Slashdot Mirror


Workers at Chile's ALMA Telescope Strike Over Working Conditions

An anonymous reader writes with this snippet from Deutsche Welle: "'Employees at the world's largest radio telescope have gone on strike after failing to reach agreement over pay and conditions. Workers say they are not sufficiently compensated for isolation and high altitude.' The strike started on Thursday, and the telescope is currently not operating. Although the project's budget is $1.1 billion, an ALMA technician earns less than $2,000 per month. How does this compare with people working at observatories in the U.S., Japan, or the European Union?"

274 comments

  1. Apples to Apples. by sjwt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These guys are earning $2,000 p/m more than ALMA workers who are working in US, Japan or the EU.

    Lets get a comparison of wages earned by locals doing similar skilled jobs.

    --
    You have 5 Moderator Points!
    Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
    1. Re:Apples to Apples. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. By the same comparison should they be paid the same as technicians in outer Mongolia, Bangladesh, India?

      The wage quantity stated means nothing without giving the amount's relation to cost of living and other expenses.
      Pity there isn't a "Flamebait" article tag.

    2. Re: Apples to Apples. by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Go find work elsewhere then.

      Striking just shows at they can't. Otherwise they already would have.

      The flip side is that without unions and the real threat of losses caused by strikes, the next employer in that line of work will merely do the exact same thing. Consider the way that the major cell networks all charge similar rates (including overcharging in many cases for texting) when they are ostensibly competing with each other for customers. If it's not actual collusion it's similar in effect because it's based on a "market rate" which is merely a look at what everyone else is doing.

      Now maybe other employers should do the same thing, I'm not giving an opinion there (for those reactive types who can't plainly see that I didn't), just that such an effect is something to consider.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re: Apples to Apples. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Go find work elsewhere then.

      Striking just shows at they can't. Otherwise they already would have.

      Written with beautiful ignorance...

    4. Re: Apples to Apples. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 3

      "Otherwise they already would have."

      If you think that work is about nothing more than earning money, you're not just an idiot, but someone I feel sorry for.

    5. Re: Apples to Apples. by ThreeKelvin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No - striking shows the employer that the employees will not work under the terms set forth, but wouldn't mind doing the work if they could come to terms. It's a lighter version of finding a new job - and a rather more appropriate response in many cases.

      Now, the employer can respond in a number of ways. Just to name a few; She can fire the employees if she thinks that the pay is adequete to attract new employees, she can wait the employees out, or she can enter negotiations. You know - just like any other free market where people are negotiating prices and conditions.

      (On that note: I really don't get why some Americans are so much in favor of a free market when it concerns goods, but very much against it when it's labor.)

    6. Re: Apples to Apples. by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      You would be correct if the technicians weren't on strike over (quite reasonable for Chile) wages.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    7. Re: Apples to Apples. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because Americans aren't generally in favour of a free market. They're under the yoke of protestant work ethic, which is servitude with an essentially religious basis.

      A free market would see workers refusing to work with non-union workers, and unions regularly campaigning for higher wages until there was a more equitable distribution of wealth. But the laws in many states/countries have made this illegal or practically impossible.

    8. Re: Apples to Apples. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Yes, but being on strike over wages doesn't necessarily mean you can't find another job, possibly with better pay/conditions. It means that you are willing to work *there* (experience/enjoyment/loyalty), but only under better pay/conditions.

    9. Re: Apples to Apples. by causality · · Score: 3

      (On that note: I really don't get why some Americans are so much in favor of a free market when it concerns goods, but very much against it when it's labor.)

      The idea sadly is like this: when government and corporations exercise market power, that's the free market. When workers or average customers exercise market power, it's hippy pinko communism.

      The fact is, an employer and an employee inherently have competing interests. Negotiating is a perfectly valid way to resolve competing interests by seeking a middle ground acceptable to both.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    10. Re: Apples to Apples. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They most certainly do not charge the same rates. Sprint's unlimited plans are much cheaper than AT&T or Verizon. T-Mobile's pay as you go is much cheaper than anyone else.

      The plans are difficult to compare directly, but there are major price differences in some areas. AT&T has a fantastic contract-less unlimited data plan with limited minutes and text for $30/month. I don't know of anyone else with a similar plan.

    11. Re: Apples to Apples. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. In a closed shop state, it's not a free market. One organization has a state enforced monopoly.

    12. Re: Apples to Apples. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      T-mobile has an unlimited no-contract voice, text, and data plan for $35/month. Only 2G speeds unless you pay extra, but depending on usage that's comparable/better than AT&T's. I think Virgin Mobile has something similar as well, but their coverage appears to be even worse that AT&T's

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    13. Re: Apples to Apples. by umghhh · · Score: 1

      I think in US it is not the unions that can help. These are incompetent, corrupt bureaucrats that are charge with tasks that overwhelm them. The problem is elsewhere me thinks. The general attitude seems to be confrontation with workers organizing themselves being seen as communists or mob or both.

      I am really at a loss as to why of late any news coming from US is about corruption, stupidity, oppression, showing people that are arrogant, badly educated or the opposite but then smart enough to reap off anybody else and this all comes always in a mix with 'we are the best' pride usually. Come to think of it the only things US of A is good at seem to be sending carrier groups all over the place and punishing people for silly things.

      I am pretty sure there is more to it than that - maybe it is the pond between us that is allowing only the ugly noise to come over.

    14. Re: Apples to Apples. by Rhywden · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, the famous "You need to be / have done [insert whatever area of interest here] to be allowed to give a meaningful statement!" argument.

      By that yardstick, one must be a thief to be allowed to judge over thieves, be a taxi driver to say anything regarding taxi drivers or be a Christian to be allowed to discuss the Bible.

      Or where [i]else[/i] do you want to take this vein of discussion? Because I can't see it going anywhere else. "No judgement", my ass.

    15. Re: Apples to Apples. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anyone that thinks that is a good way to do things are a communist (no I'm not using it as something bad - simply for stating a political fact).

      Here in Sweden several companies have closed because unions (and therefore members of those unions) refused to deliver goods to them as their employees wasn't unionized. Note that the employees wasn't unionized as the employer offered better terms than the appropriate union would give. The transport union was completely unrelated to the union the workers could have joined too so it was a purely political move.

      Have any worker in those companies wanted to join a union but been hindered by the employer? No. Doing that would be against Swedish law. Any worker could - if they wanted - joined a union and gotten the worse terms without problem.

      Have any worker had worse rights and/or pay than a comparable unionized company? No. In fact they have had higher pay and safer work contracts than the standard union terms.

      Have any worker gotten better terms in another job? Not likely. See above. In fact in many cases they became unemployed.

      Giving unions too much power is a bad thing.

    16. Re: Apples to Apples. by Stan92057 · · Score: 0

      You would do well by reading US history of Unions and you should thank them for making YOUR life easier. Its amazing how people conveniently forget how we get to where we are now. And have you done any research as to Chili Economy and what jobs drive it? Maybe they could work in the copper mines i hear it pays well.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    17. Re: Apples to Apples. by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think in US it is not the unions that can help. These are incompetent, corrupt bureaucrats that are charge with tasks that overwhelm them.

      Some unions, yes. One I was in at one job was in bed with management and worse than useless, but most are worth far more than the union dues.

      Unless your union sucks the union leaders are democratically elected by the union members, and you vote on everything they do, including whether to accept a contract, whether to strike, etc.

      If your union sucks it's your own fault.

    18. Re: Apples to Apples. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Someone must have missed the part where I specifically state:

      Please don't read judgement into that question. It is simply something I always wonder when I hear statements like yours.

      Oh, no, you state you did read that, and just can't figure out what it means. You think you have the only valid viewpoint in this matter, so anyone else who doesn't immediately agree with yours is not only wrong, but subversive and deceitful as well. Gee, I've never come across your kind in these forums. (That last sentence is sarcasm, in case your view is too narrow to recognize it.)

      As for causality, for all we know, he owns a business with 20 employees that he treats well, and thinks other business owners should do the same.

      In fact his last remark of:

      The fact is, an employer and an employee inherently have competing interests. Negotiating is a perfectly valid way to resolve competing interests by seeking a middle ground acceptable to both.

      shows he has a deeper grasp of the situation than you apparently do. He at least isn't simply jumping on someone he may or may not agree with, based on a narrow mindset based on his own misperceived self-image, unlike you rhywden.

      But have a nice day, and thank you for the reply.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    19. Re: Apples to Apples. by popo · · Score: 0

      And your response was written ...without a response.

      --
      ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    20. Re: Apples to Apples. by ebno-10db · · Score: 0

      Many of us statists have endlessly tried making intelligent counter-arguments to people who use the term "statist". After many years I've stopped beating my head against the wall. This article explains why: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marxism-of-the-right/

    21. Re: Apples to Apples. by gerf · · Score: 1

      I'm non-union and involved in installing new machines in a union business. They require us to hire union people to do the installation while we are restricted to supervision. So they do indeed do that.

      As for higher wages across the board? Unions these days are pretty self-serving, even amongst their own. Thus you get two-tier wage levels or even three or four tiers in some cases. The older guys won't vote in lowering their $30/hr operator wages, so they cut more from the new guys who aren't voting yet, who end up getting around $14/hr with minimal increases.

    22. Re: Apples to Apples. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      The US is so far from Sweden in this regard that any comparisons are pointless. Neither I, nor I suspect any other posters here, know about the situation in Chile.

    23. Re: Apples to Apples. by TheGavster · · Score: 1, Informative

      If Chilean labor law actually permits the employer to fire strikers and provides protection against a mob assaulting any new employees, then bravo for Chile. In America, you'd be sued into oblivion, your factory surrounded by a mob, and any scabs assaulted on their way to work, and the police wouldn't lift a finger.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    24. Re: Apples to Apples. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      It's also not a free market if the owners of a company have a magical, state created and enforced, way to escape their liabilities. It's called a "corporation".

    25. Re:Apples to Apples. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the US this type of work would typically be done by a graduate student; typical grad stipend is..... $2000/mo. (Mine started at $1600, eventually peaking at $2400).

    26. Re: Apples to Apples. by Rhywden · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should read my last sentence again to see that I actually didn't miss it. And he has a "deeper grasp" on the situation for pointing out the basic fact that employers and employees have competing interests? If that is what amounts to a "deeper grasp" around here in your eyes then I've got a castle in Slovania to sell to you.

    27. Re: Apples to Apples. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should read my last sentence again to see that I actually didn't miss it.

      Wow, double fail.

      Read my sentence after I quoted myself. Then read the sentence after that one.

      Finally, read the next two. (Here's a hint, one of them is inside a parenthesis.)

      -
      I'll explain later what the qualifier in "a deeper grasp" means, since you seem even more confused by that, which hardly seems possible.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    28. Re: Apples to Apples. by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      But if they look for new jobs both the workers and the employer are loosing because the workers are trained for this job. The employer needs to train new people which will cost time, and the people will make mistakes. The employees need to get trained for a new job, which makes them less valuable than they are now.

    29. Re: Apples to Apples. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A free market would see workers refusing to work with non-union workers, and unions regularly campaigning for higher wages until there was a more equitable distribution of wealth.

      I think that's pretty questionable. As things stand, unions appear to me to derive most of their power from the government. Without laws and governmental entities that intervene in the market by forcing companies and employees to bargain with and through union representatives, unions would work much differently. That's especially true of the ones that represent semi-skilled laborers, like United Auto Workers. There is absolutely no way those guys would have been able to negotiate their pay up to what it is without the threat of the NLRB hanging over the heads of the manufacturers.

    30. Re:Apples to Apples. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Hm... that might be a little generous. In Canada a typical grad student makes around $20000 a year. More if you've got a good scholarship, but most don't. I had heard that the US was similar, or a little worse. Oh yeah, and you have to pay tuition out of that, so it's really more like $15000.

    31. Re: Apples to Apples. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Many of us statists have endlessly tried making intelligent counter-arguments to people who use the term "statist". After many years I've stopped beating my head against the wall. This article explains why: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marxism-of-the-right/

      From your article:

      ... libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of ethics and government.

      The problem is, some of us are actually capable of making reasonable distinctions -- we can conceive that ethics and government might be best run by different rules or sets of rules. We can consider that the society and the state are not the same. So when we advocate libertarianism in government we, for example, do denounce the state forcibly redistributing wealth, yet do not claim that a hand up for those below is anything less than essential to a healthy society. We simply hold it as our own moral duty to voluntarily help those less fortunate than ourselves.

      Of course, not all libertarians agree with this (hardly surprising, that a banner of "personal freedom" one should find a wide array of philosophy) . Objectivists, for example, are explicitly opposed to such notions as charity. (Objectivism seems to be what he's principally arguing against, perhaps because objectivists are about the most unflattering "representatives" of libertarianism as a whole, perhaps (one may more charitably assume) because they are some of the most vocal, thus conspicuous, libertarians on the internet. IMO only hideous evil creeps can seriously think through objectivism and still espouse it, yet it's popular as a fad amongst youths asserting their "independence" in political thought.) Then there's many people who come to espouse libertarianism simply because "I want to do what I want to do", with no thought for ethics at all. But some of us (I believe many, though likely not most) do make the distinction between ethics and law, and by rejecting this distinction in his very definition of libertarianism, Mr. Locke neatly sidesteps any rational discussion of whether any particular thing, clearly beneficial to society, might be better served by voluntary action (both individual and collective) than by state coercion. He replaces that discussion with the false dichotomy that all needs left unserved by the state are left unserved altogether.

      Moreover, he flatly accuses anyone who calls into question this false dichotomy, or indeed any other reason his arguments don't apply to their own beliefs, of intellectual dishonesty -- claiming (with no justification, other than what can only be summarised as "mumble-grumble-Commies!") that those espousing any sane, defensible form of libertarianism must be doing so only to win parlor debates, while in the street they agitate for the radical, indefensible forms that they truly believe in. Such underhanded subversives we libertarians are, every single one of us! Moderate, sensible intellectuals by day, black-clad bomb-tossing anarchists by night! What a pity Mr. Locke has seen through this grand conspiracy of ours.

      Indeed, one can tell he truly does think libertarians are the "Marxists of the Right", as this is a page straight from the conservative Marxist-fighting handbook, where no rhetorical trick is too dishonest. I know several more-or-less rational conservatives who recognize the state is only a part of society, and that some aspects of society are best handled by voluntary action, but who simply believe many more aspects of society should be state-controlled than I do -- since they don't share Locke's "Marxists of the Right" view, we can have good, logical, honest discussions about where to draw the line, and we can both kind of shake our heads and laugh at the Objectivists, but let anyone suggest a Marxist, socialist, or close-enough-for-cons

    32. Re:Apples to Apples. by xvan · · Score: 1

      Maybe you missed the part where the work is located at the atacama desert... You'd need to compare it as a typical grad stipend that works in alaska, or something like that.

    33. Re: Apples to Apples. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should read my last sentence again to see that I actually didn't miss it. And he has a "deeper grasp" on the situation for pointing out the basic fact that employers and employees have competing interests? If that is what amounts to a "deeper grasp" around here in your eyes then I've got a castle in Slovania to sell to you.

      What a shock, management wannabe shill lies about international property too. I'm sure you're as honest in your other dealings as you are with marketing your "Slovania"n castle.

    34. Re: Apples to Apples. by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      If you get a lot of experience and enjoyment from your work there and have a lot of loyalty to the project, you should take that in consideration before you strike over pay. If you absolutely want to work there, you should bear that in mind before you strike and alienate yourself from management.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    35. Re: Apples to Apples. by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      >democratically elected by the union members

      The biggest problem with the union I was in, were the retired workers were still members, and allowed to vote. Also outnumbered the active workers. Luckily it was a right to work state, took a couple years, but they were able to replace the union (went non union for awhile in between.)

    36. Re: Apples to Apples. by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why the self-contradictory platitudes of the anti-sex league are expected to convince anyone of anything.

      Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism

      Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics

      Pick a way.

      Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it.

      Gimme a break.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    37. Re: Apples to Apples. by Sarten-X · · Score: 0

      Perhaps while we're at it we should thank the slave traders who brought our ancestors over, the inquisitors who inspired secular politics, and the dictators who started the wars that stimulated our economy. Focusing on just the unions, should we also thank them for crippling police departments in the 20s and 30s while the Mob ran rampant?

      Yeah, the unions did some good things a handful of times over the past century, but they've also raised the cost of doing business substantially. They've driven companies out of business by requiring unnecessary employment and benefits, and thanks to their effective monopoly on labor across industries, they can cut off supplies to companies that don't bow to their rule. With exclusive contracts with both employers and members, the union's influence infects workers and markets. Small companies can't afford to start, and big companies can't even hire non-union workers. Let's all take a moment to thank the unions for pushing jobs overseas.

      Another Slashdotter recently commented that the best union is the one that you're threatening to form. It should apply a slight pressure to a company to improve worker relations, but it shouldn't have the legal ability to cripple a business. Sadly, today's unions have no interest in actually improving working conditions, but rather they seek mainly to improve the union's own power and bargaining position. Concessions are minimal, contract terms are long, and bureaucracy piles higher.

      Don't like what the almighty union has contracted? Too bad; you're stuck. You can't negotiate your own employment, because as far as the union's concerned, you are not a human being. You are a product to be sold. Let's all thank our masters for the privilege of taking the bullshit they feed us.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    38. Re: Apples to Apples. by wolvesofthenight · · Score: 1

      If your union sucks it's your own fault.

      Sigh.... This is like saying "If your county council sucks it's your own fault." Things are not that simple. Consider:

      *Many unions force the employer to require union membership as a condition of employment.

      *Many workers will find that a given job is the best option available even when they consider any relevant unions to be bad.

      *Many unions are large enough that a single worker can not realistically change how the union works, given their single vote and time constraints. Could I change how my county council works? Maybe, if I dedicated all my free time to running - but only maybe. And if I spend all my time on that, along with tackling the state and federal government, I won't have the time to do the same with my union.

      *In some unions the majority of workers, being below average or about average, vote in rules requiring wages to be based on something other than performance. The top workers hate this because they are no longer paid for being really good. But they are not the majority.

      When you are stuck with a bad union it can be a choice of quitting your job or living with it. If a worker chooses not to leave it does not negate their right to complain. In fact, complaining is often a part of trying to correct the problem.

      This is not to say that all unions are bad, nor is it a comment on the situation at Alma. Many of unions are good and have benefitted workers across the world. The point is that it is very possible for a worker to do all they reasonably can do and still be stuck with a bad union. Simply blaming bad unions on an unhappy union member is naive.

      --
      -WolvesOfTheNight
    39. Re: Apples to Apples. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      In what way, exactly, does owning a corporation allow one to escape their liabilities?

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    40. Re: Apples to Apples. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't know how it works where you come from, but in civilised countries, striking is just a last resort in negotiation - it doesn't "alienate" you, and management can't suddenly pretend you don't exist.

    41. Re: Apples to Apples. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      There's enough evidence that performance-related pay doesn't actually work, and even a "good" worker ought not to vote for it, as it'll damage the company. Every worker should perform their best, and be compensated as well as possible for it, or not be employed.

    42. Re: Apples to Apples. by Stan92057 · · Score: 2

      You sound like a manager who get his ass handed to him in a few grievances. At any rate what you have stated changes nothing unions have made YOUR life like it or not.

      "because as far as the union's concerned, you are not a human being."

      I dont have to lower myself to lie like you do to make my points lier.

      You actually beleave company's give you what you have now if not being forced too? Minimum wage or the threat of a Union being formed. Blame Corporations for moving out of our country to use slave labor wages to make a bigger profit. They dont care about the human factor when it comes to dollars and cents they can always force you to work over time or change your hours at a moments notice. They also use the lower our tax rate threat as a reason for moving from one state to another Or like NFL Owners who use the threat of moving to get a stadium build and make higher taxes and lower the amount for our school system do ya see a pattern here Lier?

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    43. Re: Apples to Apples. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      HI, Chilean here, the situation is still deplorable, a technician in a mine company could be earning double of that, so they do want to work in ALMA observatory, and if they are just fired the next team of technicians will do the same in a couple of years.

    44. Re: Apples to Apples. by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's how capitalism works. If you don't find your current job sufficiently compensating for your skills, go find another job that will. If you can't find one, then maybe your skills just aren't worth that compensation, and you need to get some better ones to make yourself more marketable. If you can find one, then everyone with that skill set will similarly choose to find alternative employment, and the company will find themselves without workers, needing to raise their compensation to compete with other employers. Competition makes the world go round.

    45. Re: Apples to Apples. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound... replaceable.

    46. Re: Apples to Apples. by causality · · Score: 1

      Please don't read judgement into that question. It is simply something I always wonder when I hear statements like yours.

      It's a transparent attempt to change an abstract discussion about labor relations into a personal matter. This is the kind of tactic used by someone who dislikes the point that was made but acknowledges that he has no real counter-point. It is strongly indicative of a weak position on your part. That you are at least being polite about it does not change this.

      There is a reason you're catching flak for it in several other comments. Rhywden explained it succinctly.

      So then, do you have a solid reason why you disagree with what I said?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    47. Re: Apples to Apples. by causality · · Score: 1

      As for causality, for all we know, he owns a business with 20 employees that he treats well, and thinks other business owners should do the same.

      Whether I own a controlling share in a Fortune 500 corporation or whether I have never run a business of any kind doesn't let you escape a basic fact of life: if you believe I am wrong, the only way to correct me is to explain to me why I am wrong and why your point of view is closer to reality than mine.

      Sometimes on this site I encounter someone with the intellectual honesty and the emotional maturity to do so. When that happens, I admit I was mistaken, I change my mind, and you don't hear the old viewpoint from me again. I have no problem doing that because I don't entertain some silly fantasy about always being right and always knowing everything. When I encounter someone who clearly has more knowledge than I do, I listen and learn for my own edification. It's called humility and it must be consciously practiced if you wish to develop it and enjoy its virtues.

      The only real losers here are those who are clearly wrong but are too prideful to admit it, so they bicker and quibble, usually try to make it personal, and pretend like they're fooling anyone. It's childish behavior that harms the signal-to-noise ratio of the site and makes adult conversation more difficult to enjoy. I say if you really like being right so much, then you have an obligation to correct your wrongs.

      You're getting all excited and you appear a bit frustrated because you are choosing to bicker about which of us owns a business and which of us has a deeper grasp and other PERSONAL MATTERS rather than fulfill the criteria in the first paragraph of this post. There is a difference between stubborn and tenacious.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    48. Re: Apples to Apples. by wolvesofthenight · · Score: 1

      What can you provide in the way of reputable references of which are applicable to my point? If what you say is true, then why do people often leave for a higher paying job elsewhere?

      Work is the sale of labor. Saying that high quality workers should be paid the same as low is like saying that a flimsy chair at wall mart should cost the same as a high quality chair at a good furniture store.

      The high quality workers are justified in expecting better pay. Having coworkers that are paid the same as you when they do half the work causes bitterness and resentment. Knowing that you will receive the same raise no matter your performance does not encourage you to perform well.

      --
      -WolvesOfTheNight
    49. Re: Apples to Apples. by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to understand what a free market is. A free market is one free of collusion, among organizations AND among the work force. Each entity works independently towards their best interests. If an employer treats their employees badly, the employees all leave, and the employer either changes their ways or is unable to continue doing business. Labor unions are just another form of monopoly, but since it's not "evil business", people seem to think they're alright.

    50. Re: Apples to Apples. by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      If I work my ass off and churn out 20% more units than the guy next to me, and don't see a dime more because of it, what's the point?

    51. Re: Apples to Apples. by ebno-10db · · Score: 0

      TL;DR, but thanks for helping to make my point.

    52. Re: Apples to Apples. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1, Informative

      Pick a way.

      There is no contradiction there. Altruism and collectivism are economic issues.

      Gimme a break.

      You're missing the forest for the trees. I disagree with his concern about pron, and many other things. I lean to the left, but cite an article from The American Conservative because he makes the basic criticisms of libertarianism so well, not because I otherwise agree with the author's politics. The author's important point is that what other people do, and are allowed to do, does affect others. Libertarians ignore that, or take the extremist view that there is no right to regulate other people's behavior except where it involves physical violence. In the real world compromise is necessary. I don't want to interfere with my neighbor watching pron, but having him open a slaughterhouse in a residential neighborhood is another matter.

      The most important point in the article is this:

      Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation.

    53. Re: Apples to Apples. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      You're kidding, right? The fundamental principle of a corporation is "limited liability". Look it up.

    54. Re: Apples to Apples. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      "Limited liability" means that the corporation's liabilities are separate from the owners' personal liabilities. If the corporation damages you, you sue the corporation, not the owners. If the owner damages you, you sue the owner, not the corporation.

      Nobody escapes liabilities, but owners are only risking what assets they put into the company.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    55. Re: Apples to Apples. by Sarten-X · · Score: 0

      You sound like a manager who get his ass handed to him in a few grievances.

      I'm lucky enough to have never been a manager at a union shop. I have, however, worked in a theatre where the union-backed construction crew showed up an hour late and smelling of beer, and built a set that collapsed during rehearsal. Of course, the union protects their members, and the contract allowed two such incidents (one of which injured a cast member) before any discipline could occur.

      There's certainly grieving, but it's mostly from a dancer who can no longer dance.

      You actually [believe companies] give you what you have now if not being forced [to]? Minimum wage or the threat of a Union being formed.

      Every company I've worked for (6 in the past decade) but one has paid well with decent benefits, and interestingly, the one that was the worst was the mostly-union shop. Of course, I mostly work in software development now, where there is no real threat of unions, and overtime and short deadlines are the norm. I know it's hard for a die-hard union fan to accept, but managers are actually real human beings, too! I've had places offer below average compensation, and they were quick to bring it up when asked. I've had a place that had really bad pay, but great benefits that lowered my personal expenses. What's great is that I was able to adapt my employment to my particular situation at the time. Back when I had no family commitments and my youthful health, I could take a high-paying job with no benefits. Heck, in one case I went to my boss and talked him into giving me overtime at regular rate, so I could take an extra vacation later. Not really kosher per labor laws, but it was the deal I wanted.

      I got where I am today because I had the spine to go ask for it, and I don't feel eternally indebted to the unions for the progress they made sixty years ago. Unions want to be cast as heroes, always fighting for the underdogs, but that loses its luster quickly when they keep begging for credit every time someone gets a weekend off, and the underdogs they protect can get away with incompetence.

      How about tackling the big workplace problems we still have, like how difficult it is to change between jobs (changing insurance providers, retirement plans, etc)? Or maybe tying executive salaries to medians? Or doing pretty much anything other than demanding more bargaining power?

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    56. Re: Apples to Apples. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Why is everyone not working their best at your workplace, please?

      Why would you resent earning as much as someone who tries exactly as hard as you?

      N.B. This has nothing to do with different levels of pay for different *responsibilities*. Just for different performance at identical responsibility with identical experience.

      If you want citations, I shan't gtfy, so: "performance-related pay".

    57. Re: Apples to Apples. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Rarely is job performance so simple to measure. See my other post. The idea that you can make people produce more by simply telling them they'll get paid more if they work harder involves a whole slew of assumptions which rarely apply, esp. in a modern workplace.

    58. Re: Apples to Apples. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Please don't read judgement into that question. It is simply something I always wonder when I hear statements like yours.

      It's a transparent attempt to change an abstract discussion about labor relations into a personal matter. This is the kind of tactic used by someone who dislikes the point that was made but acknowledges that he has no real counter-point. It is strongly indicative of a weak position on your part. That you are at least being polite about it does not change this.

      There is a reason you're catching flak for it in several other comments. Rhywden explained it succinctly.

      So then, do you have a solid reason why you disagree with what I said?

      When did I say I don't agree with what you said? I told Rhywden* your second paragraph is better than what he wrote, and I thought it laid it out quite nicely.

      As to your first paragraph, I've heard it before and don't quite agree with it, from my own perspective, but can certainly see why you consider it to be how right-wing politicians, talk show hosts, and their followers think about it.

      Personally, I wish leaders on both sides were willing to look at situations from the other's perspective. I have that wish for all sorts of opposing groups in this world, from politics and social problems, to business, to international disputes.

      It wasn't an attempt to change the conversation, it was an attempt to see where you are coming from. It's like my response to SynFlood, one of the workers in this labor dispute, asking for some specific information including if he is a local of the country. Yes, the details may change how I view certain statements, but they won't actually change what I think of your argument. If I agree with it, I still will, and if I think it's wrong, I will explain why, no matter what your background.

      Anyway, thanks for the response.

      *PS. Back to the Rhywden angle. I gigged him twice for not reading or understanding what I wrote, and simply reacting from his own narrow viewpoint. Although you are also misreading my intent (that is why I spelled it out, sorry that didn't work), you are at least responding with an open mind. That is appreciated.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    59. Re: Apples to Apples. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Quite honestly, I agree with everything you say in the first three paragraphs. I will gladly admit I have changed my mind on subjects several times from these online discussions, just as you say you have. The whole point here is to hear opposing views, especially is response to my views, and see what better understanding I can glean from them.

      I apologize for causing a sidetrack of your discussion. It was an honest question to flesh out your original post. (See my other response to your other response to me.)

      And, yes, I may have put too much of myself into my responses to Rhywden, but I do tend to fight back when someone attacks me. Especially if they completely mischaracterize my post, and then say something like "Because I can't see it going anywhere else." It isn't my fault he can't see someone else's viewpoint. Then to fail to read my next post and attack me again, yes I got a bit snarky in my reply. I'm not asking you to pick sides, but I don't think Rhywden made very good posts.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    60. Re: Apples to Apples. by causality · · Score: 1

      I'll not claim he made good posts, for I think that's a judgment for each reader to make and not for me to pontificate, but I will say you gave him lots of room to make the replies that he made. That's as fairly as I know how to describe what happened there.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    61. Re: Apples to Apples. by causality · · Score: 1

      "Limited liability" means that the corporation's liabilities are separate from the owners' personal liabilities. If the corporation damages you, you sue the corporation, not the owners. If the owner damages you, you sue the owner, not the corporation.

      Nobody escapes liabilities, but owners are only risking what assets they put into the company.

      The major criticism is that creating a corporation is a way to gain personal enrichment without personal liability.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    62. Re: Apples to Apples. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. No hard feelings here. Hopefully we can have more productive discussions on other articles down the road.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    63. Re: Apples to Apples. by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Rarely is job performance so simple to measure.

      For the types of positions typically occupied by union employees, job performance usually is that simple to measure. However, union contracts and seniority rules are specifically set up to ignore individual performance.

      The idea that you can make people produce more by simply telling them they'll get paid more if they work harder involves a whole slew of assumptions which rarely apply, esp. in a modern workplace.

      On the other hand, the lack of any retribution for working less hard means there are a whole lot of people who will abuse the system, and work less hard.

    64. Re:Apples to Apples. by deuist · · Score: 1

      At $2,000 a month they're making more than I did in graduate school---which wasn't that long ago. And they're in a developing nation. According the World Fact Book, the per capita GDP for Chile is $18,700, indicating that they're not exactly impoverished.

    65. Re: Apples to Apples. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      For the types of positions typically occupied by union employees...

      Normally people are better at hiding their prejudices. Stopped reading here.

    66. Re: Apples to Apples. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Each entity works independently towards their best interests

      And sometimes best interests occur when people cooperate, negotiate and compromise, durrrr.

      You speak like you've never run a business. Cooperation, negotiation and compromise are key to every successful contract.

    67. Re: Apples to Apples. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      A free market would see workers refusing to work with non-union workers, and unions regularly campaigning for higher wages until there was a more equitable distribution of wealth. But the laws in many states/countries have made this illegal or practically impossible.

      Lots of idealized bullshit here. Not all workers like unions, and even if they did, in a free market there are replacement workers who will take the job because they need one. You need a critical mass of already working people to unionize.

    68. Re: Apples to Apples. by volmtech · · Score: 1

      We also have to thank our corporate controlled government for allowing imports of foreign produced goods that allowed the jobs to be shipped offshore. Who do we thank for NAFTA? Our open borders?

    69. Re: Apples to Apples. by volmtech · · Score: 1

      As a true capitalist you understand supply and demand. With one extra worker no one makes more than that guy is willing to work for. The world has billions of extra workers. For them "will work for food" means just that, they live in a hut and don't even have shoes. The employer doesn't have to pay you what you are worth. If you are competing with someone who will work for lunch, that's all you are going to be able to make.

  2. Premium not enough? by mysidia · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It sounds like they're trying to take advantage and cheat their employer, because they're in a remote area -- making them harder to fire and replace; because they see there is a good bit of money to the project --- but the management still has a fiduciary duty to spend it appropriately. Just because the project has a $1 billion budget; does not mean the facilities workers, janitors, techs, etc, get six figure salaries that are out of line with the market rate of the work to be done, and the employee's work experience.

    Workers say they are not sufficiently compensated for isolation and high altitude.'. The strike started on Thursday, and the telescope is currently not operating. Although the project's budget is $1.1 billion, an ALMA technician earns less than $2.000 per month. How does this compare with people working at observatories in the U.S., Japan, or the European Union?"

    Wait.... they're essentially getting $12.50 an hour for a minimum wage technician job, And they're saying their $5.25 (a huge premium) isn't compensation for high altitudes and isolation, after considering their opportunity for adventure?

    Perhaps they should not have taken on that work then.

    There are plenty of cook jobs at fast food restaurants that are not on the mountain.

    1. Re:Premium not enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      It sounds like you are an ass

    2. Re:Premium not enough? by rastos1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      hey're trying to take advantage and cheat their employer, because they're in a remote area -- making them harder to fire and replace;

      How is that cheating? I thought that is a simple demand and supply rule.

    3. Re:Premium not enough? by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 3, Informative

      "cheat"

      Not really. The only cheaters are those who lie that there is something immoral about organised labour.

      All employees should unite and strike until paid enough to balance the distribution of wealth. And there's nothing employers would then be able to do about it, except turn employees into slaves.

      And that's why there are so many lies told about unions.

    4. Re:Premium not enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, they do nothing to warrant higher pay for a non labor job..And if they do not like it they can quit, and get "real" jobs within there education.

    5. Re:Premium not enough? by SynFlood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Dude, i invite you to work in ALMA for a month, a 16,000 ft, with temps as low as 14 F , and winds of 32m/s for $12.50 per our on 12 hour shift with out bathroom or a descent place to eat.... then we can talk

    6. Re:Premium not enough? by confused+one · · Score: 2

      They're probably not working 40 hour work weeks. When you're in a remote site like that, you tend to work all the time. I would not be surprised if they're working 12 hour days, 7 days a week while they're on-site.

      Let us forget that they're in Chile for a minute.

      If you're going to do a comparison to American salaries, $12.50/hr buys you an assembler / fabricator, not a technician. The work "technician" does get mis-used; but, if we assume that the title is correctly applied... A technician will draw a salary 2x to 3x that amount, depending on their skill level. A really good, experienced RF technician should be pulling a salary that's well into the low end of the engineering salary scale. That's before any premium for working in a remote site like the one ALMA is situated on.

      Now for the hard part -- scaling for cost of living. If they are technicians from South America, where the cost of living is lower, you might argue that the salaries should be lower. If a substantial number of the technicians are Japanese, Europeans or American, you can expect to have to pay a salary comparable to salaries in their native country; otherwise, they have no reason to come to Chile (other than for the experience of working at ALMA). If there is a mix, and there is no salary parity -- Chilean's are paid 1/3 of Japanese technician's pay -- then you end up with something like the current situation. To avoid that you might have to pay everyone on the same salary scale.

    7. Re:Premium not enough? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      ...with out bathroom or a descent place to eat.... then we can talk

      Actually, they probably do have to make a descent to find a place to eat.

      Although, why is there no bathroom up there?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    8. Re:Premium not enough? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      So, you are saying you would prefer everyone to not have a job, than for most people to have a job but with some people making a lot more money than others.

      There aren't as many lies told as you think. Some are valid critiques of viewpoints similar to yours.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    9. Re:Premium not enough? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      You're wearing the other teams colors. Boo! Boo!
      We're all in this together (well, except maybe those at the very top of the heap), and there's plenty of idiocy in every faction, yours included. How does hurling random pointless insults at each other help further the discussion and promote good governance?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:Premium not enough? by headhot · · Score: 1

      Its not cheating its call supply and demand and fundamental to capitalism. If there is not enough of something, it becomes more expensive. In this case its labor. Thats exactly what is going on here.

    11. Re:Premium not enough? by Livius · · Score: 2

      Except everyone has a different idea of a just distribution of wealth.

      Why are jobs with the lowest skills that are already overpaid the most likely to unionize? Why has no union ever dissolved itself after achieving its objective?

    12. Re:Premium not enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is something immoral about organised labour

      A union,s refusal to accept that a human being has the right to work and make decisions for his or herself without having to succumb to pressures to join the union.

    13. Re:Premium not enough? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      That right there is one of the lies. So long as there is work to be done at even razor-thin profit margins there will be jobs available.

      Basically for any business the gross income is distributed into two broad categories:
      Operating costs
              Overhead (rent, utilities, sunk costs, etc)
              Input resources (incremental costs)
              Cash reserves and forward-looking investments
      Net profit distribution
              Employee salaries and bonuses
              Executive salaries and bonuses
              Shareholder dividends

      Let's assume we can't touch Costs without hurting the company. That still leaves everything in the Profit section open to negotiation - *nothing* there will directly impact the viability of the company.
      - Cutting dividends would likely hurt stock prices, but would have no effect on operation of the company beyond reducing future capital that can be raised by selling more.
      - Cutting executive salaries might drive off some executives, but there's only so many executive positions available in the world and it's unlikely an executive will leave that labor market to lay bricks unless the salaries get to be comparable, so that's a pretty weak argument.

      So why exactly shouldn't employees, the ones actually doing the work that's generating the profit, be negotiating for a bigger piece of the profit?

      In the 1950s the average situation was that the top executives in a US company were making 30x as much as the lowest-paid employee. Today that number is somewhere well above 300x (the top executives are making 300x the *median* employee salary) Why is that? Granted those executive salaries wouldn't go all that far when spread around a large company, but they're probably plenty to give everybody a 10-20% raise and still let the executives make 50x as much as the janitors. Why exactly would that be a bad thing?

      Yes, some unions overreached themselves and started cutting in to operating costs. That's a bad thing and those unions deserve to crumble, and the company deserves to collapse if they can't find more reasonable employees. Far more though just fought for their piece of the profit, or even more important things like reasonably safe and non-hostile working conditions. Are you really going to argue against that?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    14. Re:Premium not enough? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Mighty touchy about a quip, aren't we.

    15. Re:Premium not enough? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      with temps as low as 14 F

      You must be from California or something. Some of us call those temps "winter".

    16. Re:Premium not enough? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      So many people don't read literature and wouldn't understand that I was channelling Mark Twain.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    17. Re:Premium not enough? by SalafranceUnderhill · · Score: 0

      Man, it must really suck to be European,

    18. Re:Premium not enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Low temperatures at high altitude can exacerbate altitude sickness. It isn't about dealing with winter like a large part of the world has learned to deal with, but that the altitude problem is even worse.

    19. Re:Premium not enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All employees should unite and strike until paid enough to balance the distribution of wealth.

      Where is that balance point, exactly, and how would a union member know when that balance is achieved?

      From what I've seen, that balance is when when a company teeters on the edge of marginal sustainability and complete disaster. Also, when given the choice of making compromise to help turn the business around, in the eventuality of unsustainability (due to external forces, downturn, etc.) the union will nigh invariably choose to not make short term concessions, even if it means everyone loses their jobs in the long run. That's similar to the growth model of a bacteria colony.

      Unions have their place, when they're being symbiotic with the business, and when that business might otherwise be hostile to workers rights. The other lie told about unions, is that they're always good, and they always represent the interests of their members. Load of crap, that.

    20. Re:Premium not enough? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Quite honestly, I think you replied to the wrong post with this. Nothing you say goes against anything I said to Joining. Actually, all I really said was that people don't all think like he does. I said nothing about what I think about fair wages or corporation financing.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    21. Re:Premium not enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is a bathroom. Its in this building. There is also a nice room in there where everyone can eat, with a microwave and hot drinks. Sack lunches are provided (free, as part of site food service), and sometimes hot food can be had. It is also common to eat a sack lunch in the cab of a car, or sometimes just the base of the antenna. Management is fine with leaving the car engine running and heater on, so heated in the car is best if you don't want to drive back to the building. Oxygen bottles with the noise tubes are provided - and strongly encouraged. Though many employees don't like using them.

      Of course, you only hear SynFlood's side of things because all non-union employees are directed not comment on the ongoing strike, which is why I am posting as AC. Some of his points are valid and a real problem. The food is bad, and should be better. The 12 hour days are real, and stupid - it should be 10 for the same total pay, giving workers more time to relax, call friends/family, or take a shuttle into San Pedro. But some of his points are not valid, and misrepresenting the issue makes solving the real problems that much harder.

    22. Re:Premium not enough? by SynFlood · · Score: 3, Informative

      I was corrected by a collegue which says 'we have two bathrooms, one is broken, and the other is only for 'number 1', so if you have to 'number 2' , then you are ... well i think is clear
      (sorry for the wrong use of 'without' i was corrected by a colleague a few moments ago)

    23. Re:Premium not enough? by SynFlood · · Score: 1

      No i'm from Chile,and probably you have a nice warm place to stay at 14F, fire,no wind blowing in your face make you nose chill :) I agree russia or the poles are worst condition than the ones I wrote, but mechanical or electrician that goes everyday at 5000mts don't have the right equipment, they have some , but is not the right one to work at that altitute, with those winds.

      a simple example, sometime we have a lot of snow, and guess which color our tracks are....... white... so a few months ago we almost suffer the lost of a few colleagues due to 'white snow'

    24. Re:Premium not enough? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Why has no union ever dissolved itself after achieving its objective?

      They have so your question makes no sense.

    25. Re:Premium not enough? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Given the propensity for both parties to fan the flames of tribalism in order to obscure how badly they're selling out even their core constituency? Absolutely. Bad enough they're doing it to us, to do it to each other is unconscionable.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    26. Re:Premium not enough? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Huh, I don't remember Twain using that line with regard to politics, and it's irrelevant if he did anyway. The political landscape was not nearly so polarized in his day. Not the rhetoric, that was always vitriolic, but the actual level of conversational divisiveness between "members" of opposing parties

      We live in a time when the political masterminds are leveraging the divisiveness in our society to neutralize the political power of the populace, leaving themselves free to act in their own interests without fear of retribution come election time. By fanning the flames of tribalism with your "humor" you are doing a disservice to both yourself and the nation. In the face of the substantial cross-party government excesses that are being exposed that is an unconscionable crime. For crying out loud, even the secret court charged with overseeing the NSA found it's actions unconstitutional, and yet they have continued unabated. Now is a time for national unity in the face of a threat worse than any this nation has ever faced, not petty divisiveness in the name of "humor"

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    27. Re:Premium not enough? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You must be from New England or something. Some of us call those temperatures "BBQ weather."

    28. Re:Premium not enough? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I went back and re-read both posts several times to see if perhaps I misunderstood something, but I don't see it.

      Joining > [name-calling of the anti-union folks] All employees should unite and strike until paid enough to balance the distribution of wealth. And there's nothing employers would then be able to do about it, except turn employees into slaves. [claim that many lies are told about unions]

      You > So, you are saying you would prefer everyone to not have a job, than for most people to have a job but with some people making a lot more money than others. [claim that there are fewer lies, and some valid arguments]

      Your response makes for a strong implied claim that unions by their nature will destroy the companies providing the jobs. Or perhaps that they would simply shut down rather than pay employees a fairer wage. That was the claim I responded to.

      What do you see differently?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    29. Re:Premium not enough? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      You're engaging in lazy thinking; to wit, false equivalence. If you think one side's as bad as the other you're not paying attention.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    30. Re:Premium not enough? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      No, I wasn't commenting on that. Sorry if it came across wrong. It was that you accidentally used the word "descent" in place of "decent". I thought it was funny considering the topic is working at a high elevation. That's why I said you would have to make a descent to find a decent place to eat.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    31. Re:Premium not enough? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      How is that cheating? I thought that is a simple demand and supply rule.

      No. The cheating part is the accepting the offer and then refusing to do the work; without advance notice. I am all well and good with interviewing with the employer, and then refusing the offer by telling the prospective employer that it's not enough -- and you'd love to work for them if they'd increase teh amount.

      It's called blackmail. "I'm going to suddenly stop doing this thing that I promised to do"

    32. Re:Premium not enough? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Except that it's not really minimum wage work. Keeping a radio telescope working properly is very much skilled labor. In fact, each of those grad students necessarily already has a 4 year degree (hence the term 'graduate').

      Their contention is that they have to deal with extreme isolation and altitude but get paid no more than an otherwise comparable job back on campus would pay.

    33. Re:Premium not enough? by sjames · · Score: 1

      You just told one (more likely repeated one told to you). What makes you think nobody would have a job if everyone demanded a fair share of the wealth? The work would still need doing and the raw materials would still be there. There would still be a profit to be made. You're not claiming that the wealthy investors would shrug their shoulders and go plow the lawn (themselves) with tools they forge (themselves) to grow food (themselves), are you?

    34. Re:Premium not enough? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      All employees should unite and strike until paid enough to balance the distribution of wealth.

      And logically speaking.... it's in Employer's best interests to fire any employee that agrees to do work, and then starts striking, and share a strike-history blacklist with other Empoloyers; so prospective hirers know who is likely to take a job, and then without notice, suddenly refuse to work the job until something is changed to greater benefit them.

    35. Re:Premium not enough? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Let's assume we can't touch Costs without hurting the company. That still leaves everything in the Profit section open to negotiation

      ALMA is UN-funded. There is no profit. The closest thing to proft for a non-profit; is getting more donations or being a separate company paid to be a contracter for a non-profit due to close friendship or family ties with those in charge of the non-profit.

      The only real profit for a company in the scientific fields, is if you get to patent something; and observatories don't really have any intellectual property associated with them, except perhaps copyright: but in general, the images taken are in the public domain.

    36. Re:Premium not enough? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Because they aren't paid enough to live? Why is it that jobs nobody wants to do pay less than glamorous jobs people fantasize about having pay?

    37. Re:Premium not enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absurd. By your logic, once you start a job you're obligated to work under the same conditions, for the same pay, until you retire -- otherwise, you're "cheating", if not committing the crime of "blackmail".

    38. Re:Premium not enough? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Not at all. In fact I'm saying nothing whatsoever about the politicians except saying both sides are playing us for fools, and by picking fights among each other we play straight into their hands. Personally I believe the Ds are preferable, in a "both of us want to rape you, but I'll at least use lube" kind of way. But I'm prepared to admit that the Rs may look quite similar to their supporters. Personally I believe that the Rs are screwing over their supporters worse than the Ds are screwing over theirs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that even a completely rational conservative should prefer the Ds, they may legitimately find the pittance of consideration offered by the Ds to be a slap in the face rather than lube. There are after all some very real and anti-ethical differences in the social priorities of liberal and conservative individuals.

      Regardless, the only way we have any hope of winning back any voice in our government is for the people voting for both parties to cooperate to throw out at least the worst of the treasonous bastards at the helm. So you tell me - is calling Republican-leaning citizens idiots likely to make them more or less willing to cooperate with Democrat-leaning citizens?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    39. Re:Premium not enough? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Except that it's not really minimum wage work. Keeping a radio telescope working properly is very much skilled labor. In fact, each of those grad students necessarily already has a 4 year degree

      Well; I can think of a few reasons a grad student might want such a job -- there could be opportunities they want in the future that they have to take this job to get. In that case, they are getting value from the job besides the wage paid They are receiving Wage + Experience + Years of Resume history. As long as the sum of the 3 of these is better to them than other options, and exceeds the utility cost to them of Labor performed, then the worker is receiving a good deal.

      If there are enough grad students who want to take that path, then from a market perspective: they are providing a supply surplus of labor. As a fact of the matter: a surplus of labor suppresses prices; the very people who are suddenly going back on their promises, and not providing the proper notice expected of preffesionals -- are the same people who caused the wage to be so low.

      That is: they were willing to take the job on those terms, and the existence of prospective skilled hires willing to take the job at such low wages, is the reason they get paid that.

      Arguably, they agreed to the job, because they felt the arrangement would be beneficial to them, but now their feelings have changed. They should do what any honest responsible employee should do in this situation: demand more money, and turn in their two weeks notice, when they don't get it.

    40. Re:Premium not enough? by sjames · · Score: 1

      What do you think they're doing?

    41. Re:Premium not enough? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Dude, i invite you to work in ALMA for a month, a 16,000 ft, with temps as low as 14 F , and winds of 32m/s for $12.50 per our on 12 hour shift with out bathroom or a descent place to eat.... then we can talk

      Maybe. If you give me a brand new Macbook Pro, high-speed unmonitored internet access, free high-quality lodging on-site with private room private bathroom, electricity, etc, a company vehicle, with free fuel; 3 high-quality meals a day company paid for; a company paid steak dinner every night, and 12 weeks of paid vacation leave every year.

      Obviously; we'd have to do an onsite inspection and further review of the conditions before we consider making an offer to actually work there.

    42. Re:Premium not enough? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I was corrected by a collegue which says 'we have two bathrooms, one is broken, and the other is only for 'number 1', so if you have to 'number 2' , then you are

      Aww hell... why didn't they say that in the article?

      If that's the case, then... that would be one of the few reasonable reasons for a strike.

      An employer does have to provide reasonable facilities, so employees don't experience unreasonable risk or discomfort. Not providing a usable bathroom for #2 doesn't pass muster.

    43. Re:Premium not enough? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      What do you think they're doing?

      The article says they have gone on strike. Which means they banded together with their union buddies, and all agreed to suddenly stop working without notice.

      Employees at the world's largest radio telescope have gone on strike after failing to reach agreement over pay and conditions.

      In other words: their employer expected them to be working as agreed, but they stopped; without each person providing the proper warning.

    44. Re:Premium not enough? by sjames · · Score: 1

      So you're saying they have no natural right to discuss the matter amongst themselves and freely choose to take joint action?

      Elsewhere in this discussion we hear (from one of the striking workers) that conditions have in fact changed and that the employer is no longer living up to the bargain.

      As for proper warning, you must have missed the part where we were told that the strike happened after negotiations broke down. It's not like one day without warning everyone woke up and decided to strike.

    45. Re:Premium not enough? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      OK. Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't trying to say all unions are trying to shut down all business, but that Joining said he wishes they would.

      This is one item I have seen/heard anti-unions commenters make, that unions would rather no one worked than have someone making too much money. Joining would call that a lie, but his statement says he would choose that outcome. (Maybe he didn't realize what he was actually writing, but I have to take his comment as he wrote it.) That's why I said not all the 'lies' he hears are actually lies.

      As for your breakdown of business costs, I don't agree on each point, but my only problem is one I see generally. It applies to large corporations with recruited CEOs and other officers, but is not well suited to apply to smaller companies, or a larger company that is still under the control of the guy who stated it.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    46. Re:Premium not enough? by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Eh, you might as well argue that a human has the right to anything he wants without having to succumb to the pressures of property law.

      Freedom means the right to associate freely. And that includes the right *not* to associate with people who aren't prepared to cooperate. Otherwise you're just making slaves of men.

    47. Re:Premium not enough? by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      "What you've seen" is fantasy. Strong unionisation brings strong economy: see Germany.

      The whole "unions are not perfect!" thing is a straw man. Nobody argues that all unions always act in the interests of their members, except the anti-union types who want an excuse to denigrate all unions. No great concept is always perfectly executed, but the concept is sound, and any deficiencies need to be tackled in each specific case.

    48. Re:Premium not enough? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's pretty much how it works. Ideally, a competent employee periodically goes to their boss, says "Look, I'm doing the job as agreed, but my expenses have inflated and so have our profits, so I need a bit more", and since the deal was agreeable and fair the first time around, it's still fair once adjusted for inflation, cost-of-living increases, and the employee's improved expertise. In other words, if you agreed to a fair deal when you started, you're expected to work under a fair deal until you retire*. If you didn't agree to a fair deal... you're either evil or stupid.

      Striking is taking an agree deal and forcing it into something else. Once hired, the employer sank time and money into training and administration, and perhaps even some contracts they expect to fulfill. By striking, you're extorting them into agreeing to a new deal. Either they take the higher payroll or costlier benefits, or they have to take the loss of all that investment and start over.

      * ...Or until it's just not possible to work out a fair deal. Perhaps you've gained more expertise than the company is willing to pay for, or perhaps your contributions toward the company's goals were less than agreed. Perhaps it was the ancillary benefits that made the original deal acceptably-fair, and those may have changed.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    49. Re:Premium not enough? by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Any congress of unions ought pretty much to agree as a matter of principle to strike immediately if it finds any company using an employee blacklist. It's as obnoxious as a union reacting merely because a specific person is put into management, regardless of their actual behaviour. Ad hominem is uncivilised from both sides of industry.

      But, in fact, the policy is daft, as the best employees aren't necessarily the ones who are most apathetically servile. Noisy employees can often be the ones who care passionately about their work, and just want to be treated well.

      Employment blacklists are illegal in many countries anyway, of course.

    50. Re:Premium not enough? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Your sig has inspired me. I'm not really going to argue, but merely raise some points.

      So why exactly shouldn't employees, the ones actually doing the work that's generating the profit, be negotiating for a bigger piece of the profit?

      What are they investing to deserve the profit? Usually, it's just time. In comparison, the executives face personal risk and effectively career-ending public shame if something bad happens on their watch. As an example, people expect Tesla to do well because Elon Musk is leading it. SpaceX was riskier, and PayPal was even riskier before that. Zip2 was rather scary. What makes executives' careers is their trail of successes more than their actual expertise, in a similar manner to how credit scores determine a credit card's limit. A major failure can end a career, and the fallout from that can ruin a once-millionaire's finances. Executives' salaries are not so much directly paying for skill, but rather the payout for gambling in a contest of skill.

      they're probably plenty to give everybody a 10-20% raise and still let the executives make 50x as much as the janitors

      I don't like "probably". Let me do some math. Say a janitor makes $10, so an executive makes $3000. Increase the janitor's salary 10% to $11, and cut the executive's salary to 50x that: $550. That leaves a surplus of $2450, to provide the $1 raise to 2450 employees..

      some unions overreached themselves and started cutting in to operating costs. That's a bad thing and those unions deserve to crumble, and the company deserves to collapse if they can't find more reasonable employees

      ...but they can't hire any reasonable employees because they have exclusive contracts with the union. Even if the contract isn't fully exclusive, there are usually clauses that forbid non-union workers from having any benefit better than the union workers'. For example, employers can't offer lower pay with more vacation time, because their union contract would require both the current pay and the higher vacation time for the union workers.

      Employers can't really even leave the unions, because the union members are effectively banned from holding non-union jobs. That means that if the company doesn't renew their contract, they have to convince their employees to leave the union entirely (and lose the much-loved seniority), or reinvest in a whole new workforce. Then there's the influence of the collaboration between unions. Stop working with the welders' union, and your truck drivers suddenly demand triple pay.

      In my opinion, today's unions are an absolute mess of bureaucracies that have lost all capability of helping employees. They now help the unions first, and if employees benefit, that's sort-of okay, too.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    51. Re:Premium not enough? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Ah, if it wasn't intended as an attack against Joining's position then it was a very poorly chosen example of a "non lie", because it sorely misrepresents reality by presenting two very unequal positions as comparable opposites. All the best lies are technically true.

      On one hand it presents "unions would prefer no one work" - which is a representation of the extreme situation of a strike, the negotiating tactic of last resort, and they don't exactly have a lot of other weapons in their negotiating arsenal.

      On the other it presents "than that some be paid too much" - which is frankly the position that pretty much everyone involved with the company would like to find themselves in. The difference being that executives and shareholders readily have the power to make it happen, while employees are unlikely to have anywhere near the power necessary to fight for even a fair share unless they have organized into a very strong union.

      How do you see a different breakdown of business costs for small businesses? My parents ran their own business all through my childhood, and I don't see it. There are only a few stockholders in that case - the owners/partners/whatever, but everything else remains the same. What does it matter if the CEO is also the 80% shareholder who started the company? Honest question. Certainly there are some personal startup costs to recoup in that case, but that should all be reflected in the books. Conceptually the founder(s) bought 100% equity in a new startup, and expect (hope for) dividends to recoup those costs - it's a straight up capital investment just like buying shares in somebody else's business would be. In addition any owner who actually contributes labor to the business is drawing a paycheck. Hopefully. Usually a smart small business owner pays themselves last, with any unpaid time being a further investment, of labor this time rather than capital. All of that should be on your books. You do *not* want to get your personal and business finances intermingled. And frankly by the time you've grown large enough that your employees need a union to negotiate through that separation should probably be set in stone. In the case of an incorporated company I believe that's even required by law.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    52. Re:Premium not enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason Germany's economy is strong, especially relative to the rest of Europe, has a million times more to do with sound economic policy, having an industry which makes things people and businesses want or need to buy, a strong education system which doesn't stigmatize vocational training, having individuals and businesses who do not like to spend beyond their means, and raw German Efficiency (the last three effects related to long held German culture), than it will ever have to do with unionization.

      Italy and Ireland have a larger percentage of population in labor unions than Germany. Surely, those two countries sure did great when the rest of Europe had a financial schism. Oh, they didn't, you say? Fancy that. So, unions have fuck all to do with it overall economic prosperity? Huh.

    53. Re:Premium not enough? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Heh, always glad to inspire someone. Allow me to offer a few counterpoints

      >What are they investing to deserve a profit?
      Exactly the same thing the managers are - time and expertise. You think an engineer who designs faulty buildings won't find his career collapsing? Or a factory worker who can't follow directions? Do good work and talk a good line and you can get riskier/more difficult jobs. Overreach your ability and fail spectacularly and your career is over. Same for everybody. Well, except that there seem to be an awful lot of executives out there with a string of failures behind them, and a collection of golden parachutes to make them the envy of anyone who has to actually work for a paycheck.

      In regards to Elon Musk you're also conflating two separate factions - he represents both capital and management, which is actually a rare case. As a capital investor he is investing in a company with the hope of an eventual payoff, just like any investor in any startup. The only difference is that he's gambling on his own performance rather than someone else's.

      > they can't hire any reasonable employees because they have exclusive contracts with the union
      Then that's a clear-cut management failure. The same as if they negotiated exclusive contracts with a materials supplier without having any escape clause in case of abuse. And the risk of incompetent management bringing down a company is an unavoidable fact of business - it's the shareholder board's job to guard against that.

      Honestly though, I seriously doubt most unions would turn down an offer that came at the expense of management slashing their own obscene salaries. I doubt there's even been a case where that's been offered in a very long time.

      Yes, unions are ripe for abuse - just like management (don't you hate playing on a level field?) As such it's management's job to keep them in check, just as it's their job to keep management in check. And both need to be looking out for the long term health of the company if they want to continue to exist.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    54. Re:Premium not enough? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      It's one of the things I hear people talking about as they debate unions and companies. An anti-union guy will say "All unions want (some situation), which will (have bad consequences)." Then a pro-union guy will say "No one wants that, you are making it up."

      That is basically what Joining was talking about, and saying the anti-union guys are lying about what unions want. But he says he would rather no one work than someone make too much money. I can't help it if you think it's a bad example, it's the one he exemplified.

      As to large or small businesses, it isn't the costs that I'm talking about, it is the fairness of distribution of profit. I don't know whether your parents had employees, or if they treated and paid them well. But I will assume they had several employees that were treated and paid fairly. The employees worked hard each week, and did a great job, which kept customers happy and made sure they returned. But the part of the business that keeps people up at night is worrying about the future.

      If your parents' business had failed, who would be worse off? The now-former employees would get new jobs. Your parents would undoubtedly have been in debt, and would have had a problem getting a job commensurate with their experience and financial needs. They bore all the risk, the employees bore none, unless they were also investors, which is unlikely. So, at the end of the year, when a decent profit is on the books, did your parents put a piece of it in the bank for future business needs, then split the rest evenly among everyone? Or did they give themselves a larger piece, and give the employees a $100 Christmas bonus?

      Large corporations like GM or Goldman Sachs don't have executives in that position, of facing personal ruin if the business fails. So I don't have a problem if their salary and compensation was limited somehow. But most companies in the country are not in that group. Most are small businesses that were started by the people running them, or their parents or grand-parents. They are companies that someone puts their blood, sweat, and tears into every day to keep it going, and those people want to enjoy their profits at the end. If they get the same profit as the guy they hire to sweep the floors, they might as well have gotten a job sweeping someone else's floor.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    55. Re:Premium not enough? by causality · · Score: 1

      I really can't fathom how so many people don't understand what's going on. Thomas Jefferson explicitly warned against a two-party system because he knew what it would turn into. The idea is, you play "good cop, bad cop" and for maximum effectiveness, you swap roles every now and then. The result is that you play the voters in the middle. If you think that couldn't possibly be going on, it's because the parties understand strategy and you don't. Both parties benefit by doing this, just as all cell phone companies (competitors now) benefitted by overcharging for texting. It's an informal collusion that doesn't require a written arrangement. All it requires is that each entity promote their own self-interests.

      It gives the illusion of choice because it de-emphasizes one critical fact of American politics: it is not a competition for the best ideas that puts a candidate into office. It is the campaign donors who do that. Now then, isn't it odd the way so many corporations donate to BOTH parties? It's as though they get their influence no matter who wins. Hmm.

      Meanwhile the only differences between the parties are about useless (from the standpoint of sustaining a collapsing nation) issues like abortion and gay marriage. Both parties intend to grow the size and power and pervasiveness of the federal government. Both parties view the Bill of Rights as something to find clever ways around, usually in the name of safety or fighting terrorism. Both parties fight pointless overseas wars against foreign nations that are not a threat to the USA because the military-industrial interests demand it and because the economy would have collapsed long ago without it.

      For your own sake, take a hard look at what's going on.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    56. Re:Premium not enough? by causality · · Score: 1

      The D's tend to attract immature people who use emotion (which is easily manipulated) when they should use reason, and believe that the intensity of the emotion makes this okay. The R's tend to attract materialist business interests (which are easily manipulated) and old people who think that leaving their children and grandchildren with more debt than they could ever hope to repay is excellent parenting.

      Neither represents me and I would be shocked if either represented you.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    57. Re:Premium not enough? by causality · · Score: 1

      If you think that's cheating, how about this nice fact: for at least the last 50 years, worker productivity has steadily increased and continues to do so. Meanwhile, wages (when accounting for inflation etc) have remained stagnant.

      That's a masterwork of negotiation and shrewdness on the part of corporations, to be sure. Yet if by "cheating" you mean "doing something unfair/inequitable/unethical" then you must admit this fits the description. Unless, of course, you wish to argue that someone who produces more should not also be compensated more, in which case I'd be interested to hear your reasoning. I suppose while you're at it you could explain why a luxury sports car should cost the same as a rusty jalopy.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    58. Re:Premium not enough? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      So why exactly shouldn't employees, the ones actually doing the work that's generating the profit, be negotiating for a bigger piece of the profit?

      The part you don't understand is that "actual work" really isn't worth much. Any physically capable person can do manual labor. Businesses pay for decisions, they pay for a brain. The more skilled your position, the more important decisions you make are, and if you make good decisions, the more an employer will be willing to compensate you to keep you around.

    59. Re:Premium not enough? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      But you're not associating with them. You're associating with the company, and they're independently associating with the company.

    60. Re:Premium not enough? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      I always thought it was better to barbeque in the winter. Why stand around a fire in the summer?

    61. Re:Premium not enough? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      You are still conflating two unrelated financial positions which is confusing the discussion: that of investor and manager. You allude to this difference when you speak of large corporations like GM, but don't seem to have fully integrated the awareness into your perspective. In small businesses there is often a lot of overlap - all the debt is being accrued by the same people that are managing the business. In their role as *investors* they are taking a large risk, but in their role as *managers* they are not - the worst that happens is they're working for a pittance to get through the rough spots.

      To make this clearer consider a situation where you have a great idea for a business but no cash, and instead of going in to debt you line up some investors willing to fund you. They insist on a 100% ownership stake but will give you a nice nice long contract with profit sharing so long as you don't screw up. It's still the same basic situation: young business trying to get off the ground with a high risk of failure. Who deserves the high profits if it succeeds, the manager who's making it happen, or the investors taking the financial risk?

      In fact that right there is the essence of the original capital-versus-labor discussion - one side is providing the capital, the other is doing the work. Both sides are providing significant value, and should reasonably be expected to come to some sort of mutually beneficial profit-sharing arrangement.

      The management-versus-employees discussion is actually a wholly separate issue *within* the ranks of the labor part of the equation. Management has no significant capital stake in the company (or didn't used to), they're hired by the shareholders to manage the business and it's employees well. As the top ranks in the hierarchy there is a much tighter link between their decisions and the well-being of the company, hence a higher salary (that's a whole conversation there). But it's still a salary - they're being paid for their time and expertise, there is no more investment involved than for any other worker. The big difference between themselves and everyone else is that they get to decide their own salary, and "the shareholders" is a really unfocussed boss represented by a Board of Directors that are in the same boat as the CEOs. It's a recipe for abuse, and unlike Congress they haven't even pretended to reign themselves in. I mean come on - after a bad year HP's CEO took home $15 million sure her "official" salary was only $1, but any way you slice it one year of work translates into $15 million. The frelling US president only takes home $400 thousand! Are we really supposed to believe that the CEO of HP is 38x more important? Sure the president gets a sweet retirement package, but still.

      But anyway, yes, small businesses are in a completely different group - but then I can't say I've heard of many small business where the "CEO" was making 300x more than most of their employees. Long before you get to that kind of disparity the business has generally incorporated, is racking up debts in its own name, and the owners are no longer taking on any additional risks do justify escalating profits beyond their return as shareholders, which has absolutely nothing to do with their salary as CEO.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    62. Re:Premium not enough? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the breakdown of all that. I guess I'm coming at it from the perspective of a small business owner, whose customers are mostly small businesses themselves.They don't have investors, they have debt. Even the ones that are fully incorporated have debt that either they carry personally, or it is paid by the business but comes out of the monthly profit, which is their monthly income. I'm speaking about dentists, a car repair shop, an appliance shop, a candy shop, real estate offices, and various home products specialists (windows, furniture, glass, ornaments, etc.).

      These people are putting their own money into their business, just as I am. The owner is the investor and manager both. I'll admit that while I understand the situation you lay out, with investors owning someone's business, I don't get why someone like me would want to do that. I run my business the way I think it should be run, and I pay the price if I'm wrong. Besides that, I haven't seen a business established like that. Most of my customers aren't big enough to warrant that, I guess. The ones that are bigger are already big companies with a board of directors, I guess. I don't know their specifics. Sorry if this isn't as clear in words as it is in my head.

      Anyway, it's late, and I'm sleepy, so I'll be going now. Thanks again for the explanation.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    63. Re:Premium not enough? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Well, it's tough when it's cold. Propane liquifies around -40 C and won't come out of the bottle. You can use charcoal, but it can be hard to light too. It's also hard to find good utensils to flip the burgers: any plastic gets pretty brittle, and metal handles have a nasty habit of sticking to skin. But agreed, -10 C is wonderful BBQ weather.

    64. Re:Premium not enough? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Overreach your ability and fail spectacularly and your career is over. Same for everybody

      Until you move to a new market, don't mention the old failures, and try again. With that nice union vouching for your supposed competence, you can't not be hired.

      Executives that make major failures can't hide in obscurity. A string of two or three failures is the end of their career as an executive, and they'll have to be coasting on that golden parachute through retirement... Working in finance, I've actually seen a few clients in exactly that situation. They're unemployable as executives because their last few ventures failed, and they're now working low-level management jobs trying to cover the ongoing expenses they have from their earlier lifestyle.

      I'm not saying they deserve a 300x salary, or even 50x, but just that the higher the rank, the more the risk of failure becomes personal.

      Then that's a clear-cut management failure. The same as if they negotiated exclusive contracts with a materials supplier without having any escape clause in case of abuse.

      Exclusive contracts are par for the union course. Most unions forbid their members from working in non-union shops without special arrangement, so a company must either deal with the union or hire all non-union employees... but the non-union hiring pool is pretty shallow indeed, since most places are exclusive union shops. It's a chicken-or-egg problem, and once a particular labor market has joined exclusive unions, there's no course for return to a non-union market. So much for that level playing field.

      This is the big issue behind the "right to work" laws that force separation between employment eligibility and union membership. Ideally, employees could get offers from employers, and perhaps have different (maybe better) offers if they're union members. The employee gets to pick what's best for their situation, so rather than an adversarial power struggle, the employers and unions compete to have control over the employees, inflating conditions steadily over time.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    65. Re:Premium not enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The employer changed the conditions, not the employee.

    66. Re:Premium not enough? by tconnors · · Score: 1

      How is that cheating? I thought that is a simple demand and supply rule.

        No. The cheating part is the accepting the offer and then refusing to do the work; without advance notice. I am all well and good with interviewing with the employer, and then refusing the offer by telling the prospective employer that it's not enough -- and you'd love to work for them if they'd increase teh amount.

        It's called blackmail. "I'm going to suddenly stop doing this thing that I promised to do"

      Qantas went on strike in Australia a couple of years ago. As in, the company temporarily ceased to trade and banned their workers from entering the premises, because they weren't happy with how the employment negotiations were proceeding. Of course, all the conservative hacks and politicians applauded Qantas manglement for doing such a thing with absolutely no notice (to the point where passengers were stranded locally and overseas).

      The same people try to make it illegal in the other direction of course.

      As an ex-telescope operator (who left incidentally because I was pissed off with manglement) with friends at ALMA, I say ALMA and their member signatories may be getting what they deserve.

    67. Re:Premium not enough? by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      That logic is absolutely awful, and you should be highly embarrassed to have posted it on a geek site.

      Unionisation may be *necessary* for long-term prosperity, but it's not *sufficient*. Ireland relied way too much on low corporation tax and other short term incentives dependent on its past developing status, and Italy is corrupt to the core. "Culture of Raw German Efficiency" is a label Anglo-Saxons like to use because they are too afraid to actually describe what it means: a culture in which worker and management are keen to cooperate on relevant education and sustainable production, maintained by an on-going dialogue between the two sides of industry.

    68. Re:Premium not enough? by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, outside of the basement, employees have to associate with each other to get work done.

    69. Re:Premium not enough? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      My pleasure.

      It seems to me that many among the anti-union arguments like to try to use the specter of strong unions to scare small businesses and foster anti-union sentiment. And sure, it is a little scary, nobody wants to have to personally fight someone wielding that kind of power to run their business. But when you get right down to it most small business owners actually know their employees personally and don't try to screw them over, and their employees recognize that. As a species humans and other apes are wired to recognize and desire fairness. We get angry when somebody is treating us really unfairly, and all but the most larcenous among us don't *really* want to be the guy making a grossly unfair windfall at the expense of their associates.

      Just for a last splash of perspective that I should have offered up yesterday - let's say you're a small business owner who's paying his employees an average of $10/hour, or $20,800/year. If you were making the sort of disproportionate profits that CEOs make today you would be putting over $3,000/hour in your own pocket, or over $6 million per year. I seriously doubt there's a small business out there where the owner is making anywhere near that kind of profit without sharing a bit more of it with their employees. Even pocketing $600,000/year in that situation would make most honest folks uncomfortable, and today's unions can only dream of getting the income disparity down to that level.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    70. Re:Premium not enough? by SynFlood · · Score: 1

      Mysida, it wasn't with further notice, Chilean law, union members as to vote if they accept the new offer from the company or go into strike, after the vote, if strike is the option the union members select, the empleyer is notified and 36 hours later the strike became efective, in our case, we have been negotiating with the employer for over a month, so is not 'suddenly stop working without notice' , employer know in advance that union was not happy with its offer.

    71. Re:Premium not enough? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Qantas went on strike in Australia a couple of years ago. As in, the company temporarily ceased to trade and banned their workers from entering the premises, because they weren't happy with how the employment negotiations were proceeding.

      It's all the worse when a business does something like that; regulators should actively prevent it, in order to protect consumers. The company should pay fines and required to compensate passengers stranded by such an act in the amount 10x the damages with a minimum of AUD $ 2000 per passenger, in addition to a repayment of travel expenses; with regulators handling the prosection.

      The fines should exceed any benefit hoped to be gained by the unannounced disruption.

    72. Re:Premium not enough? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Hmm, you do paint a rather bleak picture, but it seems to me that the problem is not unions per-se, but unions that control the labor pool. Those are perfectly reasonable in a situation where a single employer (or small handful) controls the job market, but even there it kind of sucks for everyone else in the area.

      Seems like a potential solution would be to apply anti-monopoly laws to unions as well - no single union can represent more than X% of the regional workforce, where X% is roughly comparable to the workforce of the largest single employer, and unions can't prevent people being hired from other unions. If union A falsely vouches for the competency of it's members then stop hiring from them. Better yet don't ask them to vouch for their members at all, talk to their previous employers just like everyone else.

      Or maybe restrict unions to a single company. The union doesn't represent the broader labor pool, it represents the employees of that specific company. Go work for someone else, you leave your union and join theirs(or not, as the case may be). Certainly there's going to be some cooperation between unions, but there's plenty of collusion between employers as well, so that should hopefully balance out okay. And it promotes an environment where small business owners don't have to deal with unions that are more powerful than they are.

      The only problem I see with right to work laws is that it's pretty much guaranteed that non-union employees will be economically preferable to union employees. They have no power. Why would an employer hire *anyone* from the union if they have an option? Perhaps if they have to hire someone without any knowledge about whether they are going to join the union, and with no right to add a "you can't join the union" clause or retaliate against those who choose to do so... of course then how do you know what benefits to offer? Hmm.., perhaps the employer could offer each employees a certain base compensation package, and they can then choose either the union or non-union benefits package... nah that wouldn't really work either.

      Okay, so it's a complicated question, no easy answers. That's okay, some things are just like that. I mean I've never worked for under in union in my life, but I sure as heck don't want them to go away - all you have to do is look at the robber-baron era to see how bad things can get without them. And as a nation we're already well on our way back to that very situation.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    73. Re:Premium not enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, Raw German Efficiency is just a way to say they have the means and the willingness to do what it takes to finish the job, on time, on budget, and to a satisfactory quality standard.

      Other cultures have this. It's not unique. Others do not, and honestly, that condition is a lot more pervasive. Just try getting something done in Spain or Southern Italy, or any number of Arabic countries as an example. It could be a bridge or a boat, whatever. Nine times out of ten, I'll be late, it'll be more expensive than it should have been, or it won't be made as well as it could have been elsewhere for the same cost, union labor or not. Why? It's just not in their culture, like Island Time is not in German culture.

      What do these places do when they really need something done? Well, let's put it this way: you sure meet a lot of Germans, Sweedes, Dutch, Finns, Brits, Americans and Australians on big construction sites around the world. Doubt you'd know anything about it, however.

      Secondly, my logic is no worse than yours, you self-important, like-to-think-you-know-it-all cunt. I bet you're a lot like the 'great thinkers' behind socialism; scarcely put in a hard day's work in their entire lives, that is. Content instead to flap their gums about how things get done, and about the 'needs of the proletariat', this and that, while they couldn't possibly be any more divorced from the truth of the issue--because for all of their philosophizing and mental masturbation, they wouldn't know the business end of a hammer from the other end, and the reason for that is some other schmoe was behind their backs, swinging that hammer all along, and getting little thanks for it.

    74. Re: Premium not enough? by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      So what you say is "standard procedure": you think there're reasons to strike and the ones that have to negotiate it make sure they have things they can spare to allow for negotiation to move forward.

    75. Re: Premium not enough? by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      Where did you take the "without notice" part?

      A strike is the worker's last resort. You seem to forget that the worker doesn't collect his wages while on strike and that he hasn't a nice cushion to sustain his position.

    76. Re:Premium not enough? by volmtech · · Score: 1

      In the US what we are doing is unsustainable. Trillion dollar annual deficits? The crash is coming but no one is trying to engineer a soft landing. I live in a rural area, have a supply of food and plenty of ammunition. You can't stop the inevitable, just prepare for it.

  3. My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by niftydude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Although the project's budget is $1.1 billion, an ALMA technician earns less than $2.000 per month.

    1) Project budget is $1.1 billion. Sure, but over how many years? 1, 5, 10? Comparing a large number over many years to a monthly rate is disingenuous.

    2) $2.000. WTF? Only some few european countries still use "." as a thousands separator instead of ",". This is an english language website, use english locale settings because to everyone else, that reads as $2.00 a month, which obviously has to be wrong.

    3) Where does the $2000 a month figure come from anyway? It isn't in tfa. Citation needed.

    And yes, I'm grumpy, I'm working because I have a major deadline next week.

    --
    You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    1. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by xvan · · Score: 2

      From Mexico to Chhile/Argentina, you can find lots of countries with '.' as thousands separator. Last time I checked, we still aren't part of the EU, but I might be wrong...

    2. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by niftydude · · Score: 1

      But you do all speak European languages...

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    3. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by SynFlood · · Score: 5, Informative

      First of all, I work for ALMA and I'm part of the workers union , but i'm speaking for myself.

      the budget is 1.5 billion already spent on the project , each antenna with all its equipment cost US$10 million, and there are 64 of them,and then you have to add all the building, devices, software licenses, computers, network equipment and other things that the project needs, so you can go easily to one billion only on that , which is already in place.

      about two, yes english site, agree use , instead of . for thousand separator ;)

      three, 2,000 USD is the average, some workers make less than 1,000 USD per month, working 12 hours a day on 8 days working, 6 days off shift, the average is 2,000 USD and top paid workers are getting nearly 6,000 USD per month.

      Another important point, we are on strike NOT for the money, we are on strike because the company that have our contracts is changing condition and removing some benefits , maybe U.S. laws permit that, but ALMA is located in Chile, and laws here are different, also ALMA is abusing of its special diplomatic condition to disallow inspection by the agency in charge of verify working conditions (Inspeccion del Trabajo de Chile).

      Also to clarify, most of the work is performed at 5,000msn (16,000 ft over sea level), with tempetures as low as -10 celcius (14 fahrenheit) with relative humidity of 5% and winds of 10 m/s (32feet/s).

    4. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by etash · · Score: 1

      , as a thousand separator? WTF, not everybody is english or american, the world does not revolve around you.

    5. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      english is a european language.

    6. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the us system, winds are quoted in miles/hr so 10m/s ~ 22mph.

    7. Re: My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by SynFlood · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the correction :-)

    8. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      Thank you for the information SynFlood. Mind if I ask a few questions?

      1. What type of jobs are these? Someone above mentioned "minimum wage technician job", but I don't think he knows what jobs are actually in dispute here. Are these advanced jobs maintaining the equipment, or manual labor wrench turning and meter reading jobs?

      2. What is the comparable pay scale of similar jobs in other areas in Chile? Obviously there needs to be a bonus for working up there, freezing you ass off, but we don't know what the base salary for Chile's tech workers are.

      3. Personally, are you a local there in Chile or neighboring country, or are you from North America, Europe, etc, and moved there to work in this project? What about the other workers; roughly what percentage are local or foreign?

      I just now read the article linked, and see nothing at all as far as details. Your input would be greatly appreciated.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    9. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) $2.000. WTF? Only some few european countries still use "." as a thousands separator instead of ",".

      By "some" you mean "all", plus most of South America and much of Asia, right?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20130228DecimalSeparator.svg

      And it's not that hard to figure out what they're saying. The confusing thing is that right before they use a period with the _other_ convention, so that's confusing.

    10. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by niftydude · · Score: 1

      Thanks SynFlood - your post is more informative than the entire article that was linked!

      Disallowing the inspection of working conditions seems like pretty bad practice. Has ALMA given a reason for why they are doing that?

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    11. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by niftydude · · Score: 2

      , as a thousand separator? WTF, not everybody is english or american, the world does not revolve around you.

      It's common courtesy. When in Rome, etc. If I post to a non-english website, I do my best to get my language, currency and date formats correct, and I expect the same when others come here. And at any rate, correcting this sort of thing in the summary is what the editors are for.

      For the record, I'm neither english nor american and I don't live in either of those countries, so no, I don't think the world revolves around me.

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    12. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Only some few european countries

      that's about all of them, except UK

    13. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by niftydude · · Score: 1

      When used in the United States, such affectations are code for "I am a flaming homosexual and have the desire to fellate you".

      I don't live in the United States, and even if I did, I'm also not homophobic. Your pitiful attempt at insult really says more about you than it does me.

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    14. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Odd. Either my spanish is far worse than I think, or your webpage says that it is about the money. Of course, your page also says it has been a year since the inauguration of the telescope when it clearly has not.

      Without really understanding all the details I have no idea if the union is making reasonable or unreasonable demands. However, you really should try to communicate a clear, consistent, and factually correct message. Making small errors like getting the 1 year wrong makes everyone wonder about all the facts they can't verify. If you can't tell 1 year from about 6 months how do we know you can tell fair pay from unfair pay?

      Quick note on the pro and anti-union debate: guys, sometimes unions are good, like when they save workers from truly unfair wages and force the correction of dangerous work conditions. Sometimes they are bad, like when they prevent the employer from compensating each employee according to their performance, or when they prevent them from firing an employee for spending 100% of their work time goofing around on slashdot (and other non-work web activities). The devil is in the details, and in this case almost nobody on slashdot has them.

    15. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by galoise · · Score: 1

      They don't have to give a reason in as much as they are not "preventing" it actively, they are just using some of the operational benefits that they enjoy under their status as an international organization with diplomatic immunity in Chile. The UN does the same thing, there are a number of UN organizations with seats in Chile (Big regional hubs for the ECLAC, UNDP, FAO, etc), and they are exempt from a number of local regulations in Chile, including General Labour Direction oversight. Self-regulation of international organizatons is kinda critical for diplomatic functions, specially for a country like Chile, that has a long tradition of big international organizations operating there... But this is unprecedented. The whole arrangement generally works (and is politically viable in the long run) precisely because these organizations tend to have better working conditions and internal regulation than the (miserable, paltry) ones currently required by Chilean law. Disclaimer: IANAL, but I'm from Chile and worked at the ECLAC/UN there for a couple of years :)

      --
      entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
    16. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Another important point, we are on strike NOT for the money, we are on strike because the company that have our contracts is changing condition and removing some benefits , maybe U.S. laws permit that, but ALMA is located in Chile, and laws here are different

      My U.S. employer tried the same thing, my union sued the company for breach of contract (and won).

    17. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the added information. The article was disengenuous if they quoted the construction budget; the operations budget is an entirely different allocation.

      In the U.S. there are some protections at the Federal level (base minimum wage, worker safety, anti-discrimination); but, most of the employment laws are set at the state level. Employment regulations in California are very different from, say, Alabama, or Illinois, or compared to Virginia (where I am).

      Removing benefits is not a way to keep your employees happy. Changing the terms of employment at contract renewal happens sometimes though. I hope you all work that out. Disallowing inspections for worker safety and working conditions... That's just not right.

    18. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      English started as a European language. However they've bastardized it over there, while we Americans have preserved its integrity (not far from the truth - American English is closer to the common language of the Colonial Era than British English).

    19. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hope you get things settled. Keep up the great work on this one of the best projects on planet earth. >:-D

    20. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by SynFlood · · Score: 5, Informative

      jobs are from mechanical workers, electric engineers, antenna operator, array operators, warehouse operators , software programmers, system administrator, dba, network eng.

      about base salary, we are around 10% or 20% better paid than the same job at a santiago , for example

      I'm a Chilean citizen, 80% of the workers are Chilean citizen and the rest are from US, Europe or Asia (Japan mainly)

      but i would like to say that the strike is not mainly for the salary, also for the working conditions.

    21. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by SynFlood · · Score: 1

      Galoise, the point is that ALMA says it obey the local work regulation and base the contracts on that, but when local work authorities want to check if all is in place and 'by the book', they says 'sorry you can't check here, because we have inmmutity' so they abuse of that condition on they favor.

    22. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by SynFlood · · Score: 3, Interesting

      at the beggining, of the negotiation, the money part was the one that get more publicity by the media, but there was a lot of other points, personally i'm not on strike for the salary, but for the condition , of course i will not reject if my salary is increased ;) , but the central point IMHO is the condition of work and how our employee interact with us

        (i'm not part of the union directive, jus a union member, speaking for myself!)

    23. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by SynFlood · · Score: 1

      Well in chile to sue anything is complicated, so we use the stirke as a last result if talks between parties didn't work , as in this case.

    24. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      , as a thousand separator? WTF, not everybody is english or american

      What English speaking countries use "." as a thousands separator? You're writing in English. When you're in Mexico do you say "Este cervesa es two fifty" or "Este cervesa es dos y cincuenta"? (my Spanish is rusty, I hope I got that right)

    25. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the information, SynFlood. Hope it works out well for you guys.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    26. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by SynFlood · · Score: 1

      because they argue that they have political/diplomatic immunity and that the site (terrain maybe is more accurate) has that privilege .

    27. Re: My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by letherial · · Score: 1

      yes we enforce are shitty system even on the internet. Just remember, if you are talking to someone from America then you must assume you are in america despite where you are at. Metric system might be easier and smarter, but we are Americans and well fuck you for trying to make us learn a simpler and better system.....we like are shitty systems to stay.

      just like are shitty corporations, banks, healthcare system and horrible politicians.

      anyways you get the point.

    28. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by wwphx · · Score: 2

      Good luck, SynFlood, to you and your co-workers. My wife is in charge of a 3.5 meter optical telescope, and the hours are brutal in the winter but much nicer in the summer: a typical shift is an hour or so before sundown to an hour or so after sunrise. Employees are expected to have side-projects (maintaining wikis, writing training materials, etc) to fill out a 40 hr week because no one works exactly 40 hours a week. People work blocks of time: three days on, ten days off (very roughly) because in the winter, those are very tough days. But we're at 9200' and no where near as cold as Chile, it's regularly below freezing in the winter but the telescopes are never open when the temperature drops below 0f (we had -20f for a few days two or three years ago). My wife's telescope has the advantage that they normally don't do post-observation work, that's the job of the scientist's team, the other telescope on-site does their own data reduction but has a much larger team.

      US law does not allow changing contracts, at least while the contract is in force. After the contract expires or is being renegotiated, then changes can be made but have to be agreed to by the parties involved.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
    29. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Only newbie even see the issues he's complaining about.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    30. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for translating metric system measurements into imperial measurements, which I assume you did for the convenience of readers who are not used to meters and celcius. So why did you write "10 m/s (32feet/s)"? Nobody but physics students uses feet/second. Try mph (miles/hour) next time. Yes, I could convert fps to mph if I wanted, but then again I could convert m/s to mph if I wanted. Your conversion, while technically correct, fails at your goal of making the numbers meaningful. Unless of course you just got your first calculator and wanted to show off.

    31. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Also to clarify, most of the work is performed at 5,000msn (16,000 ft over sea level)

      It should also be pointed out that the threshold for long-term sustainable habitation (where your body doesn't begin to slowly waste away from oxygen-deprivation, resulting in eventual fucking death) is around 15,000' above sea level.

    32. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by etash · · Score: 1

      there's no such thing as courtesy in such matters. just because the site happens to be english doesn't mean all nationalities have to use whatever units or symbols you use in countries of anglosaxon influence. get over your empire dreams.

      plus your post was completely wrong. It's not "just a few european countries use . as a thousand separator". ALL european countries use it, with the exception of UK. It's actually quite the contrary, it's just a few countries who use , as a thousand separator.

      see the map and educate yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark

    33. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the money part was the one that get more publicity by the media...

      Could this be because the union's web page is saying that is about the money? Now, I respect that here you are starting to get out the message about work conditions, though in a different comment I have disputed the details. However, when the union says "This is about money," and when the union is negotiating for better pay, voting for a strike won't help much with the work conditions.

      Actually, if you somehow got the negotiation to be about labor conditions you might have better luck. Arguing for 10 hour days at the same total monthly pay would be far more affordable for AUI. Especially when backed up with arguments that people don't really accomplish more in 12 hours than in 10. Time for relaxing after work each day actually helps employees perform better when on the job.

    34. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its still a European language as Britain is still in Europe.

    35. Re:My 3 least favorite things in one sentence by volmtech · · Score: 1

      You never worked on a production line have you. My machines pounded out fifty packs a minute. After 14 hours they were still at fifty per minute. That was my job, make sure they didn't slow down, even robots get lazy you know. Every hour meant three thousand more packs. The fork lifts just had to keep moving the pallets away.

  4. Minimum wage technician? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So would you get minimum wage technicians to operate a state-of-the-art gear like are these telescopes?

    What could go wrong?

    1. Re:Minimum wage technician? by macbeth66 · · Score: 1

      Right? Like Nuclear Power Plant Operators. There were, in the beginning, considered highly skilled labor in a dangerous environment. Then it became something a monkey could do, followed by... Chernobyl.

    2. Re:Minimum wage technician? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What could go wrong?

      As if I could see it. Aim at the ISS's bathroom window and then post a youtube video?

    3. Re:Minimum wage technician? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Play space invaders shooting the lasers to flyby satellites?

    4. Re:Minimum wage technician? by lionchild · · Score: 1

      $11.50/hour minimum wage.. That would be a great deal in the US. Still not quite as high as it should be, but much better than it is currently.

      --
      Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
    5. Re:Minimum wage technician? by mysidia · · Score: 0

      So would you get minimum wage technicians to operate a state-of-the-art gear like are these telescopes?

      Minimum wage workers operate all sorts of technology that costs more than they do all the time; if they break it, it comes out of their pay.

      If their skill was in market demand; it's the worker's failing in accepting an offer that doesn't make sense for them.

      It is perfectly sensible for the worker to refuse an offer because it doesn't fairly compensate them, and inform the hirer to contact them when they have a better offer --- when all prospective hires do that, the employer will have no choice but to pay a market wage.

      Again, what's cheating is taking the job; promising to do the work; and then striking without warning that you will stop working.

      There is probably a whole slew of people who want that job, but didn't take the job, because they were unhappy with the arrangement --- you by accepting the low wage denied them employment; and now you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, by being dishonest, and intentionally failing to fulfill an agreement you made.

      I'm all for you turning in your 2 weeks notice, and finding a better arrangement: halting an important project, without the proper notice, for the employer to find a replacement or agree to new terms, because you're suddenly not happy with what you already agreed and promised to do: is what I call cheating.

    6. Re:Minimum wage technician? by causality · · Score: 1

      What you describe is true in an ideal employment environment.

      The problem is, when criminal bankers knowingly make unsound loans and employ bad financial instruments like credit default swaps, and do it on a scale that it grossly harms the global economy, then jobs become more scarce and workers become more desperate. In this kind of scenario, the employer is at a clear advantage and the worker is at a clear disadvantage. This is especially true with a (multiple) state-sponsored organization that does not even have to make a profit such as this one. The usual market forces apply less and maybe don't apply at all.

      This will cause people to take jobs they don't want and otherwise wouldn't take because they have families to feed and mortgages to pay and consider themselves fortunate to have work at all. The workers aren't bad negotiators or incompetent or doing a disservice to other candidate workers like you suggest. They're doing what they have to do to survive, not what they want to do in an ideal scenario.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  5. Survival mode by hoboroadie · · Score: 2

    If you were exposed in the Atacama, you would most likely be dead in less than 48 hours. TFA touches on this, but it is emphatically not a nice place to hang out.
    Sometimes I, too, chafe under the terms of my peonage.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  6. minimum wage is not 7.50 in chile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i w... j..
    sigh

    just sigh

  7. Nonsense by nnnnnnn · · Score: 1

    I hire a contractor for $2000 to fix my roof. He takes the job and begins work. Halfway through he says that $2000 is not enough for his isolation and high altitude. He stops the work, goes on strike demanding more money and prevents me from hiring another contractor. Someone care to explain how that is legal and not a breach of contract?

    1. Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hire a contractor for $2000 to fix my roof. He takes the job and begins work. Halfway through he says that $2000 is not enough for his isolation and high altitude. He stops the work, goes on strike demanding more money and prevents me from hiring another contractor. Someone care to explain how that is legal and not a breach of contract?

      1. We're talking about employees - not contractors.

      2. This is Chile - different legal system.

      3. They should use the MUCH cheaper labor of grad students and interns like they do in the States.

    2. Re:Nonsense by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      I hire a contractor for $2000 to fix my roof. He takes the job and begins work. Halfway through he says that $2000 is not enough for his isolation and high altitude. He stops the work, goes on strike demanding more money and prevents me from hiring another contractor. Someone care to explain how that is legal and not a breach of contract?

      Things would be different if you agreed to pay him $2000 a month for general work, i.e. not a fixed price contract for a single job. In that case he could say that he will stop if you don't pay him more - and you could replace him with someone else or pay him more if you thought he was worth it.

    3. Re:Nonsense by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Care to explain to us how that's not false equivalence?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    4. Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3. They should use the MUCH cheaper labor of grad students and interns like they do in the States.

      Grad students are MUCH cheaper? They are some cheaper, but MUCH? In Russia, yes, in the US, no. (The Russia bit isn't a joke, they pay them far below poverty line there.)

    5. Re:Nonsense by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      I hire a contractor for $2000 to fix my roof. He takes the job and begins work. Halfway through he says that $2000 is not enough for his isolation and high altitude. He stops the work, goes on strike demanding more money and prevents me from hiring another contractor. Someone care to explain how that is legal and not a breach of contract?

      Contractor's got ol' roofie fixed right up for $2k. Ah, but your balls of steel and the once banned Bay-Watch reruns have got your roof in a constant state of ill repair. So, you ring the roofologist up and say, "I've got another $2000, Doc, so fix me up."

      The workers have been around your block though, and risking a blown off head over your smeggin' flat-top just isn't flyin'. They refuse to do the deadly tap dance lest better pay be coming their way too.

      Now let's put you in the scientists' shoes: say instead of you fitting the bill it's your land lord's flat wot your rocks 'r blastin' off in. Seein' you commin' they budgeted bucketloads for repairs. Now you're bottled up with more rage than a widowed cuckold, but that don't change a bleedin' thing though, right? No one's breechin' the $2k contract 'cause they ain't takin' the money shots.

      So, you can either negotiate a rate or get a new crew who won't be so great as the last guys, since it'll be their first time; The fresh folk'll want more than $2k being as your little game's exposed on the telly now and everyone's wise to your surprise.

    6. Re:Nonsense by nnnnnnn · · Score: 1

      Why is it a false equivalence? I take the job either at the stated price or by underbiding everyone else, once I get it, I stop work and ask for more.

    7. Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what about the reverse, where you hire said contractor, then part way through tell him you are changing the job and going to make it more difficult for him to do his job? Because that is what this situation is about, that the workers are experiencing changing working conditions from what they were hired to do.

    8. Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3. They should use the MUCH cheaper labor of grad students and interns like they do in the States.

      I'm not familiar with the costs of grad students elsewhere, but in the US, you typically budget about $50k a year for one. They only get paid about $20k a year, but you have to also pay for their benefits, tuition, and usually have some money set aside for travel and conferences so they start interacting with people in the field. You have limited time to use them for brute force labor stuff, as the ones in the earlier stages are still taking classes, and in the later stage should be working on their thesis. So with remote work, you end up with a lot of short periods of flying someone to the site, them working for a little bit, and then coming back. And it will cost extra, as you would be covering room and board then.

      But this is kind of moot, since if you have grad students doing simple construction work (while some building/labor work is expected of experimentalist grad students, it usually has a narrow scope directly related to what they are learning about), you'll just never get any graduate students joining your project. You could try to pay them more to entice them, although some university departments require all graduate students be paid the same so that the students will make choices based on interest and the chances of them getting out of graduate school in a reasonable time.

    9. Re:Nonsense by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      This comment (above) by one of the striking workers answers your question succinctly.

    10. Re:Nonsense by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      Just pick some guys up at the Lowe's parking lot.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  8. Oh boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So they're making double what I do? In a country where that money is probably worth double than it is here in the U.S.? They need to STFU and get back to Jodie Fostering.

    1. Re:Oh boo hoo by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh look, it's the race-to-the-bottom attitude. "I'm suffering, and the solution is to make more people suffer, rather than to lift everyone up."

      Meanwhile the guys at the top laugh at you as you remain divided and conquered.

    2. Re:Oh boo hoo by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      So they're making double what I do? In a country where that money is probably worth double than it is here in the U.S.? They need to STFU and get back to Jodie Fostering.

      if you are working full time and earning only $1000 a month in the USA then you want to look for a new job. This is less than minimum wage for a 35 hour week!

    3. Re:Oh boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only work 3 days a week. I'm little more than an intern at an I.T, gig. Working my way towards full time and a large raise. I'd love nothing more than to fill in the remaining time with another part-time job, but everyone tells me "oh, you work in I.T.? Well that makes you overqualified since we know you'll just quit as soon as they offer you more"
      They aren't wrong. In the next month or so I expect my income to quadruple. But that isn't the point: the point is I have zero sympathy for people who are getting paid not just more than me, but when exchange rate is considered a LOT more than me, to work in one of the most beautiful places on the planet, doing a job with little to no physical effort, they're education IS being paid off because their cost of living is nill, and they go on strike from a job staring at radio telescope monitors because "OMG we work on a mountain and it's lonely and haaaaaard". Like others have said, that $2,000 a month is worth closer to $90k in terms of local living costs. If these people were working in a telescop in the U.S. for $90k a year, and went on strike because mountain, you wouldn't be accusing me of a "race to the bottom", you'd be telling them to STFU and get back to work or let somebody else do the job for them.
      Fuck you, I'd LOVE to work on that mountain, so would a lot of other people.

    4. Re:Oh boo hoo by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Oh look, it's the race-to-the-bottom attitude. "I'm suffering, and the solution is to make more people suffer, rather than to lift everyone up."

      Yeah, I hate that liberal attitude towards wealth and jobs too. "It's better if everyone had less, as long as the rich lose more."

      Glad to see another enlightened /.er.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    5. Re:Oh boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, I made much less than you did with a consulting job that only involve 2-3 hours of work a week... does that mean i can claim you shouldn't be allowed to complain about not making enough money? Maybe working hours factor into it, especially considering some of the workers involved make less than half of the 2000 a month, but still have 12 hr a day schedules for 8 days in a row.

    6. Re:Oh boo hoo by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I hate that liberal attitude towards wealth and jobs too. "It's better if everyone had less, as long as the rich lose more."

      It's better to live in a country where the average income is $50,000 a year and nobody makes less than $20,000 a year, than to live in a country where the average income is $60,000 a year and 20% of the population makes under $20,000 a year.

      In round numbers, that could be Germany and the U.S., respectively.

    7. Re:Oh boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better for who? In the U.S it's much easier to live as a king. If you have fantasies of living like a king, you want to live in the United States. Just make sure you have a good imagination, because obviously you're more likely to end up a serf.

  9. $5.25 not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they are saying is that $5.25 is not enough to compensate for high altitudes and isolation. I don't see how you or anyone else can judge them on that...unless you are an oil worker from Alaska (earning double regular wages).

  10. Cost of living under $1000 a month by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Informative

    The cost of living in Chile for american expats is under $1000 a month.

    The average annual income is $11,039.

    If the observatory workers are making $2000 a month, then they seem to be making the equivalent of about $90,000 in the U.S. for local goods and services- tho very little in terms of world products (like imported automobiles and air conditioners).

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:Cost of living under $1000 a month by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 0

      I thought everyone was agreed that we want to stop employers exploiting wage disparity between nations.

      If every specialist in a foreign nation strikes until they get paid a wage matching the salaries of the home country of their employers, each country would actually produce its own stuff, instead of the Anglo-Saxon and European nations acting as remote slavedrivers.

    2. Re:Cost of living under $1000 a month by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I don't mind (tho I don't think it's realistic to think wages are going to go up rather than average out).

      There will be side effects of course.

      It would absolutely murder tons of retired people in those countries as the cost of living goes up by 100% and their pensions and social security programs are unchanged.

      Of course, retirees in the 1st world would benefit as wages stagnated and dropped.

      One correction, "Anglo-Saxon and European nations" should probably be "Anglo-Saxon and European corporations."

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    3. Re:Cost of living under $1000 a month by SynFlood · · Score: 2

      just to make you guys an idea of living costs in chile

      http://www.contactchile.cl/en/chile-information.php

      if you look at standard budget, this is for a single person and is around US$ 1000, and most of the ALMA workers have family.

    4. Re:Cost of living under $1000 a month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the classical argument to say that earning $500 per month in India is great. Once you bought food for your mouth, everything else is on international market prices. So if you want to do something different than buying local food, you can't.

    5. Re:Cost of living under $1000 a month by khallow · · Score: 1

      I thought everyone was agreed that we want to stop employers exploiting wage disparity between nations.

      Not here. The more exploitation the better off the exploited will be. And the so-called "race to the bottom" will destroy a lot of the free lunch sense of entitlement of the developed world.

    6. Re:Cost of living under $1000 a month by khallow · · Score: 1

      So if you want to do something different than buying local food, you can't.

      Or buy local real estate, local equipment, local hires, etc. There's a lot more than food for sale in India.

    7. Re:Cost of living under $1000 a month by nbauman · · Score: 1

      The average annual income is $11,039.

      Is that a middle-class income, or does that average in a mass of subsistence farmers and slum dwellers?

    8. Re:Cost of living under $1000 a month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The cost of living in Chile for american expats is under $1000 a month."

      Bullshit.

      Most things in Chile --with the notable exception of fresh fruits and vegetables and labor-- are at least as expensive as they are in much of the US. And many things are far more expensive in Chile.

      Computers? Easily 150%-200% what they cost in the US.

      Internet? I pay about US$ 50.00 for a 2mbps connection. And that doesn't include phone service.

      Water, electricity and gas? In Chile I pay over DOUBLE what my sister pays in the US.

      Cars? Unless you buy one made in China or India, you're going to pay a small fortune.

      Food? I just saw a 250g package of Colombian coffee at the supermarket for US$ 18.00. And this is mass market crap.

      Yours is a common misconception. Chile is fucking expensive.

    9. Re:Cost of living under $1000 a month by labawi · · Score: 1

      It would absolutely murder tons of retired people in those countries as the cost of living goes up by 100% and their pensions and social security programs are unchanged.

      Not sure about other countries, but in some e.g. Serbia, retirement is state backed and controlled and the pensions tends to be adjusted for inflation, protests, political popularity etc. A lot of the retirees still tend to have pitiful pensions, with high inequality based among other things on work and retirement era, but it is within the state's power to do with the pensions as they will and have a budget for.

    10. Re:Cost of living under $1000 a month by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      We had to kill the village in order to save it!

    11. Re:Cost of living under $1000 a month by khallow · · Score: 1

      Kill what? This would help a lot more people than it'd hurt. Which is pretty good by social engineering standards.

    12. Re:Cost of living under $1000 a month by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      And yet it doesn't.

      The move to the cities in industrial revolutionary Britain was little to do with prospects, and a lot to do with changed countryside management. But even those who moved, found that they were mostly chasing an impossible dream, unless they were the very first to get in on the game.

      My father was born during the Spanish civil war. In cooperation with American firms, the country was fed exactly the same bull that Chinese people are being fed now. All they saw were fewer freedoms and even longer working hours, with no security of either ownership or state welfare. Mother's cousin married into an Indian aristocratic family which dabbles in politics, and they sell these very claims to the ignorant villagers - then a tiny proportion is transferred to a different sort of toil, while the rest have any previous security taken away. People older and wiser than you and I have heard it all before, and all they've seen is more misery.

      Is it true that we enjoy a labour aristocracy in the West? Somewhat. But that is due to the exploitation which comes of asymmetric treatment. Eliminate the trade conditions which seduce the East and Africa into being crippled exporters, and stop propping up their corrupt governments, and they'd start to see the independent flourishing that European nations began to experience last century.

    13. Re:Cost of living under $1000 a month by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/chile/

      "In Chile, the average net adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated 31 040 USD a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated 2 392 USD a year."

        In Chile, households on average spend 18% of their gross adjusted disposable income on keeping a roof over their heads, less than the OECD average of 21%.

      http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/united-states/
      "In the United States, the average net adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated 82 666 USD a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated 10 434 USD a year."

        In the United States, households on average spend 19% of their gross adjusted disposable income on keeping a roof over their heads, below the OECD average of 21%

      ----

      Similarly the cost of lodging and eating is 1/3 to 1/2 of the cost in the less expensive U.S. cities and 1/4 the cost of expensive U.S. cities.

      ---

      By definition $11,000 is a the middle income, just like $46,000 is in the US. Half the people make less, half the people make more.

      The Chilean figure includes your mass of subsistence farmers and slum dwellers (as long as they have a job and earn official taxable income.

      The United States figure includes the mass of poor people, slum dwellers (as long as they have a job and earn official taxable income, underprivileged, single moms, high school dropouts, struggling actors, waiters, etc.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    14. Re:Cost of living under $1000 a month by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Since the top 20% of chileans earn $31,000, if the ALMA workers gain $7,000 per year, they will be in the top 20% of their country's income.

      The top 20 of income in the U.S. starts at about $102,000.

      I'm all for them getting a raise.

      Should they get $102,000?

      What's a fair level in your opinion?

      Should the minimum wage in Chili be about $7.40 per hour?

      What effects would that have on the economy there?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    15. Re:Cost of living under $1000 a month by khallow · · Score: 1

      And yet it doesn't.

      Median global income has grown in the last 60 years. Standards of living have improved globally over that time as well.

      The move to the cities in industrial revolutionary Britain was little to do with prospects, and a lot to do with changed countryside management. But even those who moved, found that they were mostly chasing an impossible dream, unless they were the very first to get in on the game.

      Or they then moved to the US where things were considerably better. And of course, England is doing a lot better now than it was then. So something changed over that time.

      My father was born during the Spanish civil war. In cooperation with American firms, the country was fed exactly the same bull that Chinese people are being fed now.

      Except that economically, the Chinese are vastly better off than they were in the 70s.

      Is it true that we enjoy a labour aristocracy in the West?

      I wouldn't refer to developed world workers in that inane way. I'd just say that they have an unjustified sense of entitlement (which is what I actually have said in the past) .That Chinese worker works hard too and he or she earns about a quarter to a sixth what the developed world worker currently does. If you want to keep earning that premium, you need to have something special to offer. Currently, that special thing is nearness to the wealthiest markets on Earth. But what happens when China catches up? Then you're no longer near the the wealthiest markets on Earth. And you've been hamstringing your society for the however many decades it takes China to do that.

      Eliminate the trade conditions which seduce the East and Africa into being crippled exporters, and stop propping up their corrupt governments, and they'd start to see the independent flourishing that European nations began to experience last century.

      Yea, right. Discard the best parts of their economies and they'll magically start "independently flourishing". They don't start the societies or infrastructure to magically create independently flourishing countries.

      And after all, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea did that and look how badly they turned out. The US did that in the 19th century and that was a total fail too.

      It's interesting how self-serving your incredibly bad advice is.

    16. Re:Cost of living under $1000 a month by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      One more thing- most families in the U.S. require two incomes to get by because the cost of living is so high.

      So it's not unreasonable to expect that a family in chile would require two incomes to live as comparatively well as a U.S. family.

      And a family bringing in $48,000 U.S. would be making a ton of money in chile- probably top 10% income in the country.

      All I'm saying is that these workers raises won't be in a vacuum. At some point, everyone else in society gets a raise too and then they do need to make $60k or even $80k each to live as well as they do.

      I did some research on chilean real estate and good houses built to U.S. standards on good property sell for as much or more than in the U.S.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  11. I wish them luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are in an isolated place that is crap to be in doing highly specialized work on very expensive machinery and making what SHOULD be considered minimum wage in the US. I am glad to see them stand up for something better than that crap and I wish them luck.

  12. Non sequitur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone needs to take some logic courses. And then some courses on capitalism. BTW, you pay for your text messages? Really?

    1. Re:Non sequitur by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 0

      Someone needs to take some logic courses. And then some courses on capitalism. BTW, you pay for your text messages? Really?

      I think he capitalized that well. I went back over it and looked for what issues.... Oh, wait... Capitalism... Not capitalizing...

      Never mind.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:Non sequitur by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Someone needs to take some logic courses. And then some courses on capitalism. BTW, you pay for your text messages? Really?

      That's a classic non-argument. Try making a point.

    3. Re: Non sequitur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two years ago Verizon charged $30 for texting, and so did most other carriers, even after it was conclusively proven that they cost the carrier nothing.

  13. This kind of crappy work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I thought this is exactly the kind of thing grad students were for?

    1. Re:This kind of crappy work... by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      We're discussing employment, not serfdom.

  14. To answer your question by dataspel · · Score: 5, Informative
    McDonald Observatory, Fort Davis, Texas. Comparable isolation, but only about 7000 ft altitude.
    Techician jobs range from about $20,000 to $35,000

    For example:
    https://utdirect.utexas.edu/apps/hr/jobs/nlogon/120716015331

    1. Re:To answer your question by SynFlood · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you see the add, they work form 8 to 5 MonFri, we work Mon to Mon 12hours a day, except first day wich is from 11 to 8 and last day wich is 8 to 3, wich is 88 hours in a week, then 6 das off, so is 44 hours a week in average? and we can't go back to our houses every night while working, because we are 1200km away from home, some even more, is a 2 hour bus trip to the nearest airport, and then 2 hous of fligh, or 24 hours in bus. so is not comparable with McDoald Observatory!
      Also elevation , accoring to thir page is only 2000mts, our residence is a 2960 and the work area at 5000mts.

    2. Re:To answer your question by dataspel · · Score: 1

      Good points. You can still use this as a starting point for wages at less isolated observatories. Try contacting various amateur astronomical societies that are near the observatories for which you want to get numbers. Such groups usually have a few members that keep up with such things. And good luck!!

  15. Canada by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Obviously there needs to be a bonus for working up there, freezing you ass off

    There does? Last time I checked I didn't get a winter bonus up here in Canada where the temperatures hit -40C. -10C for a _high_ counts as heat wave in January. Even the schools will send the kids out for break times as long as the temperature is above -23C. Except for the altitude those conditions are mild compared to a typical Canadian winter and the Alberta minimum wage is only C$1,854/month with an undoubtedly higher cost of living.

    As you point out more details are needed to do a fair comparison but, with the details available so far, it frankly looks like they are not being teated that shabbily.

    1. Re:Canada by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Did you grow up there? Or did you move from someplace warmer? I grew up in Michigan where it snows half the year, but not quite as cold as Canada is. I moved to a warmer place a couple decades ago, and don't plan to ever move back. There would have to be a huge bonus for me to work in a cold area again.

      Most of the workers at ALMA probably didn't grow up in year round freezing conditions, and so don't want to work in freezing conditions for the same rate as they could get in warmer places. So, yes, there has to be a bonus to get them to work there, because otherwise they would just work at similar paying jobs in warmer areas.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:Canada by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Are you working outside (or exposed to outside temperatures)? My brother (a glacier) used to go to Prince George to work outside at minus 40 because of the bonuses. Perhaps bonuses for being exposed to temperatures that'll kill you in a short time have gone away to be replaced by bonuses for the executive who lowered wages.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  16. Alberta Winter by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    You should try an Alberta winter sometime. It can get down to -40C and I've seen -53C with windchill. They often put out warnings about frostbite warnings that exposed skin will freeze in seconds. In january we are lucky if we hit -10C for a _high_. Without the proper attire and equipment you would not survive 48 minutes let alone hours.

    1. Re:Alberta Winter by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You must be from southern Alberta. ;)

    2. Re:Alberta Winter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should try an Alberta winter sometime. It can get down to -40C and I've seen -53C with windchill. They often put out warnings about frostbite warnings that exposed skin will freeze in seconds. In january we are lucky if we hit -10C for a _high_. Without the proper attire and equipment you would not survive 48 minutes let alone hours.

      Adding 16,000 ft to elevation is much harsher than dropping temps 30 degrees. You body will essentially slowly boil itself off at that elevation through dehydration. You probably also have running water and access to a working toilet, a variety of entertainment options, restaurants and shopping choices, even if they are all moose related.

    3. Re:Alberta Winter by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      With proper attire and equipment one can survive 48 hours on the Moon.
      I meant alone, without basic camping equipment or water. Like walking away from a failed aircraft.
      There's a couple places where your survival-fu absolutely will not help. Antarctica, Atacama, Namibia, are the first three that come to my mind when I contemplate these things.
      If the zero degree-Celsius thing every night of the year doesn't bother you, the wind and relative (lack of) humidity would dessicate you very soon. I pulled 48 hours outta my ass, but I'll stand by it as a fair guess.
      I got a nice piece of woods by the coast in B.C., a little south of where the Browns outnumber the Kermodes, I'm not so ashamed to admit I just don't feel manly enough to bother living inland.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    4. Re:Alberta Winter by kirillart · · Score: 1

      You totally forget about 5000m altitude. I would rather live in place with -53C in Alberta with normal atmospheric pressure than anywhere higher than 4km. Human beings have serious issues with adapting to such altitudes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altitude_sickness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_mountain_sickness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoxemia In addition to that you also have much higher frostbites risk even from not-so-low temperatures.

    5. Re:Alberta Winter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be from southern Alberta. ;)

      Come over and visit Winnipeg in January once in a while. In Alberta you can barely start to grow snotcicles. In Winnipeg, you can see your your fart and hot coffee flash freezes when thrown in the air.

    6. Re:Alberta Winter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Work surveying in Alberta...
      It can get brutally cold for a brief while here. I've seen -46C without the wind chill. For what it's worth though, there's only about a couple weeks of a cold snap here. What's good about winter - you can dress up for it. I can't imagine enduring hot sweltering days with high humidity. There's no escape from sweltering heat, unless you shove bags of ice in your coveralls. Alberta might get low in the mercury in wintertime, but for the most part the weather is beautiful. Summers are warm, fall and spring are ideal.
      Mosquitos suck, though. That and those little friggin sand flies...:(

      Lazarian

    7. Re:Alberta Winter by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Adding 16,000 ft to elevation is much harsher than dropping temps 30 degrees.

      Since you are mixing unit systems it is worth pointing out that a temp change of 30C is 54F. I'd agree that a sudden change in altitude is much worse but, given time, your body adapts so you can at least stand outside in normal clothing for a period of time. Try doing that in -40C weather with a wind and you will not live long enough to worry about dehydration. In addition the far lower temperature means that while the relative humidity is usually higher in Alberta (20-30% in the winter on a dry day) the absolute humidity is probably at least as low if not lower. Certainly it affects your skin and hair.

      You probably also have running water and access to a working toilet, a variety of entertainment options, restaurants and shopping choices, even if they are all moose related.

      Having moose related shopping choices still leaves for a lot of variety. There's chocolate moose, vanilla moose, raspberry moose and a whole list of other flavours not to mention bear paws. However if the point is the lack of amenities then they should make it: not arguing about the 'terrible' -10C temperatures, low humidity and wind.

    8. Re:Alberta Winter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adding 16,000 ft to elevation is much harsher than dropping temps 30 degrees.

      Since you are mixing unit systems it is worth pointing out that a temp change of 30C is 54F. I'd agree that a sudden change in altitude is much worse but, given time, your body adapts so you can at least stand outside in normal clothing for a period of time. Try doing that in -40C weather with a wind and you will not live long enough to worry about dehydration. In addition the far lower temperature means that while the relative humidity is usually higher in Alberta (20-30% in the winter on a dry day) the absolute humidity is probably at least as low if not lower. Certainly it affects your skin and hair.

      You probably also have running water and access to a working toilet, a variety of entertainment options, restaurants and shopping choices, even if they are all moose related.

      Having moose related shopping choices still leaves for a lot of variety. There's chocolate moose, vanilla moose, raspberry moose and a whole list of other flavours not to mention bear paws. However if the point is the lack of amenities then they should make it: not arguing about the 'terrible' -10C temperatures, low humidity and wind.

      I'm guessing you never spent much time at altitude. I wasn't referring to the cold or the wind, but the lack of air. Not just the lack of oxygen, but the low pressure is severely debilitating. I don't really notice it until 12,000ft, and am still OK at 14,000 ft, but the blood vessels in my nose burst at just under 20,000 after a couple hours. It's really, really hard to understand a lack of air pressure if you haven't experienced it. Sea level is 29.92 (Hg in), a mile up is about 25, 2 miles is 20 and at 16,000 you have just 16.

      I also notice you ignored the other salient point, which is a total of 0 working toilets at the station (they have 1 working urinal).

    9. Re:Alberta Winter by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I've been in Winnipeg in January, as well as most other times of the year. Winnipeg winter is comparable to northern Alberta winter, except without chinooks to break up the eyelash freezing, shoe sole breaking cold spells. Which is impressive, considering how far south you guys are. Southern Alberta winter is considerably milder (I've lived there too).

    10. Re:Alberta Winter by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you never spent much time at altitude. I wasn't referring to the cold or the wind, but the lack of air.

      I've been up to ~3800m in the Alps and I agree that when deposited there by cable car you certainly do notice the lack of air. Climbing stairs rapidly can make you feel a little woozy etc. However it is possible to adapt to altitude and, although not a medic, I understand this involves your body producing more haemoglobin which is why olympic athletes often train at altitude. While I am sure these adaptations do not make everything magically better you are wrong to compare a brief exposure to high altitude for a day or two with living there.

      I also notice you ignored the other salient point, which is a total of 0 working toilets at the station (they have 1 working urinal).

      No I did address this. Their main argument is the "harsh" conditions not the lack of amenities. If they do not appear concerned by this then I can only guess that by the local standards the amenities are perhaps not so bad. I also have doubts that they have no access to a toilet of any description because that would be exceedingly inefficient.

  17. welcome to science by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

    $2000 a month is about what the average non-PhD technician/junior scientist on a government funded basic research project makes in the United States. A junior PhD will make about twice that. Astronomy is not a particularly well funded branch of science (compared to molecular biology or nanotechnology, for example), I would expect their technicians to generally make less than average.

    If you want to work in basic research (in any capacity other than PI), be prepared to live very frugally.

  18. Observation on argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Although the project's budget is $1.1 billion, an ALMA technician earns less than $2.000 per month."

    Does this pass as logic on Slashdot?

  19. oh please by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    If you were exposed in the Atacama, you would most likely be dead in less than 48 hours.

    I live in a major US city where the same is true for a few months out of the year. Yawn.

    1. Re:oh please by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      If you were lost in Manhattan, chances are fairly good that you could walk to shelter before succumbing to the elements. And the Atacama is just about all dry and cold every day of the year.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    2. Re:oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is talking about the lack of oxygen, not temperature, there is no city at 16k feet above sea level, 15k feet is usually taken to be the limit of sustainable life for humans

  20. Mining industry needs these guys by adoll · · Score: 2

    Go find work elsewhere then.

    Striking just shows at they can't. Otherwise they already would have.

    I've worked in high-altitude mines in northern Chile and suggest that the working conditions are similar, but the pay is better in mining. There is a large pool of skilled and semi-skilled people who work in the high altitude mines (Collahuasi, Quebrada Blanca, Pascua Lama, Los Bronces, Andina, El Teniente just to name a few) that are the same labour pool that the telescopes are competing for.

    The demand for skilled people in mining is driving up wages in Chile. Since these telescopes are competing for the same skilled people, they better pay competitive wages or else watch their people head elsewhere.

  21. Re:Early September this year. by conureman · · Score: 1

    God damn this place went down hill once they started issuing six digit ID's.

    Ain't it the truth!

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  22. Re:Solidarity by hoboroadie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...or could just mean that you can't abide some asshole exploiting your fellow man, and you have the courage to stay and fight.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  23. nationalism much? by gDLL · · Score: 1

    nationalist much?

  24. tell that to the homeless by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    If you were lost in Manhattan, chances are fairly good that you could walk to shelter before succumbing to the elements. And the Atacama is just about all dry and cold every day of the year.

    Tell that to the forty or so homeless people a year who die of exposure in NYC.