If you don't like it here - why don't you just leave is an ultimatum. Not choice, nor guarantee.
And if we are going to talk "deserved" pay grade - what would be the fair wage for corporate drones for leading the company into ruin?
Gee, maybe the UAW should've thought of that.
Right. Sure. UAW workers are guilty for the fact of trusting their management that they know what the fuck they are doing.
The management that kept churning out gas guzzling SUVs and trucks despite the price of a barrel of oil going over $200. And then while losing the sales war to Toyotas in a down-spiraling economy - complaining that foreign car manufacturers are losing less because they are paying their workers less.
Sure - it's the workers' fault they were told to build unsellable products.
There are extremes on both sides, and while that particular industry's union isn't as bad as some of the UAW craziness, they're not generally reasonable, either. Things like "output should effect your wages in some way", "you should actually do an amount of work that someone intently working for 75% of the work day could reasonably accomplish" and "seniority is not absolute job security" are basically anathema to them.
Well, neither are wages of CEOs that come out to 100 times the wage of an assembly line worker. Particularly when the company ends up in the toilet.
As for those examples you mention - problem with all three is that they are VERY easily "adjusted" and micromanaged in order to pay workers less or even fire them for failing to meet the over-adjusted quota repeatedly. Just like Hollywood movies a company can rake in billions and still be permanently in debt. And when you are not being payed in shares and stock - job security is about the only incentive you can hope for. Plus the promise of job security at old age keeps the "masses" "in line".
I do have to wonder however, is closing down the business in response to voting to become a "union shop" a violation of said federal law? It's certainly not discriminating against any particular employees, nor is it refusing to negotiate -- it's ceasing to be an entity entirely. Who do you even bring suit against?
IANAL but it is akin to calling the police and announcing you will start randomly shooting people at the town square, then showing up there with a gun - and standing there waiting for the police to make the first move. If anything, even without actually committing the crime AT THE TIME of announcing it - it clearly shows the intent. At the very least.
And he is probably guilty for breaking the law for the first two lines of the act alone:
* Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in their rights under Section 7. These rights include freedom of association, mutual aid or protection, self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively for wages and working conditions through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other protected concerted activities with or without a union. Section 8(a)(1)
* "Dominating" or interfering with the formation or administration of any labor organization . Section 8(a)(2)
...unionists were parasites who would "eat up" the company and then move on to the next one, instead of workers working FOR the company, creating the profit and thereby being entitled to the part of it - and who would be jobless if they should "ruin the company" by their "crazy" demands.
Then, your "unjustified pay raises and unsustainable benefits" might hold water.
I guess you prefer the "popular" option - where employer sacks the workers and then rewards himself and his circle of CEOs with dividends cause stocks just went up due to their "saving measures" causing the increase of profit in the last quarter. Repeating that until they fire that last quantum of skilled workers, tipping the company into loss, then debt and finally into bankruptcy - and then just selling it up or simply jumping the ship to another company. Unless the company happens to be "to big to fail" in a "1st world" country that can afford to "bail them out". So not only do they get awarded for ruining companies they run, lives of workers they employ and sending the economy to hell - they get to directly steal the money from the taxpayers too.
Brilliant that. Much better than giving the workers power to control how their company operates. At-will employment FTW.
Unionized workers would turn United States of America into United Socialist States of America. And by "socialist" I of course mean Russian. And then the KGB would go door to door confiscating all guns, beer and bacon. And American Football would be canceled and the stadiums would be plowed over into turnip fields. And it would perpetually snow.
Is that how the programing goes? I'm not an USian and as such I've never received that particular programing so I'm just guessing here.
I'm certain that despite breakin a federal law here and there he is a swell guy who "does try to do right by his employees", disregarding an occasional attempt at blackmailing them to give up their rights.
And use the benefits of being a part of the workforce group, instead of taking on the corporation with what they have in their pockets. The downside is everyone would have to learn to speak Russian, USA would have to be renamed to USSA, communists would finally win and everyone joining the union would forever burn in hell along with his/her entire family, godless heathens they all are.
Or whatever it was that was programmed into the minds of Americans during the last century as being the reason why communism, socialism, unions, worker's rights etc. are inherently bad things.
As stated in TFA, judge could just as well instruct the jury to disregard the tattoos in their judgment of the "facts".
The issue here is the fact that the cost of the makeover will be covered by the court. I.e. the taxpayers. The reason being that a wealthier defendant could afford such a makeover and even to completely remove the tattoos. As an interesting point, TFA mentions Enron case and defendants there removing their $10000 watches in court to appear more “kind of like me” to the jury.
Look at it this way. What should Paris Hilton look like in court for every part of her "persona" to be "shown to the jury"?
Particularly the "Question only you know the answer to". That has the range from "First grade teacher" through "Pet's name" all the way over to "Street you lived on when you were 8".
Is anyone in Facebook HQ aware that about 90% of their users use it to communicate or get back in touch with the very group of people who would know those answers - BECAUSE THEY ANSWERED THE SAME QUESTION THE SAME WAY?! Hello! Your entire first grade class had the same teacher. Your friends know the name of your pets and the street you lived on. Your cousins sure as hell know the rest of the questions like mother's maiden name etc.
Why not just give everyone the default code of 0000 or 12345? It's about the same level of security.
At the risk of feeding an obvious troll, no, C.S. Lewis simply didn't feel like defending Christianity against straw man arguments, hyperbole, or ignorance.
When you don't feel like doing something, do you go around and tell it to anyone willing to listen or do you simply not do that thing?
Had he ANY intention to simply avoid conflict the correct answer would be "Screw 'em". Or, since we are talking about old-school gentlemen writer here "That is their problem.". Period. End of discussion.
Aaah, but that doesn't fulfill the ego quite as much as insinuating that anyone not agreeing with his particular fairytale (Bible, not Narnia) is a "fucking illiterate moron who should keep his fucking mouth shut".
Then again, he may have just been particularly bad at trying to promote his latest Narnia book to at the time yet untapped market of those who "cannot understand books written for grown-up".
"There is no need to be worried by facetious people who try to make the Christian hope of 'Heaven' ridiculous by saying they do not want 'to spend eternity playing harps.' The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-up, they should not talk about them."
-- C.S. Lewis
In other words: "I don't like what you are saying so I'm gonna put my hands over my ears and SING REAL LOUD! NA-NA-NA-NA-I CAN NOT HEAR YOU!!! NA-NA-NA-NA YOU LOOK SO STUPID WITH YOUR MOUTH OPENING AND CLOSING AND NO SOUND COMING OUUUT! NA-NA-NA-NAAA!!!"
It is not about "law" but Amazon's in-house RULES. "Otherwise objectionable" is just another way of saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".
The burden of proving some kind of illegal discrimination by Amazon and seeking monetary or other reimbursement is now on the Wikileaks. My guess is that they are not going to pursue that lawsuit any time soon.
I was quoting myself where I've explained why your post makes no sense. But if you want another analogy...
Think of it as a storekeepers kid coming into the store and, while lazily talking to his parent, munching on a piece of candy he just took off the rack - and then walking out without paying.
Kinda like how the store owner can open a pack of crisps and start eating them right there, while a buyer doing the same thing might be accused of shoplifting.
What gives the US the right to declare a foreigner is violating it's laws when the said foreigner is a) not a US Citizen and b) not residing in the US?.
All attackers were foreign citizens without permanent residence in US.
Come on. Get serious here. Legal is what the government(s) SAY is legal. Illegal also.
And when you find the time, go and ask around about "democratically elected" governments toppling regimes of other democratically elected governments just because it suits them so and providing nothing more for an excuse than "we REALLY don't like their ideology".
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't like it here - why don't you just leave is an ultimatum. Not choice, nor guarantee.
And if we are going to talk "deserved" pay grade - what would be the fair wage for corporate drones for leading the company into ruin?
Gee, maybe the UAW should've thought of that.
Right. Sure.
UAW workers are guilty for the fact of trusting their management that they know what the fuck they are doing.
The management that kept churning out gas guzzling SUVs and trucks despite the price of a barrel of oil going over $200.
And then while losing the sales war to Toyotas in a down-spiraling economy - complaining that foreign car manufacturers are losing less because they are paying their workers less.
Sure - it's the workers' fault they were told to build unsellable products.
There are extremes on both sides, and while that particular industry's union isn't as bad as some of the UAW craziness, they're not generally reasonable, either. Things like "output should effect your wages in some way", "you should actually do an amount of work that someone intently working for 75% of the work day could reasonably accomplish" and "seniority is not absolute job security" are basically anathema to them.
Well, neither are wages of CEOs that come out to 100 times the wage of an assembly line worker. Particularly when the company ends up in the toilet.
As for those examples you mention - problem with all three is that they are VERY easily "adjusted" and micromanaged in order to pay workers less or even fire them for failing to meet the over-adjusted quota repeatedly.
Just like Hollywood movies a company can rake in billions and still be permanently in debt.
And when you are not being payed in shares and stock - job security is about the only incentive you can hope for.
Plus the promise of job security at old age keeps the "masses" "in line".
I do have to wonder however, is closing down the business in response to voting to become a "union shop" a violation of said federal law? It's certainly not discriminating against any particular employees, nor is it refusing to negotiate -- it's ceasing to be an entity entirely. Who do you even bring suit against?
IANAL but it is akin to calling the police and announcing you will start randomly shooting people at the town square, then showing up there with a gun - and standing there waiting for the police to make the first move.
If anything, even without actually committing the crime AT THE TIME of announcing it - it clearly shows the intent. At the very least.
And he is probably guilty for breaking the law for the first two lines of the act alone:
* Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in their rights under Section 7.
These rights include freedom of association, mutual aid or protection, self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively for wages and working conditions through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other protected concerted activities with or without a union. Section 8(a)(1)
* "Dominating" or interfering with the formation or administration of any labor organization . Section 8(a)(2)
...unionists were parasites who would "eat up" the company and then move on to the next one, instead of workers working FOR the company, creating the profit and thereby being entitled to the part of it - and who would be jobless if they should "ruin the company" by their "crazy" demands.
Then, your "unjustified pay raises and unsustainable benefits" might hold water.
I guess you prefer the "popular" option - where employer sacks the workers and then rewards himself and his circle of CEOs with dividends cause stocks just went up due to their "saving measures" causing the increase of profit in the last quarter.
Repeating that until they fire that last quantum of skilled workers, tipping the company into loss, then debt and finally into bankruptcy - and then just selling it up or simply jumping the ship to another company.
Unless the company happens to be "to big to fail" in a "1st world" country that can afford to "bail them out".
So not only do they get awarded for ruining companies they run, lives of workers they employ and sending the economy to hell - they get to directly steal the money from the taxpayers too.
Brilliant that. Much better than giving the workers power to control how their company operates. At-will employment FTW.
Unionized workers would turn United States of America into United Socialist States of America.
And by "socialist" I of course mean Russian.
And then the KGB would go door to door confiscating all guns, beer and bacon.
And American Football would be canceled and the stadiums would be plowed over into turnip fields.
And it would perpetually snow.
Is that how the programing goes? I'm not an USian and as such I've never received that particular programing so I'm just guessing here.
I'm certain that despite breakin a federal law here and there he is a swell guy who "does try to do right by his employees", disregarding an occasional attempt at blackmailing them to give up their rights.
And use the benefits of being a part of the workforce group, instead of taking on the corporation with what they have in their pockets.
The downside is everyone would have to learn to speak Russian, USA would have to be renamed to USSA, communists would finally win and everyone joining the union would forever burn in hell along with his/her entire family, godless heathens they all are.
Or whatever it was that was programmed into the minds of Americans during the last century as being the reason why communism, socialism, unions, worker's rights etc. are inherently bad things.
Gmail app even uses several letters invented by Apple. And if you squint your eyes enough, Google logo looks exactly like Apple's.
but the app page looked almost Apple iPad-like. Plus, when Rubin brought up the Gmail app, it looked almost exactly like Gmail on the iPad.
Seriously? Gmail app looked a lot like a Gmail app - but on the iPad?
Wow! How does that compare to the likeness to say... Gmail?
As stated in TFA, judge could just as well instruct the jury to disregard the tattoos in their judgment of the "facts".
The issue here is the fact that the cost of the makeover will be covered by the court. I.e. the taxpayers.
The reason being that a wealthier defendant could afford such a makeover and even to completely remove the tattoos.
As an interesting point, TFA mentions Enron case and defendants there removing their $10000 watches in court to appear more “kind of like me” to the jury.
Look at it this way.
What should Paris Hilton look like in court for every part of her "persona" to be "shown to the jury"?
Particularly the "Question only you know the answer to".
That has the range from "First grade teacher" through "Pet's name" all the way over to "Street you lived on when you were 8".
Is anyone in Facebook HQ aware that about 90% of their users use it to communicate or get back in touch with the very group of people who would know those answers - BECAUSE THEY ANSWERED THE SAME QUESTION THE SAME WAY?!
Hello! Your entire first grade class had the same teacher. Your friends know the name of your pets and the street you lived on. Your cousins sure as hell know the rest of the questions like mother's maiden name etc.
Why not just give everyone the default code of 0000 or 12345? It's about the same level of security.
How does your boyfriend/husband feel about that?
And I simply can't see anyone having any problem with that.
Well... Except maybe Rupert Murdoch.
Now show me one where this smug bastard eats crow. Preferably a live crow.
CmdrTaco can join him.
At the risk of feeding an obvious troll, no, C.S. Lewis simply didn't feel like defending Christianity against straw man arguments, hyperbole, or ignorance.
When you don't feel like doing something, do you go around and tell it to anyone willing to listen or do you simply not do that thing?
Had he ANY intention to simply avoid conflict the correct answer would be "Screw 'em".
Or, since we are talking about old-school gentlemen writer here "That is their problem.". Period. End of discussion.
Aaah, but that doesn't fulfill the ego quite as much as insinuating that anyone not agreeing with his particular fairytale (Bible, not Narnia) is a "fucking illiterate moron who should keep his fucking mouth shut".
Then again, he may have just been particularly bad at trying to promote his latest Narnia book to at the time yet untapped market of those who "cannot understand books written for grown-up".
"There is no need to be worried by facetious people who try to make the Christian hope of 'Heaven' ridiculous by saying they do not want 'to spend eternity playing harps.' The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-up, they should not talk about them."
-- C.S. Lewis
In other words: "I don't like what you are saying so I'm gonna put my hands over my ears and SING REAL LOUD! NA-NA-NA-NA-I CAN NOT HEAR YOU!!! NA-NA-NA-NA YOU LOOK SO STUPID WITH YOUR MOUTH OPENING AND CLOSING AND NO SOUND COMING OUUUT! NA-NA-NA-NAAA!!!"
It also trumps torture.
5. Profit?
I've got a better one. Why won't Jeff Bezos sign over all his money and assets to me?
I mean... since it's obviously the "Ask stupid rhetorical questions day"...
here in a blog intended for "news that matters" for "nerds".
I mean, I know what a "blog" is, but I am dying to hear your definition.
It is not about "law" but Amazon's in-house RULES.
"Otherwise objectionable" is just another way of saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".
The burden of proving some kind of illegal discrimination by Amazon and seeking monetary or other reimbursement is now on the Wikileaks.
My guess is that they are not going to pursue that lawsuit any time soon.
Good thing neither of us is a global corporation or the other one would probably be fucked.
I was quoting myself where I've explained why your post makes no sense.
But if you want another analogy...
Think of it as a storekeepers kid coming into the store and, while lazily talking to his parent, munching on a piece of candy he just took off the rack - and then walking out without paying.
And by kid, I mean a "sub corp".
Kinda like how the store owner can open a pack of crisps and start eating them right there, while a buyer doing the same thing might be accused of shoplifting.
... The chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee?
Gee... I don't know. Maybe their kids carpool to school together?
Or maybe it has to do with all that "security" shtick of his. Can't really say. Go ask him.
What gives the US the right to declare a foreigner is violating it's laws when the said foreigner is a) not a US Citizen and b) not residing in the US?.
All attackers were foreign citizens without permanent residence in US.
Come on. Get serious here. Legal is what the government(s) SAY is legal. Illegal also.
And when you find the time, go and ask around about "democratically elected" governments toppling regimes of other democratically elected governments just because it suits them so and providing nothing more for an excuse than "we REALLY don't like their ideology".