The key phrase is "on his own time." That's not the case here. If someone wanted to make donuts on their own time, with their own ingredients, tools, location, and recipe, so what? But when you make donuts on the bosses time-clock, using the bosses ingredients, recipe, tools, etc., you have NO ownership interest.
Investors are most definitely customers - that's why companies do "dog and pony shows" for potential investors - they want to sell those investors on the value of the company so that the investor will buy a share of the company.
That they buy a share in the hope of it increasing in value is no different than someone buying a hammer so they can increase their value as a carpenter. Or someone buying a house as part of their long-term investment plan because they expect to sell it at a profit instead of renting.
Facebook is continually trying to increase the number of advertisers - their customers. And an author of a book is no different than an author of software - the cost of producing the first copy is high in terms of time and labor, each additional copy is almost nothing. But, in both cases, if nobody is a customer, they haven't created a job for themselves, just a hobby. Same as all those devs who work for free on open source don't have a job developing open source.
You're missing the fact that the company did have customers - the people who put up the money for equity. You know, shareholders (literally, owners of a share of the company)?
However, this guy is not acting as a contractor in any shape, matter, or form, and doesn't have any such contract. So, what you're saying is perhaps a bit off-topic and entirely hypothetical.
Not any more, thanks to modern medicine. Don't be such a trans-phobe:-)
We all know that the congress critters who will be more than glad to sell out the nation as long as the price is right
Oh, don't call those fucking congress critters 'jerks', though... if it is not because you, and yes, I mean YOU, the Americans, those fuckers won't get elected in the first place
Lemme put it another way... the buck should stop with you, the American Voters. It is because REAL jerks like you voted to put fuckers in the congress, fuckers who will sell out the nation as long as the price is right
The clients of those dot-bombs had were the investors, who exchanged their money for equity. Once they ran out of investor clients, if they couldn't attract any other customers, the jobs went bye-bye.
An author who can't sell their book to a single person is not in business, doesn't matter if it's the virtual world or the real world. So that author better have a job doing something else, or be retired.
The non-profits and charities still have customers - the donors. The recipients of charity are not customers - even if today we are polite enough to call them "clients". Same as the customers of google are advertisers, whereas users are not - they're product.
Those startups that grow by injections of cash have customers - the people who supply the cash in return for an equity stake.
If you have customers and demand, you now have a job. You may even be able to hire others to work with you. No corporation is needed.
There are plenty of people who take work on as contractors to mow lawns, dig wells and ditches, and do other work, without the need of a corporation. In fact, being incorporated can be detrimental to attempts to obtain bank loans for start-ups - the banks want personal skin in the game, not some limited liability company.
Knowing how to do something, in the absence of customers willing to pay for it, doesn't create jobs. Do your island test this way - he's alone on the island, he knows how to make boats and canoes and airplanes. Who's he going to sell to once he's made enough to satisfy his own demand?
Knowing how to do something, even with customers, is not by itself sufficient to create a job. I might know how to make a nuclear weapon - that doesn't mean I'm going to have any customers absent a supply of yellow cake; not only that, but the people who would want to buy one are the people who will make sure they're your last customer, so your "business" is closed due to a "death in the family."
I think that if he's dumb enough to ask, he will have shown them he totally lacks any sort of business or ethical sense. Good enough to terminate "for cause"; he's an ongoing risk of selling company property and/or engaging in disloyalty and unfair competition.
Since you're doing this on the company's nickel, it's known as "work for hire." You have no ownership rights. Also, since you're developing this using their resources on their time, why would you expect to be able to resell it when it's clearly their property? That would be like being hired to make donuts, making a batch with your boss's ingredients and tools while being paid, and expecting to keep the profit.
This might qualify as one of the 10 dumbest "Ask Slashdot" questions going. If it's a troll, it's working.
Without ongoing revenues from customers, the business is just a money sink (like a boat), and will go under, so those jobs were unsustainable. They end when investors decide to cut their loses and throw good money after bad. See many of the dot-com bombs who had no paying customers and no exit plan.
Customers create the jobs. If another company can undercut the price of your company, you will lose sales and employees will lose their jobs, and the other company will gain sales and hire more employees.
In the end, the customer is always right, and the customer is the one funding the ongoing business of the company. Lose too many of your customers and you go broke - see GM and Chrysler as examples.
I doubt it. I tried to unionize our shop (all I needed was 50%), and while the other coders agreed that it was a good idea in principle, less than half would sign up when the crunch came, even though the law prohibits firing for unionizing. Chicken is as chicken does. Heck, even WalMart workers here unionized.
Customers are still the job creators. Companies that lose customers shrink, and that involves lay-offs. Ask GM and Chrysler. Companies that gain customers hire. Ask Facebook and Google.
This attitude change came about after broadcasters were confronted with the discriminatory way they were handling non-aboriginal and aboriginal cases - aboriginal cases were much less likely to include interviews with friends and family, or even a picture. The same was true about women working in the sex trade. They were somehow less deserving of investigation into their deaths or disappearances.
Now the media goes out of its way to "re-humanize" the victims, and Canadians just aren't buying the "she had it coming because she was a prostitute" or "what do you expect from aboriginals" prejudicial mentality any more. We expect more from ourselves, the police, and the government in terms of equal protection for all.
Part of the problem is that, rather than working towards harm reduction, the Harper government has done its best to ignore calls from the police, opposition, groups such as amnesty international, the victims families, and ordinary citizens to hold an inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women. "That's not going to happen." And it's strictly politics, since his conservative base likes the "tougher on crime" stance better than the "lets try to fix the underlying problems and in the meantime give equal protection to all" harm reduction model.
chemin, route, and parcours all spring to mind, but none of them have anything to do with career. The only thing that comes close is the french versions of career path - chemin de carrière (poor, almost franglais), and parcours professionnel (better) and similar.
These guys are jerks. Obviously the Edison IT workers were qualified - they trained their replacements. Equally obvious they were available to do the job, so there was no reason to bring in H1Bs. Outright fraud by Edison, abetted by the government.
Slashdot Mirror
The key phrase is "on his own time." That's not the case here. If someone wanted to make donuts on their own time, with their own ingredients, tools, location, and recipe, so what? But when you make donuts on the bosses time-clock, using the bosses ingredients, recipe, tools, etc., you have NO ownership interest.
Investors are most definitely customers - that's why companies do "dog and pony shows" for potential investors - they want to sell those investors on the value of the company so that the investor will buy a share of the company.
That they buy a share in the hope of it increasing in value is no different than someone buying a hammer so they can increase their value as a carpenter. Or someone buying a house as part of their long-term investment plan because they expect to sell it at a profit instead of renting.
Facebook is continually trying to increase the number of advertisers - their customers. And an author of a book is no different than an author of software - the cost of producing the first copy is high in terms of time and labor, each additional copy is almost nothing. But, in both cases, if nobody is a customer, they haven't created a job for themselves, just a hobby. Same as all those devs who work for free on open source don't have a job developing open source.
You're missing the fact that the company did have customers - the people who put up the money for equity. You know, shareholders (literally, owners of a share of the company)?
No - he's asking to modify an existing arrangement - otherwise, there would be no question to ask. Duh!
However, this guy is not acting as a contractor in any shape, matter, or form, and doesn't have any such contract. So, what you're saying is perhaps a bit off-topic and entirely hypothetical.
These guys are jerks
Say what you want, boy
Not any more, thanks to modern medicine. Don't be such a trans-phobe :-)
We all know that the congress critters who will be more than glad to sell out the nation as long as the price is right
Oh, don't call those fucking congress critters 'jerks', though ... if it is not because you, and yes, I mean YOU, the Americans, those fuckers won't get elected in the first place
Lemme put it another way ... the buck should stop with you, the American Voters. It is because REAL jerks like you voted to put fuckers in the congress, fuckers who will sell out the nation as long as the price is right
YOU GUYS ARE THE ONE WHO HAVE STARTED ALL THESE!
Not my fault at all - I'm not an American.
The clients of those dot-bombs had were the investors, who exchanged their money for equity. Once they ran out of investor clients, if they couldn't attract any other customers, the jobs went bye-bye.
Facebook has customers - their advertisers.
An author who can't sell their book to a single person is not in business, doesn't matter if it's the virtual world or the real world. So that author better have a job doing something else, or be retired.
The non-profits and charities still have customers - the donors. The recipients of charity are not customers - even if today we are polite enough to call them "clients". Same as the customers of google are advertisers, whereas users are not - they're product.
Those startups that grow by injections of cash have customers - the people who supply the cash in return for an equity stake.
Communists have the concept of "customer."
You need to get out more.
If you have customers and demand, you now have a job. You may even be able to hire others to work with you. No corporation is needed.
There are plenty of people who take work on as contractors to mow lawns, dig wells and ditches, and do other work, without the need of a corporation. In fact, being incorporated can be detrimental to attempts to obtain bank loans for start-ups - the banks want personal skin in the game, not some limited liability company.
Knowing how to do something, in the absence of customers willing to pay for it, doesn't create jobs. Do your island test this way - he's alone on the island, he knows how to make boats and canoes and airplanes. Who's he going to sell to once he's made enough to satisfy his own demand?
Knowing how to do something, even with customers, is not by itself sufficient to create a job. I might know how to make a nuclear weapon - that doesn't mean I'm going to have any customers absent a supply of yellow cake; not only that, but the people who would want to buy one are the people who will make sure they're your last customer, so your "business" is closed due to a "death in the family."
'Good relations' with management go quickly downhill once you reel in the money and they don't get a major cut.
Don't tell anybody, do it on your own machine and sell anything under a nom de plume.
You forgot the last 2 steps.
2. Get caught for defrauding your employer.
3. Go to jail. Do not pas Go! Do not collect $200.00!
Oh, and then there's the civil suit.
I think that if he's dumb enough to ask, he will have shown them he totally lacks any sort of business or ethical sense. Good enough to terminate "for cause"; he's an ongoing risk of selling company property and/or engaging in disloyalty and unfair competition.
Its got to be a millenial..
Or the kid of a 1%er.
Since you're doing this on the company's nickel, it's known as "work for hire." You have no ownership rights. Also, since you're developing this using their resources on their time, why would you expect to be able to resell it when it's clearly their property? That would be like being hired to make donuts, making a batch with your boss's ingredients and tools while being paid, and expecting to keep the profit.
This might qualify as one of the 10 dumbest "Ask Slashdot" questions going. If it's a troll, it's working.
Without ongoing revenues from customers, the business is just a money sink (like a boat), and will go under, so those jobs were unsustainable. They end when investors decide to cut their loses and throw good money after bad. See many of the dot-com bombs who had no paying customers and no exit plan.
Customers create the jobs. If another company can undercut the price of your company, you will lose sales and employees will lose their jobs, and the other company will gain sales and hire more employees.
In the end, the customer is always right, and the customer is the one funding the ongoing business of the company. Lose too many of your customers and you go broke - see GM and Chrysler as examples.
I doubt it. I tried to unionize our shop (all I needed was 50%), and while the other coders agreed that it was a good idea in principle, less than half would sign up when the crunch came, even though the law prohibits firing for unionizing. Chicken is as chicken does. Heck, even WalMart workers here unionized.
Customers are still the job creators. Companies that lose customers shrink, and that involves lay-offs. Ask GM and Chrysler. Companies that gain customers hire. Ask Facebook and Google.
With all the aboriginal women who have been murdered, and the Robert Pickton serial killer case, people now see that it doesn't matter if the women were in the sex trade - they have as much right to a safe life as anyone else.
This attitude change came about after broadcasters were confronted with the discriminatory way they were handling non-aboriginal and aboriginal cases - aboriginal cases were much less likely to include interviews with friends and family, or even a picture. The same was true about women working in the sex trade. They were somehow less deserving of investigation into their deaths or disappearances.
Now the media goes out of its way to "re-humanize" the victims, and Canadians just aren't buying the "she had it coming because she was a prostitute" or "what do you expect from aboriginals" prejudicial mentality any more. We expect more from ourselves, the police, and the government in terms of equal protection for all.
Part of the problem is that, rather than working towards harm reduction, the Harper government has done its best to ignore calls from the police, opposition, groups such as amnesty international, the victims families, and ordinary citizens to hold an inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women. "That's not going to happen." And it's strictly politics, since his conservative base likes the "tougher on crime" stance better than the "lets try to fix the underlying problems and in the meantime give equal protection to all" harm reduction model.
chemin, route, and parcours all spring to mind, but none of them have anything to do with career. The only thing that comes close is the french versions of career path - chemin de carrière (poor, almost franglais), and parcours professionnel (better) and similar.
You have the mistaken idea that all plumbers do is fix clogged toilets.
Corporations are not, and have never been, the job creators. Customers are the job creators.
These guys are jerks. Obviously the Edison IT workers were qualified - they trained their replacements. Equally obvious they were available to do the job, so there was no reason to bring in H1Bs. Outright fraud by Edison, abetted by the government.