Slashdot Mirror
EU Court: Commuting to Customer Sites Counts as Work
Joe_Dragon writes with news that the European Court of Justice has issued a ruling (PDF) saying that workers who have to commute to see customers, but don't have a "fixed or habitual place of work," must have their transit time at the beginning and end of the day count as working time. In other words, driving to your normal office every day doesn't count toward your paycheck, but leaving home in the morning to go visit a client or customer at your employer's request does. This added commute time also counts toward weekly labor limits — EU regulations for working conditions prohibit employers from making their employees work more than 48 hours a week on average. The court said, Given that traveling is an integral part of being such a worker, the place of work of that worker cannot be reduced to the physical areas of his work on the premises of the employer’s customers. The fact that the workers begin and finish the journeys at their homes stems directly from the decision of their employer to abolish the regional offices and not from the desire of the workers themselves.
Seems fair.
It is nice to see some more protections for workers, but is this all?
I don't think I'm missing some important change that will come from this, aside pissy employers ranting.
...exactly like it should be.
Someone literate appears to have hijacked Joe_Dragon's account.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Without this it's possible for someone to spend 80 hours working during the week and only get paid for half that much or less. When someone is following their employer's instructions and carrying out their job duties they're at work and on the clock, it's that simple. Someone who works principally in an office and travels irregularly occasionally has to deal with a special situation. Someone whose principal employment involves travelling to and from various job sites should have that travel counted as part of their work day.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
In my part of Canada a contract worker who has to travel to somewhere else to do work can easily claim the travel time as a business expense. They just have to do "some work" at their home office at the beginning and end of the day. At that point they have started work and travel to/from somewhere else is a business expense. How much they are paid and for what is something else.
An employee traveling to/from home and their employer's business is out of luck.
Yes 48 hrs per week for day time work, you do a single hour of night time work it becomes a 40 hrs working week for that month.
The way it's calculated differs per country but it could be something like a maximum of 1040 hrs per 6 months.,
Probably not a surprise but the UK opted out of this and other EU workers protection regulations.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
If you know your place of employment, commuting is up to you - you can live close by if you prefer. But if you have to go where your employer tells you every day, commuting is on them.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
...pretty normal for most companies. If you have to travel for a day to get to a conference, they count that travelling as work.
The people who suffer are people like low-grade health-care workers who visit patients at home. In the UK private agency workers may have 6 patients to see in a day, spend half an hour with each, and get paid for 3 hours work. But it can take them an hour to get between each patient, and they don't get paid for that. So, 3 hours pay for 9 hours work. It's a scandal, and this case may set a precedent for changing it...
So it would make sense for European companies to adopt rules and practices that are similar to the leaders on that chart, say the United States? I wonder what the rules are in the US for compensating employees' time traveling to workplaces that are not the regular place of business...
I interviewed for a job at this one office and they where not even paying full mileage to customers sites or even the tolls to get to them.
They said we don't have to pay the number of miles it takes to get to our main office to your home each way when going to differnt customers sites from your home most of the week. They said that you where scheduled came into the office one a week (other then maybe times where customers sites needed a visit that day)
The EU didn't already have this? There is a reason most roving salesmen are asked to come to the office for a quick pep talk first thing each day. :)
I'm sorry, did a court just make a completely reasonable ruling that makes total sense and is fair to all involved?
Gosh, what has this world come to?
If I call up my employee and say, "hey, I need you to go to XYZ customer's office and do ABC", then clearly from that point until they get back to where they were (home), they are "on the clock".
I honestly can't imagine doing it any other way, maybe I'm weird?
The EU is tied second with Canada in that graph. By the way, it's not just productivity that counts, worker satisfaction and output quality are just as important. You can hardly claim that European products are shitty, they're just polished with a different mindset, and damn expensive.
Why ask that question.
Why not ask why they all don't adopt Greece's system it's a European nation after all.
You are so right!
Let us abolish vacation time, sick time, maternity leave, weekends, nights, and all those other ridiculous "personal" things.
The moment you are done with your education you are a worker drone and need to work 24/7/365 for the rest of your life with no compensation other than the most basic necessities to not die TOO quickly.
Worker's rights? Hell no, those are anti-capitalistic!
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
If the start and end commute are over, let's say 45 minutes, then i'd say this is fair enough because given the choice most people wouldn't choose a job with such commute times. However any shorter than that it's basically giving the finger to every single worker on the planet who has to fight through 30 minutes of traffic every morning just to get to work.
Case 1: I work every day in an office 20 miles away (or 100 yards away) from my home. I pay for the journey out of my own pocket and don't get paid as working (in some countries, like Germany, the cost of travel is tax deductible).
Case 2: My office is 20 miles away (or 100 yards away) from my home. When I get there, my boss sends me to a client anywhere in the country (within reason). I pay the journey to the office out of my own pocket and don't get paid for working for the time. The company pays for my journey to the client and pays the driving time as work time.
Case 3: There is no office. I drive from home to a client and back. This ruling effectively says that this situation is handled exactly the same as if my office was in the home next door, which is entirely logical.
Greece has no 'system' ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Given that they're tied for second at 98 (compared to US at 104), I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.
god youre a fucking moron
How do you measure productivity?
The EU is already lagging in the developed world in productivity
http://images.forbes.com/media...
Why not put a few businesses out of business and raise the cost for those remaining.
An amusing graph certainly. I think people in the US work more than 6% more in terms of hours, and and in many places in Europe it's actually illegal to work overtime without compensation (aka, multiplier to pay or extra time off). That on top of generally having more than 6% more time off due to government mandated vacation requirements.
I think a more significant measure is productivity / hours worked, because especially in the non-manufacturing societies (or specialist manufacturing) the west works in, killing/firing/replacing your skilled work force is a bad idea in the long term.
In the USA, generally, hourly employees whose travel is required for the job must be paid for their travel time, with the exception of home to work (and work to home).
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/w...
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Workers having no money and time to spend it will put those businesses out of business.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Gosh, it's almost as if there's someone more important in life than fucking work for a corporate overlord.
Seriously, are Americans REALLY this fucking stupid in general?
P.S. In terms of productivity per hour or even per dollar, chances are that the EU wins. But let your employer brainwash you into working, if you wish.
Like any law or ruling, there are certainly loopholes or workarounds. An obvious one would be to obtain a [small] office near/in the customer premises. Then the long commute is to this assigned business office, with a short hop to the customer.
The real problem is you cannot legislate morality or fairmindedness. A market economy can balanece things to the extent competition operates. An unfair employer loses employees (a big deal in IT). However, the EU is especially keen to entrench "employee rights" and thereby lessen competition for employees. If you cannot fire, you will be very reluctant to hire. So the EU is stuck with regs upon regs.
This ruling has nothing at all to do with worker's paycheck. The ruling only relates to the working time directive -- the maximum hours someone can be required to work -- not whether that time counts towards pay.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
You might notice that working hours have nothing to do with productivity, otherwise Japan would lead the graph you just posted.
That chart is from 2007 to 2009!!!
Where is the rest? Talk about cherry picking. And EU is 2nd after US in the chart.
And employment is down in the US during that period, easy to sack a million people short term and claim productivity is up, but it's a quick buck at the expense of long term profit.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Can you merkins please put your rapid cow down! He is adding to global warming with too much hot air.
Yes, and you can, as usual, thank Republicans in Congress for passing the law that says that.
So you don't get to get paid for travel to work, and you don't get to deduct it as an expense either.
America: land of continuously screwing the workers, and where at least half of them vote for more of it.
Exactly. What kind of moron would pick a Chevy over a BMW or Mercedes? It's obvious which society is better at producing quality products, and it isn't the USA.
It's not just cars either; where do all the nicest ships come from? Multi-billion-dollar cruise ships are made in northern European countries, not the US. The US actually has no industrial ability to produce a ship like the Norwegian Epic, yet Europe cranks those things out left and right. That's pretty sad. Or, if you want tankers and cargo ships, those things are all made in Korea (which incidentally also makes some nice cars, a lot better than Fords and Chevys). After years of crap though, America finally is making some really nice, and innovative cars.... except they're made by an upstart who the auto dealerships and the state governments are all trying to shut down, because somehow it's "unfair" to sell your products directly to consumers instead of going through a legislated middleman who adds cost and only gives customers horrifically bad service and unethical sales tactics in exchange for higher prices. Yet the politicians who push these laws claim they're the "business friendly" party who's interested in a "free market".
Seriously, are Americans REALLY this fucking stupid in general?
As an American myself, I assure you the answer to that is "yes".
Workers 'rights' are really workers limitations and anti-individualist. According to most of these BS regulations if I WANT to work 80 hours a week in order to get head, progress more, an save money it is ILLEGAL for me to do so.
I am going to perform a Joe_Dragon translation service. I think I did this years ago...
I interviewed for a job at a certain office one day, and they were not even planning to reimburse the full mileage cost to travel to customers' sites -- or even to reimburse road tolls.
They said, "We wouldn't have to pay the number of miles it takes to get to our main office from your home, when your work commute would be from your home to the customer's site for most days of the week." They further clarified that the person they would hire would only be scheduled to come into the office one day per week (unless a customer needed a visit that day as well).
I would pick a Ford over either in terms of reliability, cost of ownership, and value. Well, perhaps give Mercedes the edge on reliability. However, I do agree it's sad that America lacks industrial capacity in the areas mentioned. Probably has something to do with complete lack of industrial policy (other than prison industrial complex and defense industrial complex).
Welcome to living in a society, where sometimes we choose not to let people do things that they feel would benefit themselves at the cost of all those around them.
No. It is illegal to spend more than 48 hours with ONE employer. If you really want to work 80 hour week, get a second job.
Even if you could work 80 hours for one employer, you will not get ahead long term. You will burn out, you will take more sick leave, your work quality will be much poorer. Oh and if you keep doing this voluntarily, it will not be respected: It will be expected. Not to mention what effect it will have on the rest of your life.
BMWs and Mercedes aren't usually produced in Europe, either...
Most are made in Mexico, the US, or China. In fact the two largest BMW plants in the world are in South Carolina and Mexico.
The actual productivity of the French per hour worked is significantly higher than America - they just work less hours. Maybe it's because Facebook is an American product, so it's boycotted in France ;) (Don't bother to tell me it's not boycotted!)
I would pick a Ford over either in terms of reliability, cost of ownership, and value.
I wouldn't. I even thought about looking at Fords recently because I was in the market for a new car, and I came across a deluge of reviews complaining about how unreliable the automatic (DSG) transmission was in the Focus and how they'd never buy another Ford again because the way Ford handled it was miserable. Add in the horrifically bad MyFordTouch systems (and on the GM side, the whole ignition-switch fiasco and cover-up) and that cured me of the desire of giving the American companies another chance. Maybe in another 20 years I'll look at them again (Tesla excepted).
Probably has something to do with complete lack of industrial policy
I'm not sure what you mean here by "industrial policy". America actually does have some shipyards, but they're antiquated things that only produce either overpriced military vessels, or some small private yachts. But they can't compete against the foreign shipyards in anything else. Heck, they even suck at military stuff, leading the US Navy to go to Australia's Austal to build the Littoral Combat ships (though they had to do the production at an American shipyard). Newport News Shipbuilding (maker of aircraft carriers) even tried to get into commercial tanker work back in the 90s and failed miserably.
Honestly, America is very very lucky that it's still pretty good at software, and everyplace else seems to suck at that for some reason, because it's keeping our economy afloat. The only other thing we're any good at making these days is food (mainly thanks to our land size and climates), and that's not something to base a world-leading economy on.
"uhm, what was that middle thing, again?
and don't EVER call me stupid. ever."
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
"Seriously, are Americans REALLY this fucking stupid in general?"
Yes.
Liar. Those were 2007 figures, and are completely different now. If you pull up any recent statistics, you will find the opposite -- the US is lagging in productivity compared to the German worker who puts out 1436 hours/year compared to the US 1804 hours. Think about it, when paying an American, you are getting less than 4/5 of what you are paying for a German to do the same task.
So, the more hours done in the US doesn't mean more productivity. It just means you have to pay someone 80 hours or so for a 40 hour task.
Ironic that most USians tend to envy Europeans, and this is just another way they do... vacation time is nice.
You forgot baby labor. Once a brat hits four he could be put to use in the mines. There are actually right wingers who want this sort of crap. And they are so very lost they don't even know how messed up they are. Cheap labor will do nothing for America. That tune played out long ago. These days my machines must work cheaper than your machines is the real deal. Can a Chinese production robot do a better job or faster job than an American assembly robot? Human's are getting rare on factory floors. Machines take more and more agricultural jobs every day. Driving for a living already received its death notice. Teaching is falling to automation. Yet the really dumb can't see it coming at all. How many parents on this thread have a kid who takes some school courses with no teacher other than a computer?
"Seriously, are Americans REALLY this fucking stupid in general?"
I know this is a popular opinion at Slashdot, but no we are NOT. Meet enough people around the world and you quickly realize just how much dumber they are. There are a heck of a lot more of them out there than here.
Perceived value, quality and reliability, which is what you are basing that decision on is very flawed.
Go look at actual reliability reports for Mercedes, it barely edges over average for reliability (which is still better than Cadillac but far short of GM), which wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the cost of repairs. And Ford, while some are quite good, some are downright scary to own and others that are decent but are ridiculously expensive when things eventually do go wrong. Chevy actually edges them out if you know where to find the dealer trade-in reliability info.
By the way, almost every major manufacturer has plants here, we have the ability, the problem is people kept buying the spoon-fed garbage they offered and once people woke up, American companies couldn't figure out why they were so left behind. They did it to themselves.
art 3 there must daily rest of 11 consecutive hours per 24-hour period
art 4 a rest period for every six hours, set by legislation or collective agreement
art 5 weekly rest of 24 hours uninterrupted, on top of the daily rest in art 3, but derogation justifiable for technical, organisational or work reasons
art 6 (a) member states must ensure weekly working time is limited by law, or collective agreement(b) average working time should not exceed 48 hours for each 7 day period
art 22 ‘miscellaneous’ (1) individual opt out for art 6 where (a) the worker agrees (b) no detriment for not agreeing (c) records kept up to date (d) authorities kept informed (e) information given (2) three week transitional provision (3) inform Commission
Eg If offered overtime on a regular basis, that is fine. The company just cannot expect you to do it, nor punish you for refusing.
Only in the UK it seems.... Never mind. The individual opt out refers to members.
BAHAHAHAHA! Really. BMW and Mercedes are your gotos? Try this one out. Got into a BMW dealership and ask them about reliability. Seriously. Do it. The standard line is "BMW is the ultimate driving machine". If you repeat "but what about reliability", they're supposed to repeat "BMW is the ultimate driving machine". This is because BMW is good to drive, but reliable, they are not. And when you bring up Merc....well, they make BMW seem like the epitome of reliability.
I own a BMW motorcycle. I will go on about how great it is to ride, but I will never speak positively about how well made it is. If comparing Europe to US for quality, well, that's like comparing McDonalds and Burger King. They're basically the same. The only way you'd think different is if you think paying more for something means it's better.
You see, I can tell you've never worked 80 hours in a week. I have. I live in the US, and it's come up. Let me tell you, I've never come across somebody who does more work in a week than what could be accomplished in 40 hours. I find that the more over 40 you do in a week, the more dicking around you do. And truthfully, in tech work, it's really more 30ish hours and not 40 hours. The people who work 80 hours a week think they're super productive, but to all of us sane individuals, the people who work 80 hours are among the lowest overall productivity workers at the office. In crunch time I've had to do 60 hours a week, it's miserable. And it's not sustainable. If you're doing non-trivial work, even 48 hour work weeks, you're spending a lot of time doing nothing.
Abolishing legal requirements to provide those benefits is not the same as abolishing those benefits. After all, most of those benefits were not imposed by government, they were pioneered by businesses voluntarily.
What "cost" does it impose on you if I choose to work 80 hours?
Actually, the difference is much simpler. Europeans by and large view themselves as wage slaves at the mercy of big corporations and governments, with little autonomy or control over their lives. So, if they want to work more or less, it requires government intervention. Americans, by and large, still view themselves as autonomous actors and their labor as something valuable that employers compete for.
Sure... if price is no object.
Name one.
Voluntarily, to the tune of, "Either you guys set something up yourselves that is acceptable, or we will do it for you." That's the kind of incentive that lets a business be nice to its employees; otherwise they just need to all agree that no job offers a work week lower than 70 hours so there can be no shopping around for the workers.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Yet another mis titled article.
This on affects works who have not office and go directly to the job site from home , in Europe.
It is quite narrow.
The company that cause the issue will have to figure out how to spend the minimum amount of money.
Name one.
Sen Jane Cunningham (R-Chesterfield) Says Enough With Our Stupid Child Labor Laws Already
http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=4124271
This act modifies the child labor laws. It eliminates the prohibition on employment of children under age fourteen. Restrictions on the number of hours and restrictions on when a child may work during the day are also removed. It also repeals the requirement that a child ages fourteen or fifteen obtain a work certificate or work permit in order to be employed. Children under sixteen will also be allowed to work in any capacity in a motel, resort or hotel where sleeping accommodations are furnished. It also removes the authority of the director of the Division of Labor Standards to inspect employers who employ children and to require them to keep certain records for children they employ. It also repeals the presumption that the presence of a child in a workplace is evidence of employment.
Q.E.D.
Most places I worked for and that had these types of workers had this in some form already in place.
I wonder how this will affect the occasional travaler. e.g. the person who works in one office, but needs to go to a meeting at another office for a day. To me it was always a bit giving and taking. I do a longer day that day and they won't moan when the next Friday I leave a bit earlier.
OTOH if they don't want to do that, I can become very precise with counting my hours and minutes as well.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
What "cost" does it impose on you if I choose to work 80 hours?
Risk of you killing me in a car crash from DWI driving while impaired, for one, or stepping in front of my car, causing an accident if I swerve to avoid you. It's easy to test if you are drunk and impaired, lack of sleep is harder to test for.
Also, if you have kids, you aren't spending time with them, which means I'm more likely to have to pay for police and prison services for those delinquents.
I'm sure you'll hand waive away those things though, because, Fuck everyone else, right?
Take care of your Invisible Hands. They could get caught somewhere.
I'd pick a Toyota Corolla if I wanted just an ass-hauler to work.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Prostitutes or fancy meals must be very expensive where you live.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Thats common law in Austria and Germany already. If the customer wants you to go somewhere he'd better well be ready to pay for the time it takes me to get there.
You should see how the private care agencies in the UK handle it, workers who are paid poorly to begin with, doing 15 minute visits to people in their own homes to provide vital care and support, are only paid from the moment they arrive and use the landline to phone in with the company until they ring to say they're leaving, all the time travelling, and probably completing paperwork in the car as there can't be time to do it and provide support to service users, throughout the day is unpaid, and there's a lot of it.
http://www.voxeu.org/sites/def...
Try again
What cost is there to you if I sell hardcore drugs to drug users? You're not a drug user and I won't be selling to you. So why not? What harm if someone else chooses to by drugs?
Total BS - the working time directive forbids an employer from asking you to do so, or punishing you for not doing so.
It does not prevent you asking to work overtime or the employer from granting it at that point.
I can burst up to well over 80 hours in a single week with minimal to no loss in per-hour productivity.
It can be done. It does happen. It's a viable option.
What I can't do is sustain that. This is where the 'average 48 hour week' comes in as quite sensible. Sustaining 40-45 hours/week is possible, but sustaining 80 hours/week leads to burn out and (as you state) reduced productivity.
But you can average 40 and throw in the occasional 'shit hit the fan' week without dicking around.
(Note that I prefer to do a 40-45 hour 'dicking around' week than a pure 30 hour productivity week. I gain and add a lot of value through the information gained and shared while dicking around, and my brain benefits from the downtime between the 'hard' bits)
A state senator from Missouri?
can i telecommute to eu?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I work for a SMB consultancy and we had this debate concerning mileage reimbursement. None of the engineers had an office presence at our small office -- we worked from home or at client locations. I started when the company was quite small and the owners were willing to pay for ALL mileage (except from home to office and back trips), partly because many customers were required to pay a trip charge of $25 so the owner was already making a profit on trips under about 50 miles.
At some point as they became more sophisticated and were worried they were running into a tax liability for mileage reimbursements not covered by IRS rules. They wanted to cut any reimbursements involving trips to/from home and client locations.
Since we didn't have any choice involving customers and a significant minority were distant (ie, round trips of 70 miles), I made a stink about it. I argued that tax liability wasn't the issue -- whether or not they were able to deduct our mileage reimbursement as a tax deduction wasn't my concern.
The business model was on site IT support. Asking me to bear 100% of the cost of supporting their business model isn't remotely equitable -- they need to provide compensation for the use my capital (car) in their business model. The alternative is they provide me with a car to fulfill their business model, which I guarantee will be more expensive than a mileage reimbursement. Plus, they are getting trip charges from the customer, so it's not like they're not already exceeding their cost to me in travel compensation.
Surprisingly, they bought this argument, at least for me as a long-serving worker who had basically received this compensation for several years.
You may want to watch an international news channel from time to time to see what happens in Europe when workers do not get what they want. Although there may be government intervention at some point, this comes after vital infrastructure has been shut down and some parts of town have been burned down.
You really need to read up on your history. For example, Ford introduced the 40 hour work week and doubled pay in 1914 because he believed it was good for productivity (it was 45 hours before, not exactly slave labor either). In many other industries, working hours were privately negotiated between employers and private sector unions. The FLSA didn't get passed until 1938, and of course even that still leaves working hours largely at the discretion of employers and employees, where it has effectively remained ever since.
For what possible reason would employers make such an agreement? It makes little difference to an employer whether an employee works 40h or 80h to begin with. And why would a small competitor agree to let is factories sit idle and risk going out of business because a big competitor with deep pockets asks him to enforce some conditions of work that don't make much financial sense to begin with?
lol.. BS.
The 40 hour work week grew out of the idea and concept of not allowing workers to monopolize the available jobs. When people typically worked from dawn to dusk 6 days a week, you had about an 80 or so hour week. Then someone got the idea that you could split that between two employees and the 40 hour work week was born.
Now, if you go straight home after work and don't leave until the next work day, you might have a point about the driving or stepping in front of a car. Even then, it's a stretch to even reach that point. But lets run through a typical day. get up at 5am, get ready and commute commute to work. Work 9 hours a day (8 hours of work and 1 hour lunch), get home by 5 or 6 pm, watch the news, eat dinner, get on the inter-web and check the cat videos, off to bed by 9 or 10 pm. that's getting a good 7-8 hours sleep a night. That's still over 100 hours you are not sleeping a week. If working 80 of them is such a problem, why isn't being up and doing something the other 20 or more hours such a problem also?
Of course the answer is that neither is a problem. You simply had not thought it through and wanted to make some obscene comment on why you think it's a good idea to dictate how others live their life. At least you didn't pull out a bible and pretend to preach from authority.
because most folks don't. Nowadays if you want to move up you need to get promoted (maybe) or more likely move to a new position/company. Even if you get "raises" they're likely 2-2.5%. Given that inflation's around 3% (5-7%% if you only look at necessities like food, shelter, health care, education and transportation) that's basically a paycut every year. What you generally _won't_ see is real paycuts, because they're bad press.
So would you please stop spreading this nonsense that everytime workers get something good it will just be taken away from them. Hell, let's assume your B.S. is true. Doesn't that mean we're in a massive race to the bottom and an unwinable solution? Wouldn't that mean that workers have fundamentally lost the ability to bargain effectively? If you're OK with going back to a early 1900s style dystopian then fine. Say that and be done. Otherwise the only option is broad scale socialist reforms to restore the balance you claim is gone.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The beauty of self-delusion is that you only have to convince yourself.
Honestly, there isn't a European country that does, or would want to, work as long or for as little recompense (monetary or otherwise) as the US does. And the best bit is that your companies have you belief this is your choice!
Europeans strikes are legendary. They cost at least one British Prime Minister her job, even in a dying industry. They're still going on to this day, in just about every industry imaginable. Union representation is high and actually one of the main political parties in the UK has run the country only because it's backed by worker's unions.
Europeans view work as... the necessary evil to earn money to enjoy the rest of your life (the other 2/3rds of the working day - 1/3rd of which is SLEEP! - and the holidays and weekends). Sure, there are a handful of workaholics but it's not really aspired to in any way, shape or form. And when the work isn't suitable or fair, we actually stop working, and demand laws to make it fair.
Just off the top of my head in the UK, coal miner's strikes, Ford Dagenham plant, the rail system, statutory parental leave (including paternal), and zero-hours contracts. All resulted in fairer working laws which almost always worked in the favour of the workers, not the employer. The French are on strike over pay and conditions in the Eurotunnel - even before the latest migrant problems.
(P.S. I'm extraordinarily anti-union, because it brings my country's services to a halt whenever someone feels there's a grievance... but you can't say for a second that the UK law isn't inherently favourable to the worker's work-life balance).
Simple, ain't it?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I live in Los Angeles and I think commute time should count in some way for all jobs. This would motivate businesses and city government to do practical civil engineering. Do something like half time or such.
If your going to have a business you need affordable housing near that business where people want to live. If your driving more than an hour a day or two hours on rapid transit then something is obviously wrong.
Well, Europeans may not "want" to, but they certainly do, given how much lower their disposable incomes actually are.
And Americans view work as something that gives purpose and meaning to their life, something that ought to improve society and help their fellow human beings.
The UK coal miner strikes in the 1980's weren't primarily about working conditions, they were protesting pit closures. And they weren't protesting against capitalist exploitation, they were protesting against a heavily regulated and subsidized industry, asking for even more government handouts for themselves. (I'm not going to deconstruct your other examples, but it ends up being similar.)
Sure, if you start with the premise that half of your waking hours should be filled with doing stuff you hate. Personally, I think that way of thinking is pathological. I also think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. But, then, that's why I'm not working in Europe anymore.
That's still over 100 hours you are not sleeping a week. If working 80 of them is such a problem, why isn't being up and doing something the other 20 or more hours such a problem also?
Nice irrelevant point. The hours are different, of course. Or, rather, the effect of the hours is different. Very few people are in jobs that allow them to work without becoming physically and mentally exhausted even for a 40 hour week, especially over the long term.
No sane person that understands this would trust the physical and mental condition of somebody working an 80 hour week.
Perhaps you are incapable of accurately assessing your own physical and mental condition, and that of others. You may have a mental condition associated with excessive ego that doesn't allow you to objectively assess these things. You may also believe you are a much better driver than everybody else, a much smarter person, more physically attractive, better with people, and generally a perfect human being.
In specific, Jan Cunningham:
http://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2011/02/15/state-senator-jane-cunningham-wants-to-put-missouri-kids-to-work
lol..
I see how you know you lost the argument based on reality and have to invent your own in order to keep your theory making sense. It's all hogwash. If you do not want to work 80 hours a week, then don't. But don't use your own shortcomings or preferences to prevent others from doing so. And do not invent irrational fears of people walking in front of cars as your reasoning for it.
The bottom line is that there is no difference between you working 13 hours a day or working 9 hours a day (8 work plus 1 hour lunch) and spending another 4 or 5 carting the rugrats to and from soccer, stopping at the grocery and so on before going home. Most mom's have put in way worse schedules than that and even did it while pretending to smile rather than have junior know how much of a pain in the ass he has become.
Perhaps there are people who are all those things you think I'm better at. I would say it is the majority of the population where I am from and just the average person though.
It's the American way. I don't claim to understand it as I am not an American. I have worked in an American company though for a year. They had really long work hours. But they weren't really productive. I saw more than once that people got hired and were able to get their job done in reasonable time. But within a few months, the managed to stretch the work so they too needed to stay longer at the office.
It's a thing they have. I thing they measure if you are working "hard" by how long time you spend at the office. Not how much work you get done.
Well the other thing you have to remember is that Mercedes (BMW might not apply here) is not a luxury car company. We Americans think it is, but it is not. It's a company just like Toyota: they have a full range of cars from econocars to luxury cars, just like Toyota has cars ranging from the Yaris up to high-end Lexuses (which, everywhere outside of America, are not Lexuses, they're just Toyotas). We just don't know about this because Mercedes doesn't sell their lower-end cars in America.
For top reliability, I'd pick a Japanese car brand anyway (but not Mitsu), but if it's a choice between a Mercedes and a similar-priced GM car (whether it's a Chevy or a Cadillac), I'd definitely go for the Mercedes. I've never heard of Mercedes murdering people with faulty ignition switches and then covering it up for a decade.
A state senator from Missouri?
Shift the goal posts much?
You said name one. I did, and there was an R after the name. How about you show a state senator (or better) rank that has a D after the name with as vile a policy on Child labor laws and we decide which side is worse on this issue. Your turn, I won't be holding my breath.
lol..
I see how you know you lost the argument based on reality and have to invent your own in order to keep your theory making sense. It's all hogwash. If you do not want to work 80 hours a week, then don't. But don't use your own shortcomings or preferences to prevent others from doing so. And do not invent irrational fears of people walking in front of cars as your reasoning for it.
The bottom line is that there is no difference between you working 13 hours a day or working 9 hours a day (8 work plus 1 hour lunch) and spending another 4 or 5 carting the rugrats to and from soccer, stopping at the grocery and so on before going home. Most mom's have put in way worse schedules than that and even did it while pretending to smile rather than have junior know how much of a pain in the ass he has become.
Perhaps there are people who are all those things you think I'm better at. I would say it is the majority of the population where I am from and just the average person though.
Nostalgia asked what the cost was, the GP AC pointed it out. There are certainly reasonable laws preventing pilots and truck drivers from doing so without their employers incurring huge liability, at best, but no one said to ban 80 hour weeks in this thread.
Nice strawman attempt, your name is certainly right.
"lol"
Dum ass.
Every employee would have a baseline commuting time. Work hours start after the employee has driving his usual commute time. Businesses that have no established office could designate some street address as Home base. Employees would drive to the home base first several times to establish a commute time for themselves.
If your client is close to where you live you get to drink another cup of coffee before you start work.
which wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the cost of repairs.
Not to mention the cost of regular maintenance.
That group of bovine standing over there appears quite portentous. That's right it's an ominous cow herd.
So you are defending failed labor market regulations with failed drug policy? Good going.
If that's your argument, then, of course, you also have to restrict all recreational activities that might tire people out. Best make every citizen wear sleep monitors, right?
I waive them away because if that's your justification and you are logically consistent about it, we have to transform our nation into a totalitarian state.
So, I say "fuck you" because you are a totalitarian.
My first field service employer paid me for travel time.
My second employer did not, but I was salaried. After about 8 years a fellow employee reported them to the DOL and we went through the audit and administrative decision that we could not be salaried. Our services were billed by the hour, and travel time needed to be paid - administrative law decision by the U.S. DOL. At the end of the audit the complaintant could not verify the work he claimed, and was found to have owed our employer >$20k for 3 years' overreporting of work. He built a house during that period. Our employer did not pursue recovery. But we began tracking hours, mileage (to report personal use of company vehicles), and time on client sites. Fine with me.
Good to see the EU following the US lead.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Actually, the last time I worked in field service, I was paid the difference between travel time to the office (even though I went to the office perhaps 8 times a year) and to my first client of the day. When I lived >30 minutes from the office, this gave the company a half hour head start on my travel to, back then two clients - one about 45 minutes way, the other about 1.5 hours away.
When I moved to less than 10 minutes away from the office (coincidental, I got married), this changed the equation.
I used to transit from one client to another during lunch, eating in the car. I reported it as lunch time, and if the DOL ever asked I would stiff-arm them. But I was indeed giving my employer an hour a day to give them and me a competitive advantage.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
You can find transmission disaster stories for virtually every manufacturer. My 1995 Explorer went 212,000 on the original AT, but they were commonly called 'Exploders' for random tranny failures before 60,000. Mini Coopers get lousy reviews for transmissions. Saab from 94-98 got terrible reviews for the manual transmission, not much better for the AT. CVTs for virtually all manufacturers from about 06-12 were universally panned as unreliable, and unrepairable. Chevy, Chrysler, all the imports, all had real losers. Jeeps? Yeah. Rovers? VW? Audi? Yeah.
Anecdotal stories of terrible cars are a penny a dozen. My '95 Explorer went 318,000 on the original engine with just a cam sensor squeak as a real defect, till it got rolled in the desert. My 2000 Explorer with the V8 is in virtually every way a lesser quality vehicle. I won't buy another, probably. Love to buy an F-150, but the model I want has a history of blowing out spark plugs.
Then again, my '04 Lancer has the insufferable climate control problem. I really resent that the dealer pulled the dash to replace the passenger airbag per recall, but would not give me a break on the labor to replace the blend door, which is RIGHT THERE when they swapped the airbag module. Grrr. I know, but I was willing to leave it for a day, even fit it into their schedule, but nope, they want that time.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Just a thought. If the corporations have you working more and more, eventually you have no time to buy their goods.
Sharp practice on their part, eh?
It's more a ballet than a death march. Work you enough to maximize profit, not more. Weird problems happen when they miss the balance, like workers flying out of windows, or failing to tighten all the bolts quite correctly. Or quitting for a job where the grass looks greener. Doesn't matter if it is, they leave. Hiring is always an expense.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
And as it was pointed out, those costs were nothing but irrational fears based on invented realities that have no resemblance to the reality we all live in.
I would suggest you learn to spell before trying unsuccessfully to turn a moniker into an insult. You remind me of an idiot who thinks every one else is stupid.
You're doing the work of two people yourself, which means that there's one job less available on the market. In fact, you wouldn't even have to do more than 1.5 times normal work hours to do that considering that in your case training etc. only needs to be for one employee. For society, it's thus an opportunity cost.
You sound like someone who has no idea about Europe. Seriously. It's staggering that you feel capable of blathering such nonsense out there as if it's fact. Amazing. No wonder you believe the nonsense you do if you are so willing to forego critical thinking and just accept whatever notions you want to accept as the gospel truth.
You are arguing your emotion-drenched opinion, not fact. Remember that.
Note that the years in that graph are 2007-2009. Guess what happened in that timeframe? A depression.
In the US, mass layoffs followed. In the EU, with stronger labor protection (and/or companies that took the long view, retaining their labor force through the bad times to retain knowledge), layoffs would have been a bit slower/fewer. That alone can account for the productivity drop.
Actually, I am from Europe originally and have lived and worked in Europe for many years.
Unfortunately, your ignorance and political naivite are not staggering, they are par for the course for Europeans and Europhiles. I just hope that your brand of idiocy won't take over the US as well.
Which part? Certainly not the part where I corrected Ledow about compensation or coal miner strikes.
And certainly not the part about "Europeans view work as... the necessary evil to earn money to enjoy the rest of your life" or that Americans are "workaholics", because that's Ledow's statement, not mine. All I did there was agree with him: it matches my observations, being from Europe and all that. It also matches data (e.g., http://www.oecd.org/els/public... ). Of course, those are generalities and stereotypes, but those are what happens to drive voting and politics. And if you knew a bit about history (fat chance), you'd understand where those cultural attitudes come from.
But you are absolutely right: the rest is my "emotion drenched opinion": it is my "emotion drenched opinion" that the European view is idiotic, that spending half your waking hours doing something just to earn money for the other half makes no sense. I believe that people should pick jobs that fulfill and satisfy them, jobs that they are passionate about and that they love doing.
The reason for your prickly response is that you realize deep down that I'm right.
I would seriously worry about someone who could approach work in the manner you prescribe - there are good jobs and bad jobs, and the purpose of all is to pay for leisure. The number of people who can find ALL of their leisure at work is vanishingly small, literally the billionaires who can do what they like. Are you seriously suggesting that if you were to win the lottery and never needed to work again, you'd be in the office before 9am every day until retirement age still?
The rest of the jobs - sure, you might enjoy them, but if you are PICKING your job, you're already part of the privileged few. I speak as one of those people, incidentally, after running a business for over 10 years and then doing it as a full-time paid job afterwards.
There are very, very, very, very few jobs that are desirable to the few people who can do them, to such an extent that they'd choose to do them even if there was no need for recompense.
Having a passion for you job is great. It's also - from my experience - the cause of so many burn-outs and disappointments that it's actually a warning sign. If someone's in the office long past their hours for no real necessary reason, it's a big, large, flashing, red warning. Something is wrong at home, or something is wrong at work. The longer that persists, the more dangerous it is.
It doesn't mean you can't do your job properly, professionally, with enthusiasm, and go above and beyond... it's that it's literally just that - a job (work, chore, labour, task, these are all synonyms),
You get no brownie points for staying late, I promise you, no matter what's said. Especially when you're not actually any more productive by doing so. If your work is so great that it's your leisure, then you're likely to lose both when circumstances change. Unless you're the CEO, those circumstances WILL change.
But I've seen too many people burned-out and making themselves ill for a *work atmosphere* they love, or a *company* they love or a *skill* they love, and end up realising that it's not the *job* they love at all.
It's not about working with stuff you hate. It's that you'll never work with all the stuff you love as the only part of your job. Vets spend most of their time killing the animals they are trying to care for. Doctors, in watching people get sick and die. IT guys spend most of their time trying to make things that were deliberately designed not to work together, work together. And so on. Add on paperwork and compliance and health & safety and all that stuff that surrounds the things you DO want to do (nobody - NOBODY - wants to be enjoying a job doing that kind of legwork) and it's a mess.
Don't hate your job. Just don't live SOLELY for it. Because one tick of a HR button and you've lost vast portions of your life.
I didn't "prescribe" anything. You were making this vast generalization: "Europeans view work as... the necessary evil to earn money to enjoy the rest of your life". To the degree that such cultural stereotyping is meaningful at all, I agree. What bothers you is that I pointed out what a stupid attitude towards work that is to have.
Thanks for proving my point again: Europeans by and large view themselves as wage slaves at the mercy of big corporations and governments, with little autonomy or control over their lives. And you're right to be worried about that, given the way European societies are structured. Don't you worry your pretty little head about me or Americans; we have a much better handle on those issues than you do.
If that's your argument, then, of course, you also have to restrict all recreational activities that might tire people out. Best make every citizen wear sleep monitors, right?
I waive them away because if that's your justification and you are logically consistent about it, we have to transform our nation into a totalitarian state.
So, I say "fuck you" because you are a totalitarian.
So if I'm not OK with truck drivers popping pills and staying up for 72 hours straight as they haul explosives across the country to get a bonus I'm a totalitarian? Hint: There is a difference between someone choosing to do something dangerous to others and a third party offering a financial incentive to do it. That's why hiring a hitman gets you charged with conspiracy to commit murder - even if you aren't the trigger man or the attempt fails.
You are an ass, and I'm done with you. Feel free to have the last reply, I'm sure its your only "accomplishment".
I'm sure the Trumpmeister will put an end to this competition-stifling communism.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."