Monday, June 22, 2009
Dress code
Today was the first warm day of the year, so, like butterflies emerging from a cocoon, most of us wore skirts or dresses for the first time since last summer. There was a flurry of girl talk as we admired and complimented each other's outfits (many of them bought in the dreariness of March with a longing eye cast towards warmer summer weather), and the conversation soon turned to how each and every one of us, at one time or another, had been prevented by patriarchical or church oppression from enjoying the breezy summer skirt that we'd been longing to wear since March. There were stories of the indignity of being sent home from Catholic school to change, the humiliation of being forbidden by a father to leave the house, the dehumanization of being told you're going to go to hell because you look sexy in that dress, even a now-ex-husband who threw out a beloved sundress because no wife of his was going to wear anything that slutty in public. We were all very glad that we now live such liberated 21st-century lives that we can express ourselves with whatever pretty things we want to wear.
Because my profession is female-dominated and has a disproportionately large number of recovering catholics (Vive la révolution tranquille!), and because my workplace wants to attract the best and brightest of the profession, my employer makes a point of providing a modern, liberated, feminist, secular environment. In this spirit, after hearing our stories, our manager implemented a new policy to ensure that we are never oppressed again: now our dress code stipulates that everyone must wear a skirt that is shorter than fingertip length. No long hemlines, no pants, no stockings, no leggings, none of the tools our patriarchical and religious oppressors used to force us to submit by hiding our bodies.
Of course, everything I've said so far is a complete and total lie. I made up every word of it. We have no dress code (and in fact make a huge point of not having a dress code), we don't have epic girl-talk sessions squeeing over each other's outfits in the office, I don't know of any abusive ex-husbands who threw out their wife's clothes, it's pure fiction. It was hot out today and I did wear a skirt, but everything else is nothing more than a product of my overactive imagination and the glass of wine I had with dinner.
But think about what you were thinking when I said our dress code requires a short skirt. You were probably thinking something like "WTF? That's no fair at all!" You might have been thinking "But what if you don't want to show that much leg?" You might have been thinking "That sounds kind of lecherous and creepy." If you're lecherous and creepy, you might have been thinking "Cool! How can I get a job there!" But I'm certain - I'd bet real money - that you weren't thinking that it's in any way reasonable or helpful or productive or kind or in any other way good policy to forbid us from covering our legs.
By direct extrapolation, it is equally bad policy to ban the burqa in France.
Because my profession is female-dominated and has a disproportionately large number of recovering catholics (Vive la révolution tranquille!), and because my workplace wants to attract the best and brightest of the profession, my employer makes a point of providing a modern, liberated, feminist, secular environment. In this spirit, after hearing our stories, our manager implemented a new policy to ensure that we are never oppressed again: now our dress code stipulates that everyone must wear a skirt that is shorter than fingertip length. No long hemlines, no pants, no stockings, no leggings, none of the tools our patriarchical and religious oppressors used to force us to submit by hiding our bodies.
Of course, everything I've said so far is a complete and total lie. I made up every word of it. We have no dress code (and in fact make a huge point of not having a dress code), we don't have epic girl-talk sessions squeeing over each other's outfits in the office, I don't know of any abusive ex-husbands who threw out their wife's clothes, it's pure fiction. It was hot out today and I did wear a skirt, but everything else is nothing more than a product of my overactive imagination and the glass of wine I had with dinner.
But think about what you were thinking when I said our dress code requires a short skirt. You were probably thinking something like "WTF? That's no fair at all!" You might have been thinking "But what if you don't want to show that much leg?" You might have been thinking "That sounds kind of lecherous and creepy." If you're lecherous and creepy, you might have been thinking "Cool! How can I get a job there!" But I'm certain - I'd bet real money - that you weren't thinking that it's in any way reasonable or helpful or productive or kind or in any other way good policy to forbid us from covering our legs.
By direct extrapolation, it is equally bad policy to ban the burqa in France.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Open Letter to Ontario Minister of Housing Jim Watson
Dear Mr. Watson:
I am writing to you in your capacity as Minister of Housing to draw your attention to a flaw in the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act.
Subsection 6(2) of the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act states:
This is of concern specifically in reference to section 120, which sets out the guideline rent increase.
In other words, if the building was not occupied before 1998, or was not used in the manners specified before the dates indicated, the landlord can increase rent by however much they want rather than being limited by the guideline rent increase.
The section appears to be intended to encourage the creation of new rental housing, which is a laudable goal. However, this noble purpose is defeated by the fact that the last time this section was updated was 1997 or 1998, when the buildings referred to in paragraph a) were brand new. Eleven or twelve years have passed, but this section has not been updated. If it is not updated with a more recent date or a time limit on the exemption, landlords will be able to increase rent however much they want forever, simply by virtue of the fact that their building was built after an arbitrary date.
Not only is this contrary to the spirit of the legislation, it also has a negative impact on Ontarians' quality of life. The vast majority of Ontarians don't get enough of a raise year after year to keep up with an unregulated rent increase for 12 or more years. This means that people in housing up to ten years old live in fear of being priced out of their homes with each rent increase, of having to uproot their families and relocate to lower quality housing - even if they're fortunate enough to have stable employment - because their rent is increasing at a faster rate than their salary and there's no respite in sight.
I know this is not the intention of the Act and is not consistent with the values your government stands for. Please amend this legislation so that the dates in subsection 6(2) will be updated regularly, or introduce a time limit on the exemption as in subsection 3(7) of 1992 version of this legislation, so that Ontario tenants and their families can enjoy stable and secure housing.
I am writing to you in your capacity as Minister of Housing to draw your attention to a flaw in the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act.
Subsection 6(2) of the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act states:
Sections 104, 111, 112, 120, 121, 122, 126 to 133, 165 and 167 do not apply with respect to a rental unit if,
(a) it was not occupied for any purpose before June 17, 1998;
(b) it is a rental unit no part of which has been previously rented since July 29, 1975; or
(c) no part of the building, mobile home park or land lease community was occupied for residential purposes before November 1, 1991. 2006, c. 17, s. 6 (2).
This is of concern specifically in reference to section 120, which sets out the guideline rent increase.
In other words, if the building was not occupied before 1998, or was not used in the manners specified before the dates indicated, the landlord can increase rent by however much they want rather than being limited by the guideline rent increase.
The section appears to be intended to encourage the creation of new rental housing, which is a laudable goal. However, this noble purpose is defeated by the fact that the last time this section was updated was 1997 or 1998, when the buildings referred to in paragraph a) were brand new. Eleven or twelve years have passed, but this section has not been updated. If it is not updated with a more recent date or a time limit on the exemption, landlords will be able to increase rent however much they want forever, simply by virtue of the fact that their building was built after an arbitrary date.
Not only is this contrary to the spirit of the legislation, it also has a negative impact on Ontarians' quality of life. The vast majority of Ontarians don't get enough of a raise year after year to keep up with an unregulated rent increase for 12 or more years. This means that people in housing up to ten years old live in fear of being priced out of their homes with each rent increase, of having to uproot their families and relocate to lower quality housing - even if they're fortunate enough to have stable employment - because their rent is increasing at a faster rate than their salary and there's no respite in sight.
I know this is not the intention of the Act and is not consistent with the values your government stands for. Please amend this legislation so that the dates in subsection 6(2) will be updated regularly, or introduce a time limit on the exemption as in subsection 3(7) of 1992 version of this legislation, so that Ontario tenants and their families can enjoy stable and secure housing.
Are cultures with fewer social apologies less secure?
I previously wondered about socio-cultural variations in how people receive apologies.
Recently IRL, I had to deal with someone who (by my best diagnosis) was insecure in their own competence and therefore overcompensated by jumping down the throat of any interlocutor who showed the slightest sign of weakness - criticizing the interlocutor's methods, questioning their competence, etc.
Fortunately, on my side of the conversation I knew what I was talking about. You might have noticed if you've been reading my blog that I try very hard not to make unqualified declarative statements unless I'm certain - I always try to represent my certainty or uncertainty accurately. (I don't think that's a cultural thing per se, I've made a conscious decision to communicate that way.) In my conversation with this individual, I was able to rightfully use unqualified declarative statements at every point. This isn't false bravado or arrogance in confidence's clothing, I just happened to know exactly what I was talking about.
This individual was by some measures my equal and by some measures my better, and usually in this type of situation I soften or mitigate my declarative statements a bit out of respect. "I think perhaps it might..." or "I was wondering if..." when I mean "It is..." or "You should..." But knowing what this individual was like, I decided not to leave any room for argument by sticking to declarative factual statements. It worked relatively well. This individual doesn't like me and would very much like to question my credibility, but the fact of the matter is I'm simply correct.
So this got me thinking about people who take apologies as a sign of weakness. What if their motives are similar to those of the individual I was dealing with - what if they're insecure and looking for signs of weakness in their interlocutor? And, similarly, hesitant to throw out an apology as a social lubricant for fear it might betray their own weakness?
But sometimes apologies/lack thereof can be cultural. In Canada (or at least my corner thereof) you apologize when someone steps on your foot. The real meaning isn't "I beg your forgiveness for my foot having gotten in your way," but rather "I acknowledge that there was an occurrence and hereby express that my intention is not to be an asshole about it." But in cultures with less of a social apology, that may well be interpreted as the speaker honestly thinking that it's their fault for getting their foot in the way.
Similarly, when I normally mitigate my declarative statements when talking to my equals and my betters, my intention is "I acknowledge your expertise and hereby express that my intention is not to boss you around." If there's a cultural aspect to this (which I think there is - from what I've seen on British TV shows they mitigate more than we do), people from less-mitigating cultures might interpret it as a sign that I'm not confident in my statements.
So I'm thinking about all this, and I'm thinking about how I had to suppress my natural mitigation tendencies to communicate with an individual who is insecure and defensive about their own competence, and it occurs to me: what if people who live in cultures with fewer social apologies/less mitigation of declarative statements are less confident and/or secure? And, if this does end up being the case, which is the cause and which is the effect?
It's a longshot, I know, to make cultural generalizations about insecurity and confidence, but that's where this train of thought landed.
Recently IRL, I had to deal with someone who (by my best diagnosis) was insecure in their own competence and therefore overcompensated by jumping down the throat of any interlocutor who showed the slightest sign of weakness - criticizing the interlocutor's methods, questioning their competence, etc.
Fortunately, on my side of the conversation I knew what I was talking about. You might have noticed if you've been reading my blog that I try very hard not to make unqualified declarative statements unless I'm certain - I always try to represent my certainty or uncertainty accurately. (I don't think that's a cultural thing per se, I've made a conscious decision to communicate that way.) In my conversation with this individual, I was able to rightfully use unqualified declarative statements at every point. This isn't false bravado or arrogance in confidence's clothing, I just happened to know exactly what I was talking about.
This individual was by some measures my equal and by some measures my better, and usually in this type of situation I soften or mitigate my declarative statements a bit out of respect. "I think perhaps it might..." or "I was wondering if..." when I mean "It is..." or "You should..." But knowing what this individual was like, I decided not to leave any room for argument by sticking to declarative factual statements. It worked relatively well. This individual doesn't like me and would very much like to question my credibility, but the fact of the matter is I'm simply correct.
So this got me thinking about people who take apologies as a sign of weakness. What if their motives are similar to those of the individual I was dealing with - what if they're insecure and looking for signs of weakness in their interlocutor? And, similarly, hesitant to throw out an apology as a social lubricant for fear it might betray their own weakness?
But sometimes apologies/lack thereof can be cultural. In Canada (or at least my corner thereof) you apologize when someone steps on your foot. The real meaning isn't "I beg your forgiveness for my foot having gotten in your way," but rather "I acknowledge that there was an occurrence and hereby express that my intention is not to be an asshole about it." But in cultures with less of a social apology, that may well be interpreted as the speaker honestly thinking that it's their fault for getting their foot in the way.
Similarly, when I normally mitigate my declarative statements when talking to my equals and my betters, my intention is "I acknowledge your expertise and hereby express that my intention is not to boss you around." If there's a cultural aspect to this (which I think there is - from what I've seen on British TV shows they mitigate more than we do), people from less-mitigating cultures might interpret it as a sign that I'm not confident in my statements.
So I'm thinking about all this, and I'm thinking about how I had to suppress my natural mitigation tendencies to communicate with an individual who is insecure and defensive about their own competence, and it occurs to me: what if people who live in cultures with fewer social apologies/less mitigation of declarative statements are less confident and/or secure? And, if this does end up being the case, which is the cause and which is the effect?
It's a longshot, I know, to make cultural generalizations about insecurity and confidence, but that's where this train of thought landed.
Tangental to thinking about sick leave
The real tragedy is that the people who are least likely to be able to afford to lose income are in the jobs that are most likely to not have any provision for paid sick leave. Jobs that pay enough money that you can accrue a bit of savings and if you missed a day's pay it wouldn't be a huge problem are also jobs that are more likely to have paid sick leave or to allow you to massage your schedule a bit for a doctor's appointment.
New Rule: you block information, you lose
This train of thought started with the thing in the news recently where parents in Alberta could pull their kid from the classroom if they didn't like what was being talked about. It occurred to me that from the perspective of getting your kid to live your values in the long term, it would be more effective to talk about and refute what was being discussed in the classroom.
Then I read about how the Iranian government is trying to block people's access to the internet and twitter. So I look on twitter, and what's being posted there (at least on the English side - I can't read Farsi)? First aid information, the equivalent of headline news, amateur video of what's happening. Any competent government should be able to spin around that!
So here's the rule, applicable like Godwin: you block access to information, you lose.
If your position has any modicum of sense and you have any basic communication skills, you should be able to convince people of your position while allowing them access to full information. Readily provide them with copious amounts of selected information that support your position, trusting innate human laziness that they won't wade through google to confirm everything. Tell them about why the information they were given is really incorrect. Get some soundbites out there so they'll become conventional wisdom (like the 50% tax thing).
Blocking access to information should be automatically considered a sign of incompetence in the individual and unsoundness in the position they're trying to promote. They lose!
Then I read about how the Iranian government is trying to block people's access to the internet and twitter. So I look on twitter, and what's being posted there (at least on the English side - I can't read Farsi)? First aid information, the equivalent of headline news, amateur video of what's happening. Any competent government should be able to spin around that!
So here's the rule, applicable like Godwin: you block access to information, you lose.
If your position has any modicum of sense and you have any basic communication skills, you should be able to convince people of your position while allowing them access to full information. Readily provide them with copious amounts of selected information that support your position, trusting innate human laziness that they won't wade through google to confirm everything. Tell them about why the information they were given is really incorrect. Get some soundbites out there so they'll become conventional wisdom (like the 50% tax thing).
Blocking access to information should be automatically considered a sign of incompetence in the individual and unsoundness in the position they're trying to promote. They lose!
If you're changing your twitter location to Tehran
If you're changing your twitter location to Tehran, please consider writing it in Farsi. Not all Iranians are going to be tweeting in English.
I believe this is how you say Tehran, Iran in Farsi:
تهران ، ایران
It should be copy-pastable.
I'm not 100% certain - I can't read Farsi - but Google's Farsi interface doesn't correct the spelling and it returns results for things located in Tehran.
If the Farsi is wrong, please post the correct spelling in the comments and I'll update this post and my twitter.
Edited to add: It occurs to me that if you were actually IN Iran, you wouldn't write "Tehran, Iran" as your location. You'd just write Tehran, like how I just wrote Toronto. So here's Tehran in Farsi: تهران
I believe this is how you say Tehran, Iran in Farsi:
تهران ، ایران
It should be copy-pastable.
I'm not 100% certain - I can't read Farsi - but Google's Farsi interface doesn't correct the spelling and it returns results for things located in Tehran.
If the Farsi is wrong, please post the correct spelling in the comments and I'll update this post and my twitter.
Edited to add: It occurs to me that if you were actually IN Iran, you wouldn't write "Tehran, Iran" as your location. You'd just write Tehran, like how I just wrote Toronto. So here's Tehran in Farsi: تهران
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Things I've been told I shouldn't put first
The following is a partial list of things that someone, at some point or another, has told me I shouldn't let dominate/control/define my life or shouldn't plan my life around or shouldn't prioritize over other parts of life:
- work
- love
- friends
- the hobby that made me happiest (has happened several times with several different hobbies
- quiet restorative introvert time
- avoiding phobia triggers
- socio-political issues
- music studies
- language studies
- internet life
- my own needs
- other people's needs
- work
- love
- friends
- the hobby that made me happiest (has happened several times with several different hobbies
- quiet restorative introvert time
- avoiding phobia triggers
- socio-political issues
- music studies
- language studies
- internet life
- my own needs
- other people's needs
Petition to open the Canadian Embassy to injured Iranians
You can sign here if you're interested. The petition is intended for Canadian residents only.
Fashion advice please
Normally I wear crappy cheap jewellery because I'm not good at jewellery so I don't want to spend too much on something that may or may not work. But now I need to get a few earrings in real gold or silver to keep my existing piercings calm and happy while I add new ones.
Yellow gold looks better with my skin tone and colouring, but it's old fashioned. People my age don't often wear it, it's more often worn by people my parents' age. White gold or silver is more age-appropriate, but doesn't work as well with my skin tone.
Which one should I go for?
Yellow gold looks better with my skin tone and colouring, but it's old fashioned. People my age don't often wear it, it's more often worn by people my parents' age. White gold or silver is more age-appropriate, but doesn't work as well with my skin tone.
Which one should I go for?
Props to Centre Shoe Clinic at Yonge Eg Centre
I often get my shoes repaired because my gait wears them down unevenly and my shoe size is such that I won't necessarily be able to find a suitable replacement. However, usually I either know exactly what the problem is and what needs to be done to fix it, or the problem is visible and I can just point to it.
In this case my problem was more complicated - the shoes felt vaguely unstable, but I couldn't really articulate how or why, and I couldn't see any signs of a problem on the outside. So I took them down to Centre Shoe Clinic uncertain if they'd be able to help me or even tell what the problem was from my vague diagnosis.
Fortunately for me, they're good! They could tell what the problem was, explain it to me in a way I could understand, and even tell me how to help prevent it in the future. It required major surgery that involved taking the shoes completely apart and replacing some pieces inside the sole to restore the shoe's structural integrity, but when I got them back there was no externally visible sign that they had ever been taken apart.
It's very comforting to know there's that level of expertise right here in my neighbourhood.
In this case my problem was more complicated - the shoes felt vaguely unstable, but I couldn't really articulate how or why, and I couldn't see any signs of a problem on the outside. So I took them down to Centre Shoe Clinic uncertain if they'd be able to help me or even tell what the problem was from my vague diagnosis.
Fortunately for me, they're good! They could tell what the problem was, explain it to me in a way I could understand, and even tell me how to help prevent it in the future. It required major surgery that involved taking the shoes completely apart and replacing some pieces inside the sole to restore the shoe's structural integrity, but when I got them back there was no externally visible sign that they had ever been taken apart.
It's very comforting to know there's that level of expertise right here in my neighbourhood.
Analogy for banked sick leave
Suppose your employer gives you 12 days of paid sick leave a year, unbankable. (Q: Why 12? A: Because it makes the math easy.) You can use these days at any point during the year, but you aren't going to get more than 12 in a year. And if you don't use them all because you haven't been that sick, they don't roll over into the next year.
Now suppose your employer announces that they're going to restructure things a bit. Not a change in benefits, just purely administrative. Now, instead of up to 12 sick days a year, you get up to 1 sick day a month. You can use this day at any point during the month, but you aren't going to get more than 1 in a month. If you don't use it that month because you're not sick, it doesn't roll over into the next month.
That's less helpful, isn't it? We don't get sick every month, and we don't always get only one day worth of sick in a calendar month. Most months you don't need any sick days, some months you need two. It's less realistic, less fair, and rather arbitrary. And if your employer did work that way, wouldn't it be more tempting than it is now to call in sick one day during the last week of the month just because you're tired or you have a bit of a sniffle or you need a mental health day?
Allowing employees to bank sick leave over a career is better than having sick leave expire at the end of the year for exactly the same reason why allowing employees to use their 12 days of sick leave at any point during a year is better than limiting them to one a month. It is a direct logical extrapolation.
Now suppose your employer announces that they're going to restructure things a bit. Not a change in benefits, just purely administrative. Now, instead of up to 12 sick days a year, you get up to 1 sick day a month. You can use this day at any point during the month, but you aren't going to get more than 1 in a month. If you don't use it that month because you're not sick, it doesn't roll over into the next month.
That's less helpful, isn't it? We don't get sick every month, and we don't always get only one day worth of sick in a calendar month. Most months you don't need any sick days, some months you need two. It's less realistic, less fair, and rather arbitrary. And if your employer did work that way, wouldn't it be more tempting than it is now to call in sick one day during the last week of the month just because you're tired or you have a bit of a sniffle or you need a mental health day?
Allowing employees to bank sick leave over a career is better than having sick leave expire at the end of the year for exactly the same reason why allowing employees to use their 12 days of sick leave at any point during a year is better than limiting them to one a month. It is a direct logical extrapolation.
Careless reporting
The Toronto Star governs itself by a set of values called the Atkinson Principles. The second Atkinson Principle is Social Justice, and the fourth Atkinson Principle is The Rights of Working People.
I think they came perilously close to violating those principles with a bit of irresponsible reporting about city employees' sick leave.
The situation is that city employees' sick leave is currently banked, and they get paid for sick leave that is left unused when they leave their employment with the city. In the current labour negotiations, the city wants to take this away and the union wants to keep it.
There really two separate questions here, the second conditional on the first:
1. Should sick leave be banked?
2. Should employees be paid for unused banked sick leave?
Banking sick leave is not uncommon, although far from universal. As I've blogged about before, of the people I know who have paid sick leave, nearly all of them have bankable sick leave. This is a good arrangement because, as many people are fond of pointing out, sick leave is for when you're sick, and most people don't get sick at the same rate every year. Most years you only need a couple of days (say half a day for your annual check-up and then one day off because your brains are draining out your sinuses), but one or twice in your life you need a whole lot of time off, say for chemotherapy or major surgery.
With bankable sick leave, there is no other provision for time off for major medical conditions that require extensive time off. The assumption is that you'll use your banked sick leave for this. You can probably convince your employer to give you unpaid time off for major illness (in the cases of the people I was able to ask while writing this blog entry, the unpaid time off is technically at the employer's sole discretion, but realistically you'll get it), but there is no separate paid long-term disability leave. For example, someone I know worked at her job for 20 years with barely a day off, then one day threw out her back and required several months off to recover. Because she had nearly 20 years of sick leave banked, she was able to take the time she needed to recover without loss of income, then returned to work bringing with her 20 years of corporate memory back with her.
Whether or not to pay employees for unused bank sick leave is a separate issue. Some of the situations I'm familiar with get paid out or are tacitly allowed to tack it on at the beginning of retirement, others don't get any compensation for it - it's just sitting there as a safety net. In any case, it is possible to bank sick leave with or without paying employees for unused leave. It can work both ways.
The problem with the Toronto Star article is that they're presenting it as a single yes/no issue. They're presenting the pay-out as an integral part of banked sick leave, implying that to get rid of the pay-out you have to get rid of banked sick leave. If you look at the poll, they present it as a yes/no question, with no room for opinions such as "Banking the sick days is perfectly reasonable, but the payout at the end is a bit excessive." And, if you look at the comments section (I know, I know) a lot of people seem to be reading it as a single inseparable black and white issue.
My concern is that this article, especially with its somewhat sensationalist presentation (it was the most prominent article on the Toronto Star homepage all of yesterday, with the cartoon the largest image on the page), will lead people to become outraged at the prospect of up to 130 days' pay-out (which, as we know, people will be inclined to read without the "up to") and, seeing the pay-out as inseparable from banked sick leave, then write their city councillors demanding that banked sick leave for city employees be eliminated. Then our city workers will be stuck with a less just sick leave system that does not respond nearly as well to real-life sick leave needs, and all because of some unnuanced reporting from our city's largest newspaper.
I think they came perilously close to violating those principles with a bit of irresponsible reporting about city employees' sick leave.
The situation is that city employees' sick leave is currently banked, and they get paid for sick leave that is left unused when they leave their employment with the city. In the current labour negotiations, the city wants to take this away and the union wants to keep it.
There really two separate questions here, the second conditional on the first:
1. Should sick leave be banked?
2. Should employees be paid for unused banked sick leave?
Banking sick leave is not uncommon, although far from universal. As I've blogged about before, of the people I know who have paid sick leave, nearly all of them have bankable sick leave. This is a good arrangement because, as many people are fond of pointing out, sick leave is for when you're sick, and most people don't get sick at the same rate every year. Most years you only need a couple of days (say half a day for your annual check-up and then one day off because your brains are draining out your sinuses), but one or twice in your life you need a whole lot of time off, say for chemotherapy or major surgery.
With bankable sick leave, there is no other provision for time off for major medical conditions that require extensive time off. The assumption is that you'll use your banked sick leave for this. You can probably convince your employer to give you unpaid time off for major illness (in the cases of the people I was able to ask while writing this blog entry, the unpaid time off is technically at the employer's sole discretion, but realistically you'll get it), but there is no separate paid long-term disability leave. For example, someone I know worked at her job for 20 years with barely a day off, then one day threw out her back and required several months off to recover. Because she had nearly 20 years of sick leave banked, she was able to take the time she needed to recover without loss of income, then returned to work bringing with her 20 years of corporate memory back with her.
Whether or not to pay employees for unused bank sick leave is a separate issue. Some of the situations I'm familiar with get paid out or are tacitly allowed to tack it on at the beginning of retirement, others don't get any compensation for it - it's just sitting there as a safety net. In any case, it is possible to bank sick leave with or without paying employees for unused leave. It can work both ways.
The problem with the Toronto Star article is that they're presenting it as a single yes/no issue. They're presenting the pay-out as an integral part of banked sick leave, implying that to get rid of the pay-out you have to get rid of banked sick leave. If you look at the poll, they present it as a yes/no question, with no room for opinions such as "Banking the sick days is perfectly reasonable, but the payout at the end is a bit excessive." And, if you look at the comments section (I know, I know) a lot of people seem to be reading it as a single inseparable black and white issue.
My concern is that this article, especially with its somewhat sensationalist presentation (it was the most prominent article on the Toronto Star homepage all of yesterday, with the cartoon the largest image on the page), will lead people to become outraged at the prospect of up to 130 days' pay-out (which, as we know, people will be inclined to read without the "up to") and, seeing the pay-out as inseparable from banked sick leave, then write their city councillors demanding that banked sick leave for city employees be eliminated. Then our city workers will be stuck with a less just sick leave system that does not respond nearly as well to real-life sick leave needs, and all because of some unnuanced reporting from our city's largest newspaper.
How do older people end up with social skills that are no better than mine?
I know I have no place criticizing people's social skills because I don't have that many myself. Normally when I encounter someone who is socially awkward, I see where they're coming from and we try to muddle along.
But it occured to me that my social skills have been improving over time. I see someone use a formula I could use, so I yoink it and use it myself. For example, I used be awkward about leaving voicemails asking people to do something specific - I never knew how to end them smoothly. Then someone left me a voicemail saying "...so if you could get back to me on that by the end of the day, that would be great. Thanks!" That would totally work! So now that's how I end my voicemails. I do that whenever I see someone do something that would be a solution to a problem I have, and I'm slowly improving over time. It isn't anything deliberate, it's just the normal process for diffusion of linguistic innovation.
But I know people who are far older than me and don't have much better social skills. They can be like twice my age, but they don't often do better than me and in some cases do worse than me.
How does that happen? Are they not improving, or were they worse than me to start? If they were worse than me to start, how did they get jobs? And I'm not saying that snobbily (I've only had one good interview ever myself) - I know there's a certain amount of charm required to do a successful job interview, even for a position that isn't big on people skills, and I can't imagine that a person with my people skills minus 30 years of experience could do that. Did job interviews require less charm 30 years ago?
Or is it possible that society's people skills in general have improved, and any given individual stays in their place within the hierarchy? It might work that way, since everyone is probably improving the same way I am. When I'm 100, kids are probably going to look at me and wonder how I ever functioned in civil society.
But it occured to me that my social skills have been improving over time. I see someone use a formula I could use, so I yoink it and use it myself. For example, I used be awkward about leaving voicemails asking people to do something specific - I never knew how to end them smoothly. Then someone left me a voicemail saying "...so if you could get back to me on that by the end of the day, that would be great. Thanks!" That would totally work! So now that's how I end my voicemails. I do that whenever I see someone do something that would be a solution to a problem I have, and I'm slowly improving over time. It isn't anything deliberate, it's just the normal process for diffusion of linguistic innovation.
But I know people who are far older than me and don't have much better social skills. They can be like twice my age, but they don't often do better than me and in some cases do worse than me.
How does that happen? Are they not improving, or were they worse than me to start? If they were worse than me to start, how did they get jobs? And I'm not saying that snobbily (I've only had one good interview ever myself) - I know there's a certain amount of charm required to do a successful job interview, even for a position that isn't big on people skills, and I can't imagine that a person with my people skills minus 30 years of experience could do that. Did job interviews require less charm 30 years ago?
Or is it possible that society's people skills in general have improved, and any given individual stays in their place within the hierarchy? It might work that way, since everyone is probably improving the same way I am. When I'm 100, kids are probably going to look at me and wonder how I ever functioned in civil society.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Blah
Two of the things I need to blog are important. I'd would be derelict in my duties as a citizen if I did not blog them. Plus there's other stuff floating around in my head and sitting half-written in my drafts.
But I've been spending all day wrestling disorganized thoughts into a sensible and cohesive form, and I just don't have it in me to do this with my own thoughts. Plus my apartment's a mess. And I'm really overdue for one or two fussy girly things that involve spending long periods of time in the bathroom. Posh problems, I know, but there we go.
Here's a picture of a baby armadillo drinking from a bottle. Which caused the google ads that seem to have suddenly appeared on blogger to try to sell me baby formula. So I'm going to loudly insert the world childfree here. CHILDFREE!
But I've been spending all day wrestling disorganized thoughts into a sensible and cohesive form, and I just don't have it in me to do this with my own thoughts. Plus my apartment's a mess. And I'm really overdue for one or two fussy girly things that involve spending long periods of time in the bathroom. Posh problems, I know, but there we go.
Here's a picture of a baby armadillo drinking from a bottle. Which caused the google ads that seem to have suddenly appeared on blogger to try to sell me baby formula. So I'm going to loudly insert the world childfree here. CHILDFREE!
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Has anyone bothered to question the nature of military life?
This train of thought started here but veered widely off and is now almost entirely unrelated.
Military training - and by extension military life - is intentionally dehumanizing. We've all seen boot camp movies, we all have a general idea of how it works. They break you down through humiliation and dehumanization then build you back up in the image they need. And then they own your ass and you go where and do what you're told. That's just how it works.
But I wonder if anyone has ever bothered to truly question and think critically about whether this is necessary? I think everyone tends to just generally accept that that's how the military works, that's what makes it the military. It's always been like that, that's what people expect from the military. But is it actually necessary? Are they mindfully doing it this way for a reason, or are they just doing it this way because that's how they've always done it? Is anyone giving this serious thought?
Military training - and by extension military life - is intentionally dehumanizing. We've all seen boot camp movies, we all have a general idea of how it works. They break you down through humiliation and dehumanization then build you back up in the image they need. And then they own your ass and you go where and do what you're told. That's just how it works.
But I wonder if anyone has ever bothered to truly question and think critically about whether this is necessary? I think everyone tends to just generally accept that that's how the military works, that's what makes it the military. It's always been like that, that's what people expect from the military. But is it actually necessary? Are they mindfully doing it this way for a reason, or are they just doing it this way because that's how they've always done it? Is anyone giving this serious thought?
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Why children are obsessed with candy
I was trying to remember something that happened when I was very young. I thought back and retrieved the memory of walking around with my grandmother in her neighbourhood and she was telling me about the thing I was trying to remember. Like most memories, this one contained some tiny details. My grandmother was still taller than me at the time. It was one of the first spring days that year when I didn't have to wear a jacket. I could see the water from the top of this one hill. And I was thinking about wintergreen lifesavers - either my grandmother had just bought me some, or I was hoping to convince her to buy me some.
Then I realized: I was thinking about lifesavers, like extensively! I was so fixated on the idea of getting lifesavers that it's coming out as an underlying emotion in the memory 20 years later! As adults, if we want lifesavers we just buy some without a second thought. But kids can't just go and buy lifesavers. They don't have money, and if they do have money they still need permission from a grownup to go to a store, and then the grownup is there to approve or veto their purchase. So that leaves my child-self there absolutely obsessed with convincing her grandmother to buy her lifesavers (Should I ask outright? Should I play coy?) and/or the fact that her grandmother has just bought her lifesavers (Should I eat them all now? Should I save some? What will my parents think?). It wasn't something over which I had any control and I was entirely at the mercy of the grownups buying lifesavers for me and permitting me to have lifesavers, so it became this idee fixe.
And my grownups had never actually been unreasonable about my having candy! Looking at it from an adult perspective, my grandmother would totally have bought them for me if I'd asked, and it might have made her a bit happy to buy me a treat that makes me happy. And my parents wouldn't have taken away a treat that my grandmother bought me, and might have even come up with the idea of testing the theory that they make sparks if you bite them. But because I couldn't just go get them myself, because it was logistically necessary to ask for and receive permission to have lifesavers, they became this Great Big Thing in my mind.
So maybe if all kids has $5 in their pocket and a corner store that they could walk to themselves, they'd stop obsessing with candy (after an initial burst of enthusiasm).
Then I realized: I was thinking about lifesavers, like extensively! I was so fixated on the idea of getting lifesavers that it's coming out as an underlying emotion in the memory 20 years later! As adults, if we want lifesavers we just buy some without a second thought. But kids can't just go and buy lifesavers. They don't have money, and if they do have money they still need permission from a grownup to go to a store, and then the grownup is there to approve or veto their purchase. So that leaves my child-self there absolutely obsessed with convincing her grandmother to buy her lifesavers (Should I ask outright? Should I play coy?) and/or the fact that her grandmother has just bought her lifesavers (Should I eat them all now? Should I save some? What will my parents think?). It wasn't something over which I had any control and I was entirely at the mercy of the grownups buying lifesavers for me and permitting me to have lifesavers, so it became this idee fixe.
And my grownups had never actually been unreasonable about my having candy! Looking at it from an adult perspective, my grandmother would totally have bought them for me if I'd asked, and it might have made her a bit happy to buy me a treat that makes me happy. And my parents wouldn't have taken away a treat that my grandmother bought me, and might have even come up with the idea of testing the theory that they make sparks if you bite them. But because I couldn't just go get them myself, because it was logistically necessary to ask for and receive permission to have lifesavers, they became this Great Big Thing in my mind.
So maybe if all kids has $5 in their pocket and a corner store that they could walk to themselves, they'd stop obsessing with candy (after an initial burst of enthusiasm).
New Rule: when talking about the social safety net, use factual quantities
Some people think our social safety net is far too generous and waste of taxpayer dollars. Some people (full disclosure: myself included) think it is insultingly weak and an embarassment to us all. Both sides think there's a certain amount of ignorance on the other side, so we never get anywhere.
Solution: Every time you express an opinion on a part of the social safety net, include the quantity of benefit provided. This information is not difficult to google up, and it's a quick and easy way of ensuring that no one in in the conversation is coming from a position of ignorance.
For example, instead of saying "I think Employment Insurance is...", you say "I think Employment Insurance of 55% of your average earnings up to a maximum of $447 a week is..."
Instead of saying "I think welfare is...", say "I think welfare benefits of $572 a month for a single person with no dependents are..."
Since you aren't ignorant, this will have no impact on your argument, but it might pre-emptively mitigate some of your interlocutor's ignorance.
Technical specifications: since this information is readily googleable, on the internet a precise number with a link to a primary source is required. In verbal conversation, you're free to round to the nearest hundred for monthly values or to the nearest thousand for yearly values. If your interlocutor has a Blackberry or an iPhone and wants to fact-check you during verbal conversation, that is specifically not to be taken as a dis. The whole topic works better when everyone has factual information.
This rule also has a corollary that functions like the generally-accepted application of Godwin's Law: if you give incorrect quantities, you lose.
Solution: Every time you express an opinion on a part of the social safety net, include the quantity of benefit provided. This information is not difficult to google up, and it's a quick and easy way of ensuring that no one in in the conversation is coming from a position of ignorance.
For example, instead of saying "I think Employment Insurance is...", you say "I think Employment Insurance of 55% of your average earnings up to a maximum of $447 a week is..."
Instead of saying "I think welfare is...", say "I think welfare benefits of $572 a month for a single person with no dependents are..."
Since you aren't ignorant, this will have no impact on your argument, but it might pre-emptively mitigate some of your interlocutor's ignorance.
Technical specifications: since this information is readily googleable, on the internet a precise number with a link to a primary source is required. In verbal conversation, you're free to round to the nearest hundred for monthly values or to the nearest thousand for yearly values. If your interlocutor has a Blackberry or an iPhone and wants to fact-check you during verbal conversation, that is specifically not to be taken as a dis. The whole topic works better when everyone has factual information.
This rule also has a corollary that functions like the generally-accepted application of Godwin's Law: if you give incorrect quantities, you lose.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Childfree for Dummies: Part V
Some people dismiss our self-identification as childfree because they themselves used to not want children, but grew to want children when they got older.
As it happens, I used to want children. When I was 10, 11, 12 years old, I had what I can best describe as a strong biological yearning for to have a baby, and even as old as 14 the idea held appeal for me. Nothing ever came of it because mentally and socially I hadn't reached the point where even kissing a boy seemed like a pleasant way to pass the time. But as I grew up and matured, I came to realize that it wasn't actually children I wanted. I wanted a living breathing visible sign to show the world that someone loved me, and when that desire met my newfound flood of hormones it manifested itself as a yearning for a baby.
Does that invalidate your desire to have children, making it merely a childish phase that you will grow out of?
As it happens, I used to want children. When I was 10, 11, 12 years old, I had what I can best describe as a strong biological yearning for to have a baby, and even as old as 14 the idea held appeal for me. Nothing ever came of it because mentally and socially I hadn't reached the point where even kissing a boy seemed like a pleasant way to pass the time. But as I grew up and matured, I came to realize that it wasn't actually children I wanted. I wanted a living breathing visible sign to show the world that someone loved me, and when that desire met my newfound flood of hormones it manifested itself as a yearning for a baby.
Does that invalidate your desire to have children, making it merely a childish phase that you will grow out of?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)