That's why Libertarians are insane - federal power is of the devil, yet state and local governments are free to do whatever they want. Your state mandates school prayer in public schools? Taps your phones without warrants? Tough luck for you, because according to Libertarians the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government, not the states.
Unionizing doesn't even make sense. The IT industry is the one industry more than any other where market forces really are at work: you don't like your job? Go get another.
Which is like telling someone to just get another job in fast food: the pay and conditions are equally crappy if you work at McDonalds or Taco Bell. Athletes, actors, screenwriters and directors are creative and paid based on ability, and they have unions.
You can't force an employer to pay more for a service than it is worth any more than you can force a buyer to pay more for a product.
Amazing though, that this race to the bottom never applies to the executive level, only working stiffs. When was the last time you heard of a company laying off it's board of directors and vice presidents and replacing them with cheap MBA's from India.
But don't you find it odd when a company, be it publicly traded or privately owned, has the work force tell it how much profit they can make
Don't you find it odd that the productivity of American workers keeps rising, yet their wages have stagnated? Don't you find it odd that virtually all the economic gains of recent years has gone straight to the top? Don't you find it odd that you have to compete with workers in India or Bangladesh making a fraction of your salary, but you never hear about top executives being replaced with cheap MBA's from Delhi?
and are willing to kill said company thus eliminating their job in the process?
You mean like the airline unions that accepted massive cuts to save jobs only to have the company use some of the savings to give their top executives big bonuses or golden parachutes in the case of bankruptcy?
On paper Unions would be a great way to ensure that workers are treated fairly for the amount of work they do. However, being run by humans, the nature of greed comes into play.
It's about balance - having worker self-interest to counteract executive self-interest. Remove the former and all you have is the latter.
After which, the paychecks will disappear to India and the benefits will go away, but the hours will be much better. Old school was that the jobs couldn't go away. I've got news for you: they can. Global Economy.
Then the salaries of corporate board members should have been going down with the rest of ours because companies could just hire an Indian MBA (or five) for $100K per year to replace the CIO or CFO making $5 million per year. Funny, I haven't seen any of those stories, have you?
This isn't about the "global economy", it's about grotesque executive greed.
I like working longer hours some days and spending the odd afternoon at the pool. I like having a non-adversarial relationship with management and playing foosball with my boss.
FUD. There is nothing whatsoever about a union that prevents you from doing either of those things.
I like being free to negotiate my OWN salary.
Free to make less money, you mean. It doesn't matter if you are Superman because you'll still be bound by pay scales set by the company, which you have no influence over as an individual. So how can workers push up the pay scale? By having a union. Your ego is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It's the union members who are sheep and do whatever the union tells them to do.
Riiiiight, as opposed to those who take their shit sandwiches from management with a smile.
so corporations = fascism then?
on
Should IT Unionize?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Given that the whole point of a union is to create a monopoly on one form of labour
No, the point of unions is to give workers a modicum of power in negotiations, as opposed to having to take asinine demands from management, and liking it.
Not so great for jobs that require a high degree of independent, creative thought, tend to have projects that go into crunch time, and have advanced skill sets.
Why. Actors, writers and directors are far more creative, also have to put up with crunch times and they all have unions.
Unions are good for industries where workers are easily interchangeable -- assembly-line stuff, for example.
IT workers are no less interchangeable than auto workers. Just look at companies like IBM that lay off thousands of people while continuing to import H1-B workers.
So police in the U.S. are free to use tactics we were afraid China was going to use in the Olympics, because out of thousands of people there are a few actual bad apples - which was China's justification as well. But IOKIYAR.
Yes, Mr. Pot, because it's our rights as the richest nation on the planet to expect others to go first, rather than leading the way. But at least other countries are talking about committing to commitments to reduce emissions - but the U.S. is refusing to even go that far.
It's always fascinating to watch wingnuts try and rationalize 3% of the world's population emitting 25% of it's pollution by demanding poor nations go ahead of the richest country on the planet.
My concern is with getting straight answers and every side tries to skew them towards their belief.
Then polluting companies have accomplished their goal with you, as they try to pretend there's a scientific controversy, when it's actually a political controversy.
partisans on the left, partisans on the right, nationalists of every nationality...
Who's obstructing action on any if the things you mentioned? Not those on the left. Complain about politics all you want, but the reality is that the right wing is the obstacle to progress on pollution and global warming, and they have to be overcome if we're going to accomplish anything.
The problem, I mean its effect, is more psychological than functional. Even if I change the binding, I KNOW the possibility to save before something dangerous is still there.
Sure, sure - the point is to get used to playing without quicksave. Which for me happens after I hit F9 a few times and nothing happens.
Anyway, you seem to be against an option in a menu.
Huh? So what's the difference between using a menu to unbind a key, and using a menu to disable quicksave when you can just re-enable it?
If we got rid of this career politician horseshit, we'd have MUCH better representation in Washington.
No, it would be much WORSE. If a politician can't be re-elected, he's going to spend his term thinking about his next job. And what's going to land him a better job when that happens: serving his constituents, or selling them out to powerful special interests?
You don't want term limits. You want elections to be 100% publicly financed. That would fix 99% of the problem without causing any new ones.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why Libertarians are insane - federal power is of the devil, yet state and local governments are free to do whatever they want. Your state mandates school prayer in public schools? Taps your phones without warrants? Tough luck for you, because according to Libertarians the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government, not the states.
And what does that have to do with the fact that she wanted to ban dozens of books?
In the end, it doesn't even matter either way.
Nonsense. You don't teach issues of faith in classes on reason.
Four bouts of cancer + being 72 is indeed worrying, yes.
As opposed to McCain who had cancer related surgery earlier this year and didn't tell anyone?
Unionizing doesn't even make sense. The IT industry is the one industry more than any other where market forces really are at work: you don't like your job? Go get another.
Which is like telling someone to just get another job in fast food: the pay and conditions are equally crappy if you work at McDonalds or Taco Bell. Athletes, actors, screenwriters and directors are creative and paid based on ability, and they have unions.
You can't force an employer to pay more for a service than it is worth any more than you can force a buyer to pay more for a product.
Amazing though, that this race to the bottom never applies to the executive level, only working stiffs. When was the last time you heard of a company laying off it's board of directors and vice presidents and replacing them with cheap MBA's from India.
But don't you find it odd when a company, be it publicly traded or privately owned, has the work force tell it how much profit they can make
Don't you find it odd that the productivity of American workers keeps rising, yet their wages have stagnated? Don't you find it odd that virtually all the economic gains of recent years has gone straight to the top? Don't you find it odd that you have to compete with workers in India or Bangladesh making a fraction of your salary, but you never hear about top executives being replaced with cheap MBA's from Delhi?
and are willing to kill said company thus eliminating their job in the process?
You mean like the airline unions that accepted massive cuts to save jobs only to have the company use some of the savings to give their top executives big bonuses or golden parachutes in the case of bankruptcy?
On paper Unions would be a great way to ensure that workers are treated fairly for the amount of work they do. However, being run by humans, the nature of greed comes into play.
It's about balance - having worker self-interest to counteract executive self-interest. Remove the former and all you have is the latter.
Worldcom, Enron, and GM are/were giant corporations that lost some $200 billion dollars. Therefore, corporations are bad and we should not have any.
After which, the paychecks will disappear to India and the benefits will go away, but the hours will be much better. Old school was that the jobs couldn't go away. I've got news for you: they can. Global Economy.
Then the salaries of corporate board members should have been going down with the rest of ours because companies could just hire an Indian MBA (or five) for $100K per year to replace the CIO or CFO making $5 million per year. Funny, I haven't seen any of those stories, have you?
This isn't about the "global economy", it's about grotesque executive greed.
I like working longer hours some days and spending the odd afternoon at the pool. I like having a non-adversarial relationship with management and playing foosball with my boss.
FUD. There is nothing whatsoever about a union that prevents you from doing either of those things.
I like being free to negotiate my OWN salary.
Free to make less money, you mean. It doesn't matter if you are Superman because you'll still be bound by pay scales set by the company, which you have no influence over as an individual. So how can workers push up the pay scale? By having a union. Your ego is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It's the union members who are sheep and do whatever the union tells them to do.
Riiiiight, as opposed to those who take their shit sandwiches from management with a smile.
Given that the whole point of a union is to create a monopoly on one form of labour
No, the point of unions is to give workers a modicum of power in negotiations, as opposed to having to take asinine demands from management, and liking it.
Not so great for jobs that require a high degree of independent, creative thought, tend to have projects that go into crunch time, and have advanced skill sets.
Why. Actors, writers and directors are far more creative, also have to put up with crunch times and they all have unions.
Unions are good for industries where workers are easily interchangeable -- assembly-line stuff, for example.
IT workers are no less interchangeable than auto workers. Just look at companies like IBM that lay off thousands of people while continuing to import H1-B workers.
It may be a liberal city, but it also has a Republican sheriff. Guess which department the FBI is working with on it's bogus raids?
So police in the U.S. are free to use tactics we were afraid China was going to use in the Olympics, because out of thousands of people there are a few actual bad apples - which was China's justification as well. But IOKIYAR.
Kyoto.. LOL.. Your one of those people.
Yes, Mr. Pot, because it's our rights as the richest nation on the planet to expect others to go first, rather than leading the way. But at least other countries are talking about committing to commitments to reduce emissions - but the U.S. is refusing to even go that far.
It's always fascinating to watch wingnuts try and rationalize 3% of the world's population emitting 25% of it's pollution by demanding poor nations go ahead of the richest country on the planet.
My concern is with getting straight answers and every side tries to skew them towards their belief.
Then polluting companies have accomplished their goal with you, as they try to pretend there's a scientific controversy, when it's actually a political controversy.
partisans on the left, partisans on the right, nationalists of every nationality...
Who's obstructing action on any if the things you mentioned? Not those on the left. Complain about politics all you want, but the reality is that the right wing is the obstacle to progress on pollution and global warming, and they have to be overcome if we're going to accomplish anything.
Dyslexics are teople poo.
The problem, I mean its effect, is more psychological than functional. Even if I change the binding, I KNOW the possibility to save before something dangerous is still there.
Sure, sure - the point is to get used to playing without quicksave. Which for me happens after I hit F9 a few times and nothing happens.
Anyway, you seem to be against an option in a menu.
Huh? So what's the difference between using a menu to unbind a key, and using a menu to disable quicksave when you can just re-enable it?
So why not change the keybinding? Or unbind it if possible?
We need term limits in Congress.
Wrong cure for the disease.
If we got rid of this career politician horseshit, we'd have MUCH better representation in Washington.
No, it would be much WORSE. If a politician can't be re-elected, he's going to spend his term thinking about his next job. And what's going to land him a better job when that happens: serving his constituents, or selling them out to powerful special interests?
You don't want term limits. You want elections to be 100% publicly financed. That would fix 99% of the problem without causing any new ones.
So was it you who wrote the WSJ editorial calling tax cuts for the middle class "welfare"?
Everyone in office right now is at fault.
But not equally at fault. Get a sense of proportion.
And just how many Quaker candidates have we had, exactly?