Hours I work/PTO
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hours I work/PTO:
@coliver said in Hours I work/PTO:
@scottalanmiller said in Hours I work/PTO:
@coliver said in Hours I work/PTO:
@scottalanmiller said in Hours I work/PTO:
@Dashrender said in Hours I work/PTO:
@coliver said in Hours I work/PTO:
@Dashrender said in Boss I want to go to MangoCon....:
@BBigford said in Boss I want to go to MangoCon....:
@Dashrender said in Boss I want to go to MangoCon....:
Glad I've never worked in a shit whole company like that.
Even the retail companies I've worked for never did crap like that. Every employee received PTO, a minimum of 2 weeks of whatever the average number of hours you work in a week (not sure where that average came from when you've been there less than a year).
Sick time is something that I don't think I've ever had - it's all just PTO, all lumped together, take it how you need it.
My current employer gives three weeks from day one (but it's on an accrual basis, so you don't actually have any PTO on the books until after the first pay period).
...and that is why I'd love to work outside the USA. Common consensus is the average US company is not the greatest to work for in comparison to the average company in the UK or Canada. Never worked outside the US before so I have no opinion on that. I just know I've never been happy with any company I work for.
Sounds like you just need a new employer. But, the flexibility for your classes might not exist, so perhaps you're stuck. It sounds like they are paying you a good wage though, at least you seem to think it's good.
As for your condition where you refuse to allow you to work 40 hours (30 is actually considered full time in many states and assuming they provide benefits like paid vacation time and health insurance, you would be entitled to that - personally I'd visit your city's business affairs office (or whatever it's called) and ask what the city/state requirements for employers is. And if you want to push it... inform the state and watch how things change. though the company sounds so horrible, it's just as likely that they will reduce your hours further to get you under the requirements. But your sacrifice would be good for the other employees.
Out of curiosity what states have a 30 hour work week?
Oh, it's not about having a 30 hour work week, it's simply a definition of what qualifies as full time to get full benefits. If you work 30+ hours in a week, in Nebraska you are considered full time, and as such you must get all the same benefits as someone working 40 hrs/wk. The idea, I think, is to prevent employers from hiring someone, only allowing them to work say 32 hours a week and then not having to give them full time employee benefits.
Ah, okay. NY might be like that. But 32 hours is what sticks in my head.
32 hours is the threshold for benefits and insurance as a full time worker in NY. Which is why a lot of companies, around here, manage hours to prevent people from being able to work more then 30 hours a week.
Yeah, I kind of disagree with the law because it simply makes the poor get fewer hours rather than making them get benefits.
Agreed... most benefits should be universal. Especially things like healthcare, and some form of PTO.
And retirement. I believe Internet should be free, too. At least basic, maybe not enough to get movies but certainly enough to have email, VoIP and to get to web sites. It's a critical part of access to education and information.
It's not the governments responsibility to cover internet, get your retirement plans in order. Don't expect someone else to pay YOUR bills. Internet is in no way needed or required.
-
Actually I'm in agreement with Scott on this about internet. I consider internet access more critical to today's world than healthcare. City municipal provided base level (as Scott said, not good enough for movies, but email/VOIP/general web surfing) I think should be a provided service today.
As for retirement, the problem I have with this is retirement has different expenses depending on the individual, and what about when retirees can't take care of themselves anymore, we foot that bill too?
I don't have children, and don't plan to, I won't have family to take care of me (or my wife) when we reach that stage.
If you're going to go as far as retirement, then you have to go all the way and start building tons of retirement towers to put those retirees.
No, sorry I don't agree on the retirement part.
-
@Jason said in Hours I work/PTO:
@scottalanmiller said in Hours I work/PTO:
@coliver said in Hours I work/PTO:
@scottalanmiller said in Hours I work/PTO:
@coliver said in Hours I work/PTO:
@scottalanmiller said in Hours I work/PTO:
@Dashrender said in Hours I work/PTO:
@coliver said in Hours I work/PTO:
@Dashrender said in Boss I want to go to MangoCon....:
@BBigford said in Boss I want to go to MangoCon....:
@Dashrender said in Boss I want to go to MangoCon....:
Glad I've never worked in a shit whole company like that.
Even the retail companies I've worked for never did crap like that. Every employee received PTO, a minimum of 2 weeks of whatever the average number of hours you work in a week (not sure where that average came from when you've been there less than a year).
Sick time is something that I don't think I've ever had - it's all just PTO, all lumped together, take it how you need it.
My current employer gives three weeks from day one (but it's on an accrual basis, so you don't actually have any PTO on the books until after the first pay period).
...and that is why I'd love to work outside the USA. Common consensus is the average US company is not the greatest to work for in comparison to the average company in the UK or Canada. Never worked outside the US before so I have no opinion on that. I just know I've never been happy with any company I work for.
Sounds like you just need a new employer. But, the flexibility for your classes might not exist, so perhaps you're stuck. It sounds like they are paying you a good wage though, at least you seem to think it's good.
As for your condition where you refuse to allow you to work 40 hours (30 is actually considered full time in many states and assuming they provide benefits like paid vacation time and health insurance, you would be entitled to that - personally I'd visit your city's business affairs office (or whatever it's called) and ask what the city/state requirements for employers is. And if you want to push it... inform the state and watch how things change. though the company sounds so horrible, it's just as likely that they will reduce your hours further to get you under the requirements. But your sacrifice would be good for the other employees.
Out of curiosity what states have a 30 hour work week?
Oh, it's not about having a 30 hour work week, it's simply a definition of what qualifies as full time to get full benefits. If you work 30+ hours in a week, in Nebraska you are considered full time, and as such you must get all the same benefits as someone working 40 hrs/wk. The idea, I think, is to prevent employers from hiring someone, only allowing them to work say 32 hours a week and then not having to give them full time employee benefits.
Ah, okay. NY might be like that. But 32 hours is what sticks in my head.
32 hours is the threshold for benefits and insurance as a full time worker in NY. Which is why a lot of companies, around here, manage hours to prevent people from being able to work more then 30 hours a week.
Yeah, I kind of disagree with the law because it simply makes the poor get fewer hours rather than making them get benefits.
Agreed... most benefits should be universal. Especially things like healthcare, and some form of PTO.
And retirement. I believe Internet should be free, too. At least basic, maybe not enough to get movies but certainly enough to have email, VoIP and to get to web sites. It's a critical part of access to education and information.
It's not the governments responsibility to cover internet, get your retirement plans in order. Don't expect someone else to pay YOUR bills. Internet is in no way needed or required.
Who said responsibility? I'm just saying that it's an opportunity. An opportunity to level the playing field, lower cost and increase quality. Everyone wins. Every individual wins, the government wins. It's the governments' job to do what's best for the country, right? So, really, it is their responsibility, right?
If you don't think there should be Internet, what about elementary school? Which is more important... access to basic literacy tools or school? We pay a fortune for kids to have access to terrible schools, why not pay a tiny bit to ensure that everyone has the things that democracy requires?
-
Internet is more important than roads, right? but no one is arguing that the government should make people tarmac the area in front of their drivesways, right? Why treat the Internet differently?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hours I work/PTO:
Internet is more important than roads, right? but no one is arguing that the government should make people tarmac the area in front of their drivesways, right? Why treat the Internet differently?
Um No, it's not. Some of you on here have a very skewed view of the world.
-
@Dashrender said in Hours I work/PTO:
If you're going to go as far as retirement, then you have to go all the way and start building tons of retirement towers to put those retirees.
What's wrong with that? I don't see the negative there.
-
@Jason said in Hours I work/PTO:
@scottalanmiller said in Hours I work/PTO:
Internet is more important than roads, right? but no one is arguing that the government should make people tarmac the area in front of their drivesways, right? Why treat the Internet differently?
Um No, it's not. Some of you on here have a very skewed view of the world.
Why are roads important? To get "stuff" shipped to you? Internet is important because it is how we communicate. How do you have a functional democracy in this day and age when all of the information is online and online alone? Cut someone off from the Internet and they leave society. Cut someone's road off, and they just stop buying unneeded crap.
-
Roads ARE critical for emergency services, I realize this. But so is the Internet. You can't call for an ambulance if you can't get a communications line to use to tell them that you are in need of assistance.
-
The bigger problem is that taking away something like Internet access causes a massive divide in the classes. If you call below the ability to afford Internet, you lose the ability to job hunt, get services, etc. It becomes a "being poor makes it impossible to stop being poor."
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hours I work/PTO:
Who said responsibility? I'm just saying that it's an opportunity. An opportunity to level the playing field,
And that doesn't do anything other than make someone 'feel good'
-
@Jason said in Hours I work/PTO:
And that doesn't do anything other than make someone 'feel good'
Um... giving the poor a chance has no benefits?
Even if it didn't, what does it matter? It would increase the quality and lower the cost of all Internet. So do it for altruistic reasons, do it for selfish ones. I know of no angle, other than actively wanting the situation to be worse, where it is not better. Cost, better. Equality, better. Democracy, better. Education, better. Opportunity, better. HDI, better. Speed and Reliability, better.
Who loses?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hours I work/PTO:
Roads ARE critical for emergency services, I realize this. But so is the Internet. You can't call for an ambulance if you can't get a communications line to use to tell them that you are in need of assistance.
You can't call for an ambulance over the internet, unless you're paying for a VoIP connection. And even then, a lot of 911 services don't work over the internet.
Library's have free internet. Most restaurants have free wifi.
-
@johnhooks said in Hours I work/PTO:
Library's have free internet. Most restaurants have free wifi.
The Library's is an OK start, but they are only available when the Library is open. This can be very limiting.
-
@johnhooks said in Hours I work/PTO:
You can't call for an ambulance over the internet, unless you're paying for a VoIP connection. And even then, a lot of 911 services don't work over the internet.
There is no reason that that can't be offered for free and in the telephone era the law was that 911 always worked regardless. That it CAN not work is silly. 911 might not work on a traditional phone too. But there is no reason for that to be the case any more than on VoIP.
-
@Dashrender said in Hours I work/PTO:
@johnhooks said in Hours I work/PTO:
Library's have free internet. Most restaurants have free wifi.
The Library's is an OK start, but they are only available when the Library is open. This can be very limiting.
And only for people who live near one. Most poor people do not.
-
@johnhooks said in Hours I work/PTO:
Library's have free internet. Most restaurants have free wifi.
No library or restaurant where I grew up. Depending on being rich enough to live where things are cheap is doubly bad, right? Free services are provides only to those who don't need them.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hours I work/PTO:
@Dashrender said in Hours I work/PTO:
@johnhooks said in Hours I work/PTO:
Library's have free internet. Most restaurants have free wifi.
The Library's is an OK start, but they are only available when the Library is open. This can be very limiting.
And only for people who live near one. Most poor people do not.
Huh? Most poorer demographics are inner city, which is where libraries are.
-
@johnhooks said in Hours I work/PTO:
@scottalanmiller said in Hours I work/PTO:
@Dashrender said in Hours I work/PTO:
@johnhooks said in Hours I work/PTO:
Library's have free internet. Most restaurants have free wifi.
The Library's is an OK start, but they are only available when the Library is open. This can be very limiting.
And only for people who live near one. Most poor people do not.
Huh? Most poorer demographics are inner city, which is where libraries are.
And pretty much every local government provides libraries.
-
@johnhooks said in Hours I work/PTO:
@scottalanmiller said in Hours I work/PTO:
@Dashrender said in Hours I work/PTO:
@johnhooks said in Hours I work/PTO:
Library's have free internet. Most restaurants have free wifi.
The Library's is an OK start, but they are only available when the Library is open. This can be very limiting.
And only for people who live near one. Most poor people do not.
Huh? Most poorer demographics are inner city, which is where libraries are.
Walking distance in safe areas? Inner city doesn't mean "on my block." And tons of the poorest live away from the inner cities. The library might be within a mile, but it is often not free or safe to get to it.
-
@Jason said in Hours I work/PTO:
@johnhooks said in Hours I work/PTO:
@scottalanmiller said in Hours I work/PTO:
@Dashrender said in Hours I work/PTO:
@johnhooks said in Hours I work/PTO:
Library's have free internet. Most restaurants have free wifi.
The Library's is an OK start, but they are only available when the Library is open. This can be very limiting.
And only for people who live near one. Most poor people do not.
Huh? Most poorer demographics are inner city, which is where libraries are.
And pretty much every local government provides libraries.
Maybe where you are from. Not in the north. Certainly almost nowhere near me.
Of the ones that were around, most were one room deals that have since shut down. No way they would exist or have Internet today.
