Trades Hall representatives made the traditional May Day calls for a 30-hour week and an extra public holiday to celebrate workers' rights.
Traditional? What-the? This is the first I've heard of a general union acception of the wish to work fewer hours. I'm all for it! Put down my signature! Take my money!
But would that be five seven hour days or four seven-and-a-half hour days? I like option two, but then I have the ability to take frequent breaks at my work if required.
Many people (especially those who must do physical work or must stand all day) would prefer the extra hours off a day. Which is valid point. How about fighting for more flexible time?
And an extra public holiday "to celebrate worker's rights.?" A friend put it a better way; how about a public holiday "celebrating the right not to work". A holiday to celebrate and point out the importance of personal time.
And of course less hours would mean less money. But in theory less hours means more overtime. But lets bet they wouldn't tighten overtime payment laws with a reduction of hours would they?
Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the [advertisements].
My contact? I can't help but think he's been taken a little out of context here. Does he mean free to air or only cable TV? With cable you do physically sign a contract at least has the possibility of saying you must watch the ads (which would be lamer than a lame thing in a lame man's pocket on lame day). But I sign no contract when I watch free to air, verbal or otherwise.
Is my housemates habit of muting the ads stealing?
Dave adds some good comments I found particularly amusing:
Thanks to Telstra's broadband idiocy I browse with images off, incidentally removing most advertising from the web.
If cable TV was paid for based on the amount of time you watch it, how many people do you think would turn off the tv during ads?