Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday May 24 2017, @05:54AM   Printer-friendly
from the 10-weeks-vacation dept.

Do you leave work behind when you physically move out of your workplace? Or do the texts, messages, emails keep pulling you back, monopolizing your life beyond work hours? Do you believe that this can get to a point where an individual eventually breaks down?

These questions were answered with a new French labour reform law enforced from January 1 2017. It requires French companies with more than 50 workers to guarantee their employees a "right to disconnect" from technology after office hours. Companies need to start discussions with employees to define their rights to ignore work related messages. If a deal cannot be reached, the company must publish a charter that would state the demands on, and rights of, employees out-of-hours.

[...] Other countries too have attempted to address the issue of out-of-office work stress. In Japan, Tokyo's governor has ordered strict monitoring of those working beyond 8pm. A German law forbids managers from contacting employees on vacation. South Korea, known for its gruelling work hours, launched a work-life balance campaign last year to encourage annual leaves.

But despite these examples, most remain skeptical of such a law being passed in other countries, especially the U.S., where long workweeks and foregone vacation time are the norm. In 2015, the French worked an average of 1,482 hours a year, while Americans worked about 1,790 hours. U.S. workers not just get less vacation time than their European counterparts but also end up using only 73% of it.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 24 2017, @07:35AM (21 children)

    We really need to stop comparing ourselves to Europe. We are not socialists over here, we're crony-capitalists wishing we were just capitalists.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by UncleSlacky on Wednesday May 24 2017, @07:41AM (17 children)

    by UncleSlacky (2859) on Wednesday May 24 2017, @07:41AM (#514711)

    There are no socialist countries in Europe - social democracy != socialist.

    They are all capitalist economies, i.e. the workers do not control the means of production.

    • (Score: 3, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 24 2017, @07:53AM (16 children)

      If it has the word "social" in the name, that should be a clue to you.

      Also, workers never control the means of production in any socialist country. The government does. You're halfway there now. Give it another twenty to fifty years and you'll be entirely socialist. Give it another fifty and you'll be struggling to put food on your plates.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by UncleSlacky on Wednesday May 24 2017, @08:04AM (12 children)

        by UncleSlacky (2859) on Wednesday May 24 2017, @08:04AM (#514720)

        You're using the American definition of socialist, i.e. ""Socialism is when the government does stuff and more stuff it does the socialister it is".

        Here's a clue, the only shared aspect of all forms of actual socialism is the worker control of the means of production. Lots of countries call themselves (or are called by Americans) socialist, it doesn't make it so. If every country were as described by its title, the DPRK would really be democratic.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 24 2017, @08:15AM (11 children)

          Name a nation that mandated that workers control the means of production without, and this is important, taking that job over itself.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @08:44AM (5 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @08:44AM (#514727)

            Ugh go away already. Your hard line capitalist / libertarian stance is old and boring. Only slightly less spammy than the violently imposed monopoly troll.

            • (Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 24 2017, @08:48AM (3 children)

              Yeah, that's what I thought. Don't come at me unprepared again.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @02:31PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @02:31PM (#514819)

                Did you miss the part where the economies aren't socialist?

                Your insights really are tired and worn-out.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @03:33PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @03:33PM (#514850)

                I think someone should look into the moderation on your comments. Seems like you get upmodded for the trashiest comments.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 24 2017, @06:58PM

                  We don't police moderations except to see that mod-bombs don't happen and Spam isn't abused. Would you like us to? Bearing in mind I'm almost always the one doing what little policing we actually do, unless it involves me. Myself, I'd rather trust our widely varied community to work it out in the end through moderations.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday May 24 2017, @01:22PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 24 2017, @01:22PM (#514795) Journal
              Yep. You lost. I'll note here that OriginalOwner has actually thought out this stuff and has some good working examples of worker-owned coops and businesses. These happen to be wholly capitalist since they are by definition privately owned capital (going by the real world definition of capitalism rather than OriginalOwner's pet definition of capitalism). I find it interesting that capitalist societies have the best examples of socialism as you think it should be.
          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @12:12PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @12:12PM (#514760)

            Name a nation that mandated that workers control the means of production without

            I actually can't even do this, without that addendum. This certainly doesn't apply to European countries. Maybe Cuba, Uruguay, China or something, but not to European countries.

            We're called social because of universal healthcare, safety nets for the poor, sick, unfortunate, progressive percentage based tax income, stuff like that. (Low incomes pay X%, high incomes pay Y% on their income, where X Y) Not because we would have something else than capitalism running our economy.

          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 24 2017, @05:56PM (3 children)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday May 24 2017, @05:56PM (#514977) Journal

            Name a nation that mandated that workers control the means of production without, and this is important, taking that job over itself.

            Why?

            That's like arguing the definition of "Scottish" because you can't name a Scottish guy who's been the President of the US. Being president isn't required to be Scottish.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 24 2017, @07:00PM (2 children)

              The government not taking over control of means of production is, however, necessary to distinguish communism from socialism. Unless you think they're the same?

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @10:24PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @10:24PM (#515156)

                Oh please...

                Communism [wikipedia.org] - socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.

                Socialism [wikipedia.org] - characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production [..] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership

                In pure communism, there is no such thing as "the government". And public ownership, like stock markets and all that, is perfectly compatible with socialist markets. Which one did you think was all about "government taking over control of production"?

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday May 25 2017, @01:24AM

                  There's also no such thing as pure communism. Ditto pure socialism. They are unicorns unicorn. Never have and never will exist on a national scale. Let us instead speak of the communist and socialist governments that have actually existed.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @03:16PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @03:16PM (#514839)

        If it has the word "social" in the name, that should be a clue to you.

        Yeah, because titles always mean what they say. That's why China is a Republic and North Korea is a Democracy.

        You need to be smarter than your brainwashing.

      • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Wednesday May 24 2017, @03:18PM (1 child)

        by FakeBeldin (3360) on Wednesday May 24 2017, @03:18PM (#514840) Journal

        If it has the word "social" in the name, that should be a clue to you.

        I'm always surprised by how rabidly opposed to anything affiliated with the word "social" (some) Americans seem to be.
        Is the USA really that proud of being anti-social?

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday May 24 2017, @01:40PM (2 children)

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 24 2017, @01:40PM (#514802)

    There's also a wider range of "human biological differences" here than in 60s Europe, although recently Europe is on this self-destructive path to annihilation.

    The point being we NEED more prisons because of who lives here, and this kind of costs extend thru all of society making many "traditional euro" things unaffordable here.

    Once Europe fully and completely becomes "North Syria" both in religion, culture, lifestyle, race, economy, government, then its social services will resemble "South Syria" because obviously it IS syria, merely a piece broken off and geographically moved. And no one is jealous of the social programs in "South Syria". So that problem will kinda take care of itself in the long run. If 40% of the kids in europe are foreign born today, and the polticians only allow that to ratchet upward, Europe is over by mid century, conquered.

    • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Wednesday May 24 2017, @02:34PM (1 child)

      by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 24 2017, @02:34PM (#514820)

      I find your "North Syria" comment to be somewhat over the top, but I'd like to counter it with this observation: The military intervention by the USA (and other Western nations) in attempting to democratise countries such as Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan could equally be described as turning the Middle East into "Mid-Eastern America".

      I don't follow your point of "we NEED more prisons because of who lives here". (I can't recall where you're located.) More than where? And why is there such a need? Could you elaborate?