Strange things you're not used to

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

I'm not living in the US yet, but I've noticed that in Canada its really popular to use "green" (Cloth ones) grocery bags now and re-use and most grocery stores and even retail stores now carry them, but not so much in the US.

Recently a lot of stores started offering their own canvas or cotton bags for sale. I dunno about in other towns, but hardly anyone here uses re-usable bags except me. I've been using the same canvas bags for probably 10 years or more (obviously since before I moved down here) and baggers have been known to run screaming when they see me because they "don't know how to pack them"

yea, but the tide is turning as far as the bag situation goes...it is going to be a gradual change, but at least here in new york i see A LOT of people with the reusable, canvas shopping bags...in fact, in the area where i live, its kind of odd to see someone with regular plastic bags...as with most things though, we are just ahead of the curve, i guess

They just got them in the local grocery stores here in Florida! Like... within the last two weeks.

i just graduated from fsu a year ago, and i never once saw one of those bags until i came home to ny...i cant even imagine most people down there using them, so im not surprised

[Krikit 1,166]

i just graduated from fsu a year ago, and i never once saw one of those bags until i came home to ny...i cant even imagine most people down there using them, so im not surprised

That's so true. The good news is that those people will soon be dying off and there'll be younger, more environmentally-conscious old people moving down here.

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

i just graduated from fsu a year ago, and i never once saw one of those bags until i came home to ny...i cant even imagine most people down there using them, so im not surprised

That's so true. The good news is that those people will soon be dying off and there'll be younger, more environmentally-conscious old people moving down here.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Whoa. I think you may be dealing with some past-life issues.

In Canada, the holidays are federally-mandated, so the citizens are entitled. The only time you don't get a day off if it falls on a weekend is if it's Canada Day. The day it falls on is the day it's celebrated.

Past life issues? I'm not sure I "get" that one. It doesn't matter, so don't bother. The point I was attempting to explain (and apparently wasted my time on) is that no one is entitled to something simply because they think they should have it. It's this "me, me, me" self-entitlement mindset that's eroding the United States and Western Civilization in general.

Now then... as for "holidays," those aren't necessary. They are essentially privileges and by no means an entitlement. If you're able to celebrate it and get time off work, that's wonderful. If you can't, that's tough luck. The world won't stop for each and every individual. The sooner people realize that, the better off we'll be.

And honestly, I don't care what they do in Canada as far as holidays are concerned. I'm talking about the U.S. here. If Canada wants to give off every third Tuesday of the month, fine. I'm happy for you. But that'll have absolutely no influence on what the U.S. decides to do.

Weak argument here, DP. Most companies receive little-to-no help in Canada either.

That's news to me. From what I've read (and heard), most companies in Canada receive government subsidizing. That can go a long way. Maybe where you worked they didn't, but "most" doesn't mean "all" either.

Yeah, sorry. Another no-go. What you are saying here is that everyone who receives vacation and sick days is a scammer and will abuse the system. As a long term salaried administrator in my former position I received 7 weeks paid vacation and 130 sick days annually. I, along with my fellow administrators, usually lost a lot of our vacation days because we were so heavily burdened with work that we couldn't get away. In addition to that, I can tell you that very rarely did we use any of our sick leave. And even when we did, we worked from home. Ditto with the unionized employees. Nope. A definite no-go, DP.

So you didn't take advantage. That's great! I applaud you. No, really I do. But for every one person like you, who takes their job seriously and won't attempt to screw their supervisors over, there are at least two-to-three more who will. Why? Because they can. By our very nature, people will take advantage when and where they can. Not everyone, of course, but far too many. It's because of these people that companies need to enforce the policies I spoke of before.

Is that fair? Probably not. But then again, your problem shouldn't be with the businesses, but with the jerk employees who make such practices necessary. Get rid of them and perhaps those rules can go away.

Yeah. Because who wouldn't want an entire lifetime of payback for a year "off" with a screaming, crying, demanding baby? That's just too silly for words.

I agree, it's not the most logical thing to do and it certainly wouldn't be my choice. However, it does happen. My wife has told me about enough female coworkers who've pulled this stunt at different workplaces. So I'm not pulling this idea out of rear-end.

yeah.. maternity leave is sooo unecessary....

you know thoses little guyz will help pay for the retirement and debt of the country i believe isn't it ?

Damn... that sounded bad PoolX

First of all... I never said "maternity leave is unnecessary." I was merely describing how most businesses feel about maternity leave. If you thought it "sounded bad" then direct your displeasure towards any number of companies; not me.

Edited April 24, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[Krikit 1,166]

about the U.S. here. If Canada wants to give off every third Tuesday of the month, fine. I'm happy for you. But that'll have absolutely no influence on what the U.S. decides to do.

[Jeraly 4]

I must say I think the whole holiday thing sucks although Jeremy gets 5 weeks paid leave so that is pretty good... god knows what I will end up with

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Weak argument here, DP. Most companies receive little-to-no help in Canada either.

That's news to me. From what I've read (and heard), most companies in Canada receive government subsidizing. That can go a long way. Maybe where you worked they didn't, but "most" doesn't mean "all" either.

No, Canadian companies do NOT receive any sort of government subsidies or regular benefits or hand outs or cash advantages or anything like that from the government - another urban myth fostered by Americans who don't want to make any sort of concession to looking after their employees and cry 'foul' when told other countries can do so without biting into their profit base. There have been cases of major industrial corporations working out favourable loan terms with the federal or provincial governments to assist them over difficult times in the market (the auto industry is one that comes immediately to mind), but those are loans, not grants - and the parent companies of many of those corporations are American. The exception would be specific circumstances such as maternity leave which is supported by premiums paid by both the employer and the employee to the Employment Insurance program managed by the Federal Government. The employer doesn't pay the salary of the person on Maternity leave so they can afford to hire a temporary replacement.

If you want to talk about out and out 'hand outs' in fact, take a look at how the US governments subsidize agriculture in this country - substantially - so as to corner the market and prevent a fair market environment in which other countries could compete fairly with the US, then claim foul when other countries offer incentives to their own producers.

Edited April 24, 2008 by Kathryn41

[Krikit 1,166]

Thanks Kathryn. I really couldn't be bothered to respond because it was obvious there were huge misconceptions in all areas.

BTW, DP, the "past-life issues" was in reference to the antiquated thinking. Thoughts of forced labour and 19th century coal mine workers sprang immediately to mind.

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

I've heard all the arguments before that PoolX put forward. I don't think they add up frankly. The truth is that if some kind of regulation was enforced companies would simply learn to make it work or go under. Same way they do if the competition do something better or cheaper.

I really think that some Americans are brainwashed against a society that attempts to ensure that their citizens have a basic standard of living. In most countries 'liberal' is not an insult.

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

I've heard all the arguments before that PoolX put forward. I don't think they add up frankly. The truth is that if some kind of regulation was enforced companies would simply learn to make it work or go under. Same way they do if the competition do something better or cheaper.

I really think that some Americans are brainwashed against a society that attempts to ensure that their citizens have a basic standard of living. In most countries 'liberal' is not an insult.

i agree with you and also think that giving employees more time off would improve morale and actually allow for greater productivity...this is because employees wouldnt be coming in sick and/or fatigued...i also think that a shorter work day (say 9-4 instead of 9-5) would produce a similar effect

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

At the minute i work 8.30 to at least 7, so even 9 to 5 would be amazing

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

At the minute i work 8.30 to at least 7, so even 9 to 5 would be amazing

thats horrendous

[CBR 0]

so wait, if the holiday falls on a weekend, for instance 4th July, most people DON'T get the Monday off?

oh dear, I think I need to lay down.

Somebody posted above that if the holiday falls on the weekend that nobody gets the day off. Period. Well, that is not exactly true.

Where I work, if the hol falls on a Saturday we are compensated with a "floating holiday", which I described above. However, if the hol falls on a Sunday, we do get the Monday off.

So, as you can see, I am, in fact, compensated for the weekend holiday either way. It really varies by employer, though.

Same here...we get a floating holiday to use any time we like during that year when a holiday falls on a weekend. I think you'd have to do a real big widely based study of businesses across america to get a real feel for what's out there. Some people work in an area or city that does things a certain way and they assume it's that way across the country. Remember each state also has it's own government and "culture" if you will, so you're going to find many variances.

was literally stunned. That seems so inefficient. Nobody is entitled to a day off, especially a holiday. If it happens, great; if it doesn't, too bad.

Whoa. I think you may be dealing with some past-life issues.

In Canada, the holidays are federally-mandated, so the citizens are entitled. The only time you don't get a day off if it falls on a weekend is if it's Canada Day. The day it falls on is the day it's celebrated.

In the U.S., most companies receive little-to-no help whatsoever, so it's up to that business to support itself. If American companies were to try and copy what's done in other countries, most would be forced to either shut down or fire tons off the payroll. Neither scenario is a pretty picture, since in both, lots of people would be without work and while that might grant you more "free time" you certainly wouldn't enjoy it since you'd lack an income.

Weak argument here, DP. Most companies receive little-to-no help in Canada either.

So if a business allowed a lot of vacation and sick days to each employee, those days would no doubt get used and the company as a whole would be less effective and efficient. This would mean less money brought in. People also tend to call in sick when they're feeling fine, so even if they (and when) they managed to use up their vacation time, it's a sure bet that there would be numerous individuals who would use their sick days as impromptu vacation time.

Yeah, sorry. Another no-go. What you are saying here is that everyone who receives vacation and sick days is a scammer and will abuse the system. As a long term salaried administrator in my former position I received 7 weeks paid vacation and 130 sick days annually. I, along with my fellow administrators, usually lost a lot of our vacation days because we were so heavily burdened with work that we couldn't get away. In addition to that, I can tell you that very rarely did we use any of our sick leave. And even when we did, we worked from home. Ditto with the unionized employees. Nope. A definite no-go, DP.

All of the above explains why there are such strict artificial limits on maternity leave. It has much less to do with company's being "mean" than it does with "staying alive." Since they only see they money they bring in themselves, if they offered the generous packages other countries (like Canada), I don't doubt there would be many women who would get pregnant for the sole purpose of reaping those benefits; as it is, my wife has known women to do this in Canada.

Yeah. Because who wouldn't want an entire lifetime of payback for a year "off" with a screaming, crying, demanding baby? That's just too silly for words.

yeah.. maternity leave is sooo unecessary....

you know thoses little guyz will help pay for the retirement and debt of the country i believe isn't it ?

Damn... that sounded bad PoolX

Ugh, I'm so bad at using quotes! I just wanted to state that I agree with everyone here. I agree with PoolX that many people DO take advantage of sick time and maternity leave. There are also people (disgusting people) who take advantage of fostering children just to have them do their housework and collect the $$ for themselves giving the child the bare minimum. There were many women in WI having babies just to collect on welfare (when we had it). I agree with Krikit too that it's a ridiculous thought. But that's because we are responsible mature adults who know right from wrong. The women doing this are undereducated, come from very poor families, many times are on drugs or alcoholics etc...they don't know any better and see it as a quick solution to get some extra $$ and not have to work. They aren't thinking about the demanding toddler, smartmouthed adolescent & expensive teen they will have in the future. And they probably won't care because they aren't good, caring parents either. It's a viscious cycle.

I think the things DeadPoolX has said are ugly truths, some things were a little too generalized and not true across the board, but the point was made. I really would like to learn more about how other countries function before I form my own opinion on these matters. What you all say about Canada does sound good, but the money has to come from somewhere. How do the companies stay afloat if they're giving all that paid maternity leave (up to a year!! i was shocked!! and very jealous ), all that paid sick time is unreal (who would need that??). Are prices for everything higher then? Do the business owners just run the business for the good of others and not make much profit? I realize the big corporations here are producing some ridiculously rich top dogs who need to be brought back down to earth! Nobody on earth is worth the money some of these ceo's make...nobody. I'm not trying to make any jabs here, just trying to understand it. How does it add up?

[Krikit 1,166]

How do the companies stay afloat if they're giving all that paid maternity leave (up to a year!! i was shocked!! and very jealous ), all that paid sick time is unreal (who would need that??). Are prices for everything higher then? Do the business owners just run the business for the good of others and not make much profit?

I've highlighted the pertinent area in Kathryn's post, below. The companies aren't paying the entire maternity leave. They pay 25% and the remainder is topped off by the Federal Government, up to 75% of the employee's salary. However, this does not mean that an employee on maternity or paternity leave will receive 100% of their salary. There is a cap on the amount the government will pay out. I believe it is around $400/week. Many people cannot afford to take a year from work because they need the entire salary to sustain themselves and their family, so they will take a reduced leave or share the leave with the lower wage earner of the family if the female is the major breadwinner. You also need to have been employed full-time for the 52 weeks preceding the claim. Otherwise you are not eligible. Employers pay unemployment insurance premiums to the government, which are deducted from the employee's paycheque (which covers all forms of unemployment... not just maternity leave). It is pro-rated to the income and there is a maximum amount payable per year. The salary savings from the worker's leave of absence will (usually) offset the cost of a replacement because there is a timelag between the leaving of the staff and the hiring of the interim employee. As well, some employers choose not to replace the employee at all, which will also offset their costs.

The exception would be specific circumstances such as maternity leave which is supported by premiums paid by both the employer and the employee to the Employment Insurance program managed by the Federal Government. The employer doesn't pay the salary of the person on Maternity leave so they can afford to hire a temporary replacement.

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

How do the companies stay afloat if they're giving all that paid maternity leave (up to a year!! i was shocked!! and very jealous ), all that paid sick time is unreal (who would need that??). Are prices for everything higher then? Do the business owners just run the business for the good of others and not make much profit?

I've highlighted the pertinent area in Kathryn's post, below. The companies aren't paying the entire maternity leave. They pay 25% and the remainder is topped off by the Federal Government, up to 75% of the employee's salary. However, this does not mean that an employee on maternity or paternity leave will receive 100% of their salary. There is a cap on the amount the government will pay out. I believe it is around $400/week. Many people cannot afford to take a year from work because they need the entire salary to sustain themselves and their family, so they will take a reduced leave or share the leave with the lower wage earner of the family if the female is the major breadwinner. You also need to have been employed full-time for the 52 weeks preceding the claim. Otherwise you are not eligible. Employers pay unemployment insurance premiums to the government, which are deducted from the employee's paycheque (which covers all forms of unemployment... not just maternity leave). It is pro-rated to the income and there is a maximum amount payable per year. The salary savings from the worker's leave of absence will (usually) offset the cost of a replacement because there is a timelag between the leaving of the staff and the hiring of the interim employee. As well, some employers choose not to replace the employee at all, which will also offset their costs.

The exception would be specific circumstances such as maternity leave which is supported by premiums paid by both the employer and the employee to the Employment Insurance program managed by the Federal Government. The employer doesn't pay the salary of the person on Maternity leave so they can afford to hire a temporary replacement.

so when you say 'reduced leave', do you mean that they would work part time??

even we had something like that here, it is still MUCH better than having to work full time, especially when you have a new child