That logic is absolutely awful, and you should be highly embarrassed to have posted it on a geek site.
Unionisation may be *necessary* for long-term prosperity, but it's not *sufficient*. Ireland relied way too much on low corporation tax and other short term incentives dependent on its past developing status, and Italy is corrupt to the core. "Culture of Raw German Efficiency" is a label Anglo-Saxons like to use because they are too afraid to actually describe what it means: a culture in which worker and management are keen to cooperate on relevant education and sustainable production, maintained by an on-going dialogue between the two sides of industry.
The move to the cities in industrial revolutionary Britain was little to do with prospects, and a lot to do with changed countryside management. But even those who moved, found that they were mostly chasing an impossible dream, unless they were the very first to get in on the game.
My father was born during the Spanish civil war. In cooperation with American firms, the country was fed exactly the same bull that Chinese people are being fed now. All they saw were fewer freedoms and even longer working hours, with no security of either ownership or state welfare. Mother's cousin married into an Indian aristocratic family which dabbles in politics, and they sell these very claims to the ignorant villagers - then a tiny proportion is transferred to a different sort of toil, while the rest have any previous security taken away. People older and wiser than you and I have heard it all before, and all they've seen is more misery.
Is it true that we enjoy a labour aristocracy in the West? Somewhat. But that is due to the exploitation which comes of asymmetric treatment. Eliminate the trade conditions which seduce the East and Africa into being crippled exporters, and stop propping up their corrupt governments, and they'd start to see the independent flourishing that European nations began to experience last century.
Rarely is job performance so simple to measure. See my other post. The idea that you can make people produce more by simply telling them they'll get paid more if they work harder involves a whole slew of assumptions which rarely apply, esp. in a modern workplace.
Why is everyone not working their best at your workplace, please?
Why would you resent earning as much as someone who tries exactly as hard as you?
N.B. This has nothing to do with different levels of pay for different *responsibilities*. Just for different performance at identical responsibility with identical experience.
If you want citations, I shan't gtfy, so: "performance-related pay".
There's enough evidence that performance-related pay doesn't actually work, and even a "good" worker ought not to vote for it, as it'll damage the company. Every worker should perform their best, and be compensated as well as possible for it, or not be employed.
Any congress of unions ought pretty much to agree as a matter of principle to strike immediately if it finds any company using an employee blacklist. It's as obnoxious as a union reacting merely because a specific person is put into management, regardless of their actual behaviour. Ad hominem is uncivilised from both sides of industry.
But, in fact, the policy is daft, as the best employees aren't necessarily the ones who are most apathetically servile. Noisy employees can often be the ones who care passionately about their work, and just want to be treated well.
Employment blacklists are illegal in many countries anyway, of course.
"What you've seen" is fantasy. Strong unionisation brings strong economy: see Germany.
The whole "unions are not perfect!" thing is a straw man. Nobody argues that all unions always act in the interests of their members, except the anti-union types who want an excuse to denigrate all unions. No great concept is always perfectly executed, but the concept is sound, and any deficiencies need to be tackled in each specific case.
Eh, you might as well argue that a human has the right to anything he wants without having to succumb to the pressures of property law.
Freedom means the right to associate freely. And that includes the right *not* to associate with people who aren't prepared to cooperate. Otherwise you're just making slaves of men.
Don't know how it works where you come from, but in civilised countries, striking is just a last resort in negotiation - it doesn't "alienate" you, and management can't suddenly pretend you don't exist.
I thought everyone was agreed that we want to stop employers exploiting wage disparity between nations.
If every specialist in a foreign nation strikes until they get paid a wage matching the salaries of the home country of their employers, each country would actually produce its own stuff, instead of the Anglo-Saxon and European nations acting as remote slavedrivers.
Yes, but being on strike over wages doesn't necessarily mean you can't find another job, possibly with better pay/conditions. It means that you are willing to work *there* (experience/enjoyment/loyalty), but only under better pay/conditions.
Because Americans aren't generally in favour of a free market. They're under the yoke of protestant work ethic, which is servitude with an essentially religious basis.
A free market would see workers refusing to work with non-union workers, and unions regularly campaigning for higher wages until there was a more equitable distribution of wealth. But the laws in many states/countries have made this illegal or practically impossible.
Not really. The only cheaters are those who lie that there is something immoral about organised labour.
All employees should unite and strike until paid enough to balance the distribution of wealth. And there's nothing employers would then be able to do about it, except turn employees into slaves.
And that's why there are so many lies told about unions.
The question asked was why he wasn't charged on summons. The answer is: because law enforcement fucked up with procedure, going for a macho raid, egged on by the copyright cartel the government shares a bed with. Please follow the thread.
I don't know how you do it in your country, but common law countries don't need to hurry with bringing charges unless someone's actually sitting in custody. And there's such a string of abuses of procedure that I'm not sure it's worth it now.
Mind you, I'm not saying you're wrong - I suppose all powerful humans are a cancerous collection only out for their own egos. Otherwise they wouldn't even care for power.
Eh companies go for lawsuits too when people dare to uncover their incompetence - sometimes push for criminal charges. But this is the Internet and everything seems to end up being Government vs Corporation even though they're really the same thing.
Who says he couldn't have been? Lots of people get off because the police/courts fail to follow process, rather than because of an absence of evidence. This is perfectly okay, as protecting the integrity of the justice system is more important than locking up individual nasty people, but it doesn't mean the man's not broken the law.
Slashdot Mirror
That logic is absolutely awful, and you should be highly embarrassed to have posted it on a geek site.
Unionisation may be *necessary* for long-term prosperity, but it's not *sufficient*. Ireland relied way too much on low corporation tax and other short term incentives dependent on its past developing status, and Italy is corrupt to the core. "Culture of Raw German Efficiency" is a label Anglo-Saxons like to use because they are too afraid to actually describe what it means: a culture in which worker and management are keen to cooperate on relevant education and sustainable production, maintained by an on-going dialogue between the two sides of industry.
And yet it doesn't.
The move to the cities in industrial revolutionary Britain was little to do with prospects, and a lot to do with changed countryside management. But even those who moved, found that they were mostly chasing an impossible dream, unless they were the very first to get in on the game.
My father was born during the Spanish civil war. In cooperation with American firms, the country was fed exactly the same bull that Chinese people are being fed now. All they saw were fewer freedoms and even longer working hours, with no security of either ownership or state welfare. Mother's cousin married into an Indian aristocratic family which dabbles in politics, and they sell these very claims to the ignorant villagers - then a tiny proportion is transferred to a different sort of toil, while the rest have any previous security taken away. People older and wiser than you and I have heard it all before, and all they've seen is more misery.
Is it true that we enjoy a labour aristocracy in the West? Somewhat. But that is due to the exploitation which comes of asymmetric treatment. Eliminate the trade conditions which seduce the East and Africa into being crippled exporters, and stop propping up their corrupt governments, and they'd start to see the independent flourishing that European nations began to experience last century.
For the types of positions typically occupied by union employees...
Normally people are better at hiding their prejudices. Stopped reading here.
Rarely is job performance so simple to measure. See my other post. The idea that you can make people produce more by simply telling them they'll get paid more if they work harder involves a whole slew of assumptions which rarely apply, esp. in a modern workplace.
Why is everyone not working their best at your workplace, please?
Why would you resent earning as much as someone who tries exactly as hard as you?
N.B. This has nothing to do with different levels of pay for different *responsibilities*. Just for different performance at identical responsibility with identical experience.
If you want citations, I shan't gtfy, so: "performance-related pay".
There's enough evidence that performance-related pay doesn't actually work, and even a "good" worker ought not to vote for it, as it'll damage the company. Every worker should perform their best, and be compensated as well as possible for it, or not be employed.
We had to kill the village in order to save it!
Any congress of unions ought pretty much to agree as a matter of principle to strike immediately if it finds any company using an employee blacklist. It's as obnoxious as a union reacting merely because a specific person is put into management, regardless of their actual behaviour. Ad hominem is uncivilised from both sides of industry.
But, in fact, the policy is daft, as the best employees aren't necessarily the ones who are most apathetically servile. Noisy employees can often be the ones who care passionately about their work, and just want to be treated well.
Employment blacklists are illegal in many countries anyway, of course.
"What you've seen" is fantasy. Strong unionisation brings strong economy: see Germany.
The whole "unions are not perfect!" thing is a straw man. Nobody argues that all unions always act in the interests of their members, except the anti-union types who want an excuse to denigrate all unions. No great concept is always perfectly executed, but the concept is sound, and any deficiencies need to be tackled in each specific case.
Eh, you might as well argue that a human has the right to anything he wants without having to succumb to the pressures of property law.
Freedom means the right to associate freely. And that includes the right *not* to associate with people who aren't prepared to cooperate. Otherwise you're just making slaves of men.
Don't know how it works where you come from, but in civilised countries, striking is just a last resort in negotiation - it doesn't "alienate" you, and management can't suddenly pretend you don't exist.
I thought everyone was agreed that we want to stop employers exploiting wage disparity between nations.
If every specialist in a foreign nation strikes until they get paid a wage matching the salaries of the home country of their employers, each country would actually produce its own stuff, instead of the Anglo-Saxon and European nations acting as remote slavedrivers.
Yes, but being on strike over wages doesn't necessarily mean you can't find another job, possibly with better pay/conditions. It means that you are willing to work *there* (experience/enjoyment/loyalty), but only under better pay/conditions.
Because Americans aren't generally in favour of a free market. They're under the yoke of protestant work ethic, which is servitude with an essentially religious basis.
A free market would see workers refusing to work with non-union workers, and unions regularly campaigning for higher wages until there was a more equitable distribution of wealth. But the laws in many states/countries have made this illegal or practically impossible.
Oh look, it's the race-to-the-bottom attitude. "I'm suffering, and the solution is to make more people suffer, rather than to lift everyone up."
Meanwhile the guys at the top laugh at you as you remain divided and conquered.
"cheat"
Not really. The only cheaters are those who lie that there is something immoral about organised labour.
All employees should unite and strike until paid enough to balance the distribution of wealth. And there's nothing employers would then be able to do about it, except turn employees into slaves.
And that's why there are so many lies told about unions.
"Otherwise they already would have."
If you think that work is about nothing more than earning money, you're not just an idiot, but someone I feel sorry for.
In the real world, a "researcher" is someone who works to rigorous academic standards writing and publishing original scholarship.
In the "IT security" world, a "researcher" is someone who finds that complex code isn't perfect and thinks himself important for making such a find.
"Not having to think about some things is just like not having to think about anything at all." Gotcha.
If you think Al Qaida is bad, check out how many people Bush's wars have killed in the name of the American God...
There's a song for that. (and, no, it's not that shitty South Park thing, but some fine Denis Leary)
The question asked was why he wasn't charged on summons. The answer is: because law enforcement fucked up with procedure, going for a macho raid, egged on by the copyright cartel the government shares a bed with. Please follow the thread.
I don't know how you do it in your country, but common law countries don't need to hurry with bringing charges unless someone's actually sitting in custody. And there's such a string of abuses of procedure that I'm not sure it's worth it now.
Mind you, I'm not saying you're wrong - I suppose all powerful humans are a cancerous collection only out for their own egos. Otherwise they wouldn't even care for power.
Eh companies go for lawsuits too when people dare to uncover their incompetence - sometimes push for criminal charges. But this is the Internet and everything seems to end up being Government vs Corporation even though they're really the same thing.
Who says he couldn't have been? Lots of people get off because the police/courts fail to follow process, rather than because of an absence of evidence. This is perfectly okay, as protecting the integrity of the justice system is more important than locking up individual nasty people, but it doesn't mean the man's not broken the law.