http://abcnews.go.com/US/walmart-workers-threaten-strike-shoppers-ready-deals/story?id=17759705#.UKqGI4cr0sI
QuoteWalmart Workers Threaten to Strike on Black Friday, One of the Biggest Days of the Year
While bargain-hunting shoppers gear up this week for Black Friday, Walmart, the country's largest retailer, may be in for a blackout on one of the biggest shopping days of the year.
Walmart workers at 1,000 locations across the U.S. said they're angry that Walmart stores are opening at 8 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day, and that they plan to strike to protest this holiday opening. In such cities as Chicago, Dallas, Miami, Milwaukee and Los Angeles, workers could begin striking as early as today.
"We're just demanding respect," said Rosetta Brown, a Walmart employee.
Walmart said that 1 million associates would be working throughout the holiday weekend. "This is the Super Bowl for retailers and we're ready," Kory Lundberg, director of National Media Relations for Walmart, wrote in an email to ABCNews.com. "We've been working on our Black Friday plans for almost a year now, and we're prepared to have a great event. We respect the rights of our associates to express their views but if they are scheduled to work, we expect them to show up and do their job."
Other retailers are also opening some stores on Thanksgiving Day. Target, for one, is opening to the public at 9 p.m. for its Black Friday sale. Sears will also open at 8 p.m. on Thanksgiving, moved up from 4 a.m. on Black Friday last year. Kmart will be open Thanksgiving Day 6 a.m. to 4 p.m., then it will close and reopen at 8 p.m. Macy's, Kohl's and Best Buy open at midnight.
Meanwhile, Best Buy employees are firing up for the big day with training drills.
"This is what I live for," one salesperson told ABC News. "This is what I love to do."
In states like Wisconsin, California and Florida, shoppers have already started camping out, and some are even planning to eat Thanksgiving dinner while waiting in line.
"Mom comes out with the china and plates, and we have everything you'd have on a Thanksgiving table," one shopper said.
These early birds are ready to pounce on door-busting deals on the hottest holiday products from $78 flat-screen TVs at Walmart to $100 digital cameras at Target.
"Electronics are going to be huge again," retail expert Michelle Madhok told ABC News. "There's the iPad mini that everybody wants, the iPhone 5 and for the kids there's the Leap Pad 2, which is like an iPad for kids."
Comments:
Quote from: dumbpeoplestinkThen quit!!!!! Don't even complain about available jobs, my son has had one since he was a junior in high school. I hope you get fired.
Quote from: NoSpin1600I don't think stores should open until 8am the day after Thanksgiving, no need to open earlier. As for unions, they will be the downfall of this country. They make very large political contributions and believe me they expect things in return. We have federal laws that protect workers, unions do nothing but leach off these workers.
Quote from: crusaderfortruthThere are a lot of people that need a job. Fire everyone that doesn't show up for work.
I question the sanity of anybody who eats Thanksgiving dinner while waiting in line at Target. Or anywhere else.
Ed anger prediction: strike fizzles. Nice try, but ineffective.
Quote"This is what I live for," one salesperson told ABC News. "This is what I love to do."
Really
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 19, 2012, 02:33:22 PM
Ed anger prediction: strike fizzles. Nice try, but ineffective.
:yes:
Strikers account for one worker out of 10,000. Walmart probably has more people call in sick on a daily basis.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/trending/2012/11/16/black_friday_strike_wal_mart_employees_threaten_to_walk_out_on_nation_s.html
This rat race trend of Black Friday beginning on Thursday is getting insane. There is something to be said about keeping some things sacred, like an ability for some poor schlep with no negotiating power to have Thanksgiving dinner with their family. I wouldn't be at all opposed to having some blue laws to deal specifically with this.
Ditto.
See, now this is a labour movement I can get behind. Not only are retail drones the last bastion of the unskilled worker that unions were created to protect, but the thought of screwing over the sort of retards who actually go to Black Friday sales is just delicious.
Too bad that the whole thing will fizzle.
What I find annoying is the increasing trend in Canada to have "Black Friday" sales.
THANKSGIVING WAS A MONTH AGO YOU FUCKS! IN THIS COUNTRY WE DO OUR CRAZY SALES ON BOXING DAY! :ultra:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 02:36:01 PM
Quote"This is what I live for," one salesperson told ABC News. "This is what I love to do."
Really
Best Buy floor employees get yearly bonuses based on their store's sales and 1 1/2 times holiday pay for working Thanksgiving Day.
Wal Mart floor employees only get paid holiday day for working Thanksgiving Day if they work both the Wednesday before it and the Friday afterwards.
Up the workers. :cool:
Quote from: Syt on November 19, 2012, 02:27:53 PM
Quote from: NoSpin1600I don't think stores should open until 8am the day after Thanksgiving, no need to open earlier. As for unions, they will be the downfall of this country. They make very large political contributions and believe me they expect things in return. We have federal laws that protect workers, unions do nothing but leach off these workers.
A. Walmart workers are not Unionized.
B. The Unions are hardly the only ones making huge political contributions and leaching off workers :P
Quote from: Syt on November 19, 2012, 02:27:53 PM
In states like Wisconsin, California and Florida, shoppers have already started camping out, and some are even planning to eat Thanksgiving dinner while waiting in line.
"Mom comes out with the china and plates, and we have everything you'd have on a Thanksgiving table," one shopper said.
Wait they are lining up now?! Wouldn't they come out ahead if they went to work this week and bought that TV at the regular price?
Quote from: Valmy on November 19, 2012, 03:19:29 PM
Quote from: Syt on November 19, 2012, 02:27:53 PM
In states like Wisconsin, California and Florida, shoppers have already started camping out, and some are even planning to eat Thanksgiving dinner while waiting in line.
"Mom comes out with the china and plates, and we have everything you'd have on a Thanksgiving table," one shopper said.
Wait they are lining up now?! Wouldn't they come out ahead if they went to work this week and bought that TV at the regular price?
Shoppers are crazy. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 03:05:36 PM
Wal Mart floor employees only get paid holiday day for working Thanksgiving Day if they work both the Wednesday before it and the Friday afterwards.
So an employee can work the actual stat holiday and not get paid extra for working the stat? How does that make any sense?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 03:05:36 PM
Wal Mart floor employees only get paid holiday day for working Thanksgiving Day if they work both the Wednesday before it and the Friday afterwards.
So an employee can work the actual stat holiday and not get paid extra for working the stat? How does that make any sense?
Been like that for quite a lot of places for ages: you have to work both days bookending a holiday to get holiday pay, or it's just another Thursday for you. I've had jobs like that before.
YOU DONT LIKE IT YOU DONT HAVE TO WORK HERE COMMIE PINKO GET A REAL JOB ROBBLE ROBBLE UNIONS DESTRY AMMURICA W#@$*( @)*& )@*(%$
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 03:05:36 PM
Wal Mart floor employees only get paid holiday day for working Thanksgiving Day if they work both the Wednesday before it and the Friday afterwards.
So an employee can work the actual stat holiday and not get paid extra for working the stat? How does that make any sense?
Same for a lot of the factories around here. The idea is that it keeps people from calling off sick on either side of the holiday. It works, but it's a shitty way to do it, imo.
This comes back to my age of question about US politics - why do people affected by these kinds of draconian laws keep voting in the people that make them?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:56:30 PM
This comes back to my age of question about US politics - why do people affected by these kinds of draconian laws keep voting in the people that make them?
That's a Big Business (ie Republican) thing, and most factory workers that I know vote Democrat.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 03:58:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:56:30 PM
This comes back to my age of question about US politics - why do people affected by these kinds of draconian laws keep voting in the people that make them?
That's a Big Business (ie Republican) thing, and most factory workers that I know vote Democrat.
Are there laws that mandate this - or is it a company policy thing?
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 03:59:12 PM
Are there laws that mandate this - or is it a company policy thing?
It's a condition of employment, right down at the bottom of the HR paperwork where it says "you don't like it, GTFO."
I'm sure you approve.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 03:59:12 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 03:58:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:56:30 PM
This comes back to my age of question about US politics - why do people affected by these kinds of draconian laws keep voting in the people that make them?
That's a Big Business (ie Republican) thing, and most factory workers that I know vote Democrat.
Are there laws that mandate this - or is it a company policy thing?
Company policy, but I believe that CC is saying that the gubmint shouldn't allow companies to make such policies. I was only saying that those who this most affect vote for those most likely to agree with CC.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 03:58:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:56:30 PM
This comes back to my age of question about US politics - why do people affected by these kinds of draconian laws keep voting in the people that make them?
That's a Big Business (ie Republican) thing, and most factory workers that I know vote Democrat.
There are not enough Big Business types to vote in the Republicans - particularly in the States where the Republicans win. So I dont think it is a big business thing. I think it is a bunch of people voting against their own self interest to support policies that make no sense.
Which is why I am continually amazed when I hear about stuff like this.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 03:58:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:56:30 PM
This comes back to my age of question about US politics - why do people affected by these kinds of draconian laws keep voting in the people that make them?
That's a Big Business (ie Republican) thing, and most factory workers that I know vote Democrat.
And yet nothing changes. Could it be that the Republicans and Democrats are more or less identical on this issue, and you're trying to turn it into a partisan issue because of your inability to think?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 04:01:34 PM
Which is why I am continually amazed when I hear about stuff like this.
Don't know why, there's absolutely nothing in the United States Constitution guaranteeing holiday pay.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 04:00:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 03:59:12 PM
Are there laws that mandate this - or is it a company policy thing?
It's a condition of employment, right down at the bottom of the HR paperwork where it says "you don't like it, GTFO."
I'm sure you approve.
Thats why you need sane employment standards legislation that companies cannot contract out of.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 04:00:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 03:59:12 PM
Are there laws that mandate this - or is it a company policy thing?
It's a condition of employment, right down at the bottom of the HR paperwork where it says "you don't like it, GTFO."
I'm sure you approve.
I have to sign similar HR paperwork.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 04:03:07 PM
I have to sign similar HR paperwork.
What are your hours this Thursday?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
Thats why you need sane employment standards legislation that companies cannot contract out of.
Nonsense, all Americans have the right to decide who to work for and where; whether they can or not is not a concern.
Don't like working at Wal Mart? Work elsewhere. If you can't, that's not our problem, man.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 04:06:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 04:03:07 PM
I have to sign similar HR paperwork.
What are your hours this Thursday?
None as a company-wide holiday. However, I will be working unofficially on Saturday and Sunday to catch back up.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 04:07:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
Thats why you need sane employment standards legislation that companies cannot contract out of.
Nonsense, all Americans have the right to decide who to work for and where; whether they can or not is not a concern.
Don't like working at Wal Mart? Work elsewhere. If you can't, that's not our problem, man.
Yeah, which of course brings me back to my original question. Why do you people put up with this.
Even the Union haters should be behind this kind of minimum standards type legislation. Make the legislative standard strong enough and employees have little need to unionize.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 04:09:45 PM
None as a company-wide holiday. However, I will be working unofficially on Saturday and Sunday to catch back up.
You should work on your time management skills. Get a day planner or something.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 04:12:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 04:07:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
Thats why you need sane employment standards legislation that companies cannot contract out of.
Nonsense, all Americans have the right to decide who to work for and where; whether they can or not is not a concern.
Don't like working at Wal Mart? Work elsewhere. If you can't, that's not our problem, man.
Yeah, which of course brings me back to my original question. Why do you people put up with this.
Even the Union haters should be behind this kind of minimum standards type legislation. Make the legislative standard strong enough and employees have little need to unionize.
You just have no concept of freedom or liberty up there, do you?
Where are you guys drawing the line? What a lot of you are forgetting (or ignoring) is that when there's a midnight opening, there are still going to be employees showing up to open the store on (technically) Thanksgiving.
That said, I am going to draw a line on this one and say that there should be a restriction. Salary and exempt hourly managers can be scheduled at 11:30PM on Thanksgiving, everyone else should get until 12AM.
There are way too many people who are going to have to cut and run on Thanksgiving because of their jobs, and even corporate district and regional managers should understand shit like "undermining morale."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 04:20:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 04:12:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 04:07:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
Thats why you need sane employment standards legislation that companies cannot contract out of.
Nonsense, all Americans have the right to decide who to work for and where; whether they can or not is not a concern.
Don't like working at Wal Mart? Work elsewhere. If you can't, that's not our problem, man.
Yeah, which of course brings me back to my original question. Why do you people put up with this.
Even the Union haters should be behind this kind of minimum standards type legislation. Make the legislative standard strong enough and employees have little need to unionize.
You just have no concept of freedom or liberty up there, do you?
:D
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:56:30 PM
This comes back to my age of question about US politics - why do people affected by these kinds of draconian laws keep voting in the people that make them?
:pope:/ :ph34r:
I think this is really a bunch of fluff and stuff. Maybe it's because I've worked for hospitals for a number of years, and for the service industry that doesn't shut down because of the holidays, but if that's what the job is, then that's what the job is. I work in insurance now, and I have to be at work on Friday at 8am just like any other work day. Not thrilled about it, but I'd rather have to work then have no job, so yeah, I'll do it. No point grumbling about it.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 19, 2012, 04:24:29 PM
Where are you guys drawing the line? What a lot of you are forgetting (or ignoring) is that when there's a midnight opening, there are still going to be employees showing up to open the store on (technically) Thanksgiving.
That said, I am going to draw a line on this one and say that there should be a restriction. Salary and exempt hourly managers can be scheduled at 11:30PM on Thanksgiving, everyone else should get until 12AM.
There are way too many people who are going to have to cut and run on Thanksgiving because of their jobs, and even corporate district and regional managers should understand shit like "undermining morale."
"undermining morale" < "increasing shareholder value"
What's problem with undermining morale? The proles don't like it, they can quit. We'll simply get another prole. GOD BLESS AMERICA
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 04:36:05 PM
I think this is really a bunch of fluff and stuff. Maybe it's because I've worked for hospitals for a number of years, and for the service industry that doesn't shut down because of the holidays, but if that's what the job is, then that's what the job is. I work in insurance now, and I have to be at work on Friday at 8am just like any other work day. Not thrilled about it, but I'd rather have to work then have no job, so yeah, I'll do it. No point grumbling about it.
I suppose I have my answer.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 04:41:31 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 04:36:05 PM
I think this is really a bunch of fluff and stuff. Maybe it's because I've worked for hospitals for a number of years, and for the service industry that doesn't shut down because of the holidays, but if that's what the job is, then that's what the job is. I work in insurance now, and I have to be at work on Friday at 8am just like any other work day. Not thrilled about it, but I'd rather have to work then have no job, so yeah, I'll do it. No point grumbling about it.
I suppose I have my answer.
Shitty employment is a privilege, not a right.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 04:41:31 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 04:36:05 PM
I think this is really a bunch of fluff and stuff. Maybe it's because I've worked for hospitals for a number of years, and for the service industry that doesn't shut down because of the holidays, but if that's what the job is, then that's what the job is. I work in insurance now, and I have to be at work on Friday at 8am just like any other work day. Not thrilled about it, but I'd rather have to work then have no job, so yeah, I'll do it. No point grumbling about it.
I suppose I have my answer.
Yeah. Seems like it come down to two things, which Meri illustrates:
1) Internalizing the situation as a binary choice: having a job and putting up with shit vs having no job.
2) "If someone has to put up with it, everyone should have to put up with it."
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 04:36:05 PM
I think this is really a bunch of fluff and stuff. Maybe it's because I've worked for hospitals for a number of years, and for the service industry that doesn't shut down because of the holidays, but if that's what the job is, then that's what the job is. I work in insurance now, and I have to be at work on Friday at 8am just like any other work day. Not thrilled about it, but I'd rather have to work then have no job, so yeah, I'll do it. No point grumbling about it.
do you get compensation as in double pay, or another day off the week after?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 04:40:44 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 19, 2012, 04:24:29 PM
Where are you guys drawing the line? What a lot of you are forgetting (or ignoring) is that when there's a midnight opening, there are still going to be employees showing up to open the store on (technically) Thanksgiving.
That said, I am going to draw a line on this one and say that there should be a restriction. Salary and exempt hourly managers can be scheduled at 11:30PM on Thanksgiving, everyone else should get until 12AM.
There are way too many people who are going to have to cut and run on Thanksgiving because of their jobs, and even corporate district and regional managers should understand shit like "undermining morale."
"undermining morale" < "increasing shareholder value"
What's problem with undermining morale? The proles don't like it, they can quit. We'll simply get another prole. GOD BLESS AMERICA
Well that's the problem with having a shitty economy in the first place.
Here it can be hard to find another prole.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 04:19:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 04:09:45 PM
None as a company-wide holiday. However, I will be working unofficially on Saturday and Sunday to catch back up.
You should work on your time management skills. Get a day planner or something.
I'm not complaining though. It's part of my job. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:56:30 PM
This comes back to my age of question about US politics - why do people affected by these kinds of draconian laws keep voting in the people that make them?
Don't you think "draconian" is a bit of an overstatement?
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 04:51:46 PM
Well that's the problem with having a shitty economy in the first place.
Here it can be hard to find another prole.
I would say the problem is the casino economy. Good times or bad times, the people in the economy are consistently getting squeezed in favor of capital.
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2012, 04:46:27 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 04:36:05 PM
I think this is really a bunch of fluff and stuff. Maybe it's because I've worked for hospitals for a number of years, and for the service industry that doesn't shut down because of the holidays, but if that's what the job is, then that's what the job is. I work in insurance now, and I have to be at work on Friday at 8am just like any other work day. Not thrilled about it, but I'd rather have to work then have no job, so yeah, I'll do it. No point grumbling about it.
do you get compensation as in double pay, or another day off the week after?
She said she's working Friday, which is not a holiday unless something has changed.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 04:19:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 04:09:45 PM
None as a company-wide holiday. However, I will be working unofficially on Saturday and Sunday to catch back up.
You should work on your time management skills. Get a day planner or something.
I'm not complaining though. It's part of my job. :)
Yes, the benefits of being a salaried exempt employee, not constrained by a 40 hour work week when 50 hours will suffice.
So what's your beef with $8 an hour worker bees?
Ah, nevermind. Already been answered.
Quote1) Internalizing the situation as a binary choice: having a job and putting up with shit vs having no job.
2) "If someone has to put up with it, everyone should have to put up with it."
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 04:54:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:56:30 PM
This comes back to my age of question about US politics - why do people affected by these kinds of draconian laws keep voting in the people that make them?
Don't you think "draconian" is a bit of an overstatement?
No, I really do find the laws in many of your States to be exactly that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:01:20 PM
No, I really do find the laws in many of your States to be exactly that.
Not talking about other laws. I'm talking about the law or laws that relate to this discussion. In what way are they draconian?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 05:00:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 04:19:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 04:09:45 PM
None as a company-wide holiday. However, I will be working unofficially on Saturday and Sunday to catch back up.
You should work on your time management skills. Get a day planner or something.
I'm not complaining though. It's part of my job. :)
Yes, the benefits of being a salaried exempt employee, not constrained by a 40 hour work week when 50 hours will suffice.
So what's your beef with $8 an hour worker bees?
Ah, nevermind. Already been answered.
Quote1) Internalizing the situation as a binary choice: having a job and putting up with shit vs having no job.
2) "If someone has to put up with it, everyone should have to put up with it."
All of your post was very bizarre. It was like you were having some imaginary conversation with yourself.
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2012, 04:45:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 04:41:31 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 04:36:05 PM
I think this is really a bunch of fluff and stuff. Maybe it's because I've worked for hospitals for a number of years, and for the service industry that doesn't shut down because of the holidays, but if that's what the job is, then that's what the job is. I work in insurance now, and I have to be at work on Friday at 8am just like any other work day. Not thrilled about it, but I'd rather have to work then have no job, so yeah, I'll do it. No point grumbling about it.
I suppose I have my answer.
Yeah. Seems like it come down to two things, which Meri illustrates:
1) Internalizing the situation as a binary choice: having a job and putting up with shit vs having no job.
2) "If someone has to put up with it, everyone should have to put up with it."
There are industries where holidays do not mean the same thing as they do in others. The medical field is one of them. A number of service industries are others, like gas stations and convenience stores that are open 24/7/365. If you work for a store known for their huge sales on Black Friday and that are open 24/7, you can assume that you'll be working on Thanksgiving. Movie theaters are open on Christmas, so if you work for one of them, there's a good chance you'll be working on Christmas Day, too.
When it's an expectation of that industry, you're not likely to get holiday pay for working it, either. I have worked innumerable Christmases and Thanksgivings, and without getting holiday pay for it. Most of the time, they're part-time jobs, which means that there are no benefits of any kind, including paid time off and holiday pay.
And yeah, having spent 18 months without a steady paycheck, I'll deal with working a day others get off. I dislike it, and I'm working on trying to get a job that doesn't expect such things from their workers. In the meantime, I need the paycheck more than I need a day off.
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2012, 04:46:27 PM
do you get compensation as in double pay, or another day off the week after?
No. Why would I? I get Thanksgiving off, which is more than a number of my co-workers get off.
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 05:03:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:01:20 PM
No, I really do find the laws in many of your States to be exactly that.
Not talking about other laws. I'm talking about the law or laws that relate to this discussion. In what way are they draconian?
Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. If you dont think that laws which allow employers to not pay people holiday pay for working on holidays is draconian then we dont have a sufficient base line from which further discussion is fruitful. You would probably also defend the ironically named Right to Work Legislation also.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 05:04:08 PM
All of your post was very bizarre. It was like you were having some imaginary conversation with yourself.
No, we were talking about shitty Wal Mart employees and the types of hourly rate fuck overs companies enjoy employing, and you're like, "lawls, I have to sign HR paper work too, lawls smiley".
You simply reinforced Jacob's and CC's points, along with the added delight of the usual homo self-centeredness.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:09:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 05:03:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:01:20 PM
No, I really do find the laws in many of your States to be exactly that.
Not talking about other laws. I'm talking about the law or laws that relate to this discussion. In what way are they draconian?
Yes, that is exactly what I am talking. If you dont think that laws which do not pay people for working on holidays is draconian then we dont have a sufficient base line from which further discussion is fruitful. You would probably also defend the ironically named Right to Work Legislation also.
And he would be right to do so. :mellow:
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2012, 04:55:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 04:51:46 PM
Well that's the problem with having a shitty economy in the first place.
Here it can be hard to find another prole.
I would say the problem is the casino economy. Good times or bad times, the people in the economy are consistently getting squeezed in favor of capital.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 05:10:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 05:04:08 PM
All of your post was very bizarre. It was like you were having some imaginary conversation with yourself.
No, we were talking about shitty Wal Mart employees and the types of hourly rate fuck overs companies enjoy employing, and you're like, "lawls, I have to sign HR paper work too, lawls smiley".
You simply reinforced Jacob's and CC's points, along with the added delight of the usual homo self-centeredness.
Hey seedy - you ever worked in a unionized position? :)
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:05:36 PM
There are industries where holidays do not mean the same thing as they do in others. The medical field is one of them. A number of service industries are others, like gas stations and convenience stores that are open 24/7/365. If you work for a store known for their huge sales on Black Friday and that are open 24/7, you can assume that you'll be working on Thanksgiving. Movie theaters are open on Christmas, so if you work for one of them, there's a good chance you'll be working on Christmas Day, too.
In a civilized society with proper labour laws all these employees can expect to be compensated with proper pay for working on those statutory holidays. The fact that you would defend the practice of not paying them on the basis that it is some kind of norm does, as I said, answer my question.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:12:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:09:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2012, 05:03:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:01:20 PM
No, I really do find the laws in many of your States to be exactly that.
Not talking about other laws. I'm talking about the law or laws that relate to this discussion. In what way are they draconian?
Yes, that is exactly what I am talking. If you dont think that laws which do not pay people for working on holidays is draconian then we dont have a sufficient base line from which further discussion is fruitful. You would probably also defend the ironically named Right to Work Legislation also.
And he would be right to do so. :mellow:
Right but not correct. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:09:45 PM
Yes, that is exactly what I am talking. If you dont think that laws which allow employers to not pay people holiday pay for working on holidays is draconian then we dont have a sufficient base line from which further discussion is fruitful. You would probably also defend the ironically named Right to Work Legislation also.
There's just a fundamental difference of how one views "holiday pay". It is, in effect, a perk, not a right. People are more willing to work for a company that pays it, but that doesn't mean that every company should be required to pay it.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:09:45 PM
Yes, that is exactly what I am talking. If you dont think that laws which allow employers to not pay people holiday pay for working on holidays is draconian then we dont have a sufficient base line from which further discussion is fruitful. You would probably also defend the ironically named Right to Work Legislation also.
There's just a fundamental difference of how one views "holiday pay". It is, in effect, a perk, not a right. People are more willing to work for a company that pays it, but that doesn't mean that every company should be required to pay it.
Wow, a perk?
You guys get the society you deserve I suppose.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:13:29 PM
Hey seedy - you ever worked in a unionized position? :)
Yup.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 05:10:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 05:04:08 PM
All of your post was very bizarre. It was like you were having some imaginary conversation with yourself.
No, we were talking about shitty Wal Mart employees and the types of hourly rate fuck overs companies enjoy employing, and you're like, "lawls, I have to sign HR paper work too, lawls smiley".
You simply reinforced Jacob's and CC's points, along with the added delight of the usual homo self-centeredness.
That only stemmed from you getting smug when I questioned the idea that it was Republican lawmakers who put such policies in place.
I know all too well how poorly Walmart treats its employees. My father was employed there for a bit.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:21:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 05:16:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:13:29 PM
Hey seedy - you ever worked in a unionized position? :)
Yup.
And you're still pro-union? :hmm:
Public sector unions are one thing. But unions that protect against not paying people for working on statutory holidays are quite another.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 05:16:41 PM
I know all too well how poorly Walmart treats its employees. My father was employed there for a bit.
I dunno about that. My brothersfirstroommatewhosemotherdiedandhehadnootherfamilysoweinvitehimtoallthebigholidays and his wife worked (and even met) at Walmart. He had worked his share of service jobs, and Walmart was far from the worst. I can remember dropping him off at Walmart Christmas night so he could get ready for the insane boxing day sales, which definitely sucked for him, but beyond that they were fairly decent in terms of pay and scheduling.
As far as crap service jobs go, Walmart is one of the better ones.
I'm not sure America can win this race to the bottom; hell I was treated badly as an employee, so you should accept worse treatment otherwise unions will take over the country.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:25:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 05:16:41 PM
I know all too well how poorly Walmart treats its employees. My father was employed there for a bit.
I dunno about that. My brothersfirstroommatewhosemotherdiedandhehadnootherfamilysoweinvitehimtoallthebigholidays and his wife worked (and even met) at Walmart. He had worked his share of service jobs, and Walmart was far from the worst. I can remember dropping him off at Walmart Christmas night so he could get ready for the insane boxing day sales, which definitely sucked for him, but beyond that they were fairly decent in terms of pay and scheduling.
As far as crap service jobs go, Walmart is one of the better ones.
Canada has minimum standards legislation. :contract:
Quote from: katmai on November 19, 2012, 05:25:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:21:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 05:16:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:13:29 PM
Hey seedy - you ever worked in a unionized position? :)
Yup.
And you're still pro-union? :hmm:
:rolleyes:
No shit, right? Cops and firefighter unions = good, but teachers, truckers and low wage saps? ZOMG teh evul.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 05:28:10 PM
Quote from: katmai on November 19, 2012, 05:25:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:21:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 05:16:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:13:29 PM
Hey seedy - you ever worked in a unionized position? :)
Yup.
And you're still pro-union? :hmm:
:rolleyes:
No shit, right? Cops and firefighter unions = good, but teachers, truckers and low wage saps? ZOMG teh evul.
When on earth did I ever say that police and firefighter unions are good? :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on November 19, 2012, 05:26:09 PM
I'm not sure America can win this race to the bottom; hell I was treated badly as an employee, so you should accept worse treatment otherwise unions will take over the country.
Okay...*backs away slowly*
Quote from: mongers on November 19, 2012, 05:26:09 PM
I'm not sure America can win this race to the bottom; hell I was treated badly as an employee, so you should accept worse treatment otherwise unions will take over the country.
:huh:
What the hell does that even mean?
By the way, I never said that because I was treated badly as an employee others should be treated the same. I said that it's the nature of the beast in some industries. I don't consider it being treated badly. I consider it the norm, with anyone who handles it better a better employer.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:31:22 PM
When on earth did I ever say that police and firefighter unions are good? :hmm:
That's simply a common theme down here, s'all.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:35:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 19, 2012, 05:26:09 PM
I'm not sure America can win this race to the bottom; hell I was treated badly as an employee, so you should accept worse treatment otherwise unions will take over the country.
:huh:
What the hell does that even mean?
By the way, I never said that because I was treated badly as an employee others should be treated the same. I said that it's the nature of the beast in some industries. I don't consider it being treated badly. I consider it the norm, with anyone who handles it better a better employer.
Meri I wasn't addressing you directly but rather the whole workers should accept whatever crap employers choose to apply; just because those are the 'accepted' conditions for some in the industry, doesn't meant people can,t choose to improve their lot, hell maybe even collectively bargain with the employer (hint unions are sometimes of use here).
The wider point is having weak workers rights and higher exploitation doesn't make America a more competitive economy; some of the other productive western economies have better employment legislation and they don't seem to suffer as a result.
Quote from: mongers on November 19, 2012, 05:49:23 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:35:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 19, 2012, 05:26:09 PM
I'm not sure America can win this race to the bottom; hell I was treated badly as an employee, so you should accept worse treatment otherwise unions will take over the country.
:huh:
What the hell does that even mean?
By the way, I never said that because I was treated badly as an employee others should be treated the same. I said that it's the nature of the beast in some industries. I don't consider it being treated badly. I consider it the norm, with anyone who handles it better a better employer.
Meri I wasn't addressing you directly but rather the whole workers should accept whatever crap employers choose to apply; just because those are the 'accepted' conditions for some in the industry, doesn't meant people can,t choose to improve their lot, hell maybe even collectively bargain with the employer (hint unions are sometimes of use here).
The wider point is having weak workers rights and higher exploitation doesn't make America a more competitive economy; some of the other productive western economies have better employment legislation and they don't seem to suffer as a result.
I dunno - when I look around the US seems to have one of the most competitive economies going.
Quote from: mongers on November 19, 2012, 05:49:23 PM
Meri I wasn't addressing you directly but rather the whole workers should accept whatever crap employers choose to apply; just because those are the 'accepted' conditions for some in the industry, doesn't meant people can,t choose to improve their lot, hell maybe even collectively bargain with the employer (hint unions are sometimes of use here).
The wider point is having weak workers rights and higher exploitation doesn't make America a more competitive economy; some of the other productive western economies have better employment legislation and they don't seem to suffer as a result.
I'm just not convinced that legislation is the way to go. On some things, I absolutely agree that it should be legislated (child-labor laws, defined work-weeks, etc.) but when it comes to pay, that's really a market thing, imo. That includes the idea of paying people more for working on holidays.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:51:55 PM
I dunno - when I look around the US seems to have one of the most competitive economies going.
have you seen their trade deficit? In fact when was the last time they had a trade surplus?
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:54:36 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 19, 2012, 05:49:23 PM
Meri I wasn't addressing you directly but rather the whole workers should accept whatever crap employers choose to apply; just because those are the 'accepted' conditions for some in the industry, doesn't meant people can,t choose to improve their lot, hell maybe even collectively bargain with the employer (hint unions are sometimes of use here).
The wider point is having weak workers rights and higher exploitation doesn't make America a more competitive economy; some of the other productive western economies have better employment legislation and they don't seem to suffer as a result.
I'm just not convinced that legislation is the way to go. On some things, I absolutely agree that it should be legislated (child-labor laws, defined work-weeks, etc.) but when it comes to pay, that's really a market thing, imo. That includes the idea of paying people more for working on holidays.
Why stop and not paying people who work stat holidays. If the market demands child labour why not give it. Why step in the way of economic efficiency? If people want to work long days why not let their employers contract with them to do so. Why have work weeks. Arent you imposing your values on others.
Or look at it the other way. Why have Statutory Holidays at all?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:58:15 PM
Why stop and not paying people who work stat holidays. If the market demands child labour why not give it. Why step in the way of economic efficiency? If people want to work long days why not let their employers contract with them to do so. Why have work weeks. Arent you imposing your values on others.
Or look at it the other way. Why have Statutory Holidays at all?
Because there's such a thing as a balance? Because it doesn't have to be absolute one direction or another?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:55:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:51:55 PM
I dunno - when I look around the US seems to have one of the most competitive economies going.
have you seen their trade deficit? In fact when was the last time they had a trade surplus?
Wage stagnation. An American principle.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:13:29 PMHey seedy - you ever worked in a unionized position? :)
Hey BB, have you ever worked for Walmart?
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 06:00:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:58:15 PM
Why stop and not paying people who work stat holidays. If the market demands child labour why not give it. Why step in the way of economic efficiency? If people want to work long days why not let their employers contract with them to do so. Why have work weeks. Arent you imposing your values on others.
Or look at it the other way. Why have Statutory Holidays at all?
Because there's such a thing as a balance? Because it doesn't have to be absolute one direction or another?
And paying people Statutory pay for you know the Statutory holiday is an exetreme?
I am amazed I must say.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:54:36 PM
I'm just not convinced that legislation is the way to go. On some things, I absolutely agree that it should be legislated (child-labor laws, defined work-weeks, etc.) but when it comes to pay, that's really a market thing, imo. That includes the idea of paying people more for working on holidays.
So you're against minimum wage laws?
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2012, 06:02:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:13:29 PMHey seedy - you ever worked in a unionized position? :)
Hey BB, have you ever worked for Walmart?
Hey jake, do you like gladiator movies?
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 19, 2012, 06:04:39 PM
Hey jake, do you like gladiator movies?
Some of them are pretty good.
Do you like Japanese food?
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2012, 06:04:01 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:54:36 PM
I'm just not convinced that legislation is the way to go. On some things, I absolutely agree that it should be legislated (child-labor laws, defined work-weeks, etc.) but when it comes to pay, that's really a market thing, imo. That includes the idea of paying people more for working on holidays.
So you're against minimum wage laws?
The value in minimum wage laws is that it helps prevent abuse. Holiday pay does not.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 06:07:08 PMThe value in minimum wage laws is that it helps prevent abuse. Holiday pay does not.
I disagree, in that I think making people work on statutory holidays without extra compensation to be abuse.
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2012, 06:09:38 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 06:07:08 PMThe value in minimum wage laws is that it helps prevent abuse. Holiday pay does not.
I disagree, in that I think making people work on statutory holidays without extra compensation to be abuse.
Okay. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:13:33 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:05:36 PM
There are industries where holidays do not mean the same thing as they do in others. The medical field is one of them. A number of service industries are others, like gas stations and convenience stores that are open 24/7/365. If you work for a store known for their huge sales on Black Friday and that are open 24/7, you can assume that you'll be working on Thanksgiving. Movie theaters are open on Christmas, so if you work for one of them, there's a good chance you'll be working on Christmas Day, too.
In a civilized society with proper labour laws all these employees can expect to be compensated with proper pay for working on those statutory holidays. The fact that you would defend the practice of not paying them on the basis that it is some kind of norm does, as I said, answer my question.
You know what I'm about tired of your Martinus-of-Canada bullshit. No one
gives a fuck that Canada has a good economy. People care more about what toilet paper they're going to use to wipe their ass with than they do about some shit, nothing country that has literally never contributed anything of worth to human society. Canada is nothing, its economy is the size of my long removed foreskin. There are more rich people in America than there are Canadians, and our rich people know how to actually be rich, whereas yours probably cough over half their wealth to the government to fund liquor subsidies to Natives. Fuck you and your worthless, desolate, shit bag Luxembourg of the North bullshit.
I'm about tired of hearing some minor player on the world stage gloating because they managed to do a good job with their 10-year-old-with-an-allowance level fiscal and economic issues, guess what we're not a great power down south we
are the great power and you're absolutely nothing, nothing at all. You're the Palmyrene Empire of our time, doomed to irrelevance and nothingness in the history books.
:lol:
I was wondering when you were going to put your cranky pants back on again Otto.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 03:58:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:56:30 PM
This comes back to my age of question about US politics - why do people affected by these kinds of draconian laws keep voting in the people that make them?
That's a Big Business (ie Republican) thing, and most factory workers that I know vote Democrat.
Cause those Democrats are doing a great job keeping the man down.
Quote from: Scipio on November 19, 2012, 07:09:39 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 03:58:40 PM
That's a Big Business (ie Republican) thing, and most factory workers that I know vote Democrat.
Cause those Democrats are doing a great job keeping the man down.
I should point out that I'm not making a judgment call here. I'm simply saying that the people this would directly affect are most likely to vote for those who would make a legislative change on it. It's commonly known that in the US, the Republicans tend to be against business legislation while the Democrats tend toward business legislation.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2012, 06:53:13 PM
I'm about tired of hearing some minor player on the world stage gloating because they managed to do a good job with their 10-year-old-with-an-allowance level fiscal and economic issues, guess what we're not a great power down south we are the great power and you're absolutely nothing, nothing at all. You're the Palmyrene Empire of our time, doomed to irrelevance and nothingness in the history books.
I would think you would be more tired about how backward your labour laws are. But I suppose I have another piece to my answer.
Otto's back on the sauce. :cool:
Otto's outrage is justified. You Canucks lecture us about labor laws and then try to steal all our good comedian jobs.
Shame on you all.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2012, 07:33:27 PM
Otto's outrage is justified. You Canucks lecture us about labor laws and then try to steal all our good comedian jobs.
Shame on you all.
Free Market all the way :D
Why have statutory holidays midweek? In the UK that may be the day but (excepting Christmas) the holiday moves to the nearest Monday or Friday (and Tuesday/Thursday in some cases) so you have a long weekend.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 19, 2012, 11:10:07 PM
Why have statutory holidays midweek? In the UK that may be the day but (excepting Christmas) the holiday moves to the nearest Monday or Friday (and Tuesday/Thursday in some cases) so you have a long weekend.
Tradition?
The only ones I can think of that fall midweek are Canada Day (July 1st) and Armistice Day (November 11th). Although if those fall on the weekend, you get Monday off.
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2012, 11:46:01 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 19, 2012, 11:10:07 PM
Why have statutory holidays midweek? In the UK that may be the day but (excepting Christmas) the holiday moves to the nearest Monday or Friday (and Tuesday/Thursday in some cases) so you have a long weekend.
Tradition?
The only ones I can think of that fall midweek are Canada Day (July 1st) and Armistice Day (November 11th). Although if those fall on the weekend, you get Monday off.
January 1st and 2nd
St-Jean-Baptiste for Quebec (June 24th) - unmovable
Canada day - movable to the Monday of Friday, wichever is closest, so doesn't really count.
Armistice Day is not a statutory holiday here, only union workers will typically get this day off.
December 25th-26th.
These can all fall on weekdays. I thought it was mostly the same in Canada, except June 24th and January 2nd.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:05:36 PM
There are industries where holidays do not mean the same thing as they do in others. The medical field is one of them. A number of service industries are others, like gas stations and convenience stores that are open 24/7/365. If you work for a store known for their huge sales on Black Friday and that are open 24/7, you can assume that you'll be working on Thanksgiving. Movie theaters are open on Christmas, so if you work for one of them, there's a good chance you'll be working on Christmas Day, too.
Ah, not here. It's one thing I don't really mind though. I can actually *live* for a full day without going to the grocery store :D
Quote
When it's an expectation of that industry, you're not likely to get holiday pay for working it, either. I have worked innumerable Christmases and Thanksgivings, and without getting holiday pay for it. Most of the time, they're part-time jobs, which means that there are no benefits of any kind, including paid time off and holiday pay.
Strange. People here working in hospitals will get another day off when they work on Christmas, their schedule is simply adjusted on this.
I will argue about too many holidays, but not against the general principle of letting workers days off to be with their family for important days like Christmas and New Year. It's actually very good that people are not working and getting compensated on these days, as they can afford the time to do more shopping, spend more money, boost the economy and the government's coffers where there is a sales tax.
It's a win-win situation.
Quote
And yeah, having spent 18 months without a steady paycheck, I'll deal with working a day others get off. I dislike it, and I'm working on trying to get a job that doesn't expect such things from their workers. In the meantime, I need the paycheck more than I need a day off.
But if you were paying 45% taxes, you could get the day off and your paycheck!!! ;)
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:07:36 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2012, 04:46:27 PM
do you get compensation as in double pay, or another day off the week after?
No. Why would I? I get Thanksgiving off, which is more than a number of my co-workers get off.
I misunderstood. I thought you meant you had no day off at all. It's that Black Friday thing confusing me. Typically American to request time off for a *shopping* holiday :P :P
Most American companies give both Thursday and Friday off. Because I work for an insurance company owned by a hospital, I don't. There isn't a holiday for people getting sick. And the hospital does pay time and a half for those working the actual holiday, but only for full time employees.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 03:54:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 03:05:36 PM
Wal Mart floor employees only get paid holiday day for working Thanksgiving Day if they work both the Wednesday before it and the Friday afterwards.
So an employee can work the actual stat holiday and not get paid extra for working the stat? How does that make any sense?
Been like that for quite a lot of places for ages: you have to work both days bookending a holiday to get holiday pay, or it's just another Thursday for you. I've had jobs like that before.
YOU DONT LIKE IT YOU DONT HAVE TO WORK HERE COMMIE PINKO GET A REAL JOB ROBBLE ROBBLE UNIONS DESTRY AMMURICA W#@$*( @)*& )@*(%$
Except that the policy isn't that you have to work Wednesday and Friday to get the holiday pay--it's that you have to work your last scheduled shift before the holiday and your next scheduled shift after the holiday to get holiday pay. So if you're scheduled to work Tuesday, be off Wednesday, work Thursday and work Friday, the fact that you don't work Wednesday doesn't keep you from getting your holiday pay. Miss work Tuesday, then you won't get holiday pay.
But there's no law that a company has to offer holiday pay at all (usual disclaimer about how there might be exceptions in some US jurisdictions).
That's the debate. There are those who believe that it should be a law.
I like how after Otto's rant most posts are by Canadians :)
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 07:23:01 AM
I like how after Otto's rant most posts are by Canadians :)
Meh. Most of them are just Viper catching up. :P
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 07:26:05 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 07:23:01 AM
I like how after Otto's rant most posts are by Canadians :)
Meh. Most of them are just Viper catching up. :P
In my defense, I was still at the office ;)
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 06:57:54 AM
Most American companies give both Thursday and Friday off. Because I work for an insurance company owned by a hospital, I don't. There isn't a holiday for people getting sick. And the hospital does pay time and a half for those working the actual holiday, but only for full time employees.
Before I moved to Kentucky I worked for a Jewish medical center. I didn't get a single 'free' holiday, not even Christmas. :(
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 07:13:25 AM
But there's no law that a company has to offer holiday pay at all (usual disclaimer about how there might be exceptions in some US jurisdictions).
I wouldn't be surprised if holiday pay is required by California law. California has all sorts of stupid laws about stuff like that, which complicates doing business in California quite a bit. For example, my company acquired another firm in Orange County a few years back, and they have some dumb law about how you can't mandate employees use or lose accrued vacation, which caused all sorts of problems. Moral of the story: if you do an acquisition in California, get rid of as many of the California-based workers as possible. :)
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 07:22:03 AM
That's the debate. There are those who believe that it should be a law.
So I see. I had skipped ahead to correct the factually incorrect information about having to work Wed and Fri to get holiday pay.
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 07:13:25 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 03:54:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 03:05:36 PM
Wal Mart floor employees only get paid holiday day for working Thanksgiving Day if they work both the Wednesday before it and the Friday afterwards.
So an employee can work the actual stat holiday and not get paid extra for working the stat? How does that make any sense?
Been like that for quite a lot of places for ages: you have to work both days bookending a holiday to get holiday pay, or it's just another Thursday for you. I've had jobs like that before.
YOU DONT LIKE IT YOU DONT HAVE TO WORK HERE COMMIE PINKO GET A REAL JOB ROBBLE ROBBLE UNIONS DESTRY AMMURICA W#@$*( @)*& )@*(%$
Except that the policy isn't that you have to work Wednesday and Friday to get the holiday pay--it's that you have to work your last scheduled shift before the holiday and your next scheduled shift after the holiday to get holiday pay. So if you're scheduled to work Tuesday, be off Wednesday, work Thursday and work Friday, the fact that you don't work Wednesday doesn't keep you from getting your holiday pay. Miss work Tuesday, then you won't get holiday pay.
In that case, then it's OK to fuck them over, right?
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 08:06:19 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 07:22:03 AM
That's the debate. There are those who believe that it should be a law.
So I see. I had skipped ahead to correct the factually incorrect information about having to work Wed and Fri to get holiday pay.
Shift work is shift work is shift work. Playing games about working your scheduled Tuesday and but off Wednesday before Thanksgiving doesn't mean it's any less sucky to have to jump through hoops to earn as meager a bone as holiday pay.
Give it up, Seedy. You lost this one.
Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 09:59:08 AM
Give it up, Seedy. You lost this one.
Quick, distract him with a dead animal in Australia! :P
Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 09:59:08 AM
Give it up, Seedy. You lost this one.
Wrong. I've worked in plenty of shift work environments that played it all sorts of ways, and they still suck.
So go fuck yourself with a fetus without time and a half.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 10:34:45 AM
Wrong. I've worked in plenty of shift work environments that played it all sorts of ways, and they still suck.
You're right in this. It does suck, and it would be great if the economy was strong enough to force companies to treat their employees better via attrition of their best people. I just flinch at the idea of codifying it.
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 10:40:50 AM
You're right in this. It does suck, and it would be great if the economy was strong enough to force companies to treat their employees better via attrition of their best people. I just flinch at the idea of codifying it.
DPS' nitpicking is just still doesn't change the fact that an employee has to have their scheduled hours bookended on either side of a holiday to qualify for holiday pay, which is still a bogus manipulation.
Doesn't matter, shift workers are the reason everything is wrong with America anyway.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 10:34:45 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 09:59:08 AM
Give it up, Seedy. You lost this one.
Wrong. I've worked in plenty of shift work environments that played it all sorts of ways, and they still suck.
So go fuck yourself with a fetus without time and a half.
Dude, pick your battles. Obama won and the Ravens beat the Steelers a couple nights ago. Be happy with that.
Quote from: Caliga on November 20, 2012, 07:54:11 AM
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 07:13:25 AM
But there's no law that a company has to offer holiday pay at all (usual disclaimer about how there might be exceptions in some US jurisdictions).
I wouldn't be surprised if holiday pay is required by California law. California has all sorts of stupid laws about stuff like that, which complicates doing business in California quite a bit. For example, my company acquired another firm in Orange County a few years back, and they have some dumb law about how you can't mandate employees use or lose accrued vacation, which caused all sorts of problems. Moral of the story: if you do an acquisition in California, get rid of as many of the California-based workers as possible. :)
Do you really think it is stupid to have a law which requires companies to pay out unused vacation time? If you do you should think about the reason such a law exists. Companies could easily offer generous vacation allowances on paper but never actually allow their employees to take that time using the excuse that they are just too busy.
Such a thing would be illegal in BC (and I believe most other Provinces) but given the view expressed by a few Yanks here that vacation pay is somehow a "perk" and can readily see it happening in the US.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2012, 11:57:42 AM
Such a thing would be illegal in BC (and I believe most other Provinces) but given the view expressed by a few Yanks here that vacation pay is somehow a "perk" and can readily see it happening in the US.
:huh:
Of course vacation pay is a perk. Otherwise, everyone would have the same time off per year. Every company decides for itself what kind of vacation pay - and the structure of said vacation pay - they offer as a benefit. Benefits are not requirements; they are perks.
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:06:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2012, 11:57:42 AM
Such a thing would be illegal in BC (and I believe most other Provinces) but given the view expressed by a few Yanks here that vacation pay is somehow a "perk" and can readily see it happening in the US.
:huh:
Of course vacation pay is a perk. Otherwise, everyone would have the same time off per year. Every company decides for itself what kind of vacation pay - and the structure of said vacation pay - they offer as a benefit. Benefits are not requirements; they are perks.
Meri, you are confusing two things. Minimum standards and what a company might give over those minimum standards.
Around here minimum standards include making use it or lose it policies illegal and requiring employers to give vacation pay for statutory holidays.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2012, 11:57:42 AM
Do you really think it is stupid to have a law which requires companies to pay out unused vacation time? If you do you should think about the reason such a law exists. Companies could easily offer generous vacation allowances on paper but never actually allow their employees to take that time using the excuse that they are just too busy.
Such a thing would be illegal in BC (and I believe most other Provinces) but given the view expressed by a few Yanks here that vacation pay is somehow a "perk" and can readily see it happening in the US.
I know that at my last job you weren't supposed to be able to have your vacation roll over from year to year. In practice, managers had a lot of discretion as they knew we'd revolt if we'd been too busy and thus never actually got any vacation. I do know they used that against me when I left said job - but I was just so eager to be free that the loss of a couple hundred bucks was an issue I let slide.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2012, 12:09:20 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:06:30 PM
:huh:
Of course vacation pay is a perk. Otherwise, everyone would have the same time off per year. Every company decides for itself what kind of vacation pay - and the structure of said vacation pay - they offer as a benefit. Benefits are not requirements; they are perks.
Meri, you are confusing two things. Minimum standards and what a company might give over those minimum standards.
Around here minimum standards include making use it or lose it policies illegal and requiring employers to give vacation pay for statutory holidays.
I'm not confusing anything. Benefits are just that: benefits. They are not required by law; they are bonsuses to a paycheck to entice people to work at a specific company. The exception is health insurance, which is required because in our country it is nearly impossible to get affordable healthcare in any other way except through company-provided programs. (By the way, that's only true if the company has more than 50 employees.)
I understand how things are structured in Canada. That doesn't mean that it's the only - or the best - way to do things. I think I've been pretty clear that I believe that those types of things should be free-market rather than codified.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 10:51:26 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 10:40:50 AM
You're right in this. It does suck, and it would be great if the economy was strong enough to force companies to treat their employees better via attrition of their best people. I just flinch at the idea of codifying it.
DPS' nitpicking is just still doesn't change the fact that an employee has to have their scheduled hours bookended on either side of a holiday to qualify for holiday pay, which is still a bogus manipulation.
Sure, it's a manipulation to ensure that people don't pull stunts like not showing up on Black Friday. Holiday pay itself is a manipulation to ensure that people actually bother to show up on holidays that they're scheduled to work. You know what wouldn't be a manipulation? To just schedule people to work holidays and not give them any extra pay for it.
Given the choice of being "manipulated" and getting bonus holiday pay, or not being manipulated and having to work holidays without any bonus pay, I'll take being manipulated, thank you very much. Hell, I wish I got "manipulated" into working on Saturdays, too.
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:27:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2012, 12:09:20 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:06:30 PM
:huh:
Of course vacation pay is a perk. Otherwise, everyone would have the same time off per year. Every company decides for itself what kind of vacation pay - and the structure of said vacation pay - they offer as a benefit. Benefits are not requirements; they are perks.
Meri, you are confusing two things. Minimum standards and what a company might give over those minimum standards.
Around here minimum standards include making use it or lose it policies illegal and requiring employers to give vacation pay for statutory holidays.
I'm not confusing anything. Benefits are just that: benefits. They are not required by law; they are bonsuses to a paycheck to entice people to work at a specific company. The exception is health insurance, which is required because in our country it is nearly impossible to get affordable healthcare in any other way except through company-provided programs. (By the way, that's only true if the company has more than 50 employees.)
I understand how things are structured in Canada. That doesn't mean that it's the only - or the best - way to do things. I think I've been pretty clear that I believe that those types of things should be free-market rather than codified.
Yeah, I you already provided a fine example of why you will always be stuck with subpar labour laws. But what you havent done is explain in any coherent manner why you think that is a good thing. Free Market FTW isnt exactly an argument.
But in a Fox News world I suppose that passes for an argument.
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 03:06:22 PM
Sure, it's a manipulation to ensure that people don't pull stunts like not showing up on Black Friday. Holiday pay itself is a manipulation to ensure that people actually bother to show up on holidays that they're scheduled to work. You know what wouldn't be a manipulation? To just schedule people to work holidays and not give them any extra pay for it.
Given the choice of being "manipulated" and getting bonus holiday pay, or not being manipulated and having to work holidays without any bonus pay, I'll take being manipulated, thank you very much. Hell, I wish I got "manipulated" into working on Saturdays, too.
The term "incentive" works too. :smarty:
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 03:11:54 PM
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 03:06:22 PM
Sure, it's a manipulation to ensure that people don't pull stunts like not showing up on Black Friday. Holiday pay itself is a manipulation to ensure that people actually bother to show up on holidays that they're scheduled to work. You know what wouldn't be a manipulation? To just schedule people to work holidays and not give them any extra pay for it.
Given the choice of being "manipulated" and getting bonus holiday pay, or not being manipulated and having to work holidays without any bonus pay, I'll take being manipulated, thank you very much. Hell, I wish I got "manipulated" into working on Saturdays, too.
The term "incentive" works too. :smarty:
I'm not sure how tongue-in-check you meant that, but in all seriousness, incentives
are, or at least can be seen as, a form of manipulation. The 2 words aren't exactly synonyms, though, because there are other forms of manipulation that don't provide incentives for the person being manipulated.
Got a letter from Walmart saying just in time for Christmas, I'm pre-approved for the Walmart credit card! :w00t:
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 05:54:18 PM
Got a letter from Walmart saying just in time for Christmas, I'm pre-approved for the Walmart credit card! :w00t:
:thumbsup: That was a close one. Glad they did it in time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 04:12:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 04:07:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
Thats why you need sane employment standards legislation that companies cannot contract out of.
Nonsense, all Americans have the right to decide who to work for and where; whether they can or not is not a concern.
Don't like working at Wal Mart? Work elsewhere. If you can't, that's not our problem, man.
Yeah, which of course brings me back to my original question. Why do you people put up with this.
Even the Union haters should be behind this kind of minimum standards type legislation. Make the legislative standard strong enough and employees have little need to unionize.
Lol, this is the line you conservative types draw? Working on Thanksgiving. Common cause and all that shit, but who cares? Workers get exploited all year, every year, no problem, but having to show up on a Thursday, BIG FUCKING DEAL apparently.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 19, 2012, 11:10:07 PM
Why have statutory holidays midweek? In the UK that may be the day but (excepting Christmas) the holiday moves to the nearest Monday or Friday (and Tuesday/Thursday in some cases) so you have a long weekend.
What's the difference? Are you under some sort of bizarre impression that America closes on Friday afternoon?
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 10:40:50 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 10:34:45 AM
Wrong. I've worked in plenty of shift work environments that played it all sorts of ways, and they still suck.
You're right in this. It does suck, and it would be great if the economy was strong enough to force companies to treat their employees better via attrition of their best people.
A strong labor market is a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 20, 2012, 10:56:12 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 19, 2012, 11:10:07 PM
Why have statutory holidays midweek? In the UK that may be the day but (excepting Christmas) the holiday moves to the nearest Monday or Friday (and Tuesday/Thursday in some cases) so you have a long weekend.
What's the difference? Are you under some sort of bizarre impression that America closes on Friday afternoon?
Calm down, Chuck. Such would actually work out for the majority of Americans.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm
QuoteMany more persons worked on weekdays than on weekend days: 82 percent
of employed persons worked on an average weekday, compared with 35
percent on an average weekend day. These estimates include individuals
who worked on days they were not normally scheduled to work. For example,
the 35 percent of workers who worked on a weekend day includes those
whose jobs are typically scheduled on weekends, as well as those who
usually work on weekdays but spent time working on the weekend.
I dunno. I don't think it would help the service industry types much. You and I are off on Thanksgiving and Friday, and for my part the whole weekend (whether we want that or not, I don't because I'm having to frontload my week like mad, but your mileage may vary), but some guy at Wal-Mart is just as likely to be scheduled Thanksgiving whether it be a Thursday or Friday, and may be even more likely to be scheduled so (I believe a lot of retail outlets staff their weekends heavier, because of the Monday-Friday people that their business serves).
But that's not what I needed to show to refute your attack on Sheilbh. I simply had to point out that the majority of people don't work on the average weekend.
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 11:13:41 PM
But that's not what I needed to show to refute your attack on Sheilbh. I simply had to point out that the majority of people don't work on the average weekend.
I guess it's not your job to worry about 35% of Americans. Well, at least you're getting better. :P
It's not my job to worry about any of them unless they make a product complaint. Then I have to fill out some paperwork.
when I worked in a call center taking incoming calls for hospitals -a job anyone who can speak english and type can do, with a turnover rate suggesting that a majority of the world has worked there at some point- we got time and a half if we worked on a holiday. The call center had much less volume on holidays, though, as opposed to retail. I'm generally against blue laws but I'm going with the thread consensus in favor of one here.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/s480x480/69473_4885830432521_191258802_n.jpg)
USA! USA! USA!
Amazon UK has been getting into the Black Friday nonsense :mad:
I got an email today about their special black friday deals for wednesday :mad:
Fucking idiots.
Quote from: Count on November 21, 2012, 01:09:45 AM
I'm generally against blue laws but I'm going with the thread consensus in favor of one here.
It's not like it would really hurt sales if there were laws that said that retail stores had to be closed on Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, 4th of July, etc., and not open back up till, say, 6AM the next morning. People would just wait and make the same purchases that next day. Oh, you'd lose the occasional sale to the person who forgot to buy the whipped topping for their Thanksgiving pies beforehand, or to the person who forgot to buy the charcoal for their Labor Day cookout, but those wouldn't add up to much.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 04:02:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 04:01:34 PM
Which is why I am continually amazed when I hear about stuff like this.
Don't know why, there's absolutely nothing in the United States Constitution guaranteeing holiday pay.
Which is why you need to pass law to guarantee that, I think, is the point here.
If something was constitutionally guaranteed, then no such law would have been needed.
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2012, 11:36:14 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 04:02:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 04:01:34 PM
Which is why I am continually amazed when I hear about stuff like this.
Don't know why, there's absolutely nothing in the United States Constitution guaranteeing holiday pay.
Which is why you need to pass law to guarantee that, I think, is the point here.
If something was constitutionally guaranteed, then no such law would have been needed.
:secret: He doesn't really feel that way. :secret:
Quote from: dps on November 21, 2012, 09:47:01 AM
It's not like it would really hurt sales if there were laws that said that retail stores had to be closed on Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, 4th of July, etc., and not open back up till, say, 6AM the next morning. People would just wait and make the same purchases that next day. Oh, you'd lose the occasional sale to the person who forgot to buy the whipped topping for their Thanksgiving pies beforehand, or to the person who forgot to buy the charcoal for their Labor Day cookout, but those wouldn't add up to much.
Nope. And actually, if you put the doorbusters on Thursday, you're going to find Black Friday doesn't count for as much, accounting-wise. It kinda defeats the purpose.
The heaviest purchasers are going to be the ones waiting for the doorbusters- the first two hours are what's going to make most of your sales for the day (at least in retail). Say my store has a planned goal of $6,000 in sales. If we were to move the doorbusters to 8PM on Thursday, they'd have to be accounted for as Thursday's sales, so Friday's sales could easily drop to $3-4 thousand.
We have a somewhat middle-of-the-ground legislation in Poland when it comes to working on state holidays (which are about 10-15 in a year):
- emergency and "needed" public utility (e.g. hospitals and oil stations but not libraries) employees may be required to work,
- restaurant and cinema employees may be required to work,
- all other businesses may be open, however only the owner/the owner's family may work.
Funnily enough the legislation was not pushed through the parliament by social democrats, but by the religious right.
Sundays, on the other hand, are free for all, provided employees are given another day off during a week. This means 90% of retail and service industry (more in big cities, less in small towns etc.) is open on Sundays.
My impression is that the people who benefit the most from high labor standards here are those that often change jobs/careers, don't have a formal education fitting their job or work part time/irregularly. I also had the impression from this board that Meri is one of these, so it is a bit surprising to see her defending the system.
Quote from: Zanza on November 21, 2012, 01:55:17 PM
My impression is that the people who benefit the most from high labor standards here are those that often change jobs/careers, don't have a formal education fitting their job or work part time/irregularly. I also had the impression from this board that Meri is one of these, so it is a bit surprising to see her defending the system.
Why? I dislike legislation for the sake of legislation, especially when the market can sort this kind of thing out for itself. It's a factor right now because the economy is weak and jobs are scarce, but will it continue to be one once things turn around? They weren't so much before, so it seems odd to think that they will be later.
:thumbsup: There's hope for you yet, Meri.
Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 01:59:51 PM
Why? I dislike legislation for the sake of legislation, especially when the market can sort this kind of thing out for itself. It's a factor right now because the economy is weak and jobs are scarce, but will it continue to be one once things turn around? They weren't so much before, so it seems odd to think that they will be later.
Even in a strong economy it is not exactly a great one for workers. Even alot of services can be outsourced to India and China. It will take awhile for globalization to run its course and the market to be a good one for working people again. But passing laws to give American Workers benefits will only make the situation worse, not better.
It's not legislation for the sake of legislation, but rather for the sake of policy. The point of politics is to set policy frameworks on how we want our society to be. It's legitimate to say that you want everything regulated by the free market. It's also surprising to me. I would have expected more support for employee friendly policies. But I guess that is a big difference between the USA and the rest of the Western world.
And I don't think there is or ever will be scarcity regarding people able and willing to work at Walmart. Just about everybody is able to and with employment being at historical lows and trending down it is unlikely that America will run out of employable people anytime soon.
In general my impression is that the "lower" half of the job market has very little bargaining power and will hardly reach anything individually, meaning the market works but not to their advantage.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2012, 02:08:46 PMEven in a strong economy it is not exactly a great one for workers. Even alot of services can be outsourced to India and China. It will take awhile for globalization to run its course and the market to be a good one for working people again. But passing laws to give American Workers benefits will only make the situation worse, not better.
How do you outsource a Walmart job to China? :huh:
I just don't see how legislating things like holiday pay or holidays off work will help the situation. It's such a small thing compared to the myriad of other issues that need to be addressed.
You want to make these workers' lives better? Raise the minimum wage to something that people can actually survive on. Require affordable insurance (affordable being the key word). That's where I would start passing laws.
Pick your battles, Zanza. You gotta' pick your battles.
Quote from: Zanza on November 21, 2012, 02:15:00 PM
How do you outsource a Walmart job to China? :huh:
You don't. But not every service industry job is retail.
I know. I work with near- and offshore outsourcing services every day, but my impression is that a lot of these jobs require some qualifications and while it is often cheaper to get these services from abroad, it's only because the local employees do have bargaining power and are scarce. The really badly qualified people, those that work e.g. in retail or logistics or so can't really be off-shored, but they also don't have bargaining power. The reason we source software engineers from India is because we have to pay 1000 Euro per day for a German. And he will not even consider to work on public holidays and just tell us to fuck off. ;) The guy driving a forklift in the warehouse on the other hand...
Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 01:59:51 PM
Why? I dislike legislation for the sake of legislation, especially when the market can sort this kind of thing out for itself.
Like female CEOs? LULZ
Quote from: Neil on November 21, 2012, 03:00:58 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 01:59:51 PM
Why? I dislike legislation for the sake of legislation, especially when the market can sort this kind of thing out for itself.
Like female CEOs? LULZ
Care to point out where I have ever said that female CEOs should be legislated? :hmm:
Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 03:04:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 21, 2012, 03:00:58 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 01:59:51 PM
Why? I dislike legislation for the sake of legislation, especially when the market can sort this kind of thing out for itself.
Like female CEOs? LULZ
Care to point out where I have ever said that female CEOs should be legislated? :hmm:
Weren't you praising the Swedish model? Isn't that what they've done, or is that just board members. Either way, you're a traitor.
Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 01:59:51 PM
Why? I dislike legislation for the sake of legislation, especially when the market can sort this kind of thing out for itself.
How much cool aid do they make you drink down there anyway?
Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 02:19:18 PM
I just don't see how legislating things like holiday pay or holidays off work will help the situation. It's such a small thing compared to the myriad of other issues that need to be addressed.
You want to make these workers' lives better? Raise the minimum wage to something that people can actually survive on. Require affordable insurance (affordable being the key word). That's where I would start passing laws.
Pick your battles, Zanza. You gotta' pick your battles.
I think this is less about picking this battle here and now and more about a surprise about the state of affairs in the US, considering such battles have been picked and won decades ago in virtually every other Western country in the world.
If Saudi Arabia had some backward but relatively harmless law on the books right now, I'd tell the Saudi liberals to pick their battles and perhaps focus on something else - but I would be surprised to find such laws in force in, say, France.
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2012, 03:55:07 PM
I think this is less about picking this battle here and now and more about a surprise about the state of affairs in the US, considering such battles have been picked and won decades ago in virtually every other Western country in the world.
If Saudi Arabia had some backward but relatively harmless law on the books right now, I'd tell the Saudi liberals to pick their battles and perhaps focus on something else - but I would be surprised to find such laws in force in, say, France.
I thought it was well-known that the US is way behind the European model when it came to workers' benefits/perks/rights due to our almost pathological view of the free market.
Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 03:59:46 PM
I thought it was well-known that the US is way behind the European model when it came to workers' benefits/perks/rights due to our almost pathological view of the free market.
Yet perversely in some ways Euroland is freer. We just cannot make up our mind over here.
Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 03:59:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2012, 03:55:07 PM
I think this is less about picking this battle here and now and more about a surprise about the state of affairs in the US, considering such battles have been picked and won decades ago in virtually every other Western country in the world.
If Saudi Arabia had some backward but relatively harmless law on the books right now, I'd tell the Saudi liberals to pick their battles and perhaps focus on something else - but I would be surprised to find such laws in force in, say, France.
I thought it was well-known that the US is way behind the European model when it came to workers' benefits/perks/rights due to our almost pathological view of the free market.
I'd love to have their model of unions to go along with it.
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2012, 11:43:04 AM
We have a somewhat middle-of-the-ground legislation in Poland when it comes to working on state holidays (which are about 10-15 in a year):
- emergency and "needed" public utility (e.g. hospitals and oil stations but not libraries) employees may be required to work,
- restaurant and cinema employees may be required to work,
Serious question: why the fuck are restaurants and cinemas special, but buying normal groceries is not? Hierarchy of needs fail.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2012, 02:08:46 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 01:59:51 PM
Why? I dislike legislation for the sake of legislation, especially when the market can sort this kind of thing out for itself. It's a factor right now because the economy is weak and jobs are scarce, but will it continue to be one once things turn around? They weren't so much before, so it seems odd to think that they will be later.
Even in a strong economy it is not exactly a great one for workers. Even alot of services can be outsourced to India and China. It will take awhile for globalization to run its course and the market to be a good one for working people again. But passing laws to give American Workers benefits will only make the situation worse, not better.
I guess if you half-ass it, as American legislation tends to do, sure. That's why you have separate legislation that introduces tariffs upon goods or services produced in countries that don't meet
my American standards. Especially low-end legal services. Tariffed to hell.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2012, 02:08:46 PM
It will take awhile for globalization to run its course ...
:huh:
What makes you think it's going to?
I think you have had a tough week there Ide