On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 10:54:28 Joseph B. Reid wrote: >Bill Potts wrote in USMA 17027: > >>The least disruptive proposal I've seen for that has four quarters, >>consisting of months of 30, 30 and 31 days each. >>... >I am afraid that in addition to the general population's inertia with >regard to change, the fundamentalist Jews, Christians and Moslems would >object because it would upset the seven-day week established by God at the >time of Creation. >... I strongly object to the above on the following grounds. First of all, what was being discussed here was NOT the change in the WEEK cycle AT ALL, but rather on the MONTHLY cycle. My personal preference would be for a pure decimal setting for this, just like vehicled by one of our colleagues here, with alternating 36/37-day months, the odd number evidently being the odd month, too, for consistency, i.e. Jan:37, Mar:37, May:37, etc.
While there might be merits on choosing 13 months, the major hurdle with that is that it would not be divisible in any rational form as 13 is a prime number, thus upsetting businesses organizational "habits" and whatnot. To conclude, I'd like to say that EVEN if one comes up with a 10-day weekly WORK cycle proposal that would not *necessarily* have the opposition of "fundamentalists" (as you chose to put it), **as long as companies would respect people's religious practices of resting on their TRUE Sabbath day** (whatever that day will happen to be for his faith). Work habits could continue to be the way they've always been. But then again, this would stifle the benefit of the change itself. Therefore, why change this cycle anyway? We don't need to change that. That would be much more important "battles" to fight. Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
