Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Aug 2015 23:24 UTC
In the News

At Netflix, we work hard to foster a "freedom and responsibility" culture that gives our employees context about our business and the freedom to make their own decisions along with the accompanying responsibility. With this in mind, today we're introducing an unlimited leave policy for new moms and dads that allows them to take off as much time as they want during the first year after a child's birth or adoption.

Great, great move by Netflix - especially considering it's an American company. Technology companies are raking in more cash than ever before, and it's great to see a small number of them investing that money back into their own employees, and not into foreign tax havens or CxO's pockets.

Order by: Score:
Obligatory
by joekiser on Tue 4th Aug 2015 23:31 UTC
joekiser
Member since:
2005-06-30

Did anybody who had a child birth last year, and wasn't covered under the unlimited leave policy, quit because it wasn't fair?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Obligatory
by galvanash on Tue 4th Aug 2015 23:59 UTC in reply to "Obligatory"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Did anybody who had a child birth last year, and wasn't covered under the unlimited leave policy, quit because it wasn't fair?


I assume you are trying to make a snide comment relative to the Gravity Payments story?

You are missing the entire point. This is fair, because it applies to everyone equally. The benefit scales with salary and is the same for everyone.

Now if Netflix has said everyone who makes less than 70k got a full year, but everyone else only got 2 weeks... Yeah, that would have been similar - and some people might have quit over it.

Edited 2015-08-05 00:16 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Obligatory
by joekiser on Wed 5th Aug 2015 00:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Obligatory"
joekiser Member since:
2005-06-30

This is fair, because it applies to everyone equally. The benefit scales with salary and is the same for everyone.


Not really. I have a six month old at home. If I worked at Netflix, I would only be entitled to another six months of free parental leave. Not the full year that these new parents get. Now, medical leave for the birth is one thing, but since I was not covered under the new policy, I had to use personal leave to take my daughter to the Civil Registry for her identification, more personal leave to take her to get registered at the Embassy, more time off to get her passports, etc. That's time off that I earned and burned, which new parents get for free. They're not paying their fair share.

Actually, I don't give a shit. If other employees get a new benefit and it doesn't adversely impact my life, what do I care? Certainly not enough to make a big stink about it and quit my job in protest. Live and let live.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Obligatory
by galvanash on Wed 5th Aug 2015 00:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Obligatory"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Not really. I have a six month old at home. If I worked at Netflix, I would only be entitled to another six months of free parental leave.


First off, odds are someone in the situation will probably be grandfathered in (if my company did something like this they almost certainly would, doing otherwise would be kind of unfair and the cost would be negligible). Point is we don't know the small print of the policy, only the press release.

Ignoring the rest of your post because it is irrelevant.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Obligatory
by kwan_e on Wed 5th Aug 2015 01:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Obligatory"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Point is we don't know the small print of the policy, only the press release.


So people are concerned about the details in this case, but in the other case have no problem assuming the worst of people who earned less because it fits with their ideological economic narrative.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Obligatory
by galvanash on Wed 5th Aug 2015 01:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Obligatory"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

So people are concerned about the details in this case, but in the other case have no problem assuming the worst of people who earned less because it fits with their ideological economic narrative.


I have no idea what you are talking about. I never denigrated anyone in anything I posted on the other topic. I never called anyone a slacker, I never said anyone was lazy, nothing. I saw posts that did, but they certainly weren't mine. Don't lump me in with them just because you don't like what I am saying.

Respond to the argument. I doubt you can because Im right. This policy (the Netflix maternity policy) is fair to their employees, all of their employees. Im sure someone can come up with some stupid implausible thought experiment where it isn't, but that isn't the point. It looks fair, fairness was obviously a consideration. Fairness matters to Netflix.

The Gravity Payments salary redistribution was not fair, it didn't look fair, it wasn't even remotely fair - that is why some people quit.

Besides, you guys don't even argue whether it was fair or not. You argue that you wouldn't care. That is so easy for people to do with things that don't directly affect them. You have every right not to care, but you judging people that do (and are affected) is the nothing but arrogance.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Obligatory
by kwan_e on Wed 5th Aug 2015 02:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Obligatory"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

This policy (the Netflix maternity policy) is fair


No disagreement there.

The Gravity Payments salary redistribution was not fair, it didn't look fair, it wasn't even remotely fair - that is why some people quit.


No one successfully argued that it wasn't fair. The only arguments people did come up with over there was the myth that people earned less because they work less or had less "skilled" jobs (ie, not theirs) and that made them undeserving blah blah. All without ever bothering trying to quantify what actually makes one job more valuable than another other than their egotistical view of themselves and their education.

Others talked about "time at the company", as though seniority entitles people to bigger salaries. Pay based on seniority (ie, years worked for) is unfair because it only measures time, not actual contribution or skill.

There is no global standard ladder of job worth and to argue that it wasn't fair is to say you have such a ladder that is scientifically proven to be accurate.

Besides, you guys don't even argue whether it was fair or not. You argue that you wouldn't care.


I'm pretty sure I argued that it was fair.

That is so easy for people to do with things that don't directly affect them. You have every right not to care, but you judging people that do (and are affected) is the nothing but arrogance.


They are NOT affected. And I will judge them based on their actions. I don't care if that makes me arrogant. I'm still right.

-----------

You know, I just realized something. All the arguments against Gravity Payments' actions are the same kind of arguments fundamentalists argue against gay marriage.

You all sound like those fundamentalists who think gay people getting married devalues their own marriage by some magical law of conservation of ego.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Obligatory
by WorknMan on Wed 5th Aug 2015 02:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Obligatory"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

All without ever bothering trying to quantify what actually makes one job more valuable than another other than their egotistical view of themselves and their education.


Generally speaking, I think you could gauge how valuable a person is by how easily you could replace them with somebody else and get the same quality of work and/or revenue out of them, whether that person be a coder, a sales person, or whatever.

In the case of a janitor or burger flipper, they probably wouldn't be that hard to replace, unless they were REALLY good at their job. Hence, why they don't get paid as much as others.

Now, don't get me wrong... I'm specifically speaking about the marketplace here. A person could be a valuable member of their family, their church, their community, etc. But if you're not very valuable in the marketplace, you don't get much money. That's just the way it is.

Edited 2015-08-05 02:44 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Obligatory
by galvanash on Wed 5th Aug 2015 03:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Obligatory"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

No one successfully argued that it wasn't fair. The only arguments people did come up with over there was the myth that people earned less because they work less or had less "skilled" jobs (ie, not theirs) and that made them undeserving blah blah.


First off it was never about them being undeserving, it is about them being more deserving than others. I even stated I thought the CEO voluntarily making a sacrifice like this was noble, but that doesn't make it fair. He could have done it fairly - he didn't.

Fair would be to keep the basic salary structure intact, maybe a bit progressive even. I could buy the argument that a boosting entry level pay a bit more (say 10%) than everything else is good for everyone, but increasing entry level salary 250% and rewarding your existing highly valued employees with 5%-10% is stupid, nonsensical, and ultimately counterproductive. Because it is unfair.

The problem he was trying to address was income inequality. The problem with income inequality is not people making 75k-100k a year, it is CEOs with multi-million dollar salary packages...

He wasn't saying "my salary is the problem" he was saying "my salary is the problem, and so is yours if you make more than 75k"... That is not only unfair, it is bullshit. I would not want to work for him either.

You know, I just realized something. All the arguments against Gravity Payments' actions are the same kind of arguments fundamentalists argue against gay marriage.


Except I am for gay marriage. I'm also an atheist, so I am definitely not a fundamentalist. And my arguments have nothing at all in common with any of that, not even remotely. But feel free to try and paint me with that brush if you like...

Edited 2015-08-05 03:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Obligatory
by Morgan on Thu 6th Aug 2015 20:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Obligatory"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

You know, I just realized something. All the arguments against Gravity Payments' actions are the same kind of arguments fundamentalists argue against gay marriage.


I noticed that too. If the janitor at my company suddenly makes exactly what I make when he was making half that before, good. He has to deal with literal shit all day, when I only have to deal with figurative shit. His pay has no direct bearing on me, my family, or my lifestyle, so more power to him!

I wish all CEOs would drop their pay to match their lowest paid employee (they get to keep their stock options so their success is in line with the company's success; if they work harder, they make more money). That would be the ethical, honorable thing to do.

Reply Score: 2

I don't think that is what "Unlimited" means
by jockm on Wed 5th Aug 2015 02:06 UTC
jockm
Member since:
2012-12-22

I think this is a wonderful and progressive policy, but it is really "up to a year of paternity leave" — not unlimited.

Reply Score: 5

SpaceDudeAlien
Member since:
2008-03-27

Be careful with mixing European expectations with American announcements!

Any US company giving these "unlimited" freedoms actually has the opposite in mind - and that's my personal opinion, which I may add:

"Unlimited Vacation/leave/sick" policies have a little add-on: "... as long as it doesn't negatively affect business.." or similar wording. Which actually means the following: if you go away for a certain amount of time, and business does NOT suffer, you're actually not needed and hence you have no place in this company...

The truth is, companies like Best Buy, Netflix, etc... (publicly traded, if I may add) all boast how much they actually REDUCED their staff's paid-time-off with their "unlimited" policies! How much MORE they actually get out of "them", etc...

On the other hand: if staff members have their annual 2 or 3 weeks off (yes guys, that's right, 2 weeks - not months! Not only that, but if you actually take 2 weeks in a row, your "work friends" look at you strangely), they're expected to take that in a given year - it's kinda predictable.

So, my advice: if any-(European?)-body hears of these "unlimited" nonsense coming from any of these publicly traded US companies, keep in mind that the shareholders do NOT appreciate CEOs giving away "their" money... So, if it wouldn't help their bottom line, they'd give them the boot, not a bonus, which CEOs generally prefer...

That's all. But as said above: It's my personal opinion - but I think it makes a lot of sense.

Cheers.

Reply Score: 3

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

"Unlimited Vacation/leave/sick" policies have a little add-on: "... as long as it doesn't negatively affect business.." or similar wording. Which actually means the following: if you go away for a certain amount of time, and business does NOT suffer, you're actually not needed and hence you have no place in this company...


I wouldn't go quite that far to be honest, but if you abused it by taking off way more time than is customary (2-4 weeks annually) yeah, they would probably rethink your position...

The truth is, companies like Best Buy, Netflix, etc... (publicly traded, if I may add) all boast how much they actually REDUCED their staff's paid-time-off with their "unlimited" policies! How much MORE they actually get out of "them", etc...


That is the real problem with it. It sounds great in a press release, but reality is that most companies that did this have actually seen reduction in the amount of time employees take off, especially during their first few years of employment.

I think that the maternity policy is a little different though. Employees will probably not be as hesitant to use it, since having a baby is probably not an annual event ;)

That's all. But as said above: It's my personal opinion - but I think it makes a lot of sense.


Your not wrong...

Reply Score: 2

sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

Be careful with mixing European expectations with American announcements!

Any US company giving these "unlimited" freedoms actually has the opposite in mind - and that's my personal opinion, which I may add:

"Unlimited Vacation/leave/sick" policies have a little add-on: "... as long as it doesn't negatively affect business.." or similar wording. Which actually means the following: if you go away for a certain amount of time, and business does NOT suffer, you're actually not needed and hence you have no place in this company...

The truth is, companies like Best Buy, Netflix, etc... (publicly traded, if I may add) all boast how much they actually REDUCED their staff's paid-time-off with their "unlimited" policies! How much MORE they actually get out of "them", etc...

On the other hand: if staff members have their annual 2 or 3 weeks off (yes guys, that's right, 2 weeks - not months! Not only that, but if you actually take 2 weeks in a row, your "work friends" look at you strangely), they're expected to take that in a given year - it's kinda predictable.

So, my advice: if any-(European?)-body hears of these "unlimited" nonsense coming from any of these publicly traded US companies, keep in mind that the shareholders do NOT appreciate CEOs giving away "their" money... So, if it wouldn't help their bottom line, they'd give them the boot, not a bonus, which CEOs generally prefer...

That's all. But as said above: It's my personal opinion - but I think it makes a lot of sense.

Cheers.


Best post I've read in a long time. That's the real world my friends.

And I have the same doubts as you about this "revolutionary" policy. My humble opinion: pure marketing BS.

Reply Score: 2

So unlimited == 1 year
by Carewolf on Wed 5th Aug 2015 07:00 UTC
Carewolf
Member since:
2005-09-08

That is a wierd way of stating a year leave. Also by not stating an explicit time period there is possibility for managers to "encourage" shorter terms.

Reply Score: 3

"Hooray"?
by sj87 on Wed 5th Aug 2015 07:06 UTC
sj87
Member since:
2007-12-16

This system is basically the same that every citizen here in Finland is entitled to by law. Mothers get about 10 months of paid leave, though fathers are given only a couple months.

Now, I would like to know just how much Netflix are going to pay to those who decide to take leave from work.

Edited 2015-08-05 07:07 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: "Hooray"?
by SpaceDudeAlien on Wed 5th Aug 2015 12:40 UTC in reply to ""Hooray"?"
SpaceDudeAlien Member since:
2008-03-27

This system is basically the same that every citizen here in Finland is entitled to by law. Mothers get about 10 months of paid leave, though fathers are given only a couple months.

Now, I would like to know just how much Netflix are going to pay to those who decide to take leave from work.


Paid? Where does it read "paid"...???

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: "Hooray"?
by avgalen on Fri 7th Aug 2015 13:15 UTC in reply to "RE: "Hooray"?"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

It kind of says so in Thoms comment: it's great to see a small number of them investing that money back into their own employees

I think Thom assumed that Netflix would actually pay them, but they don't. All they get is a "you are officialy still working here, come back later" piece of paper. Think of it as a "sabbatical".

This is great PR but just as much in the interest of Netflix (hiring people is expensive, keeping people in the backroom is free) as for their employees

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: "Hooray"?
by sj87 on Sat 8th Aug 2015 06:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: "Hooray"?"
sj87 Member since:
2007-12-16

Scrolling through the hierarchy of sources, I found another site claiming that this Netflix policy is about 'paid leave'.

Reply Score: 2

This is nice.
by brostenen on Wed 5th Aug 2015 08:25 UTC
brostenen
Member since:
2007-01-16

This move by Netflix is a great thing. We in denmark, all can take leave for up to one year, pr. child.

Now..
This is not one year for each parrent. The first 14 day's, the mother is not allowed to work, because of the bond that she has to create between her and the child.

The rest of the year (minus those 14 day's) can be equally shared between the two parent's.

And the two parent's can decide when and how the leave can be held within the child's first year.
On some workplaces, you can even decide when the leave is being held, up to, when the child is 18 years old.

And I can not say this too often. It has done wonders for me as a parent, and for my children.
We benefitted really great by this, and we had the time of our lives.

I can only say: Go Netflix, you did a real smart move for both parents and children. The first year of a child's life is the most important of all.

If people bitch about them not getting the full time, because their child is allready born.... Tough luck, not an equal life. Get ower it, accept it and be happy for you'r fellow co-worker's and their child.

Just.... Suck it up and move on.

Reply Score: 2

RE: This is nice.
by SpaceDudeAlien on Wed 5th Aug 2015 09:31 UTC in reply to "This is nice."
SpaceDudeAlien Member since:
2008-03-27

Would you take a year off without getting any money? This "leave" just means you (the mother) can stay home without getting fired. It doesn't say you get paid - neither from the employer nor the government...

Only difference to get fired is: the health insurance is still (good) there and you cannot collect unemployment money (bad).

Finally, the US is the only Industrialized Nation, where the new parents get no PAID leave whatsoever.

Just FYI - since you consider this "nice"

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This is nice.
by Vanders on Wed 5th Aug 2015 10:01 UTC in reply to "RE: This is nice."
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

The quote from Netflix (taken from the article)

We want employees to have the flexibility and confidence to balance the needs of their growing families without worrying about work or finances. Parents can return part-time, full-time, or return and then go back out as needed. We’ll just keep paying them normally, eliminating the headache of switching to state or disability pay. Each employee gets to figure out what’s best for them and their family, and then works with their managers for coverage during their absences.

So yup, paid.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: This is nice.
by Lobotomik on Wed 5th Aug 2015 10:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This is nice."
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Oh, I should've RTFA!

I was fuming spiteful that unpaid time off would be such advancement, but if it is paid then it is an incredibly generous deal. Even when compared with most of Europe, where paternity leave is often nonexistent and maternity is in general fully paid but only a for a few months (4 in Spain, for example, though it is one of the shortest in Europe).

Does the statement that you can return part time mean you can take 6 months fully off and then 12 more half-time? If both parents work at Netflix will they total 24 paid months off?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: This is nice.
by SpaceDudeAlien on Wed 5th Aug 2015 13:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This is nice."
SpaceDudeAlien Member since:
2008-03-27

Oh, I should've RTFA!


Well, you know, I would still like to believe in the good of companies, but I just have gotten disappointed too often - especially (but not only) in the US...

Here's the thing: they (Netflix) do state, that they will "keep paying them normally", but that's somewhat ambiguously mentioned in the same line as part-time and full-time... Which immediately triggers in me the thinking, that women are "allowed" to reduce their workload without much of a fuzz while "adjusting" the pay to actually worked hours (hard to understand for Europeans, but that's actually considered a "benefit" in the US).

So, without wanting to perform US bashing (a country and people I truely love), parental leave is absolutely abysmal in the US and pretty much non-existent!
My related experience is the following: Many years ago, I (middle aged white male) was a young 1st time father once, and wanted to take a month off (yes, a month, not a year!). Since my wife was already taking her leave-of-absence (max 6 months, no pay, only health insurance covered) in addition to her vacation (3 weeks, paid, yeah - groovy baby), I too wanted to spend some time in a row with my first-born. Oh boy, I did NOT expect that shit-storm that I received from my boss and my boss' boss - not to mention that we were living of savings during this time (wifey wasn't paid and neither was I during the 4 weeks), I even survived the next layoff round but not the following one...

So, that said, I have my serious doubts about that "unlimited leave" regarding pay and duration. But hey, maybe I do that company utterly wrong, they are actually social (to Americans that sounds like Communism and therefore ranks near child abuse) - but I have my serious and well-founded doubts...

That's all. If I'm wrong, I apologize and hence shall live with my foot in my mouth...

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: This is nice.
by avgalen on Fri 7th Aug 2015 13:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: This is nice."
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Yep, I read it that same way. Your salary will be "normal", so if you work 3 out of 30 days you will get paid 3 out of 30 days, not get paid 30 out of 30 days.

Lets call it a zero-hour contract where YOU can decide when you work, not the boss....actually that sounds pretty good ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: This is nice.
by brostenen on Thu 6th Aug 2015 11:49 UTC in reply to "RE: This is nice."
brostenen Member since:
2007-01-16

Uhmmm... I dunno. Mmmm. Hmmm...
Can you say one year PAID parental leave, earnig 80% of you'r normal income as the norm, for every working man and woman.

Don't know about you. This is just the way we have it in Denmak in general.

Yeah... I know life is a bit unfair for the CEO's here, making millions.

Reply Score: 1

Out of place?
by tonyyeb on Wed 5th Aug 2015 08:57 UTC
tonyyeb
Member since:
2007-12-02

And there was me thinking this article was a but out of place on OSnews.com but clearly it has sparked plenty of discussion!

Reply Score: 1

Comment by neticspace
by neticspace on Wed 5th Aug 2015 10:22 UTC
neticspace
Member since:
2009-06-09

This is something that Samsung (or any Korean companies) will never do.

Reply Score: 2

Moot in the UK
by Adurbe on Wed 5th Aug 2015 15:36 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

We have this as a standard right in the UK and you can split the 52 weeks between the mother and father (makes sense if the mother earns more, for example). I almost find it odd that this is still considered news worthy in the US.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Moot in the UK
by daveak on Wed 5th Aug 2015 17:43 UTC in reply to "Moot in the UK"
daveak Member since:
2008-12-29

Unless something has changed you are almost right.

I think that for paternity leave you have to state what you are planning on doing in advance:

a) Taking 2 weeks. (The previous entitlement)
b) Splitting part of the 52 weeks with the mother.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Moot in the UK
by Adurbe on Thu 6th Aug 2015 10:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Moot in the UK"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

the new rules only came in in April

Reply Score: 2

RE: Moot in the UK
by darknexus on Wed 5th Aug 2015 18:29 UTC in reply to "Moot in the UK"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

We have this as a standard right in the UK and you can split the 52 weeks between the mother and father (makes sense if the mother earns more, for example).

Sure. I'm sure they'll just let anyone in who wants to move. No problem.

Reply Score: 2

Big Mistake
by codewrangler on Wed 5th Aug 2015 18:13 UTC
codewrangler
Member since:
2010-01-28

This will back fire on Netflix...Just saying...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Big Mistake
by Vanders on Wed 5th Aug 2015 22:26 UTC in reply to "Big Mistake"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

How so? Like the blunderbuss in a Daffy Duck cartoon, where he sticks his finger in the end and it blows up in Elmer Fudds face? Will it cause them to suddenly no longer produce some of the best internet-exclusive television shows in the world? Will Kevin Spacey up and leave in protest? Or do you mean politically motivated asshats deride it without any evidence simply because it hurts their feely feels and doesn't fit their biases?

Reply Score: 2

Moving towards gender equality
by darknexus on Wed 5th Aug 2015 18:35 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

I like that they're actually considering both the mother and father in this. The more we can move towards gender equality, the better. In this country at the moment, new mothers are saints but, if you're a new father and you want some time off to spend with that new baby of yours, then god help your tainted soul. At least, that's how most US business owners see it. Nice to see at least one business pushing back against this inequality.

Reply Score: 2

Discriminating against the childless
by joshv on Wed 5th Aug 2015 19:43 UTC
joshv
Member since:
2006-03-18

Why are those who have children rewarded with the massive bonus of a year's pay for no work? If you want to attract top talent - pay them more, and they can use that pay to take some time off to have a kid - or to take some time off to go backpacking in Asia. No discrimination.

And BTW, I have three kids.

Edited 2015-08-05 19:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Have you read about Netflix company culture?

http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664


I think this parental benefit is completely consistent with the company culture detailed right there.

They pay a lot of money to their employees; they seek top people working for them; they look for passion and commitment to the company; so this is one extra bonus for the people working there.

Reply Score: 2

sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

Why are those who have children rewarded with the massive bonus of a year's pay for no work? If you want to attract top talent - pay them more, and they can use that pay to take some time off to have a kid - or to take some time off to go backpacking in Asia. No discrimination.

And BTW, I have three kids.


Clap, clap, clap, clap. 1 year is insane and It will not work in the real world. IMHO this is pure marketing BS, in practice nobody will take a full year I don't care what Netflix says... I want to see how these "wonderland" policies are implemented by low-level managers in the real world, they take the decision at the end...

IMHO what @SpaceDudeAlien describes in his post is 100% real, that's how vacations/leaves work in American companies. And It's insane.

I'm pretty anti-European myself and I'm not a socialist at all, but in this particular regard, I think Europe works much better than 'merica. Vacations and parental leaves must be determined by law with a realistic amount of time. Not 1 year, not 1 week, something smart and good for the people and for the companies too (France is a good example, I like their system).

Reply Score: 2

Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Vacations, parental leaves, medical leaves, medical care, umemployment subsidies, compensations for dismissal, public transportation... Those hippy euro socialist robots are really busily trying to destroy society!

Police and Army, that's all they should get! Or maybe they could do with a shotgun in their closet. Slackers! They should all be living under a bridge and eating off charity, if at all, the day they stopped amassing money for the Corporations.

Reply Score: 2

sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

Vacations, parental leaves, medical leaves, medical care, umemployment subsidies, compensations for dismissal, public transportation... Those hippy euro socialist robots are really busily trying to destroy society!


Well, they are socialists and they are destroying society I have no doubt about it. Obviously, all started to explode from the South.

Seriously, EU countries are totally f--ked-up, living with social privileges that they cannot afford... finger pointing weak southern countries to hide the real mess they've created. The EU is a complete fantasy.

But the really sad part is that you cannot discuss about it, in EU people are brainwashed (even the smart educated people). If you say the truth, like Yanis Varoufakis or Jean Marie Le Pen does ('cause it's not a right/left problem), then you are crazy, you are an extremist nazi/communist anti-Euro satanist and you must shut the f--k up. People and major political parties don't want to discuss the system, the UE and the Euro are sacred!! Don't dare to question it!! (no kidding, even new left-wing political parties like "Podemos" in Spain defend the Euro!! It's crazy).

US is f--ked-up too for sure... but the great thing about 'merica is that you can discuss everything, there's no unquestionable truth, people question the system everyday. In America you can discuss politics, political parties discuss politics, brains are still working there. In the EU there's no political discussion, there is a religion called Euro and that's all. Obey!

It's so sad for me, seeing great countries like France surrendered to that stupid German fundamentalism, political parties are empty of ideas, they just create excuses to maintain the Euro-fiction... when I see what they are doing to Greece I wanna cry really. I cannot believe it. I don't expect much from Germany... but France?!?! French society created modern thinking!! Why are they accepting all this shit?!?! ;)

Sorry about this big digression, but I think americans must be more proud than ever of the great nation that they have (with or without vacation leaves xD)

Edited 2015-08-08 03:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Sure, very proud of the country that permanently changed "fraternity" for "selfishness" in the French Revolution ideals you say you admire so much. Where slavery was only finished with when it stopped being practical in a modern industrial society. Where protecting social rights is considered preposterous. Where spending money in other than "self" is unimaginable, outside petty little private charities. Where environmental destruction runs unfettered because whatever the destruction outside or down, it may never touch the pockets of up. Where Justice is a joke where lawyers make millions. Where you can discuss everything so long as it doe not touch the deep pockets of the affluent.

Anyway, the very sad fact that there is a LePen with so many votes seems to contradict your statements of lack of discussion or lack of alternatives. But your problem is not without lack of discussion, is that you do not tolerate agreement other than in your own (selfish) beliefs. Sadly, your faction is winning, and justice, and the world, losing.

Reply Score: 2

avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

They are not receiving a years pay for no work.
No work is no pay.
Working every monday only gives you 20% pay

Reply Score: 2

who will fix all the problems?
by FunkyELF on Fri 7th Aug 2015 14:50 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

Audio doesn't work with Netflix on my PS3.
My other set top box is a Nexus player and it keeps logging me out after every single program I watch (if I let it run to the end which is typical of TV shows when you just want it to start playing the next one).

Everybody is complaining about Netflix on the Nexus Player and its been broken for months.

Reply Score: 2

v 1
by Anonymous on Sat 8th Aug 2015 02:34 UTC