What bugs me more than anything is the lack of choice, and my father tells me that this is the way wall phones were at one time until someone stepped in and regulated against it. I don't know why there shouldn't be comparable phones from each carrier. I also don't know why I should not be able to get the same price as a business as I can as an individual. I understand the technical differences between CDMA and GSM, but it seems ridiculous otherwise that this sort of foolishness should be allowed to take place. Really, that's why it's so hard to compare. I have Verizon -- there is no cheap Palm for Verizon. To me, the iPhone is not so expensive, because from my carrier there is no cheap alternative. Then again, I couldn't have an iPhone anyway, so really it is irrelevant to me.
Do you wanna see my bill, jackass? The plan I have is America's Choice II, and it's listed as having 900 minutes. Apparently, it is not offered now, but I'm on a 2-year contract. For more information:
For my carrier, Verizon, there is no low-cost Palm phone. It's a tough comparison to be making -- so, yes, with AT&T it's quite possible that an iPhone is more money than the available Treo options. My Treo 700p was something like $500, though, and I'm pretty sure that that is about what it costs now. As far as the 750 is concerned, yeah, it may be cheaper than the iPhone, but not by a lot. If it were an order of magnitude more expensive, I could see saying something, but no two phones are going to cost exactly the same price.
Rebates do not count. I am not eligible for any rebates at all, being on a corporate plan. Many people are also ineligible for other reasons (current customer without a lot of time on their plan). I'm talking dollar for dollar without giveaways.
That's actually not expensive -- I was surprised to see how low they were. Verizon's 900 minute plan is $99, and the cost of a Treo is really not a lot less than the cost of an iPhone (I think it might be more). When I had T-Mobile and a Treo 650, I was happy with the price I was getting (though it included WiFi in Starbucks and wherever else they controlled WiFi), and I was paying $58 for 300 mins and unlimited data. It would not surprise me to find out that these plans are cheaper than other unlimted data plans that AT&T offers.
I have a lot of experience with this lately, having come down with an odd virus that had no treatment but was/is excruciatingly painful. There may be no treatment available, but I wager the vast majority of these folks who go to a doctor but have nothing wrong with them DO have some symptom or another... for me, getting the symptom treated is almost equally as important as having the cause treated, as I probably wouldn't have gotten out of my chair without it. One doctor recently seemed much more concerned with the cause and the symptom was nearly an afterthought -- as a result, I was in a lot of pain for 24 hours with no way to fix it. He saw the antibiotic as more important (though it ultimately turned out not to be bacterial), but I saw something for pain to be something that should have happened immediately.
Another thing -- most people want to feel like the doctor at least LOOKED for something. One doctor I went to recently made me wait 40 mins to see him and then looked at me for like 30 seconds and prescribed something. Yes, that makes sense if you know what it is straight off and know what to do about it, but you might just wanna look for other things that I/didn't/ mention, in case I have more than one thing or in case there are different diagnoses that have similar symptoms except for a couple.
Q: "Why didn't you include these reasons in your original post?" A: "I was talking about the reasons for a different group of people in my original post."
There are two different groups. There is the currently in a union crowd, and this is generally what I hear from them (or people who were in unions that they felt were not helping). Then there is the general public/non-union/anti-union crowd (which is who I was addressing) that has no experience whatsoever, except believes the bullshit that is passed around as gospel by all sorts of outlets. Sure, it's true about some unions, but it's also not true about plenty of unions.
Elevators do not get into accidents with other elevators. Theoretically, neither do computer controlled trains, but we all know that this can happen. It can be a matter of life and death in an accident for crews to keep passengers escaping a train involved in an accident from stepping into the path of an oncoming train. Such things do not often happen in elevators. You can ask anyone in the industry why their job is necessary. You will say, well, that's biased information, but there are very few people other than those on the ground who would know... perhaps also training personnel, but hey, in your view, they are probably also biased.
To be more clear, what I meant is that assuming someone is lying because they're in a union is uninformed tripe. I wasn't referring to you since you don't subscribe to that mantra. I certainly know they aren't perfect, but the idea that someone's report should be discarded as a result is nuts. Besides, this case is the unions levying a complaint about Verizon... my interest is in whether that is true. There is no part of this article/situation that implicates the union, so I don't really need to take a side, I just need to take a look at whether Verizon is doing what the union alleges they are doing.
No, I don't -- but I didn't vote for them... I voted for people that I/did/ trust to be completely open and honest with me. They didn't win, because no one else really seems to give a shit about stuff like that, saying things like "oh but they'll never win," instead of making a real choice. Same thing applies here, doesn't it?
And you know what? You're lucky. That could change at any minute (management decides that that shit is unnecessary and money can be saved), and you'd be fucked. Even if you did want to quit and find a better job, you'd be in a rough spot for a little while (even if you do have money squirreled away for such a reason). Changing jobs is a hassle, and it can take away a good commute that you'd planned for at the previous jobs. Why have to worry about that shit -- why not have it written down and be safe from fast-ones like that?
It is not safe to operate a subway with no one safeguarding the train, and the unions are right about that. In fact, I really fail to see how only 2 people is safe either. What if something happens? The first thing that is said is there was no crew anywhere around to assist. Yeah, no shit -- they got fired to save a few bucks. Just because you can find subway systems that safe everyday with no employees on them doesn't mean that it's a wise practice -- something could happen at any time.
So, yeah, I'm starting to get an idea where the subject comes from: ignorant people who call for people's heads on lamposts and armchair quarterback about businesses they'd have no idea how to run. Thanks for elucidating that for me.
I am in IT and in a union/am a union rep. It is in my job description to occasionally work after hours/participate in the on-call rotation. Guess what -- I'm not paid for it. Until the union wins its fight on that front, I'm not GOING to be paid for it either. Those above my boss have spoken and said that their policy is to do as little as they can with the current contract and they're sticking by it. Fine, that works, but if I had no union, I'd have NO way to change that.
As for your other specific scenarios: Meltdown at night? Someone should be responsible for the equipment at night, in a rotation or something. If there is no policy on that, management is asinine. In my particular shop, we occasionally do things for each other too (I'll go in one night when it's really another guy's responsibility 'cuz I happened to have no plans and he did). Just being in a union doesn't mean that stuff doesn't happen. The major financials thing? Why does that company have ONE person qualified to do that job? What if that guy gets sick, hit by a bus... whatever? If a business needs to have a union contract be the one to tell them that zero redundancy is a dumbass idea, so be it. I'd personally go back to work from a coffee break if there was an emergency, but that is my choice to do so. What's to stop management from taking the next step and saying, listen, you can't really go on coffee breaks -- who knows what might happen if you leave for a few mins?
The harddisk thing? Again... if your company is too retarded not to properly staff for all hours, how is that the employee's fault? Where does that end without unions -- may as well have the one guy work whenever, since he is technically qualified to do so. Moving the computer? That provision is in there so that management can't say "fuck it, why have movers, you know how to move shit, right? I know you're doing the rest of your job, but put on your moving clothes. No, you aren't getting paid extra to do two jobs."
I really don't have a problem with my management. They are fair, give comp days for off-hours time spent working, etc. Plenty of departments in my company are NOT fair though, which proves to me why this stuff needs to be organized and in the contract. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a good boss.
...form a union. We "get to" gouge customers? Hardly. We get a decent wage (a little on the low side). If you can't find that because you're not organized, I can't help you.
I've asked the community -- the reason is the perception is that the unions take their money and do nothing (if that's what we're talking about), even though that's not true, and you can't find half of the union membership when you try to have a meeting to call a vote or to get people motivated to do something. Heck, we had a simple yes or no vote and 27% of people voted. Part of that was poor communication, but part of that is "ehh, didn't give a shit." The same people have no qualms about being part of the union-bashing club, though, slapping each other on the back and talking about how they'd never actually go on strike. Well, guess what, the union is there to help ORGANIZE, not to do the work for you. Maybe THAT'S a more realistic reason for why people in unions don't like unions (in many cases).
Bullshit. Many companies move overseas to find labor at a fraction of the cost of workers here. If you think that being a non-union shop prevents that, you have your head in the sand. Companies will flee the second they think they can do something more cheaply elsewhere, not because union employees wanted extravagant raises. Why would a company that hires primarily minimum wage workers (very likely non-union) ever need to go elsewhere, if all they want is to avoid union salary inflation?
If the union is fine with people crossing the picket lines, what kind of strike is it going to be? May as well not have a union at that point if the union doesn't actually stand together.
Brother and sister unions over by me are used primarily when management decides not to give a shit about the action of one union. In shops where multiple unions are present, and for whatever reason are fragmented such that a strike would not affect management, having that option is very important. Besides, I don't see why "management is fucking with you -- it's very likely the result of their fucking with you will be confidence to steamroll me" is something that should be illegal. Generally, management will attack in one place and use that to get their foot in the door.
I would argue that the problem is the employers. Talk about questionable practices -- take a look at what you just said: businesses resort to moving offshore and non-union shops. Why? So they can spend less, and often get around even things like US minimum wage laws. The reason those laws exist are to protect workers. Seems to me, with proper regulations, that kind of thing would be prevented. Why should a company exploit ANYONE so that they can improve their profit margin? Frankly, my wages being affected is OK -- I can still afford to eat. If lower wages for me means so can a lot of other people, I really don't take issue with that.
That is the same sentiment towards my union, and yes, I would say you should become a full member.
The funny thing is, I hear people say "the union is just interested in sucking money out of dues-paying members, not in actually benefiting people" and then I go to after-hours union meetings and talk with other officials about issues at our workplace, and spend a lot of our own time trying to figure out how to motivate the people that we represent to stand up to management when they refuse to give a COLA increase that actually covers the cost of living... basically putting a lot of ourselves into the union.
So, where is this disconnect coming from? I don't know, but being on both sides of the union issue where I work, there are reasons why certain provisions of our contract are a pain in the ass (bumping rights, etc.) but at the same time, they protect people who are just trying to make a living, and the employees of the union work hard. Apparently it doesn't matter, though, because hard as you work, a bunch of folks will stand out in the peanut gallery, not show up to published meetings, and mouth off about how the union takes their money and runs.
Slashdot Mirror
What bugs me more than anything is the lack of choice, and my father tells me that this is the way wall phones were at one time until someone stepped in and regulated against it. I don't know why there shouldn't be comparable phones from each carrier. I also don't know why I should not be able to get the same price as a business as I can as an individual. I understand the technical differences between CDMA and GSM, but it seems ridiculous otherwise that this sort of foolishness should be allowed to take place. Really, that's why it's so hard to compare. I have Verizon -- there is no cheap Palm for Verizon. To me, the iPhone is not so expensive, because from my carrier there is no cheap alternative. Then again, I couldn't have an iPhone anyway, so really it is irrelevant to me.
Do you wanna see my bill, jackass? The plan I have is America's Choice II, and it's listed as having 900 minutes. Apparently, it is not offered now, but I'm on a 2-year contract. For more information:
3 0042
http://www.letstalk.com/product/product.htm?prId=
Or look at any of the internet listings for America's Choice 900. Anyone who modded YOU up must not have heard me when I said that I HAVE this plan.
For my carrier, Verizon, there is no low-cost Palm phone. It's a tough comparison to be making -- so, yes, with AT&T it's quite possible that an iPhone is more money than the available Treo options. My Treo 700p was something like $500, though, and I'm pretty sure that that is about what it costs now. As far as the 750 is concerned, yeah, it may be cheaper than the iPhone, but not by a lot. If it were an order of magnitude more expensive, I could see saying something, but no two phones are going to cost exactly the same price.
Rebates do not count. I am not eligible for any rebates at all, being on a corporate plan. Many people are also ineligible for other reasons (current customer without a lot of time on their plan). I'm talking dollar for dollar without giveaways.
That's actually not expensive -- I was surprised to see how low they were. Verizon's 900 minute plan is $99, and the cost of a Treo is really not a lot less than the cost of an iPhone (I think it might be more). When I had T-Mobile and a Treo 650, I was happy with the price I was getting (though it included WiFi in Starbucks and wherever else they controlled WiFi), and I was paying $58 for 300 mins and unlimited data. It would not surprise me to find out that these plans are cheaper than other unlimted data plans that AT&T offers.
Not true...
What had rounded corners? I know the SCREEN had rounded corners, but the Windows were very boxy. Anyone have a photo/capture of such a thing?
I have a lot of experience with this lately, having come down with an odd virus that had no treatment but was/is excruciatingly painful. There may be no treatment available, but I wager the vast majority of these folks who go to a doctor but have nothing wrong with them DO have some symptom or another... for me, getting the symptom treated is almost equally as important as having the cause treated, as I probably wouldn't have gotten out of my chair without it. One doctor recently seemed much more concerned with the cause and the symptom was nearly an afterthought -- as a result, I was in a lot of pain for 24 hours with no way to fix it. He saw the antibiotic as more important (though it ultimately turned out not to be bacterial), but I saw something for pain to be something that should have happened immediately.
/didn't/ mention, in case I have more than one thing or in case there are different diagnoses that have similar symptoms except for a couple.
Another thing -- most people want to feel like the doctor at least LOOKED for something. One doctor I went to recently made me wait 40 mins to see him and then looked at me for like 30 seconds and prescribed something. Yes, that makes sense if you know what it is straight off and know what to do about it, but you might just wanna look for other things that I
Can you read? I directly answered your question:
Q: "Why didn't you include these reasons in your original post?"
A: "I was talking about the reasons for a different group of people in my original post."
What is the problem?
There are two different groups. There is the currently in a union crowd, and this is generally what I hear from them (or people who were in unions that they felt were not helping). Then there is the general public/non-union/anti-union crowd (which is who I was addressing) that has no experience whatsoever, except believes the bullshit that is passed around as gospel by all sorts of outlets. Sure, it's true about some unions, but it's also not true about plenty of unions.
Elevators do not get into accidents with other elevators. Theoretically, neither do computer controlled trains, but we all know that this can happen. It can be a matter of life and death in an accident for crews to keep passengers escaping a train involved in an accident from stepping into the path of an oncoming train. Such things do not often happen in elevators. You can ask anyone in the industry why their job is necessary. You will say, well, that's biased information, but there are very few people other than those on the ground who would know... perhaps also training personnel, but hey, in your view, they are probably also biased.
To be more clear, what I meant is that assuming someone is lying because they're in a union is uninformed tripe. I wasn't referring to you since you don't subscribe to that mantra. I certainly know they aren't perfect, but the idea that someone's report should be discarded as a result is nuts. Besides, this case is the unions levying a complaint about Verizon... my interest is in whether that is true. There is no part of this article/situation that implicates the union, so I don't really need to take a side, I just need to take a look at whether Verizon is doing what the union alleges they are doing.
No, I don't -- but I didn't vote for them... I voted for people that I /did/ trust to be completely open and honest with me. They didn't win, because no one else really seems to give a shit about stuff like that, saying things like "oh but they'll never win," instead of making a real choice. Same thing applies here, doesn't it?
And you know what? You're lucky. That could change at any minute (management decides that that shit is unnecessary and money can be saved), and you'd be fucked. Even if you did want to quit and find a better job, you'd be in a rough spot for a little while (even if you do have money squirreled away for such a reason). Changing jobs is a hassle, and it can take away a good commute that you'd planned for at the previous jobs. Why have to worry about that shit -- why not have it written down and be safe from fast-ones like that?
It is not safe to operate a subway with no one safeguarding the train, and the unions are right about that. In fact, I really fail to see how only 2 people is safe either. What if something happens? The first thing that is said is there was no crew anywhere around to assist. Yeah, no shit -- they got fired to save a few bucks. Just because you can find subway systems that safe everyday with no employees on them doesn't mean that it's a wise practice -- something could happen at any time.
So, yeah, I'm starting to get an idea where the subject comes from: ignorant people who call for people's heads on lamposts and armchair quarterback about businesses they'd have no idea how to run. Thanks for elucidating that for me.
I am in IT and in a union/am a union rep. It is in my job description to occasionally work after hours/participate in the on-call rotation. Guess what -- I'm not paid for it. Until the union wins its fight on that front, I'm not GOING to be paid for it either. Those above my boss have spoken and said that their policy is to do as little as they can with the current contract and they're sticking by it. Fine, that works, but if I had no union, I'd have NO way to change that.
As for your other specific scenarios: Meltdown at night? Someone should be responsible for the equipment at night, in a rotation or something. If there is no policy on that, management is asinine. In my particular shop, we occasionally do things for each other too (I'll go in one night when it's really another guy's responsibility 'cuz I happened to have no plans and he did). Just being in a union doesn't mean that stuff doesn't happen. The major financials thing? Why does that company have ONE person qualified to do that job? What if that guy gets sick, hit by a bus... whatever? If a business needs to have a union contract be the one to tell them that zero redundancy is a dumbass idea, so be it. I'd personally go back to work from a coffee break if there was an emergency, but that is my choice to do so. What's to stop management from taking the next step and saying, listen, you can't really go on coffee breaks -- who knows what might happen if you leave for a few mins?
The harddisk thing? Again... if your company is too retarded not to properly staff for all hours, how is that the employee's fault? Where does that end without unions -- may as well have the one guy work whenever, since he is technically qualified to do so. Moving the computer? That provision is in there so that management can't say "fuck it, why have movers, you know how to move shit, right? I know you're doing the rest of your job, but put on your moving clothes. No, you aren't getting paid extra to do two jobs."
I really don't have a problem with my management. They are fair, give comp days for off-hours time spent working, etc. Plenty of departments in my company are NOT fair though, which proves to me why this stuff needs to be organized and in the contract. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a good boss.
...or maybe a brain and an education?
...form a union. We "get to" gouge customers? Hardly. We get a decent wage (a little on the low side). If you can't find that because you're not organized, I can't help you.
I've asked the community -- the reason is the perception is that the unions take their money and do nothing (if that's what we're talking about), even though that's not true, and you can't find half of the union membership when you try to have a meeting to call a vote or to get people motivated to do something. Heck, we had a simple yes or no vote and 27% of people voted. Part of that was poor communication, but part of that is "ehh, didn't give a shit." The same people have no qualms about being part of the union-bashing club, though, slapping each other on the back and talking about how they'd never actually go on strike. Well, guess what, the union is there to help ORGANIZE, not to do the work for you. Maybe THAT'S a more realistic reason for why people in unions don't like unions (in many cases).
You think because of that fact, you aren't going to find anti-union bias all over that channel? Not so. Hypocrisy is all over that place.
Bullshit. Many companies move overseas to find labor at a fraction of the cost of workers here. If you think that being a non-union shop prevents that, you have your head in the sand. Companies will flee the second they think they can do something more cheaply elsewhere, not because union employees wanted extravagant raises. Why would a company that hires primarily minimum wage workers (very likely non-union) ever need to go elsewhere, if all they want is to avoid union salary inflation?
If the union is fine with people crossing the picket lines, what kind of strike is it going to be? May as well not have a union at that point if the union doesn't actually stand together.
Brother and sister unions over by me are used primarily when management decides not to give a shit about the action of one union. In shops where multiple unions are present, and for whatever reason are fragmented such that a strike would not affect management, having that option is very important. Besides, I don't see why "management is fucking with you -- it's very likely the result of their fucking with you will be confidence to steamroll me" is something that should be illegal. Generally, management will attack in one place and use that to get their foot in the door.
Never trusting Verizon should be equally on-topic in any discussion... where does that leave us in this particular conversation?
I would argue that the problem is the employers. Talk about questionable practices -- take a look at what you just said: businesses resort to moving offshore and non-union shops. Why? So they can spend less, and often get around even things like US minimum wage laws. The reason those laws exist are to protect workers. Seems to me, with proper regulations, that kind of thing would be prevented. Why should a company exploit ANYONE so that they can improve their profit margin? Frankly, my wages being affected is OK -- I can still afford to eat. If lower wages for me means so can a lot of other people, I really don't take issue with that.
That is the same sentiment towards my union, and yes, I would say you should become a full member.
The funny thing is, I hear people say "the union is just interested in sucking money out of dues-paying members, not in actually benefiting people" and then I go to after-hours union meetings and talk with other officials about issues at our workplace, and spend a lot of our own time trying to figure out how to motivate the people that we represent to stand up to management when they refuse to give a COLA increase that actually covers the cost of living... basically putting a lot of ourselves into the union.
So, where is this disconnect coming from? I don't know, but being on both sides of the union issue where I work, there are reasons why certain provisions of our contract are a pain in the ass (bumping rights, etc.) but at the same time, they protect people who are just trying to make a living, and the employees of the union work hard. Apparently it doesn't matter, though, because hard as you work, a bunch of folks will stand out in the peanut gallery, not show up to published meetings, and mouth off about how the union takes their money and runs.