Wimmin'

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Pie

Speaking of cats, anyone know a good way to keep a 16-week old kitten from jumping off a second-floor balcony over the dining room? I can't block off the whole area, since the older cat has her litterbox and food in the loft.

Unfortunately, I believe the answer is "let the kitten try it at least once."

Shouldn't a 16 week old have reasonably good spacial perception and understand it's not a good idea? Has she done this or are you just afraid of it?

[wolf]

FMLA is typically unpaid, unless sick or vacation time is used, isn't it?

[Yelof]

Both parents should have the right to leave in order to facilitate pregnancy, give birth and provide personal care for their child in the crucial first few month's of Babies development. Personally I live the system where a couple is awarded a joint amount of time off and they decide how best how to distribute it. Employers should not be out of pocket on this or else informal forms of discrimination with arise and make the measure counter productive. The cost should be social, we all should pay from our taxes to enable people to best raise their children while not destroying their career.

The benifits to society are to encourage parents to spend time with their children, early bonding with both parents has been shown to increase later adult emotional stability, which has to be good for society. By guarenteeing that a mother keeps her job after spending time having a child it increases the chances that she will return to the workforce, thereby not wasting her education that is usually furnished at social cost. By compensating the employers it encourages them to hire replacements thus reducing employment. Without children society would not exist, being a women or a man is a lottery, we should be oblidged to provide social insurance to cover what is a cost of being human. It would really be little for what we get in return

[DanaC]

*smiles* well said Yelof. I totally agree.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by Pie

Speaking of cats, anyone know a good way to keep a 16-week old kitten from jumping off a second-floor balcony over the dining room? I can't block off the whole area, since the older cat has her litterbox and food in the loft.

- Pie

There are several firearms enthusiasts here on The Cellar; I'm sure at least one is interested in indoor furry skeet shooting...

[wolf]

For a greater challenge I would actually recommend bowhunting with flu-flu arrows and a blunt (small game) tip. Much easier on the furnishings.

now there's an actual though ... do you have a good line of sight from the living room to the part of the loft which is considered a danger zone? Hit kitty with a Nerf crossbow bolt a couple times and she'll stay away from the edge ...

[Pie]

Originally Posted by wolf

Shouldn't a 16 week old have reasonably good spacial perception and understand it's not a good idea? Has she done this or are you just afraid of it?

She seems to like high places -- enjoys the view. Our older cat does, too. The problem is that the kitten is growing so fast that she's relatively uncoordinated. I've seen her attempt leaps (like onto the kitchen counter, where she's not allowed!) and miss. I'm afraid she'll misjudge the leap up to the loft's railing and experience a ballistic impact with the hard floor below.
- Pie

[Pie]

Originally Posted by wolf

now there's an actual though ... do you have a good line of sight from the living room to the part of the loft which is considered a danger zone? Hit kitty with a Nerf crossbow bolt a couple times and she'll stay away from the edge ...

Nerf! Naah, she'd just go for the interception. A supersoaker might get the point across, but it'd ruin the furniture...

[wolf]

I had considered supersoaker, but this is an indoor balcony and use of such would be inappropriate. If you do go the supersoaker route, make sure you put some vinegar in the water to reinforce to her that she's been bad. Cats, I understand, really hate vinegar.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Yelof

Both parents should have the right to leave in order to facilitate pregnancy, give birth and provide personal care for their child in the crucial first few month's of Babies development. Personally I live the system where a couple is awarded a joint amount of time off and they decide how best how to distribute it. Employers should not be out of pocket on this or else informal forms of discrimination with arise and make the measure counter productive. The cost should be social, we all should pay from our taxes to enable people to best raise their children while not destroying their career.

The benifits to society are to encourage parents to spend time with their children, early bonding with both parents has been shown to increase later adult emotional stability, which has to be good for society. By guarenteeing that a mother keeps her job after spending time having a child it increases the chances that she will return to the workforce, thereby not wasting her education that is usually furnished at social cost. By compensating the employers it encourages them to hire replacements thus reducing employment. Without children society would not exist, being a women or a man is a lottery, we should be oblidged to provide social insurance to cover what is a cost of being human. It would really be little for what we get in return

They do that at competing businesses in China, don't they?

[Yelof]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

They do that at competing businesses in China, don't they?

You are saying that what I am proposing makes the instituting country incompetitive against a non-instituting country.

3 points

1) That argument could me made as valid for any legislation that restricts the ability of an employer to exploit an employee..oh no! the 1st world is doomed to economic take over by the 3rd world because they let children work in sweatshops for next to nothing and we don't! or maybe not!

2) Uncompetitiveness can be largely negated when trading blocs introduce uniform social legislation, such as what the EU attempts to do

3) All societies are massivly inefficient anyhow, it is just a matter of how we prioritise our "wasteful" energies. Tax moneys should be put into legislation that provides for a better work-life experience and not into other "wasteful" activities such as defense. As long as the employer is mostly shielded from the cost of a proper maternity scheme I don't see how it effects competitiveness

I am actually quite ignorant of how the actually scheme works here if different countries in Europe and who bares the cost, I am just expounding how I think it should be

[xoxoxoBruce]

We all have ideas how we think it should be. Most of us would like to see people treated fairly and well. BUT, then reality rears its ugly head. Child labor and sweatshops are a reality, and will remain so as long as people buy their products, like those expensive sneakers. By shopping and spending wisely you can do more good than any laws or government programs.

[evansk7]

Originally Posted by Yelof

I am actually quite ignorant of how the actually scheme works here if different countries in Europe and who bares the cost, I am just expounding how I think it should be

The social chapter (and most of the other "federal europe" stuff) sucks. Basically, a bunch of countries with entirely different political, social and economic make-ups get to impose their will on other countries and the poor bastards on the sharp end are supposed to be grateful.

Sometimes we win, sometimes the Germans win, sometimes the French win... rarely does anything else come up smelling of roses. But the pretty much constant theme is that someone gets shafted at the hands of their neighbours.

In the UK, the majority of "statutory leave" is paid for by the employer, and it's really hard to get rid of an employee who's off for a very long time and costing you money.

They've started doing radio adverts in my town (Sheffield) telling people that they can get extra help finding work if they've been unemployed for over 26 weeks. That's half a year. And at the same time, in the same town, we're struggling to fill low-income jobs because people don't want them and are too proud to take a part-time or low income job while waiting for something better.

But then, maybe that's about stigma. When I was looking for work and really struggling, I took a job working a bar, and had no problems with that. The hours sucked, the money sucked, but at least it was a job and I didn't have to feel beholden to the state (not that I was eligible for anything anyway!). And my friends would drop in and it'd be a fun evening. But I probably wouldn't, for example, have taken a job at McDonalds or Burger King... my friends might've seen me there.

Aren't double-standards odd?

[DanaC]

"The social chapter (and most of the other "federal europe" stuff) sucks"
yeah...bloody Brussels insisting our government make proper social provisions for us and protect us from the excesses of the unscrupulous

[Yelof]

Originally Posted by evansk7

The social chapter (and most of the other "federal europe" stuff) sucks. ....
Sometimes we win, sometimes the Germans win, sometimes the French win... rarely does anything else come up smelling of roses. But the pretty much constant theme is that someone gets shafted at the hands of their neighbours.

While I agree with you that the methodology the EU uses to come up with common agreement on these issues suck, becauce it is all bargining and compromises and the final product is nobody's true want or responsibility, I still think these are issues in which the size of the EU common market can work in the favour of the vast majority of Europeans who want a good work-life balance.