I don't think that the video portion of the surveillance is what got this guy into trouble...it is the audio attached. It is perfectly alright under most circustances to record what someone _DOES_, but not necessarily what someone _SAYS_. From my understanding (limited though it is), this is because recording private (or assumed private) conversations is illegal in most states (this varies from state-to-state) unless you are law enforcement with a proper warrant. Video can also be considered illegal if it is considered a violation of privacy, but surveilling one's own property (or actions in the case of police videos) probably would not fall into this category. Also, in most of the police videos I've seen (on those cool "World's Greatest Chases" shows, etc.) _DO_NOT_ include audio...presumably for this very reason.
IANAL, but I doubt there will be much grounds for a defense (by the ACLU or otherwise) if the audio recording is a violation of state law. Sad, but probably true.
Those that have commented that Ballmer's responses are 100% in-line with what any self-respecting representative of a company would say are exactly right. I read the entire Forbes.com piece, and Ballmer may have overstated a few things with regard to the value and level of the competition Microsoft faces from F/OSS, but none of it was unexpected given their more overt attacks against Linux, Gnu, and F/OSS from the past (and present, I guess).
What was disappointing to me was the obvious lack of objectivity shown in a publication many consider to be a valid source of business information...myself included. An objective story presents facts and responses from both sides, and lets the information stand on its own merit for the reader to form an opinion. Every question in this piece looked like troll bait. I couldn't say for sure whether the questions were arranged to promote a Microsoft spin, to enrage Ballmer into saying something stupid, or were simply the closest the author could come to approximating objectivity in search of a story. In any case, I found it to be a worthless and disappointing read.
That was under "Technology", and not "Opinions", right...?
My org has recently been experimenting with Sharepoint, and it works well for collaboration and document exchange. Much better than email, IM, etc. The software comes with several templates that let you manipulate the site into being useful for your intended purposes, and it is a free download from Microsoft.
There are only a few caveats that can potentially be a show-stoppers:
It requires Windows 2003 Server.
You must be willing and able to run IIS on the box. In fact, you really cannot use the IIS instance on the box where you install Sharepoint for any other web applications.
Although Microsoft SQL Desktop Engine is included with the Sharepoint installer, using MSDE is not too much fun when it comes time for Business Continuity Planning and Disaster Recovery (no management tools built-in to MSDE). Ideally, a Microsoft SQL Standard Server (locally or on another enterprise maching already filling this role) should be used if you are not comfortable using T-SQL to script MSDE backups.
I've seen other F/OSS solutions out there that run on Apache with PHP or Zope and use MySQL as a DB back-end, but if you're Windows-centric, the Sharepoint install was quick, easy, and did not require much forethought aside from the issues mentioned above. Wouldn't be my first choice for dev collaboration for non-Windows-centric orgs, but sounds like a decent choice for your situation (based on what you told us).
I think leaving a position based primarily on toolset ideology is questionable. Especially given that, within the technology spectrum, every new experience, good or bad, stands to teach us something about where we are going, or where we have been. I think sticking it out would have given you additional experience to defend or desert your current opinions intelligently.
I do know miserable. I fully appreciate that once you hit a certain saturation level in an environment, no amount of "Don't Worry, Be Happy" can turn things around. Not a good place from which to change development paradigms. If the toolset thing was a "final straw" in a long list of growing grievances, gettin' while the gettin' is good is not a bad plan.
These types of decisions are highly subjective, and really come down to your tolerance for environemental change, your aversion to risk, and confidence that you will find something new within a reasonable timeframe. The answer is different for everyone.
I teach in the business programs at a local university, and occassionally take-on short-term web / sysadmin projects for small businesses in my community. Both round off the rough edges of doing mostly techie tasks in a larger environment for my "day job", and continuously broaden my perspective for working with / for others regardless of situation.
I figure the time committment and energy required to juggle in this fashion will eventually kill me, but, hey, there are worse ways to go...
We can all either die a horrible death due to irresponsible proprietary programming, and the security threats it increasingly represents in the enterprise as computing continues to spread to the masses,
OR
We can be crushed by the horrible threat of Open Source software which falls prey to Evil Foreign Interests...you know, those naughty, evil programming hordes not already writing virus/worm code for the security holes all too common in proprietary software in popular use.
Give me a break! Ignoring the fact that I trust the QA models followed by *most* F/OSS coders found in the mainstream (of that set) more than those of their proprietary counterparts, this smells of someone heavily invested/funded by corporate interests. Nowhere else would one find an argument against something you can see, and check yourself being based on the fact that you can see, and check it yourself.
I undestand concern over security in code. I just think the guidelines that define what good security is, and the rules by which it is governed should be universal...regardless of the development model being used to create it.
Most of my favs were covered by others (cfengine, sudo, nmap, nagios, mon, mrtg, nessus, perl, iptables, portsentry, etc.). A few I noticed were overlooked (in my quick pass through the posts) that I use almost everyday:
* gkrellm (http://www.gkrellm.net) for visually seeing what's going on quickly * rdesktop (http://www.rdesktop.org/) for connecting via RDP to those pesky, legacy Windows boxes * vnc (http://tightvnc.org/) for remote X and Win32 shared connections for collaboration and instruction * ethereal / tethereal (http://www.ethereal.com) for capturing and viewing previously captured network traffic * gcombust (http://www.abo.fi/~jmunsin/gcombust/) a gui for mkisofs/mkhybrid/cdda2wav/cdrecord/cdlabelgen * netdisco (http://www.netdisco.org/) for network management, if that's your thing
One tool I've needed only a couple of times is chkrootkit (http://www.chkrootkit.org)...but was very thankful to have it when needed. Checks for uglies that might have slipped through your security, and exploited your machine. In a perfect world, this is simply a "peace-of-mind" tool.
One can never discount the awesome value of simply having a good browser (lynx, firefox, mozilla), and an Internet connection. http://www.google.com is an amazing tool when others are in short supply.
Like most everyone has been saying, the tools you use have more to do with who you are, who mentored you, what you're doing, and the flavor of Linux you're doing it on...there is no "one-size-fits-all" answer...and even if there was, parts of the answer might change tomorrow.:)
Companies defend themselves against that by saying "we didn't know, we didn't look, and you can't prove otherwise." Bizarrely enough, this works in court.
I have it on reasonable authority that in some R&D shops, "looking" is actually discouraged by exec mgmt so that plausible deniability is maintained for legal claims against the validity of a patent. I've not personally been caught up in this sort of thing, but I've talked with some frustrated engineers that believed the spectre of doom was looming just around the corner regarding something they were working on, and attempts to gather intel were "derailed" by their management teams. I've also heard of this "head-in-the-sand" argument being used to discourage participation in Open Source projects.
I guess this is like most things "big business". The risks of getting caught are outweighed significantly by the potential rewards. Reform is the answer, but reform takes having lobbyists that are listened to by the people capable of changing the law. I don't see positive reform coming for many years...sadly, it may get worse before it gets better.
I don't know how exactly the law defines it, but it would make sense to me that if you were doing a favor for your uncle that was not a core competency in how you derived your primary income (e.g. mowing a lawn, while your primary income was derived writing code or working as a sysadmin), and he expressed his appreciation by giving you a cord of wood, taxation probably doesn't apply. Especially if you made less than $600 in money or trade mowing lawns in that tax year. I think the rules change rather quickly if the income (money or trade) relates directly to your primary source of income (read: your profession), and I assumed this was the nature of the bartering arrangement specified in the top-level post. IANAL, nor am I a tax expert, but this is my current understanding. I tend to make over $600 per year in consulting above and beyond my primary job, so I tend to play any bartering arrangements very cautiously with all this in mind.
I don't write the law. I just do my best to obey it, and vote every chance I get. Given some of the provisions in the Patriot Act relating specifically to non-cash, paper-trail-free transactions, I consider it good business to stay as far above reproach as possible.
Oh, and your analog DOES apply under certain circumstances too..."Free speech is only free speech if the government puts its stamp on it". If you don't believe me, look at the FCC and all the laws that apply to inappropriate language and behavior governing the public airwaves as an example. Sometimes quite silly, but still enforceable under the law. Poor Howard Stern.:)
I try to avoid income derived from bartering because, in the U.S. at least, this income is still taxable by state and federal governments at fair market value of the service/product being traded on both sides of the deal (Google "bartering tax law", or consult with your tax accountant or attorney for more details). For this reason it becomes difficult to strike a truly equitable deal.
There are some scary consequences for not keeping accurate, defensible paperwork on any barter transactions. Free trade is only free trade if the government gets its cut, and heavy fines and/or jail time just aren't worth the risks of swapping professional services/products casually. If you get caught without good documentation, it is likely you will involve yourself in a government sponsored colonoscopy going back several years.
I'm not even going to pretend I've read all of the many responses already made to this, but I will put in my two cents...
Build once from source, and package for like machines to cut-down on the time costs of replicating work. You just can't beat the optimization benefits of compiling from source using proper build flags (e.g. Gentoo Linux), but you also cannot rationalize the time cost of repetitive actions on identical (or near identical) hardware.
Of course, there are always those packages where build optimizations are of minimal benefit. Best bet: know your apps, know your hardware, and manage your time effectively to maximize the usefulness of both.
I used to love my job for the challenge of it. That is, when the challenge of my job was finding creative solutions to difficult problems for business leaders that truly appreciated the full effects of my contribution. Now, the challenges of my job are organizational or political far too often, and the love is gone.
I figure that I make about as much as my local garbage man. Get about the same level of respect these days, but probably have twice the headaches.
Not saying I want to be a garbage man now, but I can appreciate the value of a "simpler career" these days. Can also honestly say that I've peaked over the fence on more than one occassion, wondering if the grass is truly greener "over there", or if my career has peaked, and this is as good as it gets. I have skills that could migrate me into some other business disciplines, and I have seriously considered going to law school, but I figure the problems get to be pretty much the same regardless of where you are. There are drawbacks to everything. Trick is to find someplace where you can live with all of them without compromising your sanity or ethics. Some might say, "a needle in a haystack", but I remain hopeful...sort of.
I think the corporate answer to this would be to fully relocate the company if these types of restrictions were put in place. The bottom-line is still the bottom-line, and if government decisions are made to make it inhospitable to do business in the US, moving out makes good business sense. Large companies relocating would hurt the US economy because the tax revenues that are generated are still substantial, even with the tax breaks available. It would also eliminate the jobs that are not being outsourced by these companies.
Just what we need, a domestic job market where the only job you can get is working for a company selling perishables (a.k.a. things that require preparation like food). "Do you want fries with that"?
I was faced with a similar decision recently, and wound up going with Comcast Cable following three separate (but horrible) experiences with DirectTV Service and Support just trying to figure out what my options were...and more importantly, what my *real* costs would be.
DirectTV couldn't commit to an installation ETA until after I had signed up and been credit-approved (was told by a rude service person that it could take up to three days to get me into the installation queue, and he refused to speculate on when installation might occur following that), whereas I got a phone committment on installation and setup from Comcast on the first call, and a tech was out the next day...just in time for catching shows in the new Fall line-up.:)
Despite claims otherwise (of course, not knowing anything about DishNetwork), I haven't been able to discern significant price differences for the packages I desire, making my decision easily based solely on a customer service basis.
You make valid points, even though your tone is less than tasteful.
I'm already on my second career, and I'm only in my early thirties. I have no delusions of a single career, or even that I'll be able to retire before the grave. I've invested in 6 years of secondary education (undergraduate and master's), and have already taken a 50% cut in pay from my last position to remain employed in this economy. As a salaried employee, my time is owned, so a second job is not feasible. I now make less than my garbage man. I'm cut to the point where I can no longer afford the time or money necessary to retrain, and neither employers nor government are standing in line to finance my retraining.
I'm grateful to have a job...for now. I expect by the time I'm 40 my situation will be much more dire if things do not change, and I will have very little for which to be grateful.
And on a more direct note regarding your tone, don't speak about my values as if you know me. I'm not too good for any job...I've cleaned toilets to make ends meet, and was happy to put food on the table. My point is that cleaining toilets doesn't require a college degree, so where's the value in education? Individuals that take slave wages (and yes, minimum wage qualifies with the current cost of living in the U.S.) for hard work and are humble or grateful are so because they have no other prospects. If that's all we have to hope for the future of this country, then I say it's high time for some sort of revolution in socio-economic thinking.
Just so there is no misunderstanding, people have been speaking of this as if it is an IT or engineering specific problem. It's not. Really, we're talking about all skilled-labor positions eventually being outsourced to countries with labor forces desperate enough (or with costs of living low enough) to work for far less than Americans can. That IS erosion of the middle class.
This line of reasoning rings truest when one reflects back on economic data suggesting the Middle Class (a.k.a. The Realistic American Dream) is eroding away in the shadow of corporate greed. The American Corportate Dream has become one wherein 1% have control, money, and power, and the remainder are working for minimum wage, or are left praying government assistance programs come back en vogue to aid in their basic survival.
Should "barriers to entry" apply to success, or more importantly, comfortable (not extravagent) lifestyles? I don't need to be rich, but I'd like to at least be able to hold onto the hope that I, as a well-educated technology professional, will be able to at least provide for my family into the future without having to foresake my education, experience, and dignity by moving into unskilled labor positions due to the unavailability of positions in my field. If we cannot hold onto hope, how can we, in good conscience, continue to extol the virtues of education to the youth of America. "Yes, dear. You shouldn't quit school, you should go to college. We want you to be the best read, most informed pauper on the block when your chosen path is outsourced to those in more desperate circumstances, and that are prepared to do your job for less".
You are 100% correct. Opinions of a former employees worth, value, work ethic, etc. have fallen out of vogue for legal reasons. They have been replaced by simple, guarded statements of fact: "Yes, this person worked here". "Yes, this person filled role X in the organization".
For this reason it has become very common for prospective employers to ask that one dreadful question..."Could this person be re-hired at your firm"?
Answering this honestly does not qualify as a "bad" reference per se. In fact, if this question is not answered truthfully (according to current HR policies at the referring firm), there is a higher risk of being sued by the hiring company if the cat somehow gets out of the bag down the road.
A person giving reference can only lose a lawsuit to a former employee if a bad reference was given based on opinions (read: undocumented, unsupportable statements) presented as fact. Statements of fact than can be backed-up by policy or other documentation are perfectly safe.
Again, I'm no lawyer...but I've got an MBA, and have done a lot of research into employment law as it relates to layoffs and giving references. It's an ugly world out there...and right now it's also an employer's market.
"Just don't say that you got fired for being the security risk" brings to mind another problem, which is one of the dreaded "bad" reference.
In this particular scenario (I'm no lawyer), wouldn't it be true to say he was "fired for cause"? When asked the question why he left his last place of employment, he'd almost certainly have to answer honestly because when his former employer is called (and most certainly will be...especially if not listed on references), and asked the question, "Could this person work there again", there answer would have to be, "No".
Of course (I remind you, I'm no lawyer), I also believe that if you are fired for cause, you have a right to see the documentation associated with the decision. Failure to produce that information (granted that it will be used against you for the remainder of your career), if not illegal, is just plain mean.
The only problem that I can see in your solution is that "genuine" is usually validated for the deepest pocket...meaning that if you have the money to spend to "legitimize" your "marketing" efforts, you will *never* be blacklisted. To get a working example of this, look no further than the exemptions identified in the US Do-Not-Call List.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that the video portion of the surveillance is what got this guy into trouble...it is the audio attached. It is perfectly alright under most circustances to record what someone _DOES_, but not necessarily what someone _SAYS_. From my understanding (limited though it is), this is because recording private (or assumed private) conversations is illegal in most states (this varies from state-to-state) unless you are law enforcement with a proper warrant. Video can also be considered illegal if it is considered a violation of privacy, but surveilling one's own property (or actions in the case of police videos) probably would not fall into this category. Also, in most of the police videos I've seen (on those cool "World's Greatest Chases" shows, etc.) _DO_NOT_ include audio...presumably for this very reason.
IANAL, but I doubt there will be much grounds for a defense (by the ACLU or otherwise) if the audio recording is a violation of state law. Sad, but probably true.
Those that have commented that Ballmer's responses are 100% in-line with what any self-respecting representative of a company would say are exactly right. I read the entire Forbes.com piece, and Ballmer may have overstated a few things with regard to the value and level of the competition Microsoft faces from F/OSS, but none of it was unexpected given their more overt attacks against Linux, Gnu, and F/OSS from the past (and present, I guess).
What was disappointing to me was the obvious lack of objectivity shown in a publication many consider to be a valid source of business information...myself included. An objective story presents facts and responses from both sides, and lets the information stand on its own merit for the reader to form an opinion. Every question in this piece looked like troll bait. I couldn't say for sure whether the questions were arranged to promote a Microsoft spin, to enrage Ballmer into saying something stupid, or were simply the closest the author could come to approximating objectivity in search of a story. In any case, I found it to be a worthless and disappointing read.
That was under "Technology", and not "Opinions", right...?
There are only a few caveats that can potentially be a show-stoppers:
I've seen other F/OSS solutions out there that run on Apache with PHP or Zope and use MySQL as a DB back-end, but if you're Windows-centric, the Sharepoint install was quick, easy, and did not require much forethought aside from the issues mentioned above. Wouldn't be my first choice for dev collaboration for non-Windows-centric orgs, but sounds like a decent choice for your situation (based on what you told us).
Good luck!
Actually, I flashed back to "Lost in Space" (the TV show, not the movie).
I think leaving a position based primarily on toolset ideology is questionable. Especially given that, within the technology spectrum, every new experience, good or bad, stands to teach us something about where we are going, or where we have been. I think sticking it out would have given you additional experience to defend or desert your current opinions intelligently.
I do know miserable. I fully appreciate that once you hit a certain saturation level in an environment, no amount of "Don't Worry, Be Happy" can turn things around. Not a good place from which to change development paradigms. If the toolset thing was a "final straw" in a long list of growing grievances, gettin' while the gettin' is good is not a bad plan.
These types of decisions are highly subjective, and really come down to your tolerance for environemental change, your aversion to risk, and confidence that you will find something new within a reasonable timeframe. The answer is different for everyone.
I teach in the business programs at a local university, and occassionally take-on short-term web / sysadmin projects for small businesses in my community. Both round off the rough edges of doing mostly techie tasks in a larger environment for my "day job", and continuously broaden my perspective for working with / for others regardless of situation.
I figure the time committment and energy required to juggle in this fashion will eventually kill me, but, hey, there are worse ways to go...
We can all either die a horrible death due to irresponsible proprietary programming, and the security threats it increasingly represents in the enterprise as computing continues to spread to the masses,
OR
We can be crushed by the horrible threat of Open Source software which falls prey to Evil Foreign Interests...you know, those naughty, evil programming hordes not already writing virus/worm code for the security holes all too common in proprietary software in popular use.
Give me a break! Ignoring the fact that I trust the QA models followed by *most* F/OSS coders found in the mainstream (of that set) more than those of their proprietary counterparts, this smells of someone heavily invested/funded by corporate interests. Nowhere else would one find an argument against something you can see, and check yourself being based on the fact that you can see, and check it yourself.
I undestand concern over security in code. I just think the guidelines that define what good security is, and the rules by which it is governed should be universal...regardless of the development model being used to create it.
Most of my favs were covered by others (cfengine, sudo, nmap, nagios, mon, mrtg, nessus, perl, iptables, portsentry, etc.). A few I noticed were overlooked (in my quick pass through the posts) that I use almost everyday:
:)
* gkrellm (http://www.gkrellm.net) for visually seeing what's going on quickly
* rdesktop (http://www.rdesktop.org/) for connecting via RDP to those pesky, legacy Windows boxes
* vnc (http://tightvnc.org/) for remote X and Win32 shared connections for collaboration and instruction
* ethereal / tethereal (http://www.ethereal.com) for capturing and viewing previously captured network traffic
* gcombust (http://www.abo.fi/~jmunsin/gcombust/) a gui for mkisofs/mkhybrid/cdda2wav/cdrecord/cdlabelgen
* netdisco (http://www.netdisco.org/) for network management, if that's your thing
One tool I've needed only a couple of times is chkrootkit (http://www.chkrootkit.org)...but was very thankful to have it when needed. Checks for uglies that might have slipped through your security, and exploited your machine. In a perfect world, this is simply a "peace-of-mind" tool.
One can never discount the awesome value of simply having a good browser (lynx, firefox, mozilla), and an Internet connection. http://www.google.com is an amazing tool when others are in short supply.
Like most everyone has been saying, the tools you use have more to do with who you are, who mentored you, what you're doing, and the flavor of Linux you're doing it on...there is no "one-size-fits-all" answer...and even if there was, parts of the answer might change tomorrow.
I would have...you beat me to it!
SysAdmin
IT Professional
Linux Journal
Harvard Business Review
login;
Baseline
Wired (when I have time)
Scientific American (when I have time)
Companies defend themselves against that by saying "we didn't know, we didn't look, and you can't prove otherwise." Bizarrely enough, this works in court.
I have it on reasonable authority that in some R&D shops, "looking" is actually discouraged by exec mgmt so that plausible deniability is maintained for legal claims against the validity of a patent. I've not personally been caught up in this sort of thing, but I've talked with some frustrated engineers that believed the spectre of doom was looming just around the corner regarding something they were working on, and attempts to gather intel were "derailed" by their management teams. I've also heard of this "head-in-the-sand" argument being used to discourage participation in Open Source projects.
I guess this is like most things "big business". The risks of getting caught are outweighed significantly by the potential rewards. Reform is the answer, but reform takes having lobbyists that are listened to by the people capable of changing the law. I don't see positive reform coming for many years...sadly, it may get worse before it gets better.
I don't know how exactly the law defines it, but it would make sense to me that if you were doing a favor for your uncle that was not a core competency in how you derived your primary income (e.g. mowing a lawn, while your primary income was derived writing code or working as a sysadmin), and he expressed his appreciation by giving you a cord of wood, taxation probably doesn't apply. Especially if you made less than $600 in money or trade mowing lawns in that tax year. I think the rules change rather quickly if the income (money or trade) relates directly to your primary source of income (read: your profession), and I assumed this was the nature of the bartering arrangement specified in the top-level post. IANAL, nor am I a tax expert, but this is my current understanding. I tend to make over $600 per year in consulting above and beyond my primary job, so I tend to play any bartering arrangements very cautiously with all this in mind.
:)
I don't write the law. I just do my best to obey it, and vote every chance I get. Given some of the provisions in the Patriot Act relating specifically to non-cash, paper-trail-free transactions, I consider it good business to stay as far above reproach as possible.
Oh, and your analog DOES apply under certain circumstances too..."Free speech is only free speech if the government puts its stamp on it". If you don't believe me, look at the FCC and all the laws that apply to inappropriate language and behavior governing the public airwaves as an example. Sometimes quite silly, but still enforceable under the law. Poor Howard Stern.
I try to avoid income derived from bartering because, in the U.S. at least, this income is still taxable by state and federal governments at fair market value of the service/product being traded on both sides of the deal (Google "bartering tax law", or consult with your tax accountant or attorney for more details). For this reason it becomes difficult to strike a truly equitable deal.
There are some scary consequences for not keeping accurate, defensible paperwork on any barter transactions. Free trade is only free trade if the government gets its cut, and heavy fines and/or jail time just aren't worth the risks of swapping professional services/products casually. If you get caught without good documentation, it is likely you will involve yourself in a government sponsored colonoscopy going back several years.
I'm not even going to pretend I've read all of the many responses already made to this, but I will put in my two cents...
Build once from source, and package for like machines to cut-down on the time costs of replicating work. You just can't beat the optimization benefits of compiling from source using proper build flags (e.g. Gentoo Linux), but you also cannot rationalize the time cost of repetitive actions on identical (or near identical) hardware.
Of course, there are always those packages where build optimizations are of minimal benefit. Best bet: know your apps, know your hardware, and manage your time effectively to maximize the usefulness of both.
I love the subconscious!
:)
Evidently, based on my "I've peaked over the fence", my subconscious is convinced I've peaked. Otherwise, I would have "peeked over the fence".
I used to love my job for the challenge of it. That is, when the challenge of my job was finding creative solutions to difficult problems for business leaders that truly appreciated the full effects of my contribution. Now, the challenges of my job are organizational or political far too often, and the love is gone.
I figure that I make about as much as my local garbage man. Get about the same level of respect these days, but probably have twice the headaches.
Not saying I want to be a garbage man now, but I can appreciate the value of a "simpler career" these days. Can also honestly say that I've peaked over the fence on more than one occassion, wondering if the grass is truly greener "over there", or if my career has peaked, and this is as good as it gets. I have skills that could migrate me into some other business disciplines, and I have seriously considered going to law school, but I figure the problems get to be pretty much the same regardless of where you are. There are drawbacks to everything. Trick is to find someplace where you can live with all of them without compromising your sanity or ethics. Some might say, "a needle in a haystack", but I remain hopeful...sort of.
Guess it stands to reason that nothing will be done until being rich is outsourced too.
I think the corporate answer to this would be to fully relocate the company if these types of restrictions were put in place. The bottom-line is still the bottom-line, and if government decisions are made to make it inhospitable to do business in the US, moving out makes good business sense. Large companies relocating would hurt the US economy because the tax revenues that are generated are still substantial, even with the tax breaks available. It would also eliminate the jobs that are not being outsourced by these companies.
Just what we need, a domestic job market where the only job you can get is working for a company selling perishables (a.k.a. things that require preparation like food). "Do you want fries with that"?
Isn't this a duplication of a post from January 27th? I know for sure I read the article, as it is still in my browser's history list.
I was faced with a similar decision recently, and wound up going with Comcast Cable following three separate (but horrible) experiences with DirectTV Service and Support just trying to figure out what my options were...and more importantly, what my *real* costs would be.
:)
DirectTV couldn't commit to an installation ETA until after I had signed up and been credit-approved (was told by a rude service person that it could take up to three days to get me into the installation queue, and he refused to speculate on when installation might occur following that), whereas I got a phone committment on installation and setup from Comcast on the first call, and a tech was out the next day...just in time for catching shows in the new Fall line-up.
Despite claims otherwise (of course, not knowing anything about DishNetwork), I haven't been able to discern significant price differences for the packages I desire, making my decision easily based solely on a customer service basis.
Your mileage may vary.
You make valid points, even though your tone is less than tasteful.
I'm already on my second career, and I'm only in my early thirties. I have no delusions of a single career, or even that I'll be able to retire before the grave. I've invested in 6 years of secondary education (undergraduate and master's), and have already taken a 50% cut in pay from my last position to remain employed in this economy. As a salaried employee, my time is owned, so a second job is not feasible. I now make less than my garbage man. I'm cut to the point where I can no longer afford the time or money necessary to retrain, and neither employers nor government are standing in line to finance my retraining.
I'm grateful to have a job...for now. I expect by the time I'm 40 my situation will be much more dire if things do not change, and I will have very little for which to be grateful.
And on a more direct note regarding your tone, don't speak about my values as if you know me. I'm not too good for any job...I've cleaned toilets to make ends meet, and was happy to put food on the table. My point is that cleaining toilets doesn't require a college degree, so where's the value in education? Individuals that take slave wages (and yes, minimum wage qualifies with the current cost of living in the U.S.) for hard work and are humble or grateful are so because they have no other prospects. If that's all we have to hope for the future of this country, then I say it's high time for some sort of revolution in socio-economic thinking.
Just so there is no misunderstanding, people have been speaking of this as if it is an IT or engineering specific problem. It's not. Really, we're talking about all skilled-labor positions eventually being outsourced to countries with labor forces desperate enough (or with costs of living low enough) to work for far less than Americans can. That IS erosion of the middle class.
This line of reasoning rings truest when one reflects back on economic data suggesting the Middle Class (a.k.a. The Realistic American Dream) is eroding away in the shadow of corporate greed. The American Corportate Dream has become one wherein 1% have control, money, and power, and the remainder are working for minimum wage, or are left praying government assistance programs come back en vogue to aid in their basic survival.
Should "barriers to entry" apply to success, or more importantly, comfortable (not extravagent) lifestyles? I don't need to be rich, but I'd like to at least be able to hold onto the hope that I, as a well-educated technology professional, will be able to at least provide for my family into the future without having to foresake my education, experience, and dignity by moving into unskilled labor positions due to the unavailability of positions in my field. If we cannot hold onto hope, how can we, in good conscience, continue to extol the virtues of education to the youth of America. "Yes, dear. You shouldn't quit school, you should go to college. We want you to be the best read, most informed pauper on the block when your chosen path is outsourced to those in more desperate circumstances, and that are prepared to do your job for less".
You are 100% correct. Opinions of a former employees worth, value, work ethic, etc. have fallen out of vogue for legal reasons. They have been replaced by simple, guarded statements of fact: "Yes, this person worked here". "Yes, this person filled role X in the organization".
For this reason it has become very common for prospective employers to ask that one dreadful question..."Could this person be re-hired at your firm"?
Answering this honestly does not qualify as a "bad" reference per se. In fact, if this question is not answered truthfully (according to current HR policies at the referring firm), there is a higher risk of being sued by the hiring company if the cat somehow gets out of the bag down the road.
A person giving reference can only lose a lawsuit to a former employee if a bad reference was given based on opinions (read: undocumented, unsupportable statements) presented as fact. Statements of fact than can be backed-up by policy or other documentation are perfectly safe.
Again, I'm no lawyer...but I've got an MBA, and have done a lot of research into employment law as it relates to layoffs and giving references. It's an ugly world out there...and right now it's also an employer's market.
"Just don't say that you got fired for being the security risk" brings to mind another problem, which is one of the dreaded "bad" reference.
In this particular scenario (I'm no lawyer), wouldn't it be true to say he was "fired for cause"? When asked the question why he left his last place of employment, he'd almost certainly have to answer honestly because when his former employer is called (and most certainly will be...especially if not listed on references), and asked the question, "Could this person work there again", there answer would have to be, "No".
Of course (I remind you, I'm no lawyer), I also believe that if you are fired for cause, you have a right to see the documentation associated with the decision. Failure to produce that information (granted that it will be used against you for the remainder of your career), if not illegal, is just plain mean.
The only problem that I can see in your solution is that "genuine" is usually validated for the deepest pocket...meaning that if you have the money to spend to "legitimize" your "marketing" efforts, you will *never* be blacklisted. To get a working example of this, look no further than the exemptions identified in the US Do-Not-Call List.