SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Moriath]

For a lot of companies this is true however in the company I work in (huge worldwide org) seniority (number of years served) is a celebrated event still and there is a high proportion of individuals who have worked for a very long time. I have just had my 20 year anniversary, my boss is 18 years and her boss is 19 years. 30% of my employees are over 7 years and I have had no leavers for two years in any of my departments.

My Career has grown at the same rate as my colleagues who left - once you get to FD / CFO it is normally a matter of increasing the size of the entity you are responsible for whether internally or externally. Maybe I am an exception to the norm however I work and live in an environment where I am the norm - ie outside of this org and in my direct family my brother and sisters have worked for the same orgs for donkeys years, my husband has been in his job for over 6 years and his father in his company for double figures and his mum although has moved schools has been a headmistress for government schools for at least 10 years....

This year i also turned 50 and there are cash awards for either turning 50 (after 10 years service) or 25 years with a small difference and when I discussed with my boss we decided it would be better for me to wait for my 25 years gift as the award is higher.

In Europe ie FR, SE, NL, DK, NO it is very very expensive to make redundancies so for some countries there are barriers to permenant employment ie in NL you can be a temp employed by the organisation for 2 years before you have to be offered a permenant role and in Sweden it is 1 to 2 years dependent on the central agreement - I beleive organisations use this to the fullest effect and this will impact the statistic of 4 years...

We get long service awards too every 5 years.

i think some times people feel they have to move to get their career progression. Some companies are setup like this. But in my company many people stay for a long time. And there are loads of roles to change to as its a big multinational.

 

[Scouse]

i think some times people feel they have to move to get their career progression. Some companies are setup like this. But in my company many people stay for a long time. And there are loads of roles to change to as its a big multinational.

Difference between @Yoni in Sweden and the UK being that in Sweden it seems to be the norm (great) but in the UK you're definitely the exception to the norm.

Was on a steering group call with a group of thousands yesterday and this point was raised and the heads of business openly said that the model is to move for progression - which on the face of it is fair enough, but in effect it's constant competition designed to drive out a certain type of person.

In an organisation the size of ours then there's scope for internal moves every couple of years for the right candidate (for the wrong however?). There's 33,000 (globally) going out of the door whining that they're getting made redundant during covid asking "why can't they just be put on furlough" - and I sympathise with them.

There's an expectation that these people will actively look to move positions after a couple of years because they can do the job - and therefore should be looking to learn something new, to constantly strive. And if you're not doing that, then you're probably a slacker who isn't striving - and UK businesses want to see people striving. - it's a culture that's been bred more and more since Thatcher's time.

That's the model and ethos stimulated in the the UK - driven by our government. (It's worse in the US - and we're heading even more in that direction - driven by Brexit).

Problem is - stress. We're far less productive per head than Sweden and have far higher stress levels, our standard of living is lower, our wages are lower and we have woeful end of life (and retirement) provision.

Yet we still vote Tory.

 

[Yoni]

Difference between @Yoni in Sweden and the UK being that in Sweden it seems to be the norm (great) but in the UK you're definitely the exception to the norm.

Was on a steering group call with a group of thousands yesterday and this point was raised and the heads of business openly said that the model is to move for progression - which on the face of it is fair enough, but in effect it's constant competition designed to drive out a certain type of person.

In an organisation the size of ours then there's scope for internal moves every couple of years for the right candidate (for the wrong however?). There's 33,000 (globally) going out of the door whining that they're getting made redundant during covid asking "why can't they just be put on furlough" - and I sympathise with them.

There's an expectation that these people will actively look to move positions after a couple of years because they can do the job - and therefore should be looking to learn something new, to constantly strive. And if you're not doing that, then you're probably a slacker who isn't striving - and UK businesses want to see people striving. - it's a culture that's been bred more and more since Thatcher's time.

That's the model and ethos stimulated in the the UK - driven by our government. (It's worse in the US - and we're heading even more in that direction - driven by Brexit).

Problem is - stress. We're far less productive per head than Sweden and have far higher stress levels, our standard of living is lower, our wages are lower and we have woeful end of life (and retirement) provision.

Yet we still vote Tory.

There is some Swedish yes but not for my company- my oppo in the UK is 16 years and I can name many whi have been over 20 years also from the outlets up. These service times are seen across all countries...

I have moved / changed roles every couple of years within the org. Yes some roles are moved to low cost countries however if you work hard and meet objectives a new role is found for you or you displace someone whose productivity is not as high or who is in a prod imp plan.

please remember Ihave worked from 1990 to 2008 in the UK oO

 

[Wij]

Difference between @Yoni in Sweden and the UK being that in Sweden it seems to be the norm (great) but in the UK you're definitely the exception to the norm.

Was on a steering group call with a group of thousands yesterday and this point was raised and the heads of business openly said that the model is to move for progression - which on the face of it is fair enough, but in effect it's constant competition designed to drive out a certain type of person.

In an organisation the size of ours then there's scope for internal moves every couple of years for the right candidate (for the wrong however?). There's 33,000 (globally) going out of the door whining that they're getting made redundant during covid asking "why can't they just be put on furlough" - and I sympathise with them.

There's an expectation that these people will actively look to move positions after a couple of years because they can do the job - and therefore should be looking to learn something new, to constantly strive. And if you're not doing that, then you're probably a slacker who isn't striving - and UK businesses want to see people striving. - it's a culture that's been bred more and more since Thatcher's time.

That's the model and ethos stimulated in the the UK - driven by our government. (It's worse in the US - and we're heading even more in that direction - driven by Brexit).

Problem is - stress. We're far less productive per head than Sweden and have far higher stress levels, our standard of living is lower, our wages are lower and we have woeful end of life (and retirement) provision.

Yet we still vote Tory.

That's why many people became contractors. In permie jobs in most large organisations being really good at your current job and being happy to do it is rewarded with below inflation pay rises and a telling off in your appraisal. Whereas being crap at your job but being willing to spend your time looking to be crap at a different job is rewarded.

 

[Wij]

That's why many people became contractors. In permie jobs in most large organisations being really good at your current job and being happy to do it is rewarded with below inflation pay rises and a telling off in your appraisal. Whereas being crap at your job but being willing to spend your time looking to be crap at a different job is rewarded.

And I blame HR bullshit. How much of all their fabby frameworks has been scientifically proven to improve productivity per pound spent or even improve wellbeing?

Fuck all. It's just made up and sold like quack medicine.

/edit: Have plenty of experience in HR departments btw helping them to implement systems but you chat to the grunts involved and none of them think it helps but they have to go along with it for the sake of their careers as they are on the same bullshit rollercoaster as everyone else.

 

[Scouse]

That's why many people became contractors. In permie jobs in most large organisations being really good at your current job and being happy to do it is rewarded with below inflation pay rises and a telling off in your appraisal. Whereas being crap at your job but being willing to spend your time looking to be crap at a different job is rewarded.

Yep. It's certainly a driver - and the companies were quite happy to get people off their payroll (doesn't reflect on share price) and have an even-easier-to-fire contingent workforce with no pension or redundancy liability.

 

[Scouse]

Why don't kids take proper drugs?

Oh yeah, Labour reclassified a load of mostly harmless drugs as a higher tier (they banned magic mushrooms ffs!). And the Tories are laughable.

 

[Gwadien]

Why don't kids take proper drugs?

Oh yeah, Labour reclassified a load of mostly harmless drugs as a higher tier (they banned magic mushrooms ffs!). And the Tories are laughable.

Don't worry, lots of drugs will be legalised soon, just give the Tories the chance to get their pals businesses up and running first.

Don't want no pesky peasant competition luls.

 

[Gwadien]

1957 Ice Hockey World Championships - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Soviets did not have the Swedish national anthem ready for the gold medal ceremony. To compensate for this, the Swedish players decided to sing the anthem over the stadium's PA system. However, few players knew the anthem by heart so they decided to play a little prank on the Soviets and instead sang the Swedish drinking song "Helan Går".[1] Swedish captain Lasse Björn later recalled the story of Marshal Zhukov, the Minister of Defence of the Soviet Union, standing to attention for a simple Swedish drinking song.

 

[Raven]

Don't worry, lots of drugs will be legalised soon, just give the Tories the chance to get their pals businesses up and running first.

Don't want no pesky peasant competition luls.

I already order my weed online, from a UK seller, that arrives pretty much next day via royal mail (odourless packaging etc) When it is legalised, which will be in the next couple of years, I imagine people like that will ramp up their businesses. There will likely be quite a lot of US companies moving over too. Drug laws and governments attitudes to soft drugs is archaic and most people just plain ignore them anyway. The misguided war on drugs has failed utterly and is a complete waste of time and resources and the tax benefits of legalising (some!) drugs will be huge.

 

[Gwadien]

I already order my weed online, from a UK seller, that arrives pretty much next day via royal mail (odourless packaging etc) When it is legalised, which will be in the next couple of years, I imagine people like that will ramp up their businesses. There will likely be quite a lot of US companies moving over too. Drug laws and governments attitudes to soft drugs is archaic and most people just plain ignore them anyway. The misguided war on drugs has failed utterly and is a complete waste of time and resources and the tax benefits of legalising (some!) drugs will be huge.

We'll just see the same as what's going on in the US - lot's of growers are still doing it illegally because of the huge cuts the Government are trying to take - it only makes it possible for people who grow on an industrial scale - which usually means they have lots of financial backing.

The big boys won't financially back people that grew illegal drugs, but they'll for sure find a couple of poster boys that did grow illegally in the past and are now using their expertise to benefit the economy!

 

[Moriath]

Difference between @Yoni in Sweden and the UK being that in Sweden it seems to be the norm (great) but in the UK you're definitely the exception to the norm.

Was on a steering group call with a group of thousands yesterday and this point was raised and the heads of business openly said that the model is to move for progression - which on the face of it is fair enough, but in effect it's constant competition designed to drive out a certain type of person.

In an organisation the size of ours then there's scope for internal moves every couple of years for the right candidate (for the wrong however?). There's 33,000 (globally) going out of the door whining that they're getting made redundant during covid asking "why can't they just be put on furlough" - and I sympathise with them.

There's an expectation that these people will actively look to move positions after a couple of years because they can do the job - and therefore should be looking to learn something new, to constantly strive. And if you're not doing that, then you're probably a slacker who isn't striving - and UK businesses want to see people striving. - it's a culture that's been bred more and more since Thatcher's time.

That's the model and ethos stimulated in the the UK - driven by our government. (It's worse in the US - and we're heading even more in that direction - driven by Brexit).

Problem is - stress. We're far less productive per head than Sweden and have far higher stress levels, our standard of living is lower, our wages are lower and we have woeful end of life (and retirement) provision.

Yet we still vote Tory.

My company is an american multinational. Its the same in the usa and the uk and all over the world for this company.

 

[Moriath]

We'll just see the same as what's going on in the US - lot's of growers are still doing it illegally because of the huge cuts the Government are trying to take - it only makes it possible for people who grow on an industrial scale - which usually means they have lots of financial backing.

The big boys won't financially back people that grew illegal drugs, but they'll for sure find a couple of poster boys that did grow illegally in the past and are now using their expertise to benefit the economy!

Better to be taxed and a revenue for the government than an ever increasing cost. And ofc no one will payroll something thats illegal and it will change when its legal. Whats wrong with that?

 

[Gwadien]

Better to be taxed and a revenue for the government than an ever increasing cost. And ofc no one will payroll something thats illegal and it will change when its legal. Whats wrong with that?

No, my point is that when it becomes legalised, people aren't going to financially back current growers to go legitimate, they'll be destroyed or they'll just grow without declaring it, which is what happens in the US.

 

[Moriath]

No, my point is that when it becomes legalised, people aren't going to financially back current growers to go legitimate, they'll be destroyed or they'll just grow without declaring it, which is what happens in the US.

And whats wrong with that?

 

[Bodhi]

I already order my weed online, from a UK seller, that arrives pretty much next day via royal mail (odourless packaging etc) When it is legalised, which will be in the next couple of years, I imagine people like that will ramp up their businesses. There will likely be quite a lot of US companies moving over too. Drug laws and governments attitudes to soft drugs is archaic and most people just plain ignore them anyway. The misguided war on drugs has failed utterly and is a complete waste of time and resources and the tax benefits of legalising (some!) drugs will be huge.

The ones I get mine from are clearly positioning themselves as the Go To vendor when it all gets legalised.

 

[Gwadien]

And whats wrong with that?

Yeah, what a surprise.

 

[Aoami]

Yeah, what a surprise.

He's right though. Headline - "People who break the law for a living are in a high risk position - SHOCK REPORT"

 

[Gwadien]

He's right though. Headline - "People who break the law for a living are in a high risk position - SHOCK REPORT"

That depends if you think the label 'criminals' is correct no matter what crime they have committed.

If you're going to legalise cannabis, then you push all the long-term growers to the sides because they can't afford to compete with the big boys, then there's little point even legalising it in the first place, personally, I'll continue to go to the same growers, because they have the years of expertise and aren't members of drug cartels, which many people believe they are.

YOU SMOKE WEED? DO YOU KNOW FOR EVERY GRAM OF WEED YOU SMOKE, YOU KILL 1324132 mexicans?!?!?!

Point is, Cannabis should be legalised to push lots of people out of criminality, from producer, to dealer, to consumer. Not just because the Government realises that they can make lots of cash out of it (Personally and tax).

World’s biggest cannabis farm and the cops don’t care

World’s biggest cannabis farm and the cops don’t care

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[Aoami]

That depends if you think the label 'criminals' is correct no matter what crime they have committed.

Alright Socrates.

There will only be a black market for weed if:

a) the legal stuff is crap (it won't be)
b) the street dealers massively undercut the legal vendors, with good quality product (they won't).

The way you posit your point suggests that you think producers and dealers do what they do out of the kindness of their hearts, and not because there is good money to be made.

 

[Scouse]

Meh. It's a shit drug anyway, even in it's highest quality form.

It lowers the bar on what is acceptable and makes you feel artificially "content" with your life.

I had a few years smoking/growing it. Before I ditched it and started getting my life in order I ended up watching all of the Stargate TV series.

Twice

 

[Raven]

Different strokes for different folks. I barely drink at all these days, prefering a smoke at the end of the week instead, even then its only a now and again thing.

 

[Scouse]

Different strokes for different folks. I barely drink at all these days, prefering a smoke at the end of the week instead, even then its only a now and again thing.

On that basis most drugs are barely noticable. But I've yet to meet someone who's a daily user who isn't affected by weed very negatively over time.

Like most of these things - it's very much about the person who takes it. It's definitely not for me - doesn't fit with my personality and how I respond to things at all.

Alcohol, on the other hand. I'll never have an endemic life-destroying problem with it. I got smashed on Saturday in a social setting. It's my birthday this weekend and unless we go to a restaurant or something then I won't touch a drop.

 

[Gwadien]

Meh. It's a shit drug anyway, even in it's highest quality form.

It lowers the bar on what is acceptable and makes you feel artificially "content" with your life.

I had a few years smoking/growing it. Before I ditched it and started getting my life in order I ended up watching all of the Stargate TV series.

Twice

If you recall correctly, you were the one that got me a dealer in Notts

 

[caLLous]

Amazon Prime Day seems to usually be an excuse to get rid of shit stock but I've picked up a couple of Samsung T7 external USB Type C SSDs today. I got 40% off in France but you get ~20% off in the UK too. Expires in ~6 hours.

 

[Scouse]

If you recall correctly, you were the one that got me a dealer in Notts

May still have their number somewhere. I never delete them.

The lad I got the number off is properly paranoid now and barely holding down his job. Which is a shame, because he was previously very responsible and built a business that people rely on him for.

It's going to be a shitshow in the short term for him I think. With longer term consequences for his family.

Long term regular weed use is death by a thousand cuts. I don't know any regular user that doesn't suffer in some way (more or less) from it.

 

[Raven]

I think it usually brings out underlying issues rather than causing them. I know lots of people that smoke regularly and irregularly and they are fine.

It does have its problems ofc but show me someone that smokes regularly (say every other day) and I will sit them next to someone that drinks every other day.

While the "But booze is legal" argument has some merit, there is no way on earth booze would be legalised if it had only just been discovered.

You also don't need tobacco to smoke really, I use tobacco and roll tradition joints, but that's the way I like it (I don't actually smoke tobacco much any more, gave up years ago) a couple of friends have vaporizers but I just can't get on with them.

 

[Gwadien]

I have an issue with chrome (ugh yeah I know, chrome).

So when I used to search for stuff I used to get the result pages like below which were nicely useful, with a bio on the right and 'top stories' on the top etc, I like it, m'kay?



However, I've done *something* where the page is now different and usually comes up with bullshit advertisement links at the top of the page.



I've done a malware search but with no luck.

Any ideas?

Edit - you may notice on the first screenshot that the page is still loading - so that page does load up but flicks over to the second screenshot after a second.

 

[Raven]

Don't know.

But what I have taken from that post is Trump's picture is about 20 years out of date.

 

[Scouse]

I think it usually brings out underlying issues rather than causing them.

Yep - totally agree. But it's demotivational aspects compound problems.

It does have its problems ofc but show me someone that smokes regularly (say every other day) and I will sit them next to someone that drinks every other day.

Physical health wise (if we avoid the tobacco thing, nobody *has* to, but everybody does - and tobacco is contributory in the deaths 50% of the people who smoke it) then weed vs alcohol absolutely in weed's favour. It's mental more than physical. You don't get many regular weed smokers being high achievers - if you look at the cluster of where they sit on the payscales.

High achieving alcoholics abound though because although it physically wrecks you, you can still get on and do things for the most part.