From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
Subject: Re: Why do Americans get so little vacation time?
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:27:06 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep4.084429.25919@weyrich.UUCP> tnet.com!weyrich!orville writes:
>
>To me it is really an issue of individualism versus government-mandated
>one-size-fits all regulation. Each individual can negotiate for their desired
>amount (and distribution) of vacation time. Lest you scoff, let me propose
>two extreme [unrealistic] examples. Reality will lie somewhere between the
>extremes.
>
>1) Employee says: You can cut my pay in half, but I don't want to work more
>than 32 hours/week. Employer says: What a bargin! Deal!
>
>2) Employer says: You have to take a 1% cut in pay, but I will let you
>reduce your work to 32 hours/week. Employee says: What a bargin! Deal!
>
>I doubt that there are many employers that wouldn't go for #1, and I doubt
>that there are many employees that wouldn't go for #2. 

Employees without state-of-the-art skills (99% of the workforce) CANNOT
make offer #1; if they do in most workplaces, they are shown the door.
The deal for most workers is "you wash up, show up on time and do your job".

Most "flex-time" policies, for example, are shown upon close inspection
only to ratify brutal commutes (that are themselves the result of
business' resistance to paying for decent public transportation.)  They
read "we have flex time: show up by ten and work at least, preferably
more, than ten hours a day."  True flex time would not enforce the "show
up by ten" rule (which in actuality legislates a new starting time) and
would not extract an extra two hours a day in return.  I realize that
the flex time policies as published do not demand extra hours, for this
would involve legal trouble; but the unstated assumption is there.

As to offer #2, I am appalled by it.  Employees with family committments
are insane if they so blithely accept a pay cut.  

>
>In between these two extremes is a continuum of other scenarios. Not all 
>employees will be able to find mutually agreeable arrangements with all
>employers, but that is no surprise -- it happens anyway. There are many
>people that just simply do not like the "style" of a particular company, and
>would not work there at any price. There are many companies that just simply
>do not like the "style" of a particular individual and would not hire them if
>they were the only worker available. Yet the individual is productively
>employed elsewhere, and the company has many other happy employees. Why is
>central regulation enforced by the federal government necessary?

Because thousands of people cannot get hired by ANY company whatsoever
because their "style" (formed and deformed as it is by unemployment) is
not acceptable.  I've been unemployed and I know how hard it is to
maintain a Positive Mental Attitude...and how necessary.  

>
>You say it can't work? Then consider why in many parts of the country
>fast food resturants pay their high-school students above minimum wage to 
>shove french fries into a bag? It isn't government interference, its the

Above mininum wage; but not much.  Say about 5.00 per hour.  And many of
these fast food employees are, or would be (if the pay was enough) not
high school students but people trying to support themselves, even at
times a family.  Here in the Princeton area, many people make heroic
efforts, holding three or more full time jobs in retail and fast food,
just to avoid going on welfare and support just themselves.  It's an
area where (thanks to Yuppie greed) one bedroom apartments cost 800.00 a
month.  Your story obscures the reality of these people, who are out of
high school (and many of whom even have college degrees, if in "wrong"
majors like English or philosophy, or from "bad" schools.)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc