Yeah, I don’t see 4 days work weeks to continually be “no fuck around time” I see it as maybe improved performance for a few months but eventually people go back to “Fuck around” or “coffee runs” or everything that is counted.
You think corporations in the US won’t put a twist on it? I can see them making it a 4 10s week. They just hate people and want them to suffer as much as possible.
He’s implicating Trump to try to get to a federal court in an effort to find more sympathetic jurors. Everyone is fending for themselves and doesn’t want to be there last one holding the bag.
I know what you mean. I spent 10 years as a chef. But i dont fully agree.
Sure, some weeks you would work 6 or 7 days, but others only 4. And when you did work 6 or 7 you often only work a morning or an evening. If i was doing 4 days i would work 3 afd’s (all fucking day) and then one morning or evening. Sometimes your days off were split up so you get a few little breaks throughout the week.
If im working evenings i get my whole morning and afternoon to do what i want when i feel my most fresh and energetic. If i work mornings i get all afternoon and evening to do what i want. If im working afd’s i get an extra day off to to what i want. Plus early week, monday, tuesday, wednesday was always less busy so you could be cleaned up and out of the kitchen by close (10pm) and alot of the shift could be spent in prep, cleaning, organising and having a laugh with the other chefs and smoking. Lots of smoking.
I work in an office now and i realise that the two are completely different beasts.
My 9 to 5 leaves me with zero energy mentally which affects me physically by making me not want to do anything with my evenings knowing i need to be up early so in bed early. I get my weekends but i spend them doing housework or something else responsible :(
Both job types could benefit from a 4 day work week. We need time to recharge and relax. We are just humans.
Edit: just to add. Life as a chef was hard. Lack of social life, working crazy hours. Bad diet and no discernable sleeping pattern.
Like i said above. They are different but equally exhasting.
I think it’s really important to acknowledge the way an office job can completely destroy your day just due to mental exhaustion, boredom and lack of purpose (or a combination of 3). Thanks for your comment because that was an interesting perspective for someone who only ever worked “office jobs”.
The fact that you are sit in front of a computer doesn’t mean that when you are finished you have all your energy left to do what you want, because even if you are not physically tired, if you are exhausted mentally, all you want to do is being passively entertained.
We could argue at length which job is worse or more tiring, etc. Or we could simply agree on the general principle that everyone should have more time to do what we like.
There are many flavors of political views and you can be left, or left-center and still support free markets and capitalism.
Believe it or not, it’s possible for a person to hold right and left ideals simultaneously. As an example, you could say that a person is to the right or left of what you believe and that is much less of a blanket generalization.
or left-center and still support free markets and capitalism.
Absolutely not. There is no such thing as “leftist capitalism.”
What is left and right is really simple - you are either for dismantling systems of power and privilege (left) or you are protecting systems of power and privilege (right). The (so-called) “center” is merely politics that performs the latter while pretending to sympathize with the former.
Believe it or not, it’s possible for a person to hold right and left ideals simultaneously.
No, it isn’t - you can’t be “half-pregnant.” If your politics protects power and privilege it’s perfectly clear what politics you ascribe to… it doesn’t matter what you may personally feel about this or that irrelevant little disagreement you may have with your fellow travellers regarding the details. A person that believes abortion should only be allowed “in cases of rape” is no less right-wing (ie, misogynist and patriarchal in this case) than a person that wants it abolished altogether.
Idk man you can definitely have boyh left and right views at the same time. Like for example i believe in the so called right’s ideology of a smaller government, but i think this should be achieved by stripping away 90% of programs and installing a realistic universal basic income and a nationlized medical system. Which are two leftist ideas. I mean why would there be need so many different programs if everyone had their basic needs met.
Now that would indeed cause a ton of people to lose their jobs. It would also point out the most truely hopeless people who take what they are given and screw up constantly. Our current system trys to stem the amount of abusers by making everything so convoluted which ends up harming people really in need, along with cost so much money.
realistic universal basic income and a nationlized medical system.
…are leftist ideas at all. A government having to shoulder the burden of dealing with the consequences of capitalism isn’t leftist (UBI). Neither is a state doing the bare minimum of what states have always been supposed to do (state-run healthcare).
But this…
Our current system trys to stem the amount of abusers
…ie, focusing on the miniscule amount of “abuse” done by the people without power and privilege in a society as opposed to the gargantuan amount of damage caused by those with power and privilege - now that is textbook punch-down-kiss-up right-wing ideology speaking.
So far, the only ideological understanding you have expressed here (so far) is a right-wing one.
Ther is only one left-wing principle of any relevance to this discussion - the challenging and dismantling of systems of power and privilege. There is also only one right-wing principle of any relevance to this discussion - the protection and expansion of systems of power and privilege. Whether the systems of power and privilege go full-Nazi simply depends on how insecure said systems are at any given moment.
I just wanted to clear that up because that is how people seem to be interpreting your hard-line stance.
It’s not a hard-line stance at all - it’s just one with all the clickibait fairy tales stripped away. No, they’re interpreting it that way because a lot of right-wingers are quite shocked when they find out that they are, in fact, pro-status quo right-wingers and not the (supposed) “enlightened centrists” they believed themselves to be. We call right-wingers reactionaries for a reason.
I’ll agree that the Democrats are a conservative party. There’s a tiny section of it that consists of a handful of actual left wingers and their names come up in the press because they’re so unique and out of step with the general DC zeitgeist.
At the same time, I think the point the article is trying to make – that the Democrats at least are trying in their conservative way to do something that benefits some segment of the population some of the time, while the Republicans are simply and unapologetically trying to get their hands on whatever they can steal, and if the empire crumbles while they’re doing it then oh well – is something that should be said a lot more often in the mainstream press. I have a hard time seeing how anyone could argue with a straight face that it’s not true.
I almost feel like this is basically Fridays at my place of work. Since it’s not formalized that means I don’t have to worry about anyone looking to adjust my salary or PTO or whatever corporate america would do to validate the savings of a 4 day work week. Selfishly I like where it’s at, but I do think overall the 4 day work week would benefit us all as long as pay doesn’t decrease
Legacy could be many things but the proposal presented in the finale of Picard wouldn’t really serve as a Voyager sequel in my view.
What’s was pitched in the backdoor pilot embedded in Picard and in post-season interviews was for the Titanprise to engage on a nostalgia tour. The hero’s journey however was clearly set up to be Jack’s and not Seven’s. This could give us cameos of Voyager characters, but it would be beyond a stretch to see it as a sequel to Voyager or DS9.
On the other hand, if the idea that Kurtzman floated in a magazine interview this spring were greenlit we would get a loose Legacy anthology of one-shots, limited series and direct to streaming movies that could tell stories focused on legacy characters and ensembles - presumably including one focused on Janeway.
As a vehicle to serve legacy characters and locations, I believe Kurtzman’s proposal is superior and won’t limit us to just the early 25th century.
I do nonetheless see that there’s strong interest in some kind of new early 25th century show that moves forward from Picard season three. I just don’t think that it can be all things to all nostalgic fans in a 10 episode season without again sidelining Seven and the other Titanprise officers.
The backdoor pilot in seasons three of Picard is very much Terry Matalas proposal.
The mix of one-shots, direct to streaming movies and mini/limited series for legacy characters across all the eras is something that Kurtzman described in an interview this March with SFX Magazine. TrekMovie recovered the key messages in an article that’s not behind a paywall.
By the way, even individual characters – I think we could absolutely continue to tell stories about individual characters that are set up on the show in other contexts. That’s the beauty of having a universe now is that, in a perfect world, we’re not just doing seasons of television, we’re doing event series [miniseries], we’re doing single events that could be two, three hours long [TV movies]. I think that we are now at a place where that’s really possible.
If there was an interview with Akiva Goldsman describing something similar to Kurtzman, it would be great to have that report.
If Seven of Nine is the only character from Voyager who is a main character, then it still strikes me as a TNG spin-off, given that the main cast would also include Jack Crusher (Son of Picard) and Sidney LaForge (Daughter of Geordi), and probably some appearances from Beverly Crusher, Diana Troi, Will Riker, etc… As @StillPaisleyCat mentioned, it could turn into the Jack Crusher show, but even without that, Voyager characters would be second class citizens in comparison. I’d love to see Janeway, Paris, Kim, Torres, Tuvok, heck even Neelix (maybe not Chakotay) but they’d be cameos at best. And with 10 episodes a season, we’d be lucky to get more than one or two of those appearances.
I mean if they need to raise the prices to pay a fair wage and fewer people can fly, so be it. They're not running a charity and these aren't volunteers we're talking about. They're people working full time jobs to support themselves.
The 60% part I think world have been a good thing (look at brexit) 51% deciding things is not necessarily great. It’s the rest of the initiative that was bonkers.
In other circumstances, I would agree with you, but given the severity of the situation vis-a-vis abortion, we need to accept any victories we get to save innocent people from what is a blatant attempt at sparking a political civil war.
Which is one of the things that is so troubling about the situation. Fundamental questions about our democracy are being sacrificed on the altar of protecting our most basic rights from fascists. That should terrify everyone.
The Franklin County Board of Elections had this lovely flier in the line for everyone to see and is such a blatant bit of bias I can’t help but laugh at it https://i.imgur.com/DUK2d9J.jpg
I mean this is ridiculous for so many reasons but maybe the saddest/funniest part is that a “no” vote will “end majority rule” or “destroy citizen-led ballot initiatives as we know them” since a “no” vote on Issue one literally just maintains the status quo. It is literally maintaining citizen-led ballot initiatives as you know them.
California also has the 50%+1 threshold for constitutional amendments. I hate it. With that kind of margin, why not just make everything a constitutional amendment instead of an ordinary proposition?
Because you can end up in a situation where legislatures want to do things that are not supported by a majority. A proposition that changes statute is ripe for reversal, while a constitutional amendment is not.
What the Ohio GOP was angling for was “hey, we know a majority doesn’t support us, but we have that handled by gerrymandering, so now we need to make sure we enshrine minority rule by allowing 40% of voters to control the democratic process.” They know they can keep 40% gaslit and brainwashed, but getting to 50% is a challenge that requires policy instead of bombast.
And it was done precisely because a popular (by polling data) amendment is coming this fall that takes away the GOP’s power to control people’s bodies.
Thus, this election brings into specific relief why 50% + 1 is the only way to protect voters from legislative overreach. Now, and going forward.
I was being mostly sarcastic with my “why not just…” remark. While 50%+1 may prevent legislative overreach (as with any voter-passed initiative), it’s still a terrible barrier for a constitutional amendment because I have no faith that a simple majority will vote to protect or expand the rights and privileges of a minority. e.g. California’s Proposition 8 (an amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2008) passed with 52%.
My point was that, if the amendment threshold were 50%+1, it seems in the interest of anyone seriously wanting to pass an initiative through the voters would want to make it a constitutional amendment simply to prevent it from being declared unconstitutional by the court. That’s basically what happened in California – Prop 22 (an initiative banning same-sex marriage in 2000) was struck down in May 2008, then Prop 8 was introduced in June with essentially the same language at the constitutional level.
Granted, Prop 22 passed with over 61% and support for the ban dropped about 9 points in the 8 years in between, and some of that may have been because of the difference between statute and amendment. But I still feel we need better protection of minorities than “majority rule”, especially when called out so specifically in cases like this.
I would support a system in which enshrining rights in a constitution takes 50% + 1 but taking rights away requires a supermajority. Unfortunately, that’s not in the cards.
Constitutions are supposed to reflect supreme will of the people, not by just a bare majority. Amendments should be hard to pass for that reason.
That said, I’m arguing only the percentage threshold – the will of the people, all people in the jurisdiction considered equally for this purpose. The “signatures from all counties” portion of this Ohio issue violates that by giving greater weight (and impedance) to rural communities where organization is hard and populations are smaller. It would take only one county with low turnout to block serious consideration of meaningful issues that affect the entire state.
This has been known for decades (probably as long as the 5 day work week has been a thing)
And this is “fine”. Because not everyone has the same slack day. Hell, at my current job, me and a buddy outright acknowledge this and he takes the brunt on Fridays when I am just done with everything and I do Mondays when he is usually distracted with whatever his kids told him they need last minute.
Same with meetings. Some weeks, the ONLY thing I do on a wednesday is go to a few meetings. Or maybe me and someone else set a friday lunch meeting because that is the only time we both have a chance, and so forth.
For people who have “real jobs” where they actually work hard (so retail, construction, etc): You tend to not get the “easy” day for the most part. You are busting your ass and being overworked all week long.
For office workers and the like? I think there should be a lot of thought put in. Someone doing data entry might not need to be there all five days. Someone who is doing more design/planning role… we already end up working closer to 6. And efforts toward “flex time” and just general “We don’t care when you are ‘at work’ so long as you are available for meetings and get stuff done” go a long way toward that. Because, for example: I busted my ass for what amounts to a 20 hour shift yesterday getting stuff working for a customer. Today? I am basically checking my email but made it clear that even that is “I might not answer”. And I’ll probably take a few afternoons off next week to even it out.
But, with the shit world we live in: that would map to people who “don’t have to work all 5 days” getting paid 20% less. So pretending you are busy on a Friday afternoon is probably still the better option.
msn.com
Top