I don't know about you, but I couldn't make ends meet for long on unemployment payments. They can also make your life difficult by fighting the claim and making shit up out of whole cloth at the hearing.
That works for European employers, it's much harder to fire someone in general than it is in the USA.
When a manager finds out someone is leaving, one of the following happens:
1) They're fired on the spot and escorted from the building; 2) The manager tries to guilt them into staying; 3) A pathetic counter-offer is made (nevermind that the reasons for leaving may not have anything to do with compensation); 4) A significant counter-offer is made (usually intended to keep the worker there just long enough to hire a replacement).
Occasionally what you describe happens. It's rare in my experience. Look at it from the employer's point of view; to this point in the employee's time there, they have been able to do pretty much whatever they want w/r/t the worker. No binding job descriptions, arbitrary re-assignment, (for exempt employees) forcing them to work 60, 70, 80 hour weeks with no extra pay, making them do the work of three people for a single salary, etc etc etc. The playing field is heavily tilted in their favor. So, it comes as a shock and an insult when the employee exercises the one right that US workers really have: They can quit. How DARE they! Don't they know that the company will only make 6 bazillion dollars instead of 6.5 if they leave? WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE SHAREHOLDERS!
The list is endless. Most people are stupid, lack self control and any kind of prudence so we implement controls which address the lowest common denominator, occasionally allowing some people to jump through hoops to obtain slightly more access to something, but often with another set of draconian controls applied.
2000 wasn't about voter fraud, it was about terrible ballots and the closeness of Florida's result. SCOTUS put him in office. Actual voter fraud (where you're ineligible to vote and vote anyway) is what is the rounding error.
I know that libertarians talk a good game, but what they really want is to be able to make decisions for themselves regardless of the consequences to others. That social Darwinism is the key to salvation, That the invisible hand of the free market will solve all the world's ills.
They're either hopelessly naive or they've got an agenda to push, and that agenda is most likely empowering businesses to do whatever the fuck they want so long as they make money.
Second, while libertarians froth at the mouth over individual rights, they fail to mention how the "individual right" most often defended is the one that puts CEOs in corner offices making 350 times what their workers make. The only "individual right" they really care about is the right to exploit others for personal gain.
When private enterprise with a profit motive aren't the ones establishing safety levels at nuclear power plants, then I'll consider it viable. So long as "less safety = more profit" it's a non-starter for me.
"It's become perhaps the biggest problem for the police and the security service authorities in dealing with the threats from terrorism," he explained.
Shh. When you pop their little cognitive dissonance bubbles these folks can turn feral. This guy is obviously one of those folks who think anything new or innovative or intended to push greener technology is bad because the radio told them so
Sometimes when you contract out, the dynamic is what you suggest, the contractors are incentivized to do good work lest another contractor get their business.
And by "good work", I mean "cheap". Trust me, Comcast does not give a single fuck about the quality of work these contractors perform, so long as the price is right. Even the occasional rework (due to those whiny customers who actually want what they're paying for, the greedy bastards) still leaves the overall scheme profitable.
I've met Comcast contractors who were quite good. Quick, professional, polite. I've also met Comcast contractors who were drunk on the job.
The one saving grace here, if there is such a thing, is that many contractors prevent one from becoming so entrenched in one area that Comcast has to do business with them, because there is no competition. (Karma's a bitch.) A private company runs our water service here. While the rank-and-file employees are competent and professional (at least the ones I've met, who once had to repair our water supply line on Christmas Eve), the management is rotten to the core. They ignore mandatory aspects of the contract with the town, like routine maintenance requirements and disaster plan documentation available on-demand by the board of Selectmen or its designate. (They're also supposed to have enough reserve capacity so that if one of their pumping stations breaks down, the remaining equipment can handle the load. Nope. A while ago when a pump failed, the town was notified, which is a small miracle in and of itself, the town had 3 hours of water left. There were no repercussions from this obvious incompetence and breach of contract.) We had a boil order for 11 days a few years ago, because lack of maintenance on a storage tank led to a cryptosporidium bloom. In this state the way you get a boil order lifted is by having a negative test for the infection two tests in a row (twice daily), with the test performed by a lab the state specifies. One of the managers of the company took a sample, dumped bleach in it, and submitted it for test. This was, of course, immediately detected by the lab, since 1) the chlorine level was off the scale, and 2) it changed color unexpectedly when the reagent was added to detect the infection. That manager went to jail.
Of course, the private company immediately lost the contraHAHAHAHAH couldn't keep a straight face. Of COURSE they kept the contract. They own the lines. They have a monopoly on the water service in our town. The customers have no say in how that company is run, whereas if the town ran the service like nearly everyplace else, they could at least vote incompetents out of office. They had the balls to ask for an 83% rate increase a couple years later. They got 33%. The town basically had no choice, if they wanted to continue to get water service.
When private companies have no incentive to provide the service they're being paid for beyond losing the contract, and they are the only game in town, they don't lose the contract. They can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want with impunity.
Privatization is not a cure-all. Given the choice between a private company and public administration for a vital town service, I'l take the (unionized workers from the) town every time.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. Some suit probably heard "blah blah blah shit that isn't important blah blah" when an engineer told them about this problem (and I am sure one did, unless they were too afraid of being fired for daring to suggest that the suit didn't know everything about everything).
I guarantee you that their lawyers can beat up his lawyers. If he sues, he'll get buried in paper, causing legal fees to quickly attain unmanageable levels, then they'll counter-sue for defaming their name. He'll be lucky to walk away with the shirt on his back.
It's a great non sequitur, isn't it. Some people will look for any excuse to push their agenda. All you need to do is make a statement that isn't 100% anti-government and off they go.
What is it with the "government bad" and "regulations bad" memes that seem so common among Slashdot commenters. There is no virtue in being rich. Being rich does not make you a better, more trustworthy person. You are not rich. Most of the rich enjoy a better material life than about 99.9999999% of the people in the world can ever hope for. It's incredible how cavalier the rich are with other people's lives. The problem is the oligarchy. Why should it take a billion dollars to lobby an elected representative to eliminate safety and effectiveness rules so the pharmaceutical companies can make more profit at the expense of the general population? If the rich cared about their profits, they would look for ways to make more money off of your life-threatening illness. Who in their right mind would make a bet where the entry fee is a billion dollars of tax refund money and the payoff depends on not only the regulators looking the other way but on the capriciousness of boardrooms filled with over-privileged, selfish, unaccountable people living high on the hog with the profits from someone else's work. If the rich care so much and are so benevolent, why aren't they producing the new drugs. It's because they won't do anything they can't make a buck on, and they would probably poison millions of us in the process with all the corners they cut.
why not make your own donations to a similar private service?
Because 1) they'll put it behind a paywall, more than likely, 2) they'll use it to gather Yet More Information on me (I trust the government with my info lots more than any for-profit company) 3) they'll slap ads all over it in order to "monetize" a system that has always been free.
Private enterprise is not a cure-all, much as the old rich white men running the companies would like you to believe.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about you, but I couldn't make ends meet for long on unemployment payments. They can also make your life difficult by fighting the claim and making shit up out of whole cloth at the hearing.
That works for European employers, it's much harder to fire someone in general than it is in the USA.
When a manager finds out someone is leaving, one of the following happens:
1) They're fired on the spot and escorted from the building;
2) The manager tries to guilt them into staying;
3) A pathetic counter-offer is made (nevermind that the reasons for leaving may not have anything to do with compensation);
4) A significant counter-offer is made (usually intended to keep the worker there just long enough to hire a replacement).
Occasionally what you describe happens. It's rare in my experience. Look at it from the employer's point of view; to this point in the employee's time there, they have been able to do pretty much whatever they want w/r/t the worker. No binding job descriptions, arbitrary re-assignment, (for exempt employees) forcing them to work 60, 70, 80 hour weeks with no extra pay, making them do the work of three people for a single salary, etc etc etc. The playing field is heavily tilted in their favor. So, it comes as a shock and an insult when the employee exercises the one right that US workers really have: They can quit. How DARE they! Don't they know that the company will only make 6 bazillion dollars instead of 6.5 if they leave? WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE SHAREHOLDERS!
FTFY.
2000 wasn't about voter fraud, it was about terrible ballots and the closeness of Florida's result. SCOTUS put him in office. Actual voter fraud (where you're ineligible to vote and vote anyway) is what is the rounding error.
Oh, so now since I don't believe in libertarianism/objectivism/whatever, I'm part of the problem? Don't tell me what to think.
They can all jump into a volcano, as far as I'm concerned.
Educate me, then. And try to keep Rand out of it.
I know that libertarians talk a good game, but what they really want is to be able to make decisions for themselves regardless of the consequences to others. That social Darwinism is the key to salvation, That the invisible hand of the free market will solve all the world's ills.
They're either hopelessly naive or they've got an agenda to push, and that agenda is most likely empowering businesses to do whatever the fuck they want so long as they make money.
First, check your links. That's a 404.
Second, while libertarians froth at the mouth over individual rights, they fail to mention how the "individual right" most often defended is the one that puts CEOs in corner offices making 350 times what their workers make. The only "individual right" they really care about is the right to exploit others for personal gain.
FTFY.
Voter fraud is a rounding error. You should try finding a more compelling bogeyman.
When private enterprise with a profit motive aren't the ones establishing safety levels at nuclear power plants, then I'll consider it viable. So long as "less safety = more profit" it's a non-starter for me.
Tough shit. Nobody said it would be easy.
Shh. When you pop their little cognitive dissonance bubbles these folks can turn feral. This guy is obviously one of those folks who think anything new or innovative or intended to push greener technology is bad because the radio told them so
That doesn't make them common, just news-worthy.
Sometimes when you contract out, the dynamic is what you suggest, the contractors are incentivized to do good work lest another contractor get their business.
And by "good work", I mean "cheap". Trust me, Comcast does not give a single fuck about the quality of work these contractors perform, so long as the price is right. Even the occasional rework (due to those whiny customers who actually want what they're paying for, the greedy bastards) still leaves the overall scheme profitable.
I've met Comcast contractors who were quite good. Quick, professional, polite. I've also met Comcast contractors who were drunk on the job.
The one saving grace here, if there is such a thing, is that many contractors prevent one from becoming so entrenched in one area that Comcast has to do business with them, because there is no competition. (Karma's a bitch.) A private company runs our water service here. While the rank-and-file employees are competent and professional (at least the ones I've met, who once had to repair our water supply line on Christmas Eve), the management is rotten to the core. They ignore mandatory aspects of the contract with the town, like routine maintenance requirements and disaster plan documentation available on-demand by the board of Selectmen or its designate. (They're also supposed to have enough reserve capacity so that if one of their pumping stations breaks down, the remaining equipment can handle the load. Nope. A while ago when a pump failed, the town was notified, which is a small miracle in and of itself, the town had 3 hours of water left. There were no repercussions from this obvious incompetence and breach of contract.) We had a boil order for 11 days a few years ago, because lack of maintenance on a storage tank led to a cryptosporidium bloom. In this state the way you get a boil order lifted is by having a negative test for the infection two tests in a row (twice daily), with the test performed by a lab the state specifies. One of the managers of the company took a sample, dumped bleach in it, and submitted it for test. This was, of course, immediately detected by the lab, since 1) the chlorine level was off the scale, and 2) it changed color unexpectedly when the reagent was added to detect the infection. That manager went to jail.
Of course, the private company immediately lost the contraHAHAHAHAH couldn't keep a straight face. Of COURSE they kept the contract. They own the lines. They have a monopoly on the water service in our town. The customers have no say in how that company is run, whereas if the town ran the service like nearly everyplace else, they could at least vote incompetents out of office. They had the balls to ask for an 83% rate increase a couple years later. They got 33%. The town basically had no choice, if they wanted to continue to get water service.
When private companies have no incentive to provide the service they're being paid for beyond losing the contract, and they are the only game in town, they don't lose the contract. They can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want with impunity.
Privatization is not a cure-all. Given the choice between a private company and public administration for a vital town service, I'l take the (unionized workers from the) town every time.
Yeah, the deniers' drivel gets old after a while. But I don't think that's what you meant.
I think you might be dismissing that possibility prematurely. We shouldn't rule anything out at the moment IMHO.
On what do you base this claim? There aren't as many terrorists as is generally thought, and depression is much more common than is generally thought.
Or poor. Airline pilots get shit wages unless they've been flying for 20 years with the same airline.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. Some suit probably heard "blah blah blah shit that isn't important blah blah" when an engineer told them about this problem (and I am sure one did, unless they were too afraid of being fired for daring to suggest that the suit didn't know everything about everything).
I guarantee you that their lawyers can beat up his lawyers. If he sues, he'll get buried in paper, causing legal fees to quickly attain unmanageable levels, then they'll counter-sue for defaming their name. He'll be lucky to walk away with the shirt on his back.
America!
Boy, that escalated quickly.
It's a great non sequitur, isn't it. Some people will look for any excuse to push their agenda. All you need to do is make a statement that isn't 100% anti-government and off they go.
What is it with the "government bad" and "regulations bad" memes that seem so common among Slashdot commenters. There is no virtue in being rich. Being rich does not make you a better, more trustworthy person. You are not rich. Most of the rich enjoy a better material life than about 99.9999999% of the people in the world can ever hope for. It's incredible how cavalier the rich are with other people's lives. The problem is the oligarchy. Why should it take a billion dollars to lobby an elected representative to eliminate safety and effectiveness rules so the pharmaceutical companies can make more profit at the expense of the general population? If the rich cared about their profits, they would look for ways to make more money off of your life-threatening illness. Who in their right mind would make a bet where the entry fee is a billion dollars of tax refund money and the payoff depends on not only the regulators looking the other way but on the capriciousness of boardrooms filled with over-privileged, selfish, unaccountable people living high on the hog with the profits from someone else's work. If the rich care so much and are so benevolent, why aren't they producing the new drugs. It's because they won't do anything they can't make a buck on, and they would probably poison millions of us in the process with all the corners they cut.
Because 1) they'll put it behind a paywall, more than likely, 2) they'll use it to gather Yet More Information on me (I trust the government with my info lots more than any for-profit company) 3) they'll slap ads all over it in order to "monetize" a system that has always been free.
Private enterprise is not a cure-all, much as the old rich white men running the companies would like you to believe.