Corporations sign exclusive agreements all the time, just like unions do. If management signs an agreement to only hire workers from a union, how is that different than a company that signs an exclusive contract to only use a specific supplier, or only get temps from a specific company?
Corporations do that all the time, but you seem to think it's bad when workers do it for themselves? What blatant hypocrisy.
It's interesting that companies like Microsoft, et al, are sending jobs over to Communist China, while preaching to us about the wonders of free market capitalism.
In communist China, there are no unions. Try to start one, you wind up in jail, or dead.
The union movement was started in America, by Americans. The right to join and form unions is protected by the Constitution (it's called the freedom of assembly).
Of course, companies are smart enough to join their own unions, like the Chamber of Commerce, industry associations, RIAA, MPAA.
Remember the IT management union, the people that lobbied to government to allow all those H1Bs into the country, to lower wages? They did a great job. That's what organization does, it gives you power and a better position to bargain.
The Recording Industry Association of America. It's a union, for management. An organization of companies, that hire lawyers, bribe politicians, and negotiates for their own interests.
Imagine if we had a "Music Buyers Association of America" - we could do the same thing.
Or, we can read Ayn Rand novels about the glorious free market system that doesn't exist in the real world. Your choice.
CEOs hire negotiators and lawyers when they are joining a new company. Why? To negotiate a good deal for themselves and to have a better bargaining position.
That's why they make the big bucks.
So Joe Geek goes to get a new job. It's Joe Geek on one side, and the manager, HR, and the legal department on the other side. Who's in a better position?
When you get a job, you sign whatever paperwork they tell you too. They have it printed in advance, you can read it (or not), but if you don't sign it, you don't get the job.
Now if Joe Geek had his own laywer (or a union rep), he can say, "Change this, add this, take out this."
A union evens the playing field. That's why someone with a union gets more pay, better benefits, greater job security, and more control over their work than people who don't
The Labor Movement - the People who brought you the weekend.
"The main problem I see with unions is that while they theoretically exist for the benefit of all members, they tend to prop up the underachievers and demote the go-getters. In other words, they breed mediocrity. "
Promotes mediocrity? Props up underachievers? It sounds like you are talking about management.
The issue in the West Coast lockout (the workers did not strike) is about their contract, which the PMA wants to break.
The PMA is the Pacific Maritime Association. It's a union for the companies. What, are you surprised that business owners have their own union? Of course they do. They're not stupid.
I guess those boss unions worked after all?
on
Suit Up Or Ship Out?
·
· Score: 1
The IT companies got together, formed employer organizations (boss unions), bribed some politicians, and flooded the labor market with H1Bs. That, with the new Bush economy, has chipped away our bargaining position in the industry.
"whether people like it or not, you're going to have to work a lot harder in this environment than you have ever done in your life"
So, we can all stick our "How to Manage Your Geek" articles up our ass. We'll be writing "How to Kiss Your Manager's Ass" now.
But, whatever you do, DON'T UNIONIZE! Organization is for bosses, not workers. Imagine if some poor company had to deal with professional negotiators hired by geeks for salaries and benefits. Why, profits might go down, and the CEO might not get that second yacht!
Better everyone just lower your expectations. Soon, geeks will get paid what they do in China, unless they just ship the jobs over there. Corporate America has decided, better to hire near-slaves under a communist government than free Americans. (Thanks Microsoft!) That's capitalism for you.
The US already does this, often indirectly. For example, we tax sugar from overseas, so Florida sugar corporations can sell their sugar for a high price (this is the reason you get high fuctose corn syrup in soda instead of the high priced sugar). The Florida sugar corporations give a kick back to the politicians who pass these subsidies in the form of campaign contributions.
Same for many agricultural products. The undisputed leader of agriculture subsidies in ADM, supermarket to the world. Europe subsidizes its agriculture industry, just like the US.
Bush just slapped tariffs on steel, tariffs on lumber from Canada, and gave cash and loan subsidies to the airlines. All the Republican administrations - Reagan, Bush I, all believed in a large central government that centralized economic power, and redistributed wealth from the middle class to the rich. So did Clinton. Free markets are like a free lunch - ain't no such thing.
When the US says other countries should open their market and lower trade barriers, they mean just that - OTHER COUNTRIES. Not the US. We play by our own set of rules.
When other countries subsidize their industries and protect their local businesses, we call that SOCIALISM. When the US subsidizes our industries and protect our local business, we call that CAPITALISM. See how it works?
I agree. Corporate America is defrauding the middle class. The fraud has caused a huge transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich. The system is working exactly as it was intended.
Now please explain to me how taxpayer bailouts of failing companies is "capitalism".
"The Second Amendment is the one that guarantees the other nine in the Bill of Rights."
I agree. The reason that the US is arguably the most free society in the world is because it's one of the most armed.
For example, Bush would be unable to do to the US what his father did to Latin American, simply because we are as well armed as any terrorist groups he might send out to attack us.
I am anti-conservative and anti-Republican. I fully support the right of people to keep and bear arms. From the looks of the Bush's plans for America, we will probably need them.
"it's not our gov't that censors the media, but the media itself"
The media are corporations. It's pretty hard for a corporation to be anti-corporate. So, in the US, we get all pro-corporate news, all the time, from the corporate press. Did anyone think it would be different?
FOX News repeats their slogan, "fair and balanced" all the time throughout the day. If they didn't, people would just assume they were owned by the Republican party. Glad they cleared that up for us.
"unequal distribution of Capitalism"
Haha. With the government doling out huge defence contracts to their campaign contributors, the frauds of Enron, WorldCom, ArthurAnderson, and the coming bailouts of JP Morgan and Chase, I keep wondering when we'll have some capitalism here in the USA.
But face it, the US has the highest living standards in the world. I guess (corporate) socialism works!
I am so sick of hearing these environmental groups with their warning about pollution. 86% of environmentalists admit they make up statistics. As Reagan said, most pollution is caused by trees, but these liberals want to stop trees from getting cut down! It's a known fact that the few environmental problems we have were caused by Bill Clinton.
Instead of listening to these eco-terrorists, let's look at statistics put out by industrial lobbying groups. Unlike the near-communist environmentalists, corporate lobbyists are truthful 99.999% of the time. Most corporate lobbyists say that the threats of pollution and diminishing wilderness are pure fantasy, I'll trust the CEO of GE over some tree-hugger any day!
Remember when the liberals created that big scare about smoking causes cancer? The tobacco companies lost millions due to these lies, even though the tobacco companies had scientific research showing that smoking actually IMPROVES your chance of getting certain diseases after age 80.
Every time a tract of virgin land is conserved, one more child must do without adequate marketing opportunities. Don't let the liberals steal our children's future!
For years the tobacco companies said there was no evidence that smoking was harmful. They also said second hand smoke wasn't a health problem.
The chemical industry is a large contributor to American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society. Interestingly enough, these non-profits rarely investigate industrial and consumer chemicals as a cause of cancer.
It's probably a good idea to take research done by "special interests" with a grain of salt.
Of course, the biggest "special interests" are for-profit companies.
Pollution is a huge problem in society, and complaining about tree-hugging environmentalists won't change that.
The Bush administration is sending out the Secret Service to investigate people who have anti-Bush posters in their house?
Maybe you don't mind the federal government investigating your home decorations, but I do. What part of the Constitution gives the federal government the right to do this?
Perhaps you and your kind would be better off in North Korea, where things like that are commonplace?
In North Korea, there's no pesky ACLU to defend your rights either. Get going!
For every "trust-fund hippy" there must be a hundred "trust fund conservatives". If you want to find spoiled rich kids with pie in the sky political fantasies, just talk to a "free market conservative".
Ah yes, the Posse Comitatus act is so out of date. I can't wait for the day that active duty US soldiers are on every street corner with their Uzis, protecting us from snipers and terrorists and people who share music.
It amazes me how little many Americans care for their freedoms and the Constitution. If things keep up the way they are going, we won't have to worry about the Constitution or freedoms anymore.
In a corporate environment, the creators of the software are almost NEVER the owners. It seems the creators have lost control of their creation when they cash their paycheck.
Healthy for who? For you? You say it sucks to be one of those unemployed, well, maybe it would suck to be one of those businesses who can't get workers cheap.
Why does employment have to be negative, always in favor of the employer? Why can't it be positive, in favor of the employee?
There are winners and losers in an economy. The only question is who will be the winners. So far, it hasn't been us employees, or 98% of Americans. On the other hand, that 2% has made out great.
You sound sympathetic to the plight of unemployed workers. That's great. If I were unemployed (and I could be any day) sympathy won't pay the rent. I'll take a positive employment rate, thanks.
A 5.7 unemployment rate is "healthy"? How so? An "unemployment rate" means that there are more people looking for jobs than jobs, hence it's a buyer's market for work.
Since the vast majority of Americans (like 98%) make almost all of their money from their job (not investments) it seems it would be healthier to have an "overemployment rate" of 5% or so. In a seller's market for work, companies would have to pay higher salaries, better benefits, and guarentee more rights at work, to recruit from the limited supply or workers.
That would mean investors (the people who make the majority of their money from investments, not their job), about 2% of Americans, would make less money, and the people working jobs (98% of Americans) would make more money.
Slashdot Mirror
Corporations sign exclusive agreements all the time, just like unions do. If management signs an agreement to only hire workers from a union, how is that different than a company that signs an exclusive contract to only use a specific supplier, or only get temps from a specific company?
Corporations do that all the time, but you seem to think it's bad when workers do it for themselves? What blatant hypocrisy.
Yes, the Republicans are doing a fine job creating jobs - in Communist China. No unions there! No freedom of speech either.
It's interesting that companies like Microsoft, et al, are sending jobs over to Communist China, while preaching to us about the wonders of free market capitalism.
In communist China, there are no unions. Try to start one, you wind up in jail, or dead.
The union movement was started in America, by Americans. The right to join and form unions is protected by the Constitution (it's called the freedom of assembly).
Of course, companies are smart enough to join their own unions, like the Chamber of Commerce, industry associations, RIAA, MPAA.
Remember the IT management union, the people that lobbied to government to allow all those H1Bs into the country, to lower wages? They did a great job. That's what organization does, it gives you power and a better position to bargain.
The Recording Industry Association of America. It's a union, for management. An organization of companies, that hire lawyers, bribe politicians, and negotiates for their own interests.
Imagine if we had a "Music Buyers Association of America" - we could do the same thing.
Or, we can read Ayn Rand novels about the glorious free market system that doesn't exist in the real world. Your choice.
"Only you can negotiate the best deal for you."
CEOs hire negotiators and lawyers when they are joining a new company. Why? To negotiate a good deal for themselves and to have a better bargaining position.
That's why they make the big bucks.
So Joe Geek goes to get a new job. It's Joe Geek on one side, and the manager, HR, and the legal department on the other side. Who's in a better position?
When you get a job, you sign whatever paperwork they tell you too. They have it printed in advance, you can read it (or not), but if you don't sign it, you don't get the job.
Now if Joe Geek had his own laywer (or a union rep), he can say, "Change this, add this, take out this."
A union evens the playing field. That's why someone with a union gets more pay, better benefits, greater job security, and more control over their work than people who don't
The Labor Movement - the People who brought you the weekend.
"The main problem I see with unions is that while they theoretically exist for the benefit of all members, they tend to prop up the underachievers and demote the go-getters. In other words, they breed mediocrity. "
Promotes mediocrity? Props up underachievers? It sounds like you are talking about management.
The issue in the West Coast lockout (the workers did not strike) is about their contract, which the PMA wants to break.
The PMA is the Pacific Maritime Association. It's a union for the companies. What, are you surprised that business owners have their own union? Of course they do. They're not stupid.
"whether people like it or not, you're going to have to work a lot harder in this environment than you have ever done in your life"
So, we can all stick our "How to Manage Your Geek" articles up our ass. We'll be writing "How to Kiss Your Manager's Ass" now.
But, whatever you do, DON'T UNIONIZE! Organization is for bosses, not workers. Imagine if some poor company had to deal with professional negotiators hired by geeks for salaries and benefits. Why, profits might go down, and the CEO might not get that second yacht!
Better everyone just lower your expectations. Soon, geeks will get paid what they do in China, unless they just ship the jobs over there. Corporate America has decided, better to hire near-slaves under a communist government than free Americans. (Thanks Microsoft!) That's capitalism for you.
Same for many agricultural products. The undisputed leader of agriculture subsidies in ADM, supermarket to the world. Europe subsidizes its agriculture industry, just like the US.
Bush just slapped tariffs on steel, tariffs on lumber from Canada, and gave cash and loan subsidies to the airlines. All the Republican administrations - Reagan, Bush I, all believed in a large central government that centralized economic power, and redistributed wealth from the middle class to the rich. So did Clinton. Free markets are like a free lunch - ain't no such thing.
When the US says other countries should open their market and lower trade barriers, they mean just that - OTHER COUNTRIES. Not the US. We play by our own set of rules.
When other countries subsidize their industries and protect their local businesses, we call that SOCIALISM. When the US subsidizes our industries and protect our local business, we call that CAPITALISM. See how it works?
"The corporations have no police or armies of their own"
Obviously, you've never heard of the Pinkertons.
I agree. Corporate America is defrauding the middle class. The fraud has caused a huge transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich. The system is working exactly as it was intended.
Now please explain to me how taxpayer bailouts of failing companies is "capitalism".
I agree. The reason that the US is arguably the most free society in the world is because it's one of the most armed.
For example, Bush would be unable to do to the US what his father did to Latin American, simply because we are as well armed as any terrorist groups he might send out to attack us.
I am anti-conservative and anti-Republican. I fully support the right of people to keep and bear arms. From the looks of the Bush's plans for America, we will probably need them.
The media are corporations. It's pretty hard for a corporation to be anti-corporate. So, in the US, we get all pro-corporate news, all the time, from the corporate press. Did anyone think it would be different?
FOX News repeats their slogan, "fair and balanced" all the time throughout the day. If they didn't, people would just assume they were owned by the Republican party. Glad they cleared that up for us.
But face it, the US has the highest living standards in the world. I guess (corporate) socialism works!
Instead of listening to these eco-terrorists, let's look at statistics put out by industrial lobbying groups. Unlike the near-communist environmentalists, corporate lobbyists are truthful 99.999% of the time. Most corporate lobbyists say that the threats of pollution and diminishing wilderness are pure fantasy, I'll trust the CEO of GE over some tree-hugger any day!
Remember when the liberals created that big scare about smoking causes cancer? The tobacco companies lost millions due to these lies, even though the tobacco companies had scientific research showing that smoking actually IMPROVES your chance of getting certain diseases after age 80.
Every time a tract of virgin land is conserved, one more child must do without adequate marketing opportunities. Don't let the liberals steal our children's future!
Talk radio, here I come!
The chemical industry is a large contributor to American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society. Interestingly enough, these non-profits rarely investigate industrial and consumer chemicals as a cause of cancer.
It's probably a good idea to take research done by "special interests" with a grain of salt.
Of course, the biggest "special interests" are for-profit companies.
Pollution is a huge problem in society, and complaining about tree-hugging environmentalists won't change that.
Humans are animals.
The Bush administration is sending out the Secret Service to investigate people who have anti-Bush posters in their house?
Maybe you don't mind the federal government investigating your home decorations, but I do. What part of the Constitution gives the federal government the right to do this?
Perhaps you and your kind would be better off in North Korea, where things like that are commonplace?
In North Korea, there's no pesky ACLU to defend your rights either. Get going!
For every "trust-fund hippy" there must be a hundred "trust fund conservatives". If you want to find spoiled rich kids with pie in the sky political fantasies, just talk to a "free market conservative".
Ah yes, the Posse Comitatus act is so out of date. I can't wait for the day that active duty US soldiers are on every street corner with their Uzis, protecting us from snipers and terrorists and people who share music.
It amazes me how little many Americans care for their freedoms and the Constitution. If things keep up the way they are going, we won't have to worry about the Constitution or freedoms anymore.
Can you name one country ever that called itself "communist" and mandated economic equality? I don't believe one ever existed.
In a corporate environment, the creators of the software are almost NEVER the owners. It seems the creators have lost control of their creation when they cash their paycheck.
I'm tired of the newspeak as well. Copying bits is not theft no matter how you look at it, and sharing music is not piracy, that's hijacking ships.
It would be hard for the corps to get any sympathy if they went around saying, "Stop copying us" and "Don't share!" Hence the newspeak.
Healthy for who? For you? You say it sucks to be one of those unemployed, well, maybe it would suck to be one of those businesses who can't get workers cheap.
Why does employment have to be negative, always in favor of the employer? Why can't it be positive, in favor of the employee?
There are winners and losers in an economy. The only question is who will be the winners. So far, it hasn't been us employees, or 98% of Americans. On the other hand, that 2% has made out great.
You sound sympathetic to the plight of unemployed workers. That's great. If I were unemployed (and I could be any day) sympathy won't pay the rent. I'll take a positive employment rate, thanks.
A 5.7 unemployment rate is "healthy"? How so? An "unemployment rate" means that there are more people looking for jobs than jobs, hence it's a buyer's market for work.
Since the vast majority of Americans (like 98%) make almost all of their money from their job (not investments) it seems it would be healthier to have an "overemployment rate" of 5% or so. In a seller's market for work, companies would have to pay higher salaries, better benefits, and guarentee more rights at work, to recruit from the limited supply or workers.
That would mean investors (the people who make the majority of their money from investments, not their job), about 2% of Americans, would make less money, and the people working jobs (98% of Americans) would make more money.