The charter of Human Rights states that the right to life is inalienable. The UK, like any EU member state, is bound to it. Adding exceptions to a basic human right is extremely dangerous.
"inalienable[in-eyl-yuh-nuh-buhl, -ey-lee-uh-] –adjective not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights."
In other words the right to life rest solely in the hands of the individual, which would extend to the right to end that life. No other can decide on that right. I'm lucky enough to life in a state with euthanasia laws, hopefully I won't ever have to use them but I'm glad to have the option.
Unless the Google van drives by, then all lights will be turned up to maximum illumination. Of course if you do not which to use this feature you can turn it off by registering with Google so they can "ensure your privacy."
There seems to be a great difference between unions in the US and Europe. I don't know of one union here that has mandatory membership and union reps in my experience are always chosen by secret ballot. If a union does engage in the kind of mafia practices you describe then it should be disbanded but discouraging people from organizing at all isn't the answer. Like everything it needs checks and balances, the way unions operate is very strictly regulated over here for example. I can see with your experience why you'd be against them though.
The way your question is framed makes it impossible to answer. More than I have to ? No I guess, I don't go around showering people with money (read my other posts I'm not advocating exorbitant salaries because in the end that will hurt companies and employees alike.) However I could get my house cleaned by an illegal immigrant on the cheap, I don't. I could pay a neighbor kid to babysit for less, but hiring through the service offers better protection for everyone involved for slightly higher rates. This isn't paying more than you have to, it's paying a fair price for people who are getting protection under labor laws here. I also shop in small local shops if I can, often at a slightly higher price (but for superior service.) So in answer to your accusation: yes, I like to think I do my part.
This is just my opinion but economics isn't a hard science like physics but a social science and so I believe there should be room for fairness. Anyway I just wanted to say I hope everything works out for you and your luck changes for the better.
You're not supposed to aspire to a career of doing something that's oriented around entry-level people with little experience.
This is belittling. It's what I was talking about: "doesn't that 30 year old know he's not supposed to aspire to this ?" Give the guy a break and some respect, maybe he likes his job and is good at it. Probably better than the manager with all his "hustle" would be and that's OK because they're all doing jobs that need to be done.
Disdain? You're the one showing disdain by assuming that's all people can or should be good for after a couple of years of doing it. Talk about pigeonholing people with your low expectations. It's people like you that shovel illiterate, useless kids out of school with the same diploma that's given to the ones who actually apply themselves.
No, I support everyone's right to pursue whatever career choices make them happiest and I treat people with respect wether they are my bin man or my manager, my expectations don't enter into it. Knew one guy that went from programming to being a mail carrier, says he's never been happier.
Actually in Belgium there's a service that organizes babysitting (by independent sitters, mostly students) that makes sure there's a standard rate charged, the sitter is insured, established work conditions like tasks that will not be performed, etc. Not strictly a union I guess, though the name "gezinsbond" does translate roughly to "family union/association." My girlfriend used to do some work through them in fact, even though it was for people in her neighborhood. The country is pretty unionized, so I'm sure I've paid "extra" so to speak to give some people a decent wage.
Reality isn't inscribed anywhere, it just is. If you don't like it then work to change your own situation. If you want to achieve goals or have things then you have to be willing to work for them. Few things worth having come easily or free of charge. That's the world we live in. Going around with a chip on your shoulder harms nobody but yourself. Didn't your parents teach you these things when you were small?
Here's what I've learned from reality: my father has been a dock worker all his life, they have a pretty strong union here and he has earned a decent pay and now enjoys a reasonable pension. Even though there's no great love between him and the unions, he has striked and demonstrated along with his colleagues. In the end I believe this has been beneficial for both parties: the workers get a fair salary, the employers don't get to lower wages to the point where workers become demotivated, unproductive, etc. My father liked his job very much though in my opinion (I'm biased) he was surely capable of doing other "better" (in the eyes of others) work but why should he have done that just to get a fair shake ? I don't think his situation would've been much improved if they hadn't asked for the salary and benefits they got because "that's reality" and "plenty of people would want your jobs."
It doesn't. The employees had to be paid, the capital acquired (i.e. inventory or equipment), the factors organized and a product produced; all with no guarantee that any of it would earn any money whatsoever. In other words, the owners took substantial risks that the employees did not. It's their right, by virtue of their ownership of the company, to be compensated for taking those risks and bringing new products and services to market. If you think it's easy to be an owner, get some of your friends together and try to start your own company (I hear that's popular in San Francisco anyway), then you will understand why a majority share of the profits go to those who shoulder a majority of the risks.
Yes, econ101. I've never bought that and I can't believe people are still pushing it after the bank bailouts, Detroit being bailed out, etc. There's a lot of risk at the start-up fase but what risk are Apple shareholders running now ? Understand that I don't mean people that start a business shouldn't be rightly compensated for the risk they take but when is enough enough ? It seems to me that at a certain point in a companies life shareholders become overcompensated and it becomes a means of extracting capital from the business by the already wealthy. It also leads to making decisions that hurt real people to keep stock prices up, like outsourcing or "down-sizing" (I guess the new euphemism is "right-sizing" these days) because "the market expects it."
Apple is free to offer whatever it wishes to its employees and its employees are free to take it or leave it. That is a private arrangement between Apple and its employees. If the employees don't like the terms they are free to quit at any time, it's a free country after all. If you don't like the pay then don't work there, simple isn't it?
I agree. Doesn't preclude employees from organizing.
There is nothing preventing the workers from attempting to do just that. However, Apple is free to refuse their demands or replace them with non-union labor. California is a right to work state, which means that nobody can be forced to join an association, a union for example, as a condition of employment. So, they can all stand up and Apple can terminate all of the employees at the store and hire new ones. There are lots of people in San Francisco right now who are both capable of working at the Apple store and need employment. Supply and demand, it's not just an exam item in Econ 101.
That's sad because it basically allows companies to bully people into not organizing. I also don't think it makes for a healthy relationship where one party has all of the power, balance is needed.
There should be room for both. The law in this case is a very broad instrument that should err on the conservative side, there is a middle ground there where there is room for a union to operate. It doesn't always have to be about pay BTW, a union at its core (when working well) is also a communication conduit between the employer and the body of employees where often very small grievences can be brought to the attention of the employer (and without fear of being labelled "trouble maker" or having your complaint disappearing into the machine) before they become festering resentment.
The dignity part was more about DurendalMac talking about retail workers like they are the scum of the earth, losers that stumbled into their lot in life though their own incompetence and just deserve whatever crumbs get thrown at them. That kind of attitude bothers me. Probably because I come from a long line of factory workers and day laborers.
It's called supply and demand. It's one of those unpleasant realities, like, say, gravity.
Yes, but why is it assumed that workers have to play a totally passive role in this ? People are not lumps of coal, they can organize to get a better deal at their end.
That being said, Apple IS offering awesome wages and benefits to its employees. Compare Mr. Moll's $14/hour + health benefits + discounts + matched 401K vs. what a retail employee gets at another electronics retailer. Like, say, Frys. Or BestBuy. Or Target. He's already GOT a better deal.
Not disputing this.
And, to be honest, retail sales is not a high-skill job.
As to "this is not how I want to be treated, etc."... they are free to do so. But you're ignoring the other side of that "freedom of association" thing: the employer also has the freedom to NOT associate with them, to say "I think your demands are unreasonable, and I'm going to work with someone I think is more reasonable."
Or are you simply trying to use "freedom of association" as a smokescreen for "what's mine is mine, what's yours is mine, too."?
I agree with this, employers have rights too. I don't think it would be right to throw someone out for organizing his coworkers though. Somewhere in the middle there is a balance, as always. I just happen to think that unions can help reach that balance where neither side is all-powerful.
You won't find me arguing for exorbitant wages but I don't think allowing workers to organize throws the balance of power in favor of labor. I live in country where most people are unionized and I can tell you we don't all live like kings.
I would argue that even if they are paid well (it seems this is the case here, I can't judge) they should be allowed to associate to protect themselves from unfair treatment should the need arise. Like you need a constitution, even if you are governed fairly at the moment without one for example.
And that fairness is determined by the market place.
I agree, the question is wether you would allow people to associate and defend common interests as one so as to have a better bargaining position. This is a right in the EU human rights convention, I don't understand why it is so controversial in the US :
Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of assembly and association, including the right to form trade unions, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society".
They are not worth tons of money. There is a large pool of potential employees. You cannot expect awesome wages and awesome benefits in that situation, period. You can call it disdain. I call it fucking reality.
Show me the stone tablets where this is inscribed. Why should all the money go to shareholders or in bonuses to people who are already very well off ? Why can't a company offer awesome wages and benefits to all its employees when it can afford it like Apple clearly can ? This reality is what you make it.
You want to get paid a lot? Work a job where you're worth a lot to the employer. You can cry all you want about the big bad men at the top, but that's how it is. Supply and demand applies to labor. That's how it is. Furthermore, when these people are making better wages and getting better benefits than most in similar jobs, you can hardly say that they're getting pissed on. But go ahead, keep assigning your own meaning to what I write if that helps you continue your idiotic ranting.
So why can't solidarity figure into it ? Why make it impossible for workers to say: "this is not how I want to be treated and all of us are willing to stand up for it together" ? This is freedom of association, a basic right in Europe.
Your disdain for the common working man is remarkable. As is the attitude that people don't deserve better until they're up the ladder pissing down on little people. It takes everyone from the laborer to the CEO to make a successful company and ALL of these people deserve a fair deal and some dignity.
This. The comments here that basically say that people should be happy for what they get straight out scare me. Like some sort of indian caste system. Imagine this attitude in the time of the American Revolution, "You want fairer taxes? You should be grateful we're even bringing tea here at all!"
No matter who you are or where you work and how well you get paid, there's nothing wrong with having your buddy's back. Collective bargaining is basically what gave us the tribe, the nation, political parties and even unions. "Hang together or hang separately" as one of your finest put it.
Blame tablets for the new fangled obsession with going back to full screen apps, which has seen much needed progress in windowed multitasking take a step backwards. In fact lets just blame dumbed down tablets, and one incumbent tablet monopoly, by setting computing progress back into reverse by over simplifying user input and forcing the user back to one task at a time.
To be fair there was a trend on Mac, unrelated to netbooks, towards "distraction free" programs (mostly writing tools) that presented a full-screen no-frills view to the user. I've also found that, for me, the full-screen thing actually works sometimes which surprised me. I'm on OSX Lion right now and I really like the fullscreen terminal for example, just one swipe of the mouse and I switch between my desktop and a fullscreen terminal. I can totally see how this would be a boon on smaller screens too, like a 13 inch laptop. It's not really a step back, it's a different way to interact with a computer. You're still multi-tasking (programs are still running concurrently), the programs are just presented to the user in a different way (if you choose so.)
They put the menu bar on top, good; then they make the menus hide -- d'oh. The advantage of that single bar on the top is that it's easier to target what you want to click, but they make it so you can't target without the intermediate step of putting the cursor on the damn thing. What's the point, then?
Maybe they're imitating the Amiga Workbench, which had a common menu also that was hidden (you pressed the right mouse button to show it which was infuriating with a wonky mouse.)
Slashdot Mirror
The charter of Human Rights states that the right to life is inalienable. The UK, like any EU member state, is bound to it. Adding exceptions to a basic human right is extremely dangerous.
"inalienable[in-eyl-yuh-nuh-buhl, -ey-lee-uh-]
–adjective
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights."
In other words the right to life rest solely in the hands of the individual, which would extend to the right to end that life. No other can decide on that right. I'm lucky enough to life in a state with euthanasia laws, hopefully I won't ever have to use them but I'm glad to have the option.
Maybe so, but wherever people are gathered ideas are exchanged. Remember Poland got rid of the communists through the actions of a union.
Hammers 4 ever ! Death to screwdrivers !
Unless the Google van drives by, then all lights will be turned up to maximum illumination. Of course if you do not which to use this feature you can turn it off by registering with Google so they can "ensure your privacy."
There seems to be a great difference between unions in the US and Europe. I don't know of one union here that has mandatory membership and union reps in my experience are always chosen by secret ballot. If a union does engage in the kind of mafia practices you describe then it should be disbanded but discouraging people from organizing at all isn't the answer. Like everything it needs checks and balances, the way unions operate is very strictly regulated over here for example. I can see with your experience why you'd be against them though.
Urban legend, here on Snopes.
The way your question is framed makes it impossible to answer. More than I have to ? No I guess, I don't go around showering people with money (read my other posts I'm not advocating exorbitant salaries because in the end that will hurt companies and employees alike.) However I could get my house cleaned by an illegal immigrant on the cheap, I don't. I could pay a neighbor kid to babysit for less, but hiring through the service offers better protection for everyone involved for slightly higher rates. This isn't paying more than you have to, it's paying a fair price for people who are getting protection under labor laws here. I also shop in small local shops if I can, often at a slightly higher price (but for superior service.) So in answer to your accusation: yes, I like to think I do my part.
This is just my opinion but economics isn't a hard science like physics but a social science and so I believe there should be room for fairness. Anyway I just wanted to say I hope everything works out for you and your luck changes for the better.
You're not supposed to aspire to a career of doing something that's oriented around entry-level people with little experience.
This is belittling. It's what I was talking about: "doesn't that 30 year old know he's not supposed to aspire to this ?" Give the guy a break and some respect, maybe he likes his job and is good at it. Probably better than the manager with all his "hustle" would be and that's OK because they're all doing jobs that need to be done.
Disdain? You're the one showing disdain by assuming that's all people can or should be good for after a couple of years of doing it. Talk about pigeonholing people with your low expectations. It's people like you that shovel illiterate, useless kids out of school with the same diploma that's given to the ones who actually apply themselves.
No, I support everyone's right to pursue whatever career choices make them happiest and I treat people with respect wether they are my bin man or my manager, my expectations don't enter into it. Knew one guy that went from programming to being a mail carrier, says he's never been happier.
Actually in Belgium there's a service that organizes babysitting (by independent sitters, mostly students) that makes sure there's a standard rate charged, the sitter is insured, established work conditions like tasks that will not be performed, etc. Not strictly a union I guess, though the name "gezinsbond" does translate roughly to "family union/association." My girlfriend used to do some work through them in fact, even though it was for people in her neighborhood. The country is pretty unionized, so I'm sure I've paid "extra" so to speak to give some people a decent wage.
Reality isn't inscribed anywhere, it just is . If you don't like it then work to change your own situation. If you want to achieve goals or have things then you have to be willing to work for them. Few things worth having come easily or free of charge. That's the world we live in. Going around with a chip on your shoulder harms nobody but yourself. Didn't your parents teach you these things when you were small?
Here's what I've learned from reality: my father has been a dock worker all his life, they have a pretty strong union here and he has earned a decent pay and now enjoys a reasonable pension. Even though there's no great love between him and the unions, he has striked and demonstrated along with his colleagues. In the end I believe this has been beneficial for both parties: the workers get a fair salary, the employers don't get to lower wages to the point where workers become demotivated, unproductive, etc. My father liked his job very much though in my opinion (I'm biased) he was surely capable of doing other "better" (in the eyes of others) work but why should he have done that just to get a fair shake ? I don't think his situation would've been much improved if they hadn't asked for the salary and benefits they got because "that's reality" and "plenty of people would want your jobs."
It doesn't. The employees had to be paid, the capital acquired (i.e. inventory or equipment), the factors organized and a product produced; all with no guarantee that any of it would earn any money whatsoever. In other words, the owners took substantial risks that the employees did not. It's their right, by virtue of their ownership of the company, to be compensated for taking those risks and bringing new products and services to market. If you think it's easy to be an owner, get some of your friends together and try to start your own company (I hear that's popular in San Francisco anyway), then you will understand why a majority share of the profits go to those who shoulder a majority of the risks.
Yes, econ101. I've never bought that and I can't believe people are still pushing it after the bank bailouts, Detroit being bailed out, etc. There's a lot of risk at the start-up fase but what risk are Apple shareholders running now ? Understand that I don't mean people that start a business shouldn't be rightly compensated for the risk they take but when is enough enough ? It seems to me that at a certain point in a companies life shareholders become overcompensated and it becomes a means of extracting capital from the business by the already wealthy. It also leads to making decisions that hurt real people to keep stock prices up, like outsourcing or "down-sizing" (I guess the new euphemism is "right-sizing" these days) because "the market expects it."
Apple is free to offer whatever it wishes to its employees and its employees are free to take it or leave it. That is a private arrangement between Apple and its employees. If the employees don't like the terms they are free to quit at any time, it's a free country after all. If you don't like the pay then don't work there, simple isn't it?
I agree. Doesn't preclude employees from organizing.
There is nothing preventing the workers from attempting to do just that. However, Apple is free to refuse their demands or replace them with non-union labor. California is a right to work state, which means that nobody can be forced to join an association, a union for example, as a condition of employment. So, they can all stand up and Apple can terminate all of the employees at the store and hire new ones. There are lots of people in San Francisco right now who are both capable of working at the Apple store and need employment. Supply and demand, it's not just an exam item in Econ 101.
That's sad because it basically allows companies to bully people into not organizing. I also don't think it makes for a healthy relationship where one party has all of the power, balance is needed.
There should be room for both. The law in this case is a very broad instrument that should err on the conservative side, there is a middle ground there where there is room for a union to operate. It doesn't always have to be about pay BTW, a union at its core (when working well) is also a communication conduit between the employer and the body of employees where often very small grievences can be brought to the attention of the employer (and without fear of being labelled "trouble maker" or having your complaint disappearing into the machine) before they become festering resentment.
The dignity part was more about DurendalMac talking about retail workers like they are the scum of the earth, losers that stumbled into their lot in life though their own incompetence and just deserve whatever crumbs get thrown at them. That kind of attitude bothers me. Probably because I come from a long line of factory workers and day laborers.
It's called supply and demand. It's one of those unpleasant realities, like, say, gravity.
Yes, but why is it assumed that workers have to play a totally passive role in this ? People are not lumps of coal, they can organize to get a better deal at their end.
That being said, Apple IS offering awesome wages and benefits to its employees. Compare Mr. Moll's $14/hour + health benefits + discounts + matched 401K vs. what a retail employee gets at another electronics retailer. Like, say, Frys. Or BestBuy. Or Target. He's already GOT a better deal.
Not disputing this.
And, to be honest, retail sales is not a high-skill job.
As to "this is not how I want to be treated, etc."... they are free to do so. But you're ignoring the other side of that "freedom of association" thing: the employer also has the freedom to NOT associate with them, to say "I think your demands are unreasonable, and I'm going to work with someone I think is more reasonable."
Or are you simply trying to use "freedom of association" as a smokescreen for "what's mine is mine, what's yours is mine, too."?
I agree with this, employers have rights too. I don't think it would be right to throw someone out for organizing his coworkers though. Somewhere in the middle there is a balance, as always. I just happen to think that unions can help reach that balance where neither side is all-powerful.
You won't find me arguing for exorbitant wages but I don't think allowing workers to organize throws the balance of power in favor of labor. I live in country where most people are unionized and I can tell you we don't all live like kings.
I would argue that even if they are paid well (it seems this is the case here, I can't judge) they should be allowed to associate to protect themselves from unfair treatment should the need arise. Like you need a constitution, even if you are governed fairly at the moment without one for example.
And that fairness is determined by the market place.
I agree, the question is wether you would allow people to associate and defend common interests as one so as to have a better bargaining position. This is a right in the EU human rights convention, I don't understand why it is so controversial in the US :
Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of assembly and association, including the right to form trade unions, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society".
They are not worth tons of money. There is a large pool of potential employees. You cannot expect awesome wages and awesome benefits in that situation, period. You can call it disdain. I call it fucking reality.
Show me the stone tablets where this is inscribed. Why should all the money go to shareholders or in bonuses to people who are already very well off ? Why can't a company offer awesome wages and benefits to all its employees when it can afford it like Apple clearly can ? This reality is what you make it.
You want to get paid a lot? Work a job where you're worth a lot to the employer. You can cry all you want about the big bad men at the top, but that's how it is. Supply and demand applies to labor. That's how it is. Furthermore, when these people are making better wages and getting better benefits than most in similar jobs, you can hardly say that they're getting pissed on. But go ahead, keep assigning your own meaning to what I write if that helps you continue your idiotic ranting.
So why can't solidarity figure into it ? Why make it impossible for workers to say: "this is not how I want to be treated and all of us are willing to stand up for it together" ? This is freedom of association, a basic right in Europe.
I looked, and they successfully unionized in 2006.
Your disdain for the common working man is remarkable. As is the attitude that people don't deserve better until they're up the ladder pissing down on little people. It takes everyone from the laborer to the CEO to make a successful company and ALL of these people deserve a fair deal and some dignity.
This. The comments here that basically say that people should be happy for what they get straight out scare me. Like some sort of indian caste system. Imagine this attitude in the time of the American Revolution, "You want fairer taxes? You should be grateful we're even bringing tea here at all!"
No matter who you are or where you work and how well you get paid, there's nothing wrong with having your buddy's back. Collective bargaining is basically what gave us the tribe, the nation, political parties and even unions. "Hang together or hang separately" as one of your finest put it.
Rule 34 - raping your childhood since 1996.
Blame tablets for the new fangled obsession with going back to full screen apps, which has seen much needed progress in windowed multitasking take a step backwards. In fact lets just blame dumbed down tablets, and one incumbent tablet monopoly, by setting computing progress back into reverse by over simplifying user input and forcing the user back to one task at a time.
To be fair there was a trend on Mac, unrelated to netbooks, towards "distraction free" programs (mostly writing tools) that presented a full-screen no-frills view to the user. I've also found that, for me, the full-screen thing actually works sometimes which surprised me. I'm on OSX Lion right now and I really like the fullscreen terminal for example, just one swipe of the mouse and I switch between my desktop and a fullscreen terminal. I can totally see how this would be a boon on smaller screens too, like a 13 inch laptop. It's not really a step back, it's a different way to interact with a computer. You're still multi-tasking (programs are still running concurrently), the programs are just presented to the user in a different way (if you choose so.)
They put the menu bar on top, good; then they make the menus hide -- d'oh. The advantage of that single bar on the top is that it's easier to target what you want to click, but they make it so you can't target without the intermediate step of putting the cursor on the damn thing. What's the point, then?
Maybe they're imitating the Amiga Workbench, which had a common menu also that was hidden (you pressed the right mouse button to show it which was infuriating with a wonky mouse.)