Anonymous user
Talk:Calendar: Difference between revisions
m
→Improving the task description: clock bookkeeping and (American) unions comment. -- ~~~~
m (→Improving the task description: added a period (end-of-sentence), seperated a run-together, and corrected "a" calendar name for using "OS". -- ~~~~) |
m (→Improving the task description: clock bookkeeping and (American) unions comment. -- ~~~~) |
||
Line 25:
::: It was always the case that the previous day was just the previous day. Days are things that exist independent of calendars; dates and calendars are just a labeling of reality. The problems that occurred at calendar changes were virtually all actually to do with landlords (who else!) demanding a full month's rent despite the month in question being thoroughly foreshortened. ''Plus ça change…'' –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 14:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
:::: I should've said what I meant (not what I wrote): ... the previous calendar day ... --- We have the same problem (legally, rent-wise, but more importantly pay-wise). When we lose (or gain) an hour whenever daylight savings time goes into effect (or drops), nobody is to be penalized because they didn't work their full eight hours, and if it appears that they worked nine hours (according to the wall clock), they get paid for that hour, even if not really worked. There are a lot of contracts that specify so many hours of service (or whatever), and, in general, nobody is to be penalized because of a clock "bookkeeping" change. This was a big deal (a handful of decades ago) with the American unions (who, for the most part, deal with hourly waged workers). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 15:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Below is an extract from the newsgroup <tt>bit.listserv.ibm-main</tt> (unfortunately, I have lost the author and date it was posted) which addresses the 10 or 11 missing days holy war:
<pre>
| |||