It doesn't matter what "should" or "should not" be. The reality is what the law says it is. Hand waving and whinging won't change that. Do you go to the store and only pay 10c for a kilo of bananas because YOU feel that's what the price should be? Does your boss pay you a million bucks an hour because that's what YOU think you're worth?
The ISBN number has all the info needed to contact the real author/publisher. Find 2 books using the same ISBN, one of them is a fake. Even different editions of the same book, or the same edition in 2 different languages, or illustrated vs non-illustrated, need separate ISBNs, so copying the ISBN isn't going to work, and finding duplicate material from 2 separate publishers should be enough to raise a red flag.
If it was going to happen with a union, it was going to happen anyway - just a matter of time. And it's kind of hard to replace jobs that require a hands-on, on-site presence, either for performing the work, or for rapid on-site decision-making.
We missed the headcount by ONE person. That doesn't sound like "good idea in principle." That was "too chicken". And you're wrong - we have anti-scab provisions in our labor law that don't allow the hiring of replacement workers (scabs) - only management themselves are allowed to do the replacement work, and if they can't do it all (either because there aren't enough managers to replace the workers, or they just don't know how), sucks to be them.
You nick shows that as well. If you read/. at work, most probably someone can see your nick and decide to fire you for obvious reasons of all the good attributes that you lack.
Let me introduce you to my friend - "protected class of worker":-)
Absolutely not - it will more than likely get him fired. And for your hypothetical "smurf hammer" situation, it's the same thing. If the invention is directly connected to your job as an employee (and the smurf hammer is) and it's invented on company time using company resources, legally the employer owns it.
The government of a communist economy doesn't control the market as a whole either. Just look at what happened when there were massive crop failures in the former CCCP as just one example. True "command economies" have never existed.
BTW There are many open source coders that don't get paid for their work that consider it their actual job and would be insulted that you don't consider that work worthwhile.
The truth hurts? Let them be insulted. It's not a job and they are not in an employer-employee relationship.
And your argument about facebook is equally flawed - they will do both.
And if that lone coder or author can't sell a single copy, it's still a hobby, not a job.
Welcome to the over-40s club. It gets ugly after 40. You get the chest-thumpers here who will say that it's nonsense, but how many of those 50-year-olds (perceived as being past their "best before" date) will be able to hold on until 67?
In a time of skills commoditization, nobody is a "special snowflake" any more. We're just cogs to be replaced when we become too expensive. That could be because of younger people willing to work for much less to get a foot in the door in their favorite field (game companies are notorious for that), that older workers are less likely to put up with bs, as well as having a life outside of work and sleeping under their desks, and even higher insurance costs.
Software (and IT in general) is still a very immature field, as witnessed by the huge delays and cost overruns on many major projects.
Society doesn't tolerate it - but then there's the golden rule - those who have the gold make the rules. Without campaign spending limits to level the playing field, special interests will always win.
Maybe you can look for something where the IT skills are a "nice to have" in an unrelated field, such as plant management, etc.
I think the majority of younger people aren't as dumb as this. Most people learn quite young that it's not right to take something that isn't yours and sell it. In this case, he clearly wants to try to find some justification for doing exactly that, and there is none.
This is ridiculous, the simple fact that he is asking shows that he is at least respectful of the law and want to know more about it. It could be that he wants to know what is ethical. You are just putting words in his mouth.
Doesn't change my point - he clearly has neither business nor ethical sense. Or common sense for that matter. That's not me putting words in their mouth - though you just did. I'm just pointing out the facts.
Maybe the H1B employees can now train the local guys, so they can be replaced by people desperate enough to work for barista wages and sleep under their desks.
It's very simple - one is the real-life situation of a guy who isn't a contractor and doesn't have such a contract, and the other is purely hypothetical and ignores this fact, adding only noise.
Money is only a medium of exchange - it does not in and of itself create jobs. Otherwise all that money sitting in banks doing nothing would create jobs "magically." When the corporations cut back on payroll, there's less consumer activity since there's less ability for people to exchange goods and services - much of which takes place based on credit, which is not money, btw.
The governments of capitalist countries also determine both the demand and who is going to be allowed to bid on supplying it - see arms procurement as just one example. Does that make them communist?
Tender bids for construction contracts also lay out both the demand and the businesses that are qualified to bid for it, even if it ends up with only one bidder being qualified. Does that make them communist?
Businesses enter into single-source contracts, and single-buyer contracts. Are they communist?
If the poster had such an agreement there would be no reason to do an ask slashdot. That this is not self-evident is your problem, not mine. Right now, it's entirely work for hire and will remain so in the absence of a future agreement saying otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
And you're STILL whining about something completely off-topic.
It doesn't matter what "should" or "should not" be. The reality is what the law says it is. Hand waving and whinging won't change that. Do you go to the store and only pay 10c for a kilo of bananas because YOU feel that's what the price should be? Does your boss pay you a million bucks an hour because that's what YOU think you're worth?
Without a customer, even barter doesn't work. Customers create jobs.
No customers, no jobs.
That's why businesses look at consumer and manufacturer confidence indexes when trying to project their labor needs.
Too much work. Just predict an earthquake in California within a week, every week. It'll be like predicting the sun rising tomorrow.
The ISBN number has all the info needed to contact the real author/publisher. Find 2 books using the same ISBN, one of them is a fake. Even different editions of the same book, or the same edition in 2 different languages, or illustrated vs non-illustrated, need separate ISBNs, so copying the ISBN isn't going to work, and finding duplicate material from 2 separate publishers should be enough to raise a red flag.
If it was going to happen with a union, it was going to happen anyway - just a matter of time. And it's kind of hard to replace jobs that require a hands-on, on-site presence, either for performing the work, or for rapid on-site decision-making.
We missed the headcount by ONE person. That doesn't sound like "good idea in principle." That was "too chicken". And you're wrong - we have anti-scab provisions in our labor law that don't allow the hiring of replacement workers (scabs) - only management themselves are allowed to do the replacement work, and if they can't do it all (either because there aren't enough managers to replace the workers, or they just don't know how), sucks to be them.
You nick shows that as well. If you read /. at work, most probably someone can see your nick and decide to fire you for obvious reasons of all the good attributes that you lack.
Let me introduce you to my friend - "protected class of worker" :-)
Absolutely not - it will more than likely get him fired. And for your hypothetical "smurf hammer" situation, it's the same thing. If the invention is directly connected to your job as an employee (and the smurf hammer is) and it's invented on company time using company resources, legally the employer owns it.
It's the LAW, dummy. Look up "work for hire." He's an employee (he says so himself), not an independent contractor.
The government of a communist economy doesn't control the market as a whole either. Just look at what happened when there were massive crop failures in the former CCCP as just one example. True "command economies" have never existed.
The sad part? You may very well be right. :-(
BTW There are many open source coders that don't get paid for their work that consider it their actual job and would be insulted that you don't consider that work worthwhile.
The truth hurts? Let them be insulted. It's not a job and they are not in an employer-employee relationship.
And your argument about facebook is equally flawed - they will do both.
And if that lone coder or author can't sell a single copy, it's still a hobby, not a job.
Everyone's ability to negotiate is improved by knowing what everyone else is getting paid.
Or maybe create a second Anonymous and take down any offshore company supplying H1Bs - cut the supply chain, problem ends.
People were trading with each other long before companies ever existed, and still do today. It's called barter. No money and no company required.
You're dead? Host it on a zombie server.
Welcome to the over-40s club. It gets ugly after 40. You get the chest-thumpers here who will say that it's nonsense, but how many of those 50-year-olds (perceived as being past their "best before" date) will be able to hold on until 67?
In a time of skills commoditization, nobody is a "special snowflake" any more. We're just cogs to be replaced when we become too expensive. That could be because of younger people willing to work for much less to get a foot in the door in their favorite field (game companies are notorious for that), that older workers are less likely to put up with bs, as well as having a life outside of work and sleeping under their desks, and even higher insurance costs.
Software (and IT in general) is still a very immature field, as witnessed by the huge delays and cost overruns on many major projects.
Society doesn't tolerate it - but then there's the golden rule - those who have the gold make the rules. Without campaign spending limits to level the playing field, special interests will always win.
Maybe you can look for something where the IT skills are a "nice to have" in an unrelated field, such as plant management, etc.
I think the majority of younger people aren't as dumb as this. Most people learn quite young that it's not right to take something that isn't yours and sell it. In this case, he clearly wants to try to find some justification for doing exactly that, and there is none.
This is ridiculous, the simple fact that he is asking shows that he is at least respectful of the law and want to know more about it. It could be that he wants to know what is ethical. You are just putting words in his mouth.
Doesn't change my point - he clearly has neither business nor ethical sense. Or common sense for that matter. That's not me putting words in their mouth - though you just did. I'm just pointing out the facts.
Maybe the H1B employees can now train the local guys, so they can be replaced by people desperate enough to work for barista wages and sleep under their desks.
Sounds like the early Microsoft.
It's very simple - one is the real-life situation of a guy who isn't a contractor and doesn't have such a contract, and the other is purely hypothetical and ignores this fact, adding only noise.
Money is only a medium of exchange - it does not in and of itself create jobs. Otherwise all that money sitting in banks doing nothing would create jobs "magically." When the corporations cut back on payroll, there's less consumer activity since there's less ability for people to exchange goods and services - much of which takes place based on credit, which is not money, btw.
Generalizations ignore reality.
The governments of capitalist countries also determine both the demand and who is going to be allowed to bid on supplying it - see arms procurement as just one example. Does that make them communist?
Tender bids for construction contracts also lay out both the demand and the businesses that are qualified to bid for it, even if it ends up with only one bidder being qualified. Does that make them communist?
Businesses enter into single-source contracts, and single-buyer contracts. Are they communist?
If the poster had such an agreement there would be no reason to do an ask slashdot. That this is not self-evident is your problem, not mine. Right now, it's entirely work for hire and will remain so in the absence of a future agreement saying otherwise.