When people say a company is forcing you to do something that is just coloquial descontextualized lingo.
A company enters an agreement in which the company wishes that you refrain to do certain things because they could be counterproductive to the company's bottom line.
They are requesting something in a contractual clause.
If the requirement is asinine you can refuse, in some places to put an unreasonbale clause that would force you to refuse to accept it, would amount to unfiar dismisal.
But if the clause is a legitimate business need only people prepared to work in that line of business should join such a company.
If the work situation offers the possibility of forming friendships and even long lasting relationships, that is great and cool.
But a bussiness main purpose, for both employees and employers IMHO, is not to facilitate socialization.
I would theorize that people having as main avenue to relate to others their workplace have either too much work, too few life interests or a combination of both.
Look buddy, keep to yourslef all the fascist- rethoric-whatever-slippery-I-don't-know-what nonsense.
Firstly it is not becoming illegal for everybody to fraternize with colleagues out of office hours. What the ruling says is that is is not illegal to put a clause in an employment contract forbiding employees to do so.
It is a fscking contract you know? One of those things that you can decide to sign or not. If you find a measure too draconian the solution is simple: do not put your signature in the dotted line. You will be not shooted, no final solution for non signatories, no fascist measures.
There are many situations in which fraternization is a bad idea (hint: look at the business of the company involved) for the business the company is (and for extension the employees themselves).
Knee jerk reacting faster than a gunslinger can pull out his trusty Colt is not a good way to look at an issue so complicated as this.
In many businesses (specially in the financial sector) certain departments of the same company should not have any contacts with others for many different reasons.
If you can go an fraternize with that same people, the "Chinese wall" provisions go up in smoke. And the respective company may be liable.
Also in many cases conspiracies to defraud are inside jobs organized by a group of coworkers, Although such provisions would not stop any criminals, it certainly would make clear that in some businesses (the company in question seem to be in the security area) socialization puts in danger the very business that brings the money to the organization that is paying everybody's salaries.
For many of us that is not the case, we are paid to perform a job, we do that job, clock hits 17:00, end of the history for the day.
Of course you can't understand it because you are in the odd position of being the owner of something but having to work like mad to keep things going.
That is you, I very much hope that any employees in your company are sane enough to have an unhindered life out of bussiness hours.
So you ar completely innadequate to relate with people (that by definition will be different) but you blame it on them?
Mate, you need to have a hard look at yourself, you may be happy the way you are, to each one his own, but don't come with this bullshit about the rest of the world being inadequate.
The same 2% of compatible people will be out ther in any activity you perform, the big difference is that you are not risking both your professional standing and your friendship when you make friends that are not your coworkers.
Whatever, since you are dealing with their money and their resources they surely need to have some input in how you lead your life in anything related to your work. Relationships is one of them since for many reasons this could be detrimental to the company's activities.
It is very difficult, and in many situations unpleasent.
It is good to have a good working relationship with your colleagues, but socializing should be kept to a minimum so everybody can keep professionalism unnafected by friendships.
Second, the problem is not for Mr Kay, but for HP.
Third, the big shots just graduated would colapse any business if they were left to their own devices. It is people like Mr Kay, dear teflon, that smack you in the back of your head for doing things like reinventing the wheel, attempting to make the same mistakes the "old school" guys already made and in general contributing what the new dudes and dudettes sorely lack: fucking experience.
Oh sorry, your nick is kevlar, it felt like I was addressing the correct material all through my comment.
People like that are what keep alive your internal corporate culture.
Those are the guys that tell you where no to set your foot because they did so before and found there was a bear trap.
If you seriously are saying that HP can't find a place on their company for a guy that shaped a good part of software development carried out during the last 20 years, worldwide, then you and HP need to sit down and pause because you both are lunatics.
People like these are few per generation. I am sure other more enlightened companies (like the ones mentioned on the thread), that are actually shapping the IT world will snap him if he still feels like working.
... have such reputation only because they exceed the expectations of the people around them.
If a miracle worker took 6 minutes for something he said would take 5, even if for others it would take 30 minutes, he would build a bad reputation. Trust me on that one.
So you hate for no reason, the first thing a miracle worker has to do is take of his back the annoying people eternaly asking "is it ready now?". By giving this people a long enough time to get lost you can get on with the work and become recognized for keep your word.
Slashdot Mirror
When people say a company is forcing you to do something that is just coloquial descontextualized lingo.
A company enters an agreement in which the company wishes that you refrain to do certain things because they could be counterproductive to the company's bottom line.
YOu can say yes or not.
They are forcing you do do nothing.
US workers are not the most productive in the world.
I will not fish out the details for you, but organizations like the OECD and others will cure your unabashed optimism.
Prise to you...
They are requesting something in a contractual clause.
If the requirement is asinine you can refuse, in some places to put an unreasonbale clause that would force you to refuse to accept it, would amount to unfiar dismisal.
But if the clause is a legitimate business need only people prepared to work in that line of business should join such a company.
No cohercion here.
If the work situation offers the possibility of forming friendships and even long lasting relationships, that is great and cool.
But a bussiness main purpose, for both employees and employers IMHO, is not to facilitate socialization.
I would theorize that people having as main avenue to relate to others their workplace have either too much work, too few life interests or a combination of both.
Imagine you and your friend work in such a company, one of you casually slips some information thatn the other should not know about.
Sorry, but in some circumstances fraternization is a bussiness risk, in such cases your friends should be found elsewhere.
Look buddy, keep to yourslef all the fascist- rethoric-whatever-slippery-I-don't-know-what nonsense.
Firstly it is not becoming illegal for everybody to fraternize with colleagues out of office hours. What the ruling says is that is is not illegal to put a clause in an employment contract forbiding employees to do so.
It is a fscking contract you know? One of those things that you can decide to sign or not. If you find a measure too draconian the solution is simple: do not put your signature in the dotted line. You will be not shooted, no final solution for non signatories, no fascist measures.
There are many situations in which fraternization is a bad idea (hint: look at the business of the company involved) for the business the company is (and for extension the employees themselves).
Knee jerk reacting faster than a gunslinger can pull out his trusty Colt is not a good way to look at an issue so complicated as this.
In many businesses (specially in the financial sector) certain departments of the same company should not have any contacts with others for many different reasons.
If you can go an fraternize with that same people, the "Chinese wall" provisions go up in smoke. And the respective company may be liable.
Also in many cases conspiracies to defraud are inside jobs organized by a group of coworkers, Although such provisions would not stop any criminals, it certainly would make clear that in some businesses (the company in question seem to be in the security area) socialization puts in danger the very business that brings the money to the organization that is paying everybody's salaries.
.... great, good for you.
For many of us that is not the case, we are paid to perform a job, we do that job, clock hits 17:00, end of the history for the day.
Of course you can't understand it because you are in the odd position of being the owner of something but having to work like mad to keep things going.
That is you, I very much hope that any employees in your company are sane enough to have an unhindered life out of bussiness hours.
So you ar completely innadequate to relate with people (that by definition will be different) but you blame it on them?
Mate, you need to have a hard look at yourself, you may be happy the way you are, to each one his own, but don't come with this bullshit about the rest of the world being inadequate.
The same 2% of compatible people will be out ther in any activity you perform, the big difference is that you are not risking both your professional standing and your friendship when you make friends that are not your coworkers.
The people allowing you to keep your lifestyle.
The people paying you a livehood.
Whatever, since you are dealing with their money and their resources they surely need to have some input in how you lead your life in anything related to your work. Relationships is one of them since for many reasons this could be detrimental to the company's activities.
It is very difficult, and in many situations unpleasent.
It is good to have a good working relationship with your colleagues, but socializing should be kept to a minimum so everybody can keep professionalism unnafected by friendships.
Yeah, do you thinkg identical twins have soul?
Try it, you may find it fulfilling.
The gerbills?
The Martians?
The Ninjas?
Who are they?
First of all teflon, he is not a developer.
Second, the problem is not for Mr Kay, but for HP.
Third, the big shots just graduated would colapse any business if they were left to their own devices. It is people like Mr Kay, dear teflon, that smack you in the back of your head for doing things like reinventing the wheel, attempting to make the same mistakes the "old school" guys already made and in general contributing what the new dudes and dudettes sorely lack: fucking experience.
Oh sorry, your nick is kevlar, it felt like I was addressing the correct material all through my comment.
.... on should get a hint you are being sarcastic.
Had it not been for the last line on your comment one would have not realized you were being sarcastic.
Or were you?
People like that are what keep alive your internal corporate culture.
Those are the guys that tell you where no to set your foot because they did so before and found there was a bear trap.
If you seriously are saying that HP can't find a place on their company for a guy that shaped a good part of software development carried out during the last 20 years, worldwide, then you and HP need to sit down and pause because you both are lunatics.
People like these are few per generation. I am sure other more enlightened companies (like the ones mentioned on the thread), that are actually shapping the IT world will snap him if he still feels like working.
Shoot yourself in the foot.
This ridiculous pseudo-patriotism will hurt your country if it catches on. What you are proposing is to mantain inneficiencies in the global economy.
That eventualy screws everybody, including idiotic patriotic babbling people that ignore history on their way to repeat it.
... have such reputation only because they exceed the expectations of the people around them.
If a miracle worker took 6 minutes for something he said would take 5, even if for others it would take 30 minutes, he would build a bad reputation. Trust me on that one.
So you hate for no reason, the first thing a miracle worker has to do is take of his back the annoying people eternaly asking "is it ready now?". By giving this people a long enough time to get lost you can get on with the work and become recognized for keep your word.
Scotty, as usual, was right.
I know most people don't care about them, but some do.
Do not sign it.
if they fire you it would be without a doubt unfair dismissal.
No sane court would allow them to get away with such a thing.
But you should get legal advice, common sense is not neceessarily always right when it comes to legal matters.
I would not sign it even if it was enforceable, as a matter of principle.
So tomorrow MS buys McDonalds.
Bye bye to a carrier flipping burgers???
Why do you need balls to sign a contract?
For bunnies sakes, it is an agreement between 2 parts, and even better, there are no existing obligations between those parts.
Why should I need balls to decide I don't like some terms of a contract presented to me?
The reverence some people have for corporations just baffles me.
.... judge the message on its own merits?