So whose fault is it that this continues? The management for setting unreasonable schedules? The employer for not compensating the employees' hard work? Or the employees for refusing to go into crunch mode the second time it happens?
Well, think of it this way: in which group would an individual have the best chance of making a difference?
We've already been shown that it is certainly not the lowest-level group of employees. The way management bargains with them isn't even bargaining at all - it's take it or leave it.
So it makes little sense to blame the workers for not changing a situation they have no power to change.
Unfortunately, my grandmother is in an assisted living center, and the nurses there call fairly often. Their initial statement sounds exactly like a telemarketer's does.
Welcome to life. Most corporations/governments/unions/organizations don't deliver what they promise. The problem is that they're all composed of people, most of whom don't deliver what they promise.
And that's what courts are for. When someone makes a deal, but don't deliver on their end of the bargain, they are in breach of contract, and liable for damages.
Of course, with the kind of "tort reform" Republicans are pushing, corporations will never have to hold up their end of the bargain with any individual ever again.
Applying to a job you are not qualified for doesn't help you odds of getting a job.
It doesn't hurt, and nothing else seems to help.
They do stuff like career fairs at universities, where people like you will not come up and talk to them unless you are actually qualified, or at least have something to say.
Actually, people like me never make it inside, since the lines to get in usually wrap around the building a few times, only to have people inside who were sent solely to collect resumes, and have no input into the hiring process. Might as well just find out which companies are there and call them on the phone - it would yield better results and waste far less time.
Seriously, why apply for a job writing C++ if you have never written code? Why apply for a job as a graphic designer if you are a programmer?
Well, there used to be these things called entry level jobs. Now, employers think that means that you have three to five years experience with their particular in-house system. Sometimes, as has been mentioned in articles like this, the requirements listed are completely absurd (5 years with C#, 10 years with Java, etc).
See, the advice I've gotten from career counselors, etc. has been to apply anyway, because companies often post their wish list and just pick from the resumes they get. At least, that's what they used to do.
Just because it only takes you 10 seconds, don't think that they spend any more than 10 seconds throwing away your resume.
I've been at this so long that I've stopped caring about things like that. I've also lowered my standards down to simple data entry, leaving my master's degree off my resume completely because I know for certain it has cost me at least one job, and yet I still get almost no response from anybody. So whether I annoy the guy getting the resumes is pretty much the least of my concerns.
Most societies arranged marriges for profit and convience. Love never factored into it. It's only recent that the quaint notion of love had any force beyond poems and books.
I partially disagree. Love was real, but rarely was one married to the one they loved.
Right now a marrige isn't practical for men. By contrast, it is very practical for women. This isn't idle speculation, it's fact of law.
Indeed. Before, you could fend off some of the worst of it with a pre-nup. Now, every pre-nup is challenged in court, and often rendered void. So, that's no way to protect yourself.
I see in the near future a severe increase in the number of "common law" marriages. IE, they lived together, but the man had no intention of binding himself into a marriage, and a court declaring the couple married, right before the divorce proceeding start.
I dispute your assertion that in "most" cases in the wild, "the strongest male has all the women and no responsibility for the children". Certainly in some cases the former is true, but not most.
In any species where there are "alpha males" (which admittedly, humans aren't exactly, though we are pretty close), it is indeed the case where the alpha is the only one who has mating privileges.
Finally, I think your math is wrong if you believe 90% of women marry up. Where is that figure from? How many generations do you think that figure could hold?
Most likely the figure is made up, but the idea behind it is sound. Nearly all women (at the very least, American women) expect their husbands to be wealthier than themselves. This was achieved in the past by making sure that women simply couldn't get jobs of any signifigance. Even today, most college degrees that are more "fun" or "soft", such as liberal arts, psychology, etc have more women than men, and the hard sciences tend to have far more men. Basically, the degrees that tend to get you more money are more populated by men than by women.
Why is this exactly? Well, because it is still a very popular attitude in society for the man to be the "provider", and the woman to be the "nurturer".
Even women that go into the hard sciences, and those that get PhDs want men who are at least as educated as themselves, and usually more educated than themselves, and unfortunately for them there just aren't many people with PhDs or better. There have been articles bemoaning this fact, aghast at the notion that educated women might have to *gasp* "marry down".
Maybe it's society, maybe it's biology. But one thing's for sure - this is a belief that is going to die hard.
You are, of course, assuming that those of us who actually like the field can get a job in it in the first place. It really sucks when you graduate right into the bust period, and no one will even consider you because you don't have any experience, when you'd do it for half (or less) of what they're offering everyone else.
Funny thing - no Republican president has left office with an unemployment rate under 5%, and all but Reagan increased unemployment during his presidency. And all Democratic presidents except Carter lowered unemployment during their presidencies, and Carter kept it the same.
So, it's probably intentional that Republicans keep the unemployment rate over 5%.
If you submit on Monster, at least only do it if you are qualified. And definitely research who the company is...our company can't afford to be flying people in from India for interviews...Monster works, but submit wisely if you really want to be considered.
Why? Refraining from applying to any job on Monster will do nothing but save you ten seconds time, and costs you the possibility of a job.
Your advice, if followed, would certainly make things easier for companies. However, that's not the goal of most job seekers.
Because they can't hold the threat of deportation over the head of the US graduate, and use that "leverage" to make him work insane hours and take abuse.
If there's an understanding that you'll do a certain type of work for them at a certain wage, then there's a contract, whatever you sign to the contrary. They can decide they don't want you to work for them anymore, but they can't claim that, since there was no contract, they don't have to pay you for the work you've done. If they try it, you can sue them for breach of contract.
I get very frustrated every time some corporate abuse surfaces when everyone starts pointing and yelling "See! If the Libertarians make it the whole world will be like that!"
Why don't I trust employers to act ethically? Because there was a time before they had any sort of significant restraint, and they were incredibly abusive. Look up "Company Towns", and you'll see what I mean.
Thats the same mentality that says if we didn't have a law against killing someone everyone would me murderers. Utter nonsense, but for some reason people believe it.
Not everyone, but there would be a lot more people killing each other. And when companies are free to do whatever they want, they'll do whatever increases their profits, and when you're not an uber-elite programmer that you apparently are, that often involves abusing the workers.
So basically, we're supposed to wait years or decades for a large corporation to suffer the consequences of its own bad policies for the market to finally convince it to change its ways.
It might not happen even then. Corporations that commit these kinds of crimes usually won't do so unless there's a lot of money to be made, and that money can be used for marketting (lies), to keep the general public from learning the truth.
Nope, under a libertarian society there would be so much extra money from the decreased taxation that the economy would be massive, with plenty of jobs for anyone who wanted one.
What, you think _you'd_ get the money that didn't get taxed? Hell no. That goes to your employer, not you. In any tight labor market (and in an unregulated market, employers can make sure it stays that way), employers have carte blanche to cut wages all they like. And in less stringent times, they can just wait for inflation to do the work.
Thus, an employer can turn your tax cut into his wage reduction.
Also, corporate revenues would be much higher without paying 50% or more to tax, so they could afford to higher more people etc...
Yeah, because they're hurting so much right now.
Corporations don't hire people just because they've got extra money laying around. They hire people because they have no choice. Because they couldn't get what they want done without doing so. And if they can just work the employees they have twice as hard, then they will, because it means they don't have to hire more people.
That, and there is likely a term in their employment contract that says they "will not organize". Every software / engineering position I've ever held has had such a clause.
If such a clause was binding, there would be no unions left. But there are a few left.
Slashdot Mirror
We've already been shown that it is certainly not the lowest-level group of employees. The way management bargains with them isn't even bargaining at all - it's take it or leave it.
So it makes little sense to blame the workers for not changing a situation they have no power to change.
I think if you don't have the licenses, then it's just blackmail ;)
Hell, I live in a major city and my reception inside my own house is awful.
Unfortunately, my grandmother is in an assisted living center, and the nurses there call fairly often. Their initial statement sounds exactly like a telemarketer's does.
Heh, if that were the case there would be a lot more rich people with no souls. As it stands, there are only a tiny percentage of people like that.
So I'm guessing the devil only offers contracts to a select few.
I believe you're thinking of the term "anti-social", not "sociopath".
Difference is, big corporations have an interest in keeping marajuana illegal. Look up Du Pont and their involvement with hemp.
And by that logic, if the corporation is doing more harm to society than good, society should shut them down, hard.
Of course, with the kind of "tort reform" Republicans are pushing, corporations will never have to hold up their end of the bargain with any individual ever again.
Seriously, why apply for a job writing C++ if you have never written code? Why apply for a job as a graphic designer if you are a programmer?
Well, there used to be these things called entry level jobs. Now, employers think that means that you have three to five years experience with their particular in-house system. Sometimes, as has been mentioned in articles like this, the requirements listed are completely absurd (5 years with C#, 10 years with Java, etc).
See, the advice I've gotten from career counselors, etc. has been to apply anyway, because companies often post their wish list and just pick from the resumes they get. At least, that's what they used to do. I've been at this so long that I've stopped caring about things like that. I've also lowered my standards down to simple data entry, leaving my master's degree off my resume completely because I know for certain it has cost me at least one job, and yet I still get almost no response from anybody. So whether I annoy the guy getting the resumes is pretty much the least of my concerns.
Frankly, that wouldn't surprise me. Just another reason why marriage is a bad idea for men.
In today's world we have paternity tests, so you can be sure that your wife's kid is your kid too. Not so throughout the rest of history.
I see in the near future a severe increase in the number of "common law" marriages. IE, they lived together, but the man had no intention of binding himself into a marriage, and a court declaring the couple married, right before the divorce proceeding start.
Why is this exactly? Well, because it is still a very popular attitude in society for the man to be the "provider", and the woman to be the "nurturer".
Even women that go into the hard sciences, and those that get PhDs want men who are at least as educated as themselves, and usually more educated than themselves, and unfortunately for them there just aren't many people with PhDs or better. There have been articles bemoaning this fact, aghast at the notion that educated women might have to *gasp* "marry down". Maybe it's society, maybe it's biology. But one thing's for sure - this is a belief that is going to die hard.
You are, of course, assuming that those of us who actually like the field can get a job in it in the first place. It really sucks when you graduate right into the bust period, and no one will even consider you because you don't have any experience, when you'd do it for half (or less) of what they're offering everyone else.
Funny thing - no Republican president has left office with an unemployment rate under 5%, and all but Reagan increased unemployment during his presidency. And all Democratic presidents except Carter lowered unemployment during their presidencies, and Carter kept it the same.
So, it's probably intentional that Republicans keep the unemployment rate over 5%.
Your advice, if followed, would certainly make things easier for companies. However, that's not the goal of most job seekers.
Because they can't hold the threat of deportation over the head of the US graduate, and use that "leverage" to make him work insane hours and take abuse.
If there's an understanding that you'll do a certain type of work for them at a certain wage, then there's a contract, whatever you sign to the contrary. They can decide they don't want you to work for them anymore, but they can't claim that, since there was no contract, they don't have to pay you for the work you've done. If they try it, you can sue them for breach of contract.
Yeah, because the copyright infringement is by far the greater crime, right?