Slashdot Mirror
Executing a Mass Departmental Exodus in the Workplace?
rerunn asks: "The recent story about the consultants from JBOSS walking out couldn't have had better timing. I'll save the drama and cut to the scenario: You and a few close co-workers make up the core grunts of 'the department'. The company relies heavily on your department for many services, some of which, other departments cannot provide. You like your job, it provides great satisfaction. Suddenly, the company realizes its in deep financial shit, and starts making cut backs. This impacts the department. You suddenly find yourself working 50-60 hour weeks, put on call with no compensation, given unreasonable amounts of work and generally treated like dirt. You get the feeling that the company is just going to take advantage of you no matter how and what happens. You get together with the rest of the department for a 'fsck this company' meeting and decide to walk out. Have you ever done this?? (We are so close!) What was the outcome?"
Suck it down, tr0llz!
FP! ts.
fp, fck them all
fp?
Mothership suX0rs
Except I'm always the only one saying it.
I went to battle MC Escher but drew a blank
The entire XP team walked out, saying "This code isn't gonna get good anytime next 10 years?"
The entire IIS team walked out, saying "We can't touch apache in the next 5 years"
The entire Hailstorm team walked out "No one's gonna buy this!"
Sounds like all of the above happened - prolly explains why we get the same old code with new names.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
It is very unprofessional.
/. to be professional?
Do you actually expect
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
sending troops off to war for ficticious reasons
The reasons were not ficticious. Our justifications for going to war were actually quite independant of whether or not we find WMDs in Iraq.
which will increase terrorism
There is absolutely no way you can make that claim. In fact, from where I am sitting, the President has done a pretty good job at reducing terrorism- there has not been a substantial attack against us since 9/11.
driving the economy into a train-wreck
The economy was already a train wreck when President Bush took office. Not only that, but we have since found out that a lot of the economic success of the late 1990's was not even real (the Enron and Worldcom accounting scandals all date back into the 1990's).
and increasing spending to Reaganite levels
Total government spending in 2002 was 19.5% of the GDP, and that is substantially lower than many of the Clinton years (Clinton spent more than that through 1997- Source). The increase from 2001 to 2002 can mainly be attributed to the War on Terrorism.
the goal is destroy all social programs while benefitting the rich.
You might notice from the Budget document linked above that spending on Human Resources (Education, social services, health, medicare, social security) has increased under President Bush.
And don't you get tired of the same old class warfare arguments?
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
You don't think that the mass bombing and current occupation of Iraq will cause more terrorism?
Look:
The US went to war. Most of the world said the reasons were flimsy; The US looked like a bully in front of the middle east. Add to the fact that pictures of bloodied Iraqi children got out onto international TV. Also, dont forget the 5000-7000 civillian deaths in Iraq. We shouldnt forget that Afghanistan hasnt shaped up yet. Whoops, how can I not mention that the US is not turning power over to the people yet? The US is now acting as occupiers, and following Israel's example in some ways. They're already bulldozing a few houses.
No, there hasnt been a substantial attack since 9/11, but our number of enemies has skyrocketed. The hatred of the US has gone from 20% to 80% in some countries, according to polls. The Egyptian president Mubarak said we will probably make 80 Bin Ladens now.
Reasons for war were not fictitious, they were Oil, Oil, Oil, and did I say Oil?
If you don't believe the war against Iraq will increase the desire of militant Islamic groups to attack the USA as a result of us attacking an independent Islamic Nation on a foundation of WMD that have not been proven, you need to pull your head out of the sand. Did you ever stop to think why they are so pissed at us already (see former policies, wars, etc...)
It wasn't a train wreck (the economy) when GWB took office. It was in for a downturn. However, by causing federal revenue to drop significantly and the forced cut back on government jobs, he greatly assisted the free fall we are now experiencing.
President GWB has spent more money than any of the last 16 presidents in one fiscal year. 500 billion dollar deficit shows that to be true.
Lol Spending on Human Resources somehow equates Education, Social Services, Health, Medicare (btw these are all the same thing! lol), and Social Security? I guess making shit up is good. How about the most recent cut in veterans benefits by 14%???? Hmmm.....
I'll be tired of the "same old class warfare arguments" when the government is representative of the people, not the corporate contributors.
You don't think that the mass bombing and current occupation of Iraq will cause more terrorism?
The reports (find them yourself) indicate that between four and five thousand civilians were killed during the war against Iraq.
Care to guess how many innocent Iraqis:
You think 4,000 dead civilians is a lot? Care to guess how many "innocents" were killed in the decades Saddam was in power?
To answer your question directly: If the economy of Iraq is rebuilt (I don't even care by whom it's rebuilt) such that people enjoy a greater quality of life than during Saddam's reign, the number of "new terrorists" will be less than the number of terrorists that would have come about through inaction. That is, if Iraq prospers, the world community as a whole will be in better shape.
Yes, it's a big if. But, that's one of the reasons that I don't care of Bush and Cheney let all their friends have the contracts: at least something is getting done. Corrupt contracts are better than years of inaction, ask the people waiting on fresh drinking water: they'll agree.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android