Again, it seems clear how you'd make the case that the employees could be restricted, after all, they are being paid to work. But how are you making the case that B can be restricted?
Indeed. And almost everyone in the industry in question (silicon valley engineering) has pretty complete discretion to take personal calls built into their employment agreements.
When you look at glass door, you look at the range. Let's say it's 80k-210k for 5 years experience in silicon valley area. You discount the low end of the range, that's probably low-balling efforts by companies. You discount the high end, that's people bragging, or factoring in positive stock outcomes in order to inflate their self worth. You look at the average value, say 123, add about 10% (to account for the sandbagging). So call that 135. Then you ask yourself, am I better than the average, or worse? Add an appropriate percentage. Let's say you're a little better than average, but you know you're not a superstar. Bump yourself up another 10%. Call that 150.
You've now arrived at a reasonably fair value, in spite of the distortions present in the system.
Also, if you have any friends in your industry but not at your company, you can ask them (and discount about 10-20% for the bragging factor).
Believe what you'd like. It takes all of 10 well rated posts to max your karma. Karma fishing just isn't an activity that should keep most people interested for more than a month or so.
So B is both a competing employer and A's employee? If A is paying B to work, and B is using that time to recruit A's employees instead of doing the contracted work, then A probably has a legal claim against B.
Exactly. But just to be clear, the cold calls being discussed here are almost universally to employee owned cell phones. I have personally received 3 of these to my cell, and none to my work phone. So far as I know, this is the norm.
No, those are more evil, but not any clearer. Once you're safely beyond the gray zone, there's no more clarity to be achieved. 100% is 100%. There is no 101%.
Because A has no authority over B's actions. If A doesn't want to provide its employees with phone service, or wants to deny calls from B to office phones that's all fine, that's their equipment. But to prevent B from picking up THEIR phones? That's a different story.
It's the most clearly evil thing I know of Google doing. Apple has done plenty worse, but they don't make any claim to not being evil the way google does.
Cold calls offering employment opportunity trade the negative of disruption against the positive of the opportunity offered. So long as the cold caller is legitimately offering you something of value, I think they can reasonably make the case that their call is ethical.
Well, I haven't been there in more than a decade, but all the maps clearly still show it surrounded by ocean. I guess I just have an excessive trust of cartographers.
It actually doesn't matter much. If it lasts as little as 20 years, the consequent industrialization and improvement to the standard of living will make desalinization an affordable replacement.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, it seems clear how you'd make the case that the employees could be restricted, after all, they are being paid to work. But how are you making the case that B can be restricted?
Indeed. And almost everyone in the industry in question (silicon valley engineering) has pretty complete discretion to take personal calls built into their employment agreements.
When you look at glass door, you look at the range. Let's say it's 80k-210k for 5 years experience in silicon valley area. You discount the low end of the range, that's probably low-balling efforts by companies. You discount the high end, that's people bragging, or factoring in positive stock outcomes in order to inflate their self worth. You look at the average value, say 123, add about 10% (to account for the sandbagging). So call that 135. Then you ask yourself, am I better than the average, or worse? Add an appropriate percentage. Let's say you're a little better than average, but you know you're not a superstar. Bump yourself up another 10%. Call that 150.
You've now arrived at a reasonably fair value, in spite of the distortions present in the system.
Also, if you have any friends in your industry but not at your company, you can ask them (and discount about 10-20% for the bragging factor).
Believe what you'd like. It takes all of 10 well rated posts to max your karma. Karma fishing just isn't an activity that should keep most people interested for more than a month or so.
It's not my fault you can't read. Words have meanings. I don't use words as carelessly as most, apparently.
So B is both a competing employer and A's employee? If A is paying B to work, and B is using that time to recruit A's employees instead of doing the contracted work, then A probably has a legal claim against B.
Exactly. But just to be clear, the cold calls being discussed here are almost universally to employee owned cell phones. I have personally received 3 of these to my cell, and none to my work phone. So far as I know, this is the norm.
No, those are more evil, but not any clearer. Once you're safely beyond the gray zone, there's no more clarity to be achieved. 100% is 100%. There is no 101%.
But I won't forgive people for thinking I meant "it doesn't get much more evil" when I wrote "it doesn't get much more clearly evil".
I have max karma.
Because A has no authority over B's actions. If A doesn't want to provide its employees with phone service, or wants to deny calls from B to office phones that's all fine, that's their equipment. But to prevent B from picking up THEIR phones? That's a different story.
Those are all worse, and equally clearly beyond the gray zone.
It's the most clearly evil thing I know of Google doing. Apple has done plenty worse, but they don't make any claim to not being evil the way google does.
As I've responded to others: I didn't claim this was the zenith of evil. Only that it is clearly beyond the gray zone.
Cold calls offering employment opportunity trade the negative of disruption against the positive of the opportunity offered. So long as the cold caller is legitimately offering you something of value, I think they can reasonably make the case that their call is ethical.
That's what they meant. They threaten to sue Palm using their patent portfolio unless Palm plays ball on the do-not-cold-call game.
So far as I know, Google is the only company involved who make the claim to not being evil. All the others admit to it.
It's not the height of evil, that wasn't my claim. My claim was only that this was starkly beyond the gray zone.
Seriously, it doesn't get much more clearly evil. I think they've effectively ruined their corporate image with this.
Because those areas have cheaper sources of water.
Reality? Fact?
Well, I haven't been there in more than a decade, but all the maps clearly still show it surrounded by ocean. I guess I just have an excessive trust of cartographers.
It actually doesn't matter much. If it lasts as little as 20 years, the consequent industrialization and improvement to the standard of living will make desalinization an affordable replacement.
I'm with you. I'd have been absolutely shocked if there were realistic evidence pointing the other direction.
You think a great man like Larry Page dirties his fingers with a computer keyboard?