Strange things you're not used to

[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 1,165]

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

[Krikit 1,165]

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

Sorry. By "reduced leave" I mean the mother might take, say, 3 months maternity leave and the father would take the remaining 9 months. Or, if there is no traditional family unit, the mother would take what she requires/can afford and then return to work.

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

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

Sorry. By "reduced leave" I mean the mother might take, say, 3 months maternity leave and the father would take the remaining 9 months. Or, if there is no traditional family unit, the mother would take what she requires/can afford and then return to work.

thanks for the explanation

in the states i have never heard any mention of the father taking leave for a new baby...funny how we consider ourselves to be so up on equal rights for men and women, yet ive never even heard this issue raised

[DeadPoolX 9]

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.

But it's hardly "forced labor," Krikit. Nobody is making anyone else work for any company in particular. You are free to choose who you wish to work for, provided you have the qualifications, of course. If IBM is being a "slave driver" then why not go work for Hewlett-Packard instead? If someone is too worried about "rocking the boat" then that's not a company issue, it's a personal one.

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.

Three things:

1. These aren't MY arguments. These are the reasons stated over and over and over again by businesses and economic statisticians on Wall Street. If you disagree with them, that's fine. Take it up with them, but don't blame me.

2. You're right. If some sort of regulation was enforced, many companies would learn how to make it work or go under. How would they do that? They'd fire as many "unnecessary" workers as possible so they keep their business running and earn a profit. That's how it works. Unless you want the government to enact a law stating that companies can't even lay off their own employees. If that occurred, then we'd be nothing be a nation of freelancers. No one would want to own and run a business. Why hire someone when you'd have virtually no ability to fire them as well?

3. You'll have to remember that "liberal" in the U.S. tends to mean something different than in most of the world. The classic definition of "liberal" actually has far more in common with being "progressive" than it does with American Liberalism. In Classical Liberalism, someone who was a liberal wanted to gain better conditions in society and government for their country.

In contrast, American Liberalism essentially means Socialism. So when an American says "liberal" as an insult, he or she is using the American version of the term to mean "Socialist." The reason this doesn't sit well with many in the U.S. is because Socialism and Capitalism can rarely, if ever, coincide and Americans are raised to believe strongly in a heavily capitalistic society.

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?

1. CBR, thanks for be able to look at what I said without going haywire. I realize my words weren't the nicest and probably pretty unpopular overall, but that doesn't make them any less true (at least in some cases).

2. You're right, CBR -- the money does have to come from somewhere and that's the Canadian tax payer. Taxes in Canada are quite high or at least, much higher than those levied in the United States. Canadians are probably used to them. In a nutshell, Joe and Jane Canuck are paying for their neighbors to stay at home on maternity leave for up to a year (at a reduced salary) after popping out as many kids as they feel like having.

Honestly, I wouldn't be too thrilled about that. Why should I have to pay for someone I don't know (or at least, know well) simply because they decided they wanted a kid or two or three and so on? It's their child(ren)! Let them pay! I'll pay for mine; they can pay for theirs! That seems fair to me. If they can't afford kids, then you know what they should do? Not have any at that time. That's the smart and simple solution. It's better for everyone all around.

As for sick days, I agree with you -- if someone is taking a ton of sick days off, they're either faking it or far too ill to be of any use to the company. In either event, they're costing the business money and not getting their work done. That's probably one of the best reasons right there for a limited number of sick days.

Prices are higher in Canada, despite the fact the U.S. and Canadian dollar can be equal in value or one worth slightly more than other on any given day of the week. My wife regularly complains about this, since given the exchange rate, prices shouldn't be so different, but they are still. I just bought a brand new hardcover book. It was $26 USD and $35 CAD. I just checked XE.com and the exchange rate between the U.S. and Canadian dollar, as of April 24, 2008 is $26.00 USD equals $26.38 CAD. As you can see, the difference is so minimal, it's barely worth considering; however, publishers are somehow getting away with charging an extra NINE DOLLARS for the same book. That's before any extra taxes are added on too.

[Krikit 1,165]

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.

But it's hardly "forced labor," Krikit. Nobody is making anyone else work for any company in particular. You are free to choose who you wish to work for, provided you have the qualifications, of course. If IBM is being a "slave driver" then why not go work for Hewlett-Packard instead? If someone is too worried about "rocking the boat" then that's not a company issue, it's a personal one.

At no point did I say that anyone was forcing anyone into labour. I said that your words brought those thoughts into my mind. That does not make it reality.

2. You're right. If some sort of regulation was enforced, many companies would learn how to make it work or go under. How would they do that? They'd fire as many "unnecessary" workers as possible so they keep their business running and earn a profit. That's how it works. Unless you want the government to enact a law stating that companies can't even lay off their own employees. If that occurred, then we'd be nothing be a nation of freelancers. No one would want to own and run a business. Why hire someone when you'd have virtually no ability to fire them as well?

Companies do that now. Earning a profit is why they're in business. Employers don't keep employees on the books if they are surplus to requirements or they need to bring about cost-saving measures. Unless, of course, those employees belong to a Union. Unions bring your last line about "virtually no ability to fire them" into reality.

Honestly, I wouldn't be too thrilled about that. Why should I have to pay for someone I don't know (or at least, know well) simply because they decided they wanted a kid or two or three and so on? It's their child(ren)! Let them pay! I'll pay for mine; they can pay for theirs! That seems fair to me. If they can't afford kids, then you know what they should do? Not have any at that time. That's the smart and simple solution. It's better for everyone all around.

As for sick days, I agree with you -- if someone is taking a ton of sick days off, they're either faking it or far too ill to be of any use to the company. In either event, they're costing the business money and not getting their work done. That's probably one of the best reasons right there for a limited number of sick days.

Let's look at this realistically. How much of a problem do you think Canada has with this perceived burden on the taxpayer? Do you think that Canadians would begin to complain and start a movement to have these policies overturned if there was solid statistical information proving this system is a detriment to the taxpayer, business, and society? Of course they would. Do you hear any whispers of a problem coming out of Canada? Of course you don't. The system works.

Prices are higher in Canada, despite the fact the U.S. and Canadian dollar can be equal in value or one worth slightly more than other on any given day of the week. My wife regularly complains about this, since given the exchange rate, prices shouldn't be so different, but they are still. I just bought a brand new hardcover book. It was $26 USD and $35 CAD. I just checked XE.com and the exchange rate between the U.S. and Canadian dollar, as of April 24, 2008 is $26.00 USD equals $26.38 CAD. As you can see, the difference is so minimal, it's barely worth considering; however, publishers are somehow getting away with charging an extra NINE DOLLARS for the same book. That's before any extra taxes are added on too.

Yes, Canadians pay higher taxes than Americans. But they also receive acceptable compensatory benefits from those taxes. Yes, some items are more expensive. But, then again, the standard of living and the average income for comparable positions is much higher in Canada than in the US. That is why you have a cost of living factor. Just because some items are more expensive in Canada does not mean that there are not heavily inflated costs in the US. I find the US system of business much more costly than Canada for certain items and services. Canada and the US are not the same country and do not operate in the same manner. For instance, Canada can balance its budget. The US, however, continues to operate at a deficit year after year after year. Canada does not see imprisonment of its citizens as a revenue-generating business or allow prison placement and expansion to stimulate economy in economically-depressed areas.

*pause*

You know, I'm going to stop there. I generally don't engage in discussions such as this with unknown entities on a message board. VJ is where I come for information and to engage in light-hearted repartee with some of its members. I do not wish that to change.

Have a great weekend everyone.

[melusine 5]

PoolX.. I didn't wanted to be rude neither point to you directly but more to what was happening in the business industry.

I come from france (wich is awesome in term of maternity leave) and I live in Canada (Qc province) wich isn't bad either in this matter. True also we pay crazy taxes.

I think the US should just have something more acceptable for a developped country.

Well, of course, we'll see when it's gonna be my turn to be pregnant and how i'll cope with it.

(I might aswell go freelance and be able to take as much time as i want !)(well... watch out the income tho...)

[trailmix 77]

Prices are higher in Canada, despite the fact the U.S. and Canadian dollar can be equal in value or one worth slightly more than other on any given day of the week. My wife regularly complains about this, since given the exchange rate, prices shouldn't be so different, but they are still. I just bought a brand new hardcover book. It was $26 USD and $35 CAD. I just checked XE.com and the exchange rate between the U.S. and Canadian dollar, as of April 24, 2008 is $26.00 USD equals $26.38 CAD. As you can see, the difference is so minimal, it's barely worth considering; however, publishers are somehow getting away with charging an extra NINE DOLLARS for the same book. That's before any extra taxes are added on too.

If you were in Canada you would know that most retailers now sell at the U.S. price for books and greeting cards.

As for employment standards - you know, it doesn't hurt to be kind to those who are working with you, most Canadian employers accept this.

I've read only the last 2 pages or so of this thread, however, DP, your argument re U.S. companies going under if they are forced to give their employees a little time off - are they that more inefficient than Canadian companies?

[DeadPoolX 9]

Prices are higher in Canada, despite the fact the U.S. and Canadian dollar can be equal in value or one worth slightly more than other on any given day of the week. My wife regularly complains about this, since given the exchange rate, prices shouldn't be so different, but they are still. I just bought a brand new hardcover book. It was $26 USD and $35 CAD. I just checked XE.com and the exchange rate between the U.S. and Canadian dollar, as of April 24, 2008 is $26.00 USD equals $26.38 CAD. As you can see, the difference is so minimal, it's barely worth considering; however, publishers are somehow getting away with charging an extra NINE DOLLARS for the same book. That's before any extra taxes are added on too.

If you were in Canada you would know that most retailers now sell at the U.S. price for books and greeting cards.

As for employment standards - you know, it doesn't hurt to be kind to those who are working with you, most Canadian employers accept this.

I've read only the last 2 pages or so of this thread, however, DP, your argument re U.S. companies going under if they are forced to give their employees a little time off - are they that more inefficient than Canadian companies?

I'm just going by what the price says on the book cover and my wife -- who is still in Canada, by the way -- says about the price differences between there and the United States. She's claimed some things are getting closer to even, but most areas are still more expensive. You're right; I don't live there, so I don't know, but my wife obviously does, so she probably would know.

Being nice to your employees is all well and good, so long as it doesn't adversely affect the bottom line. Remember, a business is there to make money; not to be a social community. It's great if your workplace can be enjoyable and the people are fun, nice and friendly, but that isn't always the case for numerous reasons (some of which deal with money and some of which don't). In the end, the most important factor is how much a company earns for their shareholders at the end of the year. If the company hasn't brought in enough, those shareholders will fire the CEO. The CEO knows this, so he or she will do whatever it takes within the law (or sometimes even outside of it) to earn them the funds they desire. If that means being a jerk to the employees or firing tons of people to recoup losses, the CEO will do it.

As for efficiency, I think you're viewing this from an employee standpoint. Try looking at it from an employer's view. Most employees are seen as "cogs in a larger machine." That "larger machine" is the company itself. When one of those "cogs" breaks down or burns out, the "cog" needs to be replaced so the "machine" can keep on running. It's really as simple as that.

So it's very efficient. It's also very cold and impersonal too. But that's why the very last place you really want to be is in an office cubicle somewhere, working until you're 65 and then getting laid off because you're "too old" and no longer "economically viable" anymore. The best thing you can do is work for yourself or start your own business. Otherwise, be prepared for a very dreary existence where you're considered nothing more than a replaceable part that can be tossed out with the garbage at a moment's notice.

[Marilyn. 340]

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

we have started using cloth bags in the last couple of months.... they sell them at most of the stores that I have been too.... although I haven't noticed a lot of people using them...

I didn't see the cloth bag as much in Canada though....