....min wage was never designed to be a living wage!

Now unfortunately I have to go to a meeting (where I'm sure Chris will assume I'm going to screw a few associates to increase profits ) :eyeroll: J/K Chris

Are you saying that MN law requires that all food servers working in MN are paid $20 / hr? I thought min wage was $5.15 / hr. There are people earning the minimum wage. What do you think they would be paid if there was no federally mandated min wage?

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by socrates
Yes I agree that is wrong, if your work is complete in 20 hours and they are paying you for 40 then they should give you 20 hours more; if your work is complete in 60 hours but they are paying you for 40 they should take 20 away (yes I know this will only rarely happen)...but you must realize that today's employee is much better educated than in the 20's when these laws were created....communication is much faster and accessible today, I just don't see how we could ever think someone would be able to force society back to a 7 day work week norm

You're approaching this without realizing what things like a minimum wage have done, not just for employees, but for EMPLOYERS!

They institued a minimum wage that prevented companies from paying too little for work. As a result, they found this actually improved productivity, morale, retention, etc. etc.

So, employers learned what a benefit it was to pay people more money, so now you get people paying beyond the minimum wage because the law was first to "show them the light."

A 3 week vacation mandate would perform the same function. Companies that gave less would reluctantly adopt the new law, then discover the benefits it actually gives them. Over time, they get competitive with it and start offering *above* the minimum requirement.

[socrates]

Originally posted by jkalla
Are you saying that MN law requires that all food servers working in MN are paid $20 / hr? I thought min wage was $5.15 / hr. There are people earning the minimum wage. What do you think they would be paid if there was no federally mandated min wage?

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying MN law requires....you must include tip credit even though the employer doesn't pay it they must pay it on vacation/sick time.

Again name an employeer able to find associates for minimum wage...I love how people through this out but can't back it up....I'd like to meet the HR mgr at such a place to find out how they do it and obtain quality people....I believe the entire service industry has found it just isn't possible to pay anyone that low and get a quality associate

[socrates]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
You're approaching this without realizing what things like a minimum wage have done, not just for employees, but for EMPLOYERS!

They institued a minimum wage that prevented companies from paying too little for work. As a result, they found this actually improved productivity, morale, retention, etc. etc.

So, employers learned what a benefit it was to pay people more money, so now you get people paying beyond the minimum wage because the law was first to "show them the light."

A 3 week vacation mandate would perform the same function. Companies that gave less would reluctantly adopt the new law, then discover the benefits it actually gives them. Over time, they get competitive with it and start offering *above* the minimum requirement.

No I did not miss this point...I said I actually agree with you...but this was learned 80 years ago!

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by socrates
No I did not miss this point...I said I actually agree with you...but this was learned 80 years ago!

The point of WAGES positively affecting employers has been learned, but not the point about time off. That's what I'm saying. :)

[Kingbozo]

Originally posted by socrates
Yes that's exactly what I'm saying MN law requires....you must include tip credit even though the employer doesn't pay it they must pay it on vacation/sick time.

Most servers don't get paid vacation or sick days. Most restaurants get very stringent in their scheduling so the servers won't qualify for benefits-if they even offer them in the first place.

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by socrates
I agree completely except you need to add that govt can screw up things just as bad as the free market

As far as leaving my employer...my industry is full of mom & pop companies and small companies, very few mid sized and fewer large companies...and I happen to work for the largest company in the industry (fortune 50, 13 billion in revenue, 130,000 associates - so not really large in revenue but large in associates) which has a family type culture...because of our size we're able to offer a total compensation package larger than most others while I might be able to earn a larger paycheck the total value would be less than I currently get...I've been here for 12 years, been transferred 5 times for 3 different states....the culture is the same everywhere

You can count yourself very lucky, then. But the majority of jobs out there only offer 2 weeks, and often that's only after you've been with them for a year. It takes a long time, usually, to accure more vacation and most people these days change jobs every 4 to 5 years. Very different from the 50s where people tended to keep a job for their whole working lives.

The vacation system most employers have hasn't changed substantially since then. As a result, if you *were* to leave your current employer, you'd be hard-pressed to find a lot of potential employers willing to immediately grant you the same vacation time you have now right away.

So, you're right: the job market has changed a lot these days. People don't stay with their current jobs as long as they used to. Everyone I've ever worked with talks a lot about how the skills they're learning in their current job is really gonna help out the next time they look for a new job. The market's changed and company vacation plans, on the whole, have not changed with them.

[nicnac]

Again name an employeer able to find associates for minimum wage...I love how people through this out but can't back it up....I'd like to meet the HR mgr at such a place to find out how they do it and obtain quality people....I believe the entire service industry has found it just isn't possible to pay anyone that low and get a quality associate

You'll find these places in the smaller towns across the state. Head to the small town truck stops and cafes. It's there that you'll find servers and cooks being paid sometimes wages lower than minimum! Because of tipping the management is allowed to pay a wage of something like $3.00-$4.00 an hour. Sean made reference to the strick scheduling of employees limiting their hours and generally keeping them below benefit eligibility. To compensate, most of these people are found to be working 2-4 part time jobs to account for a decent wage.

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by nicnac
You'll find these places in the smaller towns across the state. Head to the small town truck stops and cafes. It's there that you'll find servers and cooks being paid sometimes wages lower than minimum! Because of tipping the management is allowed to pay a wage of something like $3.00-$4.00 an hour. Sean made reference to the strick scheduling of employees limiting their hours and generally keeping them below benefit eligibility. To compensate, most of these people are found to be working 2-4 part time jobs to account for a decent wage.

The area doesn't even have to be that rural. Go to towns the size of Fargo, ND or Moorhead (where I went to college). Fast food there pays minimum wage ... maybe $0.50 over per hour.

Assuming the rest of the US is just like the suburbs is flawed thinking at best. :)

[ryno lite]

My sister-in-law is from London and all her family are shocked at how little vacation we get a year. They all get 5-6 weeks a year and were shocked to hear of my 2 weeks. They have no clue how we handle it!

[ryno lite]

I saw a report sometime ago on one of the big three (CBS, NBC, or ABC) network nightly news programs on a study that was done on American workers verses Japanese and European workers. We have traditionally prided ourselves on working less hours per week than the Japanese and being more productive than our European counterparts. Well now we work more on average per week than our Japanese counterparts and get less done per hour than our European counterparts. The studies conclusion was that the more we work the less productive we have become.

I saw another report one night about the the countries rated the happiest overall. Surprise, Surprise they worked less hours on average than the other countries. I think it was Denmark and they averaged 37 hours a week.

Anyway I know everyone will rip my quotes, but I truly saw these reports, its just been a couple of months and can't give you the exact date and airtime!

[jitterjepp]

Ya! More laws. Next thing you know we can't do anything. People in many of the countries mentioned here do not have two car households (many of them don't even have one), they don’t have big expensive houses....... Most Americans have a forward livability of about one day. Most of the America is two paychecks away from pure disaster because of mismanaging their own money. You can't blame a company or the government for not finding or creating the right situation for you. The government is responsible for protecting its people but to what end? Security is often times an antidote to freedom. It's up to you to take care of that, to find the right situation for yourself. You also always have the option of creating your own business.
There a lot of companies that will let you take unpaid time off. I've done this at a few companies. You can also work out a deal like the person who mentioned taking a 5% pay cut for extra time off.
If the common opinion gets a voice in saying we want five weeks a year it could happen but this American idea of just get and just deserve is lame. Some of these ideas are just plain socialist. This is America. You want? You have the right and freedom to go out there and create your own business and make all the money you can so you can take all the time off you want. You can go to another company too. If you are going to sit around and just wait for it to fall in your lap or expect someone else to work their business around your life and your desires.... hmmmm...good luck. It's up to you. (That doesn’t mean you cant or shouldn’t ask)
We do have it pretty good here. There are many places where you work longer hours for pay much lower than minimum wage. You could be in some diamond mine or weaving rugs for a buck a day or less getting beat by a guy with a whip all the while then walking fifteen miles to get home to your tin shack shanty in shanty town with that life being your only option.

As far as wages go and vacation time for employee overhead? It is simple. Give a raise and raise the prices of goods and services to your customers. That means you, the employee/consumer; pay more on goods and services. You really don’t get ahead. And on another note try doing this in your company in a global market on goods that can be produced for much less somewhere else. The baby boomer crash is coming here and the same problem is going to happen in places like China and Japan. These countries are going to drop the bottom out on their prices and wages to save face. When that happens it is going to be almost impossible for Americans to compete in the global market because of our high labor costs.

People start companies to make money. They don’t do all that work to break even or share everything with some Joe who walks along ten years later looking for a job. If companies had to give you five weeks off paid per year or more money how does this work out for shareholders, meaning your 401k, if prices are not increased? (of course you do still get the extra time off)

Anybody can be an armchair businessperson. Go out there and do it. Then come back and see what you write. As far as the whole productivity thing goes I really can’t say. But a company that has one person running a machine would really be put out if they had to hire another person just because the other one is going to be gone for five weeks out of the year. This is potential murder for small businesses. Until you look at the numbers you cant say if it works or doesn’t. If it doesn’t work and it becomes law they raise prices or close the doors. As a business owner I’m not going to work for free so I can give another guy a job or a job with five weeks off. I'd close the doors
first and go invest my time and money into something else that actually had a return.

[Kingbozo]

I am an unrepentant liberal but I think laws mandating what kind of vacations businesses must offer is a pretty bad idea. (That's putting it nicely)

Are the European vaction times dictated by their respective governments or is it a cultural thing?

[Maverick]

Why not have 3 operators on the 1 machine and run the machine 24 hours a day? Or, if that machine is cheap enough, invest in 4 machines and 5 operators, that way when one of them takes time off there is still someone to cover.

Or, if you can only afford one machine, have one head operator and one assistant operator. The head operator is responsable of programming the machine and main operation (say if it is a CNC machine) and trains the assistant of basic operation. Have the shifts overlap by about 2-4 hours, that way the head operator still has time to brief the assitant of the changes and/or have additional training time. The machine (CNC mill in this example) is still going 12-14 hours a day if you include the 2-4 hour down time. If a guy takes vacation the machine is still going, just not up to the full potential. Plus your saving money by having someone less paid run it for half the time. Of course you would have to have a max vacation time in one period (say a week at a time max) in case the machine would crash while the head operator is gone. That would still have down time but no plan is perfect.

All these concepts still have the machine running some of the day if someone takes vacation.

I agree that we are well off in Minnesota. I'm a student in college right now but the career field I'll be going to pays around $16-19/hr starting around here, but if you go out of state (say Montana) it jumps down to around $11-13/hr. One thing about Minnesota, on the bad side, is the very high cost of living, espeically housing.

I have a question, how come the military doesn't have to cover OT like the civilian world? The government can have their own slaves (military) yet coporate can't?

Me personal, if they don't change the vacation packages (which they won't), I like the idea of four 10 hour days with three days off. That way you suffer an extra 2 hours each day (your already there anyways) but you have an extra full day off to do whatever.

[socrates]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
The point of WAGES positively affecting employers has been learned, but not the point about time off. That's what I'm saying. :) Yeah and I think you're wrong again Chris.

In the 20's it the standard was 7 day work weeks...what changed this to a 5 day work week? Surely wasn't govt...it was actually Henry Ford.....who was it that created a "min manufacting wage" wage? again it surely wasn't the govt it was Henry Ford....now as trivial as that sound it was g round breaking at the time...today people would revolt against it because it also came with alot of strings but again over the years FMC realized (with some help from the govt but mostly from the unions) that the strings must go....

So to summarize lwhat I think you're trying to say.....you think the US labor laws should mirror those of the higher cost, union dominated economies in western Europe.

[socrates]

Originally posted by Kingbozo
Most servers don't get paid vacation or sick days. Most restaurants get very stringent in their scheduling so the servers won't qualify for benefits-if they even offer them in the first place.

You might be correct in your statement about the scheduling but I find it hard to believe because there isn't a line outside of our doors of servers looking for work......we actually look at a report each week listing the avg # of hours our ft associates worked the previous week...we are actually try to maximize their hours....and I can tell you we do pay servers the same benefits as all other associates, including PTO, health care, life insurance, 401K, stock purchase, etc....are you suggesting that we shouldn't pay these benefits (all or just PTO) to our tip bases associates because the cost of paying them is so high because of MN's min wage laws?

[socrates]

Originally posted by nicnac
You'll find these places in the smaller towns across the state. Head to the small town truck stops and cafes. It's there that you'll find servers and cooks being paid sometimes wages lower than minimum! Because of tipping the management is allowed to pay a wage of something like $3.00-$4.00 an hour. Sean made reference to the strick scheduling of employees limiting their hours and generally keeping them below benefit eligibility. To compensate, most of these people are found to be working 2-4 part time jobs to account for a decent wage.

Again your being vague....name one business please I'm serious I'd love to speak with them to find out the type associate they are actually getting (are they really worth it? we've found it's cheaper to pay more and get a better quality employee but by your assertions above perhaps we're not doing something right if it's really that prevalent)

[socrates]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
The area doesn't even have to be that rural. Go to towns the size of Fargo, ND or Moorhead (where I went to college). Fast food there pays minimum wage ... maybe $0.50 over per hour.

Assuming the rest of the US is just like the suburbs is flawed thinking at best. :) Ok Chris I don't mean to split hairs but $0.50 over min wage isn't min wage...while we're a good deal higher than that, $0.50 is almost 10% over min wage

[socrates]

Originally posted by ryno lite
My sister-in-law is from London and all her family are shocked at how little vacation we get a year. They all get 5-6 weeks a year and were shocked to hear of my 2 weeks. They have no clue how we handle it! Well as Chris stated below...in the US it is very common to switch employeers every 4-5 years...in Western Europe it is not

[socrates]

Originally posted by ryno lite
I saw a report sometime ago on one of the big three (CBS, NBC, or ABC) network nightly news programs on a study that was done on American workers verses Japanese and European workers. We have traditionally prided ourselves on working less hours per week than the Japanese and being more productive than our European counterparts. Well now we work more on average per week than our Japanese counterparts and get less done per hour than our European counterparts. The studies conclusion was that the more we work the less productive we have become.

I saw another report one night about the the countries rated the happiest overall. Surprise, Surprise they worked less hours on average than the other countries. I think it was Denmark and they averaged 37 hours a week.

Anyway I know everyone will rip my quotes, but I truly saw these reports, its just been a couple of months and can't give you the exact date and airtime!

Nope no ripp'n...actually interesting comments...Thanks

[socrates]

Originally posted by jitterjepp
Ya! More laws. Next thing you know we can't do anything.

Right on Jitterjeep!!!!!

:D

[socrates]

Originally posted by Kingbozo
I am an unrepentant liberal but I think laws mandating what kind of vacations businesses must offer is a pretty bad idea. (That's putting it nicely)

Are the European vaction times dictated by their respective governments or is it a cultural thing?

Actually it's a union thing...inions are very dominate in their culture...in France & Germany just think about all of those strikes you read about...I mean farmers strikes with riots in the streets...paleez

[socrates]

Originally posted by Maverick
I have a question, how come the military doesn't have to cover OT like the civilian world? The government can have their own slaves (military) yet coporate can't?



You do realize that Congress has exempted itself from 99.9% of labor & OHSA laws...why? Because of the costs involved....let everyone else pay for it because it's the right thing for everyone else to do!

BTW: Your absolutely correct about the cost of living.....when I moved from Detroit to Cleveland I received a HUGH pay increase just because of the cost of living being so much cheaper in Cleveland...when I moved from Cleveland to here the exact opposite happened....same size house in a very similar neighborhood here costs $150K more

[Kingbozo]

Originally posted by socrates
You might be correct in your statement about the scheduling but I find it hard to believe because there isn't a line outside of our doors of servers looking for work......we actually look at a report each week listing the avg # of hours our ft associates worked the previous week...we are actually try to maximize their hours....and I can tell you we do pay servers the same benefits as all other associates, including PTO, health care, life insurance, 401K, stock purchase, etc....are you suggesting that we shouldn't pay these benefits (all or just PTO) to our tip bases associates because the cost of paying them is so high because of MN's min wage laws?

No. I am suggesting that most servers in this state do not get benefits. I am making no suggestions on whatever business you work at should be run.

[Kingbozo]

Originally posted by socrates
Actually it's a union thing...inions are very dominate in their culture...in France & Germany just think about all of those strikes you read about...I mean farmers strikes with riots in the streets...paleez

That would fall under the "culture thing" in my book.

[socrates]

Originally posted by Kingbozo
No. I am suggesting that most servers in this state do not get benefits. I am making no suggestions on whatever business you work at should be run.

I would argue that most free standing (non-corporate owned) restaurants can't afford to have benefits for anyone regardless of their position so it's not a fact that they are trying to avoid having associates qualify for them...it's a fact they can't afford them and don't offer them....but with that said I'd also argue that many tipped based associates are earning more than the majority of the people in this forum...it's really incredible the amount of money tipped based associates can earn if they are in the right location (hense the IRS's issue about the whole tip thing)

[socrates]

Originally posted by Kingbozo
That would fall under the "culture thing" in my book. Yes I would agree (sorry I wasn't clearer)

[Kingbozo]

Originally posted by socrates
I would argue that most free standing (non-corporate owned) restaurants can't afford to have benefits for anyone regardless of their position so it's not a fact that they are trying to avoid having associates qualify for them...it's a fact they can't afford them and don't offer them....but with that said I'd also argue that many tipped based associates are earning more than the majority of the people in this forum...it's really incredible the amount of money tipped based associates can earn if they are in the right location (hense the IRS's issue about the whole tip thing)

Every retaurant I worked in as a cook, just about everybody in the kitchens and everyone in management got benefits-The servers always seemed to get just a smidge under the hourly average needed to qualify for benefits. I saw this in the Grandma's corporation as well. Heck it was documented SOP there. There are exceptions of course, I know the servers at Brit's had a pretty good stock deal, since recinded, going for a while.

[socrates]

Originally posted by Kingbozo
Every retaurant I worked in as a cook, just about everybody in the kitchens and everyone in management got benefits-The servers always seemed to get just a smidge under the hourly average needed to qualify for benefits. That is not fair and shame on the management for doing such a thing (I do honestly feel this way)....why did the servers stay? Were benefits not an issue for them? (serious questions)

[socrates]

Originally posted by Kingbozo
Every retaurant I worked in as a cook, just about everybody in the kitchens and everyone in management got benefits-The servers always seemed to get just a smidge under the hourly average needed to qualify for benefits. I saw this in the Grandma's corporation as well. Heck it was documented SOP there. There are exceptions of course, I know the servers at Brit's had a pretty good stock deal, since recinded, going for a while. Unfortunately (or fortunately depends on your point of view) idiots like this are the reason unions still have a place in our society.....if that's documented in the SOP's (and I'm not saying it isn't) all someone needs to do it get it in the hands of the Hotel, Restaurant Union's (member of AFL/CIO) hands and watch what they do next (just for the record I'm not pro-union except in a few extreme cases)....but govt involvement isn't needed to correct a situation like this

[Kingbozo]

Originally posted by socrates
Unfortunately (or fortunately depends on your point of view) idiots like this are the reason unions still have a place in our society.....if that's documented in the SOP's (and I'm not saying it isn't) all someone needs to do it get it in the hands of the Hotel, Restaurant Union's (member of AFL/CIO) hands and watch what they do next (just for the record I'm not pro-union except in a few extreme cases)....but govt involvement isn't needed to correct a situation like this

Of course govt involvement isn't needed. It's not like they are dangling a benefits carrot on a stick to entice them to work and then yanking it away-they know from the onset that they are part time employees who are not eligible. The servers made good money-that's why they stayed.

It wasn't my intention to infer that they were getting screwed over. I was just using these examples to illustrate my claim that most servers don't get benefits.

I'm very much pro union, but from what I have heard (I haven't been in that business for a few years now, thank god) the union representing restaurant workers is quite worthless.

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by socrates

So to summarize lwhat I think you're trying to say.....you think the US labor laws should mirror those of the higher cost, union dominated economies in western Europe.

Now that's just silly. :)

Oh no! More vacation time? If we mandate that then overnight we'll lose 1/2 our cars and we'll all be living in apartments! The end is near, run for the hills 'cause we're getting extra vacation time!

Yes, sounds logical to me. Extra vacation is the specific cause of the overcrowding in Europe that makes property costs high and cars more expensive to own and operate ... gee, could it be that it's the OLD WORLD and they have a more dense population and less land ... therefore the land is more expensive and there's not as much room for cars and public transit is better so you don't need a car?

No, obviously all the differences between the American and the European lifestyle are tied to having a couple weeks more vactaion.

(nevermind that this is a classic example of the stereotyipical American attitude of "Urope is stoopid. USA roolz! They don't even got clothes there and they all live in one-room apartments and drive Geo Metros or sumpin ...")

[socrates]

Originally posted by Kingbozo
Of course govt involvement isn't needed. It's not like they are dangling a benefits carrot on a stick to entice them to work and then yanking it away-they know from the onset that they are part time employees who are not eligible. The servers made good money-that's why they stayed.

It wasn't my intention to infer that they were getting screwed over. I was just using these examples to illustrate my claim that most servers don't get benefits.

I'm very much pro union, but from what I have heard (I haven't been in that business for a few years now, thank god) the union representing restaurant workers is quite worthless.

Sorry but when you said the management scheduled the waitstaff a "smidge" under the required for benefits I took that to mean it was intentional....as far as the union goes...I wouldn't say it is worthless (I did think it was interesting a few years back when they were taken over by the govt because of the less than legal activities the govt believed they were participating in)...I just never understood the need for it....we had to pay over the union scale because it wasn't enough to attract good applicants

[socrates]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
Now that's just silly. :)

Oh no! More vacation time? If we mandate that then overnight we'll lose 1/2 our cars and we'll all be living in apartments! The end is near, run for the hills 'cause we're getting extra vacation time!

Yes, sounds logical to me. Extra vacation is the specific cause of the overcrowding in Europe that makes property costs high and cars more expensive to own and operate ... gee, could it be that it's the OLD WORLD and they have a more dense population and less land ... therefore the land is more expensive and there's not as much room for cars and public transit is better so you don't need a car?

No, obviously all the differences between the American and the European lifestyle are tied to having a couple weeks more vactaion.

(nevermind that this is a classic example of the stereotyipical American attitude of "Urope is stoopid. USA roolz! They don't even got clothes there and they all live in one-room apartments and drive Geo Metros or sumpin ...")


Chris...man...did you hit your head on a rock last night riding? re-read the above and let me know if it makes any sense to you....cause it doesn't to me....I'm not sure but it appears that you might be putting a few words in my mouth

[socrates]

Chris....after you get this wedding thing done and over with we need to go for a ride and some beers so I can help you see the Right Way! :D

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by socrates
Chris...man...did you hit your head on a rock last night riding? re-read the above and let me know if it makes any sense to you....cause it doesn't to me....I'm not sure but it appears that you might be putting a few words in my mouth

Actually, in all the fury of the conversation going back and forth, I think I mixed up your comments with ones like this from Jitterjeep:

"Ya! More laws. Next thing you know we can't do anything. People in many of the countries mentioned here do not have two car households (many of them don't even have one), they don’t have big expensive houses....... "

So, sorry 'bout that ... got confused.

Still, all fecetiousness aside, I do think there's a lot of misunderstanding out there about what life in Europe is *really* like compared to the US. Seems to me they may have less land and a slightly lowered standard of living ... but it's all semantics ... it's the difference between rich and richer.

I think too many Americans get trapped into needing expensive this and expensive that and then not have any time off, so what's the point? You've got a $50K car and it sits in traffic going to and from work. You've got a $500K house but you only see the bedroom for 6 hours a night ... maybe the kitchen for breakfast in the morning and then the shower?

Also, I think all the "right" thinkers out there have an illogical bias against any regulations or laws. And, as far as I can tell, you're all in agreement that Americans should get more vacation time, you just don't think the government should mandate that.

So, where's YOUR solution? You've argued free market this and free market that, but the trend in the past few decades has been toward *less* vacation. Sure, we may have gone from 7 day work weeks to 5 immediately following the 20s thanks to Mr. Ford, but after the '50s the trend appears to be reversed. That's what the free market's been doing. Maybe it's time someone else had a crack at giving Americans more vacation time?

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by socrates
Chris....after you get this wedding thing done and over with we need to go for a ride and some beers so I can help you see the Right Way! :D

Ha! The right way! Uh huh ... sure :P

Let me just say that I don't think business is being wrong or evil in attempting to get more "free" labor out of its employees. It's just misguided. In fact, they're only doing what they do best: drive the economy forward.

But, let me go back to my analogy: the engine and the brakes. Someone needs to reign in the financial power that the free market economy produces, otherwise people *do* get hurt. That is the government's role.

You can argue all you want about whether government is evil or whether corporations are evil ... it's all moot. One has to counter the other. That simple.

As for being afraid of having so many rules so you can't do anything. That's a completely silly notion. You can't tell me that a society with no rules is a good society. You're advocating anarchy, which is the ultimate in putting your faith in the morals of strangers. Just remember that if you've been freed up to do whatever you want, that means someone *else* is just as free.

Yeah, it really is too bad that businesses have all these rules put on them. They *have* to pay people for work. They *have* to provide compensation if you get hurt on the job. It's such a pity. Just think of all the money they could make if they just had slave labor ...

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by socrates
Actually it's a union thing...inions are very dominate in their culture...in France & Germany just think about all of those strikes you read about...I mean farmers strikes with riots in the streets...paleez

Make no mistake. Unions have a big part, but in America there is a *very* real cultural "work ethic" that guilts people into not takin vacations or working overtime for no compensation.

If you deny that this is the prevailing attitude in most companies in the US, all due respect, but you don't know your own country's culture too well. :)

As much as we'd like to think that we're all logical thinkers and that the free market economy only operates on what makes the most money and the best use of resources, we are heavily controlled by our own cultural impulses.

[martini]

Back to the vacation part of the conversation....

My take on this whole thing....I love my LIFE. My job allows me to live my LIFE the way I want too. My job will NEVER take precidence over my life, especailly when kids pop into the picture! Like Dale, I'd much rather take less pay to get more vacation/recovery time, or time to really work with my true passions. My goal my entire life has been to make enough money to pay bills on, afford my hobbies, maybe send the kids to a few nice camps(college? they pay for that!). I'd rather live my life to a more simple guidline than toe the line with the Jones', ya know? Unlike the majority of Americans, my life doesn't focus on money and the aquisition of 'things'. In fact, I'd love to dump about half of what I've got right now!

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by martini
Back to the vacation part of the conversation....

My take on this whole thing....I love my LIFE. My job allows me to live my LIFE the way I want too. My job will NEVER take precidence over my life, especailly when kids pop into the picture! Like Dale, I'd much rather take less pay to get more vacation/recovery time, or time to really work with my true passions. My goal my entire life has been to make enough money to pay bills on, afford my hobbies, maybe send the kids to a few nice camps(college? they pay for that!). I'd rather live my life to a more simple guidline than toe the line with the Jones', ya know? Unlike the majority of Americans, my life doesn't focus on money and the aquisition of 'things'. In fact, I'd love to dump about half of what I've got right now!

I do think Socrates has a point in this regard: there is a change in attitude coming about with Americans regarding free time and vacations, particularly with "our generation" (a phrase I hate to use, but it seems fitting in this context.) I'm in full agreement about wanting to enjoy life and not just doing the birth/school/work/death routine.

My attitude toward this probably cost me from getting ahead in my first job right out of college, but I didn't care about getting ahead, especially living 3 blocks from the river bottoms trail! :)

Eventually, as we get into our 40s and 50s and start *owning* more companies rather than just working for them, this kind of change may come about. I just don't see why it's such a bad thing to give it a little extra push out the door.

[socrates]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
So, where's YOUR solution?

That my friend is why I'm not on politics....I have no "total" solution because I don't believe a "one size fits all" strategy would work on something like this...there are many many examples how the govt has mandated something because it's for the common good only to create more pain and suffering for all than if they had left it alone....don't get me wrong I'm not saying I don't care and I'm not going to do anything about it....but I am realistic and I do know where the limits of my effectiveness are.

[socrates]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
Ha! The right way! Uh huh ... sure :P

Let me just say that I don't think business is being wrong or evil in attempting to get more "free" labor out of its employees. It's just misguided. In fact, they're only doing what they do best: drive the economy forward.

But, let me go back to my analogy: the engine and the brakes. Someone needs to reign in the financial power that the free market economy produces, otherwise people *do* get hurt. That is the government's role.

You can argue all you want about whether government is evil or whether corporations are evil ... it's all moot. One has to counter the other. That simple.

As for being afraid of having so many rules so you can't do anything. That's a completely silly notion. You can't tell me that a society with no rules is a good society. You're advocating anarchy, which is the ultimate in putting your faith in the morals of strangers. Just remember that if you've been freed up to do whatever you want, that means someone *else* is just as free.

Yeah, it really is too bad that businesses have all these rules put on them. They *have* to pay people for work. They *have* to provide compensation if you get hurt on the job. It's such a pity. Just think of all the money they could make if they just had slave labor ...
Man that rock last night must have hurt...wow...

Yes companies can/are evil and yes government can/is evil...but there is a third part to your balance of power and that's human capital (yes my employer actually does call it that because it's exactly that...a resource the company should/does value)....but if you really wanna carry things out to the extreme it's too bad you had to go to work today...I mean your employer should realize you'd rather be mtn biking and just give you a comp day...I know you didn't say that and would...please don't twist what I've said to the extremes

[socrates]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
As much as we'd like to think that we're all logical thinkers and that the free market economy only operates on what makes the most money and the best use of resources, we are heavily controlled by our own cultural impulses.

OH MY GOSH....you FINALLY GOT IT RIGHT!!!!!! YES CHRIS....YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN!!!!!!

[socrates]

Originally posted by martini
Back to the vacation part of the conversation....

My take on this whole thing....I love my LIFE. My job allows me to live my LIFE the way I want too. My job will NEVER take precidence over my life, especailly when kids pop into the picture! Like Dale, I'd much rather take less pay to get more vacation/recovery time, or time to really work with my true passions. My goal my entire life has been to make enough money to pay bills on, afford my hobbies, maybe send the kids to a few nice camps(college? they pay for that!). I'd rather live my life to a more simple guidline than toe the line with the Jones', ya know? Unlike the majority of Americans, my life doesn't focus on money and the aquisition of 'things'. In fact, I'd love to dump about half of what I've got right now!

There's actually been a big cultural change between gen x and gen y and many baby boomers have had a problem with it....gen y is centered on personal satisfaction which we've never seen before (not that it's bad...just the pendalim <sp> swinging back)

[socrates]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
I do think Socrates has a point in this regard:

Thanks but that was Martini not me.. :D

[jitterjepp]

Originally posted by Trevize1138


As for being afraid of having so many rules so you can't do anything. That's a completely silly notion. You can't tell me that a society with no rules is a good society. You're advocating anarchy, which is the ultimate in putting your faith in the morals of strangers. Just remember that if you've been freed up to do whatever you want, that means someone *else* is just as free.

Yeah, it really is too bad that businesses have all these rules put on them. They *have* to pay people for work. They *have* to provide compensation if you get hurt on the job. It's such a pity. Just think of all the money they could make if they just had slave labor ...

Oh...I'm sorry I couldn't find it... the part of my post where I was "advocating anarchy".

Have you ever put together a business
plan that had employees? Tell me what the costs are in numbers? I'll tell you what.. the business I just sold my share in had workmans comp alone at 65% of wages and that is not everything. Because of insurance and other costs I had to double everything. Meaning I'm paying a guy $20 an hour it costs me $40 an hour. If he is not working or screwing around not only do I not make any money I still have to pay him. There is a lot more to running a business than people think.

[socrates]

Originally posted by jitterjepp
Oh...I'm sorry I couldn't find it... the part of my post where I was "advocating anarchy".



Glad you weren't advocating communism :D You know governments always know best

[jitterjepp]

Here are some facts on our government

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

*29 have been accused of spousal abuse
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have done time for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

Can you guess which organization this is?

Give up yet?

It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group of idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

[jitterjepp]

By the way did I say that I have been on vacation since January 28 th? :D Does anyone know what month or day it is? I've been loosing track.

[Trevize1138]

Yeah, I've heard this tired old bit before:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/congress.htm

Good old Snopes.com! :)


Originally posted by jitterjepp
Here are some facts on our government

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

*29 have been accused of spousal abuse
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have done time for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

Can you guess which organization this is?

Give up yet?

It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group of idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by socrates
OH MY GOSH....you FINALLY GOT IT RIGHT!!!!!! YES CHRIS....YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN!!!!!!

Hey, now, no time to call names ...

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by socrates
Thanks but that was Martini not me.. :D

You also said once you were gonna pay me that $100 you owe me, so ... :crazy:

I think I meant it's a point that could support your argument well. :)

[Trevize1138]

Originally posted by jitterjepp
Oh...I'm sorry I couldn't find it... the part of my post where I was "advocating anarchy".

Have you ever put together a business
plan that had employees? Tell me what the costs are in numbers? I'll tell you what.. the business I just sold my share in had workmans comp alone at 65% of wages and that is not everything. Because of insurance and other costs I had to double everything. Meaning I'm paying a guy $20 an hour it costs me $40 an hour. If he is not working or screwing around not only do I not make any money I still have to pay him. There is a lot more to running a business than people think.

Yes, there is a lot to running a business. In fact, there's alot more to business than placing a strict, number value on employees like this. Saying that ever hour an employee isn't being productive is money you've lost is over-simplification at best. My group spends weeks on end technically being "unproductive" because we're doing R&D for the time when we are productive.

Case in point: at my company, our new parent co. recently wanted a count of all the code in our products so they could present it to their shareholders. The implication was the more code we made, the more value we had.

Uh ... OK ... that's wrong ... Whoever made the decision to do this code counting may have known a lot about business but didn't know jack about computers. It became the joke of the office. They didn't take into account any stored procedures, functions or any short, small bits of code that were made in order to streamline an application or a process. According to this business math, there shouldn't be any reusable code and our goal shouldn't be to streamline things but to instead just write pages and pages of redundant code.

The result is each Web page of our sites would take minutes to load as opposed to seconds.

[socrates]

Originally posted by Trevize1138
You also said once you were gonna pay me that $100 you owe me, so ... :crazy:

I think I meant it's a point that could support your argument well. :)

I'll be glad to pay you a $100...as soon as you gimme that loan you promised