Why would they take a day's leave when they can call in sick? We have 3 days a year that parents can take if they have child care issues. Over this way there's plenty of childless people (sterile limp dicks / egg bound bints) who regularly phone in sick Weds & Thursdays after they've been on a mid-week Champipn's League jolly. They piss me off.
I have got to say drinking VB is likening the bucket of water just after you have washed 3" of Mud and grunge off your car.... I don't know what half of you are on about..... American Budweiser is quite nice................ If you are a shandy drinking southern tart !!!
Businesses are trying to promote these sorts of benefits to gain loyalty and good will from their employees. You chose not to have kids, they have the added stresses of being a parent. Every little thing that can make their lives less stressful raising children means they can be more focused and productive at work.
They chose to have kids. How is it different? And of course people without kids have zero stresses in their lives....
They chose to have kids so they get the work and stress of raising a family and get a week extra off in the year, you chose not to so don't get the week off but don't raise a family. Don't really think this is something worth arguing about. Next you'll be demanding a paternity leave equivalent.
On the surface from what you're told me, its a benefit open to only 50% of the workforce who made a choice regarding having children.
Employers are not obliged to pay people to take off to look after their kids, many do so simply because it's in their best interest.
At our place you lose pay if take time off to care for another, so people just ring in sick instead. It's a no brainer.
I was commenting on your remark that things in Hull had changed and not for the better. Years ago Newland Ave had a handful of pubs, which you had to vacate at 10.30pm and go home or find a crappy club somewhere, noisy and full of younger people. Now you have more choice and can go out later, with more of them selling food,and places open later which are more appealing to to 30, 40 and 50 year olds. Why you would think that this was a change for worse is what I was asking.
You really find it hard to grasp simple things, don't you? I didn't say it DID cost 45 minutes work to buy a pint in Norway. I said IF it did and a pint cost 30 minutes work in the UK than the pint was dearer to a citizen of Norway than a citizen of the UK. That is the only way to measure these things and compare them. What it would cost us as a visitor is irrelevant. Some places appear dearer others expensive dependent on exchange rates, local wages etc... You quote a minimum wage in Norway and then say there isn't a government one. Then there isn't a minimum wage as employers could pay less if they thought they could undercut others but still get people to work for them. You statement about the Krone, not Krona BTW, being worth more than the pound because Norway is small and has oil is meaningless drivel. Incidentally if a Norwegian goes on holiday to Spain, Italy, .France or any other country with the euro, they would get 1.10 euros for their Krone whilst we would get 1.24 pounds which suggests the pound is valued higher. As for the 62.4%, see how long you would get it and the conditions. More stringent as regarding looking for a job or being unfit to,work. No housing benefit, tax credits, child tax credits and all the other things we hand out either. A lot of people in this country wouldn't like the Norwegian system. There is an occasional poster on here who lives in Norway. Maybe if he reads this he will give us his slant on things.
There's no need to be a dickhead about it. Obviously it'll cost more to visit, but in terms of living there, you tend to make more in comparison and your money goes further. Unemployment is very low and there's a very low attrition rate for work there.
Actually, you are being the dickhead here. How does your money go further when things are dearer in comparison? As I said, the average wage after stoppages is 27more in Norway than it is here. If something is 28% more there than here it is dearer, if it is 26% less it is cheaper. You seem very confused about how these things work in reality.
Right. But the cost is offset by the fact that they have a lot more disposable income. To us, yes, it seems daft, but to them even if their items are more expensive, it doesn't matter because they have more money anyway. A British person going over there would find it bloody expensive, naturally. But somebody getting a Norweigan pay cheque while living in Norway probably wouldn't notice the difference. A Big mac meal over there is about £8.50. But as they earn £15 an hour, it's 56% of their hourly wage. Over here it's £4.39 ( I think), which is 58% of our hourly minimum wage. See how that works? Because 56 is a smaller number than 58. Granted, you can't way up an entire economy on McDonald's products, but it does highlight that working over there and getting a wage from their end gets you more disposable income. I don't know why you're being so patronising or stand offish about this, it reeks of wanting to be right. Stand down Tonto.
