• IT Girl (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    From: Facilities Manager Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:12 PM To: EVERYONE Subject:

    All Employees:

    As you might already know we have installed speed bumps in the parking garage. The purpose of the speed bumps is to SLOW down vehicles that are driving too fast in the parking structure and to help ensure the safety of our employees.

    If you are unsure of how to traverse the speed bumps keep this in mind:

    Slowly approach the bump and roll to the top of it then use your brake to keep it
slow going down instead of just letting it roll off by itself.

    It should not require speed bumps to keep our employees/visitors from speeding recklessly though the garage but it has definitely come to this. Just remember to drive slowly when going up the speed bump and also brake going down the speed bump and you will have no problems.

    Facilities

    Must be a facilities thing:

    From: Senior Facilities Manager Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 10:02 AM To: Facilities Cc: Managers; Supervisors; IT Support Services Subject: Cell Phone

    Good morning I left my cell phone at home this morning. If you need to reach me call Pat, IT support services —1-xxx-xxx-xxxx and she can contact me. Thanks Don

    From: IT Support Services Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 10:07 AM To: Facilities Cc: Managers; Supervisors Subject: RE: Cell Phone

    Or, you can call Don at xxx-xxxx (desk phone).

    Don also has Microsoft communicator and a walkie talkie for anyone onsite who needs him.

  • (cs) in reply to frits
    frits:
    taiki:
    Oh yeah, when I think about XML, suddenly my bowels loosen up.

    Introducting...

    XMLax

    Sounds appropriately asynchronous.

  • (cs) in reply to Warpedcow
    Warpedcow:
    DES:
    You may be capable of deciding what is best for yourself. The single mother who flips your burgers at Wendy's is not. It's not that she's dumb or spineless, it's just that she knows her options far too well: cave in or lose her job.

    You forget her third option: get a better job.

    Also, "Single Mom" at Wendy's maybe should have thought twice about having a child if she can't afford to do so...

    Wow, are you ever out of touch with reality.

  • Notadad (unregistered) in reply to DES
    DES:
    Warpedcow:
    "Single Mom" at Wendy's maybe should have thought twice about having a child if she can't afford to do so...
    Wow, are you ever out of touch with reality.
    In my reality people know what makes babies, and what doesn't. How is your reality different?
  • (cs) in reply to Notadad
    Notadad:
    DES:
    Warpedcow:
    "Single Mom" at Wendy's maybe should have thought twice about having a child if she can't afford to do so...
    Wow, are you ever out of touch with reality.
    In my reality people know what makes babies, and what doesn't. How is your reality different?

    In my reality, the single mother flipping burgers is sometimes a forty-year-old widow. In my reality, there is a recession going on, and even when there isn't, most people can't pick and choose jobs, but have to take what they're offered.

    I suspect you've been reading too much Ayn Rand.

  • (cs)

    In Europe you get paid vacation, and have regulated work time per week. But it doesn't mean companies won't screw around. In France (35h week) the workday is divided in two parts: 8:00-12:00, 2 hour lunch break, 14:00-17:00. So if the company is far from where you live, you're screwed - it's impossible to drive home and back to work and prepare somethig to eat in the meantime. Most people will go to the company cafeteria and go right back to work, effectively giving the company some unpaid time. In Belgium it's even worse. It's 38 hours / week. What does it mean is you start at 9:00, one hour break for lunch, and finish at 17:45. Which is never 17:45, but 18:00 and you're effectively giving the company 15 minutes of your time every day for free. At some companies it's 4 days x 8 hours and the Fridays are left with 6 hours. But the worst part is that you have to build up time for the holiday. You have to work a whole year before you're entitled to get your 20 days. If you get another job in the meantime, the old company pays you the equivalent money, and you get to work for another year before you can go on holiday. The worst way companies screw with employees, especially in IT, is the "on-call service". The bastard. In the worst cases you're basically supposed to be ready to work 24h a day, AND you do your 8h shift. That means you can't go to the movies, to a swimming pool or whatever, because you're supposed to be able to get your laptop working in 30 minutes max once you receive the call. The on-call is paid some comical fee ($20) a day plus the extra work time. If you get 3 calls a night, you get paid the extra 3 hours, but hey, the next day you basically turn into a zombie. Fun fact: it's a disaster for your health. Totally not worth it, but some (younger) boys like the extra money.

  • dan the man (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    Kiss me I'm Polish:
    45 hour weeks? Is that legal?

    What, would you prefer that the government dictate that every company in the country must have exactly such-and-such a set of policies? Personally, I'd rather have the option of picking a job with a company whose policies I like -- or at least can tolerate in exchange for the amount they pay or whatever. I've never understood the philosophy that says, "I am completely incapable of deciding what is best for myself and then going out and getting it. I need Big Brother to tell me what is good for me and then make sure I get it."

    Don't kid yourself - the US has the worst case of Big Brother that I know of - but the Big Brother isn't Barack Obama (though he is tall, and he is... well you know), and it isn't Big Government, that you are all so worried about. It's the corporations - the ones that pay the lobbyists that bribe/corrupt the politicians.

    I am convinced that Mr Obama is doing his best to change this, but taking the food out of both lobbyist's and corrupt politician's mouths was never going to be easy. Without support from the people it will never happen. And the majority of American people apparently still haven't figured it out. And besides, B.O. has a country to run.

    Here in Denmark, you get spending money for your holidays from the government. If you don't take your holiday, you don't get the money. You can work more if you like, but your employer can't make you work more against your will - you could take them to court (lawyer paid for you) and you would win.

    So it's your choice - get money for sitting on the beach, or get maybe more money for sitting at the office.

    Why would any sane person not want that? And no, competitiveness is not a problem, any more than it is for you guys.

    Do you really think that government by the people and for the people would decide on only 2 weeks holiday? The US government is government of the people, by the corporations and for the corporations.

    B.O. is a step in the right direction - but Republicans are fighting against him with everything they've got.

    </rant>

    I get 37 hour week, 5-6 weeks holiday, 120 days paid sick leave, about 9 public holidays, sick leave for the first day a child is sick, excellent government health care and about 10 months combined maternity/paternity leave.

    I go to work because I want to go to work, not because some a-hole tells me I have to.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Bryan The K
    Bryan The K:
    Anon:
    Jay:
    I always get a laugh when the company makes some announcement of a new policy that is obviously intended to benefit the bottom line at the expense of the employees, but then they describe it as this great gift that they're giving you.

    Yeah we get that too. Our last Christmas holiday party instead of being held at a hotel, like it usually is, it was held in our cafeteria. Nevertheless, we were assured by management that it would still be "classy"! Of course, we were lucky to have a party at all.

    Yea, at my last company not only was the Christmas party moved from the hotel to the cafeteria...we had to take vacation time to go to it.

    We had to take a half day vacation if you didn't want to go to the party (which I did, but of was off anyway). It's a MFD.

  • Notadad (unregistered) in reply to DES
    DES:
    Notadad:
    DES:
    Warpedcow:
    "Single Mom" at Wendy's maybe should have thought twice about having a child if she can't afford to do so...
    Wow, are you ever out of touch with reality.
    In my reality people know what makes babies, and what doesn't. How is your reality different?

    In my reality, the single mother flipping burgers is sometimes a forty-year-old widow. In my reality, there is a recession going on, and even when there isn't, most people can't pick and choose jobs, but have to take what they're offered.

    I suspect you've been reading too much Ayn Rand.

    I'm not debating that it is hard for everyone to find a high paying job. What I'm saying is that, knowing this, why would you choose to have children before developing skills sufficient to support even yourself? And having made your choice, you accept the risk that things may go awry.

    If I didn't get the pleasure of putting the baby in there, don't ask me to pay for it when it comes out.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Kiss me I'm Polish
    Kiss me I'm Polish:
    In Europe you get paid vacation, and have regulated work time per week. But it doesn't mean companies won't screw around. In France (35h week) the workday is divided in two parts: 8:00-12:00, 2 hour lunch break, 14:00-17:00. So if the company is far from where you live, you're screwed - it's impossible to drive home and back to work and prepare somethig to eat in the meantime. Most people will go to the company cafeteria and go right back to work, effectively giving the company some unpaid time. In Belgium it's even worse. It's 38 hours / week. What does it mean is you start at 9:00, one hour break for lunch, and finish at 17:45. Which is never 17:45, but 18:00 and you're effectively giving the company 15 minutes of your time every day for free. At some companies it's 4 days x 8 hours and the Fridays are left with 6 hours. But the worst part is that you have to build up time for the holiday. You have to work a whole year before you're entitled to get your 20 days. If you get another job in the meantime, the old company pays you the equivalent money, and you get to work for another year before you can go on holiday. The worst way companies screw with employees, especially in IT, is the "on-call service". The bastard. In the worst cases you're basically supposed to be ready to work 24h a day, AND you do your 8h shift. That means you can't go to the movies, to a swimming pool or whatever, because you're supposed to be able to get your laptop working in 30 minutes max once you receive the call. The on-call is paid some comical fee ($20) a day plus the extra work time. If you get 3 calls a night, you get paid the extra 3 hours, but hey, the next day you basically turn into a zombie. Fun fact: it's a disaster for your health. Totally not worth it, but some (younger) boys like the extra money.
    [image]
  • MG (unregistered) in reply to Lego
    Lego:
    anon:
    Kiss me I'm Polish:
    45 hour weeks? Is that legal?

    Of course it is! What exactly did you think "exempt" meant?

    One of my favourite euphemisms. It doesn't mean you are exempt from working overtime, it means you are exempt from getting paid for it.

    Actually, it means being exempt from "Fair Labor Standards."

  • Bim Job (unregistered) in reply to Notadad
    Notadad:
    DES:
    Notadad:
    DES:
    Warpedcow:
    "Single Mom" at Wendy's maybe should have thought twice about having a child if she can't afford to do so...
    Wow, are you ever out of touch with reality.
    In my reality people know what makes babies, and what doesn't. How is your reality different?

    In my reality, the single mother flipping burgers is sometimes a forty-year-old widow. In my reality, there is a recession going on, and even when there isn't, most people can't pick and choose jobs, but have to take what they're offered.

    I suspect you've been reading too much Ayn Rand.

    I'm not debating that it is hard for everyone to find a high paying job. What I'm saying is that, knowing this, why would you choose to have children before developing skills sufficient to support even yourself? And having made your choice, you accept the risk that things may go awry.

    If I didn't get the pleasure of putting the baby in there, don't ask me to pay for it when it comes out.

    I doubt you'd pay for it either way. You have choices. She has choices. Yours are limited by the inability to fumble up a condom. Hers are limited by several other possibilities.

    Flipping burgers at Wendy's is, minimally, a set of skills to support even yourself. As I pointed out earlier: you might be forced to do that. Job losses, marriage failure, whatever.

    Go on, make our day. Walk in to Wendy's tomorrow (and I'm not insisting on Wendy's. It might be Starbucks. It might be anything); turn round to the assembled crowd; and shout:

    "This Is Not My Sperm!"

  • (cs)

    I'll toss in our arrangements. We're regional government, unionized, Western BC. 3 weeks vacation starting from DOH. Increased to 4 weeks at 8 years, 5 weeks at 16 years, and 6 weeks after 24 years. 5 extra days during 11th, 16th, 21st, 26th,... working years. 2 Weeks 'Special Leave' earned from working 15 extra minutes unpaid per day, starting from DOH. 4 Weeks sick time, bankable up to 261 days, starting from DOH. Up to 3 gratuity days per year, earned from not using a sick day in a fixed, 4 month period (Jan - Apr, May - Aug, Sep. - Dec) 11 Public Statutory holidays. Usually given December 24th off, with pay, and leave early on the 23rd and 31st. http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/labour/Agreements/GVRD-Teamsters-2007-11.pdf

  • (cs) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    Kiss me I'm Polish:
    In Europe you get paid vacation, and have regulated work time per week. But it doesn't mean companies won't screw around. In France (35h week) the workday is divided in two parts: 8:00-12:00, 2 hour lunch break, 14:00-17:00. So if the company is far from where you live, you're screwed - it's impossible to drive home and back to work and prepare somethig to eat in the meantime. Most people will go to the company cafeteria and go right back to work, effectively giving the company some unpaid time. In Belgium it's even worse. It's 38 hours / week. What does it mean is you start at 9:00, one hour break for lunch, and finish at 17:45. Which is never 17:45, but 18:00 and you're effectively giving the company 15 minutes of your time every day for free. At some companies it's 4 days x 8 hours and the Fridays are left with 6 hours. But the worst part is that you have to build up time for the holiday. You have to work a whole year before you're entitled to get your 20 days. If you get another job in the meantime, the old company pays you the equivalent money, and you get to work for another year before you can go on holiday. The worst way companies screw with employees, especially in IT, is the "on-call service". The bastard. In the worst cases you're basically supposed to be ready to work 24h a day, AND you do your 8h shift. That means you can't go to the movies, to a swimming pool or whatever, because you're supposed to be able to get your laptop working in 30 minutes max once you receive the call. The on-call is paid some comical fee ($20) a day plus the extra work time. If you get 3 calls a night, you get paid the extra 3 hours, but hey, the next day you basically turn into a zombie. Fun fact: it's a disaster for your health. Totally not worth it, but some (younger) boys like the extra money.

    [image]

    It's called "Amber lamps". AND WE GET FREE MEDICAL CARE IN EUROPE. Fuck yeah!

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Crabs
    Crabs:
    Just so you can all be jealous of my vacation, I work for a fortune 100 company in America. I'm 25 (so you know I have no seniority built up to earn this). We get a standard 3 weeks vacation, plus Holidays, plus enough "floating holidays" to fill up the week between Christmas and New Years, and then some. All in all we get something like 5 weeks of paid time off per year. I think this is pretty sweet, overall.

    Though, I don't take my vacation too often. I see it as a nice buffer that they have to pay me in case I get laid off.

    Not really unusual. I'm 24 and I've got close to 6 weeks vacation once you add everything up. Almost 4 weeks if you don't count fixed vacation days. I can also telecommute whenever I want with no warning and I'm actual salaried (ie: no one counts my hours as long as I get the work done). Plus I can choose my own hours as long as I'm usually there for meetings and from noon to 4pm. Sick days have no real limit and there's various benefits in case I get long term sick.

    I also actually take my vacation time each year as do my coworkers. None of the corporate BS where taking vacation time is frowned upon or the company is so badly managed you can't afford to leave for a few weeks.

    That said I love my job, I could never work in some European companies where from what I gather it's expected you don't like your job. God forbid you want to stay late to do something fun or don't follow all the other sheep. Big brother knows best after all. Stereotyping is fun, don't you think?

  • gil (unregistered) in reply to Bim Job
    Bim Job:
    I take it you've never had sex outside of marriage, then? Or changed your mind about anything? Or been beaten up by your spouse? Or had to pay the rent/mortgage/bills when that "better job" just got flushed down the toilet?
    I think it's just a difference in mentality. Most people, both in Europe and US, did at least one of the things you listed. It's just that in US, many people believe that if you did those things, you have to pay for it yourself, rather than expect the government to pay for it with other people's tax money.
  • gil (unregistered) in reply to Kiss me I'm Polish
    Kiss me I'm Polish:
    In Belgium it's even worse. It's 38 hours / week. What does it mean is you start at 9:00, one hour break for lunch, and finish at 17:45. Which is never 17:45, but 18:00
    Why? What prevents you from leaving promptly at 17:45?
  • dan the man (unregistered) in reply to Notadad

    Notadad: please never become a dad. Please rejoin the discussion when you have found a soul to replace whatever happened to yours, if you ever had one. At that time, you may reapply for a license to become a dad. Thankyou and have a nice day.

    Warpedcow: This may come as a shock to you: people out there in the world have sex - they do it all the time, several times a year, even.... without paying for it. It can be great fun, and not nearly as dangerous as some would have you think, especially if you do it with the same person. You won't go to hell or anything if you're not married. And accidents do happen to intelligent people, too. Condom's break, medicine can interact with a birth control pill to make it ineffective.

    There are alternative scenarios - women with religious beliefs about abortion who are raped and feel they must keep the child. People who earn good money and have children, whereafter their spouse falls ill, dies, gets sued, and somehow doesn't have good insurance. And by the way, who decided that poor people can't have children? (other than maybe Adolf Hitler)

    People aren't computers, and even computers don't always follow "happy days" use cases, so don't judge people by "happy days" standards.

    Life sometimes gives you lemons - always remember that - especially before you judge.

  • Notadad (unregistered) in reply to Bim Job
    Bim Job:
    Notadad:
    If I didn't get the pleasure of putting the baby in there, don't ask me to pay for it when it comes out.
    I doubt you'd pay for it either way. You have choices.
    Actually -- even though I chose not to have kids -- I don't have a choice about paying for them. Whiny hand-wringing crybabies force me to pay, directly through taxes, and indirectly through the mountain of laws they pile on my back "for da childwwen and the poooor hewpwess mudders, boo hoo!"
  • thesleeper (unregistered)

    It doesn't matter how you number toilet paper sheets. In the "end" they're all # 2.

    Captcha: paratus - two objects flushed at once which is against the directive

  • gil (unregistered) in reply to dan the man
    dan the man:
    And accidents do happen to intelligent people, too. Condom's break, medicine can interact with a birth control pill to make it ineffective.
    There are also ways to deal with those accidents. Of course, many people decide not to, due to various considerations, but then it's their considerations, and not everyone thinks the government should pay for them.
    dan the man:
    And by the way, who decided that poor people can't have children?
    It's not that they can't; it's just that some people see no reason to pay for some other people's children.
  • CrushU (unregistered) in reply to dan the man

    Actually he's really not. He's good at fooling everyone, though, especially foreigners.

    His recent appointments to the Justice Department are former RIAA industry lawyers. And Mr. Biden created a 'special task force' in the Justice Department to prop up the entertainment industry's failing business model, er, I mean, 'Combat Piracy'.

    Just like every president before and probably every one in the future, he had nice promises, but has yet to deliver.

    And don't get me started on that stupid ACTA agreement floating around.

  • Evil Code Monkey (unregistered) in reply to Wizard Stan
    Wizard Stan:
    There is one country in the "civilized" world where the mandatory paid time off is 0. That's all paid time off, including both vacation and government holidays. Would you care to guess which country it is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_employment_leave_by_country

    Obviously the other countries don't have corporate lobbyists that are as effective as ours! Go USA!

  • (cs) in reply to Notadad
    Notadad:
    DES:
    In my reality, the single mother flipping burgers is sometimes a forty-year-old widow. In my reality, there is a recession going on, and even when there isn't, most people can't pick and choose jobs, but have to take what they're offered.

    I suspect you've been reading too much Ayn Rand.

    I'm not debating that it is hard for everyone to find a high paying job. What I'm saying is that, knowing this, why would you choose to have children before developing skills sufficient to support even yourself? And having made your choice, you accept the risk that things may go awry.

    If I didn't get the pleasure of putting the baby in there, don't ask me to pay for it when it comes out.

    It's cute how you're choosing to ignore every circumstance in which having to work a menial job and having no opportunity for advancement is not in any way the worker's fault.

    Is it that you're in denial that such people exist by the tens of thousands, or do you think it's worth letting such people rot for the satisfaction of "punishing" those damned welfare queens?

  • Bob (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous

    You fling half-sucked on cough drops into her cleavage?

  • Notadad (unregistered) in reply to Tyler
    Tyler:
    Notadad:
    I'm not debating that it is hard for everyone to find a high paying job.
    It's cute how you're choosing to ignore every circumstance in which having to work a menial job and having no opportunity for advancement is not in any way the worker's fault.

    Is it that you're in denial that such people exist by the tens of thousands, or do you think it's worth letting such people rot for the satisfaction of "punishing" those damned welfare queens?

    How does acknowledging count as "ignoring" and "in denial"?

    I agree, a lot of people have undesirable jobs, and it isn't always their fault.

    All I'm saying is if they evaluate their situation, and know their present or future finances may be tight, either (a) don't have kids, or (b) accept that you're taking a chance, take a chance, and live with it. Don't ask (correction: force) me to pay for your choice.

    Why is that hard to understand? Why is there even any controversy here? Not my kid. Get it?

  • Charles (unregistered) in reply to Notadad

    Disgusting..... Most single mothers do not become single mothers by choice or by ignorance. They become single mothers because their husbands either have been worked to death, have been shot to pieces in some war, or traded them in for a newer model. By your standards single mothers should probably be forced to give up their children for adoption - or maybe they should be put out of their misery in a government sponsored euthanasia program.

  • gil (unregistered) in reply to Charles
    Charles:
    They become single mothers because their husbands either have been worked to death, have been shot to pieces in some war
    Err... Which unfortunate country is it in which a sizable fraction of single-parent families is caused by one parent dying at war or of a work-related condition?
  • marco (unregistered) in reply to Charles

    I have to pay to kill 'em too?

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous

    Yeah but I've been in the US office and "work" seems to consist mainly of sitting around on their fat arses eating popcorn and pizza all day. Us in the UK office have been known actually to be productive on the odd occasion.

  • (cs) in reply to Notadad
    Notadad:
    Tyler:
    Notadad:
    I'm not debating that it is hard for everyone to find a high paying job.
    It's cute how you're choosing to ignore every circumstance in which having to work a menial job and having no opportunity for advancement is not in any way the worker's fault.

    Is it that you're in denial that such people exist by the tens of thousands, or do you think it's worth letting such people rot for the satisfaction of "punishing" those damned welfare queens?

    How does acknowledging count as "ignoring" and "in denial"?

    I agree, a lot of people have undesirable jobs, and it isn't always their fault.

    All I'm saying is if they evaluate their situation, and know their present or future finances may be tight, either (a) don't have kids, or (b) accept that you're taking a chance, take a chance, and live with it. Don't ask (correction: force) me to pay for your choice.

    Why is that hard to understand? Why is there even any controversy here? Not my kid. Get it?

    This may be a shock to you, but not everyone who is in an adverse economic circumstance is there because they were stupid or irresponsible.

    The part that you're ignoring is the part where having a kid could have been a perfectly responsible choice at the time, and circumstances in the intervening years have changed: injury or disability, massive medical bills, victim of a crime, spouse killed, spouse abandonment, abusive spouse, job lost due to recession, job lost due to any of a thousand other no-fault reasons, natural disaster, etc, etc.

    So, in your view I suppose that since nobody is clairvoyant and nobody can know everything the future holds, nobody who starts a family is ever doing so responsibly, and therefore you've got no problem telling them to get fucked when things go wrong. You've chugged some serious Libertarian kool-aid, my friend, and I regret to inform you that Hale-Bopp won't be coming back around until 4385, so it would be advisable to come to terms with how the world really works in the mean time.

  • (cs) in reply to gil
    gil:
    Charles:
    They become single mothers because their husbands either have been worked to death, have been shot to pieces in some war
    Err... Which unfortunate country is it in which a sizable fraction of single-parent families is caused by one parent dying at war or of a work-related condition?

    Er... Which unfortunate morality is it in which it is acceptable to leave even one family like that hung out to dry for the sake of "punishing" the irresponsible?

  • Notadad (unregistered)

    Who said anything about stupidity or punishing or irresponsibility? All I said was don't make me pay for your choices. You made the decision, you take the risk.

    When you ask other people to pay for your choices, those other people start wanting to control your choices. Is that what you prefer? I don't. Make your own choices, deal with the consequences.

  • (cs) in reply to Bryan The K

    Our xmas parties are in the evenings, no problem there - but we have to pay to be able to attend them. (About 25 quid-ish since you ask.)

  • AstroBurger (unregistered) in reply to DES

    [quote user=DES] The single mother who flips your burgers at Wendy's is not. [/quote]

    I've only ever seen teenage high schoolers flipping burgers. Single mothers usually become waitresses, where if they provide good service can usually take in $40 or more per hour.

  • (cs) in reply to Bryan The K
    Bryan The K:
    Anon:
    Jay:
    I always get a laugh when the company makes some announcement of a new policy that is obviously intended to benefit the bottom line at the expense of the employees, but then they describe it as this great gift that they're giving you.

    Yeah we get that too. Our last Christmas holiday party instead of being held at a hotel, like it usually is, it was held in our cafeteria. Nevertheless, we were assured by management that it would still be "classy"! Of course, we were lucky to have a party at all.

    Yea, at my last company not only was the Christmas party moved from the hotel to the cafeteria...we had to take vacation time to go to it.

    Sorry, my last posting was in reply to this.

  • dan the man (unregistered) in reply to gil

    The thing people don't get about social responsibility is that "the other guy" is "you". "You" are "the other guy", for other people. Some people would say: "what goes around, comes around." That is, if you go hating on other people, taking away their rights, eventually someone will take away your rights, and the hate just echoes around bouncing back and forth. It's fair enough to argue for the rights of people like yourself, but you've got to be prepared to give and take.

    From a social perspective, there's no reason to be jealous because poor people will still be poorer than you, but they will have a respectable life. People who have a respectable life become respectable citizens. People who have a respectable life don't need to become criminals to survive. Fewer criminals and safer neighbours makes your life safer and better, too. (I'm not claiming that you can eliminate crime, but you can eliminate many of those that fall or are pushed into crime.)

    Suddenly you don't need guns at all. Criminals don't necessarily need guns because few others have them. There will always be crazies, of course, but my guess is more people are killed by firearms accidents than by crazies, even though it's the crazies that make the evening news.

    I can understand that Americans may find it hard to swallow my arguments, because the US is so far from this(my) reality. I'm not saying that Denmark/European countries are without problems, not a bit.

    But I grew up without ever seeing a real live gun except in the hands of soldiers (or myself/fellow students under the supervision of soldiers). And I don't remember ever fearing for my life at the hands of others - and it's not like I know Kung fu or anything. I've never been truly afraid of being unemployed, except for the potential boredom and damage to my CV/career.

    If you're still sore about paying for other people's children, have more children. That'll even things out. We need someone to keep the western 'civilized' population going anyway.

    All of the above may not make you happy, but living in fear is certainly not a route to happiness.

  • (cs) in reply to Tyler
    Tyler:
    Is it that you're in denial that such people exist by the tens of thousands, or do you think it's worth letting such people rot for the satisfaction of "punishing" those damned welfare queens?

    ITYM millions. HTH, HAND!

  • (cs) in reply to Notadad
    Notadad:
    All I'm saying is if they evaluate their situation, and know their present or future finances may be tight, either (a) don't have kids, or (b) accept that you're taking a chance, take a chance, and live with it. Don't ask (correction: force) me to pay for your choice.

    Why is that hard to understand? Why is there even any controversy here? Not my kid. Get it?

    I'm sorry, but this was never about whose kid it is. It was about laws regulating work hours and paid vacations.

  • tux (unregistered) in reply to Warpedcow
    Warpedcow:
    DES:
    Jay:
    I've never understood the philosophy that says, "I am completely incapable of deciding what is best for myself and then going out and getting it. I need Big Brother to tell me what is good for me and then make sure I get it."

    You may be capable of deciding what is best for yourself. The single mother who flips your burgers at Wendy's is not. It's not that she's dumb or spineless, it's just that she knows her options far too well: cave in or lose her job.

    You forget her third option: get a better job.

    Also, "Single Mom" at Wendy's maybe should have thought twice about having a child if she can't afford to do so...

    Not all single moms were single when they had the child. Some have divorces, some get out of bad situations, and some have husbands who pass away. I personally have a good friend who went from being a stay-at-home mom to a single mom working to make ends meet after her husband was in a fatal car crash. Luckily, she had some skills and was able to get a pretty good job, but not all moms are that lucky.

  • (cs) in reply to Notadad
    Notadad:
    Who said anything about stupidity or punishing or irresponsibility? All I said was don't make me pay for your choices. You made the decision, you take the risk.

    When you ask other people to pay for your choices, those other people start wanting to control your choices. Is that what you prefer? I don't. Make your own choices, deal with the consequences.

    So, yeah, like I said about the Libertarian kool-aid.

    The whole "every man for himself" sounds great until you personally get fucked and need somebody to help you out. Despite what you think, you are not immune from potentially needing the help of your fellow man someday, whether it be disaster relief or simply that you find yourself working for someone who is treating you unfairly and you have no other prospects for income. You are kidding yourself if you think you would refuse help on principle.

    There are plenty of bad things that can happen to you that are not strictly speaking, consequences of your actions. Natural disaster, crime, macroeconomic collapse, war, non-preventable disease, death or injury of a family member, etc. These can fuck you over even if you haven't gotten married or had kids or done anything risky at all other than work a job and then go home and play World of Warcraft every night.

    And you might say "oh but insurance!" and yeah if you were lucky enough to be born into a wealthy enough family that you could get a good enough education to get a good enough job to buy all the different insurances you would need to cover every possible contingency, that might be the answer. But by the same token of "why should I pay for others' choices?" I ask "why should you be rewarded for the circumstances of your birth?"

    Labor laws and social safety nets exist for two reasons: because anyone, no matter how rich, educated, intelligent, or responsible may be in need of them someday, and because we do not by any means all start off on the same footing in life. The person who has moved up from a dysfunctional, abusive family with an absent father and a drug-addicted mother to actually graduate high school and manage to hold down a job at Wendy's has actually accomplished something a great deal more difficult than someone like you has by growing up in an affluent suburb with a relatively supportive family, going to college, and landing a desk job in IT, and yet you claim that that person's employer should not be held to humane standards of employment because clearly they must have been relegated to that job due to some risk that was taken in their past.

    So, no, I'm not asking others to pay for any poor choices I make, and like you I don't like paying for the poor choices of others. If the world were a Libertarian paradise, I'd love to keep the money from my paycheck that currently allocated to OASDI, Medicare, and federal and state tax, and I'd love to be able to pay less for products that I buy that could be sold more cheaply if labor laws were relaxed. But because I recognize the reality that not everyone in this country has been as fortunate with the events in their lives or was born into as much privilege as you and I, and so unlike you I am willing to support strong labor laws and wide-reaching social programs, because helping the people who deserve it is more important than spiting the people who don't.

  • Notadad (unregistered) in reply to DES
    DES:
    Notadad:
    All I'm saying is if they evaluate their situation, and know their present or future finances may be tight, either (a) don't have kids, or (b) accept that you're taking a chance, take a chance, and live with it. Don't ask (correction: force) me to pay for your choice.

    Why is that hard to understand? Why is there even any controversy here? Not my kid. Get it?

    I'm sorry, but this was never about whose kid it is. It was about laws regulating work hours and paid vacations.

    Then why did you bring "The single mother who flips your burgers at Wendy's" into it? Why didn't you just say "the person...". You are saying that because someone is a single mother, "I need Big Brother to tell me what is good for me and then make sure I get it." (the quote you were replying to) and you also said your dear single mother is not capable of deciding for herself.

    So, yeah, if you want to regulate work hours and vacations, do it without saying it is because the helpless single mothers are not capable of deciding so Big Brother has to step in.

  • dan the man (unregistered) in reply to Tyler
    Tyler:
    .... helping the people who deserve it is more important than spiting the people who don't.

    amen to that

    ....(or non-religious equivalent).

  • WonkoTheSane (unregistered) in reply to Warpedcow
    Warpedcow:
    Also, "Single Mom" at Wendy's maybe should have thought twice about having a child if she can't afford to do so...

    Hmmmm... Perhaps at the time the mum and her partner could afford the child, perhaps through sickness, injury or death her partner is unable to work so she has no other option than to work in a low paid job. Im affraid that the view you have of the world may be a little too narrow for you to be making the kind of judgments that you are...

  • Bruce (unregistered)

    at least Debbie A didn't say "Please bare with me." (which is what one of our IT ops people once put in an email.)

  • anon (unregistered)

    All the single-mothers at McDonald's that I have known were promiscuous high school girls. I don't want to subsidize them.

    As far as vacation: US Fixed Holidays: I get federal holidays + a few "company" holidays. Vacation: 2 weeks PTO: 2 weeks It is my first year with the company.

    I can work remotely and set my own hours except for 15 "office hours" per week which I scheduled when I started.

    I am exempt from office hours due to inclement weather or other conditions that prevent getting to the office or working effectively once in the office.

    We aren't allowed to work any overtime.

  • WonkoTheSane (unregistered) in reply to Notadad
    Notadad:
    Bim Job:
    Notadad:
    If I didn't get the pleasure of putting the baby in there, don't ask me to pay for it when it comes out.
    I doubt you'd pay for it either way. You have choices.
    Actually -- even though I chose not to have kids -- I don't have a choice about paying for them. Whiny hand-wringing crybabies force me to pay, directly through taxes, and indirectly through the mountain of laws they pile on my back "for da childwwen and the poooor hewpwess mudders, boo hoo!"

    Another Hmmmm... Just like to point out that when your 80-90 in a home looking for some one to help you wipe your ass its gonna be one of those kids thats doing it. We already have an aging population, without kids there will be no one to support us when we retire... PLUS... your view is a little short sighted as those kids (mostly) will grow up to work and pay tax which will support you when you retire/cant work and have to claim benefits etc. Going by your logic I could argue that ALL schools should be paid for by the parents, which in turn would mean that families who cant afford to educate their kids wont, which will lead to even bigger problems.

  • Asiago Chow (unregistered)

    Here in Texas I get 24 vacation 10 holiday.

    What's really great, though, is that under the laws of my country (USA) I can negotiate any terms I want. I know two people who have negotiated to get about 140 days (a little over 1000 hours) of vacation a year. I'm talking about high tech workers, not teachers. Years ago when I valued money more than free time I negotiated to take 0 vacation days a year. Both are perfectly legal here, and that rocks. Personal freedom FTW!

    Why in hell would anyone want to live in a place where they weren't allowed to set their own employement terms? That's the definition of slavery.

  • WonkoTheSane (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    Yeah but I've been in the US office and "work" seems to consist mainly of sitting around on their fat arses eating popcorn and pizza all day. Us in the UK office have been known actually to be productive on the odd occasion.

    Clearly you have not been into MY office :)

  • Duane (unregistered) in reply to Notadad
    Notadad:
    Tyler:
    Notadad:
    I'm not debating that it is hard for everyone to find a high paying job.
    It's cute how you're choosing to ignore every circumstance in which having to work a menial job and having no opportunity for advancement is not in any way the worker's fault.

    Is it that you're in denial that such people exist by the tens of thousands, or do you think it's worth letting such people rot for the satisfaction of "punishing" those damned welfare queens?

    How does acknowledging count as "ignoring" and "in denial"?

    I agree, a lot of people have undesirable jobs, and it isn't always their fault.

    All I'm saying is if they evaluate their situation, and know their present or future finances may be tight, either (a) don't have kids, or (b) accept that you're taking a chance, take a chance, and live with it. Don't ask (correction: force) me to pay for your choice.

    Why is that hard to understand? Why is there even any controversy here? Not my kid. Get it?

    Yes, the mother & the kid are holding you at knifepoint making you pay your taxes. We all pay them, they go to vital social services. Live with it like the rest of us, lest you find yourself in their circumstances. Fuckjob.

    Captcha: eros: the act of making babies

Leave a comment on “More Best of the EmaiL”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article