61–70 of 131 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, I meant Scandinavian influenced or Scandinavian-like countries.
What does this even mean.
https://nordicperspective.com/facts/netherlands-scandinavia-...
Please Read this for education. Then you can stop pretending there's no relationship between the two as if it's completely ludicrous that I would even compare the Netherlands and Scandinavia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it means it's somewhere around that part of the world
Russia too?
https://nordicperspective.com/facts/netherlands-scandinavia-...
Thank you.
I believe the Netherlands stipulates the requirement to offer every job as either part or full time, and a substantial number of job applicants go for the part time option, especially women. Interestingly, there have been some unintended downstream impact of this progressive law, such as lower women participation in senior level roles.
> Interestingly, there have been some unintended downstream impact of this progressive law, such as lower women participation in senior level roles. The word “unintended,” while probably accurate, is bothersome. The intention should be to maximize individual choice. Are we supposed to force women into senior positions to please our sensibilities?
Meta: has the friendly HN title sanitization system removed "80%" from the start of the title? I feel it makes little sense as it's worded now (just "Percent Jobs") so perhaps that warrants fixing. Thanks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does this even mean.
I guess you're just not very well versed in the region: https://nordicperspective.com/facts/netherlands-scandinavia-... Please Read this for education. Then you can stop pretending there's no relationship between the two as if it's completely ludicrous that I would even compare the Netherlands and Scandinavia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Europeans also don't pay for their own national defense, what a bargain.
Elaborate
https://nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/22...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
which also has to do with distribution of wealth, where the US are especially bad at. just an example: you do not pay for education in europe, much less for childcare (in most countries), much less for health care and so on...
Europeans also don't pay for their own national defense, what a bargain.
I believe the Netherlands stipulates the requirement to offer every job as either part or full time, and a substantial number of job applicants go for the part time option, especially women. Interestingly, there have been some unintended downstream impact of this progressive law, such as lower women participation in senior level roles.
Explanatory page at https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/arbeidsovereenkomst... (Dutch only AFAICT, sorry) Employers are almost required to approve a request to work less hours than full time. The reasons why it would not be allowed are fairly minimal. The only reasons allowed are: - Nobody else can take over the work (ie very specialized knowledge) - Insurmountable problems with work shift planning (simply havin…
Government workers are well organized and don't notice that the rules they thought up (and are responsible for having enforced) actually are ignored by most non-government employers.
In fact, government is usually calling for a more flexible labor market, even though the Dutch labor market is among the most flexible in the EU (if not the most flexible as, again, any costs to getting rid of employees in an illegal fashion are neglible in the first place. They are also not enforced at all unless the illegally fired employee has the wherewithal to sue. Which is not trivial for lower paid people as access to subsidized legal help has been slashed. And even if you have a fixed term/hour contract, no country has as many temps and contractors which can be shown the door by the people paying their fees, which leads to unhealthy power dynamics with their immediate employer as well.)
So yes, in theory (and for government workers in practice) it's all nice.
I believe the Netherlands stipulates the requirement to offer every job as either part or full time, and a substantial number of job applicants go for the part time option, especially women. Interestingly, there have been some unintended downstream impact of this progressive law, such as lower women participation in senior level roles.
>Interestingly, there have been some unintended downstream impact of this progressive law, such as lower women participation in senior level roles This isn't downstream impact. It's more of a choice. The women choose not to strive for senior level roles. They express this choice by choosing the 4 day work week. We shouldn't call it an unintended downstream impact because it's not something that should be corrected. I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like my work and I like my life and I like my hobbies and I like my family and I like my friends and I like learning new skills in my free time. I chose to work 80% of the time for 80% of the pay but I'm fully aware that most people don't have that option (either because it is not offered to them or because it is not financially viable). Which I think is unfortunate.
Over 2/3 of the workforce actually does not like their job. Maybe start there, instead of reducing work time for everyone and likely dropping wages for everyone too.
Rather that _overall_ we should all benefit from the increase in productivity, whether that's reflected in a proportionate increase in wages, or in being given the choice to work less. The point is that most employees are not even given this option, while also being compensated much less. This is what I'm objecting to.