babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Working long hours

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Working long hours
Judes
publisher
Babbler # 21

posted 16 April 2001 06:39 PM      Profile for Judes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm self employed and supposedly control
my own hours. Yet it seems like I never
stop working. I promise myself over and over
again that I'll take more time off but even when I take a week-end off I feel guilty.

So have I been brainwashed by the Protestant ethic or is something happening in the economy that is putting pressure on all of us
to work ridiculous hours.

And while I'm at it. Why isn't shorter work time a bigger issue in Canada like it is in Europe


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chabs
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 19

posted 17 April 2001 08:16 AM      Profile for Chabs   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm a housewife, so I work 24 hours a day - but hey...that's another topic. My husband works ridiculous hours. He never sees the kids, he has no time for me. His argument is that everyone else does it. His life is flying by without him. I see no reason to put in 15 - 16 hour days and be on the phone constantly during vacations. When you even TAKE a vacations.
From: MA, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
chrisw
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3

posted 17 April 2001 07:20 AM      Profile for chrisw   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's brutal.

Way #1999576 in which the Europeans have us beaten: guaranteed vacation time in most European countries.


From: Halifax, NS | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gayle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 37

posted 17 April 2001 10:06 AM      Profile for Gayle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Nic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 20

posted 17 April 2001 08:04 PM      Profile for Nic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This article tells us what we hve to do if we want to get 4 Weeks Vacation.

I find it really frustrating that whenever an idea like longer vacations or a shorter work week is brought up it is usually shot down by saying that it would mess up the economy. Not enough consideration is given to the fact that the economy is messing up its participants.


From: Incheon, Korea | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gayle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 37

posted 18 April 2001 05:30 AM      Profile for Gayle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nic is so smart.

Anyone know if we're on par with the Americans as shown in this study/article?


From: Cape Breton, Nova Scotia | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
chrisw
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3

posted 18 April 2001 08:03 AM      Profile for chrisw   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Utne Reader is cool.
From: Halifax, NS | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
denise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 49

posted 18 April 2001 09:19 AM      Profile for denise   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Gayle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 37

posted 18 April 2001 09:33 AM      Profile for Gayle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But - if you work at the job you love, why would you rather be doing anything else?


Aside from that, you're right. The idea of working to simply make money really bothers me. It's tied in with going to university for the sole reason of getting a degree in order to get a job in order to make money. Agh.


From: Cape Breton, Nova Scotia | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dustmite
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 62

posted 18 April 2001 10:57 AM      Profile for Dustmite     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
QUIT WORK & LIVE YOUR LIFE!!!
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
denise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 49

posted 18 April 2001 12:33 PM      Profile for denise   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gayle - I could love my job to pieces, but I'd still like to go travelling, or spend the day on the beach, or take a walk in the sun. I love Mini Eggs, but I don't want to eat them eight hours a day.
From: halifax, ns | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Judes
publisher
Babbler # 21

posted 18 April 2001 01:39 PM      Profile for Judes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have a job I love or rather several jobs that I love. But even with a job you love, I think it's important to do other things than work. Seems to me the expectations of how much work we do is getting greater and greater. Technology instead of shortening our work day is making us work everywhere.

I favour more vacations and shorter work time but I don't do it myself and that troubles me


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ouaien
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 95

posted 18 April 2001 05:41 PM      Profile for Ouaien        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When my party, the Monday Monday Party, forms a government, we will introduce a new National Holiday each year, until every Monday is a National Holiday, at which point we will have achieved the four-day work week.
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
craige
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 177

posted 19 April 2001 11:11 PM      Profile for craige     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
craige
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 177

posted 19 April 2001 11:35 PM      Profile for craige     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As for the self-employed. I think they have always worked long hours. In many cases they have to. Competition demands it. Returns are low in many small time enterprises, because of competition. Business start-ups, for one, are precarious: funds are short, a market for one's product is yet to be established. It is a bit of a myth that self-employment is freedom (a simplified view of reality at best). It is freedom for absentee owners, like most shareholders of public corporations. But there may be pressures that make the self-employed work longer hours than before. If some convienence stores stay open 24 hours, there is greater pressure for other stores to stay open longer as well, for example. The self-employed may be compelled (or feel compelled) to work longer hours to increase their incomes (if the incomes of others are rising faster, say).
From: Indiana, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
storygirl
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 30

posted 21 April 2001 07:49 AM      Profile for storygirl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Judes, it's been my experience in the past that many people that work for themselves overload it in some ways. I've even witnessed problems with people I know overdoing it when they are working a type of job that is something they love - but requires they set their own hours. I think a lot of it comes down to self-expectation. We might feel that someone else working long hours is ludicrous, but we never really work hard enough ourselves. And this isn't to say that you have an overactive need to please yourself either. I think a lot of that stems from what our society teaches us - not working is bad, unproductive people are "useless". I think it's not only a matter of rewriting society's concept of work, but of deprogramming ourselves individually.

Of course, I speak from the perspective of a woman who is her own harshest critic.


From: Guelph | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 24 April 2001 01:16 AM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My parents come from a generation that had unionized jobs with pensions, job security, benefits and low house prices. A person could even quit school and get a job. I realize this is a pretty idealist view and it isn’t the same for everyone. It is still much easier for a person like myself, a white 36 year old post secondary educated male with educated parents to make a decent living in today’s work environment. The jobs aren’t as easy to come by and the benefits aren’t half as good. However…
I have been in much closer contact with a large portion of our society who came to Canada as refugees in the 80’s and 90’s. Knowing these people has been a real shock to my Canadian sensibilities. The recent “boom” has created many low wage jobs. In 1992 the starting wage at the company I work at was $8.00/hr and in 2001 it is still the same. The non English-speaking immigrants and refugees work two $8.00/hr jobs.
In Ontario wages are stagnant and housing and energy costs are way higher. Even today Harris said that electricity costs will rise with his common sense revolution.
At the plant where my wife works they pay low wages to the daytime assembly staff, who are mostly Cambodian refugees, glad to be in a land of paradise, and hand out assembly contracts so they can work at home. The company enjoys this very flexible work force. There are benefits to the home assemblers because they can have their wives, who are mostly Khmer speaking illiterate women, work at home during the day and take care of their children. Hours can be long they pay is never reliably consistent and the work is really boring. Assembling electronic circuit boards. It sure beats slaving away in a South East Asian rice field.
I could go on in greater detail as well I am also speaking from my priviliaged position in our society. Please forgive me if this comes off as a rant but sheesh the “new economy” isn’t really conducive to good ol’ wholesome family values.

From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 10 May 2001 03:44 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When it's a project I'm interested in, then I like working long hours. I hate taking a break once I'm really "in the groove".

If I'm not into what I'm doing then I refuse to work long hours.


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 15 May 2001 08:07 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Righteous Anger
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 559

posted 15 May 2001 11:18 PM      Profile for Righteous Anger   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dr.Conway hit the nail on the head. Our parents had heavy government involvement and that's what's bankrupting our generation. If we don't get off the train of heavy government involvement, it's going to crash and take us and our children and grandchildren with it. Today all heavy government involvement is about is giving lots of money to special interests.
From: Weston | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
craige
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 177

posted 16 May 2001 02:08 AM      Profile for craige     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What exactly are you talking about? What heavy government involvement and how exactly is it bankrupting "our generation"? And what are these bills from the partytime in the 1950s and 1960s? Remember, deficits were low to non-existent during those years.
From: Indiana, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 16 May 2001 03:14 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 16 May 2001 09:23 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Uh, you and I are the kids of the boomers. I was born in the 1970s, so my mom and dad would have been born in the 1950s, ie. boomer generation

I think what you're referring to would be the tail-end of the Gen-X/Y births.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 17 May 2001 12:09 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My parents aren't boomers. They were born before WWII ended.
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 18 May 2001 05:13 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Point is, they had a better shot at a good life than you or me, and I can't help but resent that fact, even though no one Boomer or pre-Boomer is really responsible for the structural shift in the economy that messed things up from the 1970s onward.

And my parents are most definitely boomers.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 18 May 2001 11:00 AM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I see little evidence in my own life that I have fewer oppportunities than my father had when he graduated from university.
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 18 May 2001 01:45 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tell that to the fact that wage incomes after adjusting for inflation went absolutely flatline after 1980.

I've got the cite from Paper Boom somewhere, but basically inflation-adjusted incomes for Canadian workers edged down about 0.5% in the 1980s and edged back up 0.3% in the 1990s. In effect, flatline.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
craige
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 177

posted 19 May 2001 01:29 AM      Profile for craige     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
By that measure, opportunties are the same as they were in 1980.
From: Indiana, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 May 2001 10:50 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 15 June 2003 03:28 PM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Woohoo! I'm a GEN-unine GEN-X er!

Thanks, Michelle. Now my angst, cynicism and negativism are all explainable.


From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 15 June 2003 04:32 PM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 15 June 2003 05:40 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This was one of the first babble threads ever.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 June 2003 06:15 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
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.

Well good grief, Jeff, I realize that. I wasn't trying to claim that generational labels exist in and of themselves in some platonic realm of objective truth or anything.

All I meant was, in so far as we use the label "generation x", it was coined to refer to people older than the generation commonly thought to be generation x, that's all.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 15 June 2003 06:59 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 15 June 2003 07:04 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, without revealing too much, I can say it was the late 1940s for my dad and the early 1950s for my mom as far as births go.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 15 June 2003 08:15 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 15 June 2003 08:31 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Agreed, Al. Though isn't Denmark largely Protestant? I have friends who are TRANSLATORS in France who refuse to work on weekends. Here, except for the few who have civil service positions or are on staff in companies, that would be unthinkable.

In fairness though there are some things wrong with the French model. It is too rigid. Often the capitalists refer to rigidities to mean workers' rights, but there are problems like too much mandatory retirement - leaving women who went back to university late poor, for example. It is also hard to combine part-time salaried work (such as language teachiing or lecturing) with freelance work.

Friends from Europe can't fathom how little annual holidays we have here.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 15 June 2003 09:36 PM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks, Dr. C. This information needed updating as our government appears to be trying to push us back to the way things were in my parent's day. This last year has seen some alarming trends. A lot of the people supporting government decisions don't realize how new the things they expect to be there really are and how easy it is becoming to lose them.
From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 15 June 2003 10:01 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 15 June 2003 11:07 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, it is much worse in the US, where the climate is generally milder.

With modern technology people could work far fewer hours and produce enough for everyone. It is a problem of social organisation - and finally, of the fact that this system is highly profitable for some.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 17 June 2003 01:20 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Despite all my efforts to elude the EEEEvil Protestant Work Ethic, I've succumbed. I don't take lunch. I come in early and usually leave late. However, I draw the line at taking work home (though, for how long, I don't know ... those laptops at the campus computer store are calling my name ...). Home time is family time, and my kids get too little of me as it is.

I sometimes feel like my life is being lived by the people who make constant demands of me, and not by me. I'm feeling a little panicked these days, because my life always seems to lie somewhere in the murky future when my children are grown and I'm too tired to work anymore.

Of course I realize that my life is the life I live, not the one I imagine I'd like to live. I just wish it were a little less about survival and more about living.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 17 June 2003 02:05 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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 17 June 2003 02:14 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I often work long hours. But being self-employed usually gives me a little flexibility. Unless I'm facing a tight deadline, in which case I have put in 16 hour days for a couple of weeks. Not a lot of fun, but it beats the regular job routine.

During slower times, I try to keep evenings and weekends free. It helps that I have my office on another floor from our living spaces, I'm not so tempted to walk into the office and finish this or that.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 17 June 2003 09:11 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rebecca West:
Despite all my efforts to elude the EEEEvil Protestant Work Ethic, I've succumbed. I don't take lunch. I come in early and usually leave late. However, I draw the line at taking work home (though, for how long, I don't know ... those laptops at the campus computer store are calling my name ...).

After I put in 6 days a week throughout the first Christmas season at one of my workplaces only to find out that ONE person got a $1500 bonus and the rest of us were allocated bonuses strictly on the basis of time worked I decided then and there that the company wouldn't get an ounce more time out of me than 8 hours a day, period.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 18 June 2003 12:25 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I had a similar reaction when I got my knuckles rapped at my old gov't job for coming in 5 or 10 minutes late in the mornings. I often stayed into my lunch hour or late after work, sometimes worked through coffee breaks, more than making up the time. My work was always caught up, and my ratings were very high, I figured some slack was in order.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 18 June 2003 12:37 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah, the memories. It used to kill me how the supervisors where I once worked would sit, wait and berate people five minutes late from break or leaving five minutes early. The very same people who worked through lunch or stayed late to ensure the shipments were made. At least they did until the stupid supervisor rapped their knuckles. After that, they were on their way to lunch or out the door with the rest of us. While the trailers sat waiting to be loaded.

I am glad to be out of that. Management isn't inefficient. It is just stupid.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 18 June 2003 12:41 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I should clarify that the bonuses were allocated on the basis of months at the company, not whether or not you busted your ass.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 18 June 2003 12:44 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 18 June 2003 01:02 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
After I put in 6 days a week throughout the first Christmas season at one of my workplaces only to find out that ONE person got a $1500 bonus and the rest of us were allocated bonuses strictly on the basis of time worked I decided then and there that the company wouldn't get an ounce more time out of me than 8 hours a day, period.
That's generally the response employers get when they nickle-and-dime hardworking employees. They screw themselves that way. When I became managment scum again in March, one of the first things I had to do was evaluate who was who, who did what and how. It's always been my view that if you allow people some flexibility, they're better able to conduct their lives and are generally happier at work. I know I am. And when their jobs require some flexibility of them, they're okay with it. Quid pro quo.

From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca