Author
|
Topic: Working long hours
|
|
|
|
Gayle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 37
|
posted 17 April 2001 10:06 AM
I definitely work longer hours when I'm doing contract work than when I'm doing my regular, salary job. My at-home work hours are usually peppered with frequent breaks and distractions, however, and I tend to like working in the middle of the night, so it's a tad different from my 9-5 job. While I'd much rather work on my own time (9-5 is BRUTAL for an insomniac night owl), I also know how sweet it is to stop working at a certain time, leave the work where it is, and go home. Working for yourself is like having homework all the time. I'm not sure how your home office is set up, but maybe what would help is if it was completely separate from the rest of your home life? As in, the only time you go in there is to do work? Sort of like the advice for insomniacs - don't go into your bedroom unless you're going to sleep. Good luck. And remember, on the seventh day he rested ;-)
From: Cape Breton, Nova Scotia | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
denise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 49
|
posted 18 April 2001 09:19 AM
I'm 22 and just starting my working life and career and all that. I'm finding the prospect of a 9-5 life rather intimidating, even though I think my job is something I'll enjoy for a really long time. I mean, that's so much of your time, with the sole purpose of making money to live off of. But what's the use, if you have no life? If all you want to do after work is go to sleep?So we've all got this ideal that we can work at the job we love, and life and work will acheive this blissful synthesis. Uh-huh. How do you guys view the fact that at least five days of your week are going to be spent doing something you'd rather not be doing? Oh, and Judes -- I did exactly the same thing when I worked at home. I rarely left my apartment, and spent my weekends in front of the computer. [ April 18, 2001: Message edited by: denise ]
From: halifax, ns | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
craige
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 177
|
posted 19 April 2001 11:11 PM
Why isn't a shorter work time a bigger issue in Canada like it is in Europe?The shortest and obvious answer is the U.S.A. Canadians live next to a country with the lowest labor standards amongst the advanced industrialized countries. Exports to the U.S. are essential to the Canadian economy and the living standards of Canadians, as they have been long before free trade. Moreover, capital is quite mobile between the countries. The need to compete for investment with the U.S. and to sell traded goods to the U.S. implies that there may be significant costs from increasing labor standards in Canada. But the question of how a longer paid vacation time would affect the demand for labor in Canada is really an empirical question. Canada might be able to get away with increasing paid vacation from two to three weeks, with only small negative effects on the demand for labor (counted in hours). There will be an increase in the demand for workers, since vacation time is longer (this was the rationale for the recent shortening of the workweek in France). But the decrease in the demand for labor measured in hours may outweigh even this effect. It is difficult to quantify/estimate these effects, but they do exist. Worries about falling behind the U.S. helps to keep this issue off the agenda at the present time. So, the next question is why isn't there a movement afoot in the U.S. to increase paid vacation (the U.S. doesn't even have a law stating the workers must get two week paid vacation, although this is a widely accepted employment standard). Count it up, in part, to the distortions in U.S. democracy.
From: Indiana, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 15 May 2001 08:07 PM
Speaking of generational differences between our parents' generation and our generation, I can't help but feel an immense amount of resentment.Our parents had the good life, the good jobs, the heavy government involvement in the economy that kept educational costs low and full employment going. Now we're being told that we can't have any of that by the same sons of bitches who, not 20 years ago, insisted that we would work 4 hours a day by now. And we're getting stuck with the bill for our parents' partytime in the 1950s and 1960s. Intergenerational compact my frigging ass.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 16 May 2001 03:14 AM
Because even if the debt as a percentage of GDP fell during all those years, by the 1970s the deficits started climbing, and kept climbing through the 1980s, so that the debt as a percentage of GDP started rising. And it wasn't even social programs that did it (they had been cut back rather harshly even in the 1980s), but the giveaways to the fat cats (corporate tax cuts and tax cuts for the rich amount to 44% of the rise in the national debt from 1975 to 1992 ALONE) and a high interest-rate policy taken by the bank of Canada (the inflation-adjusted long bond rate spiked by two percentage points after 1981). That, I remind you, equals a change in the distribution of wealth from young to old, since elderly people tend to be more capable of holding bonds than younger people.And it wasn't people my age that started running those budget deficits up in the first place, it was the sons of bitches Brian Mulroney's and Jean Chretien's ages. (in their 50s and 60s) They ran up the bill and expect us to pay for them, all in the context of a weakened economy characterized by low capital investment and chronically high unemployment. It's a sad thing when the height of achievement in Canada is to get the unemployment rate below 7%, which, I remind you all, was last reached in 1977. So for over 20 years, the unemployment rate was about 7%. Talk about a crime against an entire generation - condemning one out of every nine or ten working people to be without a job at some point in their working lives. And everybody wonders why people in their 20s and 30s are amazingly cynical.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554
|
posted 16 May 2001 01:32 PM
I don't feel any ill will against my parents' generation, or the boomers. I fear the children of the Boomers. These are the kids who grew up with the Internet. These are the kids who can get compuer networking jobs right out of high school. These are the kids who are going to be inheriting the Boomers' vast wealth when the Boomers start to die off. If you're in your 20s or 30s right now you should be working your ass off to climb the ladder as quickly as possible because the Boomers' kids are nipping as your heels.
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 25 May 2001 10:50 AM
Just a quick note about age cohorts (which I was alerted to in Sociology class). If you think you're Generation X, you probably aren't (despite what Pepsi would have you believe). According to Boom, Bust and Echo, baby boomers were born 1947-66. Generation X refers to the segment of boomers born in the last few years of the baby boom, from 1960-66.Those of us born between 1967-79 are part of the Baby Bust, NOT Generation X. From 1980-1995, those born are called the Baby Boom Echo. So if you're in your 20's right now, stop calling yourself Generation X. Stoppit! Just kidding. I think generational labels depend on who you talk to, but I think Boom, Bust, and Echo is considered to be a credible source for demographics. To get back on topic, I am a university student, and I'm doing a full course load through correspondence this summer while looking after my 2 year-old. And it's HARD to work at home because although he can entertain himself a lot more than he used to, he needs lots of attention between (and often during) activities (which amuse him for about 5-15 minutes at a time tops). Makes it hard to get some good concentration going that is needed to write papers and do readings. I feel sorry for those Cambodians mentioned earlier who have to work at home AND look after their children - I can't imagine how they can look after preschoolers at the same time they do their work. It seems to me that either the work would suffer or their children would get no attention. But I'm not in their position so how would I know? I wouldn't want to do it though. [ May 25, 2001: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387
|
posted 15 June 2003 04:32 PM
I don't understand why any of you believe that people born in the 30s to 50s had anything better than you do. For one thing, not everybody got access to education at that time. Less than half were able to finish high school and very few ever made it to university. You had to be at least an 85% average to be accepted into university. There were no student loans, social programs and old-age pensions were either still in the planning stages or just starting and women were expected to get married and stay at home taking care of their families. Wages were very low, so were prices, but a lot fewer things were available. There was no health care system or what there was was still not available to everyone. TV had not yet become commonplace, most people couldn't afford cars, housing for singles was almost non-existent. Workers had not long before won the right to a 6 day workweek from a six-and-a-half one. Many jobs were 10 hour work days and most jobs involved physical labour. The school day was from 9-4 when I got there but had been from 9-5 with a half-hour for lunch. Girls had to take "home economics" and boys "trades". Only the very top rated students had a chance at higher education and the exams were very stringent. The cirriculum was rigid and you had to know everything exactly as taught to pass the grade. Girls were expected to quit work when they got married so educations wasn't considered as important. I know many didn't do that but it was unusual for a woman to have a career. Nobody had "rights" but all had responsibilities. People lived at home until marriage because there was rarely anywhere else to go. Parents were held responsible for the actions of their children. People living outside of city limits didn't always have indoor plumbing or electricity. When I was a kid, people still used horses a lot. My dad delivered bread and milk in a horse-drawn wagon. People still used wood stoves and iceboxes that required ice delivery every week. Wringer washers were still fairly new, scrubboards were still used in most homes. All clothes required ironing and irons had to be heated on the stove in most households. There were no big grocery stores, few big department stores in smaller cities. Most of the stuff you guys complain about were being developed when I was young and didn't take effect until the late 50s and early 60s, not really that long ago. There were a lot of improvements to life while I was growing up. If these things hadn't happened, you would not have all the good stuff you have now. Think about it.
From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 15 June 2003 05:32 PM
quote: Originally posted by Trisha: Most of the stuff you guys complain about were being developed when I was young and didn't take effect until the late 50s and early 60s, not really that long ago. There were a lot of improvements to life while I was growing up. If these things hadn't happened, you would not have all the good stuff you have now. Think about it.
And it got all taken away again by the 1990s. The peak of the Canadian welfare state in many respects was the mid-1970s, when people like my dad were just getting started on their careers and had a good shot at a decent, middle-class lifestyle. We have more consumer goods today - more doodads and whatnots and voicemail and computers and all the rest - but a meaner government and a meaner society. Not a good trade in my opinion! We have more "freedom" today, yes, but what good is it when it is interpreted to mean that you have the "freedom" to attend university (which, BTW, hasn't changed much - you still need about an 85% to get in straight from high school) without having some patronizing guidance counselor tell you you're suited for just "home ec", but that "freedom" is accompanied by student loan debt and the grand opportunity to be yet another Bachelor of whatever driving a taxicab. Whee! Back in the 1970s, my dad's university degree got him a shot at good pay and decent jobs. Yes, mine (when I get it) may offer me the same, but the chances are lower now, for two reasons: One is that the supply of graduates is greater, precisely because of the constant corporate-government push-push-push go-go-go to high school students to get into university with dire warnings about the fate of people who don't get a degree after high school, and the Number Two is the increasing credential creep that has occurred in job requirements. As I said on another thread I refuse to believe that a job that took grade 10 in 1979 now needs grade 12 or even a technical school certificate in 2003. It doesn't, but employers have found that the easiest way to trim their pool of applicants is to just impose an artificial bar that people have to meet, at added cost and inconvenience. So yes, we still have Medicare, and it's getting nickel-and-dimed to death. Yes, we still have CPP, which got partially de-indexed in the 1980s. Yes, we still have OAS, which is subject to the clawback. Yes, we still have welfare, which hasn't been adjusted for inflation in at least 5 years in most provinces. Yes, we still have a minimum wage, but when even Manitoba's NDP government passes a two-tier minimum wage to throw a bone to corporations in that province so they'll get off Gary Doer's back, of what value is all that hard work put in by people who fought, in the first place, for a statutory minimum wage? Harrumph.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 15 June 2003 05:39 PM
quote: I think generational labels depend on who you talk to, but I think Boom, Bust, and Echo is considered to be a credible source for demographics.
No, they're not! Or rather, it is important to recognise that there are no such things as generations; it is simply a labelling function, for whatever purpose the labeller may have. I suppose that the drawing of generational lines is essentially a marketing tool, so that new products purchases (music, clothing, etc) are required to assert a new generational identity. But the effect of this, I think, is simply to undercut intergenerational solidarity. So we have people resenting others, even when they know perfectly well that those "others" are not responsible for any slight distinctions which may exist between people born in the forties, the fifties, and so on. Is it not akin to resenting Quebeckers because they get equalization payments, or blacks because they have affirmative action? I think standing together to try to get a decent life for everyone is far more fruitful than resenting the older, the younger, or the in-between. [ 15 June 2003: Message edited by: jeff house ]
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 15 June 2003 06:59 PM
Michelle, I liked you referring to cohorts, much more precise than generations. You are right about "Generation X" - they are at least 40 now, just a bit younger than me. I do get pissed off with the idea that ordinary middle-aged working people are somehow to blame for the dire conditions faced by young workers. This is often a subtle anti-union discourse, though I don't think that is what Doc meant (hope not). Mario Dumont, though he's a young fellow, is just as evil as Mulroney or whomever who could be his dad. Doc, your parents had you young, if you were born in the 1970s and your folks were born in the 1950s. That used to be the case a lot more, but I have a lot of friends my age or a bit younger who didn't have families until they were at least 35 or so.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807
|
posted 15 June 2003 08:15 PM
quote: I suppose that the drawing of generational lines is essentially a marketing tool, so that new products purchases (music, clothing, etc) are required to assert a new generational identity.
So who labelled us "Generation X"? (It's the name of a band, right?) We called ouselves the "Blank Generation," so therefore they can't sell us anything. (Well...maybe the odd thin safety pin or porkpie hat). Oh yeah, in France they START with 5 weeks paid holidays per year, and they have a 36 hour work week. I believe the Danes are trying to get a 30-32 hour week. That's civilization. The Protestant Work Ethic is Satan's tool.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 15 June 2003 10:01 PM
I'm not sure if it's so simply described as "Protestant Work Ethic."It may in fact be culturaly Canadian. This climate is unforgiving of anyone who doesn't make hay while the sun shines. It was true for the natives and true for all the immigrants to this country until very recently. We tend to think of ourselves as culturless, unless it is hyphenated. But this addiction to work maybe singularly Canadian, or something that happens to people in demanding climates. Part of my former addiction to overtime-- and I still catch myself thinking it-- is the idea that you better make the money while you have the chance, that you'll be in a position of regret sooner than later, otherwise.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 17 June 2003 02:05 PM
quote: But this addiction to work maybe singularly Canadian, or something that happens to people in demanding climates.
I'm told that Japanese actually has a word for "working yourself to death", and another for "work-induced alcoholism", so we're not alone. Me, I'm working 9-5 today at my "day" job, then I dash home with dinner for my wife, sit for a half-hour or so, then off to job #2 until 10. I'm not a workaholic (in fact I'm lazy as a pet pig), but my wife is a full-time student & it's expensive here in Toronto. I guess there's a bit of PWE in me though - it would never occur to me that I shouldn't do this if it makes our life together better or that it's "unfair" that I have to do this.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 18 June 2003 12:44 AM
The stupid thing, in my situation, was that the manager was often late himself. He just got beaked at so long and hard by one of my fellow workers that he decided to make an example of me. She was there on the dot in the mornings, all right, but her case load was a mess and she was out the door at 4:47 sharp.He really looked cross-eyed when I asked who, exactly, was in charge, as I wanted to know who to report to from now on, should I need to take a leak or something... quote: I am glad to be out of that. Management isn't inefficient. It is just stupid.
Yes, me too. If I slack off too much, my guilt is my own. I hate that sort of petty crap. [ 18 June 2003: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|