Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-22-2019, 07:26 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,677
I think that in general small and medium (and sometimes, large) businesses in Western Europe tend to still have a "collegiate" or "guild" attitude, not in the sense of blocking outsiders but in that of being perfectly willing to work with as much as against each other. Good employers on both sides of the Atlantic have managers who work with, not just "on" or "over" or "against", their subordinates, but it may be easier to have this attitude when even the company has it towards their competition. Gaming companies have been surprised to see that the attitude of their EU and NA players were completely different: it's a whole-society difference.

First seen in El Mundo, here in translation. Nadal had nothing to lose at that point; he chose to give his friend information that turned out to be key. But that's because they're friends as well as rivals; if they had the "snarling dog" attitude that some people associate with competition and competitiveness, such an action would have been unthinkable.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 09-22-2019 at 07:30 AM.
  #52  
Old 09-22-2019, 01:36 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,714
Yes, like Nava I was initially confused by US Dopers posting about having a "contract", which I gradually figured out meant that they had defined terms of work, benefits and so on.


In our system, everyone has a contract. If it doesn't address benefits, you get the stat minimums, but the employer and the worker can always negotiate for terms above the stat minimums. As well, the stat minimums cover severance pay automatically, if you're fired without cause, based on length of service with that employer. So, there's less need to talk about being "on contract" or not.

In fact for us, "being on contract" seems to have the opposite meaning than in the States. I gather that Americans use that to mean that they have more protections than other worker said who didn't get to negotiate a contract. Here, if you're "on contract" that usually means a job of limited duration, like filling in for a mat leave, or to cover during an upsurge in work. Contract employees are often "foot in the door" situations.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #53  
Old 09-22-2019, 01:41 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,714
Responding to Doreen's example, I hate to say it, but that sounds like a business on the edge. If the business depends on one key employee, and it's not easy to cover if that employee goes down, that business could easily go under. Long term, I would think they either need to increase market share to be able to hire a second key person, or they're looking at merger or acquisition, or disaster.

But that's not a product of business culture or legal environment, so much as running a business that has a strategic weakness in their current business plan.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #54  
Old 09-22-2019, 01:41 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by DorkVader View Post
...from Europe?
Here is what I mean;
I see posited from studies here and there often enough that in the US, the culture is one that embraces hard work, more of it and for less compensation.
Sorry, but I've worked with people from Europe and the USA, and this is just not true.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #55  
Old 09-22-2019, 02:03 PM
DorkVader's Avatar
DorkVader is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: boise idaho
Posts: 2,737
Fair enough, I can't attest to the factual accuracy of what I've read or heard, the stories always seem to be vague about the source of the info (ie "studies done" with out saying what studies done by whom) part of why I started this thread.
__________________
"The Wonka will show you the true nature of the chocolate, He is your master now."
Darth Desserticola, Sith Hare

Last edited by DorkVader; 09-22-2019 at 02:04 PM.
  #56  
Old 09-22-2019, 04:38 PM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 5,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
The United States has the highest net migration of any country by far, in spite of our health care, work culture, racism and all the other negatives mentioned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...migration_rate
http://metrocosm.com/global-migration-map.html

So to me that implies there is at least a perception of opportunity in the US that doesn't exist as strongly in other countries.
It shouldn't. Migration rates to the developed world are limited by the receiving nation's willingness to take migrants, not the desire of the potential migrants to get in.

You could easily find a million people a year who'd like to move to New Zealand or Norway. The only reason it doesn't happen is that countries that size aren't physically capable of absorbing that number of new residents.
__________________
Science created the modern world. Politics is doing its best to destroy it.
  #57  
Old 09-22-2019, 06:56 PM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Responding to Doreen's example, I hate to say it, but that sounds like a business on the edge. If the business depends on one key employee, and it's not easy to cover if that employee goes down, that business could easily go under. Long term, I would think they either need to increase market share to be able to hire a second key person, or they're looking at merger or acquisition, or disaster.

But that's not a product of business culture or legal environment, so much as running a business that has a strategic weakness in their current business plan.
I disagree - because in the US, that business would not be required to hold the technician's job for 3 or 6 or 12 months unless they had more than 50 employees within 75 miles. In the actual real-life example I gave, there are fewer than 10 employees - and the company would therefore simply be able to hire a new technician without worrying about trying to find someone willing to take the job temporarily.( and perhaps when hiring a non-temp , it's worth training someone) Now, you and I may or may not agree on which way is preferable - but business culture and legal environment absolutely play a part .


I suspect there are few, if any, of these very small businesses in Canada. There are quite a few in the US - (something like 16% of all employees work at businesses with fewer than 20 employees) , but if I'm correct about Canada, it's a bit of a chicken or the egg problem - are there few of these "micro-businesses" in Canada because the laws and business culture make it difficult or do the laws and business culture exist because there already were few of these micro-businesses?

Last edited by doreen; 09-22-2019 at 06:58 PM.
  #58  
Old 09-22-2019, 08:23 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,714
Small businesses are the major employer in Canada. According to Industry Canada, as of December 2015:

97.19% of all employer businesses were small businesses, defined as 99 or fewer employees; 1.8% were medium businesses ( 100 to 499 employees); 0.3% were large businesses (500+ employees)

small businesses employed 70.5% of the private labour force; mediums 19.8%; large businesses, 9.7%

small businesses were responsible for 87% of net employment change.

So no, I don't think that Canada's l'avoir and business culture discourages small businesses.

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/061.ns...18.html#toc-01
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #59  
Old 09-22-2019, 09:32 PM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Small businesses are the major employer in Canada. According to Industry Canada, as of December 2015:

• 97.19% of all employer businesses were small businesses, defined as 99 or fewer employees; 1.8% were medium businesses ( 100 to 499 employees); 0.3% were large businesses (500+ employees)

• small businesses employed 70.5% of the private labour force; mediums 19.8%; large businesses, 9.7%

• small businesses were responsible for 87% of net employment change.

So no, I don't think that Canada's l'avoir and business culture discourages small businesses.

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/061.ns...18.html#toc-01
I found those numbers too - but what I couldn't find was any information about what I called "very small businesses" or "micro-businesses" , those with 20 or fewer employees. The Canadian numbers all group businesses with 1-99 employees together. There's a huge difference between a business with 99 employees and one with 10 or 20 - if my friend's employer was large enough ( and had enough business) to have ten times as many employees ( 99 instead of 8 or 9 ) they wouldn't have just one person doing his job. There would almost certainly be at least 8.

That's what I suspect is not so common in Canada -businesses with fewer than 20 employees. I could of course be wrong.

Last edited by doreen; 09-22-2019 at 09:36 PM.
  #60  
Old 09-22-2019, 10:39 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
It's a legal requirement here, too; the law requires employers to say so to encourage minority applications.
It's not a legal requirement for an employer to advertise that they are an equal opportunity employer on job postings (at least not in all states). The EEOC doesn't even apply to all employers. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, If you have fewer than 20 employees you're not subject to laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion, sex, or disability.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #61  
Old 09-22-2019, 10:47 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmwgreen View Post
Budweiser became a top brand when it developed a beer that can be shipped all over the country without going off (more than it is, I suppose).
They didn't develop a beer that could be shipped all over the country without going off. Anheuser-Bush created the St. Louis Refrigerator Car Company in the 1870s to take advantage of America's railway system to distribute beer on a national level. Vertical integration is what made AB so successful not some innovative type of beer.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #62  
Old 09-23-2019, 06:40 PM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
You're conflating certain outward forms of racism with racism itself. France never had race-based slavery, but they've had AT LEAST as many problems with racism over the years as America has had.

Regarding your first point--surely you cannot be ignorant of the myriads of studies showing that the average American takes less vacation time than the average European?
So Haiti, a French colony--wasn't a slave state?
  #63  
Old 09-23-2019, 06:49 PM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
America may have its foundations in a group of people who just wanted the freedom to practice their religion without interference, but ever since, America has been famously billed as "the land of opportunity," and opportunity attracts people who want to take advantage of said opportunity. In short, over the many decades, people who came to America were (and are) people who wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to work: industrious, adventurous, and so on. Immigration is a filter that is biased toward the selection of people with a strong work ethic.



No doubt the US has its equivalent of the Japanese "salaryman," for whom long hours at a desk convey the appearance of doing a lot of work. But the US is famous for "start-ups" in which the founder and his/her colleagues really do work insane hours, even to the point of compromising their health by getting inadequate sleep and eating an unhealthy-but-convenient-and-cheap diet, for a shot at potentially becoming obscenely wealthy. Amazon, Google, Apple, and countless other wildly successful companies did not become the juggernauts they are today because their founders sat around sharpening pencils for 15 hours a day.
to add on to your post, remember the early colonists were Puritans, who thought work/church (no pleasure) was be all-end all (they probably cited St Paul saying "if a man does not work he does not eat')
  #64  
Old 09-24-2019, 03:18 PM
Treppenwitz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangosteen View Post
What about the Irish (white) slaves? From 1641 to 1652, 300,000 Irish were sold as slaves.

African slaves were very expensive (due to "shipping" costs) during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling).

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ir...e-slaves/31076
This may be a bit of a hijack, but am I the only one to think Wait - What? Have I been whooshed here?

Wikipedia page on the Irish Slaves Myth

Snopes article

Rationalwiki article

Irish Times article

New York Times article

I could go on.

j
  #65  
Old 09-25-2019, 06:23 AM
SanVito is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 4,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
I suspect there are few, if any, of these very small businesses in Canada. There are quite a few in the US - (something like 16% of all employees work at businesses with fewer than 20 employees) , but if I'm correct about Canada, it's a bit of a chicken or the egg problem - are there few of these "micro-businesses" in Canada because the laws and business culture make it difficult or do the laws and business culture exist because there already were few of these micro-businesses?
I've been following this conversation with interest. Here in the UK, 21% of businesses are 'micro' (0-9 employees), so very small businesses are by no means a US phenomenon, yet we have similar laws to Canada. Probably as a result, we also have a large 'gig-economy' of temporary workers, something like 10% of all workers - partly out of choice, partly out of necessity. Finding temporary skilled contractors is normal business practice. I work for a design company, on any given day we have freelancers in, either for odd days, or on longer term contracts.
  #66  
Old 09-25-2019, 07:52 AM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsHund View Post
From a European perspective, the greatest differences are: the prevalence of religion, gun culture, two party system and a blind faith in the "free market" (however that is defined).
I'm surprised the conversation seems to have become so narrowly focused on race and work ethic/job benefits, and that this comment spurred no comment.

When I see most depictions of most parts of Europe, I'm impressed at how people appear satisfied with "less" than Americans. Yes, a good part of that is likely due to America's size - more room to spread, build newer, bigger roads, etc. But middle-upper class people seem perfectly content to live in connected homes and what Americans would consider small apartments. People generally appear content to drive more modest cars.

Meanwhile, Americans seem to feel entitled to a standard of living that is subsidized by the rest of the world. We consume far more than our share of energy, produce more pollution, ... And we feel our military ought to boss other nations around to preserve our comfort.

Somewhat contradictorily, Americans seem to be fine with the poorest people being homeless and essentially dying on the streets. Yeah, there are some slums in Europe, but there are some basic safety nets available to most. Most European countries do far more than America in terms of refugees from other countries.

So in essence - Americans believe we are entitled to a greater share of the pie than others, yet believe that the other ought to pay for it (and be happy for the opportunity!)
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017