SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(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)
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
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)
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
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @12:12PM
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)
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)
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.