|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 09 2014 10:15 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 09:06 Danglars wrote:On January 09 2014 07:51 farvacola wrote:
It surprises me not at all that Danglars is unable to see the problem in how income is so heavily affected by work over the already daily allotment. That we are one of the worlds most overworked nations is nothing to be proud of. Yes, we most certainly must ban people from working longer hours and very specific spans because it is discriminatory towards women. We most certainly should implement a mandatory daily quota and ban every ounce of pay beyond it--make it illegal. Only then can we say we are in a post-glass-ceiling world. I'm sure, as you are clearly interested in reducing the gender pay gap, that you read the paper with alarm. My local feminists had not previously informed me either that the "incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours" was a critical influence in depressing women's wages the gender wage gap. The article does not go far enough in exploring government solutions towards equality in this area. This oversight may soon put Claudia Goldin in the ranks of the Paglia's. That or men are more likely to accept getting fucked into overwork that isn't covered by their salary. EITHER OR LOL. This may not exist in your 'free market' but unlogged overtime for both wage and especially salary workers exists. And the fact that some of them might get rewarded more for it disproportionately affects women. Particularly smarter women (the horror), since they know life isn't about being a corporate slave. End this insanity, decree by law maximum hours to work in a week to level the paying field--the remunerations must not exceed what a man that didn't put in those extra 10 hours got. Only then, can we cure the gender wage gap, and move on to whatever's next on the agenda for feminists.
It'll probably be workplace sexual harassment. It's been a few years since that was the cause celebre. Maybe they can cozy up with the GLBT lobby and bring up discrimination against lesbian married couples in pay vs their heterosexual counterparts.
|
On January 09 2014 10:15 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 09:06 Danglars wrote:On January 09 2014 07:51 farvacola wrote:
It surprises me not at all that Danglars is unable to see the problem in how income is so heavily affected by work over the already daily allotment. That we are one of the worlds most overworked nations is nothing to be proud of. Yes, we most certainly must ban people from working longer hours and very specific spans because it is discriminatory towards women. We most certainly should implement a mandatory daily quota and ban every ounce of pay beyond it--make it illegal. Only then can we say we are in a post-glass-ceiling world. I'm sure, as you are clearly interested in reducing the gender pay gap, that you read the paper with alarm. My local feminists had not previously informed me either that the "incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours" was a critical influence in depressing women's wages the gender wage gap. The article does not go far enough in exploring government solutions towards equality in this area. This oversight may soon put Claudia Goldin in the ranks of the Paglia's. That or men are more likely to accept getting fucked into overwork that isn't covered by their salary. EITHER OR LOL. This may not exist in your 'free market' but unlogged overtime for both wage and especially salary workers exists.
If you're salary exempt, overtime should be factored into your general salary.
|
On January 09 2014 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 10:15 Jormundr wrote:On January 09 2014 09:06 Danglars wrote:On January 09 2014 07:51 farvacola wrote:
It surprises me not at all that Danglars is unable to see the problem in how income is so heavily affected by work over the already daily allotment. That we are one of the worlds most overworked nations is nothing to be proud of. Yes, we most certainly must ban people from working longer hours and very specific spans because it is discriminatory towards women. We most certainly should implement a mandatory daily quota and ban every ounce of pay beyond it--make it illegal. Only then can we say we are in a post-glass-ceiling world. I'm sure, as you are clearly interested in reducing the gender pay gap, that you read the paper with alarm. My local feminists had not previously informed me either that the "incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours" was a critical influence in depressing women's wages the gender wage gap. The article does not go far enough in exploring government solutions towards equality in this area. This oversight may soon put Claudia Goldin in the ranks of the Paglia's. That or men are more likely to accept getting fucked into overwork that isn't covered by their salary. EITHER OR LOL. This may not exist in your 'free market' but unlogged overtime for both wage and especially salary workers exists. If you're salary exempt, overtime should be factored into your general salary.
We're going to pay you 40,000 a year, you have to work 40 hours a week. Except you have to work 50-60 hours a week on average or you're fired.
BAM
You're wrong.
|
On January 09 2014 11:39 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 09 2014 10:15 Jormundr wrote:On January 09 2014 09:06 Danglars wrote:On January 09 2014 07:51 farvacola wrote:
It surprises me not at all that Danglars is unable to see the problem in how income is so heavily affected by work over the already daily allotment. That we are one of the worlds most overworked nations is nothing to be proud of. Yes, we most certainly must ban people from working longer hours and very specific spans because it is discriminatory towards women. We most certainly should implement a mandatory daily quota and ban every ounce of pay beyond it--make it illegal. Only then can we say we are in a post-glass-ceiling world. I'm sure, as you are clearly interested in reducing the gender pay gap, that you read the paper with alarm. My local feminists had not previously informed me either that the "incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours" was a critical influence in depressing women's wages the gender wage gap. The article does not go far enough in exploring government solutions towards equality in this area. This oversight may soon put Claudia Goldin in the ranks of the Paglia's. That or men are more likely to accept getting fucked into overwork that isn't covered by their salary. EITHER OR LOL. This may not exist in your 'free market' but unlogged overtime for both wage and especially salary workers exists. If you're salary exempt, overtime should be factored into your general salary. We're going to pay you 40,000 a year, you have to work 40 hours a week. Except you have to work 50-60 hours a week on average or you're fired. BAM You're wrong.
And thats what labor protection laws are for. To stop your Employer from firing you over something like that. But since the cooperations run your government thats not happening.
|
On January 09 2014 11:39 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 09 2014 10:15 Jormundr wrote:On January 09 2014 09:06 Danglars wrote:On January 09 2014 07:51 farvacola wrote:
It surprises me not at all that Danglars is unable to see the problem in how income is so heavily affected by work over the already daily allotment. That we are one of the worlds most overworked nations is nothing to be proud of. Yes, we most certainly must ban people from working longer hours and very specific spans because it is discriminatory towards women. We most certainly should implement a mandatory daily quota and ban every ounce of pay beyond it--make it illegal. Only then can we say we are in a post-glass-ceiling world. I'm sure, as you are clearly interested in reducing the gender pay gap, that you read the paper with alarm. My local feminists had not previously informed me either that the "incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours" was a critical influence in depressing women's wages the gender wage gap. The article does not go far enough in exploring government solutions towards equality in this area. This oversight may soon put Claudia Goldin in the ranks of the Paglia's. That or men are more likely to accept getting fucked into overwork that isn't covered by their salary. EITHER OR LOL. This may not exist in your 'free market' but unlogged overtime for both wage and especially salary workers exists. If you're salary exempt, overtime should be factored into your general salary. We're going to pay you 40,000 a year, you have to work 40 hours a week. Except you have to work 50-60 hours a week on average or you're fired. BAM You're wrong.
If you're salary exempt you shouldn't expect going in that it'll necessarily be a 40 hr workweek and what hours worked expectations are should be discussed when you're being hired.
If your employer is actually enough of an asshole to deceive you into thinking it's a 40 hr workweek, I don't think you'd want to work there anyways and I'd question how long they expect to stay in business.
|
On January 09 2014 11:49 Gorsameth wrote:
cooperations run your government
we WISH 
|
On January 09 2014 11:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 11:39 Jormundr wrote:On January 09 2014 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 09 2014 10:15 Jormundr wrote:On January 09 2014 09:06 Danglars wrote:On January 09 2014 07:51 farvacola wrote:
It surprises me not at all that Danglars is unable to see the problem in how income is so heavily affected by work over the already daily allotment. That we are one of the worlds most overworked nations is nothing to be proud of. Yes, we most certainly must ban people from working longer hours and very specific spans because it is discriminatory towards women. We most certainly should implement a mandatory daily quota and ban every ounce of pay beyond it--make it illegal. Only then can we say we are in a post-glass-ceiling world. I'm sure, as you are clearly interested in reducing the gender pay gap, that you read the paper with alarm. My local feminists had not previously informed me either that the "incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours" was a critical influence in depressing women's wages the gender wage gap. The article does not go far enough in exploring government solutions towards equality in this area. This oversight may soon put Claudia Goldin in the ranks of the Paglia's. That or men are more likely to accept getting fucked into overwork that isn't covered by their salary. EITHER OR LOL. This may not exist in your 'free market' but unlogged overtime for both wage and especially salary workers exists. If you're salary exempt, overtime should be factored into your general salary. We're going to pay you 40,000 a year, you have to work 40 hours a week. Except you have to work 50-60 hours a week on average or you're fired. BAM You're wrong. And thats what labor protection laws are for. To stop your Employer from firing you over something like that. But since the cooperations run your government thats not happening.
This is the US megathread, not the eurocrisis one...
|
On January 09 2014 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 11:39 Jormundr wrote:On January 09 2014 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 09 2014 10:15 Jormundr wrote:On January 09 2014 09:06 Danglars wrote:On January 09 2014 07:51 farvacola wrote:
It surprises me not at all that Danglars is unable to see the problem in how income is so heavily affected by work over the already daily allotment. That we are one of the worlds most overworked nations is nothing to be proud of. Yes, we most certainly must ban people from working longer hours and very specific spans because it is discriminatory towards women. We most certainly should implement a mandatory daily quota and ban every ounce of pay beyond it--make it illegal. Only then can we say we are in a post-glass-ceiling world. I'm sure, as you are clearly interested in reducing the gender pay gap, that you read the paper with alarm. My local feminists had not previously informed me either that the "incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours" was a critical influence in depressing women's wages the gender wage gap. The article does not go far enough in exploring government solutions towards equality in this area. This oversight may soon put Claudia Goldin in the ranks of the Paglia's. That or men are more likely to accept getting fucked into overwork that isn't covered by their salary. EITHER OR LOL. This may not exist in your 'free market' but unlogged overtime for both wage and especially salary workers exists. If you're salary exempt, overtime should be factored into your general salary. We're going to pay you 40,000 a year, you have to work 40 hours a week. Except you have to work 50-60 hours a week on average or you're fired. BAM You're wrong. If you're salary exempt you shouldn't expect going in that it'll necessarily be a 40 hr workweek and what hours worked expectations are should be discussed when you're being hired. If your employer is actually enough of an asshole to deceive you into thinking it's a 40 hr workweek, I don't think you'd want to work there anyways and I'd question how long they expect to stay in business.
Ah yes appeal to the free market principle. Sorry, no that doesn't work. If you can either get your ass overworked for 40k a year or choose between an hourly job and unemployment which would you do?
|
On January 09 2014 11:54 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 09 2014 11:39 Jormundr wrote:On January 09 2014 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 09 2014 10:15 Jormundr wrote:On January 09 2014 09:06 Danglars wrote:On January 09 2014 07:51 farvacola wrote:
It surprises me not at all that Danglars is unable to see the problem in how income is so heavily affected by work over the already daily allotment. That we are one of the worlds most overworked nations is nothing to be proud of. Yes, we most certainly must ban people from working longer hours and very specific spans because it is discriminatory towards women. We most certainly should implement a mandatory daily quota and ban every ounce of pay beyond it--make it illegal. Only then can we say we are in a post-glass-ceiling world. I'm sure, as you are clearly interested in reducing the gender pay gap, that you read the paper with alarm. My local feminists had not previously informed me either that the "incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours" was a critical influence in depressing women's wages the gender wage gap. The article does not go far enough in exploring government solutions towards equality in this area. This oversight may soon put Claudia Goldin in the ranks of the Paglia's. That or men are more likely to accept getting fucked into overwork that isn't covered by their salary. EITHER OR LOL. This may not exist in your 'free market' but unlogged overtime for both wage and especially salary workers exists. If you're salary exempt, overtime should be factored into your general salary. We're going to pay you 40,000 a year, you have to work 40 hours a week. Except you have to work 50-60 hours a week on average or you're fired. BAM You're wrong. If you're salary exempt you shouldn't expect going in that it'll necessarily be a 40 hr workweek and what hours worked expectations are should be discussed when you're being hired. If your employer is actually enough of an asshole to deceive you into thinking it's a 40 hr workweek, I don't think you'd want to work there anyways and I'd question how long they expect to stay in business. Ah yes appeal to the free market principle. Sorry, no that doesn't work. If you can either get your ass overworked for 40k a year or choose between an hourly job and unemployment which would you do?
What's the basis of your complaint? That not all jobs are 40hrs a week or that you'd rather a lower base pay but with overtime?
|
the policy goal should be to lower the number of hours per week worked per capita
|
On January 09 2014 12:12 sam!zdat wrote:
the policy goal should be to lower the number of hours per week worked per capita
Why would you need / want that as a policy goal? It should be falling with baby boomers retiring as is.
|
because life is not about working
|
On January 09 2014 12:20 sam!zdat wrote:
because life is not about working
So?
|
so we should do less of it
|
On January 09 2014 12:24 sam!zdat wrote:
so we should do less of it
Life's not about drugs either, use less plz.
|
the only two things you can imagine in the world are a) working and b) drugs?
|
On January 09 2014 11:53 sam!zdat wrote:we WISH
On January 09 2014 11:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 11:49 Gorsameth wrote:On January 09 2014 11:39 Jormundr wrote:On January 09 2014 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 09 2014 10:15 Jormundr wrote:On January 09 2014 09:06 Danglars wrote:On January 09 2014 07:51 farvacola wrote:
It surprises me not at all that Danglars is unable to see the problem in how income is so heavily affected by work over the already daily allotment. That we are one of the worlds most overworked nations is nothing to be proud of. Yes, we most certainly must ban people from working longer hours and very specific spans because it is discriminatory towards women. We most certainly should implement a mandatory daily quota and ban every ounce of pay beyond it--make it illegal. Only then can we say we are in a post-glass-ceiling world. I'm sure, as you are clearly interested in reducing the gender pay gap, that you read the paper with alarm. My local feminists had not previously informed me either that the "incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours" was a critical influence in depressing women's wages the gender wage gap. The article does not go far enough in exploring government solutions towards equality in this area. This oversight may soon put Claudia Goldin in the ranks of the Paglia's. That or men are more likely to accept getting fucked into overwork that isn't covered by their salary. EITHER OR LOL. This may not exist in your 'free market' but unlogged overtime for both wage and especially salary workers exists. If you're salary exempt, overtime should be factored into your general salary. We're going to pay you 40,000 a year, you have to work 40 hours a week. Except you have to work 50-60 hours a week on average or you're fired. BAM You're wrong. And thats what labor protection laws are for. To stop your Employer from firing you over something like that. But since the cooperations run your government thats not happening. This is the US megathread, not the eurocrisis one...
Almost a Freudian slip in this context.
|
Canada6002 Posts
On January 09 2014 12:12 sam!zdat wrote:
the policy goal should be to lower the number of hours per week worked per capita
I recently read an article by Robert Ingersoll on this subject I found really interesting (mostly because he was writing in the 1800s) called "Eight Hours Must Come", one quote particularly pertinent -
"The working people should be protected by law; if they are not, the capitalists will require just as many hours as human nature can bear. We have seen here in America street-car drivers working sixteen and seventeen hours a day. It was necessary to have a strike in order to get to fourteen, another strike to get to twelve, and nobody could blame them for keeping on striking till they get to eight hours.
For a man to get up before daylight and work till after dark, life is of no particular importance. He simply earns enough one day to prepare himself to work another. His whole life is spent in want and toil, and such a life is without value."
|
|
|
On January 09 2014 12:31 sam!zdat wrote:
the only two things you can imagine in the world are a) working and b) drugs?
Apparently there's also c) telling others how to live.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
