I’m self-employed. Can I sue the government to make them pay me to take holidays with pay? It’s a universal right, after all! If so, then naturally I’m going to need a whole lot of paid vacation.

I routinely spend 60 hours/week or more working. Is the government going to force me to work less? What’s a “reasonable limitation,” forcing me to cut back my work time until I can’t pay my bills?

Some “rights.” I’ve already had to fight off the state trying to force me to pay for unemployment insurance. Being as I am my only employee and business owners can not collect unemployment insurance, they were unable to get me to pay (no eligible employees!) but it took months of bureaucratic BS to clear that up.

I think this right was thought-out for countries where the whole "just choose a different job if this employer demands more hours than anyone could work and still have a good life because you are not a slave"-wishywashy just doesn’t cut it. I think that if you apply this to these countries it is the Chicago crowd that are naive. But that doesn’t mean the clause isn’t too vague.

where the whole "just choose a different job if this employer demands more hours than anyone could work and still have a good life because you are not a slave"-wishywashy just doesn’t cut it.

So in other words, the employer is bound to give you whatever you demand as you seem to deem as a good life ignorant of the fact that you decided to work for them.

It is not recognizing when you want to end the right indention and resume normal.

But you can go into HTML mode and do it correctly.

It’s ridiculous to even have to argue this.  Obviously you should be able to work more if you want to.  Obviously some jobs require more than 40 hours a week worth of work.  Obviously, as humans and not machines, we need time away from work to recouperate and you know… live.

So why should you be forced to work 40 hours Chris?  You did not answer the question, instead you are attempting to redirect it elsewhere.

"So in other words, the employer is bound to give you whatever you demand as you seem to deem as a good life ignorant of the fact that you decided to work for them.

What if it was a decision between working for this one employer or dying? I am stating that it should always be a good idea to be mindful of the fact that the workers simply can’t bike three hours to get to a different employer or simply cannot work as much as they are told. I am not saying the employer has to be mindful of any and all grievances and concerns but a sort of balance should be the goal.

Do it. The idea that you have the ‘right’ to do nothing is ridiculous. You don’t have that ‘right.’ You can have time for leisure, watching movies, playing games with your children if you make enough to do so. If you don’t, you can’t.

Obviously, things like "Knowledge of History" and "General Education" are things for the "jolly liberal elite" too.  I don’t hold out much hope that they’ll figure out that industrial practices used to suck though, Chris.

"And if gays are allowed to marry then cats will be marrying dogs!" – Interested

No one here is advocating for a mandated 10 hour work week, or 5 months paid vacation or whatever ridiculous notion you can come up with.  All I’m saying is that it’s not unreasonable for our society to say, you know what, you should not have to work more than 40 hours a week to have a decent living.  And if you are asked or want to work more than that, you should be compensated above and beyond what you are now.  Oh and you should get a few weeks off to recharge.   Damn crazy ideas, I know…

LMAO. What a crock.

“Give me eight weeks of paid vacation, or give me death!”

Cry me a river.

"Don’t let the man keep you down Xel, I’m sure at your age you have vast experience in this – but allow me to add a bit. There is no reason to stop there at work hours. Demand more time off, demand they fund your Christmas gifts this year. After all if you earned more you could give the gifts you would like to give."

You crack the whole world up, but what I want with this balance is basic respect for those who do not have an effectively real choice but to work for you. Not every person in the world can just go "Hey I’ll just take my rational ass to another employer  in the neighbouring commune or spend hours I don’t have petitioning for better laws! What was my pampered socialist ass thinking, and how dare these UN elitists try to corrupt me and ruin the rational, respectful relationship I have with my employer?!"

And if gays are allowed to marry then cats will be marrying dogs!” – Interested

No one here is advocating for a mandated 10 hour work week, or 5 months paid vacation or whatever ridiculous notion you can come up with.

I have nothing wrong with Cats Marrying Dogs if they could choose to do so. And if you took the time – you’d notice I have nothing wrong with Gay’s marrying either.

Sorry Chris – your fantasy world does not fit here.

However where you want to relegate the conversation to a century back or do you want to continue in present day form?

Can’t have it both ways Chris – no matter how much Liberals want it like that.

And Xel

What was my pampered socialist ass thinking, and how dare these UN elitists try to corrupt me and ruin the rational, respectful relationship I have with my employer?!”

You are owed no job, no benefits, You are owed nothing.
You earn it. And once you’ve earned it you continue to earn it to stay.

I’d like to take the time to second Tully’s last comment.

Earlier you said

People much braver than you or me actually went out into the streets and fought for the rights we Westerners take for granted today. You should keep in mind that power is rarely given up voluntarily

And now you say

What’s the point of life if all you have time to do is make crap so someone higher up than you can get rich? Ever think about that? How would you feel working 16 hour days in a sweatshop in Thailand for 2 cents an hour?

So now which one are you talking about? You would have more credibility if you stayed with one line of reasoning Chris.

Which in either rate, your last comment is typical thinking of entitlement mentality.

Interested,
I dont see how those 2 lines of reasoning don’t work together.

Actually, the freedom of speech has a historical precendent, yes it does, and is based on reason.

Oh, good, so that would be right up there with the historical precedents for slavery, racism, and religious intolerence, yes?  Also based on various forms of reason?  You can keep trying, but you can’t pretend that this is as black and white as you want it to be ("history says I’m right, vile liberals!").  There are historical precedents for just about every right you and I can think of, as well as their exact opposites.  Trying to claim the mantle of those golden, bygone eras won’t win you many points in context.  The things that actually matter are what we as a society value today and think every human being should have (like "free speech," "not slavery," "health care," and, apparently, "Not working 80 hours per week and never seeing loved ones or appreciating the life we do have").

It’s, indeed, one of those things thought up by the jolly liberal elite who don’t understand human nature and have a fairly sad grasp of what drives people.

Yes, human nature is that bit of us all that drives us to sit in a crappy office for some godawful number of hours per week.   Truly, I now see the error of my liberal ways.  I guess I’ll go clock back in, as my nature drives me to do.

The right to ‘leisure’ then, is a typical example of a 20th century thought up right, which encourages people to be lazy and has encouraged people to believe that they have the ‘right’ to sit back and produce nothing.

Yes, certainly.  In those other vile countries where they have such horrors as even less mandated working hours and mandatory paid vacation, they also have to deal with terrors like universal healthcare, lower incidences of stress related illnesses, and other scares too terrible to mention, as a result of their complete lack of productivity.  Those lazy, non-producing bastards who still somehow manage to produce enough to have better social services than us in just about every case!  Someone go prepare the fainting couch for me, would you, it’s all too horrifying for me and my jolly liberal brain.
(Bonus sarcasm!  Other notable 20th century thought up rights: racial equality, sex and gender equality, women’s suffrage.  Surely history will vindicate those who stood up to these other vile liberal ideas, no?)

O, and they have the ‘right’ to force others to pay for their unproductive hours.

This is a reference, I presume, to the vast hordes of full time 40+hr-per-weekers we currently have bloating up the welfare rolls, yes?  I mean, that’s what you’re saying, here, isn’t it?  You’re complaining about having just a 40 hour week and then suggesting that you hardworking people who put in more are subsidizing all us lazy "merely full-time" slackers.  Good to know.

Remember today’s lesson, kids:  To conservatives, your value as a human being is directly tied to your bank account total + the profit you bring your employer.  Doing secondary, non-important things like parenting your children and raising responsible, educated citizens is secondary.  Art?  Creativity?  Culture?  Perish the vile liberal thoughts!

Of course the real problem is that there are people out there who want to work 60 hours a week, [...]  For, you’re too lazy to work 60 hours. So, you either work 60 hours – because others want to – or you don’t have a job.

Oh!!!!!!!!!!  Now I see the problem.  Here this whole time I thought I was talking to someone who existed in the same dimension as me.  Now I understand that some of these posters, through the miracle of the internets, are posting to us from some other dimension where people are not allowed 
to work more the 40 hour weeks, so thus there can be none of this competition they crave.  It must be strange to live in Michael’s world, where doctors and lawyers, to name a couple of professions with 60-80 hour regular workweeks for most members in our world, are prohibited from putting in the same hours they do here on our beloved Earth.  
     I mean, that is what’s going on here, right?      Otherwise these posters whining about competition would just be arguing against strawmen and making crap up, and I would
never want to make such an uncharitable assumption.  Someday, Michael, we’ll find a way to open a door to our world for you, and you can come experience a world where 40 hours is a regular week, but if you want to put in more hours you can.

"Actually, it’s reality what liberal ideologues do their best to ignore. Which is why we’ve got so many problems today (for instance with regards to immigrants in the Netherlands)."

Everybody do this. Your comment isn’t that surprising to anyone – just very redundant and lazy.

"Xel, I’m afraid that your arguments are incredibly weak and that you aren’t capable of differentiating between rights and ‘affirmations’ or privileges. Which is why this idiotic right to be lazy exists."

Finally some actual fightin’ words! There is a right to be supported when you can’t just select a different employer, and it should also be made a part of a country’s law that a) a number of hours on a legalized minimum wage should be enough to have this or that and b) a minimum vacation period should be paid for everyone, by everyone. This is not a bad right. It may not be the right of a human – directly derived from humanity – but it should be the right of a citizen, not considered a privilege.

"Reality 3)
It is in an employers best interest to treat employees well, and give perks and benefits as they can afford in-line with it’s competition to retain the best employees and attract the best ones."

Wal-Mart seems to ignore that reality with no ill-effects…At least short term.

"Instead, you want the government to force Wal-Mart to give employees whatever it is they want, including time for ‘leisure.’"

I’m with Halcyon on this one… are we in the Twilight Zone or what?  As a human, how can you argue against the idea of mandating time off from work? We humans are not just money making machines.

On this issue you’re standing behind everything that’s wrong about the capitalist system.  Wage-slavery, de-humanization, unfettered greed, loss of "values"…

"I’m not going to pay because you think you have some strange citizen’s right to have a vacation."

Well, then the employer should have to. I simply think a period in which a vacation can take place is something that should be offered to all employees.

"Sadly, my fellow Europeans – such as yourself – have lost touch with reality and our government has actually forced employers to give people a couple of weeks of vacation each year."

Well I do not think it is unreasonable. But two weeks is a good minimum. Three, if you are willing to get less pay spread over the period.

"If you can’t go on vacation because your employer needs you, you can either quit or you work."

Naw, you can try to settle a period first, preferably in advance.

"That’s called responsibility. I realize that in Europe we’ve practically done away with responsibility and taking of oneself and one’s family, but we can still restore what we once had."

Or you can move to the US so I don’t have to hear the same repetitive laments and lambastings over and over and over and over from European right-of-centerers.

"You shouldn’t have a right to go on vacation: it is a privilege. If you earn enough and if you work so hard that you can take some time off, or if your employer can miss you for a few weeks, you can go. If not, you can’t."

No, I think it is best if a minimum amount of hours worked still entitles a period. A bottom-line – do this, get this. Want more, do more.

"Your employer isn’t going to pay for your free time, and neither should your fellow citizens."

I actually don’t think this resonates with that many – maybe most wouldn’t mind paying for others while they pay for them.

"It’s truly arrogant: "I want vacation! If I can’t afford it, you should pay for it!""

I don’t think a vacation cache should have to be collected, I think it is okay to offer a minimum period after a minimum period worked. It’s bad that people have to be coerced by law, and perhaps it is evil. But I do not know and I think two weeks are a good expectation for any citizen.

"Now you are as preachy as Michael and Interested."

Yeah, I was worried about that

"This isn’t the case in most countries."

I’m not really speaking to how it is for most of people.  I think these Declarations of Rights are targeted to the down-trodden and unfortunate.  The people that actually need protection from greedy capitalists.

Greed is a great motivator, but it needs to be restrained by society so we don’t end up back where we were a century ago.

What does the Bible have to say about greed anyways?

Chris,
I fully agree with you that greed is not a Christian virtue, but it is still human nature to work toward our own best interest. That’s why capitalism works better than socialism and always will; productivity increases when people have the maximum ability to further their own self interest. Without that motivator, things stagnate.

Chris: Why do you believe that people can’t protect themselves from greedy capitalists? Everyone has freedom to leave a job if the demands are not reasonable. If the person’s own choices or circumstances have limited that freedom (perhaps by having large debts, having inadequate skills and education to find better jobs, etc), then they have the responsibility to work toward changing their own situation to improve their level of opportunity. This worked fine for generations of hardworking people like my ancestors, and I see no reason why it should be any different now.

Or you can move to the US so I don’t have to hear the same repetitive laments and lambastings over and over and over and over from European right-of-centerers.

Or you could stop posting on a blog that centers itself around America.

Greed is a great motivator, but it needs to be restrained by society so we don’t end up back where we were a century ago.

Guess we should start putting your greed into check eh?

Chris: Why do you believe that people can’t protect themselves from greedy capitalists? Everyone has freedom to leave a job if the demands are not reasonable

Chris appears to be of the entitlement variety.

"Or you could stop posting on a blog that centers itself around America."

Or right-of-centerers, not just at this blog, could stop saying the same things the same way over and over as if that could do any good.

"Guess we missed the part where you were forced to work at Walmart by Gunpoint."

Guess you missed the part where people can’t change to an area with more than one employer for your level of expertise just because it is the most Randian thing to do.

If anything, the Walmart case cries for trustbusting regulation, not labor entitlements.

If you follow this to the logical conclusions, forcing Walmart to provide greater employee benefits will lead to higher prices at Walmart- and higher cost of living for those employees who live in these small towns where there’s nowhere else to go to work.

"Our inalienable rights concern our liberties, to delineate that which government can and can’t do. That has nothing to do with contractual agreements between citizens"

The interesting thing is that governments and corporations have a lot in common, and the lines are blurring. In a sense the entities that we refer to as governments and corporations are contractual agreements between people. In any case, if we as human beings decide that time off is a right, then it doesn’t matter if it’s being enforced against corporations or governments. You’re just setting up boundaries that aren’t there.

"Setting legal limits to the workweek like that is not much different from wage or price controls, and I think we saw in the 70’s how well that worked out."

The Fair Labor Standards Act that implemented a 40 hour work week was enacted in the late 1930s. Productivity in the U.S. has skyrocketed since then. I guess it worked out pretty well.

"Everyone has freedom to leave a job if the demands are not reasonable."

Everyone, everywhere? Me thinks you’re being too general.

"This worked fine for generations of hardworking people like my ancestors, and I see no reason why it should be any different now."

I wonder if any of your ancestors worked for the robber barons. Perhaps they didn’t think kindly of their employers, and felt trapped.

"Do you really believe that certain people are just too stupid or lazy to get ahead?"

Funny how this has turned around. This argument is about making sure everyone has a chance for some damn time off of work. Michael says that’s just rewarding laziness or whatever. In any case, it has nothing to do with "getting ahead." It’s about ensuring everyone has some say in how they spend their life. If you want to spend all of it working, great for you. I know I want some time to expand my knowledge, relax, make art, spend time with family & friends and so on.

"Ah, it never ceases to amaze me how our more socialist brethren want to take away all personal responsibility and want to make life as easy as possible, even if that means that people will completely forget what it’s like to be a Man."

Being a human has nothing to do with working for someone else or moving from place to place to find a better place to work for someone else.  In a basic sense, being human is about eating, and procreating.  Survival.

Michael,
Did you know that the latest bankruptcy law in the United States was written by credit card company lawyers?

Being a human has nothing to do with working for someone else or moving from place to place to find a better place to work for someone else. In a basic sense, being human is about eating, and procreating. Survival.

Try to remain focused on that one topic for a bit Chris.

At the basic level we would be running around in the forest with loin cloths around our waists with a handmade spear to kill game. Now if you want to remain on that level than do so. However the rest of the world, and this thread is centered on something different.

Quick quiz, what % of people ask someone else = “so what do you do?” as one of their first questions upon meeting.

……..

Not so much removed is it.

"Ah, it never ceases to amaze me how our more socialist brethren want to take away all personal responsibility and want to make life as easy as possible, even if that means that people will completely forget what it’s like to be a Man. Or a Human at that."

It never ceases to amaze me why you don’t just buy a pulpit and stand in it when you type.

It never ceases to amaze me why you don’t just buy a pulpit and stand in it when you type.

Chances are you are using it too often.

Now, where do I go for my paid-vacation checks?

You earned it Tully – heck your entitled to it!

Depends: is it my right to get myself a pulpit?

You should demand it, it’s just part of humanity.

"When you force a corp to ‘pay’ it’s workers (either salary or benefits) more than the market will bear, then prices will go up"

I agree.  But, at least in America, we live in an age of staggering corporate profits and golden parachutes.  Something tells me the market will bear a little more compensation for the workers.

"Chances are you are using it too often."

I would, but whenever I rested my wrists or hands on it my skin started to smoke…

"They are not charged anything."

We pay a high cost – we never get to experience the difficulty of unrequited love… Plus, there’s the obvious thing about us carrying the world on our shoulders.

"But, at least in America, we live in an age of staggering corporate profits and golden parachutes.  Something tells me the market will bear a little more compensation for the workers."

I think, in America, the worker’s shouldn’t expect much beyond help to not fall to the point where they need other’s people’s money to not die. Rather pay a family to keep their house at a critical point than have them lost, searching for a house, for an indefinite amount of time. Of course, then they might get spoiled. Weak. Decadent.

What’s more, I know it’s a sin in your eyes, but the executives actually deserve to earn more – yes even a lot of – money. They’re less easily replaceable, have a better education, work more hours (normally) and are often working even when they’re supposed not to.

I would prefer a performanced based method of wage earning rather than hourly myself.

We pay a high cost – we never get to experience the difficulty of unrequited love… Plus, there’s the obvious thing about us carrying the world on our shoulders.

Obviously, actually I was not calling you narcissistic for I do not think that you are.

. Rather pay a family to keep their house at a critical point than have them lost, searching for a house, for an indefinite amount of time. Of course, then they might get spoiled. Weak. Decadent.

Who then determines what is fair? What if you moved rural to fulfill your dream of being a writer, yet you couldn’t cut it. And now do not have the resources to move again. Yet you despise working at Wal-Mart – or perhaps you couldn’t cut it there either.

How much should your fellow citizens pay for your mistakes? Few people would say your on your own, but where is the defining point of their charity to you?

(and for any leftist bloggers – no I was not talking about you).

Me too but… please don’t start talking about what you would prefer: I’m sure some will suggest that the government has to mandate it.

lol if they did they’d be on the non-performing side of the equation

You swiftly contact a relevant agency about what you want to do, can do and what there is in you area or you just decide to live in the streets. It sucks but it is fair.

shhhh, you do realize you just advocated personal responsibility right?

"You say they aren’t easily replaceable, but plenty of people each year graduate with degrees in business administration.  High CEO pay has a lot to do with the boards of these companies being stocked with friends of the CEO."

Perfect meritocracy is impossible. But sure – not every part of every more liberal economy deserves the sheen of perfect meritocracy.

You say they aren’t easily replaceable, but plenty of people each year graduate with degrees in business administration. High CEO pay has a lot to do with the boards of these companies being stocked with friends of the CEO.

what an absolutely mindless statement. Do you actually want to believe that the CEO position is nothing more than the buddy system? You do realize that it completely and totally flies in the face of your earlier statements that corporations are oozing in profit dollars right? And it negates what a business must do to survive and remain profitable in a competitive world.

And it negates the entire premise that a business is for-profit? If the CEO cannot cut it just how long do you think they would survive in that seat?

And it goes on to assume that someone with a business administration degree has the necessary items to be a success at running a business – while also assuming that no other degree could?

Repeat after me, markets have to be corrected, markets have to be corrected, markets have to be corrected…

Take an economics class – and if you did – retake it and pay attention.

The market corrects itself. What you are stating is that markets need to be forced into a direction that deviates from normal market correction.

Like the Fed?  How about anti-trust laws?  Worker safety laws? Laws requiring truth in advertising?  Labels on food?

Like the Fed? How about anti-trust laws? Worker safety laws? Laws requiring truth in advertising? Labels on food?

Do you have any realization that you are part of the Market Chris?

Do you have any idea what market forces actually are?

Do you?

Again, attempting to divert the question (while a favorite libby tactic) does not work.

"Again, attempting to divert the question (while a favorite libby tactic) does not work."

Again, attempting to make a quite sweeping generalization (while an all-too common tactic) is not convincing, like, ever.