No I decide.
Keep telling yourselve that, my friend.
I’m minimum 12 weeks a year.
It was 4-8 weeks when I asked you, now it's 12 weeks minimum. Good for you.
Have no interest in hiring you.
Obviously I have no interest in a company as you work at, that's my entire point..
Look how you’re arguing about something you have no knowledge about.
I'm telling you that this concept of "unlimited vacation days" sounds like, in my personal view, a shitty deal.. As I told you, if you are happy with the deal, that's great, no need to get so fucking defensive..
Also pretty funny that you tell me about my work ethic despite not knowing me at all while complaining that I'm "arguing about something I have no knowledge about" 😂
If I don't have my deliverables in then I would get terminated for performance.
Right, so you don't decide shit, your company decides.
It allows me to take off as much as I want.
Clearly it doesn't, that's the point..
How much more time does someone need?
In my opinion? At least 5-6 weeks a year, but guaranteed and enforced by law. More is a matter of negotiation. No paying it out (unless you resign), no saving it up for next year (apart from a few days), not counting holydays, illness and paternity.
We also have 9 months of paternity leave as well.
I don't get why you keep writing as if you want to hire me.. You don't need to justfy your working conditions to me, if you are happy, good for you.. I'm simply telling you that if it was me, I wouldn't trust shit like "unlimited vacation days"..
I decide.
Oh please, then you could just "decide" to take every other month off and nobody would care, you would get paid the same,etc , you can't tell me that's the case..
If you had read my comment, you’d see we are forced to take a eeek in July, two weeks for the end of the year
Right, so 3 weeks vacation and you can't even decide when to take them. Sounds like a pretty shitty deal to me..
I take very little time off.
It seems that way, yes, so what good does "unlimited vacation" do?
I feel like I’m already off most the time.
Are you a hiring agent or something? What's next, are you going to tell me that your company is like "a family"?
Wait, so you get "unlimited" paid vacation days? That sounds like complete corporate bullshit to me.. Who decideds when/if "work is done" or not? Even if your work isn't done (there is always more to do), you still deserve vacation/days off.
How many paid vacation days do people take on average a year? How many did you take this year/last year? What happens if your company decides that you have taken too many vacation days this year, will they mention it you want to discuss wages? What happens if someone doesn't take a minimum number of vacation days a year, will they be forced to take them or will they get praise for being a "hard worker"?
Although there are exceptional cases such as Germany's, where large enough companies must assign a percentage of the BoD positions
Codetermination/worker representation is a thing in some countries, but with the exception of Germany, it's not half of the BoD.
I'd probably put Sanders left of plenty of European social-democratic parties
I'm sure there are members of social democratic politicians who are as left wing or even more left wing than Bernie. I think if he was European, he would be in the left wing of a social democratic party. But what many people don't seem to want to realize is that we aren't living in the 70s anymore.. Europe might have some remains of social democratic elements left, but barely..
And it certainly isn't "standard governmental procedure". And I do wish Bernies policies were the norm in Europe, but they simply aren't..
The comment wasn't about whether worker councils are a thing or not, the comment was about Sander's policies being "standard govermental procedure" in Europe.. They aren't.. I wish they were, but they aren't, and I don't understand how denying reality is in any way helpful..
So in Europe, it is standard govermental procedere to transfer 20% ownership of big corporations to employees? It is standard govermental procedere to have 45% of BoD elected by workers? Are you sure about that?
Also, most workers are so deeply alienated because they know that they aren't working for themselves, they are working for someone else. Which is why most people simply stop giving a fuck at some point.
There is so much inefficiency because most who do the actual work don't have much motivation to do a decent job, yet alone think about what they are doing because you simply get punished, or at least don't get any reward, for thinking. And they people who (should) do the thinking often don't have a clue as they live in a bubble.
And of course there is all the bullshit about shipping stuff across the world to do different stuff when it is completely unnecessesary..
Armed peaceful protesters don't get hassled by the police.
There were quite a few shoot outs between panthers and cops, no? Some even argue that the increasing use of "swat" was, in part, because of black panthers.
Again, I'm not speaking out against armed groups, but it seems a bit romantized to say "armed protesters don't get hasseled"..
Does it actually work? Because I fear that it doesn't and just gives cops/the state even more excuses to further militarize police in the long teem.
I'm not antigun, but this seems like an arms race you can't win.
Or just oligarch or power addict. In the eyes of most people, wealth is about luxury, material goods and fancy toys. Of course that's part of it, but at a certain point, wealth is no longer about luxury and toys, it's about power and having control over resources everyone else depends on.
Again, my point isn't that poor people are happy or happier than the wealthy. My point is that our system doesn't even beneft those who are (supposed to be) in charge. They think it does, but it's more like an addiction that controls and destroys them.
Nah, there is definitely a truth to this. I grew up in a working class family who moved into a wealthier region at some point and I would never trade places with people who grew up wealthy. Pretty much all wealthy people are constantly unhappy, are obsessed with control to the point where they alienate their families, they are constantly scared of losing their control, status and wealth, constantly paranoid towards everything and everyone and often engage in self-destructive behaviour.
Of course, not having enough money sucks, it generates stress and restricts autonomy. But a similar thing happens at a certain level of wealth.
they only moved back because refunds started happening,
Kind of, but refunds only started happening because steam allowed it. And steam only allowed it because there was enough of a shitstom.
Negative reviews by themselves don't do much, you are right about that, but they do kinda show a community's mood (especially to other gamers in the community).
they had made their money already
Helldivers is a game that has a lot more monetizing potential than just the initial sales.
If all people would immediately reward them with a positive review after backpedaling, then their learned lesson would be “just try it out, worst case we can backpedal”. By leaving up a negative review, they might realize that they should not even try it if they want to keep the goodwill.
They are always going to have this mindset, companies will never "learn it", they will always try to push anti-consumer bullshit onto consumers if they think it benefits them and if they think they can get away with it.
They don't care about goodwill, they care about numbers. It's a business.
I will leave my negative review standing, although I also have other points of criticism.
And that's perfectly fine, people can leave whatever review they want to leave. But I think for the people who specifically changed their review or left a negative review specifically to protest this specific issue, it makes sense that they change it back to an actual review of the game to signal that their actions have an impact.
It's not about trust, of course they don't deserve trust. It's about showing them that players have influence when it comes to their bottom line and that they can't just get away with anything they want to do without it hurting their main objective.
In other words, be nice to the community and they are going to be nice to you. Be shitty to the community and they are going to be so shitty towards you that it hurts your profits. That's the only motivation that makes them go back on something that they want to do.
If they think that people are going to behave negatively towards them and review bomb their games regardless of how they act, they will just keep acting however they want.
Which shoudn't be that surprising, this was the norm in many places until relatively recently. Women, people of color and poor people were never really meant to participate in the "democratic process" (at least as far as conservatives are concerned). The only reason why they were eventually allowed was because they fought for it and eventually, people in power got too scared not to give in a little bit until we are where we are today.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but to me, it's surprising that there aren't more conservatives with this view. Because the conservatives who support (basic) women's rights are essentially saying "you violent lefties were right and correct in the past for fighting what you believe was right, but whatever you are doing right now goes too far for some reason"..
I think it shows that people yearn for power and control over others just look at all the karens, the reddit mods (you know which kind), the trolls, supporters of certain parties and so on.
I think that's way too generalized. "The internet" paints a very distorted picture picture. First, the absolut vast majority of people online are lurkers, so you don't see what they think or do at all. "Nuanced takes" barely exist because people just blast whatever is on their mind right now into the void that is then interpreted by millions of differently biased people.
The mods, trolls, etc. are the fringe of the fringe, often the types of people who have no real life, who cannot really fit into society and who have to find other ways to get attention/validation.
Mods aren't some kind of villanous power hungry monsters, they are socially untalented nerds who want to do something that feels important, but who often feel unthanked, underappreciated and feel as if everything they do is wrong no matter what they do and who have to deal with the worst of the worst on the internet constantly. And then they are expected to have a discussion about every second decision they make because somebody feels that their comment was not interpreted the way it was intended and cries censurship if the discussion is blocked.
Given that it is somehow expected that moderation often happens without compensation (even though it is essential to a community), I'm suprised it even works as well as it does. If people in general were as powerhungry as you seem to make it out to be, people would kill for the chance to become a mod. In reality, the absolute vast majority of people doesn't even think about it, which means the job is left those who probably having human interactions in the first place.
I guess they imagine that extremist regimes will provide them with that power
Most don't think too much about that stuff (or anything really) in the first place. Many "right wingers" aren't like the disturbed "true believers" you see at rallys or stuff like that, for many it's just the community aspect they crave and the rest is no mostly larping.
Absolutely, this is a good thing. The only reason why I mention it is so that people remember to keep up the pressure and don't just start to blindly trust Biden to "do the right thing" all by himself. Biden needs "encouragement" and if he doesn't get it from the unions, he will get it from some industry lobby.