Alan Grayson to introduce Paid Vacation Act

[Parkbandit]

Rep. Alan Grayson was standing in the middle of Disney World when it hit him: What Americans really need is a week of paid vacation.

So on Thursday, the Florida Democrat will introduce the Paid Vacation Act — legislation that would be the first to make paid vacation time a requirement under federal law.

The bill would require companies with more than 100 employees to offer a week of paid vacation for both full-time and part-time employees after they’ve put in a year on the job. Three years after the effective date of the law, those same companies would be required to provide two weeks of paid vacation, and companies with 50 or more employees would have to provide one week.

The idea: More vacation will stimulate the economy through fewer sick days, better productivity and happier employees.

“There’s a reason why Disney World is the happiest place on Earth: The people who go there are on vacation,” said Grayson, a freshman who counts Orlando as part of his home district. “Honestly, as much as I appreciate this job and as much as I enjoy it, the best days of my life are and always have been the days I’m on vacation.”

According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, 28 million Americans — or about a quarter of the work force — don’t get any paid vacation. The center says that a lack of vacation causes stress and workplace burnout and that those evil twins cost the economy more than $300 billion each year.

One more if-you’re-reading-this-then-you’re-probably-not-on-vacation fact: The United States is dead last among 21 industrial countries when it comes to mandatory R&R.

France currently requires employers to provide 30 days of paid leave.

Not surprisingly, some in the travel industry are salivating over Grayson’s bill; Grayson spokesman Todd Jurkowski said the U.S. Tour Operators Association and the Adventure Travel Trade Association are both on board. Other tourism and labor groups are expected to sign on in the coming days.


The U.S. Travel Association has not yet endorsed the measure, but Senior Vice President Geoff Freeman says Congress does need to consider new ways to stimulate the vacation industry and travel economy.

So far, no group has come out in opposition of the bill. Nor has anyone announced opposition to roller coaster rides, cookouts on the beach

or salt-water taffy on the boardwalk.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22794.html#ixzz0G9MPjzO7&B


They estimate that 25% of the workforce do not have paid vacation time.. but I have to wonder how many of them work for employers who have 100+ employees.

[Keller]

I get 26 days of "paid vacation" a year. I'm still expected to bill 1950 hrs a year (assuming 75% efficiency, that is 2600 hrs a year, or 50 hrs a week, without accounting for vacation).

Paid vacation is a hoax, imo.

[Jorddyn]

I get 26 days of "paid vacation" a year. I'm still expected to bill 1950 hrs a year (assuming 75% efficiency, that is 2600 hrs a year, or 50 hrs a week, without accounting for vacation).

Paid vacation is a hoax, imo.

You forgot the bill-150%-of-actual-time factor.

[Keller]

You forgot the bill-150%-of-actual-time factor.

it takes me like 200% of the time it should normally take a human being because sometimes I'm slow and not great at what I do yet.

So I actually work all of my hours. Unfortunately.

[Parkbandit]

I get 26 days of "paid vacation" a year. I'm still expected to bill 1950 hrs a year (assuming 75% efficiency, that is 2600 hrs a year, or 50 hrs a week, without accounting for vacation).

Paid vacation is a hoax, imo.

Hilton uses (used) a Paid Time Off system, where you accrued time for both sickness and vacation which I actually liked.

Straight sick time is abused more than a dog at Vick's house... especially towards the end of the year.

[Keller]

Hilton uses (used) a Paid Time Off system, where you accrued time for both sickness and vacation which I actually liked.

Straight sick time is abused more than a dog at Vick's house... especially towards the end of the year.

Ya. That is what it is called, PTO.

I never use it. I only use it on slow weeks when I don't have enough chargable hours. Then I will just slot a few PTO hours in here and there, even though I was at my desk the whole time.

It turns out that when I actually go on vacation, I get slammed with work so I bill 8 hrs a day anyways.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<They estimate that 25% of the workforce do not have paid vacation time.. but I have to wonder how many of them work for employers who have 100+ employees.>>

People in professional positions do not represent the entire workforce. I've been working for employers with well over 100 employees for two years and I haven't seen a cent of paid vacation. When I work part-time, I can't get vacation because I don't work full-time, and when I work full-time I can't get vacation because I don't work full-time for at least 9 months out of the year. Yet this is happening at the same 100+ employee institution.

[Bhuryn]

While I don't disagree with the idea, I don't think it's the government's right to dictate this to companies.

[Methais]

<<They estimate that 25% of the workforce do not have paid vacation time.. but I have to wonder how many of them work for employers who have 100+ employees.>>

People in professional positions do not represent the entire workforce. I've been working for employers with well over 100 employees for two years and I haven't seen a cent of paid vacation. When I work part-time, I can't get vacation because I don't work full-time, and when I work full-time I can't get vacation because I don't work full-time for at least 9 months out of the year. Yet this is happening at the same 100+ employee institution.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/Clipboard01-17.jpg

[Parkbandit]

<<They estimate that 25% of the workforce do not have paid vacation time.. but I have to wonder how many of them work for employers who have 100+ employees.>>

People in professional positions do not represent the entire workforce. I've been working for employers with well over 100 employees for two years and I haven't seen a cent of paid vacation. When I work part-time, I can't get vacation because I don't work full-time, and when I work full-time I can't get vacation because I don't work full-time for at least 9 months out of the year. Yet this is happening at the same 100+ employee institution.


In both examples you offered, you weren't considered a full time employee. Most employers don't offer vacation / sick time to part time/temporary employees. Even in the bill being proposed, you have to work for a year to get it.

[Parkbandit]

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/Clipboard01-17.jpg


I think it's Bob's way of being a non-conformist. In his mind, he's bucking the system!! "Look at Bob! He's such a rebel!"

That or he still is too stupid to understand the "quote" button does what it does... either way it's sad.

[Bobmuhthol]

I'm not a temporary employee. I'm part-time for 8 months and full-time for 4. I get no benefits but I work at the same place for the full year. The bill calls for vacation time for part-time employees, which I have not seen any company do so far.

[Mabus]

While I don't disagree with the idea, I don't think it's the government's right to dictate this to companies.
Hope and Change!

Hope and Change!

[Bhuryn]

Hope and Change!

Hope and Change!

I hope that the government gets the hell out of the way. That's change I can believe in.

[Gan]

I currently get 2 weeks per year paid vacation along with additional sick time accrual.

In a couple more years Ill get 3 weeks per year vacation. Providing I don't go into real estate full time by then.

[Kuyuk]

I'm not a temporary employee. I'm part-time for 8 months and full-time for 4. I get no benefits but I work at the same place for the full year. The bill calls for vacation time for part-time employees, which I have not seen any company do so far.



The last company I worked for did it.

I think most major companies would offer it to some extent. They may not get the same benefits as full time employees, but they usually get some type of time off after a year.


I think it is a good thing for R&R to be made mandatory.

K.

[thefarmer]

More companies would do what wal-mart does then. Cut the majority of full time employees, and have everyone work 'part-time'.

[radamanthys]

Just look at the french model, you guise. They're doing AWESOME.

[Bhuryn]

My wife was full time, she switched to part time after we had our child. She still gets vacation, just at half the rate a full time employee accrues it

[Kyra231]

I applied at several home health agencies here in Fayettenam that did not offer any vacations of any type. Four of them were larger companies(100+ employees & nationwide locations). :shrug:

I've seen a few employers abuse the shit out of PTO, it's not my favorite system to deal with. Being mandated to go home because of 'overstaffing' & then forced to use your PTO/vacation time to cover those hours sucks. Especially when later in the year you wanted a few days off but you have none left because of that shit.

[Parkbandit]

More companies would do what wal-mart does then. Cut the majority of full time employees, and have everyone work 'part-time'.

There isn't a successful company in the country that has every employee working part time. If you have a source on Walmart having everyone working part time, I'd love to see it. Hopefully it's not www.walmartsucks.org or www.wakeupwallmart.com

[TheWitch]

Where does this feeling of, "I work for them, therefore they owe me paid time to not work for them" come from?

Entirely too many people want things handed to them. Entirely too many people think that they're entitled to something extra. That a company that pays them to do a job, somehow still owes them something more.

What happens when the costs of this mandated R&R start trickling down?

More people will loose their jobs, or the price of the company's goods will go up, or some combination or variation thereon. Ultimately, the consumer pays the price - including the person who now gets a week off paid, but everyone else as well.

What is at least partially responsible for the trouble the auto industry is in right now? The fact that they have like three times more people they're paying retirement benefits to, than they actually have working for them making cars. State governments, school districts, large established companies, all have variations on the same theme: too many people that don't actually work anymore, still getting paid.

And now on top of the costs of retirees, we should start mandating paid vacation for the people that are working? Paid vacation isn't a right, it's a privledge.

[Stanley Burrell]

How about the It's-Okay-Mang-I-Don't-Like-Travelling-That-Much-So-You-Can-Just-Give-Me-The-Money-Instead-Of-Its-All-Paid-Trip-Expense?

...Act.

[Latrinsorm]

Paid vacation isn't a right, it's a privledge.What determines what is a right and what is a privilege?

[Khariz]

What determines what is a right and what is a privilege?

You have a right to something where theres a body of law entitling said right to you. Could be a statute or a constitution perhaps.

A privilege is something that is normal granted contingent on certain criteria like full time employment with a company, having earned the privilege by performing a certain action, etc.

They aren't even remotely the same thing.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Sweden has a mandatory 5 weeks of vacation per year (although I have no idea of what kind of guidelines there are, such as full time workers, or if you have to work at a company for a certain length of time to qualify).

I worked for a company that had a Swedish partner, and it was annoying that it was almost impossible to contact anyone or schedule any meetings for one month of the year (most of them seemed to take the month of June or July off).

[radamanthys]

What determines what is a right and what is a privilege?

If anyone can rationally (and with 100% certainty) answer that one, they'd be a hojillionaire.

[Gan]

What determines what is a right and what is a privilege?

The society in which the question applies to.

[Latrinsorm]

You have a right to something where theres a body of law entitling said right to you. Could be a statute or a constitution perhaps.

A privilege is something that is normal granted contingent on certain criteria like full time employment with a company, having earned the privilege by performing a certain action, etc.

They aren't even remotely the same thing.If this is so, what's the point in TheWitch saying that paid vacation isn't a right? If Rep. Grayson's bill passes, it would become a right... right?

Also, don't you feel your distinction is essentially semantic: what could be more contingent than the entitlement/enforcement of a body of laws?
The society in which the question applies to.Similar question: if we (in the form of our duly elected representatives) establish this law, does it become a right to have paid vacation? What if a version of it only passed in (for instance) California, would paid vacation only be a right for those in the Californian society?

I ask because I feel your (general) positions are relevant to your decision-making processes.
If anyone can rationally (and with 100% certainty) answer that one, they'd be a hojillionaire.I think the study of ethics is better off than you give it credit. The state of ethics studies insofar as people are convinced of it is pretty poor, certainly, but the same could be said for any modern science.

[Khariz]

Well hold up. Just because a law grants you a right to something, that doesn't meant the law will wind up being a constitutionally valid law. Before such a law can be overturned though, everyone is going to have to comply with it.

If congress has the authority to pass such a law, under the constitution, then said law will in fact grant such a right.

[Back]

Well hold up. Just because a law grants you a right to something, that doesn't meant the law will wind up being a constitutionally valid law. Before such a law can be overturned though, everyone is going to have to comply with it.

If congress has the authority to pass such a law, under the constitution, then said law will in fact grant such a right.

Agreed.

And is there anyone actually against this being a law? If so, why?

[Parkbandit]

Sweden has a mandatory 5 weeks of vacation per year (although I have no idea of what kind of guidelines there are, such as full time workers, or if you have to work at a company for a certain length of time to qualify).

I worked for a company that had a Swedish partner, and it was annoying that it was almost impossible to contact anyone or schedule any meetings for one month of the year (most of them seemed to take the month of June or July off).

I read your post.. but all I could see was this:

http://diablominute.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/swedishchef.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Agreed.

And is there anyone actually against this being a law? If so, why?

Because it's not government's role to determine the benefits of a company?

[Back]

Because it's not government's role to determine the benefits of a company?

So you are against all labor laws?

[Khariz]

So you are against all labor laws?

I am. With the possible exception of abuse of minors.

[Back]

I am. With the possible exception of abuse of minors.

So you would be willing to work for 3¢ an hour for 12 hours straight 7 days a week or get threatened with being fired?

Are you against all laws?

[Parkbandit]

So you are against all labor laws?

Not all of them.. but some, yes.

I'm against a government mandated minimum wage.

I'm against government determining a company's benefits.

I'm for a 40 hour work week, with overtime being paid for anything above that.

I'm for companies paying you for the time you earned after you leave the company.

I'm against government forcing an employer to hire a certain number of certain races.

I'm for government ensuring that an employer isn't not hiring a certain person because of his race.

[Khariz]

So you would be willing to work for 3¢ an hour for 12 hours straight 7 days a week or get threatened with being fired?

Are you against all laws?

The market can set its own prices without government intevention. No company could find someone to work for 3 cents an hour, not even a mexican (lawl).

Wages should set themselves based on what people are willing to work for. Not from some arbitrary government number. You realize that when the government sets a minimum wage it does nothing, right? When the minimum wage rises, businesses just raise prices to compensate and then the peopel making the minimum wage are back to the same place they were before they got the "raise".

No, I'm not against all laws. I'm against most economic laws though. The more hands off the better. Making sure actual fraud isn't committed, etc. is fine. Artificially controlling markets that handle themselves better is not fine.

[MrTastyHead]

The company that owns the gas station I used to work at staffs their stores with a full time manager and all part time employees. Meaning of course nobody qualifies for paid time off OR insurance benefits.

[Khariz]

The company that owns the gas station I used to work at staffs their stores with a full time manager and all part time employees. Meaning of course nobody qualifies for paid time off OR insurance benefits.

Good for them. If they weren't able to find anyone who wasn't willing to work without insurance, they'd have to pay it.

[Gan]

Similar question: if we (in the form of our duly elected representatives) establish this law, does it become a right to have paid vacation? What if a version of it only passed in (for instance) California, would paid vacation only be a right for those in the Californian society?

I ask because I feel your (general) positions are relevant to your decision-making processes.
Lets first settle on what defines rights and laws. I'm of the opinion that laws beget rights with the recognition thereof.

Now you have to consider that some laws are subordinate to other laws just as some levels of society are subordinate to others.

Does a city law beget a right that can be subordinated by a state law or a federal law? Can a federal law beget a right that can be subordinated by a law created by a group of nation states (ie: UN resolution). (Does Iran have a right to enrich uranium and produce a heavy water reactor?)

Going back to your first question, here's an added thought:
In my opinion, a right is the same thing as a privledge except that it has been specifically recognized instead of being implied.

[Gan]

The market can set its own prices without government intevention. No company could find someone to work for 3 cents an hour, not even a mexican (lawl).
Look out, another price theory monetarist is on the loose!


Wages should set themselves based on what people are willing to work for. Not from some arbitrary government number. You realize that when the government sets a minimum wage it does nothing, right? When the minimum wage rises, businesses just raise prices to compensate and then the peopel making the minimum wage are back to the same place they were before they got the "raise".
Its amazing that with all the discussion we had when the minimum wage laws were changed last year, that there are still some people who dont understand the concept of pass through costs.



No, I'm not against all laws. I'm against most economic laws though. The more hands off the better. Making sure actual fraud isn't committed, etc. is fine. Artificially controlling markets that handle themselves better is not fine.
So how do you feel about Keynesian economics?

lawlz...

[MrTastyHead]

Good for them. If they weren't able to find anyone who wasn't willing to work without insurance, they'd have to pay it.

I get the impression you are the kind of person who thinks poor people deserve to be poor, and fuck them all the more for it.

[Gan]

DAMNED REPUBLICAN!!!!

[radamanthys]

The actual proposed passing of the law asks the question: do employees have the right to a full week of paid leave, or should it remain a privilege?

There's no doubt- in 'real life', the more competent get the best benefit. Unskilled laborers, like the aforementioned convenience store workers, tend to get the shaft. The manager of a convenience store has far more clout than the warm bodies that work the counter. It's the whole "competence" thing. And education, and what-have you.

Moving out of this paradigm starts to verge on the ultimate error of socialism- no benefit of hard work.

Maybe not socialism, that might be the wrong word. But the current design of oft-touted fellatio of the proletariat that seems to drive the populists into a frenzy.

Is there no desire to protect our livelihoods anymore? Have we lost our edge?

[Back]

Interesting responses in this thread...

Some of this “government intervention is bad!” talk is borderline anarchistic.

I also wonder why people think American corporations “out-source” to other countries who don’t have our laws on everything from labor to taxes.

I also wonder why some Americans aren’t comfortable with our democratic system of majority rule.

[Khariz]

Interesting responses in this thread...

Some of this “government intervention is bad!” talk is borderline anarchistic.

I also wonder why people think American corporations “out-source” to other countries who don’t have our laws on everything from labor to taxes.

I also wonder why some Americans aren’t comfortable with our democratic system of majority rule.

The problem is people who think it IS a democratic system. It's not. It is a republic. In a nutshell that means you elect people who you trust to represent you, and trust them to make the right decisions. Most of the time, such persons aren't loony enough to actually put into law what the foolish average citizen thinks is a good idea.

Pure democracy is dangerous. As soon as people realize they can vote themselves money, they start doing it and the civilization dies shortly thereafter. You are seeing the beginnings of this in our country now. We have now elected people who will implement wealth redistribution on our collective behalves for the betterment of us all.

It's a sad day.

[radamanthys]

Interesting responses in this thread...

Some of this “government intervention is bad!” talk is borderline anarchistic.

I also wonder why people think American corporations “out-source” to other countries who don’t have our laws on everything from labor to taxes.

I also wonder why some Americans aren’t comfortable with our democratic system of majority rule.

The governmental system has built-in restraints to keep any one group from doing something stupid. The people are stupid. Really stupid. To unfullily paraphrase george carlin: think of the average person. How dumb is that guy, you know? Well, half of everyone is dumber than that guy.

American corporations out-source not out of ill-will. They out-source because the current commercial system is unfavorable in comparison.

Don't confuse anarchist thought with a distain for the PTB. How many of the congressmen since the bush years are the same? Likely a good number. They're still the same fucktards. Anyone new is a junior, so they're, by design, useless. So congress is the same bunch of fucktards from the Bush years. I disliked them then, and I dislike them now.

There's no doubt that there needs to be some governmental intervention. I don't think anyone here is backing anarchy. The years with the Muckrakers- especially the Jungle, elucidated the need for an FDA. There are other needs. But one has to weigh the aggregate cost of these sort of entitlement programs.

Lets see. I dunno. Walmart tends to shun unions- therefore labor entitlements. GM tended to embrace the UAW, and thus embraced labor entitlements. Who's doing better?

[Back]

Wow. Just wow.

[Khariz]

Wow. Just wow.

We feel the same way. Hehe.

[radamanthys]

We feel the same way. Hehe.

Seconded.

Actually, by this time, eighthed.

[Tisket]

I get a month paid vacation per year, one day of sick leave every month (which I abuse with regularity), and three floating holidays.

It's good to be me.

[radamanthys]

I get a month paid vacation per year, one day of sick leave every month (which I abuse with regularity), and three floating holidays.

It's good to be me.

Yea. But you deserve it, sweets.

Well least your company thinks so, that is. And that's probably how it should be.

[Tisket]

I know where all the bodies are buried.

[Back]

I get a month paid vacation per year, one day of sick leave every month (which I abuse with regularity), and three floating holidays.

It's good to be me.

Fucking slacker liberal communist democrat pro-lazy immigrant anti-capitalist socialist freeloader.

[Tisket]

Wow, Backrash is off his meds again.

[Gan]

I get a month paid vacation per year, one day of sick leave every month (which I abuse with regularity), and three floating holidays.

It's good to be me.

I bet you show them your tits...

[Tisket]

haha

[radamanthys]

I bet you show them your tits...

She'd get 2 weeks for that.

[Tisket]

THE FULL MONTY!

[radamanthys]

THE FULL MONTY!

Instant retirement. Full benefits, full pension. Golden parachutes will forever have an outlier.

[Tisket]

Instant retirement. Full benefits, full pension.

I'm directing my boss to this thread in the morning.

[radamanthys]

I'm directing my boss to this thread in the morning.

Think that one through... Do you REALLY want that? Do you really want to introduce your boss... to us?

[Gan]

She'd get 2 weeks for that.

Not from me. ;)

[Tisket]

Think that one through... Do you REALLY want that? Do you really want to introduce your boss... to us?

Yeah, I really don't want to have to explain Gemstone to him...

[Back]

Wow, Backrash is off his meds again.

You’ve got some aversion to discussion and a need for attention. A bit of hostility towards those that don’t drool at your feet. Thats fine. Understandable even.

Everyone’s attention is now on you!

http://illinipundit.com/system/files/u367/attention20whore3lm9.jpg

[Tisket]

You’ve got some aversion to discussion and a need for attention. A bit of hostility towards those that don’t drool at your feet. Thats fine. Understandable even.

Everyone’s attention is now on you!

You can't really be this rock fucking stupid, can you?

[thefarmer]

You can't really be this rock fucking stupid, can you?

....

I'll excuse you for asking this question because it's late.

[Gan]

LOL

[Back]

You can't really be this rock fucking stupid, can you?

Show us your tits. :)

[radamanthys]

Show us your tits. :)

http://www.demotivateus.com/posters/creepy-you-can-try-but-you-will-never-be-this-creepy-in-your-life-demotivational-poster.jpg

[Back]

Yea. But you deserve it, sweets.

Well least your company thinks so, that is. And that's probably how it should be.


I bet you show them your tits...


haha


She'd get 2 weeks for that.


Instant retirement. Full benefits, full pension. Golden parachutes will forever have an outlier.


http://www.demotivateus.com/posters/creepy-you-can-try-but-you-will-never-be-this-creepy-in-your-life-demotivational-poster.jpg

Hmm

[Stanley Burrell]

Agreed.

And is there anyone actually against this being a law? If so, why?

Because mail me a check instead of deciding what my secondary and tertiary benefits should or shouldn't be.

I'd much prefer the option to have even a truncated amount of pocket moneys from whatever the full cost is of most benefits.

If it was, like, video game benefits, I would rather have that than go somewhere in Africa to see crocodiles humping a pack of klipspringers.

[Tisket]

There's a huge difference between obvious harmless bantering and Backrash's creepy attempt at passive agressive insults masquerading as bantering. Seriously dude, you are even weirder than normal at the moment.

[Back]

There's a huge difference between obvious harmless bantering and Backrash's creepy attempt at passive agressive insults masquerading as bantering. Seriously dude, you are even weirder than normal at the moment.

Where is the drama icon?

[radamanthys]

Where is the drama icon?

It's your avatar.

[Tisket]

Where is the drama icon?

You really live in a world without context don't you..

[Back]

It's your avatar.

I guess I need a fucked up hair cut to be ok with being a misogynist.

[Gan]

Backlash has been drinking again.

[Tisket]

You’ve got some aversion to discussion and a need for attention.

Just to clarify, the two of us can't have "discussions" about most things because you don't understand issues to a sufficient degree for that to happen. I don't have "discussions" with mental infants.

[Back]

Just to clarify, the two of us can't have "discussions" about most things because you don't understand issues to a sufficient degree for that to happen. I don't have "discussions" with mental infants.

That could change if you stopped taking off your clothes for attention and displayed the fact that you actually had a brain.

[Tisket]

My clothing (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with your complete lack of intelligence.

You really should lay off the hallucinogens while you still have a few brain cells left. Oh wait, that ship has sailed...

[Back]

My clothing (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with your complete lack of intelligence.

You really should lay off the hallucinogens while you still have a few brain cells left. Oh wait, that ship has sailed...

So, do you agree or disagree with the OP?

[radamanthys]

The point is moot, in her regard, because she already reaps the benefits of the existing merit-based system.

[Back]

I guess thats why women get paid less for doing more.

[radamanthys]

I guess I need a fucked up hair cut to be ok with being a misogynist.

I have a fucked up haircut? I'm a misogynist? I don't get it.

Girls love the hair (save for Becca, but she's a hater).
And I love women. And though that's true in the biblical sense, It's also true in the respect/appreciation sense.

Yea... don't mess with the hair. (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=16786)

[radamanthys]

I guess thats why women get paid less for doing more.

Takes some years to balance out, but it will. What with women destroying men in higher education graduation, and all.

[Back]

If you want to debate, don’t jump in with tits and ass and be expected to be taken seriously.

All I am saying is if you don’t like American labor laws you might be an anarchist.

[Tisket]

I probably made more in the last year than Backrash will in the next ten. Sorry to burst your gender bubble there ace.

Also, this just in my PM box from Backlash:


You give me a really hard time here. Not sure why. I usually don’t offend chicks that bad.

Anyway, I hope it helps you in whatever way it helps...

you stupid cunt.

You're a stupid, ugly, middle-aged moron. I'm not offended by you, I just think you are pathetic. No great mystery.

[Back]

Rady, ask her to show her tits already.

[mofocker]

that's a pretty mysogynistic statement there

[Tisket]

Rady, ask her to show her tits already.

Gan and rada made a harmless joke. It was all in good fun. YOU are the one that's gone on and on about my boobs for three pages now.

And you wonder why people think you are creepy...

[radamanthys]

Naw. I like Tisket, but she's (from what I gather, one can't know) happily married and has about a hojillion little rugrats running around. Where there is a place and time for certain banter (and posting/request of pics), this is not the correct place nor time for such requests. I maintain that women should be allowed to maintain a certain dignity, even if past beer-fueled decisions might alter their reputation in a lesser (read: misogynist) man's eyes. Most on this forum respect that dignity. Somehow you're still sitting on the pier, the boat long gone.

She's one of us. Just because she posted (excellent) pictures previously doesn't mean that she does not deserve your respect. A public apology for your public disrespect would be in order, if you were any kind of man.

I have a feeling that, like some fundamentalist zealot, you adhere to your dogma in order to repress certain feelings. If the female reaction to you is any indicator, I'm not far off my mark.

[mofocker]

what dogma
i hate that movie

[Tisket]

A public apology for your public disrespect would be in order, if you were any kind of man.

I appreciate your concern rada but an apology would imply some kind of injury occurred. He is incapable of inflicting injury on me so no apology is needed or wanted.

[radamanthys]

I appreciate your concern rada but an apology would imply some kind of injury occurred. He is incapable of inflicting injury on me so no apology is needed or wanted.

Haha, this is true- It may seem a little like a white-knight defense of you on the outside. But, it's not for your sake- you can take care of your own self. I want to know if he's human.

[Tisket]

He does seem like some sort of caricature at times. A caricature of a cartoon character maybe.

[radamanthys]

He does seem like some sort of caricature at times. A caricature of a cartoon character maybe.

I think he was breastfed. Until he was thirty.

[mofocker]

i wanna lik some titties

[Tisket]

lmao

[mofocker]

but really guys respect women, dont cheat on em, dont ever beat em, do the dishes and take the trash out once in a while, if they tell you no means no it usually does except when she won't remember in the morning

[radamanthys]

but really guys respect women, dont cheat on em, dont ever beat em, do the dishes and take the trash out once in a while, if they tell you no means no it usually does except when she won't remember in the morning

Sage wisdom. You forgot, "Piss in her ass, she'll love you forever".

[mofocker]

i havent tryed that one does it really work cuz im not usually into watersports

[diethx]

but really guys respect women, dont cheat on em, dont ever beat em, do the dishes and take the trash out once in a while, if they tell you no means no it usually does except when she won't remember in the morning

That's just awesome, hahahahaha.

Also in response to the Backlash leakage...

http://eighty1.net/images/misc/stopposting/STFU-Stop_Posting.jpg

[mofocker]

your sig + that pic make the actual content of your posts minimal as a ratio of wheat to chaff.

just a thought.

[diethx]

Don't hate because you're jealous of my awesome sig.

Or continue to hate, and jihad kitty will blow your ass up.

That does remind me though I need to remove the mybrutes from my sig since I got bored of those like two weeks ago after I kept trying to do them during the 2hr downtime.

[TheWitch]

neg - Alan Grayson to... 05-21-2009 11:04 PM For the love of god just shut the fuck up you annoying twat.

In over your head, shit stain? This the best you can do?


Because mail me a check instead of deciding what my secondary and tertiary benefits should or shouldn't be.

I'd much prefer the option to have even a truncated amount of pocket moneys from whatever the full cost is of most benefits.

This.

Ultimately, this is the government deciding, for everyone, how their money will be spent. If the government decides to mandate paid vacation, you (collectively) will pay for it via higher prices, even if you already get paid vacation because you've earned it.

The government mandating - and enforcing - safety standards in the workplace, child labor laws, things like this are what we should want the government to do for us, IMO. Deciding how we spend more and more of the money we earn, not so much.

Trying to draw some parellel between mandating paid vacation and paying someone Chinese labor rates isn't even close to a valid comparison. Not giving someone paid vacation is not exploitation.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" can be stretch pretty far, and in a liberal enough environment could cover the constitutionality of paid vacation, making it a right. But where does this end? Government decided that homeownership was a "right" less than a decade ago. Combine this questionable interference with the greed of the banking industry and the irresponsiblity and ignorance of the consumer, and look where we are.

I too prefer a system where paid vacation is a privledge earned by becoming very good at what you do and working hard.

[Clove]

PTO is a good system. I get 144 hours a year and can accrue 32. So 18 days of combined vacation/sick/personal time a year, which combined with paid holidays works out well.

[Parkbandit]

I get the impression you are the kind of person who thinks poor people deserve to be poor, and fuck them all the more for it.

I get the impression you are the kind of person who thinks things should just be handed to you on a silver platter without any effort on your part.

[Parkbandit]

You can't really be this rock fucking stupid, can you?

You must be new to the forums.

[Kyra231]

PTO is a good system. I get 144 hours a year and can accrue 32. So 18 days of combined vacation/sick/personal time a year, which combined with paid holidays works out well.

That's if your employer is decent about it. The places I worked at with it had to use PTO to cover 'paid' holidays. Any of the for profit healthcare employers were sending home people on a weekly basis if they decided they were 'overstaffed' & then mandating them to use their PTO to cover those unplanned days off.

It left quite a few people in the position of getting fired at the beginning of the year if they didn't have the hours to cover real sick days or emergencies.

[MrTastyHead]

I get the impression you are the kind of person who thinks things should just be handed to you on a silver platter without any effort on your part.

Somebody has to work at the gas station for you to get gas. Somebody has to make the food you eat. Somebody has to stock the shelves you buy groceries from. Do you really feel like the people who do these things are less important to society than people who do whatever you do?

The jobs may not take much in the way of training or brain power, but they are still things that HAVE to be done. And people should not be punished for doing things that HAVE to be done.

I'm willing to bet keeping a grocery store stocked is more important on a day-to-day basis than whatever high paying functions you guys serve.

[MrTastyHead]

Oh, and I really don't consider not having to work every single one of the 52 weeks out of the year having things handed out on a silver platter.

[Dhuul]

Somebody has to work at the gas station for you to get gas.

A minor point, but this is a thing of the past soon.

Your attention please: gas filling robots. I hope they are programmed with a "do not tear through car siding to get to gas cap" directive.

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSL0448185920080204?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews

Love those Dutch.

[TheWitch]

Somebody has to work at the gas station for you to get gas. Somebody has to make the food you eat. Somebody has to stock the shelves you buy groceries from. Do you really feel like the people who do these things are less important to society than people who do whatever you do?

The jobs may not take much in the way of training or brain power, but they are still things that HAVE to be done. And people should not be punished for doing things that HAVE to be done.

I'm willing to bet keeping a grocery store stocked is more important on a day-to-day basis than whatever high paying functions you guys serve.

This guy stays home and takes care of kids and works part time as a production assistant. In past lives, I've delivered newspapers, mowed lawns, worked at pizza joints and McDonalds and corn dog stands, ran two small businesses, sold advertising space, cleaned trays in a school cafeteria, waitressed, been a VP in a media department, checked passes at the local pool, and waitressed some more. I've done your "jobs that need to be done" and I've done your "high paying function". I've had benefits coming out my ears, and I've had no benefits whatsoever.

I went to college and worked three jobs to pay for it, to become a VP of media with a crapton of benefits, instead of a waitress or pizza maker or pass checker. I was rewarded for the hard work, and when I'm in waitress mode, do not expect to be rewarded anywhere near comparably.

No one's suggesting shitting on the people that do these necessary functions, especially not me, I've done them - and still do them catering private parties.

But where is the incentive to work to better your position in life, if that work is not required to get the benefits, and in fact penalized to pay for those benefits for someone else?

And how does a week of paid vacation make a working poor person any less poor? It won't because to pay for this mandate, prices will increase. So not only will the working poor remain poor, but everyone else becomes a little more poor as well to pay for it.

[MrTastyHead]

It doesn't make a poor person less poor. That's not the point at all. It lets a poor person, oh I don't know, get the flu and still pay their rent. It lets a poor person go to a child's school play, or whatever function, because they can take a day off without having to worry how much less food their children can have that week. It lets a person attend a funeral, or a family reunion, or stay home to take care of a sick child.

I'm not saying "GIVE PEOPLE TIME OFF AND PAY THEM AND GIVE THEM MONEY FOR VACATIONSES!" I'm saying shit happens, and in such low paying jobs, missing a day or two of work without pay can be a disaster.

Whoever that rep was is an idiot for thinking giving people a week of paid time off will let everybody go to Disney World and have a grand old time, but it will give people a small amount of very much needed breathing room when things get bad.

[Parkbandit]

Somebody has to work at the gas station for you to get gas. Somebody has to make the food you eat. Somebody has to stock the shelves you buy groceries from. Do you really feel like the people who do these things are less important to society than people who do whatever you do?

The jobs may not take much in the way of training or brain power, but they are still things that HAVE to be done. And people should not be punished for doing things that HAVE to be done.

I'm willing to bet keeping a grocery store stocked is more important on a day-to-day basis than whatever high paying functions you guys serve.

I worked at a grocery store when I was 17. I grew up and got a real job.. you should consider doing the same.

There are some jobs that aren't supposed to be careers... grocery stock boy and gas station attendant are perfect examples of such positions.

[Parkbandit]

That's if your employer is decent about it. The places I worked at with it had to use PTO to cover 'paid' holidays. Any of the for profit healthcare employers were sending home people on a weekly basis if they decided they were 'overstaffed' & then mandating them to use their PTO to cover those unplanned days off.

It left quite a few people in the position of getting fired at the beginning of the year if they didn't have the hours to cover real sick days or emergencies.


Paid Time Off is for any day off from work.. with that system, there are usually no "paid" holidays. You accrue and use this for ANYTIME you need a day off. Sick? Use 8 hours of PTO. You want Christmas off? Use 8 hours of PTO.

[Parkbandit]

It doesn't make a poor person less poor. That's not the point at all. It lets a poor person, oh I don't know, get the flu and still pay their rent. It lets a poor person go to a child's school play, or whatever function, because they can take a day off without having to worry how much less food their children can have that week. It lets a person attend a funeral, or a family reunion, or stay home to take care of a sick child.

I'm not saying "GIVE PEOPLE TIME OFF AND PAY THEM AND GIVE THEM MONEY FOR VACATIONSES!" I'm saying shit happens, and in such low paying jobs, missing a day or two of work without pay can be a disaster.

Whoever that rep was is an idiot for thinking giving people a week of paid time off will let everybody go to Disney World and have a grand old time, but it will give people a small amount of very much needed breathing room when things get bad.

If things are that difficult and losing a day of pay will mean disaster, either you are in the wrong job at the wrong pay.. or you are making purchases that you can't afford.

Like I said.. some jobs aren't meant to be careers... which is why those positions are generally occupied by the very young workers just starting off.. or the elderly wanting to supplement their SS/401K incomes.

[MrTastyHead]

Do you open your eyes, man? There are TONS of middle aged people in those jobs. People with kids. A person who has trouble surviving and supporting themselves and two kids on $7.50/hr is just making poor spending decisions?

You know what? Some people are stupid. Some people just plain do not have the mental faculties required to get a degree in a technical field. I guess stupid people don't deserve a little time off when they need it.

I don't work in a gas station any more. But that doesn't mean I think the people who do don't deserve any respect or benefits for doing what they do.

If growing up means having the over-inflated sense of self-importance that you seem to have, no thanks.

[Cido]

Just jackjawing here, and admittedly I haven't read the entire thread.

Disclaimer aside...

I feel all these benefits given by employers were intended as part of the entire compensation package. That wins people over to their company, and it is cheaper than just hiking up their pay.

Now some start saying that everyone deserves these benefits. I'm not sure that they DESERVE it. When choosing a job, employees need to look at all the benefits and make a personal decision. Whether going for the job for 30k / yr and 3 weeks of paid vacation, or 32k / yr and no vacation, it should be up to the emplyee to decide.

Now my argument to the entire system is that people become institutionalized and don't realize that they are worth more to the company than what they are compensated. I'm not an advocate for Unions, but if everyone thought more of themselves and didn't just figure "Well I guess that's what I'm worth," they would strive for better compensation packages and we wouldn't be using law to impose on employers.

Of course I haven't any research to back my "institutionalization" claim, so feel free to disregard.

[Parkbandit]

Do you open your eyes, man? There are TONS of middle aged people in those jobs. People with kids. A person who has trouble surviving and supporting themselves and two kids on $7.50/hr is just making poor spending decisions?

Oh.. you must have missed part of my statement.. you know, this one?


If things are that difficult and losing a day of pay will mean disaster, either you are in the wrong job at the wrong pay.. or you are making purchases that you can't afford.

See, you dwelled on the "or" part and completely missed the beginning. Sorry chump.. I've worked 2 and 3 jobs at the same time to make ends meet. It sucks. It is very tiring. But I never, ever sat around on my 120 extra hours a week saying "Whoa is me! Why can't someone give me some vacation time or give me more money to get the stuff I need!" wringing my hands, crying in a corner. Get off your ass and get another job. Stop buying things that aren't an absolute necessity to live on. I've had to do some really crappy jobs in my life.. sorting out dirty linens, cleaning grease traps, stocking shelves, waiting on people, landscaping, crawling around in attics, managing union members... you do what you have to to make ends meet. Stop making excuses and take some responsibility for yourself.



You know what? Some people are stupid. Some people just plain do not have the mental faculties required to get a degree in a technical field. I guess stupid people don't deserve a little time off when they need it.

If someone is so stupid as to stay in a job that can't pay their bills, then there probably isn't much else out there for them. These individuals aren't usually of a low IQ.. but more of a lower self motivation and would rather live a miserable existance than to actually try to better themselves. I've managed people like this before. They stay years and years in the same old job and never consider applying at a more responsible position or a different company... yet they complain every day about their miserable lives. Boo fucking hoo.. I have no pity for these types.



I don't work in a gas station any more. But that doesn't mean I think the people who do don't deserve any respect or benefits for doing what they do.

Every person makes a decision when they accept a job. They accept the amount of money that they are earning. They accept the healthcare, vacation and sick benefits they earn. They accept the hours that they have to work. If they don't fit into their personal lifestyle.. then perhaps they shouldn't accept the position to begin with? Do you know why employers offer things like healthcare, vacation time, sick time, employee discounts, stock options, etc? It's to recruit employees to work for them. If they don't have to offer such benefits because they have enough applicants applying for the job.. then why on Earth would they offer them? Because they want to respect them? Wake up Nancy... it's not the way the world works.



If growing up means having the over-inflated sense of self-importance that you seem to have, no thanks.

If believing that people should be responsible for their own lives and happiness is being self-important.. then I have that in spades.

[TheWitch]

No one's suggesting they/we don't deserve a day off.

What's being said is that the government should not be mandating we be paid for that day off.

If the company they work for gives them a paid day(s) off, great. If not, then maybe the employees should push for that, or find other jobs that offer more flexibility, etc. I know, easier said than done, right? Well, that's where the part about working for what you have comes in: If you're not happy with what you have, take the responsiblity for improving it.

[Parkbandit]

Just jackjawing here, and admittedly I haven't read the entire thread.

Disclaimer aside...

I feel all these benefits given by employers were intended as part of the entire compensation package. That wins people over to their company, and it is cheaper than just hiking up their pay.

Now some start saying that everyone deserves these benefits. I'm not sure that they DESERVE it. When choosing a job, employees need to look at all the benefits and make a personal decision. Whether going for the job for 30k / yr and 3 weeks of paid vacation, or 32k / yr and no vacation, it should be up to the emplyee to decide.

Now my argument to the entire system is that people become institutionalized and don't realize that they are worth more to the company than what they are compensated. I'm not an advocate for Unions, but if everyone thought more of themselves and didn't just figure "Well I guess that's what I'm worth," they would strive for better compensation packages and we wouldn't be using law to impose on employers.

Of course I haven't any research to back my "institutionalization" claim, so feel free to disregard.


While I agree with you for the most part.. you can never "institutionalize" something like this since there are many people who don't care about benefits and just want a job. Like that high school student who only wants to work 16 hours during 8 months out of the year and can work full time during the summer. Or that retired guy that merely wants to stay active and supplement his income.

[Kyra231]

Paid Time Off is for any day off from work.. with that system, there are usually no "paid" holidays. You accrue and use this for ANYTIME you need a day off. Sick? Use 8 hours of PTO. You want Christmas off? Use 8 hours of PTO.

I was referring to
Originally Posted by Clove View Post
PTO is a good system. I get 144 hours a year and can accrue 32. So 18 days of combined vacation/sick/personal time a year, which combined with paid holidays works out well. which to me seemed to imply he gets PTO days AND paid vacation days. I have seen that as a benefit combination also.

If I misread it I'm sure Clove will correct me, thanks for trying to do it for him though.

[Cido]

While I agree with you for the most part.. you can never "institutionalize" something like this since there are many people who don't care about benefits and just want a job. Like that high school student who only wants to work 16 hours during 8 months out of the year and can work full time during the summer. Or that retired guy that merely wants to stay active and supplement his income.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that you can never set a standard of (institutionalize) people only accepting jobs with vacation because of the groups who don't really need vacation benefits.

Sounds good to me. That's partly why I'm not an advocate for enforcing vacation packages on employers. I think the non-career workers probably are all about the mighty (lulz) dollar. I'd just like people to raise the perception of self-worth bar a bit. This way we would could start moving away from the "poor me" mentality. No clue how to get this kickstarted though. :P

[MrTastyHead]

Ok PB, you're right. It sure is awesome how there are as many well paying jobs with benefits and paid time off as there are people in America, so that all they have to do is get off their stupid lazy asses and get a better one.

OH WAIT

I did X to get Y so everybody else should have to do X too. I would agree with you completely if I didn't think Y was something that everybody should have available to them if they need it. You aren't going to convince me otherwise, and I'm not going to convince you.

[Parkbandit]

I was referring to which to me seemed to imply he gets PTO days AND paid vacation days. I have seen that as a benefit combination also.

If I misread it I'm sure Clove will correct me, thanks for trying to do it for him though.


I wasn't correcting Clove, I was correcting you. Clove's benefits are rare.. he accrues PTO AND gets 7-8 paid holidays off. Here's what you posted:


That's if your employer is decent about it. The places I worked at with it had to use PTO to cover 'paid' holidays.


Clearly, you believed that a company not paying for "paid" holidays were not the norm.. when in fact that IS the norm. PTO stands for Paid Time Off.. and with most companies, that includes 'paid' holidays.

[Stanley Burrell]

This thread has been going on too long. I should post a picture of something original.

Edited to Add: Hold on, party people in the place to be.

[Stanley Burrell]

http://www.builderkids.com/Tools%20and%20Trucks/page3_files/page3-dump-truck2.jpg

.

[TheWitch]

No clue how to get this kickstarted though. :P

Well, for starters, stop rewarding it with things like mandatory paid vacation.

You want paid vacation, you work your way up from being the stockboy to the manager, from the line worker to the shift supervisor, etc.

Lowering the bar just doesn't work. Give people something they didn't earn, they're going to expect it every time. Conversely, penalize people who did earn a privledge by hard work, by making them pay for someone who didn't do the work but now have that same privledge, takes away the incentive to work harder - why bother?

[Latrinsorm]

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" can be stretch pretty far, and in a liberal enough environment could cover the constitutionality of paid vacation, making it a right. But where does this end? Government decided that homeownership was a "right" less than a decade ago. Combine this questionable interference with the greed of the banking industry and the irresponsiblity and ignorance of the consumer, and look where we are.Which regulations of the government made up this "interference", specifically?
But where is the incentive to work to better your position in life, if that work is not required to get the benefits, and in fact penalized to pay for those benefits for someone else?Nobody's suggesting gas station attendants get every benefit/compensation a doctor does. Extending the basic rights of the human worker does not immediately lead to cartoon socialism.

If we went back to pre-Jungle conditions, people would really want to get out of those low-end jobs. Why don't you endorse that? "The government mandating - and enforcing - safety standards in the workplace, child labor laws, things like this are what we should want the government to do for us, IMO." Do you feel that your position on this matter is merely your opinion, no more or less valid than anyone else's?
Wake up Nancy... it's not the way the world works....not yet, anyway. :)

[TheWitch]

Nobody's suggesting gas station attendants get every benefit/compensation a doctor does. Extending the basic rights of the human worker does not immediately lead to cartoon socialism.

Because extending those "rights" - which I disagree that being paid not to work is a right - in this instance is being foisted upon business by government, something with which I disagree. Someone has to pay for it, including the people supposedly benefiting from it.


If we went back to pre-Jungle conditions, people would really want to get out of those low-end jobs. Why don't you endorse that? "The government mandating - and enforcing - safety standards in the workplace, child labor laws, things like this are what we should want the government to do for us, IMO." Do you feel that your position on this matter is merely your opinion, no more or less valid than anyone else's?

Yea, pretty much and isn't this just a message board on the interwebs where people pretty much just state their opinions? Or did I wander inadvertently into a SCOTUS hearing or a Senate labor committee meeting!?!? Damn!

In other words, what exactly is your point?

[Parkbandit]

Ok PB, you're right.

This is where you should have stopped.


It sure is awesome how there are as many well paying jobs with benefits and paid time off as there are people in America, so that all they have to do is get off their stupid lazy asses and get a better one.

You keep believing that you only need to work one job to make ends meet. While I realize 40 hours is the limit to your work ethic, thankfully many people will do whatever they have to to better themselves.. including holding down 2 or even 3 jobs.



OH WAIT

I did X to get Y so everybody else should have to do X too. I would agree with you completely if I didn't think Y was something that everybody should have available to them if they need it. You aren't going to convince me otherwise, and I'm not going to convince you.

If X = whatever it takes and Y = motivation, then your formula is correct. However, I think you have different formula.. something like X = my 40 hours at an easy job and Y = less than what I deserve! It's not FAIR!!!

[Keller]

I wasn't correcting Clove, I was correcting you. Clove's benefits are rare.. he accrues PTO AND gets 7-8 paid holidays off.

I get like 26 PTO days a year (it's 7.98 hrs per pay period) in addition to 8 days of paid holidays per year.

[Parkbandit]

Which regulations of the government made up this "interference", specifically?Nobody's suggesting gas station attendants get every benefit/compensation a doctor does. Extending the basic rights of the human worker does not immediately lead to cartoon socialism.

Where we disagree is that you believe that paid vacations, paid sick, paid holidays, etc.. are basic rights of the human worker. I believe that all benefits above a paycheck is a recruiting tool used by the owner of the company. Just because some companies offer paid vacation times, doesn't mean it's a basic human worker right. I've been at jobs where I got a free meal.. does that mean that's now a basic human worker right? What about free hotel rooms when you go on vacation? What about 50% off on selected retail establishments? What about a free place to live?

[Parkbandit]

I get like 26 PTO days a year (it's 7.98 hrs per pay period) in addition to 8 days of paid holidays per year.


That's one hell of a benefit. I'm certain that it's far above the norm.. especially since you've been there for a very short period of time. 26 PTO days + 8 holidays equates to almost 7 weeks of vacation time per year... and I imagine that grows with seniority.

I was with Hilton for 8 years and Marriott for 12 years.. and the most I ever received PTO wise was 4 weeks total of PTO.

[Parkbandit]

Well, for starters, stop rewarding it with things like mandatory paid vacation.

You want paid vacation, you work your way up from being the stockboy to the manager, from the line worker to the shift supervisor, etc.

Lowering the bar just doesn't work. Give people something they didn't earn, they're going to expect it every time. Conversely, penalize people who did earn a privledge by hard work, by making them pay for someone who didn't do the work but now have that same privledge, takes away the incentive to work harder - why bother?


So you don't think that owners should offer any benefits to anyone but managers? I completely disagree. As a manager, the benefits package was a great recruiting tool that we used to get the best applicants in the market.

[TheWitch]

So you don't think that owners should offer any benefits to anyone but managers? I completely disagree. As a manager, the benefits package was a great recruiting tool that we used to get the best applicants in the market.

It was an example, PB, of something we seem to agree upon:

If your current position doesn't offer you a benefit you desire (generalized you), either A. work hard and get promoted to a position in that same company that does offer that benefit, or B. get your resume together and seek other employment that does include that benefit. In other words, take responsibility for your own situation.

It wasn't meant to be a statement about what I think companies should or shouldn't include in their benefit packages at varying levels of employment. That should be left up to the company to decide, specific to every position and the function it serves, responsibility level, etc. Not the government.

[Trouble]

I just want to thank everyone for this thread. I went to check to see how much PTO I get and realized I put most of a pay period back in February on the wrong line of my timesheet, burning most of my PTO. I'm now checking to see if I can submit a revised timesheet.

:club:

I get 10 days a year plus 10 holidays, btw.

[Latrinsorm]

In other words, what exactly is your point?My point is that I think you are being disingenuous with yourself, based off the following observations: you think that your position is right and that the positions of those who disagree with you are wrong; however, by couching your position in terms of your "opinion" you avoid critical examination of it.
In other words, take responsibility for your own situation.My point did not originally apply to this, but extends to it as well. You are being disingenuous with yourself if you honestly believe that hard work and/or diligent employment-seeking inevitably leads to what a person desires from a job, or even what a person deserves.
Just because some companies offer paid vacation times, doesn't mean it's a basic human worker right. I've been at jobs where I got a free meal.. does that mean that's now a basic human worker right? What about free hotel rooms when you go on vacation? What about 50% off on selected retail establishments? What about a free place to live?My argument for paid vacation being a basic right is not based on paid vacation being offered by some companies. My argument would say that something can be (and often has been) a basic right even if no companies offer it. For instance, I would argue that people should be free from discrimination in the workplace based on race, gender, sexuality, etc., even though this transfers some decision-making power from companies to the government. It is certainly the case that this right by and large has not been observed, but this has no bearing on whether it ought to be observed.

[Cido]

Well, for starters, stop rewarding it with things like mandatory paid vacation.

You want paid vacation, you work your way up from being the stockboy to the manager, from the line worker to the shift supervisor, etc.

Lowering the bar just doesn't work. Give people something they didn't earn, they're going to expect it every time. Conversely, penalize people who did earn a privledge by hard work, by making them pay for someone who didn't do the work but now have that same privledge, takes away the incentive to work harder - why bother?

Right, I'm don't support the mandate to give people paid vacation. I just want people to expect more from their employers instead of just thinking they're only worth what is available in the job market.

My problem with the free market vs the socalist market (or whatever market we have now), is that you either disregard the people who are at the bottom rungs of society and allow them to perish, or you help out those people and in turn help out some freeloaders too.

Speaking from the heart, I would rather pay for a jail cell sized apartment and 4 hot pockets a day for a street bum, than to see him die on the streets. Of course you are helping out those people who are just grabbing any handout they can get, but you don't let your fellow man die.

[Keller]

I just want to thank everyone for this thread. I went to check to see how much PTO I get and realized I put most of a pay period back in February on the wrong line of my timesheet, burning most of my PTO. I'm now checking to see if I can submit a revised timesheet.

:club:

I get 10 days a year plus 10 holidays, btw.

But, assuming you work government, you also get sick time and flex-time.

My best friend works for DHS and has every friday off because, according to his timesheet, he works 10 hrs a day M-Th.

[TheWitch]

Latrinsorm;942454]My point is that I think you are being disingenuous with yourself, based off the following observations: you think that your position is right and that the positions of those who disagree with you are wrong; however, by couching your position in terms of your "opinion" you avoid critical examination of it.

I'm stopping someone from critical examination exactly how? Or do you mean, I'm stopping myself from critically examining my own opinion by claiming it's just an opinion and I can therefore absolve myself of responsibility for it?

Existentialist rambling aside, it is my opinion. Feel free to agree or disagree, in whole or in part since, Commrade, I think we're all still entitled to opinions.


My point did not originally apply to this, but extends to it as well. You are being disingenuous with yourself if you honestly believe that hard work and/or diligent employment-seeking inevitably leads to what a person desires from a job, or even what a person deserves.

Maybe not, and I don't believe I said anywhere that that approach would 100% guarantee success. However, lack of hard work or effort will work even less well towards that end. Would you like to suggest that not working hard and making an effort will deliver better results?

Given the option of choosing hard work or a government handout via mandate, I will choose hard work every single time.


My argument for paid vacation being a basic right is not based on paid vacation being offered by some companies. My argument would say that something can be (and often has been) a basic right even if no companies offer it. For instance, I would argue that people should be free from discrimination in the workplace based on race, gender, sexuality, etc., even though this transfers some decision-making power from companies to the government. It is certainly the case that this right by and large has not been observed, but this has no bearing on whether it ought to be observed.

And while I agree with you regarding discrimination in all its ugly forms, I do not agree with quotas and the discrimination that they have led to. You think it is a basic right for all people to get paid to not work for a specified period of time, I disagree.

So much better than China, don't you think?

[Parkbandit]

My argument would say that something can be (and often has been) a basic right even if no companies offer it. For instance, I would argue that people should be free from discrimination in the workplace based on race, gender, sexuality, etc., even though this transfers some decision-making power from companies to the government. It is certainly the case that this right by and large has not been observed, but this has no bearing on whether it ought to be observed.

You are equating a harassment free workplace with 2 weeks of paid vacation... and calling them both a basic human worker right?

I can't even debate with that epic level of stupidity son. If that seriously is your best counter point, why bother even hitting the reply button?

[CrystalTears]

That's one hell of a benefit. I'm certain that it's far above the norm.. especially since you've been there for a very short period of time. 26 PTO days + 8 holidays equates to almost 7 weeks of vacation time per year... and I imagine that grows with seniority.

I was with Hilton for 8 years and Marriott for 12 years.. and the most I ever received PTO wise was 4 weeks total of PTO.
That's odd, because when I worked at Wyndham, it was 2 weeks of paid vacation plus paid national holidays.

And I don't believe it to be a rare occurrance. I've yet to get a job (and most of my jobs have been administrative/technical in nature) that didn't have both personal time and paid holidays.

That said, I don't feel it should be mandated. The more people REQUIRE companies and individuals to spend and do as they say, the less people will want to strive for something better because it will all be the same. What point is there to excel in this country if they're going to have the diner around the corner give the same kind of benefits as working as a programmer? That would just piss me off, quite frankly. I'm not saying that people don't deserve time off, but it doesn't REQUIRE them to get paid for it. As long as companies aren't dicks about letting people take a day off.

[Keller]

That's one hell of a benefit. I'm certain that it's far above the norm.. especially since you've been there for a very short period of time. 26 PTO days + 8 holidays equates to almost 7 weeks of vacation time per year... and I imagine that grows with seniority.

I was with Hilton for 8 years and Marriott for 12 years.. and the most I ever received PTO wise was 4 weeks total of PTO.

I am currently a manager. At senior manager, I will get 9.2 hrs / pay period. Then I will either become a director (non-equity partner) with 9.8 hrs / pay period or a parner, with no specificed time off.

Like I said in an earlier post, I don't expect to take even half of my PTO. I generally burn it when I have slow weeks so I don't look as slow. The only time I actually tried to take a vacation, I billed at least 6 hrs each day I was on "vacation".

[Clove]

Yeah I get PTO and paid holidays combined. Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, July 4th, New Years Day, Christmas Day, Thanksgiving Day, Black Friday and a Floating Holiday.

We accrue PTO monthly the rate increases with seniority. In another year I'll get 168 per year.

I'm using 8 hours for today and I get Memorial Day for "free". Yay 4 day weekend. Of course I have to bust my ass to make sure all my work is done because there is no back-up for my responsibilities, but it's a benefit that we enjoy immensely at my company.

[Latrinsorm]

Or do you mean, I'm stopping myself from critically examining my own opinion by claiming it's just an opinion and I can therefore absolve myself of responsibility for it? Yes, hence the sense of entitlement.
Would you like to suggest that not working hard and making an effort will deliver better results?

Given the option of choosing hard work or a government handout via mandate, I will choose hard work every single time.No. I would like to suggest that everyone needs help, even hard workers, because that is the fact of the matter. Viewed through this lens and acknowledging the size and depth of the help everyone needs, one is reasonably compelled towards cooperation. It is not a bad thing for this to take the form of the government, which we agree upon. What we disagree on is whether a certain type of government-enforced cooperative behavior constitutes necessary intervention or superfluous handouts. There's no need to discuss the exact merits of hard work: again, we agree that it is better to work hard than to abandon working, but neither of those options results from the decision we (in a representational sense) are making here.

What I would like to discuss is what this disagreement stems from, why you make a distinction that I do not, but as long as you are satisfied in describing your position as opinion, I fear no elucidation of it will occur.
You are equating a harassment free workplace with 2 weeks of paid vacation... and calling them both a basic human worker right?"For instance" is actually not a phrase that means "The following is intended to be equated exactly with the previous". Calling them both basic rights implies that they are both members of a group, not that they are identical. Another tipoff that I don't consider them identical is that I use different words to describe them, but I don't want to make this too complicated.

[TheWitch]

Yes, hence the sense of entitlement.

What exactly do you interpret me thinking I'm entitled to, besides an opinion and the freedom to pursue my life in agreement with these opinions. And, oppose public policy that disagrees with my opinions..?


What we disagree on is whether a certain type of government-enforced cooperative behavior constitutes necessary intervention or superfluous handouts.

What I would like to discuss is what this disagreement stems from, why you make a distinction that I do not, but as long as you are satisfied in describing your position as opinion, I fear no elucidation of it will occur.

What it stems from? It stems from my belief that government intervention, taken too far and this I believe goes to far, removes liberties from the people it seeks to help as both an intended and unintended consequence.

For instance, lets say one week of paid vacation became mandated by the government. It is not hard to imagine a scenario in which people that once had two weeks paid time off as a part of their employment, now only have one because that's all the government requires.

It stems from my upbringing to not accept handouts, and in all cases, seek to be as self-suffient as possible. It stems from the fact that when I observe people working hard and making good for themselves, this is constantly reinforced - including the hard work I've done which has been rewarded.

This does not preclude me from having compassion for people. It does preclude me from believing that every comfort in life is in fact a "right" and should be mandated by the government, to be funded by business, and ulimately, funded by every consumer and taxpayer.

[MrTastyHead]

PB, you seem to think that my being for mandatory PTO for workers is simply because I am lazy and want things for free. It's not. Yes, I used to work at a gas station. I've also worked in various other jobs and I've worked 13+ hour days, 6 days a week in supervisory positions.

Thinking that everybody deserves some paid time off does not make me a lazy freeloader. You do not know one single thing about me or my life, so stop thinking you know who I am because I disagree with you.

[Parkbandit]

"For instance" is actually not a phrase that means "The following is intended to be equated exactly with the previous". Calling them both basic rights implies that they are both members of a group, not that they are identical. Another tipoff that I don't consider them identical is that I use different words to describe them, but I don't want to make this too complicated.

How about this then.. maybe instead of using hyperbole to try and make your point... you actually attempt to come up with something that is even in the same realm? There isn't a single sane individual here that doesn't believe that a harassment free workplace is a human worker's right, while there are many intelligent people that don't believe the government's role is to dictate to privately owned companies what their benefits package will consist of.

[Trouble]

But, assuming you work government, you also get sick time and flex-time.

My best friend works for DHS and has every friday off because, according to his timesheet, he works 10 hrs a day M-Th.

No. I'm a contractor so that's all I get. :(

I get paid more than if I were Fed though. I guess that's the trade-off.

And for our division, Alternate Work Schedule is a no-no even for the Feds.

[Parkbandit]

PB, you seem to think that my being for mandatory PTO for workers is simply because I am lazy and want things for free. It's not. Yes, I used to work at a gas station. I've also worked in various other jobs and I've worked 13+ hour days, 6 days a week in supervisory positions.

Thinking that everybody deserves some paid time off does not make me a lazy freeloader. You do not know one single thing about me or my life, so stop thinking you know who I am because I disagree with you.

So.. making a snap judgement about someone because they disagree with you is bad? You mean like this?


I get the impression you are the kind of person who thinks poor people deserve to be poor, and fuck them all the more for it.

or maybe like this?



If growing up means having the over-inflated sense of self-importance that you seem to have, no thanks.

Yea... thought so.

[MrTastyHead]

Those are statements about your character, gleaned from plenty of examples in your posts. You are making statements about my work ethic.

I don't need to know how many hours a week you work to tell you're an ass. But I would want to know before I called you lazy.

[Parkbandit]

Those are statements about your character, gleaned from plenty of examples in your posts. You are making statements about my work ethic.

I don't need to know how many hours a week you work to tell you're an ass. But I would want to know before I called you lazy.

Actually, the first statement you made to someone else.. not me.

And lazy doesn't necessarily mean you don't work 40 hours. For example: You are too lazy to take night classes to better your resume to get a higher paying job. Or.. you are too lazy to apply for a promotion. Or.. you are too lazy to send your resume out to other companies.

And.. I barely work 30 hours a week. The number of hours you work doesn't determine your laziness... it's your motivation to do what is necessary to get into a comfortable lifestyle.

[Ignot]

I think I have to stick up for PB on this laziness thing. I work a lot, money is good, but I still think of myself as lazy. Instead of hitting the gym, I will play Xbox. Instead of eating healthy, I will just order in some food. I could choose to better myself but instead I don't. Laziness is just relative. For example, you couldn't say that PB is a lazy poster because that would just be wrong. He searches through old threads at any attempt to prove someone wrong, he googles like a mad man, he always gets the last word in with any forum argument, and even when he makes a stupid comment or is just completely wrong he never goes back on it. He will fight his horrible posts to the death. Sadly, the PC is his life and he is NOT lazy at it. I got your back on this one, PB.

[Gan]

Similar question: if we (in the form of our duly elected representatives) establish this law, does it become a right to have paid vacation? What if a version of it only passed in (for instance) California, would paid vacation only be a right for those in the Californian society?

I ask because I feel your (general) positions are relevant to your decision-making processes.
Lets first settle on what defines rights and laws. I'm of the opinion that laws beget rights with the recognition thereof.

Now you have to consider that some laws are subordinate to other laws just as some levels of society are subordinate to others.

Does a city law beget a right that can be subordinated by a state law or a federal law? Can a federal law beget a right that can be subordinated by a law created by a group of nation states (ie: UN resolution). (Does Iran have a right to enrich uranium and produce a heavy water reactor?)

Going back to your first question, here's an added thought:
In my opinion, a right is the same thing as a privledge except that it has been specifically recognized instead of being implied.

I was hoping to see a response from you Latrin. However, the thread took a right turn into Tisket's boobies and never fully recovered I believe.

:shrug:

[Latrinsorm]

What exactly do you interpret me thinking I'm entitled to, besides an opinion and the freedom to pursue my life in agreement with these opinions. And, oppose public policy that disagrees with my opinions..?Nothing more than the first and what you spoke of in the earlier post. Paraphrasing a little here from a grand thinker, it is a debilitating error, having the courage of one's convictions. Go away from, resist yourself - perhaps you have been deceived!
What it stems from? It stems from my belief that government intervention, taken too far and this I believe goes to far, removes liberties from the people it seeks to help as both an intended and unintended consequence.But why does this go too far, and why not (for instance) OSHA compliance?
It stems from my upbringing to not accept handouts, and in all cases, seek to be as self-suffient as possible. It stems from the fact that when I observe people working hard and making good for themselves, this is constantly reinforced - including the hard work I've done which has been rewarded.

This does not preclude me from having compassion for people. It does preclude me from believing that every comfort in life is in fact a "right" and should be mandated by the government, to be funded by business, and ulimately, funded by every consumer and taxpayer.See, this is rhetoric, not reason. We're still not disagreeing about whether hard work is good or governments mandating some things is acceptable. What I want to know is why this thing.
How about this then.. maybe instead of using hyperbole to try and make your point... Let me stop you here. Hyperbole is an exaggeration, while I haven't exaggerated anything. There are little rights and big rights, but they're all rights. Mentioning two rights in the same thought does not imply that the mentioner considers them interchangeable, or that he holds them in equal esteem, or that a majority of sane or intellegent individuals hold a certain position on them. If you'll recall, this started when you attributed the following line of reasoning to me:
Company A offers X benefit.
Ergo, all workers should enjoy X benefit.
Ergo, the government should force all companies to provide X benefit, for it is a right of the workers.

My response was:
A particular benefit Z was not offered by companies for a long time, but only nutjobs and idiots think not offering Z is tolerable (to paraphrase your post slightly).
Ergo, any benefit X can be a right even if no company offers it.

Things this does not imply:
X is the same as Z in every respect.
X is the same as Z in any respect beyond being rights.
X derives its righthood from Z's.

I hope this has helped clear up the misunderstanding. :)

[Latrinsorm]

I was hoping to see a response from you Latrin. However, the thread took a right turn into Tisket's boobies and never fully recovered I believe.It was something I had intended to address and then weird stuff started coming out of my ear. As I recall, my point in asking about state-based rights was more to determine the tenacity of the rights granted: assuming Illinois and Texas have equal power relative to the federal government, do I get to keep my Illinois rights (for instance, freedom from the death penalty) if I move to Texas? If rights are so gauzy and tossed about by brute geography, is that acceptable? The question of relative powers of the various levels of government is topical, but of minor concern compared to the previous.

[Gan]

I think I have to stick up for PB on this laziness thing. I work a lot, money is good, but I still think of myself as lazy. Instead of hitting the gym, I will play Xbox. Instead of eating healthy, I will just order in some food. I could choose to better myself but instead I don't. Laziness is just relative. For example, you couldn't say that PB is a lazy poster because that would just be wrong. He searches through old threads at any attempt to prove someone wrong, he googles like a mad man, he always gets the last word in with any forum argument, and even when he makes a stupid comment or is just completely wrong he never goes back on it. He will fight his horrible posts to the death. Sadly, the PC is his life and he is NOT lazy at it. I got your back on this one, PB.

B+ for creativity and humor.

:lol:

[Dhuul]

man I am lazy. I couldn't do any of that to win a flame war on the PC.
maybe I could send pizzas and strippers to someone's mom's basement to stop them from posting.
they'd probably make a post about pepperoni sized nipples or something then.

[MrTastyHead]

he always gets the last word in with any forum argument

No shit. A normal person's brain can only take so much.

http://myblahg.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/exploding_head.jpg

[Gan]

It was something I had intended to address and then weird stuff started coming out of my ear. As I recall, my point in asking about state-based rights was more to determine the tenacity of the rights granted: assuming Illinois and Texas have equal power relative to the federal government, do I get to keep my Illinois rights (for instance, freedom from the death penalty) if I move to Texas? If rights are so gauzy and tossed about by brute geography, is that acceptable? The question of relative powers of the various levels of government is topical, but of minor concern compared to the previous.

I believe you're referring to the Comity Clause (also known as the Privledge & Immunities Clause, Right to Travel Clause, ) in the Constitution (Article IV, Section 2, clause 1): "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

And possibly the Liberty Clause (Equal Protection Clause) (14th Amendment, Section 1):
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

And then you have the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights (States Rights).
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

Which goes back to what I said about recognized vs. implied rights/privledges.

But since (pulling a WarriorBird here) I'm not an attorney nor am I in law school - you'll have to ask one of our resident Esquires (or Esquire's to be who've taken Constitutional law) about how this conflict(?) plays out.
*Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Some interesting thoughts on the origin of the Tenth Amendment...

[Parkbandit]

I think I have to stick up for PB on this laziness thing. I work a lot, money is good, but I still think of myself as lazy. Instead of hitting the gym, I will play Xbox. Instead of eating healthy, I will just order in some food. I could choose to better myself but instead I don't. Laziness is just relative.

You up to 300 pounds yet? Sounds like a fantastic life. So in conclusion, you work a lot, come home, get on xbox and order in fast food. Rinse, repeat.

It must be so fulfilling for someone like you.



For example, you couldn't say that PB is a lazy poster because that would just be wrong. He searches through old threads at any attempt to prove someone wrong, he googles like a mad man, he always gets the last word in with any forum argument, and even when he makes a stupid comment or is just completely wrong he never goes back on it. He will fight his horrible posts to the death. Sadly, the PC is his life and he is NOT lazy at it. I got your back on this one, PB.

You shouldn't assume.. especially after giving us a glimpse into your daily routine. I spend time on the PC because guess what.. I'm at work at the time or relaxing. Right now in fact, I'm out by the pool drinking coffee and being entertained by some kid who needs to get ready to go to work, so he can come home, order food and get his xbox on. I feel pity for said clown, but can't help but laugh at his lack of life. He should really put down the xbox, get some friends and go out to dinner once in a while.

The PC is far from my life. I'm just entertained by stupidity, futility and the liberal way.. which makes you prime grade A entertainment.

So dance for me boy.. dance.

[Gan]

So dance for me boy.. dance.

http://ui21.gamespot.com/2324/media1_4.gif

[Parkbandit]

http://ui21.gamespot.com/2324/media1_4.gif

Holy fuck.. how did you get a .gif of Ignot?

[Ignot]

You shouldn't assume.. especially after giving us a glimpse into your daily routine. I spend time on the PC because guess what.. I'm at work at the time or relaxing. Right now in fact, I'm out by the pool drinking coffee and being entertained by some kid who needs to get ready to go to work, so he can come home, order food and get his xbox on.

Hmmm....nope, not believing it.


http://ui21.gamespot.com/2324/media1_4.gif

I was playing Wii! Do you guys play without violent convulsions?

[Kyra231]

I wasn't correcting Clove, I was correcting you. Clove's benefits are rare.. he accrues PTO AND gets 7-8 paid holidays off. Here's what you posted:

Clearly, you believed that a company not paying for "paid" holidays were not the norm.. when in fact that IS the norm. PTO stands for Paid Time Off.. and with most companies, that includes 'paid' holidays.



Yes clearly...:smile:
That's if your employer is decent about it. The places I worked at I see where I wrote between the lines 'It's very abnormal for any company to not pay for holidays on top of pto' instead of that I thought it was a badly executed policy in the workplaces I've been at.

[Parkbandit]

Hmmm....nope, not believing it.

Your record of not being right rivals WB's...

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/IMG_0243.jpg

[Gan]

Shipleys Donuts > Dunkin Donuts

[Parkbandit]

Shipleys Donuts > Dunkin Donuts

That would be one hell of a drive for me.. since I've never even heard of Shipley's Donuts. They just in Texas?

[Gan]

I think they're a local favorite.

[TheWitch]

But why does this go too far, and why not (for instance) OSHA compliance?

Because an employee or prospective employee has little ability to control how a company enforces safety measures in the workplace, or non-discriminatory hiring practices for that matter, this is where it is needful for the government to step in and regulate these issues. It would be wonderful if government didn't need to get involved here either, and businesses were universally self controlled enough to keep Uncle Sam out of their operations. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.

However, an employee or prospective employee of a company does have it within their power to make a decision based on the benefits a company offers whether or not to accept the position. They also have it within their power to work toward achieving benefits like paid time off, via asking for them, getting promoted, changing jobs, etc. This is a benefit frequently used to reward people for tenure and performance, if this is mandated, this removes yet another incentive to do better for yourself.

Government should do for its citizens that which they are unable to do for themselves - from fighting wars to ensuring safety in the workplace. Paid vacation shouldn't be government domain.

Thread rez, due to unpaid vacation.:)

[Ignot]

Your record of not being right rivals WB's...

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/IMG_0243.jpg

Ah, you are right. I was wrong to think you could spend one minute of the day away from the PC. Shit, even when you go out by the pool you have to bring your laptop to post! You even have to take a picture of you doing it because you can't stand to think that some strangers on the internet think you are lying. You are a true hardcore PC posting champion. My hat is off to you, sir.

[Parkbandit]

Ah, you are right. I was wrong

This is the only passage in any post in any political thread that actually makes perfect sense. I'm not sure why it took you 3 days to come up with it.. but congratulations man!

[Latrinsorm]

Because an employee or prospective employee has little ability to control how a company enforces safety measures in the workplace, or non-discriminatory hiring practices for that matter, this is where it is needful for the government to step in and regulate these issues. It would be wonderful if government didn't need to get involved here either, and businesses were universally self controlled enough to keep Uncle Sam out of their operations. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.

However, an employee or prospective employee of a company does have it within their power to make a decision based on the benefits a company offers whether or not to accept the position. They also have it within their power to work toward achieving benefits like paid time off, via asking for them, getting promoted, changing jobs, etc. This is a benefit frequently used to reward people for tenure and performance, if this is mandated, this removes yet another incentive to do better for yourself.Allow me to rephrase my question, with the above bolded portions in mind: an employee certainly has no more control over how much vacation a particular company offers than the control they have over OSHA-compliance (in the absence of government intervention in that area). Why shouldn't a safe workplace be included in what you term "benefits"? Certainly there would be some companies that didn't require their workers to powersand without a mask, or whatever, wouldn't your freedom of choice allow workers to not accept unsafe jobs just as you suggest they be allowed to not accept jobs that don't offer vacations?

Put shortly, I'm still not clear on how you distinguish the two governmental interventions: in neither case are the citizenry able to independently demand what they want, in both cases the government is curtailing the freedoms of employers and potential motivations for further effort on the part of the worker.

[TheWitch]

Allow me to rephrase my question, with the above bolded portions in mind: an employee certainly has no more control over how much vacation a particular company offers than the control they have over OSHA-compliance (in the absence of government intervention in that area). Why shouldn't a safe workplace be included in what you term "benefits"? Certainly there would be some companies that didn't require their workers to powersand without a mask, or whatever, wouldn't your freedom of choice allow workers to not accept unsafe jobs just as you suggest they be allowed to not accept jobs that don't offer vacations?

Put shortly, I'm still not clear on how you distinguish the two governmental interventions: in neither case are the citizenry able to independently demand what they want, in both cases the government is curtailing the freedoms of employers and potential motivations for further effort on the part of the worker.

You're not even making sense with this foolishness, and I think you know that.

I've addressed, at your request and in various posts, why I make a distinction between workplace safety and paid vacation. You do not make the same distinction. And I'm okay with that. Are you?

[Latrinsorm]

You have offered reasons for your distinction, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. What I mean is I'm not clear on how you go from your reasons to your distinction. If I may, these are what I understand as your chief points:

1. People should work hard to earn things.
2. People are free to change jobs.
3. The government should not disincentivize hard work.
4. The government should protect the citizenry only in the cases they are reasonably incapable of mustering their own protection.

As I understand it, you believe point #2 provides sufficient opportunity for citizens to avoid jobs that do not offer paid vacation if they so choose (and work towards, etc.). I do not understand how, given this, point #2 does not provide sufficient opportunity for citizens to avoid jobs that threaten life or limb, and therefore workplace-safety legislation should be abolished under point #3 and the caveat of point #4.

I am not upset with or angry at your reasoning, I am curious about it.

[TheWitch]

I do not understand how, given this, point #2 does not provide sufficient opportunity for citizens to avoid jobs that threaten life or limb, and therefore workplace-safety legislation should be abolished under point #3 and the caveat of point #4.

I am not upset with or angry at your reasoning, I am curious about it.

Okay, I'll try one more time to connect the dots for you then.

Companies have proven, as the Jungle era you referred to back when we were all younger at the start of the thread, unwilling to regulate themselves as to safety in the workplace. The safety of it's citizens should be a concern of the government, whether in the workplace or consuming the foods produced in the nasty factories of the era you point to - just as an example.

This has led to modern-day regulations and regulatory bodies, like OSHA, which I believe are a Good Thing. But I only believe that because too many companies proved, both a century ago and in much more recent times, that they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into creating a safe work environment.

If no company, or only a handful of the hundreds of companies potentially affected by mandated paid vacation, offered any of their employees any paid vacation whatsover, then I might not make the distinction between paid vacation and workplace safety.

The fact is, many if not most companies do offer employees paid vacation as a hiring, performance and/or tenure incentive. The lack of paid vacation does not expose someone to disease, it does not endanger their physical well being in any tangible way. Unsafe working conditions can.

The employee cannot control whether a company offers paid vacation for the position they're considering, anymore than they can control workplace safety, you're right.

But. They can control whether they accept that position, knowing full well it does not include paid vacation. If they're in a tough spot, and need a job regardless, then that's probably not a best case scenario for them but at least its a job. They are at that point still free to pursue other jobs, work their way into a position that does offer vacation, or after they've shown themselves to be a solid employee, ask that an amount of paid vacation be added to their employment situation.

Now, you can say that their morale suffers because of lack of unpaid vacation, to which I would respond that we need to do less legislating of "feel good" policies that ultimately cost everyone more money in taxes and/or at the cash register. People are working hard in this country, and too many of them are getting nowhere because, at least in part, of mandates and entitlments.

[Bobmuhthol]

I'd like to see any sort of evidence to back up the simultaneous claims that most companies, without regulation will give paid vacation but will not maintain a safe work environment. A company's incentive to give its employees vacation time ties in with the profitability of the company -- benefits go to good employees and in return they stay at your company instead of the competition. The same principal applies for safety, which I think Latrinsorm might be trying to demonstrate: if people can naturally find jobs that offer vacation time, they can just as readily find jobs that offer safe working conditions. The only way this model can fail is if employees do not value safe working conditions, and if that is the case then there need not be regulation in the first place.

[TheWitch]

I'd like to see any sort of evidence to back up the simultaneous claims that most companies, without regulation will give paid vacation but will not maintain a safe work environment. A company's incentive to give its employees vacation time ties in with the profitability of the company -- benefits go to good employees and in return they stay at your company instead of the competition. The same principal applies for safety, which I think Latrinsorm might be trying to demonstrate: if people can naturally find jobs that offer vacation time, they can just as readily find jobs that offer safe working conditions. The only way this model can fail is if employees do not value safe working conditions, and if that is the case then there need not be regulation in the first place.

Some companies were and are recalcitrant when it comes to providing a safe work environment. http://ohsonline.com/articles/2009/05/28/osha-cites-piping-manufacturer-for-potential-safety-health-hazards.aspx Here's one, from today!

Many, if not most, companies offer paid vacation - as reward, as you point out. I understand what you're trying to say, what I'm saying is that the needs of workers were not being met at all when it comes to safety at work, when there were no workplace safety standards, leading to potentially life threatening situations.

Many, many people's want for paid vacation is being met, freely and without government mandate. But it has to be earned, and the lack of it is not life threatening.

Obviously, the burden of a safe work environment falls more heavily on industries like steel mills than it does accounting firms, as examples. And there again, people have a choice to make. Do they want to work in a heavily OSHA monitored but still dangerous job like a steel mill, or do they want to be an accounant.