On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:01:53 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 19:35:57 -0400, wrote:




Why should anything be mandatory?

So you don't believe people should get paid for the hours worked, if
they get fired, either?

Where did I say that? I didn't.


Really, if you pay people enough
they can take care of the "benefits" as they see fit. Except that
most people don't have the willpower to save.

Vacation is a benefit to the employer, as well.

But needs and wants vary. Some people like to take long vacations,
others would rather have the money. No reason that the employee can't
have some say in what they do and prefer.


Some work schedules are other people dependent, such as an assembly
line or food service. Other people work independent of each other
and can be more flexible. I know a fellow that worked for a
software company. The rule was: you have to work 240 eight hour
days a year. This is what your pay will be every month.

OK, what's that got to do with the discussion?

The fact that with a system of that sort, there is no overtime, no
lateness, no sick days, no absenteeism, no pay variances, almost no
limit on vacation time other than a 125 day maximum if you work it
right. It empowers the employee to take care of business as he sees
fit.

Sounds like socialism to me. "The poor employee is incapable of taking care
of himself and making the right decisions in his life, so we will have to
tell him what to do. How to live, when and what vacations to take, what
benefits he should receive.... After all, we can;t have any of the ants in
the colony just going off on their own, can we?
Socialism my ass - that's just the plight of the "contract worker" -
He sells 1030 hours of his time (services) to a company for a given
number of dollars, to be delivered on his schedule. To be legal in
Canada would require that he "invoice" for his time - and he would be
paid as a "cvontractor " or "supplier" - not an employee. His pay does
not come out of "payroll"

That doge has been used up here by high-tech firms among others for
years - but if proven by CRA that the "contractor" does not (or
cannot) work for anyone else, and the "customer" dictates the starting
time and work location of the "contractor", the "customer" can be
demed an employer, and the "contractor" an "employee" for taxation
purposes. That gets REAL expensive if either one is found guilty of
"tax evasion"

In a legitimate situation, the "contractor" gets to claim "business
expenses" that he would otherwise not be able to claim and the
"customer" gets to write off the payment as other than "wages" which
can also be a benefit at tax time (and on statements to shareholders)