The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

gil:
DES:
No one here is talking about subsidies except you and Notadad. We're talking about labor laws and regulations concerning work hours, overtime and vacations.
But the end effect of that is those subsidies. If it costs more for Wendys to have a burger flipper (because there are four weeks when they don't work but have to be paid), then the effect of that is that Wendys burgers will get more expensive, which means customers will have to pay more. I.e. in the end customers will have to pay for those vacations. Now, clearly there are some customers who don't mind paying a few cents per burger to allow a person to have a vacation. Note that they already have a way to do it. Most places have a "tip jar" where you can deposit whatever amount you think is appropriate for the benefit of the staff. But there are also customers who don't want to do that.

If that chaps your ass so much, don't eat there. Find some other place where unhappy burger flippers spit in your soda.

davedavenotdavemaybedave · 2010-03-05 Reply Admin

Doozerboy:
The 'second round' of Ni is employers NI in addition to employee's Ni which i fully agree is a righteous scam. But since you are your own boss, employing yourself, and due to some funky Uk laws can't really operate as a sole trader, you're obliged to pay it.

I think you've misunderstood: that company was actually stealing from their employees by adding fake taxable items and hoping they didn't notice. Certainly a righteous scam, but actually criminal. Those guys went to jail not long after I left - and it really was just a coincidence of timing. They were a 'telephone market research' company (a long time ago...) who were making up the numbers as they went along, instead of actually calling people.

What you're describing is totally illegal under uk employment laws for regular employees. If the companies you've used have required you to operate as a contractor to get around these laws, then presumedly they've paid you handsomely for it.

It's not totally illegal - talking about the holiday pay/sick leave bit here, not the stealing - but it is borderline. The problem is that it's impossible to prove that the company breached the law. You go along to an interview, go through their selection process, get the job, and two weeks later, you find out what they've actually got in their standard contract: opt-out of every employment law in existence by calling yourself 'self-employed' or whatnot, or they won't give you the job.

Also, I suspect your lofty perch in your ivory tower is preventing you seeing the reality on the ground: people only employ 'contractors' even in full time positions these days. They don't pay any extra for the privilege.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

davedavenotdavemaybedave:
It's not totally illegal - talking about the holiday pay/sick leave bit here, not the stealing - but it is borderline. The problem is that it's impossible to prove that the company breached the law. You go along to an interview, go through their selection process, get the job, and two weeks later, you find out what they've actually got in their standard contract...

I have never ever accepted a job without reading the entire contract and the full terms of employment. No disrespect but you can't complain about taking a shitty job if, by your own admission, you don't bother to read the full terms of the contract you're signing.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

Shhhhh! Don't tell them!

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

mfah:
V:
Why, what is other places?
The legal minimum in the EU is 4 weeks, and that's by no means the highest worldwide. In fact the US is very much the exception in giving such a shitty small amount of time.

Shhhh! don't tell them!

(Make a lot more sense with the quoted reference)

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

Hoorah! I live in France too. A British ex-pat. 67 days holiday per year! awesome.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

Kiss me I'm Polish:
It's called "Amber lamps". AND WE GET FREE MEDICAL CARE IN EUROPE. Fuck yeah!

I hate to be pedantic, but it's not free. You pay for it. What's the average tax rate in EU again? On the order of 50% if you make a decent living?

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

WildcatMike:
Recently, someone was talking on the phone and not watching where he was going, and walked into a guard rail in the parking lot. We got a all employee email (to thousands of employees) with a full root cause analysis of the accident and a detailed tip sheet on how to walk safely.

It's undoubtedly a confluence to two well-meaning policies producing absurd results together.

Policy 1: All incident reports shall be analyzed to determine root cause, then preventative action shall be taken.

That's reasonable, isn't it? You have an accident in the factory, you want to figure out why and prevent it from happening again.

Policy 2: Any injury shall be documented in an incident report.

Also reasonable. Someone gets hurt on the job, you've got to document it. Heck, there are probably legal and/or insurance requirements to do so.

So, two reasonable policies taken together to produce absurd results. Guy gets injured at work, so an incident report gets filled out. Because there's an incident report, they have to perform analysis and prevention. That's what the policy says. You don't follow your policies, you fail your ISO9000 audit. And you don't want to fail your ISO9000 audit!

Reminds me of the time I got injured at work. The department secretary was standing nearby and helped find me a bandage. Then she said, "You have to fill out an incident report." I declined. "It's an injury at work, you have to." No, really. I'm not going to fill out an incident report because I nicked my finger while slicing a bagel.

TRWTF is ISO9000, but I digress.

/causa: I have to fill in the CAPTCHA 'causa I'm anonymous.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

frits:
Frank:
In Germany vacation has to be a minimum of 4 weeks per year.

That explains why the German company my former employer bought couldn't ever turn a profit.

Because in your company, you work 48 weeks to cover the running cost, and two weeks for profit?

frits · 2010-03-05 Reply Admin

peterchen:
frits:
Frank:
In Germany vacation has to be a minimum of 4 weeks per year.

That explains why the German company my former employer bought couldn't ever turn a profit.

Because in your company, you work 48 weeks to cover the running cost, and two weeks for profit?

Actually, I work for the future. My efforts are amortized over years. But thanks for taking my obviously flippant remark seriously.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

davedavenotdavemaybedave:
Anonymous:
GP:
mfah:
V:
Why, what is other places?
The legal minimum in the EU is 4 weeks, and that's by no means the highest worldwide. In fact the US is very much the exception in giving such a shitty small amount of time.

I've always wondered, how many paid Holidays do you get in addition to your vacation time? 12 or 13 is pretty typical in the states. Do you additionally get sick time, or is "vacation" really a Paid Time Off bank?
It is all paid, we don't do unpaid holidays. Sick leave is variable but for most companies it is in addition to any holiday time. Last year I had a motorbike accident for which I received six weeks off at full pay. This was in addition to my paid holiday days (which equated to about 4 weeks).

I don't know where you work, but everywhere I've ever worked in the UK was the minimum 28 days, but it was unpaid and including public holidays. Oh, there was some accounting fiction where they took some of your paycheck each week and granted it back so they were 'paying' holiday time, but it was all your own (already taxed) money. One place I worked would deduct a second round of tax and NI contributions and hope you didn't notice. Since you weren't liable to pay, they could keep the cash unless you complained.

As for paid sick leave, I don't know what alternate reality you live in, but this isn't the Seventies any more. Most places, taking six weeks off in hospital in a full-body cast means you won't have a job to come back to. Labour laws mean bugger-all in this country, because they're all opt-out - and you can't keep a job if you don't opt-out.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

[quote user="Grovesy"][quote user="davedavenotdavemaybedave"]

I don't know where you work, but everywhere I've ever worked in the UK was the minimum 28 days, but it was unpaid and including public holidays. Oh, there was some accounting fiction where they took some of your paycheck each week and granted it back so they were 'paying' holiday time, but it was all your own (already taxed) money. One place I worked would deduct a second round of tax and NI contributions and hope you didn't notice. Since you weren't liable to pay, they could keep the cash unless you complained.

As for paid sick leave, I don't know what alternate reality you live in, but this isn't the Seventies any more. Most places, taking six weeks off in hospital in a full-body cast means you won't have a job to come back to. Labour laws mean bugger-all in this country, because they're all opt-out - and you can't keep a job if you don't opt-out.[/quote]

Sounds like you were a contractor working for an umbrella company? that's was my deal until I set up my own limited company.. which is the same (no sick pay, no holiday pay, you only get paid the hours you work)

Umbrella companies often deduct money into a holiday fund which is then given back to you when you take holiday or your contract end. Being a contractor and being sick for 4 weeks is libable to get you fired... depending on the project your working for and your employer and how valuable you are to the project

When I've been a full time employee in the UK, I've had between 20-30 days paid holiday AND the 8 public days, never had to sign the opt out clause or been asked to, though the pay is probably 1/2 that of being a contractor (do you value your paid holiday, sick pay etc is the question)

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

lolwtf:
Best of the unnoticed title typos?
The first one makes me think "the law requires us to warn everyone about this, so here you go."

Brett M needs to learn how to use apostrophe's.

I can see spellcheck correcting "NewDev" to "Nude", but how did this go unnoticed? Even if it were one of those silly auto-correct systems, would you not notice a word's been changed?

Silly, silly people.

When you're in a hurry it happens easily. Every time I type HR on my blackberry, the auto correct to HOUR often gets missed.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

Could be me, but I don't see the WTF in the 2nd e-mail (regarding the vacation time) ? Someone care to explain ?

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

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...

[image]

Just recently a supposedly "very stable" relationship among my friends split into a happy-in-love bachelor and a single mom with two kids, the youngest less than a year old. She's got a good profession and no problem finding a job - still, it's hard for her to make ends meet alone. Imagining the conditions and pay at fast food joints, you deserve a thorough punch in the face. From all single moms in your country. May you grow up to get a grip on reality.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

Kiss me I'm Polish:
45 hour weeks? Is that legal?

i guess you dont know how america works at all? i work 60 hours a week as a salary employee for a large wireless carrier which we'll call "the deathstar", and i only get paid for 45. not only is that legal, but it's also a fairly common practice.

captcha: minim. add an e and we are in business.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

WonkoTheSane:
Wait.. What.. Violence? armed enforcers? It may be different over there in Iraq but in the rest of the world there are normally quite civilised court processes for non payment of tax.. Never heard of some one being threatened with violence for non payment (CCJ maybe, violence? Naaah)

Here's an article, one of many: Armed IRS Agents Swarm Downtown Building

In the US, the IRS is not above using their SWAT trained enforcers to collect tax payments.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

monkeypants:
My company's justification for "40-45 hours/week" policy (i.e. just 40 is frowned on):
assume 40 hours/week (40 hours/week) * (52 weeks/year) = 2080 hours/year (2080 hours/year) / (12 months/year) = 173.33 hours/month (173.33 hours/month) / (4 weeks/month) = 43.33 hours/week

So, if you work 43.33 hours per week, they'll give you 4 weeks off? I'd take that deal. (52 / 4 = 13)

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

db:
That respectable woman probably has to flirt a lot for that $40 per hour so it's really not removed a mile from pole dancing instead of being a fair job with a fair wage as it is in other places.

Nope. Most people tip well for good service. Flirting with me does not earn you a good tip. Bringing me my meal quickly, as I ordered it, and checking frequently to refill my coffee, will earn you a good tip.

My daughter worked as a waitress for a while in high school, it was not uncommon for her to bring home $120-$140 in cash for a three hour dinner shift in addition to her wages, and flirting was not involved (if you knew my daughter, you'd know that she doesn't flirt with strangers).

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

Chris:
V:
Anon:
Of course, as always, TRWTF is that 2 weeks a year vacation is considered acceptable in the US.

Why, what is other places?
Germany: 30 days (ie six weeks).

Plus the 13 public holidays here in Bavaria :-D

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

AstroBurger:
My daughter worked as a waitress for a while in high school, it was not uncommon for her to bring home $120-$140 in cash for a three hour dinner shift in addition to her wages, and flirting was not involved (if you knew my daughter, you'd know that she doesn't flirt with strangers).

But she doesn't have anything against flirting with the regulars, does she?

And now that I think about it, maybe the reason they became regulars wasn't the food after all...

Jokes apart, is your daughter hot? Sometimes that is all that is needed to count as a flirt on the eyes of the tipper.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

dan the man:
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.

Hmm, so there are no possible adverse consequence to having sex, thus there's no reason for people not to do it all they want. But "accidents do happen" so the rest of society should then have to pay for the adverse consequences of your irresonsible sex.

And how do you know that "you won't go to hell" for it? Have you received a direct divine revelation on this point, or did you simply make this up because it's what you would like to believe? (According to Christianity, any violation of God's laws is sufficient to send you to hell, but forgiveness is readily available to all just by asking for it, so no sin need send you to hell.)

Apparently both your religious beliefs and your approach to practical decisions in life are based on the principle of "wishing makes it so".

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

Bim Job:
I take it you've never had sex outside of marriage, then?

Well, actually, no, I haven't.

Or changed your mind about anything?

Sure I have. But when I make a decision that puts me into a difficult situation, I accept responsibility for my own actions and don't demand that everyone else in the world pay the consequences of my decisions so that I can get a free ride.

Or been beaten up by your spouse?

No, though my ex did threaten me with a baseball bat once and throw things at me quite often.

Or had to pay the rent/mortgage/bills when that "better job" just got flushed down the toilet?

Yes, I was unemployed once and still had to manage to pay the bills. And I'm all for having charities to help people in difficult situations. But there's a difference between charities in which people voluntarily help others who are in need, and laws that force people to help others whether they have real need or have simply figured out how to manipulate the system.

I've taken in a number of homeless people over the years and tried to help them out and get on their feet. And in the course of it I noticed an interesting thing. There are some people who are poor because of circumstances beyond their control. (Like, when having a young black man living with our family, I learned that racism is not as dead as I used to think.) I'm sure there are some people who are poor because they made decisions that seemed reasonable at the time but turned out badly. But most of the poor people I worked with were poor because they were lazy and irresponsible.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

fwip:
RogerWilco:
A) Firearms: I can only say, the USA has one of the highest numbers in murders by firearms per capita in the world (27 times higher than he UK for example): http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
When you outlaw firearms, only outlaws will have firearms.
Honestly, that's kind of like quoting a statistic that Indian reservations are home to more gambling than the rest of the US. Sure, it's true, but do the numbers mean that Native Americans all have gambling addictions?

Honestly, that's like replacing the word "regulate" with the word "outlaw," and expecting the resultant sentence to mean exactly the same thing.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

Jay:
Bim Job:
I take it you've never had sex outside of marriage, then?

Well, actually, no, I haven't.

Or changed your mind about anything?

Sure I have. But when I make a decision that puts me into a difficult situation, I accept responsibility for my own actions and don't demand that everyone else in the world pay the consequences of my decisions so that I can get a free ride.

Or been beaten up by your spouse?
No, though my ex did threaten me with a baseball bat once and throw things at me quite often.
Or had to pay the rent/mortgage/bills when that "better job" just got flushed down the toilet?

Yes, I was unemployed once and still had to manage to pay the bills. And I'm all for having charities to help people in difficult situations. But there's a difference between charities in which people voluntarily help others who are in need, and laws that force people to help others whether they have real need or have simply figured out how to manipulate the system.

I've taken in a number of homeless people over the years and tried to help them out and get on their feet. And in the course of it I noticed an interesting thing. There are some people who are poor because of circumstances beyond their control. (Like, when having a young black man living with our family, I learned that racism is not as dead as I used to think.) I'm sure there are some people who are poor because they made decisions that seemed reasonable at the time but turned out badly. But most of the poor people I worked with were poor because they were lazy and irresponsible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was actually responding to Warpedcow, who shows all the signs of being a demented follower of Ayn Rand.

You, on the other hand, appear to be normal. I'd quibble a bit about the "most of the poor people I worked with" bit, partly because it carries an implicit moral judgement, but I've noticed the same interesting thing too. That's probably why both you and I are down several thousands for acts of charity that will never be paid back. Sorta what charity means, really.

However, wishing for universal individual responsibility, commending charitable behaviour, and deprecating the naughty amongst us is a far cry from being a miserable git who won't pay his taxes unless he gets every single goddamn penny back.

Let alone from moderate laws that offer some sort of protection to those in work, flippin' burgers at Wendy's or whatever.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

Jay:
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.

Hmm, so there are no possible adverse consequence to having sex, ....... irresonsible sex.

And how do you know that "you won't go to hell" for it? Have you received a direct divine revelation on this point, or did you simply make this up because it's what you would like to believe? (According to Christianity, any violation of God's laws is sufficient to send you to hell, but forgiveness is readily available to all just by asking for it, so no sin need send you to hell.)

Apparently both your religious beliefs and your approach to practical decisions in life are based on the principle of "wishing makes it so".

Why do you assume I have a religion - as it happens I visit the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - I assume from your answer that you are Christian.

It's a fantastic principle, isn't it, sin.... sin is terrible, oh so terrible, you mustn't do it. But actually at the end of the day if you say sorry it doesn't matter and you go to heaven anyway.... hurra!!

I didn't say that there were no possible adverse consequences to sex - if you don't use proper birth control, or through some accident the birth control doesn't work, you may end up with children. Personally I see this as a good thing. Sexually transmitted diseases are possible too... but only if one or both partners is promiscuous (or has the disease from birth). Another "adverse effect" of sex is improved fitness and better cardiovascular health as well as happiness and general well-being.

No, I don't base my decisions on "wishing makes it so", I base it on a detailed knowledge of Science - medicine, physics, biology, mathematics and engineering.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

dan the man:
I rather hoped that in this forum I could get some sort of republican analysis of why their system is better

Oh, I thought it was clear from what I wrote, but no problem, I can also write it explicitly. I think that system is better because in that system I can keep more money for myself and have to give away less of it to people I don't necessarily care about.

dan the man:
I am looking for facts linked together in an argument, without the use of "I feel".

I think that "I feel" is actually one of the fundamental arguments in this case. Basically, you are asking whether there are reasons to believe that one system is objectively better than another. To answer this, you need to start by defining what's "better". A socialist's definition will not necessarily coincide with a liberal's, and I don't think there are ways to settle this other than "I feel".

And even if you do manage to arrive at a commonly accepted definition of "better", it will still be very hard to determine which system produces a better outcome. Say we agree that "better" means higher GDP; I don't think there are ways to simulate a set of laws and determine which one will give a higher GDP. So eventually you'll end up with arguments like "I feel this will give better GDP" vs. "no, I feel that will give better GDP".

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

I also worked for that company. Very family friendly, well at least for their family.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

R Paul:
Anon:
Really hotels should be required to have those lighted strips on the floors like they have on aeroplanes going from the bed to the bathroom.
Required? As in if you don't remodel all your hotels within 6 months we will send people with guns to kidnap you and lock you in a cell?
Really this knee-jerk "OMFG someone bumped his head we need a new law!" mentality is TRWTF. I mean seriously, dude (or ditz), is the government where you live doing such a fantastic job with everything they try to tackle that the biggest problem remaining is one lousy head bump? And do they have money left over to enforce this new law or are they in a pinch like most everywhere else for trying to do way too F-ing much already?

WHOOOOOOOOOSSSSHHHHH!!1!

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

Doug:
Anon:
Note that, if you chose to work the extra hour, it must done within the same two-week pay period.

The [evil] genius here is that it makes it impossible to take all two weeks of vacation at once (unless you burn through sick / personal time).

Of course, as always, TRWTF is that 2 weeks a year vacation is considered acceptable in the US.

I read somewhere (I'll post source if I find it) that not only do we have fewer vacation days, but we don't even use the ones that we have. And I've also heard that we work longer weeks on average, too. We probably make up for it by slacking off more during the day.

I did find this interesting: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Yearly_working_time_2004.jpg

It's the average number of hours worked per year by country: the USA is near the top, but Korea takes the cake!

I love the Dutch! Tall, amazonian women riding around on death-cycles in mini-skirts, and everyone's too fucking stoned to work more than ~1300 hours/year...

davedavenotdavemaybedave · 2010-03-05 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
davedavenotdavemaybedave:
It's not totally illegal - talking about the holiday pay/sick leave bit here, not the stealing - but it is borderline. The problem is that it's impossible to prove that the company breached the law. You go along to an interview, go through their selection process, get the job, and two weeks later, you find out what they've actually got in their standard contract...
I have never ever accepted a job without reading the entire contract and the full terms of employment. No disrespect but you can't complain about taking a shitty job if, by your own admission, you don't bother to read the full terms of the contract you're signing.

Oh, I read the contract, and said WTF. But the point is that they (and everyone else) advertises a full-time, employee position, and then, after jumping through all their hoops, tell you that you'll actually be a 'contractor' or 'self-employed'. You can either walk out of there, staying with your current shitty 'employer' until you find someone good, or take the job.

This is in the context of comparing UK to US holiday, by the way. I'm just making the point that most people in this country don't actually get 28 days paid leave, so much as 20 days unpaid.

And mainly, I'm just trying to distract from that dreary non-debate about whether Wendy's burgers are made of babies, or whatever it was.

davedavenotdavemaybedave · 2010-03-05 Reply Admin

[quote user="Grovesy"][quote user="Grovesy"]

Sounds like you were a contractor working for an umbrella company? that's was my deal until I set up my own limited company.. which is the same (no sick pay, no holiday pay, you only get paid the hours you work)

Umbrella companies often deduct money into a holiday fund which is then given back to you when you take holiday or your contract end. Being a contractor and being sick for 4 weeks is libable to get you fired... depending on the project your working for and your employer and how valuable you are to the project

When I've been a full time employee in the UK, I've had between 20-30 days paid holiday AND the 8 public days, never had to sign the opt out clause or been asked to, though the pay is probably 1/2 that of being a contractor (do you value your paid holiday, sick pay etc is the question)[/quote]

Out of the ~20 jobs I've been offered/negotiated salary with in the last three years, I think only one company had employees instead of 'self-employed' staff or 'contractors'. They were all advertised as full-time, fully employed positions, though, and at non-contractor rates, in the expectation that most people who have decided to take a job somewhere, negotiated their paypacket, etc will be sufficiently invested in the process that the amount being knocked off when the company tells them they're only a contractor isn't enough to make them walk away.

Now I really only bother with jobs that say they are contract to start with. At least that employer's not obviously dishonest from the very start.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

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...

No need to be a dick. There is an awful lot of chance and circumstance beyond anyone's direct control, even when one makes the best possible decisions.

May you never discover this first-hand, friend.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

Bim Job:
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...
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?

It's comments like this that make me think the Cultural Revolution wasn't such a bad idea, after all.

Amen, brother.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

dan the man:
It's a fantastic principle, isn't it, sin.... sin is terrible, oh so terrible, you mustn't do it. But actually at the end of the day if you say sorry it doesn't matter and you go to heaven anyway.... hurra!!

Actually that is one oversimplified (to the point of incorrectness) version of Christianity take on the subject, interpreted by non-christians. And I agree with Jay that there was no need to delve more in the matter than he did. If you want to discuss it further Jay probably wouldn't mind doing so, but that is something to do in another thread, separated form this as we are too far off-topic.

dan the man:
No, I don't base my decisions on "wishing makes it so", I base it on a detailed knowledge of Science - medicine, physics, biology, mathematics and engineering.

Your decisions maybe, but religious belief is a field where science isn't actually your best help. (I'm pretty sure that someone is bound to misunderstand that last sentence, but I'll explain it after it happens.)

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

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.

Thanks for this return to sanity. ;)

Douchey troll is douchey.

...and i'm a fucking hard-core libertarian/randian.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

gil:
Oh, I thought it was clear from what I wrote, but no problem, I can also write it explicitly. I think that system is better because in that system I can keep more money for myself and have to give away less of it to people I don't necessarily care about.

Well, since we're being explicit:

What makes you think that you've earned your money, rather that having it given to you by people (managers, corporations, even government) who don't necessarily care about you, and would be more than happy to pay you less, so that they can keep more money for themselves?

In what obvious economic sense do you differ from a single mother flipping burgers at Wendy's?

I'm not arguing for what Americans erroneously call "socialism." I'm arguing for sanity and balance.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

Notadad:
dan the man:
Yeah... people think "insurance: good, taxes: bad", but in the end they are the same thing.
Uhhh, when I buy insurance I have a choice who to buy it from, how much I think I want, what coverage is important to me or not, and so on. With taxes I have no choice. The money is taken by threats of violence against me if I don't fork it over. No, the single mom isn't holding a knife to my throat, the tax agent is doing it allegedly on her behalf.
So all you folks insisting how much better it is to have a system run by violence instead of choice, just listen to yourselves. Really? You really want armed enforcers controlling everyone and everything because you're afraid some people might make choices that don't lead to the outcomes you think are better for them?

Yeah, but she's getting the tiniest fraction of the money you're complaining about. Granted, that doesn't change the fact that the welfare system currently in place is fuck-tarded and easy as hell to game, but it's retarded to focus your hate and anger on her. Stop whining about the other helpless pawns in this game. The knife and the tax-man are not her surrogate. They belong to your bumbling electorate dumb-fucks.

A much more effective strawman would be to rail against the inefficient government spending that requires grotesque amounts of income tax in the first place. I mean, punish me because i'm willing to work (correction: unable to not without going crazy, due to my internal composition)?!? Wtf is that?

Fuck income tax.

Use-based taxes are ok.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

ideo:
Thanks for this return to sanity. ;)
Douchey troll is douchey.

...and i'm a fucking hard-core libertarian/randian.

Digged up +5 on the Ayn Rand website...

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

Bim Job:
What makes you think that you've earned your money, rather that having it given to you by people (managers, corporations, even government) who don't necessarily care about you, and would be more than happy to pay you less, so that they can keep more money for themselves?

The reason is that my salary, rather than being prescribed by the government, is based on a negotiation between me and my employer. This employer had a chance to pay me less and keep more money for themselves if they wanted to. Instead they decided to give more money to me and keep less for themselves.

Bim Job:
In what obvious economic sense do you differ from a single mother flipping burgers at Wendy's?

I don't think I do. Just like that single mother, I don't have a minimum vacation mandated by the government. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm different somehow.

PeriSoft · 2010-03-05 Reply Admin

quisling:
I love the Dutch! Tall, amazonian women riding around on death-cycles in mini-skirts, and everyone's too fucking stoned to work more than ~1300 hours/year...

Not only that, my research shows that approximately 109% of Dutchlander... Nethish... Hollish... people who live in the Netherlands are trance DJs. Even the ones trained as lawyers.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

Jay:
dan the man:
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.

Hmm, so there are no possible adverse consequence to having sex, thus there's no reason for people not to do it all they want. But "accidents do happen" so the rest of society should then have to pay for the adverse consequences of your irresonsible sex.

And how do you know that "you won't go to hell" for it? Have you received a direct divine revelation on this point, or did you simply make this up because it's what you would like to believe? (According to Christianity, any violation of God's laws is sufficient to send you to hell, but forgiveness is readily available to all just by asking for it, so no sin need send you to hell.)

Apparently both your religious beliefs and your approach to practical decisions in life are based on the principle of "wishing makes it so".

Well, since you chose the Umbrella corporation of "Christianity", i think i ought to point out that none of the "divine words" in their "holy book" actually condemn extra-marital sex.

Only adultery. You know, violating the contract you made.

It's actually a fun read, that bible (especially the OT), full of deceit, corruption, sex and intrigue, if you make it past the creation myths and the books-long literal interpretation of "Honor thy father and mother, that thy days may be long on [this earth]" bits.*

*(hint: it's the begats. they're not talking about living long, they're talking about being remembered. If you don't make a tradition of remembering your ancestors, why would your descendants remember you?)

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

whichdoc:
Could be me, but I don't see the WTF in the 2nd e-mail (regarding the vacation time) ? Someone care to explain ?

I don't really either...

The company changed their work days to 9 hours. If you want to take 2 weeks off you need to use 90 hours to make up for it. You get 80 hours of vacation so you can make up the extra 10 by using sick/personal time or you can work it.

The closest I can come to WTF is because they still call it 2 weeks of vacation when its only 16/9 weeks of vacation, but that's just a terminology thing. Maybe a small wtf is if they only allowed you to take 8 vacation hours in a given day since that would mean you either need to work a 10 hours day the next or need to use a personal day rather than just using 9 hours vacation.

Other than that it's a fairly typical large company plan. They don't make as much money so they for employees to work more without paying them more to increase productivity per dollar spent.

Granted it's a douchebag move to do from a personnel/personal perspective, but it makes perfect sense from a logical/accounting perspective.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

the beholder:
But she doesn't have anything against flirting with the regulars, does she?
And now that I think about it, maybe the reason they became regulars wasn't the food after all...

Jokes apart, is your daughter hot? Sometimes that is all that is needed to count as a flirt on the eyes of the tipper.

Well, the "regulars" were mostly other high school students and (in season) performers from the Renn Faire, most of whom she knew since she was 5 years old or so.

Hot? She's attractive, but not "hot". I went in periodically to keep an eye out (plus the food was pretty good) and never noticed her flirting with any of the customers.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

ideo:
Jay:
dan the man:
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.

Hmm, so there are no possible adverse consequence to having sex, thus there's no reason for people not to do it all they want. But "accidents do happen" so the rest of society should then have to pay for the adverse consequences of your irresonsible sex.

And how do you know that "you won't go to hell" for it? Have you received a direct divine revelation on this point, or did you simply make this up because it's what you would like to believe? (According to Christianity, any violation of God's laws is sufficient to send you to hell, but forgiveness is readily available to all just by asking for it, so no sin need send you to hell.)

Apparently both your religious beliefs and your approach to practical decisions in life are based on the principle of "wishing makes it so".
Well, since you chose the Umbrella corporation of "Christianity", i think i ought to point out that none of the "divine words" in their "holy book" actually condemn extra-marital sex.

Only adultery. You know, violating the contract you made.

It's actually a fun read, that bible (especially the OT), full of deceit, corruption, sex and intrigue, if you make it past the creation myths and the books-long literal interpretation of "Honor thy father and mother, that thy days may be long on [this earth]" bits.*

*(hint: it's the begats. they're not talking about living long, they're talking about being remembered. If you don't make a tradition of remembering your ancestors, why would your descendants remember you?)

To note: Although it may not be as explicitly stated as "you shall not commit adultery" the Bible has a fairly clear stance on sex before marriage (fornication).

This wasn't as clearly stated in the Old Testament as in traditional Jewish society it simply didn't happen. Girls were married so young that it was almost an non-issue. In New Testament times this had changed more and there are many references condemning it.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

Including company holidays, I get 12 days off per year. Additionally, I have 3 sick days which can only be used when sick.

bob171123 · 2010-03-05 Reply Admin

I love the toilet paper e-mail, where the guy says, "For those of you considering asking '...'." You got a participial phrase, gerund phrase, and noun clause all in that one part of the sentence.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

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.

With an attitude like that, I suspect that you'll never experience said pleasure.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

The Wanderer:
WonkoTheSane:
Wait.. What.. Violence? armed enforcers? It may be different over there in Iraq but in the rest of the world there are normally quite civilised court processes for non payment of tax.. Never heard of some one being threatened with violence for non payment (CCJ maybe, violence? Naaah)
What happens when you refuse to pay?
You get taken to court, yes.

And when you still refuse to pay?

In practice, either your money is in the hands of other people (banks) who hand it over when so ordered despite your refusal, or your income gets garnished (paid before you get your hands on it, again despite your refusal).

In theory, if you actually did keep your money in tangible form, kept it hidden where people couldn't find it to seize, and didn't have (or no longer had) an income to be garnished, then refusal to pay would get you sent to prison - for refusing a court order, if nothing else. And if you didn't cooperate with that, they would indeed use force to get you there - and if you used force to resist, they would bring in greater force, including any armaments they might need.

So, yes, the "implicit threat of force" argument is valid, for taxation as for pretty much every other aspect of law. There are a lot of societal barriers to prevent it ever getting brought into play, but it does exist.

And by choosing to live here, you are choosing to abide by the rules. Shut the fuck up about your idiocy.

2010-03-05 Reply Admin

The Wanderer:
WonkoTheSane:
Sorry but your argument isnt really valid, the same could be said of talking loudly in a library.
Yes, exactly - as I said, this applies just as well to pretty much every other aspect of the law. The implied threat of force, and if necessary violence, is the basic underlying principle of enforcing law.
There's a comment somewhere to the effect that "the first duty of a government is to establish a monopoly on the use of force" (a fairly loose paraphrase). This principle is exactly why. I don't much like the idea, but in practical and objective terms, I can't refute it.

Don't like it? Don't go in the library.

More Best of the EmaiL

Leave a comment on “More Best of the EmaiL”