My point is the hours worked. As a person works longer hours in a day, it becomes more of an inconvenience. I personally believe that the inconvenience grows exponentially.
I guess that they could do something else for a living. What would you recommend? Farming? Flipping burgers? You are talking about IBM, but I'm just talking about people in general. What would happen if the person stumbled on to 3 companies in a row, that each does the same thing as IBM? If he keeps quitting, then maybe his resume will look bad. There aren't a lot of career choices out there, when every industry is allowed to do this thing. I can't think of a single job out there, except the job of a politician, where you really have control over your salary.
Are you honestly telling me that when you get paid a lot, then you should put your family and your personal health at lower priorities? Maybe you could read your child 7 bed time stories on the same night, instead of coming home and reading once per night. Maybe you could spend 2 days per month with your family, instead of an hour per month. I'm going to extremes here, but I hope that that illustrates my point.
Yes, I understand that there are laws like that in the US, Canada, and many other countries, but what should it be allowed? Why can't it be classified as abuse?
Yeah, I agree with you. I work as a cashier at a department store. It's kind of shameful, but still. I learned 1 thing from my manager. She too wants her time off, when it's her time off. She doesn't like being asked for things when she's off.
Time and a half, is only 1.5 employees, and thus is cheaper than 2 employees. So, that's not painful enough. The pain of the punishment has to be more painful than the hiring of more employees.
Regarding benefits, maybe they need to change the benefits laws. Maybe the laws should require benefits for everybody, based on the number of hours worked.
Reading what you wrote makes me mad. We're not forgetting that. We know that. *That* is what makes us mad. Get it?
Oh, wow! We get 1.5! Oh, wait. My pay check is still same.
The low paycheque for so many hours is what started the complaint. In fact, IBM now has incentive to cut off their overtime hours, and hire more people, thus lowering the total on the paycheques. The goal was to get the same paycheque with less hours, or a bigger paycheque with more money.
Your insight is so sad, but I do agree with you. I assume that although you are speaking about the US economy, it also applies in the exact same manner to the Canadian economy.
The union is just another company that contracts itself to the other company. If you can get paid minimum wage, and still have to pay union dues, then unions are no different than any other company.
Companies and unions, *both*, have incentives to treat their customers and the workers well. Period. However, they both can rip you off and get away with it.
Maybe companies should be required to post earnings and wages in a public space. The only disadvantage to this is for the companies. If this does happen, then they should be allowed to post a short comment justifying the wage.
I agree with what you are saying. In fact, you have a good point about how the salary method can be actually advantageous.
However, I think that that isn't the best attitude. I wish that we would push for an overtime standard based on how inconvenient overtime work is to the employee, not how much he earns during the day.
Yes, I agree. I think that unions are only good for companies that I don't support. It's a good way to hopefully wreck the companies.
I got charged union dues when I got a lowly $8/hr wage to work at Save-On-Foods, at Scottsdale Mall, in Delta, BC. My supervisor was very abusive. So obviously, the union didn't work for me at all, in any way or form.
So, the employees should be required to give up their daughters to be sacrificed on alters, if the contracts say so? Why should anybody be required to agree to such contracts? The law should allow for people to sign such contracts, and the government should still force the companies to pay overtime.
I disagree, because the free market needs to be protected. Not paying for overtime is abuse. The government should conduct surprise inspections to see who is working overtime, and figure out how much are getting paid and whether or not they are being paid.
I think that the reason companies get away with this is because people have to file lawsuits or go through difficult tasks to make a significant difference. If the government found out that the company wasn't paying taxes, then do you think that that they are going to wait till the employees sue their masters in court, before politely asking for the taxes?
Another idea is to make over time painful, so that even at minimum wage levels, their is no incentive to keep servants and slaves working overtime. For starters, the companies should be paying overtime by the second; none of this, "Oh, if you work for us 7 minutes overtime, then we don't pay you.". After all, they don't appreciate us being 7 minutes late. Secondly, they should be paying a rate of something like 2 times the normal wage for the first hour, and then 4 times the wage for the second hour, and just keep on doubling. After 1 hour of extra work, the company should buy a full healthy meal for the worker and his family, on top of his wages and overtime pay. After all, they took his family time away, so they should save him time at home. After the second hour, they should provide a taxi cab home, or some equivalent. After a third hour, then they should provide a house cleaner for 3 full hours of work. The painful list just keeps adding up. The clock never stops until the food is in his hands, and he is able to leave freely.
I live in Canada, and I have a friend who works for our tax collectors. He says that Canada won't take your land. You won't be able to sell it, and they can make life miserable for you in other ways, but you can keep on living under your roof and on your property.
I like your idea. It would be worth trying. To add to that idea, I think that they should let people cooperate with their neighbours, or whoever, to share and sell electricity.
Here's the problem with your reasoning: for every soccer mom who comes forward to say that her child developed autistic symptoms the day he was vaccinated, there is some greater number who can come forward and say that their kids were vaccinated and turned out fine--after all, development of autism is still pretty rare compared to the alternative.
Understood, and I agree with that. As long as we factor in the results for the different groups, then I'm happy. My point is that people can't automatically hand wave away problems and "results" just because of a lack of educational credentials.
As far as the shape of the earth goes, 600 years ago, people didn't have the technology to safely travel around it, so it wasn't exactly easy to form a decent opinion about the shape of the world.
Experts with a validated, logical process can also allow 2 shuttles to explode. You can argue that they aren't experts, but that would be hand waving away any negative results. It would be like saying, "Well, only the people who were successful in hindsight are/were experts and had a good process.".
Bear in mind, I'm not an advocate of alternative medicine or anything. I just know that sometimes people make mistakes
I think that we need to look at the wisdom of the crowds. If the soccer moms say that they see something going on, then the scientists need to be quiet and listen. Often times, scientists are looking for 1 key ingredient, but the answer probably involves a complex combination of ingredients.
Well, many Floridans and southerners live in Florida and the south. Maybe they could rely on it, instead of coal, nuclear, and hydro. We need a multiprongered approach, not a 1-size-fits-all.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is the hours worked. As a person works longer hours in a day, it becomes more of an inconvenience. I personally believe that the inconvenience grows exponentially.
I guess that they could do something else for a living. What would you recommend? Farming? Flipping burgers? You are talking about IBM, but I'm just talking about people in general. What would happen if the person stumbled on to 3 companies in a row, that each does the same thing as IBM? If he keeps quitting, then maybe his resume will look bad. There aren't a lot of career choices out there, when every industry is allowed to do this thing. I can't think of a single job out there, except the job of a politician, where you really have control over your salary.
Are you honestly telling me that when you get paid a lot, then you should put your family and your personal health at lower priorities? Maybe you could read your child 7 bed time stories on the same night, instead of coming home and reading once per night. Maybe you could spend 2 days per month with your family, instead of an hour per month. I'm going to extremes here, but I hope that that illustrates my point.
Yes, I understand that there are laws like that in the US, Canada, and many other countries, but what should it be allowed? Why can't it be classified as abuse?
Yeah, I agree with you. I work as a cashier at a department store. It's kind of shameful, but still. I learned 1 thing from my manager. She too wants her time off, when it's her time off. She doesn't like being asked for things when she's off.
Everybody should get paid.
Time and a half, is only 1.5 employees, and thus is cheaper than 2 employees. So, that's not painful enough. The pain of the punishment has to be more painful than the hiring of more employees.
Regarding benefits, maybe they need to change the benefits laws. Maybe the laws should require benefits for everybody, based on the number of hours worked.
Why should Microsoft or game company employees work overtime? What's so special about those companies?
Reading what you wrote makes me mad. We're not forgetting that. We know that. *That* is what makes us mad. Get it?
Oh, wow! We get 1.5! Oh, wait. My pay check is still same.
The low paycheque for so many hours is what started the complaint. In fact, IBM now has incentive to cut off their overtime hours, and hire more people, thus lowering the total on the paycheques. The goal was to get the same paycheque with less hours, or a bigger paycheque with more money.
Do you know what I mean? Seriously.
Your insight is so sad, but I do agree with you. I assume that although you are speaking about the US economy, it also applies in the exact same manner to the Canadian economy.
*sigh*
It's truly discouraging.
The union is just another company that contracts itself to the other company. If you can get paid minimum wage, and still have to pay union dues, then unions are no different than any other company.
Companies and unions, *both*, have incentives to treat their customers and the workers well. Period. However, they both can rip you off and get away with it.
Maybe companies should be required to post earnings and wages in a public space. The only disadvantage to this is for the companies. If this does happen, then they should be allowed to post a short comment justifying the wage.
I agree with what you are saying. In fact, you have a good point about how the salary method can be actually advantageous.
However, I think that that isn't the best attitude. I wish that we would push for an overtime standard based on how inconvenient overtime work is to the employee, not how much he earns during the day.
Yes, I agree. I think that unions are only good for companies that I don't support. It's a good way to hopefully wreck the companies.
I got charged union dues when I got a lowly $8/hr wage to work at Save-On-Foods, at Scottsdale Mall, in Delta, BC. My supervisor was very abusive. So obviously, the union didn't work for me at all, in any way or form.
Amen, except the last part. Why should managers work overtime?
So, the employees should be required to give up their daughters to be sacrificed on alters, if the contracts say so? Why should anybody be required to agree to such contracts? The law should allow for people to sign such contracts, and the government should still force the companies to pay overtime.
I disagree, because the free market needs to be protected. Not paying for overtime is abuse. The government should conduct surprise inspections to see who is working overtime, and figure out how much are getting paid and whether or not they are being paid.
I think that the reason companies get away with this is because people have to file lawsuits or go through difficult tasks to make a significant difference. If the government found out that the company wasn't paying taxes, then do you think that that they are going to wait till the employees sue their masters in court, before politely asking for the taxes?
Another idea is to make over time painful, so that even at minimum wage levels, their is no incentive to keep servants and slaves working overtime. For starters, the companies should be paying overtime by the second; none of this, "Oh, if you work for us 7 minutes overtime, then we don't pay you.". After all, they don't appreciate us being 7 minutes late. Secondly, they should be paying a rate of something like 2 times the normal wage for the first hour, and then 4 times the wage for the second hour, and just keep on doubling. After 1 hour of extra work, the company should buy a full healthy meal for the worker and his family, on top of his wages and overtime pay. After all, they took his family time away, so they should save him time at home. After the second hour, they should provide a taxi cab home, or some equivalent. After a third hour, then they should provide a house cleaner for 3 full hours of work. The painful list just keeps adding up. The clock never stops until the food is in his hands, and he is able to leave freely.
I live in Canada, and I have a friend who works for our tax collectors. He says that Canada won't take your land. You won't be able to sell it, and they can make life miserable for you in other ways, but you can keep on living under your roof and on your property.
That seems fair to me, by today's standards.
Eh, that went over my head. I thought that you were serious. Now that I know, it actually is kind of funny. :^)
You make it sound like Communists and Socialists never used fear to further their causes in the last century.
I admit that I missed it. I was about to cricize him.
I like your idea. It would be worth trying. To add to that idea, I think that they should let people cooperate with their neighbours, or whoever, to share and sell electricity.
As far as the shape of the earth goes, 600 years ago, people didn't have the technology to safely travel around it, so it wasn't exactly easy to form a decent opinion about the shape of the world.
Experts with a validated, logical process can also allow 2 shuttles to explode. You can argue that they aren't experts, but that would be hand waving away any negative results. It would be like saying, "Well, only the people who were successful in hindsight are/were experts and had a good process.".
Bear in mind, I'm not an advocate of alternative medicine or anything. I just know that sometimes people make mistakes
Because vacations lower productivity. Get back to work!
I think that we need to look at the wisdom of the crowds. If the soccer moms say that they see something going on, then the scientists need to be quiet and listen. Often times, scientists are looking for 1 key ingredient, but the answer probably involves a complex combination of ingredients.
:^D Well, in Soviet Russia, they tend to have older technology, so yes, they will be forced to drive their own cars in Soviet Russia. :^)
It doesn't need a citation, since we can all go and read SA for ourselves, and then decide for ourselves.
Well, many Floridans and southerners live in Florida and the south. Maybe they could rely on it, instead of coal, nuclear, and hydro. We need a multiprongered approach, not a 1-size-fits-all.