If you want to make 25% more, you should get a job elsewhere.
Yes.
If your company and your manager are trustworthy, you should take the job.
NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE. This is the wrong reason to stay. Your manager and your company are not trustworthy. They will sell your ass down the river if it means saving money. Hopefully they realize that they can make more money with you than without you; otherwise, you are a cost center. The point of a for-profit company (in fairness, that's an assumption) is to make profit. You do this by increasing revenues and reducing expenses. Salaries are an expense; one that is more easily controlled than the light bill, the lease on the building, etc.
Never forget that in the final analysis, you are nothing more than a negative number on the company's balance sheet, aka a 'liability'. Successful companies can consider how much value (read: money) you can bring to the organization and determine if your salary allows them to make a profit. Companies that are not so successful will only be concerned with how much your salary/benefits are costing the company, and treat you as a pure liability, not bringing in revenue.
Ultimately, it's not about the money. It has always been, and will always be, about job satisfaction and commute and incidental costs.
Wait, so you first basically say "Show me the money" and then you claim it's not about the money?
Of course it's about the money. I can't pay my mortgage with job satisfaction. I may leave my job each day wanting to drive into a tree, but that's why they call it work. (I'm fortunate beyond words in that my current job doesn't make me feel that way, and yet pays me in line with market rates. Probably has something to do with the fact that it's a non-profit, and they don't have greedhead investors breathing down their necks forcing them to pay as little as possible, qualifications be damned.) The fact is, if someone were to offer me a similar position for more money, it would be insanity to not at least consider it, if not jump on it right away. I've been told in annual reviews that my continuing to work here is vital to the company's viability, and by some miracle those (basically useless) words have been associated with meaningful raises (by which I mean more than the 3% that is required to keep up with the increasing cost of living).
Job satisfaction may keep me from actively looking for a new position, but if an offer were to drop into my lap from someone I've built a network with for significantly more money, I would probably take it.
Money is how you are valued in this society (USA). If you have more money, you are regarded more highly. It doesn't matter if you're a dangerously incompetent asshole, you will enjoy the increased status that that money brings.
Because he/she/it doesn't want to find evidence that contradicts their belief. IMHO, most climate change deniers are motivated by the desire to avoid having to change their behavior, even in the smallest way. They latch onto any evidence, no matter how speciously gathered or irrational, that supports their laziness. For example, let's take the suggestion that people switch to compact fluorescent lamps instead of incandescent bulbs, because the CFLs use less energy. They say that they don't want to spend $4 on a CFL when they can spend 50 cents on an incandescent; the fact that the CFL will last multiple times longer than the incandescent, as well as saving the individual enough money over the course of the life of the bulb to pay for the price difference is not relevant to them. They scream and rant and rave about the mercury content of the CFL, while ignoring the facts that 1) said mercury will never enter the environment if the lamp is recycled at the end of its life if they're willing to take the bulb to a location that collects them, such as several places they have to go in the course of their lives anyway, and 2) even if the lamp is dumped in a landfill, its use will result in a net lowering of mercury entering the environment. (Most electricity, at least in the USA, is generated through the consumption of fossil fuels, in significant part, coal. Burning coal releases mercury into the environment. If you use less electricity, less coal is needed to do the same work, eg lighting your home. The amount of mercury prevented from entering the environment from using less coal is larger than the mercury content of the CFL.) They'll also latch onto the notion that breaking a CFL results in a hazmat situation; the recommended cleanup procedure for a broken CFL is to use a dustpan and broom.
There is a significant portion of the population that reacts to the concept of shared solutions to shared problems in a knee-jerk way; the instant someone suggests that they may have to change their behavior in order to help solve the problem, they dig in their heels and fight. I can't conclusively put my finger on why they react this way. Perhaps it's just laziness, eg "This problem doesn't affect me personally in a way that I perceive as negative, so out of laziness I will resist doing anything that would help solve the problem" or "I'm too lazy/stupid/ignorant to critically think about the problem, and change frightens me, so I'll make much more effort to maintain the status quo than would be required to actually change my behavior in the first place". Maybe it's a misplaced rebellion to authority. In some cases, maybe they resent the fact that they were treated like gods because they excelled in athletics while they were in school, while the smart kids got their faces flushed down toilets, but now those same smart kids are achieving in ways they can't even comprehend, while they're stuck in a menial, go-nowhere job with no prospects for advancement. Maybe it's the anti-intellectual movement that is encouraged by some in power seeking to manipulate the masses. Maybe they fear what they don't understand, and out of that fear comes the mistrust of anyone attempting to educate them. Maybe, for some reason, they don't understand that what is good for the group is in general good for the individual. Maybe they're just selfish, lazy, short-sighted assholes.
If they don't like the 'liberal bias' (read: intersection with reality) that they see in Wikipedia, they can go use Conservapedia with all the other conservative folks.
No, we don't, really. The choice is, let us invade your privacy or you don't get the job. You have a right to privacy in that you don't have to give them your password, but you exercise your right at your own peril (in this case, not getting the job). There are already several questions that you are not allowed to ask during a job interview; this just adds to that.
What color is the sky on your planet? They'll fight you on the unemployment claim, and win (not because they're right, but because they're the employer and you're not), and then you have no job, no income, and drastically reduced job options (as nobody wants to hire someone who isn't working already).
Take it from someone who knows first-hand, unemployment coverage appeals are almost always found in the favor of the ex-employer. You refused to cooperate with the person interviewing you, thus you were not doing everything you can to get a new job. And without video surveillance or other records, it's your word versus the word of the employer, who is damn likely to be able to afford better lawyers than you to handle the appeal.
And *some* money is better than *no* money. The fact that UI is a cruel joke in this country is another issue. You're *required* to take that burger-flipping job if it's offered to you.
The TSA is an employer like any other. Big Business has made the rules that apply to employers. The fact that the TSA is a quasi-government entity is not germane to the discussion at hand. But good job trying to muddy the waters and deflect focus from the real issue.
No law background required. Any layman can tell you that unless specifically prohibited by law, an employer can discriminate against you for anything they see fit. You have no right to privacy if you want to get hired. If standing on principle is worth not getting the job (and losing your unemployment coverage) for you, then go on with your bad self. Me, I have bills to pay. If my employer came to me today and said "Give me your facebook password or get fired on the spot", I'd have no choice but to give it to them.. as I have a family to feed. I'd quickly be looking for a new job, but it's always better to leave a company on your own terms (and with another job in your back pocket) than to get fired for what most people unfortunately consider 'not a big deal'.
Your "government meddling" wouldn't be necessary if the market were free and not fatally tilted in the direction of the employer. Until a job applicant and a potential employer can meet on equal terms, the "government meddling" will be necessary. As it is right now, the employer controls your ability to make a living, and it's not too far a leap to say that they hold your life in their hands.
When laws to protect employees are no longer necessary, I will be the first one agreeing with you about your vision of an objectivist free market paradise. Unfortunately, I live and work in the real world, so I don't think I'll be agreeing with you anytime soon.
Find me one person who likes the fact that he/she can be terminated at any time for no stated reason. Employment contracts generally don't exist in the USA because in at-will states they're unenforceable.
Because they need a job. Also, if there's a fight over unemployment benefits, and it comes out that you refused to cooperate with a potential employer in the hiring process, you could lose your benefits.
You're wrong about that. Employment law (such as it is in this country[USA]) specifically forbids you from asking certain questions in a job interview setting. These include things like your age, your marital status, your sexual orientation, your ethnic background and so forth.
These laws wouldn't be necessary unless there was a problem to begin with that required regulation. The opacity of the job interview/hiring process made it waaaay too easy for someone to discriminate on the basis of age/sex/orientation/ethnic background, so laws were written to make those practices specifically illegal. Doesn't mean it doesn't still happen, but now if you're asked these questions in a job interview, you have recourse. No sane potential employer wants to get sued over asking a question.
Because the liability (and other) insurance companies MAKE them care. "Drug test your employees or your liability insurance premiums double". "You had an employee have the nerve to get cancer last year, your health insurance premiums just went up 50%" (This could be used as an excuse to fire anyone who smokes. You laugh, but it's happened.)
Just another case of a country run for the corporations, by the corporations. It isn't the 1 president or 535 congresscritters or the 9 justices that make the decisions that matter in this country, it's whoever has the most money.
The only reason you didn't notice the right go apeshit crazy over POTUS' remarks on the subject is that they were apeshit crazy to begin with. There was plenty of criticism from the usual suspects.
You answered your question in the first sentence with your third sentence. H1-Bs can be paid less because they're basically being held hostage by the company that employs them, and that brings EVERYONE'S wages down.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE. This is the wrong reason to stay. Your manager and your company are not trustworthy. They will sell your ass down the river if it means saving money. Hopefully they realize that they can make more money with you than without you; otherwise, you are a cost center. The point of a for-profit company (in fairness, that's an assumption) is to make profit. You do this by increasing revenues and reducing expenses. Salaries are an expense; one that is more easily controlled than the light bill, the lease on the building, etc.
Never forget that in the final analysis, you are nothing more than a negative number on the company's balance sheet, aka a 'liability'. Successful companies can consider how much value (read: money) you can bring to the organization and determine if your salary allows them to make a profit. Companies that are not so successful will only be concerned with how much your salary/benefits are costing the company, and treat you as a pure liability, not bringing in revenue.
If that's the case, then dude is a fucking idiot. 20 years without any real promotion/raise is about 18 years too long.
Wait, so you first basically say "Show me the money" and then you claim it's not about the money?
Of course it's about the money. I can't pay my mortgage with job satisfaction. I may leave my job each day wanting to drive into a tree, but that's why they call it work . (I'm fortunate beyond words in that my current job doesn't make me feel that way, and yet pays me in line with market rates. Probably has something to do with the fact that it's a non-profit, and they don't have greedhead investors breathing down their necks forcing them to pay as little as possible, qualifications be damned.) The fact is, if someone were to offer me a similar position for more money, it would be insanity to not at least consider it, if not jump on it right away. I've been told in annual reviews that my continuing to work here is vital to the company's viability, and by some miracle those (basically useless) words have been associated with meaningful raises (by which I mean more than the 3% that is required to keep up with the increasing cost of living).
Job satisfaction may keep me from actively looking for a new position, but if an offer were to drop into my lap from someone I've built a network with for significantly more money, I would probably take it.
Money is how you are valued in this society (USA). If you have more money, you are regarded more highly. It doesn't matter if you're a dangerously incompetent asshole, you will enjoy the increased status that that money brings.
Because he/she/it doesn't want to find evidence that contradicts their belief. IMHO, most climate change deniers are motivated by the desire to avoid having to change their behavior, even in the smallest way. They latch onto any evidence, no matter how speciously gathered or irrational, that supports their laziness. For example, let's take the suggestion that people switch to compact fluorescent lamps instead of incandescent bulbs, because the CFLs use less energy. They say that they don't want to spend $4 on a CFL when they can spend 50 cents on an incandescent; the fact that the CFL will last multiple times longer than the incandescent, as well as saving the individual enough money over the course of the life of the bulb to pay for the price difference is not relevant to them. They scream and rant and rave about the mercury content of the CFL, while ignoring the facts that 1) said mercury will never enter the environment if the lamp is recycled at the end of its life if they're willing to take the bulb to a location that collects them, such as several places they have to go in the course of their lives anyway, and 2) even if the lamp is dumped in a landfill, its use will result in a net lowering of mercury entering the environment. (Most electricity, at least in the USA, is generated through the consumption of fossil fuels, in significant part, coal. Burning coal releases mercury into the environment. If you use less electricity, less coal is needed to do the same work, eg lighting your home. The amount of mercury prevented from entering the environment from using less coal is larger than the mercury content of the CFL.) They'll also latch onto the notion that breaking a CFL results in a hazmat situation; the recommended cleanup procedure for a broken CFL is to use a dustpan and broom.
There is a significant portion of the population that reacts to the concept of shared solutions to shared problems in a knee-jerk way; the instant someone suggests that they may have to change their behavior in order to help solve the problem, they dig in their heels and fight. I can't conclusively put my finger on why they react this way. Perhaps it's just laziness, eg "This problem doesn't affect me personally in a way that I perceive as negative, so out of laziness I will resist doing anything that would help solve the problem" or "I'm too lazy/stupid/ignorant to critically think about the problem, and change frightens me, so I'll make much more effort to maintain the status quo than would be required to actually change my behavior in the first place". Maybe it's a misplaced rebellion to authority. In some cases, maybe they resent the fact that they were treated like gods because they excelled in athletics while they were in school, while the smart kids got their faces flushed down toilets, but now those same smart kids are achieving in ways they can't even comprehend, while they're stuck in a menial, go-nowhere job with no prospects for advancement. Maybe it's the anti-intellectual movement that is encouraged by some in power seeking to manipulate the masses. Maybe they fear what they don't understand, and out of that fear comes the mistrust of anyone attempting to educate them. Maybe, for some reason, they don't understand that what is good for the group is in general good for the individual. Maybe they're just selfish, lazy, short-sighted assholes.
And their definition of "socialist" is "someone who doesn't agree with me".
Just because a lot of people believe in something doesn't make it true.
If they don't like the 'liberal bias' (read: intersection with reality) that they see in Wikipedia, they can go use Conservapedia with all the other conservative folks.
No, we don't, really. The choice is, let us invade your privacy or you don't get the job. You have a right to privacy in that you don't have to give them your password, but you exercise your right at your own peril (in this case, not getting the job). There are already several questions that you are not allowed to ask during a job interview; this just adds to that.
Shut up, Glenn.
What color is the sky on your planet? They'll fight you on the unemployment claim, and win (not because they're right, but because they're the employer and you're not), and then you have no job, no income, and drastically reduced job options (as nobody wants to hire someone who isn't working already).
How is any of that 'good'?
"You're fired." "Because I wouldn't work uncompensated overtime?" "No, we don't have to give a reason, clean out your desk."
My point was that you didn't have a choice, even if it paid less than unemployment, you HAD to take it.
Take it from someone who knows first-hand, unemployment coverage appeals are almost always found in the favor of the ex-employer. You refused to cooperate with the person interviewing you, thus you were not doing everything you can to get a new job. And without video surveillance or other records, it's your word versus the word of the employer, who is damn likely to be able to afford better lawyers than you to handle the appeal.
And *some* money is better than *no* money. The fact that UI is a cruel joke in this country is another issue. You're *required* to take that burger-flipping job if it's offered to you.
The TSA is an employer like any other. Big Business has made the rules that apply to employers. The fact that the TSA is a quasi-government entity is not germane to the discussion at hand. But good job trying to muddy the waters and deflect focus from the real issue.
No law background required. Any layman can tell you that unless specifically prohibited by law, an employer can discriminate against you for anything they see fit. You have no right to privacy if you want to get hired. If standing on principle is worth not getting the job (and losing your unemployment coverage) for you, then go on with your bad self. Me, I have bills to pay. If my employer came to me today and said "Give me your facebook password or get fired on the spot", I'd have no choice but to give it to them.. as I have a family to feed. I'd quickly be looking for a new job, but it's always better to leave a company on your own terms (and with another job in your back pocket) than to get fired for what most people unfortunately consider 'not a big deal'.
Your "government meddling" wouldn't be necessary if the market were free and not fatally tilted in the direction of the employer. Until a job applicant and a potential employer can meet on equal terms, the "government meddling" will be necessary. As it is right now, the employer controls your ability to make a living, and it's not too far a leap to say that they hold your life in their hands.
When laws to protect employees are no longer necessary, I will be the first one agreeing with you about your vision of an objectivist free market paradise. Unfortunately, I live and work in the real world, so I don't think I'll be agreeing with you anytime soon.
Find me one person who likes the fact that he/she can be terminated at any time for no stated reason. Employment contracts generally don't exist in the USA because in at-will states they're unenforceable.
You: losing your unemployment benefits.
Because they need a job. Also, if there's a fight over unemployment benefits, and it comes out that you refused to cooperate with a potential employer in the hiring process, you could lose your benefits.
You're wrong about that. Employment law (such as it is in this country[USA]) specifically forbids you from asking certain questions in a job interview setting. These include things like your age, your marital status, your sexual orientation, your ethnic background and so forth.
These laws wouldn't be necessary unless there was a problem to begin with that required regulation. The opacity of the job interview/hiring process made it waaaay too easy for someone to discriminate on the basis of age/sex/orientation/ethnic background, so laws were written to make those practices specifically illegal. Doesn't mean it doesn't still happen, but now if you're asked these questions in a job interview, you have recourse. No sane potential employer wants to get sued over asking a question.
Because the liability (and other) insurance companies MAKE them care. "Drug test your employees or your liability insurance premiums double". "You had an employee have the nerve to get cancer last year, your health insurance premiums just went up 50%" (This could be used as an excuse to fire anyone who smokes. You laugh, but it's happened.)
Just another case of a country run for the corporations, by the corporations. It isn't the 1 president or 535 congresscritters or the 9 justices that make the decisions that matter in this country, it's whoever has the most money.
What means this 'work contract'? They're mostly unenforceable in the USA, and therefore useless to employer and employee alike.
The only reason you didn't notice the right go apeshit crazy over POTUS' remarks on the subject is that they were apeshit crazy to begin with. There was plenty of criticism from the usual suspects.
Because the USA is run by Big Business, who can give unlimited money to candidates for office. You can be fired here for no stated reason at all.
You answered your question in the first sentence with your third sentence. H1-Bs can be paid less because they're basically being held hostage by the company that employs them, and that brings EVERYONE'S wages down.