How did the UK get that bastardized system of work (never mind that your country has zero-hour and "tryout" tiers below that)? There had to be a time when sane working arrangements existed - before contract labor, zero-hour, and "tryout" were made and turned into HR weapons.
I don't know what you mean. When I was working for someone else, I was paying taxes and that. I also never knew when my job was going to get cut out of the picture (I know that this is not the same for many others, but in my case it was).
When working for a conventional employer under regular arrangements, one typically pays some sort of income tax. In comparison, client-based/indirect employment transfers costs(such as taxes and benefits) onto yourself (or an Employer of Record). That is what I meant.
As for not knowing when your job gets cut, flexibility is not your friend in that regard. It's the upstream employer's friend.
I think the opposite is true. Rather than work with the same 10 or so people at a job that we all hate, I work with many clients that all love it when I come in.
However, you still have the issue that you're viewed as being separate versus being part of the employer. They might be close clients, but they are still clients. On the other hand, being part of the actual (not "of Record") employer removes that distance. You're viewed as being on the same team.
I agree, but I feel that mindset is fading away for the IT world.
Not entirely sure. I've worked for good employers that were quite large and did decently for their own if not good.
There's a point in every company's growth, where one person can no longer do all of the work, but you cannot afford to pay someone else for a full-time position. In this way, it's important to work with other solo IT guys in a symbiotic way.
Also known as the European system of labor(contracts and employers that hate FTE with a passion) with all the negative implications. It's the system that should have by all rights stayed out of the US. Now that it is starting to come to the US, it can be seen as Trouble Ahead.
Year 3 they just coast with a $100 price bump they are back to the $1000 profit margin per car. So who actually paid the tax? Did the corporation? Sort of for about 3 years. Did the laid off employees pay for it? No but they lost their jobs, but that would have happened anyway with innovation. Did the [redacted] who wanted the car essentially eat the entire tax. Yep. But wait the price for the [redacted] only went up $300 for the car, how did he end up paying the entire $1000? Because the government stole $1000 worth of innovation from the company which eventually would have been passed on to the [redacted] due to [sports term]. Sure the company would have pocketed the bonus profits at first, as they should have for coming up with a better way of doing things, but eventually they would have had to lower their prices to [sports term]. So in the end what should have happened is the price of the car should have dropped to around $4300, but instead it rose to $5300. With inflation that number would be more like $5450 which is a whole another ball of wax of [herp derp].
Then you start playing hardball with the company (and the inevitable lobbyists) about the whole matter. Then remind them that they are not Almighty.
Sure the government can go in and fool with regulations and taxes to put more burdens on the company, but eventually they'll figure out a way around them and again the [redacted] is left holding the bag, with [herp derp] that should have gone to the [redacted] in the form of price reductions. If a company can't then they lose money and eventually go under, or in the case with many "crucial" industries end up getting bailed out making the problem worse.
Essentially you want businesses to be considered the only entity to be permitted an unchecked entitlement mentality to optimal conditions under threat of economic warfare. They hold the governments and regular people hostage for the maximum revenue without regard to the long-term.
Given the love for him Slashdot, they should change Anonymous Coward posts to Edward Snowden. It would work equally well for both supporters and opponents.
He can say that he's won in all the ways he wishes, but the facts prove otherwise.
He will be taken into custody by the United States for the crimes that he has committed. He will be prosecuted. He will be convicted. He will be sentenced. He will serve a very long term.
The NSA will win over Snowden and live to prevent more like him through their existence beyond Snowden's own.
The problem with that is not everyone is suited to working that way. Many do well when in direct-hire employment relationships based on mutual trust versus employer-side contempt. They see the push towards indirect employment as an effort to treat employees worse.
Realistically, you're in the extreme minority of people that work well with Fukushima levels of instability and more net risk than reward.
You take on paperwork, payment, scale penalties, and increased instability for going that route.
If it makes sense for someone, they are one of the fortunate few that can factor out at least one of them. The Rest Of Us, on average, do not have that good fortune and will not gain it short of a legislative act or Executive Order.
Accounting for all the things you ignore(including the fact that not everyone is meant to be in the unstable sector): Contract work == prostitution writ large. It is something one grows out of to do more stable work. Regularized, long-term employment ~= monogamy. It is the type of work that represents an adult level of trust between an organization and an individual. It also unlocks benefits of scale not possible in contract/self employment.
Universal healthcare is another way that an employer can justify second-class contractor status and then treat you like shit.
How about eliminating the ability to force said status for any job(where any skill level can choose direct or indirect arrangements)? If you want to be a contractor so badly, you can choose it over the default(and that they cannot simply just can FTE's like contractors to get around the law)
All the increases that you claim to have in freedom and pay are clawed back by taxes, benefits(with no benefits related to scale), and general instability(economically equivalent to Fukushima).
That and you dont get the general camaraderie from being in a group over a longer period of time. So, for most people, salary beats contract when everything is put on the table; the only time it doesnt is for the exceptional and rare few.
Panel members said the recommendations would not necessarily mean a rolling back of intelligence gathering, including on foreign leaders, but that surveillance must be guided by standards and by high-level policymakers.
It does mean that it would roll back vital intelligence gathering. Unfortunately, it also means that said rollback would allow another event of the 9/11 scale to slip through, never mind the 50 events stopped by the NSA, due to the bureaucracy of getting the "proper paperwork".
Except for the part where he's sided with countries hostile with the US and given them (amongst other parties) that stand to gain from his betrayal of the US and all of its citizens.
It never looked good for Snowden, but this only makes things worse. He not only decided to harm the country for the benefit of hostile countries, his ethics don't point to a person of honorable or patriotic conduct. His ethics point to a person that cannot be trusted with secrets, a clearance, or employment with anything close to national security. He's no longer someone that just couldn't take the stress of working with national secrets, but someone whose purpose is anti-American.
For what is alleged of the NSA, I sure see a lot of lies and deception from the "journalists" and "lawyers" protecting and hiding Snowden from justice. The NSA at this point is more open for talking about what it does versus the obfuscation surrounding Snowden. Modbombing me won't change that.
By going the extra mile to avoid justice, he only is signalling his guilt and the strength of the case against him. If he really thinks he is innocent in the face of the evidence against him, he would have taken his chances in a court of law, something that doesn't really exist in Russia or China.
Me? I'm someone that understands that the Reagan administration would have not let it get this far - Snowden would have been handled much sooner. It also was the same administration that understood the value of keeping national defense secrets(versus the Carter and Clinton eras) while enhancing freedom.
Snowden made the choice to betray, not the US. The only thing that the US failed to do was to act on a recognized threat - before and after his departure from US soil. If anything, the only thing saving him is that the current administration: 1) thinks that what his actions are compatible with their own animus towards the US. 2) doesn't want to lose flexibility by taking definitive action on something.
If he's willing to hand over information to a US-hostile government and claim asylum from the US, he's effectively expressed an allegiance to that other country. Normally, that results in consequences that range from long prison sentences to death.
At that point, the lawyer ceased to provide legal advice when they involved themselves in Snowden's crimes(by receiving the information). Any "lawyers" that Snowden has had from that point are political minders.
What he has done only has served to damage the US - and not just its government. Had he released secrets about Russia and China, he'd have earned the title of patriot.
Unfortunately for you, I like America. The only thing that Snowden should be doing in Russia or China is collecting intelligence on their governments, not trashing our own.
Then why is it that the unauthorized disclosures now start to include targets that are legitimate for the NSA to pursue? Last time I checked, the NSA is allowed to pursue foreign targets without any need to disclose to the public.
Once he switched his allegiances from the US to Russia, he's done more harm to the US in general than any good that could have been realized. Never mind that he has foregone any opportunity to redeem himself by releasing anything damaging to Russia or China in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
How did the UK get that bastardized system of work (never mind that your country has zero-hour and "tryout" tiers below that)? There had to be a time when sane working arrangements existed - before contract labor, zero-hour, and "tryout" were made and turned into HR weapons.
I don't know what you mean. When I was working for someone else, I was paying taxes and that. I also never knew when my job was going to get cut out of the picture (I know that this is not the same for many others, but in my case it was).
When working for a conventional employer under regular arrangements, one typically pays some sort of income tax. In comparison, client-based/indirect employment transfers costs(such as taxes and benefits) onto yourself (or an Employer of Record). That is what I meant.
As for not knowing when your job gets cut, flexibility is not your friend in that regard. It's the upstream employer's friend.
I think the opposite is true. Rather than work with the same 10 or so people at a job that we all hate, I work with many clients that all love it when I come in.
However, you still have the issue that you're viewed as being separate versus being part of the employer. They might be close clients, but they are still clients.
On the other hand, being part of the actual (not "of Record") employer removes that distance. You're viewed as being on the same team.
I agree, but I feel that mindset is fading away for the IT world.
Not entirely sure. I've worked for good employers that were quite large and did decently for their own if not good.
There's a point in every company's growth, where one person can no longer do all of the work, but you cannot afford to pay someone else for a full-time position. In this way, it's important to work with other solo IT guys in a symbiotic way.
Also known as the European system of labor(contracts and employers that hate FTE with a passion) with all the negative implications. It's the system that should have by all rights stayed out of the US. Now that it is starting to come to the US, it can be seen as Trouble Ahead.
When you're the world's only hyperpower or a very close friend of theirs, there are no pleasant places to hide.
That's when China discovers they have the space version of the Concordski when the US "accidents" the flight.
Year 3 they just coast with a $100 price bump they are back to the $1000 profit margin per car. So who actually paid the tax? Did the corporation? Sort of for about 3 years. Did the laid off employees pay for it? No but they lost their jobs, but that would have happened anyway with innovation. Did the [redacted] who wanted the car essentially eat the entire tax. Yep. But wait the price for the [redacted] only went up $300 for the car, how did he end up paying the entire $1000? Because the government stole $1000 worth of innovation from the company which eventually would have been passed on to the [redacted] due to [sports term]. Sure the company would have pocketed the bonus profits at first, as they should have for coming up with a better way of doing things, but eventually they would have had to lower their prices to [sports term]. So in the end what should have happened is the price of the car should have dropped to around $4300, but instead it rose to $5300. With inflation that number would be more like $5450 which is a whole another ball of wax of [herp derp].
Then you start playing hardball with the company (and the inevitable lobbyists) about the whole matter. Then remind them that they are not Almighty.
Sure the government can go in and fool with regulations and taxes to put more burdens on the company, but eventually they'll figure out a way around them and again the [redacted] is left holding the bag, with [herp derp] that should have gone to the [redacted] in the form of price reductions. If a company can't then they lose money and eventually go under, or in the case with many "crucial" industries end up getting bailed out making the problem worse.
Essentially you want businesses to be considered the only entity to be permitted an unchecked entitlement mentality to optimal conditions under threat of economic warfare. They hold the governments and regular people hostage for the maximum revenue without regard to the long-term.
They both achieve the same objective with the same intents and views.
That, and if there was a difference, they usually cross over to the illegal anyway.
Given the love for him Slashdot, they should change Anonymous Coward posts to Edward Snowden. It would work equally well for both supporters and opponents.
He can say that he's won in all the ways he wishes, but the facts prove otherwise.
He will be taken into custody by the United States for the crimes that he has committed.
He will be prosecuted.
He will be convicted.
He will be sentenced.
He will serve a very long term.
The NSA will win over Snowden and live to prevent more like him through their existence beyond Snowden's own.
Good to hear some truth.
You're only leaving money on the table if you dont count all the employer expenses now paid by yourself.
You might be happy for it, but most people see it as a weapon used against them - as flexibility really is employer-benefitting disposability.
The problem with that is not everyone is suited to working that way. Many do well when in direct-hire employment relationships based on mutual trust versus employer-side contempt. They see the push towards indirect employment as an effort to treat employees worse.
Realistically, you're in the extreme minority of people that work well with Fukushima levels of instability and more net risk than reward.
You take on paperwork, payment, scale penalties, and increased instability for going that route.
If it makes sense for someone, they are one of the fortunate few that can factor out at least one of them. The Rest Of Us, on average, do not have that good fortune and will not gain it short of a legislative act or Executive Order.
Accounting for all the things you ignore(including the fact that not everyone is meant to be in the unstable sector):
Contract work == prostitution writ large. It is something one grows out of to do more stable work.
Regularized, long-term employment ~= monogamy. It is the type of work that represents an adult level of trust between an organization and an individual. It also unlocks benefits of scale not possible in contract/self employment.
Universal healthcare is another way that an employer can justify second-class contractor status and then treat you like shit.
How about eliminating the ability to force said status for any job(where any skill level can choose direct or indirect arrangements)? If you want to be a contractor so badly, you can choose it over the default(and that they cannot simply just can FTE's like contractors to get around the law)
All the increases that you claim to have in freedom and pay are clawed back by taxes, benefits(with no benefits related to scale), and general instability(economically equivalent to Fukushima).
That and you dont get the general camaraderie from being in a group over a longer period of time. So, for most people, salary beats contract when everything is put on the table; the only time it doesnt is for the exceptional and rare few.
Panel members said the recommendations would not necessarily mean a rolling back of intelligence gathering, including on foreign leaders, but that surveillance must be guided by standards and by high-level policymakers.
It does mean that it would roll back vital intelligence gathering. Unfortunately, it also means that said rollback would allow another event of the 9/11 scale to slip through, never mind the 50 events stopped by the NSA, due to the bureaucracy of getting the "proper paperwork".
Except for the part where he's sided with countries hostile with the US and given them (amongst other parties) that stand to gain from his betrayal of the US and all of its citizens.
It never looked good for Snowden, but this only makes things worse. He not only decided to harm the country for the benefit of hostile countries, his ethics don't point to a person of honorable or patriotic conduct. His ethics point to a person that cannot be trusted with secrets, a clearance, or employment with anything close to national security. He's no longer someone that just couldn't take the stress of working with national secrets, but someone whose purpose is anti-American.
For what is alleged of the NSA, I sure see a lot of lies and deception from the "journalists" and "lawyers" protecting and hiding Snowden from justice. The NSA at this point is more open for talking about what it does versus the obfuscation surrounding Snowden. Modbombing me won't change that.
Should know? That's the job for the classification system to objectively determine, not Snowden's to outsource.
When the messenger becomes a large enough liability, you don't let them get larger.
By going the extra mile to avoid justice, he only is signalling his guilt and the strength of the case against him. If he really thinks he is innocent in the face of the evidence against him, he would have taken his chances in a court of law, something that doesn't really exist in Russia or China.
Me? I'm someone that understands that the Reagan administration would have not let it get this far - Snowden would have been handled much sooner. It also was the same administration that understood the value of keeping national defense secrets(versus the Carter and Clinton eras) while enhancing freedom.
Snowden made the choice to betray, not the US. The only thing that the US failed to do was to act on a recognized threat - before and after his departure from US soil. If anything, the only thing saving him is that the current administration:
1) thinks that what his actions are compatible with their own animus towards the US.
2) doesn't want to lose flexibility by taking definitive action on something.
If he's willing to hand over information to a US-hostile government and claim asylum from the US, he's effectively expressed an allegiance to that other country. Normally, that results in consequences that range from long prison sentences to death.
At that point, the lawyer ceased to provide legal advice when they involved themselves in Snowden's crimes(by receiving the information). Any "lawyers" that Snowden has had from that point are political minders.
What he has done only has served to damage the US - and not just its government. Had he released secrets about Russia and China, he'd have earned the title of patriot.
Unfortunately for you, I like America. The only thing that Snowden should be doing in Russia or China is collecting intelligence on their governments, not trashing our own.
Then why is it that the unauthorized disclosures now start to include targets that are legitimate for the NSA to pursue? Last time I checked, the NSA is allowed to pursue foreign targets without any need to disclose to the public.
Once he switched his allegiances from the US to Russia, he's done more harm to the US in general than any good that could have been realized. Never mind that he has foregone any opportunity to redeem himself by releasing anything damaging to Russia or China in the process.