Job sharing Options

[thekohser]

I'm going to keep tabs on this and report back on...

• Impact on Google search results
• Traffic trends
• External links to (currently zero)
• Article development

I am a scientific practitioner at heart.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 30th June 2009, 4:36pm

[CharlotteWebb]

I'm going to keep tabs on this and report back on...

• Impact on Google search results
• Traffic trends
• External links to
• Article development

I am a scientific practitioner at heart.

Hey nice start. I will say I've worked for a few companies which engaged in this, but I didn't know there was a prettier term for it than underemployment.

As a disadvantage you missed the part about failing to earn a living wage, and in some cases not being allowed to take a second job on the basis that it might somehow create a conflict of interest (as every other company doing business within the same xx-mile radius, whether we've heard of them or not, is a competitor in vast field of "trying to making money somehow" are they not?).

Sometimes I think it's a conspiracy to keep their workforce barefoot and pregnant—in the looser sense where one is legally employed (thus not part of any embarrassing economic statistic), but not making enough money to buy a pair of house-slippers (nobody wants to spill food on their work-shoes) much less sustain an independent, single lifestyle. I don't think it's always sexism either... I'm sure some guys get stuck in situations like too, just depends on who the company chooses to hire that week. Most are equal-opportunity inflictors of economic co-dependence and unassistable hey-you-got-a-job-so-quit-yer-bitchin' poverty but I digress.

Note, Greg: I would have stuck with the traditional Alice and Bob—"Jimmy and Sue" do strike me as obvious innuendo.

[thekohser]

Note, Greg: I would have stuck with the traditional Alice and Bob—"Jimmy and Sue" do strike me as obvious innuendo.

I thought that Wikipedians might enjoy finding the little virtual Easter eggs I may occasionally place within a layer of my free culture work.

It seems to hold the belief that the "awesome article" was deleted four times, when the "awesome article" didn't exist until you penned it. It was complete tripe (or, as I said, vandalism) before.

Thank you for agreeing that my article is "awesome" in comparison to the "complete tripe" that preexisted it.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 30th June 2009, 6:41pm

[sbrown]

Thank you for agreeing that my article is "awesome" in comparison to the "complete tripe" that preexisted it.

Thats just shooting ducks in a barrel. Anyone of Gregs experience and literacy ought to be able to do awesomely better than 50% of the rubbish on wikipeida easily enough. Actually thats too soft a target - 90%.