"you can do real work on the way (a la work from home), and your hourly rate is considered $10 worth (or whatever arbitrary number)."
Naive. Once everybody has their autonomous car, eveybody would be able to do that, the offer increases, therefor the price goes down. All you'll end up with is working more hours for the same result.
"I'll keep my 'dumb' car, thank you very much. It always does what it's told and that is not a limitation, it's a feature."
It's only, of course, that even now your "dumb car" is not so dumb anymore: it choose the proper gear for you. You tell it to accelerate but when reaching the red line it cuts the injection. You tell it to brake but it stops braking the moment the wheels start to slip. You tell it to corner full force to the right and it brakes some/all wheels so you can't really do it.
And that's only for average cars. Above that, you already have cars that won't allow (or at least warn you) if you try to tailgate the car in front of you, or won't allow/warn you to go over the speed limit, or crossing lanes, or forgetting about your blind spot...
Autonomous cars will happen or maybe not, but the example of the film industry, or mobile phones, or even microwaves, if you are that old, is spot on: if it ends up happening, it will be like a boiling a frog, you almost won't notice it and it will be there.
" imagine a car that works just like a traditional car, except that it refuses to run into anything."
This is happening already now... or it could were it not because of the threat of massive suings.
It's been said that, in order for autonomous cars to displace driven ones it's not needed for them to be absolutly flawless, just better than their human counterpart but I say, no way: the first accident that could be pointed to be caused by the machine, millions would change hands in tribunals.
Right now, you already have cars that warn you if you erratically change lanes, if you approach to much or too fast to the car in front of you, if the car "feels" you start to become sleepy, even help you to brake full force if they detect a quick change from the accelerator pedal to the brake one. It would be a technically trivial exercise to move from warn to act, but that's a giant step in legal territory and that's why this haven't happened yet.
"I think you have no concept of how the people who get involved in research think and act."
And again you miss the mark. I happened to work on a (public) pure research facility (devoted to ecology) in a pure research role (mathematical ecology and complex systems analysis and modeling) in the beginning of my career so, yes, I certainly know how this kind of people think and act since I've been one of them. And before you mention it, no, I didn't went out of it because lack of vocation or ability but for lack of funding (and that's something that makes me sad even today).
But, then again, even if, as it's the case for a vocational reseacher, you are basically an addict of what you do, the fact that you are actively searching for more doesn't mean you aren't abused, it's only that you don't mind.
On a pure research role is more difficult to fingerpoint a boss for the abuse but on an applied field? Ah! you just need to look at the bank account of, say, Larry Ellison (Oracle's CEO) versus that of Ed Codd (considered the "father" of the modern relational database concept). Or just look at the accrued wealth of, say, Patarroyo (he developed one of the most effective malaria vaccines, with ability to save lives in the tens of thousands) versus that of your average pop star (for this comparation to be understood I imply the "boss" of both the scientist and the pop star being people at large). Hey, now that I think of it, the pop singer probably can't help but doing what he does and be happy because of that but, still, this doesn't mean he's not being abused by the record company (while a differnt and more subtle kind of abuse since here the abuse is right in the contrat, not in its violation).
But I'm disgressing and the main point doesn't change: no matter what's your vocation, once there's a contract, *not* giving "...as much as whatever your contract says" is breach of contract, no matter if you break it by excess or by defect, and professionals do not break contracts.
Your guessing is wrong. Not only I'm not any kind of union representative but I've never worked on a unionized environment.
It's sad that just wanting contracts to be respected by both involved parties and for labour conditions to be human and fair is a matter of mockery -from the party that gets the benefit no less.
"People with your attitude, one where you *only give as much as whatever your contract says*, were of no use."
This says it all (emphasis mine). Of course, I understand the implication is that usable people were the ones that gave more to their company's shareholders than their mutually agreed contract says they should.
This evening I need to go to the market to replenish my fridge. Maybe I'll try your argument with the fruit seller to see what happens: "people with your attitude, one where you insist in only giving me two pounds of tomatoes when I pay for two pounds of tomatoes, are of no use".
Can't say in advance if he will stare at me in surprise or if he will just laugh at me on the spot.
"And this thread shows nothing less than how threatened they are by people who don't think thte way they do."
Threatened? But of course threatened, and upset.
As it is any business that sees how its competitors offer their services for free or at least heavily underpriced. Because, in the end, that's all that you do: "hey, I offer to work 30% more for same money", disregarding the fact that reaching current more or less standard conditions required about a century of nail and teeth fight by the labour force.
The difference is we are not companies, where that's not only expected but desired, we are persons and you disregarding your personal life and selling cheap your services damage everybody else's life conditions instead of "merely" their profit margins. And just as the expected end result of savage competition among corps is benefiting the consumers of those goods and services, not the competition, you downselling your services benefits no other than your customer, which happens to be your boss, not your fellow team mates.
Do you think so? What should I do, then? Should I force the rest of the team to reach the same kind of agreement that works for me? Since I signed for a full day work I should cry because my team mate that happens to be a single mother reached an agreement for just four hours a day? Is any of my business if she happens to be paid more per hour than me?
I *am* a team player and that includes accepting whatever laboral conditions fit to the rest of the team. As long as they own the expected expertise level and take intensity on whatever the time and timeframe they agreed with the company, I'm OK with it and I consider any more details are not my business at all but theirs.
On the other hand, given your comments on this thread I tend to think it is *you* the one that most probably are not a team player but a know-it-all full of prejudices and a "heroical lone wrangler" that takes pride on how tough you are (while your boss is laughing all the way to the bank).
"I'm all for evolution, but I didn't think it functioned on 150-year timescales?"
Well, it goes one day to the next: your offspring either owns new alleles or it doesn't.
But you are right to some extent: this is not evolution but genotype distribution's drift.
They are not saying here that new alleles have appeared (that's evolution) but that the relative distribution of some alleles have changed over time.
A more obvious example: say in the past, 6/10 people had brown eyes, 2/10 blue and 2/10 green but now, due to a long-running TV show where green-eyed people are the stars, you get 4/10 brown, 5/10 green and 1/10 blue. Where's the "evolution" here? You see, no new eye colors, just different distribution.
"The primary reason there is usually only a very small number of ISP's that serve a particular area is simple, and it doesn't involve tin foil hats or conspiracy theories. It is that building broadband infrastructure is fucking expensive. Everything from the hardware, to the permits, but especially the construction."
Humm... probably that's the first time something like that has happened ever before.
Let's see... The reason there are a very small number of truck transportation companies is because building highways for the trucks is damn expensive.
Hey, this gives me an idea! What if cabling and services on top like Internet access get managed by different entities!? What if we consider cabling a basic infrastructure just like roads and let them be publicly managed and subsidized by the services on top of them?
"Socialism looks like a utopia on the surface. In reality the lazy people do only as much as they absolutely have to and take all they can get in return."
"What I consider just being a professional and doing my job, you consider to being what some others call a "house boy.""
I don't think "professional" means what you think it means. "Professional" means that when I pay a fair price for three nails I get three good quality nails, neither four nor two and therefore, when I get paid for three nails I give three good quality nails, neither two nor four.
You go once and again with the strawman argument that when I say "40 hours/week" what I'm really saying is "let's see if I can get with only 30 hours/week but still being paid for the whole 40" despite me not giving the slightest hint for that to be the case.
But this kind of game can be played both ways: I also saw my fair share of people that, having nothing else to do, were around the office their 60 hours talking left and right about how they were ready to run the extra mile and making sure their bosses knew about the long hours they devoted to their jobs. Were they productive? Hell no, but they tend to make their team mates' life miserable because no matter them being more productive in 30 hours than the others at 60, they rised management's expectation to that level. Maybe you are one of this kind of guys.
I'll say it again: when I say "40 hours" I mean "40 full steam hours" and I give "40 full steam hours". I also do my best at work, I also take pride of a job well done, I also do what it takes for the work to be done.
It's only that I find professionalism being *both* parties holding their side of the stick and one part of it is "you've been working 60 hours two weeks in a row for this project to hit its goal but now the project is successfully completed and you go home an extra week on paid vacation because of it" instead of "yeah, get a leave for tomorrow, but the day after tomorrow I expect you here again". Or "you stay late when it takes to stay late, so now there's no problem if you leave early because you have some personal issues to deal with" instead of "I know you stayed late 10 days this last month, but it's the second time you need to get out early, what do you think is this?", or even "Yes, on the last few projects you did the extra mile for them to be on time but I won't take this acomplishment into an unstated expectation, so I understand this time you can't do it because some personal issues of you" instead of "what? are you a team player no more? I'll remember this in the next downturn".
In the end, it's "we both signed an agreement and I'm glad that you stick to your side of the agreement just like I stick to mine one", nothing more, nothing less.
"be glad you are smarter than people who think that their profession is important enough to invest the time"
I can't be glad because people like you, in the end, don't think their profession is important enough to invest the time, which is a thing I fully agree with, but that their bosses are important enough to work for them for free and in a semi-slavish way, which is something that directly hurts me because, as you say, "I'm too good to be taken advantage of" just because I want fair deals to stay fair.
"I understand you very well, and it's clear as beer pee that you'll never understand me."
That's what you say but maybe I understand you better than you think because I've been you for far too many years. It's only I'm not you anymore.
"That's seriously bizzare thinking, although not terribly unusual."
Bizarre? You are being exploited, you agree with it and don't mind this will lead for a miserable life for those that respect contracts more than you do. How is that not "Uncle Tom behaviour" at its best?
I perfectly understand what you say and that's in fact what it usually happens buy I strongly differ in your conclusion.
Now, imagine you work in that business that has hard deadlines. You know it, your manager knows it and the business owner knows it.
The business owner then can decide on hiring enough staff to cope with the overload so, yes, anyone in the team (or any team) may need to work long hours even to the deathmarch level when a project so requires but then, the project finishes and the team gets to return equilibrium in the previously agreed manner (either free time or money). Being properly staffed is what ensures the work doesn't end up being a death march after another.
OR, the business owner can say to himself "I'll pay standard and I simply fire the ones that don't agree to reduce their effective wages by 33% or even 50% by working free overtime. After all, if I know that on average I require 120 labour hours/week I can either hire three people for three salaires at 40 hours/week or two people for two salaries at 60 hours/week".
OF COURSE, the business owner will try for the second option if he can get it, after all, who doesn't want to be serviced for free? And then, it is the people like you the ones that allow him to get out with it.
You can claim that if that employer tried to properly staff his company he would be on a hugh disadvantage since he would be increasing his labour costs by 30 or 50% against their competitors and he'd fold but then again, is the people like you that allow that situation to happen. Of course there can be economic downturns but how convenient for the employer that he can decide to fire what he calls "the slackers" instead of negotiate, for instance, on giving part of the company ownership to the employees: "you do the extra effort now, but if we manage to go out of this, you'll be part of the future benefits too". No, what I usually see is that on the good times I get the agreed upon salary and the business owner gets his yatch (and I fully agree with that: he is risking his own money, so he or she is owed the extra benefit too) but on the downturn, he gets to retain his yatch while I am fired. Again, how convenient.
No wonder that, as I said in a different thread, "St. Clare also thought Uncle Tom was a good slave".
"I guess I never looked at my employer as the enemy."
Neither did I. I see them as a business partner bound by a contract agreement we both are to respect. I don't expect more money if I single handledy decide to work more or beyond our agreement no he should expect me to work more or beyond our agreement for fixed conditions.
"I suspect your employer would tell me you never ever didn't do the least you could do."
Nor he should do.
What he should say instead is "he professionally did what amount we previously agreed to, neither more nor less".
"Are you familiar with the difference between hourly and salaried employees?"
Yes, I know such a different exists... in USA.
Are you familiar that "salaried" meaning "no working effort boundaries" means that the employee simply has no saying in the pay and that such a thing should be banned, banned, banned?
Imagine you go to the market to buy, say, apples and you ask how much they cost. The attendant says "four dollars" and then you say "yeah, well, four dollars... how many apples? a dozen? a pound? a kilogram?" and the attendand replays "no, no, it doesn't work that way: you give me four dollars and then I'll decide how many apples I give you". Does it sound reasonbale? Well, that's "salaried" by USA terms. Now you can meditate about how is it possible for the situation to reach that point.
"The thing is, if you go to a company where everyone works 60 hours a week and you want to work 40, you are fucking everyone else in your team."
I have no problems, in principle, to sign for a 60 hour/week under a fair agreement both parties are comfortable with. And under such a fair agreement, I don't give a damn about how much the rest of my team works nor I think I should.
But the thing is, if you go to a company that hires for a 40 hour/week but where everyone works 60 hours a week, not such an uncommon scenario, it is the company the one fucking all of them, not the one that wants to stay by the letter of the contract that both the company and him have agreed upon and signed.
It is curious -and sad, how we the minions get to accept the master's rationale and make it ours.
"Sorry, it wan't an issue with me. Did it for 33 years. I was very well compensated, and was the person left when there were downturns. The people who were smarter than me, and "won't let those bastards take advantage of ME!" got to go to another place as needed."
Yes, sure. And St. Clare also thought Uncle Tom was a good slave.
"I'd guess that most potential employees would not be happy if it were the latter"
You are right. And you know why? Because most potential employees are aware that their leverage power against the employer is already very reduced to offer relevant-to-the-negotiation-process information if not required. For one, the employer knows perfectly what are the current salaries on staff and its deviations from average that the potential employee knows nothing about. Even about the overall market rates it's almost sure that employer knows better than the employee.
"I'm sure you are still welcome to state your salary demand in the cover letter."
Your are right. And you know why? Because this way the employee gains even more leverage power over the potential employee even before the first face-to-face contact.
Negating the employee negotiation capabilities is always against the employee. Not too strange that this comes from a CEO.
"you some times have to stay until the job is done. And some times you travel. And some timese the experiments aren't over in 8 hours with an hour break for lunch plus 2 15 minute breaks at 10 and 3 O'clock."
Of course yes. But a year is quite long. And I know that more times than not, the "sometimes you need to stay late, sometimes the project timeline is really that short" means "averaged 55 hours/week last year and lost 4 days of paid vacation".
"That only makes sense if negotiation is a core competency of your job."
Unless you are a fab drone whose work is in the way of being automated anyway, negotiation is a core competency on any job.
You are a coder who wants to correct something wrong? You go negotiate with the project manager.
You are a project manager who really needs more time to reach a goal? You go negotiate with the manager.
You are a manager that knows more bugdet is needed to reach the required ROI? You go negotiate with your area director.
You are a director that really sees that your area needs a bigger share of the budget or more autonomy? You go negotiate on the board.
Negotiating is basically understanding what's at stake, understand your position and that of others, find what's important and what's secondary and articulate clearly your points. It's a core competency for any job position, if the points above are really not needed, a machine can most probably do it better than a person.
Slashdot Mirror
"you can do real work on the way (a la work from home), and your hourly rate is considered $10 worth (or whatever arbitrary number)."
Naive. Once everybody has their autonomous car, eveybody would be able to do that, the offer increases, therefor the price goes down. All you'll end up with is working more hours for the same result.
"we cannot eliminate the probability of bugs from far simpler software
[...]
Sure we can, you just don't get to see it in consumer-grade software"
Then, you won't see it in consumer-grade cars either. You are making the point for the parent post.
"I'll keep my 'dumb' car, thank you very much. It always does what it's told and that is not a limitation, it's a feature."
It's only, of course, that even now your "dumb car" is not so dumb anymore: it choose the proper gear for you. You tell it to accelerate but when reaching the red line it cuts the injection. You tell it to brake but it stops braking the moment the wheels start to slip. You tell it to corner full force to the right and it brakes some/all wheels so you can't really do it.
And that's only for average cars. Above that, you already have cars that won't allow (or at least warn you) if you try to tailgate the car in front of you, or won't allow/warn you to go over the speed limit, or crossing lanes, or forgetting about your blind spot...
Autonomous cars will happen or maybe not, but the example of the film industry, or mobile phones, or even microwaves, if you are that old, is spot on: if it ends up happening, it will be like a boiling a frog, you almost won't notice it and it will be there.
" imagine a car that works just like a traditional car, except that it refuses to run into anything."
This is happening already now... or it could were it not because of the threat of massive suings.
It's been said that, in order for autonomous cars to displace driven ones it's not needed for them to be absolutly flawless, just better than their human counterpart but I say, no way: the first accident that could be pointed to be caused by the machine, millions would change hands in tribunals.
Right now, you already have cars that warn you if you erratically change lanes, if you approach to much or too fast to the car in front of you, if the car "feels" you start to become sleepy, even help you to brake full force if they detect a quick change from the accelerator pedal to the brake one. It would be a technically trivial exercise to move from warn to act, but that's a giant step in legal territory and that's why this haven't happened yet.
"I think you have no concept of how the people who get involved in research think and act."
And again you miss the mark. I happened to work on a (public) pure research facility (devoted to ecology) in a pure research role (mathematical ecology and complex systems analysis and modeling) in the beginning of my career so, yes, I certainly know how this kind of people think and act since I've been one of them. And before you mention it, no, I didn't went out of it because lack of vocation or ability but for lack of funding (and that's something that makes me sad even today).
But, then again, even if, as it's the case for a vocational reseacher, you are basically an addict of what you do, the fact that you are actively searching for more doesn't mean you aren't abused, it's only that you don't mind.
On a pure research role is more difficult to fingerpoint a boss for the abuse but on an applied field? Ah! you just need to look at the bank account of, say, Larry Ellison (Oracle's CEO) versus that of Ed Codd (considered the "father" of the modern relational database concept). Or just look at the accrued wealth of, say, Patarroyo (he developed one of the most effective malaria vaccines, with ability to save lives in the tens of thousands) versus that of your average pop star (for this comparation to be understood I imply the "boss" of both the scientist and the pop star being people at large). Hey, now that I think of it, the pop singer probably can't help but doing what he does and be happy because of that but, still, this doesn't mean he's not being abused by the record company (while a differnt and more subtle kind of abuse since here the abuse is right in the contrat, not in its violation).
But I'm disgressing and the main point doesn't change: no matter what's your vocation, once there's a contract, *not* giving "...as much as whatever your contract says" is breach of contract, no matter if you break it by excess or by defect, and professionals do not break contracts.
"I'm guessing this one's the local union steward"
Your guessing is wrong. Not only I'm not any kind of union representative but I've never worked on a unionized environment.
It's sad that just wanting contracts to be respected by both involved parties and for labour conditions to be human and fair is a matter of mockery -from the party that gets the benefit no less.
"I believe you 100 percent."
Your bet.
"People with your attitude, one where you *only give as much as whatever your contract says*, were of no use."
This says it all (emphasis mine). Of course, I understand the implication is that usable people were the ones that gave more to their company's shareholders than their mutually agreed contract says they should.
This evening I need to go to the market to replenish my fridge. Maybe I'll try your argument with the fruit seller to see what happens: "people with your attitude, one where you insist in only giving me two pounds of tomatoes when I pay for two pounds of tomatoes, are of no use".
Can't say in advance if he will stare at me in surprise or if he will just laugh at me on the spot.
"And this thread shows nothing less than how threatened they are by people who don't think thte way they do."
Threatened? But of course threatened, and upset.
As it is any business that sees how its competitors offer their services for free or at least heavily underpriced. Because, in the end, that's all that you do: "hey, I offer to work 30% more for same money", disregarding the fact that reaching current more or less standard conditions required about a century of nail and teeth fight by the labour force.
The difference is we are not companies, where that's not only expected but desired, we are persons and you disregarding your personal life and selling cheap your services damage everybody else's life conditions instead of "merely" their profit margins. And just as the expected end result of savage competition among corps is benefiting the consumers of those goods and services, not the competition, you downselling your services benefits no other than your customer, which happens to be your boss, not your fellow team mates.
" Mister, your attitude is plain awful."
Do you think so? What should I do, then? Should I force the rest of the team to reach the same kind of agreement that works for me? Since I signed for a full day work I should cry because my team mate that happens to be a single mother reached an agreement for just four hours a day? Is any of my business if she happens to be paid more per hour than me?
I *am* a team player and that includes accepting whatever laboral conditions fit to the rest of the team. As long as they own the expected expertise level and take intensity on whatever the time and timeframe they agreed with the company, I'm OK with it and I consider any more details are not my business at all but theirs.
On the other hand, given your comments on this thread I tend to think it is *you* the one that most probably are not a team player but a know-it-all full of prejudices and a "heroical lone wrangler" that takes pride on how tough you are (while your boss is laughing all the way to the bank).
"I'm all for evolution, but I didn't think it functioned on 150-year timescales?"
Well, it goes one day to the next: your offspring either owns new alleles or it doesn't.
But you are right to some extent: this is not evolution but genotype distribution's drift.
They are not saying here that new alleles have appeared (that's evolution) but that the relative distribution of some alleles have changed over time.
A more obvious example: say in the past, 6/10 people had brown eyes, 2/10 blue and 2/10 green but now, due to a long-running TV show where green-eyed people are the stars, you get 4/10 brown, 5/10 green and 1/10 blue. Where's the "evolution" here? You see, no new eye colors, just different distribution.
"The primary reason there is usually only a very small number of ISP's that serve a particular area is simple, and it doesn't involve tin foil hats or conspiracy theories. It is that building broadband infrastructure is fucking expensive. Everything from the hardware, to the permits, but especially the construction."
Humm... probably that's the first time something like that has happened ever before.
Let's see... The reason there are a very small number of truck transportation companies is because building highways for the trucks is damn expensive.
Hey, this gives me an idea! What if cabling and services on top like Internet access get managed by different entities!? What if we consider cabling a basic infrastructure just like roads and let them be publicly managed and subsidized by the services on top of them?
"Socialism looks like a utopia on the surface. In reality the lazy people do only as much as they absolutely have to and take all they can get in return."
s/lazy people/corporations/g
Done for you.
"What I consider just being a professional and doing my job, you consider to being what some others call a "house boy.""
I don't think "professional" means what you think it means. "Professional" means that when I pay a fair price for three nails I get three good quality nails, neither four nor two and therefore, when I get paid for three nails I give three good quality nails, neither two nor four.
You go once and again with the strawman argument that when I say "40 hours/week" what I'm really saying is "let's see if I can get with only 30 hours/week but still being paid for the whole 40" despite me not giving the slightest hint for that to be the case.
But this kind of game can be played both ways: I also saw my fair share of people that, having nothing else to do, were around the office their 60 hours talking left and right about how they were ready to run the extra mile and making sure their bosses knew about the long hours they devoted to their jobs. Were they productive? Hell no, but they tend to make their team mates' life miserable because no matter them being more productive in 30 hours than the others at 60, they rised management's expectation to that level. Maybe you are one of this kind of guys.
I'll say it again: when I say "40 hours" I mean "40 full steam hours" and I give "40 full steam hours". I also do my best at work, I also take pride of a job well done, I also do what it takes for the work to be done.
It's only that I find professionalism being *both* parties holding their side of the stick and one part of it is "you've been working 60 hours two weeks in a row for this project to hit its goal but now the project is successfully completed and you go home an extra week on paid vacation because of it" instead of "yeah, get a leave for tomorrow, but the day after tomorrow I expect you here again". Or "you stay late when it takes to stay late, so now there's no problem if you leave early because you have some personal issues to deal with" instead of "I know you stayed late 10 days this last month, but it's the second time you need to get out early, what do you think is this?", or even "Yes, on the last few projects you did the extra mile for them to be on time but I won't take this acomplishment into an unstated expectation, so I understand this time you can't do it because some personal issues of you" instead of "what? are you a team player no more? I'll remember this in the next downturn".
In the end, it's "we both signed an agreement and I'm glad that you stick to your side of the agreement just like I stick to mine one", nothing more, nothing less.
"be glad you are smarter than people who think that their profession is important enough to invest the time"
I can't be glad because people like you, in the end, don't think their profession is important enough to invest the time, which is a thing I fully agree with, but that their bosses are important enough to work for them for free and in a semi-slavish way, which is something that directly hurts me because, as you say, "I'm too good to be taken advantage of" just because I want fair deals to stay fair.
"I understand you very well, and it's clear as beer pee that you'll never understand me."
That's what you say but maybe I understand you better than you think because I've been you for far too many years. It's only I'm not you anymore.
"That's seriously bizzare thinking, although not terribly unusual."
Bizarre? You are being exploited, you agree with it and don't mind this will lead for a miserable life for those that respect contracts more than you do. How is that not "Uncle Tom behaviour" at its best?
I perfectly understand what you say and that's in fact what it usually happens buy I strongly differ in your conclusion.
Now, imagine you work in that business that has hard deadlines. You know it, your manager knows it and the business owner knows it.
The business owner then can decide on hiring enough staff to cope with the overload so, yes, anyone in the team (or any team) may need to work long hours even to the deathmarch level when a project so requires but then, the project finishes and the team gets to return equilibrium in the previously agreed manner (either free time or money). Being properly staffed is what ensures the work doesn't end up being a death march after another.
OR, the business owner can say to himself "I'll pay standard and I simply fire the ones that don't agree to reduce their effective wages by 33% or even 50% by working free overtime. After all, if I know that on average I require 120 labour hours/week I can either hire three people for three salaires at 40 hours/week or two people for two salaries at 60 hours/week".
OF COURSE, the business owner will try for the second option if he can get it, after all, who doesn't want to be serviced for free? And then, it is the people like you the ones that allow him to get out with it.
You can claim that if that employer tried to properly staff his company he would be on a hugh disadvantage since he would be increasing his labour costs by 30 or 50% against their competitors and he'd fold but then again, is the people like you that allow that situation to happen. Of course there can be economic downturns but how convenient for the employer that he can decide to fire what he calls "the slackers" instead of negotiate, for instance, on giving part of the company ownership to the employees: "you do the extra effort now, but if we manage to go out of this, you'll be part of the future benefits too". No, what I usually see is that on the good times I get the agreed upon salary and the business owner gets his yatch (and I fully agree with that: he is risking his own money, so he or she is owed the extra benefit too) but on the downturn, he gets to retain his yatch while I am fired. Again, how convenient.
No wonder that, as I said in a different thread, "St. Clare also thought Uncle Tom was a good slave".
"I guess I never looked at my employer as the enemy."
Neither did I. I see them as a business partner bound by a contract agreement we both are to respect. I don't expect more money if I single handledy decide to work more or beyond our agreement no he should expect me to work more or beyond our agreement for fixed conditions.
"I suspect your employer would tell me you never ever didn't do the least you could do."
Nor he should do.
What he should say instead is "he professionally did what amount we previously agreed to, neither more nor less".
"Are you familiar with the difference between hourly and salaried employees?"
Yes, I know such a different exists... in USA.
Are you familiar that "salaried" meaning "no working effort boundaries" means that the employee simply has no saying in the pay and that such a thing should be banned, banned, banned?
Imagine you go to the market to buy, say, apples and you ask how much they cost. The attendant says "four dollars" and then you say "yeah, well, four dollars... how many apples? a dozen? a pound? a kilogram?" and the attendand replays "no, no, it doesn't work that way: you give me four dollars and then I'll decide how many apples I give you". Does it sound reasonbale? Well, that's "salaried" by USA terms. Now you can meditate about how is it possible for the situation to reach that point.
"Well, I have to ask - did she negotiate her own salary?"
Are you kidding!?
She's talking about the minions, not the masters. Of course she negotiated her contract to the latest comma.
"The thing is, if you go to a company where everyone works 60 hours a week and you want to work 40, you are fucking everyone else in your team."
I have no problems, in principle, to sign for a 60 hour/week under a fair agreement both parties are comfortable with. And under such a fair agreement, I don't give a damn about how much the rest of my team works nor I think I should.
But the thing is, if you go to a company that hires for a 40 hour/week but where everyone works 60 hours a week, not such an uncommon scenario, it is the company the one fucking all of them, not the one that wants to stay by the letter of the contract that both the company and him have agreed upon and signed.
It is curious -and sad, how we the minions get to accept the master's rationale and make it ours.
"Sorry, it wan't an issue with me. Did it for 33 years. I was very well compensated, and was the person left when there were downturns. The people who were smarter than me, and "won't let those bastards take advantage of ME!" got to go to another place as needed."
Yes, sure. And St. Clare also thought Uncle Tom was a good slave.
"I'd guess that most potential employees would not be happy if it were the latter"
You are right. And you know why? Because most potential employees are aware that their leverage power against the employer is already very reduced to offer relevant-to-the-negotiation-process information if not required. For one, the employer knows perfectly what are the current salaries on staff and its deviations from average that the potential employee knows nothing about. Even about the overall market rates it's almost sure that employer knows better than the employee.
"I'm sure you are still welcome to state your salary demand in the cover letter."
Your are right. And you know why? Because this way the employee gains even more leverage power over the potential employee even before the first face-to-face contact.
Negating the employee negotiation capabilities is always against the employee. Not too strange that this comes from a CEO.
"you some times have to stay until the job is done. And some times you travel. And some timese the experiments aren't over in 8 hours with an hour break for lunch plus 2 15 minute breaks at 10 and 3 O'clock."
Of course yes. But a year is quite long. And I know that more times than not, the "sometimes you need to stay late, sometimes the project timeline is really that short" means "averaged 55 hours/week last year and lost 4 days of paid vacation".
"That only makes sense if negotiation is a core competency of your job."
Unless you are a fab drone whose work is in the way of being automated anyway, negotiation is a core competency on any job.
You are a coder who wants to correct something wrong? You go negotiate with the project manager.
You are a project manager who really needs more time to reach a goal? You go negotiate with the manager.
You are a manager that knows more bugdet is needed to reach the required ROI? You go negotiate with your area director.
You are a director that really sees that your area needs a bigger share of the budget or more autonomy? You go negotiate on the board.
Negotiating is basically understanding what's at stake, understand your position and that of others, find what's important and what's secondary and articulate clearly your points. It's a core competency for any job position, if the points above are really not needed, a machine can most probably do it better than a person.
"Negotiations helps both sides find the middle ground that is acceptable in transactions where the stakes are high enough to be worth the trouble."
High stakes? Like, humm... earning a live?