Given how much Foxconn has done against its own and how far they've gone to hide it (and to attack the character of those who expose it), I am not surprised.
If you work for a government contractor, anything requiring a security clearance is about the only good way to do temporary work - since it has more security than (about) any other form.
The problem is that it discourages work by removing a benefit obtained through employment.
Now if you want to make it so that you aren't forced to be a contract worker as a condition of employment (like Right to Work), then you might have a point.
But the fact that you want to destroy any sort of job security is the same as wanting to take a job.
That and you assume that someone that wants a corporate job isn't competent. Not everyone is meant for consultancy while not everyone wants to be attached to a corporation.
You resent that job security ever existed and wish to see it gone because you didn't have it. Pity that you never got to see a benefit.
Yet the laugh that permanent workers have is when the come out ahead for everything despite having a lower initial paycheck. That, and permanent workers are the last to go while consultants, temps and other second-class citizens are considered cannon fodder.
Permanency and economies of scale make for mighty convincing arguments. That, and contract workers are generally worse off than regular employees - with exceptions such as yourself - since they are used to dodge some law instead of provide the flexibility claimed to a worker.
For each one of you, there are more people that end up on the wrong end of contract employment. Now if Right to Work applied to contractors (read: you weren't forced to be a contractor but could choose to be a directly hired FT worker) you might have a point
Allowing the erosion in the first place. Not re-establishing the idea of secure, direct-hire employment for all and ensuring that it cannot be evaded. Making it living hell for offshore outsourcing, much less inshore as well. Fixed-term/outsourced workers making it worse by their presence
That job security also brings in benefits of scale which do not come with consultancy. That's where your high pay ends up going - along with a more pronounced instability that makes Fukushima or Chernobyl look solid as a rock.
If you want to think of it as an underpayment, you're forgetting about the security and scale of a regular, non-fixed-term job.
Since you don't want to attribute it to anyone, that's just the opinion of an anonymous coward.
As for second class citizen, they're the first to be removed and generally are brought on to dodge some benefit or legal requirement. While there may be some benefits, the flexibility gained is generally lost for most people.
The perm side of the coin from what I've seen involves people being scared shitless for their jobs thinking that worrying is going to bring them job security and some also work a lot of free overtime as non-exempt full-timers (the majority of IT's workforce).
While contractors have to by large worry even more since they have none of the benefits from being a regular employee but have all the costs and instabilities placed onto them.
Perhaps you have never understood what it is to have secure employment and to have the ability to plan long-term with more certainty than any consultancy would allow.
While there might be a rare chance for someone to do well as a consultant, such a life does not do well for the greater part. Temporary work is done at the expense of the worker.
Permanency does have its benefits that outweigh any increases in pay(which are undone by costs related to being a single person vs a respectably sized company).
Given how far some people will go to evade taxes, the DoD would be the appropriate entity for the IRS to use for foreign collections and repatriations - especially when the foreign entity is more likely to cooperate with the evasion.
It isn't the most pleasant option, but it is available to the US given their military power.
The world shouldn't be the same. As it is, the business in the "first world" countries is dying, smothered by the red tape. It is already more profitable to not work there than to work. This world has no future; but China, with its aggressive and largely unrestrained economy, had a lot of success already, and will be the next leader of the world within a decade. The USA will be known as the old, useless men with a beggar's bowl in one hand and a nuclear missile in another. (This will not last, by the way.)
So you advocate the return of company-town slavery by virtue of selectively giving freedoms to business while forgetting about the people that work for them? That economic "freedom" that you see in the Third World is not the kind of freedom that the US retains. Then again, you're probably in some country that receives ill-gotten production normally done in a First World country such as the US and hoping for a decline. That, or you're someone that has a strong distaste for the military-industrial complex that does its part to keep the country(and its allies) well-protected and well-geared.
The worst that will happen is that the US will have a very strong military, a very pissed off populace, and the willingness to use a large stockpile of weapons to reclaim what was taken from them. China(and the rest of the multinational-enabled Third World) will have to contend with the idea that copying everyone else's stuff and using slave labor will not put them ahead of anyone. In no circumstance will the US be wanting for anything aside from a new enemy to vanquish - China will just have to be content with being the next deer on the wall.
The US can always make a better offer through superior firepower, extraordinary rendition, and intelligence gathering if it really mattered. So the US hasnt lost anything and Ireland can lose whatever was improperly heading that direction.
Slashdot Mirror
Given how much Foxconn has done against its own and how far they've gone to hide it (and to attack the character of those who expose it), I am not surprised.
If they can maintain their independence from Microsoft, unlike the sellouts from the WP7 era, more power to them.
Interesting to see a lot of the pro-consultant side go AC since they can't put even a proper pseudonym.
That, and they're the ones who think that it's fine to destroy job security for their envy of not ever having it.
If you work for a government contractor, anything requiring a security clearance is about the only good way to do temporary work - since it has more security than (about) any other form.
The problem is that it discourages work by removing a benefit obtained through employment.
Now if you want to make it so that you aren't forced to be a contract worker as a condition of employment (like Right to Work), then you might have a point.
Diplomacy won't work when you are seen as a threat and are treated accordingly.
But the fact that you want to destroy any sort of job security is the same as wanting to take a job.
That and you assume that someone that wants a corporate job isn't competent. Not everyone is meant for consultancy while not everyone wants to be attached to a corporation.
You resent that job security ever existed and wish to see it gone because you didn't have it. Pity that you never got to see a benefit.
Yet the laugh that permanent workers have is when the come out ahead for everything despite having a lower initial paycheck. That, and permanent workers are the last to go while consultants, temps and other second-class citizens are considered cannon fodder.
Permanency and economies of scale make for mighty convincing arguments. That, and contract workers are generally worse off than regular employees - with exceptions such as yourself - since they are used to dodge some law instead of provide the flexibility claimed to a worker.
For each one of you, there are more people that end up on the wrong end of contract employment. Now if Right to Work applied to contractors (read: you weren't forced to be a contractor but could choose to be a directly hired FT worker) you might have a point
Then the problems are:
Allowing the erosion in the first place.
Not re-establishing the idea of secure, direct-hire employment for all and ensuring that it cannot be evaded.
Making it living hell for offshore outsourcing, much less inshore as well.
Fixed-term/outsourced workers making it worse by their presence
That job security also brings in benefits of scale which do not come with consultancy. That's where your high pay ends up going - along with a more pronounced instability that makes Fukushima or Chernobyl look solid as a rock.
If you want to think of it as an underpayment, you're forgetting about the security and scale of a regular, non-fixed-term job.
Since you don't want to attribute it to anyone, that's just the opinion of an anonymous coward.
As for second class citizen, they're the first to be removed and generally are brought on to dodge some benefit or legal requirement. While there may be some benefits, the flexibility gained is generally lost for most people.
The perm side of the coin from what I've seen involves people being scared shitless for their jobs thinking that worrying is going to bring them job security and some also work a lot of free overtime as non-exempt full-timers (the majority of IT's workforce).
While contractors have to by large worry even more since they have none of the benefits from being a regular employee but have all the costs and instabilities placed onto them.
While they may be temporary, they're the rare breed that has the ability to function as a regular employer.
If a government contract job ends, one has a higher chance of picking up another vs the benefit-dodging part of the private sector.
No, I'm just pointing out that it only works well for a few people and that it doesn't compare well to more permanent employment.
I do see a few smug consultants thinking that everyone should be a second-class citizen(read: consultant/temp/contingent worker) just like themselves.
Perhaps you have never understood what it is to have secure employment and to have the ability to plan long-term with more certainty than any consultancy would allow.
While you might have that "independence", its costs more than outweigh the benefits for most people.
That law makes people less willing to work given the erosion of benefits.
That, and the more temporary work becomes, the less someone wants to work - see Europe for an example.
While there might be a rare chance for someone to do well as a consultant, such a life does not do well for the greater part. Temporary work is done at the expense of the worker.
Permanency does have its benefits that outweigh any increases in pay(which are undone by costs related to being a single person vs a respectably sized company).
This would be good if they keep their independence from Microsoft and allow these phones to do some good.
It's not like they've not tried to clean the image of Microsoft when Vista was poorly received.
Given how far some people will go to evade taxes, the DoD would be the appropriate entity for the IRS to use for foreign collections and repatriations - especially when the foreign entity is more likely to cooperate with the evasion.
It isn't the most pleasant option, but it is available to the US given their military power.
The world shouldn't be the same. As it is, the business in the "first world" countries is dying, smothered by the red tape. It is already more profitable to not work there than to work. This world has no future; but China, with its aggressive and largely unrestrained economy, had a lot of success already, and will be the next leader of the world within a decade. The USA will be known as the old, useless men with a beggar's bowl in one hand and a nuclear missile in another. (This will not last, by the way.)
So you advocate the return of company-town slavery by virtue of selectively giving freedoms to business while forgetting about the people that work for them? That economic "freedom" that you see in the Third World is not the kind of freedom that the US retains. Then again, you're probably in some country that receives ill-gotten production normally done in a First World country such as the US and hoping for a decline. That, or you're someone that has a strong distaste for the military-industrial complex that does its part to keep the country(and its allies) well-protected and well-geared.
The worst that will happen is that the US will have a very strong military, a very pissed off populace, and the willingness to use a large stockpile of weapons to reclaim what was taken from them. China(and the rest of the multinational-enabled Third World) will have to contend with the idea that copying everyone else's stuff and using slave labor will not put them ahead of anyone. In no circumstance will the US be wanting for anything aside from a new enemy to vanquish - China will just have to be content with being the next deer on the wall.
When those companies start heading for the exit, citizens eventually will ask for and get government action to halt that.
The US can always make a better offer through superior firepower, extraordinary rendition, and intelligence gathering if it really mattered. So the US hasnt lost anything and Ireland can lose whatever was improperly heading that direction.