Slashdot Mirror
CA Legislature Torpedoes IT Overtime
An anonymous reader writes to mention that a recent piece of California legislation is enabling tech firms to avoid paying their workers overtime. Originally designed to deal with bonds for children's hospitals, bill AB10 was completely rewritten to prevent lawsuit damages over overtime nonpayment. "'This is the first time that the Legislature has done a takeaway of the rights of private-sector workers as part of the budget deal,' said Caitlin Vega of the California Labor Federation. 'We just think it is wrong. We think it will really hurt the groups of workers who will be expected to work through the weekend and not get paid.'"
You can tell if a bill is bad if the author of the bill's name is not on it.
Apparently, the author(s) were ashamed of the bill.
Fight Spammers!
And therein lies the problem. You may not be willing to, but it's almost certain that someone else (probably someone with no kids yet) will be willing to waste his time in that manner. And he's your competition. And new replicas of him are graduated every year.
In my experience, the big companies have a lot more employees that lean democratic, while startups have a larger republican population than would be expected when compared to local demographics.
I work in the Boston area, which is pretty blue... My experiences at IBM, Compaq/HP and EMC were that the rank and file were almost exclusively of the democratic persuasion. At the last three startups I've worked for, though, the employees have been 80+% republican.
Since when is $75k a large amount of money? These people aren't rich or wealthy. That's middle class. Which mean both parents need to still work to afford a house anywhere near where they work, and the cars to get them. If you have younger kids, then there's baby-sitting and extra insurance and crap like that.
$75k is barely making it in most markets (especially California).
Rent in most places in California is 1 bed room for $1k+.
It does sound ridiculous that a company can own all of your time. Alas many sociopath executives think exactly that. Last year I was offered employment with company that seemed like a good place to work. Then I saw the offer. Firstly their non-compete clause was so broad that I would need their approval before I could mow my neighbour's lawn for $5. Then there was an intellectual property clause stating that anything I created or conceived of regardless of its function, use or complexity during my tenure at the company, all day and all night was owned by them and not me. When I asked if, during a vacation, I invented an ever-cooling margarita glass the company would own that invention they calmly answered yes.
It turned the job down.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
Well let's see. Here is the former board of AIG. This is going to be a quick Google of each one, and may not be correct or comprehensive.
M. Bernard Aidinoff: Democrat
Pei-yuan Chia: Democrat
Marshall A. Cohen: Can't tell. He appears to be Canadian, maybe he's not active here politically.
William S. Cohen: Democrat (2 out of 3 to Dems, also was Clinton's Sec of Defense)
Martin S. Feldstein: Republican
Ellen V. Futter: couldn't find any evidence.
Stephen L. Hammerman: Democrat (mixes it up some, likes Rudy as he was NYC police commissioner, but mostly Dems)
Carla A. Hills: mixed
Richard C Holbrooke: Democrat
Fred H. Langhammer: Republican (actually this is pretty mixed, but recently leans Republican)
George L. Miles, Jr: Republican
Morris W. Offit: Democrat
Martin J. Sullivan: Democrat
Michael H. Sutton: Democrat
Edmund S. W. Tse: Can't tell. Also not originally American.
Robert B. Willumstad: Can't tell.
Frank G. Zarb: Democrat
I believe that's 9 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 5 unknown. I don't have time to do WaMu at the moment, but you're welcome to.
No, republicans, like our republican president Comrade Bush, likes to give away money to banks. That's what republicans, like Comrade Bush, mean when they say "earn it". You "earn it" by being rich, and then the government steals--using the threat of jail--taxes from the working class (like small business entrepreneurs), and then giving you (the rich) more money.
Now, if you are a working class programmer making less than $100K per year, it is also republican, like the republican Governer of California, to deny you the remittance you have earned--using law as the tool--so those richer than you can keep the money you have earned.
So you see, republicans are much like communists in that they use law to take from the poor and give to the rich. So now we understand what it means to be republican these days.
Just callin' it like I see it.
DUDE: Why was your boy Paulson *on his knees*, fucking literally, in Nanci Pellosi's office begging her to support the handout? You live in a dreamworld.
In fact, let's have a heart to heart. Seriously. I need to know. Are you just a republican fanboi or do you really have Republican values and have just been duped by the crooks in office?
Note where the capitals are--lowercase is for the posers known as the "republican party", capitals is for real Republicans like Senator Ron Paul. If you don't know what Republican means, look up "Republicanism" in wikipedia and memorize the first few sentences. The "republican party" these days are not, by and large, real Republicans.
If you are a real Republican, you would literally get sick to your stomach when a President who calls himself a "republican" asks for $700B to hand out to banks. SICK TO YOUR STOMACH. I have news for you and for every one else who has been duped: These are not Republicans.
They call themselves "republicans", but they aren't "Republicans". They do not follow the Rule of Law as evidenced by illegal wire tapping. They do not care for liberty, as illustrated by the Patriot Act. And they do not care for democracy or else they would put proposals like a $700B bailout to a popular vote. And they also do not believe in personal responsibility or the free market as evidenced by the proposal to bail out irresponsible banks.
Now, you will probably say something silly like "democrats are guilty of stuff like that too." And I will say, yes, but it doesn't matter because I'm not talking about democrats here, so don't try to change the topic. I'm not calling myself a democrat, so don't think I'm apologizing for them. I'm calling myself a Republican with a capital "R".
You probably have some naive notions, like "Rule of Law" means lots of cops with tazers. That is not "Rule of Law". That is fascism. Get this stuff straight.
You probably think that "Rule of Law" means more laws, like laws against smoking pot or having gay sex. Again, wrong. "Rule of Law" applies to the operations of the rulers. "Rule of Law" means that the rulers are ruled by law. It means that the no man is above the law. (Make sure you go study that wikipeda article before you argue that point.) "Rule of Law" does not mean that the subjects must be ruled by cops and draconian laws.
You are probably asking now, "how about the subjects? How about the people? What's going to keep them doing what I think is right?" Well, assuming your idea of "right" makes any sense whatsoever, in our Republic, which is also a federation of states, the idea is that most criminal law should be deferred to the states themselves. The exceptions would be laws against actions that adversely and DIRECTLY affect the operations of the Federal Government. (Some washed-up sixties flower child smoking a joint at a Jethro Tull concert does not constitute DIRECTLY affecting the operations Federal Government.) So, can a person have gay without getting arrested? Well, in the ideal "Republic" of states, this question is left to the states, NOT to the Federal Government. That's why they call it a "Federal Government", because of the concept of deferring most law to the states.
But is this *really* how true Republicans think? Surely they want federal agents breathing down every pot smoker's slimy back, don't they? NO THEY DON'T. I refer you to a concept called New Federalism, which was a reaction to the New Deal and was spearheaded by one of my favorite presidents, Richard Nixon. (I'm fucking serious about Richard Nixon, so unless you are prepared to read up on his history as president and his ideals, don't even think about questioning my sincerity here.) He was the closest thing we've had to a Republican in office in the last 50 years. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Now I ask you, since I recognize your name and the mindless "conservative" tone of yo
Just callin' it like I see it.