Do you really think that case is indicative of McDonalds stores across the world? Are you really that stupid that you think the above happened because McDonalds wasn't unionised? Fucking hell.
Unions have nothing to do with the above case - its already completely and utterly covered under existing employment law. Its a clear cut case of sexual harassment and any dismissal would have been an easy case of unfair dismissal for a tribunal or court to hear - the fact that there is no union doesn't alter the law.
I'm actually flabbergasted that you think that poor girls experience had anything to do with unionisation or not.
Your rule is uncompromising - what happens when Anonymous decide to DDoS some poor 14 year old who criticised them on his self-hosted blog?
The ISP may be able to handle 10GB/sec, but his ADSL line won't - plus of course the issues that 10GB/sec of traffic the ISP can do nothing about hitting their network... whats that going to do for other subscribers?
Nokia did it with the N900 and seems to be getting away with it...
Much vaunted here on Slashdot, I decided to try it out as an iPhone replacement and thus talked my wife into getting it when her contract came up for renewal in April. Phone felt nice, OS was usable etc etc so I upgraded soon after and retired my iPhone 3G to the junk drawer.
Now, 8 months on, I've been back on my iPhone for 4 months because the N900s software foibles were greater, for me, than the iPhone 3G. My wife has no such luck tho - screen scratched (through use of the stylus), ringer sometimes doesn't work, the keyboard keys have essentially almost entirely flaked off to leave the transparent backing plastic showing.
My wife hates the N900, not because of its poor phone software (or the fact that it cannot do MMS built in) but because the hardware is literally falling apart not even half way into the 18 month contract!
I know what the term means, and I am guessing that you read the summary and the article (and perhaps other material on the internet or elsewhere) and have informed yourself...? The employer wanted certain guarantees before agreeing to an informal continuation of the contract, the union refused to give those guarantees - now the employer has to staff the station to mitigate any risk of an immediate walk out, so if they are doing that anyway, why not use that as pressure on the union and tell the workforce their labour is no longer needed?
The union certainly bears some of the blame here - the employer made the decision to "lock out" the workforce, but they are not unilaterally responsible for the situation that has lead to that.
Nope, I disregard *both* sides press releases or articles, and get my information from independent sources.
Take for example the recent situation where the Association of Flight Attendants union filed "interference" claims against Delta when the workforce voted against AFA unionisation - the AFA press release and literature was quite damning, more than 50 pages of accusations against Delta. Deltas response was equally self centered.
Looking deeper into it and you will find plenty of Delta workers who were willing to shout wide and loud that AFAs claims where bullcrap, with many saying they voted for AFA and if the vote was to be rerun, they would now vote against AFA, along with the fact that over the course of several short months, about half a dozen unionisation attempts within Delta were all rejected by the workforces in question - Delta employees do not want unionisation, and yet AFA doesn't care.
Equally the British Airways Unite fiasco - with the rhetoric flying so thick and fast that Unite actually ended up insulting the members of one of its own branches because the Unite spokesman wanted to get a quick jab in at BA without checking his own facts first (he called a group of workers unfit for purpose, and then someone pointed out that they were represented by Unite...)!
Once, unions served a great and honourable purpose. Today, that purpose isn't as great and honourable as it once was, because the unions of yesteryear won the great battles to give us fair labour laws. The unions have few battles left to fight, and little intention of fighting the ones that actually matter.
I see benefit in collective bargaining, but I am against unions as they have made themselves today.
I dislike the fact that in quite a few places if a union gets in at your work place you have to join or quit - you cannot remain outside of the collective agreement and retain your job.
I dislike the fact that in quite a few places a union can call a unionization vote year after year after year until they get in.
I dislike the fact that in quite a few places unionization can stagnate a workforce rather than improve it - seniority based on nothing more than time spent in the job, rather than merit based seniority? What rubbish.
I dislike the fact that the unionized workforce can withdraw their labour at any time, by following certain rules, while the employer has no equal ability - they have to wait until the contract is no longer in force before they have the right to lock out the workforce, while the union can call strike action whenever it likes.
I have seen far far too many examples of unions being the worst of two choices for all involved, I have seen far far too many examples of unions seeking to simply hurt the employer because the employer wouldn't give in to their demands lock stock and barrel.
I'm not an employer, I'm a 31 year old software developer. I have no stake in unions other than my opinion, but what I have seen of modern unions I have, largely, disliked to the extreme.
Maybe I've been improperly influenced by my exposure to union actions (largely the aviation industries woes over the past few years, as aviation is a personal interest of mine - British Airways issues with Unite are particularly disgusting imho), but then I see the same issues outside of my particular circle of interest, so I don't think its that.
And no, I'm not saying its all the workers fault, but their union certainly did fail to come to an agreement, so its not all the employers fault either.
Its only illegal because that's the way the Unions bought the laws - make it expensive to switch the workforce wholesale away. You cannot have a job without a labour contract (whether an individual one or a collective one), and as one does not exist in this particular situation.... well, its pretty plain to see what that means.
Wrong - the employer didn't unilaterally decide anything, they *and* the union failed to reach an agreement, so there are two parties responsible for the current situation, not one. The union is as much at fault here as the employer.
Wait, you are essentially telling us to disregard one sides propaganda in favour of the other sides propaganda. No thanks - I've had enough of union rhetoric for one life time.
All privately employed people, be they doctors or nuclear plant employees or anything else, should have the right to withhold their labor.
They do - its called "quitting". In this case, they essentially quit because the fixed term labour contract their union has them working under has expired without a replacement or formal temporary continuation in place and the employer does not want an informal temporary continuation to act as the basis of continuing employment.
However, heres the kicker - I'm not 100% familiar with the jurisdiction that covers this particular dispute, but quite often due to labour law even though the union contract has expired, the employer cannot replace the work force within a particular time frame (several months). The union (and the workers) have the power here, its far from slavery.
The problem with that is the new definition of 'truth' that Wikipedia has created - that of there simply needing to be corroborating citations somewhere, regardless of how accurate those citations are. Citations prove nothing more than someone has made the same view or 'fact' public somehow.
"Citation needed!" is really becoming the modern version of "liar liar pants on fire"....
The very fact that there is an irc channel indicates organisation, and if you look deeper for long enough you can see the underlying control there as well - there are users who frequent the channel more often than others, and who get listened to more often than others.
If you want an example of how an uncouth mob can still have organisation and planning, take a look at any protest (the recent student protests in London are a prime example). Taken together, the mob is just that, a mob. Look deeper and there are people in the mob that incite the other members, take the first steps to violence and action, make suggestions - these are the ones that get stuck up on wanted posters and pursued by police.
Yo can call it "not an organisation" as much as you want, but Anonymous most certainly does have a seniority hierarchy and a leadership of sorts - there is a degree of organisation there, even if its fluid.
Could it be entirely possible that OnLive have more development threads ongoing than just those you could tightly link to "online internet gaming by streaming video", which is a very high level description of your understanding of what OnLives public product is?
Yeah, because whatever he has done with Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg is definitely on the same level as Hitler, Stalin and Khomeini... Sometimes I think peoples perspectives are screwed here on Slashdot, and its posts like yours that affirm that thought.
No, those attributing the purchase to Linux were more generous than those attributing the purchase to Windows. You got to chose after the purchase what to attribute it to.
Moore doesn't work to expose anything, he works to further his own pocket - both Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911 were driveling pieces of shit with huge gaping lies throughout.
Slashdot Mirror
There are lots of "finished products" that go into an XBox360 (or any computer) - thats what components are, someone-elses finished product.
Do you really think that case is indicative of McDonalds stores across the world? Are you really that stupid that you think the above happened because McDonalds wasn't unionised? Fucking hell.
Unions have nothing to do with the above case - its already completely and utterly covered under existing employment law. Its a clear cut case of sexual harassment and any dismissal would have been an easy case of unfair dismissal for a tribunal or court to hear - the fact that there is no union doesn't alter the law.
I'm actually flabbergasted that you think that poor girls experience had anything to do with unionisation or not.
Your rule is uncompromising - what happens when Anonymous decide to DDoS some poor 14 year old who criticised them on his self-hosted blog?
The ISP may be able to handle 10GB/sec, but his ADSL line won't - plus of course the issues that 10GB/sec of traffic the ISP can do nothing about hitting their network... whats that going to do for other subscribers?
Come up with a new rule please.
Nokia did it with the N900 and seems to be getting away with it ...
Much vaunted here on Slashdot, I decided to try it out as an iPhone replacement and thus talked my wife into getting it when her contract came up for renewal in April. Phone felt nice, OS was usable etc etc so I upgraded soon after and retired my iPhone 3G to the junk drawer.
Now, 8 months on, I've been back on my iPhone for 4 months because the N900s software foibles were greater, for me, than the iPhone 3G. My wife has no such luck tho - screen scratched (through use of the stylus), ringer sometimes doesn't work, the keyboard keys have essentially almost entirely flaked off to leave the transparent backing plastic showing.
My wife hates the N900, not because of its poor phone software (or the fact that it cannot do MMS built in) but because the hardware is literally falling apart not even half way into the 18 month contract!
I know what the term means, and I am guessing that you read the summary and the article (and perhaps other material on the internet or elsewhere) and have informed yourself...? The employer wanted certain guarantees before agreeing to an informal continuation of the contract, the union refused to give those guarantees - now the employer has to staff the station to mitigate any risk of an immediate walk out, so if they are doing that anyway, why not use that as pressure on the union and tell the workforce their labour is no longer needed?
The union certainly bears some of the blame here - the employer made the decision to "lock out" the workforce, but they are not unilaterally responsible for the situation that has lead to that.
Nope, I disregard *both* sides press releases or articles, and get my information from independent sources.
Take for example the recent situation where the Association of Flight Attendants union filed "interference" claims against Delta when the workforce voted against AFA unionisation - the AFA press release and literature was quite damning, more than 50 pages of accusations against Delta. Deltas response was equally self centered.
Looking deeper into it and you will find plenty of Delta workers who were willing to shout wide and loud that AFAs claims where bullcrap, with many saying they voted for AFA and if the vote was to be rerun, they would now vote against AFA, along with the fact that over the course of several short months, about half a dozen unionisation attempts within Delta were all rejected by the workforces in question - Delta employees do not want unionisation, and yet AFA doesn't care.
Equally the British Airways Unite fiasco - with the rhetoric flying so thick and fast that Unite actually ended up insulting the members of one of its own branches because the Unite spokesman wanted to get a quick jab in at BA without checking his own facts first (he called a group of workers unfit for purpose, and then someone pointed out that they were represented by Unite...)!
Once, unions served a great and honourable purpose. Today, that purpose isn't as great and honourable as it once was, because the unions of yesteryear won the great battles to give us fair labour laws. The unions have few battles left to fight, and little intention of fighting the ones that actually matter.
I see benefit in collective bargaining, but I am against unions as they have made themselves today.
I dislike the fact that in quite a few places if a union gets in at your work place you have to join or quit - you cannot remain outside of the collective agreement and retain your job.
I dislike the fact that in quite a few places a union can call a unionization vote year after year after year until they get in.
I dislike the fact that in quite a few places unionization can stagnate a workforce rather than improve it - seniority based on nothing more than time spent in the job, rather than merit based seniority? What rubbish.
I dislike the fact that the unionized workforce can withdraw their labour at any time, by following certain rules, while the employer has no equal ability - they have to wait until the contract is no longer in force before they have the right to lock out the workforce, while the union can call strike action whenever it likes.
I have seen far far too many examples of unions being the worst of two choices for all involved, I have seen far far too many examples of unions seeking to simply hurt the employer because the employer wouldn't give in to their demands lock stock and barrel.
I'm not an employer, I'm a 31 year old software developer. I have no stake in unions other than my opinion, but what I have seen of modern unions I have, largely, disliked to the extreme.
Maybe I've been improperly influenced by my exposure to union actions (largely the aviation industries woes over the past few years, as aviation is a personal interest of mine - British Airways issues with Unite are particularly disgusting imho), but then I see the same issues outside of my particular circle of interest, so I don't think its that.
And no, I'm not saying its all the workers fault, but their union certainly did fail to come to an agreement, so its not all the employers fault either.
Its only illegal because that's the way the Unions bought the laws - make it expensive to switch the workforce wholesale away. You cannot have a job without a labour contract (whether an individual one or a collective one), and as one does not exist in this particular situation.... well, its pretty plain to see what that means.
Wrong - the employer didn't unilaterally decide anything, they *and* the union failed to reach an agreement, so there are two parties responsible for the current situation, not one. The union is as much at fault here as the employer.
There is no labour contract in force, so those jobs are not the union workers any longer.
Wait, you are essentially telling us to disregard one sides propaganda in favour of the other sides propaganda. No thanks - I've had enough of union rhetoric for one life time.
All privately employed people, be they doctors or nuclear plant employees or anything else, should have the right to withhold their labor.
They do - its called "quitting". In this case, they essentially quit because the fixed term labour contract their union has them working under has expired without a replacement or formal temporary continuation in place and the employer does not want an informal temporary continuation to act as the basis of continuing employment.
However, heres the kicker - I'm not 100% familiar with the jurisdiction that covers this particular dispute, but quite often due to labour law even though the union contract has expired, the employer cannot replace the work force within a particular time frame (several months). The union (and the workers) have the power here, its far from slavery.
It was used for that meaning well before the internet came into vogue.
The problem with that is the new definition of 'truth' that Wikipedia has created - that of there simply needing to be corroborating citations somewhere, regardless of how accurate those citations are. Citations prove nothing more than someone has made the same view or 'fact' public somehow.
How isn't the big splash banner with Wales mug all over it already advertising? They are just advertising themselves.
"Citation needed!" is really becoming the modern version of "liar liar pants on fire"....
The very fact that there is an irc channel indicates organisation, and if you look deeper for long enough you can see the underlying control there as well - there are users who frequent the channel more often than others, and who get listened to more often than others.
If you want an example of how an uncouth mob can still have organisation and planning, take a look at any protest (the recent student protests in London are a prime example). Taken together, the mob is just that, a mob. Look deeper and there are people in the mob that incite the other members, take the first steps to violence and action, make suggestions - these are the ones that get stuck up on wanted posters and pursued by police.
"Anonymous" is no different.
Yo can call it "not an organisation" as much as you want, but Anonymous most certainly does have a seniority hierarchy and a leadership of sorts - there is a degree of organisation there, even if its fluid.
Could it be entirely possible that OnLive have more development threads ongoing than just those you could tightly link to "online internet gaming by streaming video", which is a very high level description of your understanding of what OnLives public product is?
Yeah, because whatever he has done with Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg is definitely on the same level as Hitler, Stalin and Khomeini... Sometimes I think peoples perspectives are screwed here on Slashdot, and its posts like yours that affirm that thought.
The West Wing had the long "walk and talk" scenes pretty much every episode, very impressive.
No, those attributing the purchase to Linux were more generous than those attributing the purchase to Windows. You got to chose after the purchase what to attribute it to.
Moore doesn't work to expose anything, he works to further his own pocket - both Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911 were driveling pieces of shit with huge gaping lies throughout.
I actually found Comcasts extensive Q&A's on this subject very informative - and its surprising how much you sound like a Level 3 shill...
http://blog.comcast.com/2010/12/20-qs---with-accurate-as---about-level-3s-peering-dispute.html
http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/10-facts-about-peering-comcast-and-level-3.html
Google Docs doesn't allow import and conversion of documents or spreadsheets larger than 1MB. That's pathetically small.
Wikipedia already provides full access to downloadable dumps of the Wikipedia database to all who wish to download them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download
Amazon haven't added any more impact to their servers than that whcih they have said they are willing to accept from any one.