Strange cultural differences people don't think about.

[radcapricorn]

Have we mentioned kitchens yet?

* Kitchen furniture (fridge, stove, cupboards, etc):
Group A: are part of the apartment and stay with the apartment
Group B: are mine, and move with me

* Dishwashing: brush or sponge? We see sponges only in the "How our culture differs from others?" "periodicals".

* What is that motorized thingy in the sink that every action movie uses for ad hoc hand surgery? We have just a pipe for the water to go away.

And the everlasting 40 years old fridge that "isn't going anywhere, it works just fine, even if it rattles the whole block and leaks every other Monday morning!".

Dishwashing: "ah, you're still stuck in stone age and wash by hand?" No, smarta$$, I've nowhere to put the machine

That last one, heh. I think first time I saw this was in Critters (the first one, IIRC)? I was like 12 maybe, and immediately demanded my parents to explain why must I pull all of the gunk from that sink by hand when people "obviously" can just stuff it in?.. Took a while to find out what that was exactly, actually. Talk about exotic equipment.

It's culture intermixing with technology, I think. I heard that some Japanese toilets talk to you and even can take medical samples for you

On that same note, the washing machine drain. There are various ways to plug that in. Mine is connected to an extra outlet under the kitchen sink (even though the machine itself is in the bathroom: it was just closer and easier to connect that way because of the funny (not) room layouts). Of course, when the machine is on, the kitchen sink starts pulling the "Darth Vader with a severe case of flu" act. Raised some eyebrows with unaware guests a few times

[Morkonan]

Have we mentioned kitchens yet?

I'm sure the mods are very thankful for your Christmas gift to them... (ie: You mentioned the "k" word, summoning classic "k" spam. )

* Kitchen furniture (fridge, stove, cupboards, etc):
Group A: are part of the apartment and stay with the apartment
Group B: are mine, and move with me

"Appliances" for anything electric in the kitchen used at some stage in food-prep/cleanup, at least in the U.S. I've never lived in an Apartment. (Lived in a condo, though) Most kitchen standard appliances are considered permanent installations, even if they're just plugged into the wall. ie: Stove/oven, refrigerator, dishwasher, etc.) Any permanent installation, even if it's replaced/paid-for by the renter, is the property of the property owner. (Includes ceiling fans, too. It's usually against lease terms to replace/repair any appliance without approval because of this.) Counter-top appliances include toaster, toaster-oven, blender, coffee-machine, etc, and those are "mobile" unless supplied by the renter like in a "Corporate Apartment." (Corporate Apartments are rented by corporations for their traveling employees, guests, VIPs, etc. Everything is furnished in a corporate apartment, including utensils, plates, pans, coffee-machine, etc.)

* Dishwashing: brush or sponge? We see sponges only in the "How our culture differs from others?" "periodicals".

Brush. I refuse to use a kitchen sponge. Those things are nasssssty. The only exception - I used to have some cooking pans that required me to use a sponge instead of a brush. I am sure there is at least one old kitchen sponge living in the cabinet under my sink. I don't bother it and it doesn't bother me. Though, if I ever happen to watch Jeopardy or some other television quiz show, I sometimes hear muffled answers coming from there... They're usually wrong, though.

* What is that motorized thingy in the sink that every action movie uses for ad hoc hand surgery? We have just a pipe for the water to go away.

In U.S., commonly called a "Disposal" or "Garbage Disposal." "Disposol" was a brand name, I think. These days, the most popular brand I know of is appropriately named "Insinkerator."

They're made to grind up food particles and such so they travel through pipes better.... and to mangle eating utensils you didn't realize had gone down the drain. So many spoons have died to kitchen garbage disposals.

[jlehtone]

I'm sure the mods are very thankful for your Christmas gift to them...

That gets up back to OP's "how you behave". Do you pretend to be thankful and hide your disgust, or do you frankly tell your [unprintable] opinion? That has obviously individual variation, but there are cultural trends too?

Someone did claim recently that Germans|Dutch not only take the stove with them; that they strip the floor too. For the love of laminate?

[Morkonan]

I'm sure the mods are very thankful for your Christmas gift to them...

That gets up back to OP's "how you behave". Do you pretend to be thankful and hide your disgust, or do you frankly tell your [unprintable] opinion? That has obviously individual variation, but there are cultural trends too?

"If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." <- Culture or not? (A common saying passed down from mothers to children in the US.)

I'm currently reading a book that has a Celestial Kingdom Court Mandarin and a Confucian Judge having a conversation... By the description, they basically spend half the evening apologizing to each other and being self-deprecating. This is before they actually get to the subject they're going to talk about, which takes about four lines of dialogue and is actually only addressed through allegory. <- Cultural or not?

I think that most interpersonal culturally reinforced behaviors are designed to reduce internal conflict.

"Honey? Does this dress make me look fat?"
"No, it looks great on you!" <- Cultural or not... or survival instinct?

But, there could be a lot of interactions dictated by subcultures, right? Like interpersonal interactions between those who share a religious belief. Or, maybe taboos where certain interactions are forbidden except between people who share a specific relationship.

I think that in general interactions, conflict is to be avoided unless the cost of avoiding conflict is something that one of the participants isn't willing to pay. So, if someone is insulted or outraged, they may choose to "voice their opinion" on that directly, heedless of the consequences of possible escalating conflict. That, in itself, might even be a way to reduce conflict in the long-run, depending upon the other person's values and personal investment. After all, one can not truly apologize for something if one is not aware they have given offense, right?

In the OP, I wouldn't mind people enjoying something the way they would normally, but I would want to see that they also modified their behavior in consideration of the desires of people who may not appreciate that. That would be "courteous." And, if they didn't show that degree of recognition, if they were aware of the habits of others in the audience, I might be a bit offended. Nobody likes to think their desires are being willfully ignored by others.

Someone did claim recently that Germans|Dutch not only take the stove with them; that they strip the floor too. For the love of laminate?

??? They take the... floor? Uh, do new renters have to bring their own floor with them?

[Bishop149]

The one that probably shook me the hardest: Differences in drinking culture, specifically in America.

Now some such difference are obvious, I have visited countries that are (mostly) "dry" due to the morality of the pervading religion.
I am familiar with various variations across Europe, the cafe culture of the French, the Beer halls of Germany etc.
None of these differences caught me out because I expected them, but the one that did was the US of A.

For all that we bleat about our differences we Brits, Yanks and Aussies all share a common cultural root and I perhaps expect more similarity than not. I also know from experience that the Aussies can certainly drink with the best of them in a manner not too dissimilar to the British. The Americans however. . . damn it came as a bit of a shock.
A few sayings I subsequently learned that cover the difference:
- When Americans suggest a drink after work they mean it bloody literally.
- The first drink is served with a smile, the second drink is served with a look, the third drink is served with the bill.

Some examples from my personal experience.

- Was with a group of friends in a supermarket shopping to host a BBQ / Party, one of our number asked an employee where the spirits were. Once said employee had crossed the language barrier she effected her most disgusted tone / look and loudly stated that "We don't sell liquor!" . . . I think she'd have liked to have kicked us out for even asking. We did eventually find a "liquor store" in the back of a biker bar (which looked just like one out of the damn movies) and was fortified as if was selling firearms instead of booze . . . . it was mostly full of whiskey with pictures of bald eagles on the bottle and I then effected my best British accent as asked if they'd "Got any gin?" . . . . . annnnnd we nearly got kicked out again.

- I attended a wedding in the US being held on July the 4th (so two reasons for celebration) and I saw two lads ordering a round of tequila shots at about 8pm, "Damn, they're starting early!" methinks, "If they keep that up they'll be smashed by midnight!". Needn't have worried, everyone was in bed by 10pm.

- At that same wedding I listened to a chap drunk brag that he'd but away "2 pints and a whiskey!" (over a whole damn afternoon /evening!), as I sheepishly sipped probably my 6th pint of the day and prayed this guy NEVER attend a wedding in the UK.

- Whilst out on my own I stopped at a bar for lunch, quite a craft beery kind of place so I ordered a tasting platter of 4 of the local brews . . . half pint each . . . for myself . . . clearly alone. . . I was first asked to repeat my order and then given a dirty look that made it pretty clear this item was intended to be shared by a group.

Add to this that the old pythonage that American beer is like making love in a canoe is no longer entirely true. Certain areas have a truly awesome brewing scene going on. I visited a bar that had something like 80 beers available, loads of really interesting ones so my wife and I wanted to sample more of the menu than was realistic in a single night. As we were in the area for two days so we resolved to return the following night. . . . only to discover the bar now had a mostly DIFFERENT 80 beers available! The combination of this kind of beer culture with one of not wanting to drink much I find particularly odd.

[Morkonan]

...The combination of this kind of beer culture with one of not wanting to drink much I find particularly odd.

Different regions have different cultural appreciations for alcohol. For instance, there are "dry counties" in the US where the sale of alcohol is forbidden... but not the drinking or possession of it.

The "casual consumption" of certain alcohol, namely beer, didn't used to be as common as it is today, IMO. IOW - It wasn't something one would see people casually ordering with their meal, with the exception of maybe a glass of wine at a nice restaurant. And, sipping on beers all day wasn't a common thing either. Americans "drank beer," they didn't "sip beer."

Back when I would go to bars and drink at parties and the like, the objective wasn't to sample beers, sip them, enjoy a fruity drink or any of that stuff... It was to go out, party, and either go home with someone you hadn't met before or get so sloshed you didn't recognize anyone, anyway.

Europeans have always had a more casual relationship with alcohol than Americans. Remember - We once outlawed alcohol by a Constitutional Amendment. (There's a huge history, there, related to the "Temperance Movement" and the true effects of alcoholism and the rise to prominence of religious service groups rehabilitating alcoholics and, particularly, women's groups and feminism, since they were the ones that had to deal with drunk husbands...)

But, if you're implying that Americans are lightweights and can't handle their alcohol... I have scores of old fraternity brothers that are so well-preserved their corpse won't need embalming fluid. I, myself, once imbibed massive quantities with practiced professionalism... I am not proud of that claim and am glad that it now only takes me a couple of glasses of wine to start feeling the effects.

(Age is a huge deal when it comes down to how the body processes alcohol. Younger persons have a huge advantage, unfortunately.)

ie: Culturally - There are still large regions where there are stark cultural differences in how alcohol is viewed. History can't be ignored, either. And, there's a recent uptick in the acceptance of certain alcohol, like "craft beers" and casual consumption/appreciation that is likely more in line with European attitudes.

[CBJ]

* Kitchen furniture (fridge, stove, cupboards, etc):

Another related one is the location of laundry equipment such as washing machines. Most UK homes don't have space for a separate utility room, so only the kitchen and bathroom have plumbing; laundry equipment is therefore normally in the kitchen. Apparently many Americans find that weird.

[Morkonan]

* Kitchen furniture (fridge, stove, cupboards, etc):

Another related one is the location of laundry equipment such as washing machines. Most UK homes don't have space for a separate utility room, so only the kitchen and bathroom have plumbing; laundry equipment is therefore normally in the kitchen. Apparently many Americans find that weird.

You're right! I remember reading a post where a forum member was describing doing their laundry in the kitchen or some such. I felt sorry for them, thinking they had to wash their clothes in a sink or something...

We've got a lot more space to build and we use it. Sure, we have cramped urban areas, but even those usually separate their laundry rooms. In most apartments, for instance, there's a cupboard by the kitchen area and that's usually where one will find the apartment's laundry machines if they don't use a shared laundry area. Those are still pretty common, though. (Large laundry rooms with mulitple machines shared by people in the apartment building.)

I lived in a condo with a shared laundry room with coin-op laundry machines. I lived in a two story house with a laundry chute that dumped the laundry downstairs into a cabinet in the laundry room, which was a "mud room" that served as the entrance to the garage. Now, my laundry room is a pretty big room in the basement, with a combo utility area in it for an ironing board, etc. In one house, I had built-in laundry boards and iron storage in the walk-in closet. In a condo, a cramped closet off the hall with enough room just for the laundry machines and cleaning supplies...

I guess we pretty much put them wherever the heck we want.

[CBJ]

Basements are another relative rarity here.

[Morkonan]

Basements are another relative rarity here.

They're a regional thing in parts of the US. (Particularly in the Eastern US.) For instance, in the South, the soil is often unsuitable and rains too frequent to prevent basements from being overburdened by water. (Water table rises above where the pad would be for the basement too frequently for basements to be practical.) But, in the North, basements are much more common. In new developments, basements may not be common because there aren't a lot of structures that have the old "Root Cellars" or that were storage areas for coal used in coal-fired furnaces.

I'm not sure about the Midwest, but I know homes in tornado-prone regions have "Storm Shelters." Or, many of the older ones did. They also have converted Root Cellars and other such storage areas, too. But, there's a lot of space out there, so outbuildings may be more common in rural communities. Plus, digging a full basement isn't exactly easy and there's usually some practical reason involved other than just "I want one to sit in."

That's another thing! In some older urban areas, a heck of a lot of utility work was done undergound. It was natural to provide for that by having a below-ground area that's basically a "basement." Pipes of all sorts, etc, run from building to building, etc...

Some floorplans of Baltimore Row Houses, for instance. (Tightly packed urban housing copied in many regions.)

Basements are also treated differently than other home areas in terms of how "Property Taxes" are calculated. For instance, in many regions, the only calculation applicable to determine one's tax is based upon "livable space" determined by how many square feet are served by air conditioning/heading systems. Not all basements are served by those home systems so they don't contribute to the owner's tax burden. Because of the flooding I experienced, rendering my furnished/finished basements unusable, I got a visit from a very pleasant lady who drastically reduced my property taxes. Yay! Though... they'll go back up once I get everything fixed.

[pjknibbs]

Basements are another relative rarity here.

Only recently--older properties often have cellars, especially if you go back far enough to when coal fires were commonplace. I lived in a perfectly ordinary 3-up 2-down terraced house that had a cellar, for instance, although my current house (built around 1987) doesn't have one.

[CBJ]

I don't think any house I've spent much time in has had one, though admittedly my range of experience is pretty much limited to the southern half of the UK. All the Victorian and early 20th century properties I've known have had coal sheds rather than cellars. So as Mork indicated in the context of the US, I think with older properties it's more of a regional thing. But ultimately I wasn't raising that as a cultural difference, but as a secondary explanation for the washing-machine-in-the-kitchen situation.

[jlehtone]

Isn't there something about the use of fork and knife too (except on cultures that don't use them)?

[pjknibbs]

But ultimately I wasn't raising that as a cultural difference, but as a secondary explanation for the washing-machine-in-the-kitchen situation.

I think that's still down to plumbing, to be honest--even when I've been in a house with a cellar it hasn't been plumbed for a washing machine. This is even true in my boss's house, where the boiler is in the cellar. I think that's probably because people don't want to be taking their laundry down into a frequently dusty and grimy cellar, TBH--the cellar is seen as something apart from the rest of the house that doesn't need to be cleaned like regular rooms are. Doesn't help that the stairs down to one are often steep and narrow.

When I was growing up I recall we had one house (again, a terraced one) that had a cellar, but the only electric device my parents put down there was a large freezer--the washing machine was in the kitchen, as usual.

[Bishop149]

Europeans have always had a more casual relationship with alcohol than Americans. Remember - We once outlawed alcohol by a Constitutional Amendment. (There's a huge history, there, related to the "Temperance Movement" and the true effects of alcoholism and the rise to prominence of religious service groups rehabilitating alcoholics and, particularly, women's groups and feminism, since they were the ones that had to deal with drunk husbands...)

ie: Culturally - There are still large regions where there are stark cultural differences in how alcohol is viewed. History can't be ignored, either. And, there's a recent uptick in the acceptance of certain alcohol, like "craft beers" and casual consumption/appreciation that is likely more in line with European attitudes.

I think it this I was primarily commenting upon, rather than any particular reflection upon the "lightweightness" of Americans.
Your point about age is probably it though, I am obviously hanging out with my approaching middle aged peers not a bunch of frat boys.
I encountered a general air of disapproval surrounding alcohol similar to that I would associate with hard drugs in the UK or Europe . . . . I find this particularly strange when its coming from people whose job it is to either make or sell the stuff*.

The British drinking culture is often said to have arisen basically out of the principle of "work hard, play hard". . . . life for the British working classes around the period of industrial revolution into the Victorian era was hard back breaking work, often fatally so, and excessive indulgence in alcohol was one of the few affordable recreations available and thus was born getting hammered after work, a cultural tradition that persists to this day.
Now my impression of the American work ethic is similar (although perhaps not quite so fatal as Victorian Britain!), Americans work hard, long hours are expected if you desire success, statutory holiday allowance is nil and workers rights are minimal.
Seems like the kind of environment that would also breed a heavy drinking culture, although I admit to not knowing history well and its seems likely that perhaps it did and that's what sparked prohibition. . . . . it is interesting however that the attitude seems to have persisted despite the short-lived and unpopular nature of prohibition.

*I only recently learned that in addition to not being allowed to drink or purchase alcohol, Muslims are also not permitted to sell it
This makes perfect sense but regardless came as something of a revelation because I am sold alcohol by Muslims in shops pretty bloody routinely without even a hint of a sneer.
I thus kind of assumed they were fine with it as long as only heathens like me drank it.

[Morkonan]

I think it this I was primarily commenting upon, rather than any particular reflection upon the "lightweightness" of Americans.
Your point about age is probably it though, I am obviously hanging out with my approaching middle aged peers not a bunch of frat boys.
I encountered a general air of disapproval surrounding alcohol similar to that I would associate with hard drugs in the UK or Europe . . . . I find this particularly strange when its coming from people whose job it is to either make or sell the stuff*.

Strange. That's not the prevailing attitude towards alcohol in the US. Can you relate any of the circumstances surrounding this, keeping your privacy in mind, etc?

There are some interesting parrallels, AFAIK, between certain regional "bar cultures" and some in Europe: The "neighborhood bars" in high-density urban areas (cities) like New York. Though, these days, I don't know how common they are. But, I remember some studies that looked at how similar these small bars were to small pubs in the UK and Europe. That's not surprising considering the ethnic roots of many people in New York, which has/had a large immigrant population that tended to settle in the same areas, continuing their cultural traditions. They managed to create ghettos (not the bad kind) with full services like a bar, grocery, church, etc all within walking distance, all there just to serve their relatively small community. I can see some of the necessity, given how big New York is/was back then when these areas were established. But, it's amazing to see a culture perpetuate itself surrounded by so many other diverse cultures and those, in turn, permeated by "America."

The British drinking culture is often said to have arisen basically out of the principle of "work hard, play hard". . . .

This is/was generally still true. It's easy to overlook these days, with Trump screaming about "immigrants" all the time, but the US was populated by immigrants... enthusiastically. Many of the traditions and attitudes they had "in the old country" were transported to the US and incorporated into our "melting pot" of cultures.

Now my impression of the American work ethic is similar (although perhaps not quite so fatal as Victorian Britain!), Americans work hard, long hours are expected if you desire success, statutory holiday allowance is nil and workers rights are minimal.
Seems like the kind of environment that would also breed a heavy drinking culture, although I admit to not knowing history well and its seems likely that perhaps it did and that's what sparked prohibition. . . . . it is interesting however that the attitude seems to have persisted despite the short-lived and unpopular nature of prohibition.

We're undergoing a long-foreseen change in work. "Factory and simple assembly labor" is basically expiring, as it should (IMO). Unskilled labor can not easily find jobs that provide a living wage like they used to and they're forced into basic service/commercial industries, for the most part. Labor Unions are on the decline in many industries that still have those sorts of labor forces in play. "Collective Bargaining" where it could be most applicable has been somewhat superseded by a very mobile workforce that is much more comfortable with changing employment. Considering that few industries offer any "Pension Plans" that are non-transferable, labor loyalty is fairly low. That does also mean that competition for labor can be high at times, which is a very positive thing for labor benefits. But, that's for skilled labor - Unskilled labor in the US is the most hard hit segment.

But, "worker rights" is still a huge thing here. I'm not sure what specifics you might be thinking of, but they may simply be different than what you would consider the norm. I have no doubt that most US workers would consider some labor benefits/"Rights" in Europe/elsewhere somewhat weird. Highly desirable for those employed persons, but a bit frustrating for some in management roles I'd assume. ie: Holiday allowances vary, with the least liberal ones providing mandatory minimums offset by increased pay if necessary. Work hours have limits, minimum wages are enforced, subcontracted individuals are highly regulated, etc.. There are also a number of Federal Agencies involved in making sure that labor laws are followed. And, in any sufficiently large employer, litigation is always a fear. Human Resource departments which oversee employees and their relation to the company as well as the maintenance of applicable law are typically very strict about protecting the rights of labor. (Up to a certain point, that is.)

The US has one of the most productive workforces in the world:

Wiki-GDP per hour worked
15 of the most productive countries in the world

(OECD data tables were down at the time of this post.)

We work longer hours than many, but at least they're productive!

*I only recently learned that in addition to not being allowed to drink or purchase alcohol, Muslims are also not permitted to sell it
This makes perfect sense but regardless came as something of a revelation because I am sold alcohol by Muslims in shops pretty bloody routinely without even a hint of a sneer. I thus kind of assumed they were fine with it as long as only heathens like me drank it.

The last bit is not far from the truth. There are also cultures where that is the case, where liquor store owners don't mind selling poison to "devils." (Anyone that isn't "one of us.") However, Muslim practices vary in that regard. Most would refrain from consuming alcohol, though. I've known some that have a much more liberal view towards alcohol consumption, but no practicing ones that didn't speak out against inebriation. (I'm no expert on this, though.)

YT - It's made from honey

Some Christian denominations also have similar attitudes towards alcohol. For instance, "Southern Baptists" and, perhaps, "Evaneglical Christians" may have strict taboos against alcohol consumption. So do "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "Mormons," with both having additional restrictions against things like caffeine and nicotine. (Corrections welcomed.)

[Bishop149]

Strange. That's not the prevailing attitude towards alcohol in the US. Can you relate any of the circumstances surrounding this, keeping your privacy in mind, etc?

Most of the incidences that gave me this impression I listed in my previous post.
Drink more than about a pint in any particular place and I got looks equivalent to those I'd get if I chose to ummmm "powder my nose" in the UK.
The states involved (in case its relevant) were Florida (mostly), Michigan, Idaho and Washington . . . . I found California to be somewhat more liberal but this might have been an artefact specific to San Francisco (the only city in which I spent any time and well known for its rather unique culture!)

But, "worker rights" is still a huge thing here. I'm not sure what specifics you might be thinking of, but they may simply be different than what you would consider the norm. I have no doubt that most US workers would consider some labor benefits/"Rights" in Europe/elsewhere somewhat weird. Highly desirable for those employed persons, but a bit frustrating for some in management roles I'd assume. ie: Holiday allowances vary, with the least liberal ones providing mandatory minimums offset by increased pay if necessary. Work hours have limits, minimum wages are enforced, subcontracted individuals are highly regulated, etc.. There are also a number of Federal Agencies involved in making sure that labor laws are followed. And, in any sufficiently large employer, litigation is always a fear. Human Resource departments which oversee employees and their relation to the company as well as the maintenance of applicable law are typically very strict about protecting the rights of labor. (Up to a certain point, that is.)

The main things I was think of in relation to this were:
- Statutory holiday allowance, I know that individual workplaces can grant it but as I understand it the LEGAL minimum is zero. For reference in the UK its 5.6 weeks a year. Most of my US friends are also colleagues and thus are academic research scientists . . .a "good" job, no? There allowance is still a fraction of ours*
- Paid Maternity pay, similar, employers can grant it at their discretion but again the legal minimum is zero. For reference in the Uk its 39 weeks, 6 weeks at 90% pay and the rest at an admittedly low rate of £140 a week.
- Being fired at the drop of a hat. In the UK the ONLY circumstance under which this is allowed is "Gross Misconduct", which is often behaviour of the sort that might well constitute a criminal offence. In the US you can be fired almost at the whim of the employer. There is only a fairly short list of things you aren't allowed to be fired for, which are mostly human rights based, you know race, religion, sexuality etc.
- Linking of medical care to employment. Ok this one is a little more complex and not strictly speaking solely under the topic of "Workers rights" but I think it merits inclusion. As I understand it there are only two ways to get decent medical insurance in the US, 1: Be quite wealthy, 2: Have a job that grants you such a plan as a benefit. Combined with the "we can fire you for almost anything" this gives employers a MASSIVE stick with which to beat their employees. In the most extreme cases it amounts to the power to literally kill them (or their family members) by proxy. An employee with a desperately sick child would do almost literally anything to keep a job that covered those medical expenses. . . . it's bloody close to indentured servitude.

I'll just pick up on your point about litigation, the company my wife works for routinely breaks employment law. . . . they know they can get away with it because:
- Most of their employees at 16-25 are ignorant of the law and would have no idea how to go about litigating and probably couldn't be bothered with the hassle anyway.
- Even if they DID lawyer up, it would be a case of the legal resources of a multi billion dollar company verses those of a teenager who can barely make rent.
- In the unlikely event they lost a case, well that one settlement is probably a price well worth paying for the extra profits gained by exploiting your workforce.
This in a nutshell is why Unions are needed.
I was under the impression Union membership was even rarer in the US than it is here, where it has been declining since the 80's.

*In fact the reason my friend got married on the 4th of July is because its one of the few days they could both get off work. As I travelled around on that trip I discovered this was INCREDIBLY common, my answer to the standard "Hey, why are you visiting the US?" question was: "My friend is getting married on the 4th of July! Fancy that!". . . I was stunned how often I got the response; "Cool, so did we!".
I'd say more than half of the couples I spoke to also got married on a US public holiday, for work reasons.

[Morkonan]

Most of the incidences that gave me this impression I listed in my previous post.
Drink more than about a pint in any particular place and I got looks equivalent to those I'd get if I chose to ummmm "powder my nose" in the UK.
The states involved (in case its relevant) were Florida (mostly), Michigan, Idaho and Washington . . . . I found California to be somewhat more liberal but this might have been an artefact specific to San Francisco (the only city in which I spent any time and well known for its rather unique culture!)

That's weird. I can only attribute that to either your perception or you were ordering a second round of wine while receiving Communion at a church... "Thank you, minister, that was great! Do you have any Chablis?" I've never encountered the attitude you're describing.

The main things I was think of in relation to this were:
- Statutory holiday allowance, I know that individual workplaces can grant it but as I understand it the LEGAL minimum is zero. For reference in the UK its 5.6 weeks a year. Most of my US friends are also colleagues and thus are academic research scientists . . .a "good" job, no? There allowance is still a fraction of ours*

It has been a long time since I had to deal with US Labor Law specifics. Some things may have changed. But, AFAIK, you are correct - The employer is not bound to give vacation time. And, certainly, they are required to give pay for time actually worked. But, that does not mean that employees aren't frequently given vacation time or increased pay rates if they have to work during popular Holidays.

- Paid Maternity pay, similar, employers can grant it at their discretion but again the legal minimum is zero. For reference in the Uk its 39 weeks, 6 weeks at 90% pay and the rest at an admittedly low rate of £140 a week.

Family Medical Leave Act - However, it has exclusions and does not provide for "paid" absences.

- Being fired at the drop of a hat. In the UK the ONLY circumstance under which this is allowed is "Gross Misconduct", which is often behaviour of the sort that might well constitute a criminal offence. In the US you can be fired almost at the whim of the employer. There is only a fairly short list of things you aren't allowed to be fired for, which are mostly human rights based, you know race, religion, sexuality etc.

"At the drop of a hat" is somewhat misleading. But, yes, employees can be fired. They can then also receive "Unemployment Insurance" benefits. That is an administered program the employer pays for based upon the number of employees they have. And, those rates will increase for each employee that seeks benefits after being "fired at the drop of a hat." IOW - It is not in the employer's best interest to just unjustly fire people whenever they wish.

- Linking of medical care to employment. Ok this one is a little more complex and not strictly speaking solely under the topic of "Workers rights" but I think it merits inclusion.... it's bloody close to indentured servitude.

Yes, that's a tough one. And, we're still coping with trying to construct something that is fair. But, employer-provided health insurance doesn't stop on Day O for covered employees and there's usually an extension period, AFAIK. For those who can not afford health insurance, there are government programs like Medicaid. Unfortunately, a lot of people are caught between having too much and not have little enough to qualify, at times... ie: Stuck in the sweet spot where they have to be poorer than they are now in order to get help. But, can't afford anything else, anyway.

I'll just pick up on your point about litigation, the company my wife works for routinely breaks employment law. . . . they know they can get away with it because:

If they're breaking the law, it's not going to require anything other than the employee reporting them to the Department of Labor. That doesn't mean, however, the employee will immediately receive civil damages or compensation. But, if the employer is found to have broken the law, a legion of attorneys would likely appear offering deferred/compensated fees based upon how much they could sue for in a civil court.

- Most of their employees at 16-25 are ignorant of the law and would have no idea how to go about litigating and probably couldn't be bothered with the hassle anyway.

It is an unfortunate thing that we don't make it a habit of protecting people from their own ignorance. I think we should. But, if someone is ignorant of employment laws they should act to correct their ignorance when it is made known to themselves. But, in the interest of protecting the ignorance, every employer is required to display "Labor Law" notices and posters in prominent view of employees. You'll usually find these plastered all over the walls in Employee Break Rooms, near water fountains and bathrooms, etc... There are required postings for every State's labor laws and contact information for Labor agencies and further information. Employees must also be informed of certain rights as a matter of their employment and training in many cases.

An example of a generic Labor Law poster - 1 These things generally get posted all over the place, but particularly, and in accordance with the law, in places employees would be likely to frequent. If an employee doesn't read them, it's not the employer's fault.

- Even if they DID lawyer up, it would be a case of the legal resources of a multi billion dollar company verses those of a teenager who can barely make rent.

That depends on what they're "lawyering up" about. If the employer committed an illegal act, no "lawering up" is necessary - They report the act to the appropriate agency. If they are "lawyering up" for a civil case, that's a different matter.

- In the unlikely event they lost a case, well that one settlement is probably a price well worth paying for the extra profits gained by exploiting your workforce.

While things like this do happen, it seems you're painting a somewhat dystopian picture of things. Bad actors do exist and if they're bad enough, they generally end up going bankrupt. That isn't saying that employers do not attempt to make money on the backs of their labor... but that's what they do, anyway. And, if they do it unfairly? Well, that's wrong. But, not every employer out there acts like you do. I know I certainly didn't.

"Exploiting" the workforce is what employers do. I think people forget that, these days. Too many bright-eyed young people jumping into the wide world of "real life employment" seem to have some sort of idea that the business they are working for is somehow supposed to exist for them alone. That is not how real life works. It doesn't mean an employer can't treat their employees very well, but it does mean that the employer can not ignore its obligations to stay in business by attempting to make enough money to pay its employees...

I do agree, however, that an employer that unfairly exploits their labor or that preys on the misfortunes of others to extract labor is "evil." Evil is always wrong.

This in a nutshell is why Unions are needed.
I was under the impression Union membership was even rarer in the US than it is here, where it has been declining since the 80's.

Unions are still present fairly strongly in certain industries and professions, but their collective bargaining power has reduced over the years. Many of the things unions were originally formed to combat have been recognized and are now combated by Federal and State agencies specifically designed for that purpose.

*In fact the reason my friend got married on the 4th of July is because its one of the few days they could both get off work. As I travelled around on that trip I discovered this was INCREDIBLY common, my answer to the standard "Hey, why are you visiting the US?" question was: "My friend is getting married on the 4th of July! Fancy that!". . . I was stunned how often I got the response; "Cool, so did we!".
I'd say more than half of the couples I spoke to also got married on a US public holiday, for work reasons.

Obviously, it depends on the type of job they're working, what the labor competition for that is and what inducements for hiring qualified employees the employer has put into place. In many cases, employees may not be eligible for many of the perks of their job until they've worked there long enough. And, in some cases, especially in low-skilled positions, there will be few written benefits for most employees and they have to rely on a good relationship with their employer.

I haven't worked every job or been in a hiring capacity in every profession, but I don't know of any employer that wouldn't, given sufficient notice and the ability to do so, attempt to arrange and coordinate a holiday for a worker who was getting married. It's possible, but it's certainly not normal for an employer to refuse to attempt to work out something in such a situation. Was the employer notified within sufficient time and/or attempts made to work out a solution?

While I won't argue that some of the situations you present are certainly plausible, some of the specifics you have mentioned are not as common, IMO, as you characterize them to be. BUT, and it's a big "but" , it is true that some workers in certain industries are often at the mercy of their employer in many situations. But, those are generally unskilled labor sorts of jobs where competition for the job, itself, is greater than the employer's competition for labor. (ie: Anyone can do the job and many people lacking skills compete for them.) In some cases, certain highly skilled jobs have "seniority" sorts of positions where new employees end up not obtaining many of the privileges that more longer-term employees are afforded. I'm thinking things like entry-level medical/nursing positions, where there most definitely must be someone on duty and the FNG gets the crappy rotations until they prove themselves. This surely isn't an indication of general bad employment practices, just simple work culture - The FNG always gets shafted. But, next year, they'll be the one benefiting from the next FNG getting shafted by being forced to work the Holiday schedule.

[Bishop149]

It is an unfortunate thing that we don't make it a habit of protecting people from their own ignorance. I think we should. But, if someone is ignorant of employment laws they should act to correct their ignorance when it is made known to themselves. But, in the interest of protecting the ignorance, every employer is required to display "Labor Law" notices and posters in prominent view of employees. You'll usually find these plastered all over the walls in Employee Break Rooms, near water fountains and bathrooms, etc... There are required postings for every State's labor laws and contact information for Labor agencies and further information. Employees must also be informed of certain rights as a matter of their employment and training in many cases.

An excellent point, the display of labour law information in such a way does occur in the UK too but those providing are almost always Unions. If a workplace has no Union presence the information will not be displayed, AFAIK we have no law requiring employers to do so. You might have one up on us there.

"Exploiting" the workforce is what employers do. I think people forget that, these days. Too many bright-eyed young people jumping into the wide world of "real life employment" seem to have some sort of idea that the business they are working for is somehow supposed to exist for them alone. [snip] I do agree, however, that an employer that unfairly exploits their labor or that preys on the misfortunes of others to extract labor is "evil." Evil is always wrong.

Good lord Mork, i don't think you've ever said a truer thing. . . . are you a secretly a closet Communist?
The "evil" you've described is the very basis of Capitalism.

Obviously, it depends on the type of job they're working, what the labor competition for that is and what inducements for hiring qualified employees the employer has put into place.

It might be that. The people I was mostly talking to were either: my friends and colleagues or my AirBnB hosts.
Now the former are mostly research scientists, our working conditions are famously awful and mostly self-inflicted. By way of example the 28 days holiday I'm allowed. . . . I've only ever used all of it in ONE year of my employment, they year I got married. We're allowed to carry 6 days over to the next year. . . . I ALWAYS have more than that left, often a lot more. What can I say, scientists are dumb workaholics.
Of the latter I have found my hosts to be mostly service / construction workers but there's also a weirdly disproportionate number of emergency service workers in there . . . I have stayed with SOOO many cops and firefighters.

[Morkonan]

Good lord Mork, i don't think you've ever said a truer thing. . . . are you a secretly a closet Communist?
The "evil" you've described is the very basis of Capitalism.

"Exploitation" is not necessarily an evil thing. IOW - Businesses hire workers in order to make use of their labor. They "exploit" their workers, but that doesn't mean it's completely unfair.

I'm a fiscal conservative that is pro-capitalism, but I acknowledge the necessity of oversight and a government instituting certain artificial constraints to prevent abuse and to promote a healthy society. "Communism" is science-fiction for political science fans...

It might be that. The people I was mostly talking to were either: my friends and colleagues or my AirBnB hosts.
Now the former are mostly research scientists, our working conditions are famously awful and mostly self-inflicted. By way of example the 28 days holiday I'm allowed. . . . I've only ever used all of it in ONE year of my employment, they year I got married. We're allowed to carry 6 days over to the next year. . . . I ALWAYS have more than that left, often a lot more. What can I say, scientists are dumb workaholics.
Of the latter I have found my hosts to be mostly service / construction workers but there's also a weirdly disproportionate number of emergency service workers in there . . . I have stayed with SOOO many cops and firefighters.

Emergency Services employees do have some issues with getting days off. It's not like someone can just close down their department for the day. They work hard and difficult hours. But, they often get compensated fairly well. Pensions, Unions, certain Flex Time stuff, benefits/health-care, etc... We used to employ a lot of firefighters. I set it up so they could control their own schedules. It was typical for firefighters to "moonlight" since they only worked three to four days, max, a week at their firefighter job. (Stayed at the station, ate there, slept there, so they'd max their hours out quickly even if there wasn't a fire.) As long as their shift-positions were filled, they controlled their own schedule and negotiated among themselves who would work a particular day. Worked out great.

We "almost" put in a police substation. That's someplace cops can go to do their paperwork, take a dump, get some coffee, etc. Cops stopped by frequently to grab a free cup of coffee from our reception area or just to check in with us to see how everything was going. (Waste time doing nothing. ) It was good PR with an agency that we trusted to keep an eye on our property and patrol the area. IMO, they had it pretty rough in terms of arranging schedules and the like. The police department was steeped in politics and cliques, everyone trying to get an edge. And, if someone in the department didn't like you, you got the crap assignments. And, if other officers didn't like you... they might take a little longer responding to an assistance call. Some of the tales they told made me glad I wasn't a cop.

From what I've heard, those in pure research do have it tough and some commercial research people are just appliances the employer screws on the benchtop in order to get new patents.