The only people who need unions are lazy folks, people without foresight, or people without initiative.
Or people with a fundamental power or information disadvantage. The positive economic function of unions is to provide a bargaining advantage to employees. The negative economic function of unions is that they are bureaucratic, but they are hardly the only bureaucratic force in the world. Has anyone worked for a large corporation? There are plenty of managers who are lazy, without foresight and without initiative. One might argue that many organizations reward lack of initiative in management.
I don't see too much criticism of the individual manager, per se, as the culprit for bad management. Why is the individual worker (the lazy, stupid guy with no foresight who apparently is freeloading off the achievements of a clear majority of/.ers) the culprit here? If unions are bad because they are bureaucratic, why aren't corporations bad because they are bureaucratic, too?
Easy answer: because corporations are essential to economic value, at least until someone a lot smarter than Marx figures out a real alternative. In other words, their positive qualities outweight their negative ones, as is the case with unions. It seems to me that most of the anti-union sentiment here is just elitism.
Of course, I also wonder why so many IT workers seem to think they are exploited in the same way, say, migrant farm workers are. That's a whole other post, though.
I think this may be more perception than reality. I've had 911 service with Vonage since I signed up two years ago.
True, you have to "register" for it and wait for the system to confirm your address.
I suppose that's a barrier for some consumers, but I think the bigger barrier is the scare tactics used by the telco dinosaurs who make it sound like you'll be murdered in your home because you decided to use Vonage. (I know, I think this actually happened somewhere, though I don't know if it was Vonage, but the customer didn't have 911 and was murdered.)
But, it's simply not true that you can't get 911 service with VOIP.
The Risk No One Is Talking About
on
Vonage going IPO
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The prospectus should be enough to convince all but the most adamant conspiracy theorists that this isn't a hoax.
As for "scam", well, has it occurred to no one else that some scams are "legal"?
Everyone's talking about the financials, the financials, the financials.
What about the people, the people, the people? Specifically: Jeffrey A. Citron, Vonage's founder, chairman and chief strategist seems to have been a very naughty boy in a previous life.
"During a portion of the time that Mr. Citron was associated with Datek Securities, the SEC alleged that Datek Securities, Mr. Maschler, Mr. Citron and certain other individuals participated in an extensive fraudulent scheme involving improper use of the Nasdaq Stock Market's Small Order Execution System, or SOES."
"The SEC alleged that Mr. Citron and the other defendants accessed the SOES system to execute millions of unlawful proprietary trades, generating tens of millions of dollars in illegal profits."
"To settle the charges, Mr. Maschler, Mr. Citron and the other individuals paid $70 million in civil penalties and disgorgements of profits, of which Mr. Citron paid $22.5 million in civil penalties. These fines were among the largest fines ever collected by the SEC against individuals."
But, maybe there's not too much risk going forward, because:
"In addition, Mr. Citron was enjoined from future violations of certain provisions of the U.S. securities laws, including the antifraud provisions set forth in Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act."
So, that means that he promised never to do it again, and we can take that to the bank, right?
Enron was all legal... until it wasn't.
I'm a very satisfied Vonage customer and would probably have chosen to invest, until I saw this information. Would you invest in Kenneth Lay's next venture?
I'm not sure yet what this means to me as a customer. At the very least, I'll be researching my exit strategy and appreciate the various references to Skype and other alternatives.
I'm dismayed by the number of comments indicating "we're just as bad" as the Chinese.
No. We're not anywhere near just as bad. It's a provocative cocktail-party argument that doesn't bear up under any reasonable reading of history or of current events.
The gist of the "moral equivalency" arguments expressed here is that someone can find some example where the U.S. isn't perfect, and therefore we must somehow be hypocrites to criticize the Chinese. I won't address the trivialities of each specific comment, but clearly government-imposed sanctions against "undesirable speech" in the U.S. don't extend to imprisonment or worse. Even in the academic sphere, the consequence is rarely expulsion (academic capital punishment). Examples of suppression of speech in the U.S. -- by government or by private entities -- are the exception, not the norm, as in China. Moreover, when things like that happen in the U.S., they get criticized in and by the U.S. Again, not so for China.
BTW, I'm not one of those "my country right or wrong" nuts. I think it's absolutely necessary to preserve the freedom to criticize the U.S., and I agree with some (many?) of the criticisms (e.g., slavery, not our finest hour). I'm also certainly not trying to defend the U.S. by arguing that "we're not as bad as the Chinese".
But "we're as bad as the Chinese" simply doesn't pass factual muster when it comes to freedom of speech or most other basic human rights. Thus, rather than defending the U.S. in this particular comparison, I'm saying the comparison is absurd and requires no defense.
Yes, we do need to hear about what our government is doing. That's why we have such a vigorous public debate about it...... of course, one side of the debate seems to be arguing that it's dangerous to be talking about it, but we tolerate irony here, too.
The big picture here isn't news. It's olds. This is how China's totalitarian government has *always* behaved.
Is the surprise expressed in so many of the comments the result of a very successful PR makeover by the Chinese government, or simply the result of lack of reading?
This is not a criticism of the/. story. Obviously, the story needs to be told often enough so that we don't forget totalitarianism's true face, as so many seem to have done.
A business relationship doesn't necessarily mean a relationship between equals. Economists have a word for this: assymetry. It crops up all the time. In fact, it's hard to imagine a real-world (non-econ-classroom example like Crusoe and Friday) example that doesn't have an asymmetry problem. When the problems are severe enough (or so the theory goes), we have regulations to help balance things (like anti-trust laws).
So, both company and employee have to go a long way beyond simply recognizing a "business relationship". Maybe the "stop whining" comments come from those who implicitly recognize and accept that the employee is inherently at a disadvantage in many respects. Maybe they come from those too naive to realize it? I can't tell.
The employee isn't inherently disadvantaged in all respects, as some of the comments also recognize. It's *sometimes* easier for an employee to find a new job with comparable pay, benefits, work environment, etc., than it is for his/her employer to replace him/her with someone comparable. Some of that depends on the employee and some on the employer.
For both employer and employee, the relationship is "sticky". In other words, it's often not as easy as economic theory (or many of the comments) would imply, that it's simply flipping the switch on an arms' length relationship -- for either side.
Smart employers will recognize that it's natural and not necessarily a bad thing for employees to continuously explore their options. Posting a resume doesn't necessarily mean an employee will leave at the first opportunity. At the same time, smart employers will try to make sure opportunities are available within the company, because those opportunities are much easier for the employee to pursue.
Dumb employers will probably do a lot of things that are even more stupid than trolling for their employees' resumes.
Smart employees will keep exploring opportunities but will take the time to learn whether they work for a smart employer or a dumb one and fashion an appropriate strategy before posting their resumes for everyone to see.
Yeah, it seems to me that not everyone agrees with the last part. Ethnic cleansing seems to be a big part of the motivation for war in the past half century, and casualties seem to be the main thrust of that...
well said, to the whole thread, i guess... just wanted to add:
even if (and i don't think this is the case) 1e6 monkeys was sufficient to reach a correct solution, it seems unlikely that the community would identify the solution as such; in other words, the solution would be buried in too much garbage and would probably be ignored; the ratio of truth to garbage would be 1/1e6, right? (assuming 1e6 was the right number of monkeys to get one correct solution)
cw
Slashdot Mirror
The only people who need unions are lazy folks, people without foresight, or people without initiative.
/.ers) the culprit here? If unions are bad because they are bureaucratic, why aren't corporations bad because they are bureaucratic, too?
Or people with a fundamental power or information disadvantage. The positive economic function of unions is to provide a bargaining advantage to employees. The negative economic function of unions is that they are bureaucratic, but they are hardly the only bureaucratic force in the world. Has anyone worked for a large corporation? There are plenty of managers who are lazy, without foresight and without initiative. One might argue that many organizations reward lack of initiative in management.
I don't see too much criticism of the individual manager, per se, as the culprit for bad management. Why is the individual worker (the lazy, stupid guy with no foresight who apparently is freeloading off the achievements of a clear majority of
Easy answer: because corporations are essential to economic value, at least until someone a lot smarter than Marx figures out a real alternative. In other words, their positive qualities outweight their negative ones, as is the case with unions. It seems to me that most of the anti-union sentiment here is just elitism.
Of course, I also wonder why so many IT workers seem to think they are exploited in the same way, say, migrant farm workers are. That's a whole other post, though.
Re: E911
I think this may be more perception than reality. I've had 911 service with Vonage since I signed up two years ago.
True, you have to "register" for it and wait for the system to confirm your address.
I suppose that's a barrier for some consumers, but I think the bigger barrier is the scare tactics used by the telco dinosaurs who make it sound like you'll be murdered in your home because you decided to use Vonage. (I know, I think this actually happened somewhere, though I don't know if it was Vonage, but the customer didn't have 911 and was murdered.)
But, it's simply not true that you can't get 911 service with VOIP.
The prospectus should be enough to convince all but the most adamant conspiracy theorists that this isn't a hoax.
... until it wasn't.
As for "scam", well, has it occurred to no one else that some scams are "legal"?
Everyone's talking about the financials, the financials, the financials.
What about the people, the people, the people? Specifically: Jeffrey A. Citron, Vonage's founder, chairman and chief strategist seems to have been a very naughty boy in a previous life.
( INFORMATION CONCERNING OUR FOUNDER, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF STRATEGIST ) Hopefully, this bookmark will take you to the exact point in the lengthy document (just about all of which is "fine print") that details a younger Jeffrey's pattern of behavior.
I'll excerpt here:
"During a portion of the time that Mr. Citron was associated with Datek Securities, the SEC alleged that Datek Securities, Mr. Maschler, Mr. Citron and certain other individuals participated in an extensive fraudulent scheme involving improper use of the Nasdaq Stock Market's Small Order Execution System, or SOES."
"The SEC alleged that Mr. Citron and the other defendants accessed the SOES system to execute millions of unlawful proprietary trades, generating tens of millions of dollars in illegal profits."
"To settle the charges, Mr. Maschler, Mr. Citron and the other individuals paid $70 million in civil penalties and disgorgements of profits, of which Mr. Citron paid $22.5 million in civil penalties. These fines were among the largest fines ever collected by the SEC against individuals."
But, maybe there's not too much risk going forward, because:
"In addition, Mr. Citron was enjoined from future violations of certain provisions of the U.S. securities laws, including the antifraud provisions set forth in Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act."
So, that means that he promised never to do it again, and we can take that to the bank, right?
Enron was all legal
I'm a very satisfied Vonage customer and would probably have chosen to invest, until I saw this information. Would you invest in Kenneth Lay's next venture?
I'm not sure yet what this means to me as a customer. At the very least, I'll be researching my exit strategy and appreciate the various references to Skype and other alternatives.
I'm dismayed by the number of comments indicating "we're just as bad" as the Chinese.
No. We're not anywhere near just as bad. It's a provocative cocktail-party argument that doesn't bear up under any reasonable reading of history or of current events.
The gist of the "moral equivalency" arguments expressed here is that someone can find some example where the U.S. isn't perfect, and therefore we must somehow be hypocrites to criticize the Chinese. I won't address the trivialities of each specific comment, but clearly government-imposed sanctions against "undesirable speech" in the U.S. don't extend to imprisonment or worse. Even in the academic sphere, the consequence is rarely expulsion (academic capital punishment). Examples of suppression of speech in the U.S. -- by government or by private entities -- are the exception, not the norm, as in China. Moreover, when things like that happen in the U.S., they get criticized in and by the U.S. Again, not so for China.
BTW, I'm not one of those "my country right or wrong" nuts. I think it's absolutely necessary to preserve the freedom to criticize the U.S., and I agree with some (many?) of the criticisms (e.g., slavery, not our finest hour). I'm also certainly not trying to defend the U.S. by arguing that "we're not as bad as the Chinese".
But "we're as bad as the Chinese" simply doesn't pass factual muster when it comes to freedom of speech or most other basic human rights. Thus, rather than defending the U.S. in this particular comparison, I'm saying the comparison is absurd and requires no defense.
Duh!
... ... of course, one side of the debate seems to be arguing that it's dangerous to be talking about it, but we tolerate irony here, too.
Yes, we do need to hear about what our government is doing. That's why we have such a vigorous public debate about it
Well, I'll show my true colors here by saying that many of us don't point to Fox News as the exemplar of intrepid journalism!
The big picture here isn't news. It's olds. This is how China's totalitarian government has *always* behaved.
/. story. Obviously, the story needs to be told often enough so that we don't forget totalitarianism's true face, as so many seem to have done.
Is the surprise expressed in so many of the comments the result of a very successful PR makeover by the Chinese government, or simply the result of lack of reading?
This is not a criticism of the
A business relationship doesn't necessarily mean a relationship between equals. Economists have a word for this: assymetry. It crops up all the time. In fact, it's hard to imagine a real-world (non-econ-classroom example like Crusoe and Friday) example that doesn't have an asymmetry problem. When the problems are severe enough (or so the theory goes), we have regulations to help balance things (like anti-trust laws).
So, both company and employee have to go a long way beyond simply recognizing a "business relationship". Maybe the "stop whining" comments come from those who implicitly recognize and accept that the employee is inherently at a disadvantage in many respects. Maybe they come from those too naive to realize it? I can't tell.
The employee isn't inherently disadvantaged in all respects, as some of the comments also recognize. It's *sometimes* easier for an employee to find a new job with comparable pay, benefits, work environment, etc., than it is for his/her employer to replace him/her with someone comparable. Some of that depends on the employee and some on the employer.
For both employer and employee, the relationship is "sticky". In other words, it's often not as easy as economic theory (or many of the comments) would imply, that it's simply flipping the switch on an arms' length relationship -- for either side.
Smart employers will recognize that it's natural and not necessarily a bad thing for employees to continuously explore their options. Posting a resume doesn't necessarily mean an employee will leave at the first opportunity. At the same time, smart employers will try to make sure opportunities are available within the company, because those opportunities are much easier for the employee to pursue.
Dumb employers will probably do a lot of things that are even more stupid than trolling for their employees' resumes.
Smart employees will keep exploring opportunities but will take the time to learn whether they work for a smart employer or a dumb one and fashion an appropriate strategy before posting their resumes for everyone to see.
um, because it's based on faith and not on reason?
Yeah, it seems to me that not everyone agrees with the last part. Ethnic cleansing seems to be a big part of the motivation for war in the past half century, and casualties seem to be the main thrust of that ...
Yeah, maybe, but that service call's going to be a bitch ... ("we can have someone there between 8 and 12 on Monday ... 2057")
well said, to the whole thread, i guess ... just wanted to add:
even if (and i don't think this is the case) 1e6 monkeys was sufficient to reach a correct solution, it seems unlikely that the community would identify the solution as such; in other words, the solution would be buried in too much garbage and would probably be ignored; the ratio of truth to garbage would be 1/1e6, right? (assuming 1e6 was the right number of monkeys to get one correct solution)
cw