Yes, it is a subsidy. And quite frankly, if they are getting those subsidies, then they absolutely should not bitch about anyone else receiving them. The second that happens, they should lose the subsidy.
No, you are absolutely full of shit. The labor rights movement DID need to happen, because without it, labor would not have been able to empower themselves to help eliminate those abuses. The fact that you think that labor doesn't need to work to improve their position is absolutely disgusting.
Wow, way to completely and utterly disregard the point.
But the large problem is not this case or any case, it's the fundamental question - why are people forced into pension plans and why are businesses forced to provide them by government?
Really? Name any private employers that actually offer a pension plan. They'll be in the absolute, tiny, tiny minority. Most employees got fucked over and were given "401k plans", which are absolute shit compared to pensions. However, to your point, they are entirely voluntary. You are not required to contribute to your 401k, although you miss out on company matching if you don't.
No, I'm one of those people that finds it disgusting that others would actually be ok with that abuse, and would use it as an excuse as to why the labor rights movement didn't need to happen.
the fact is that it only happened in circumstances where there was a surplus of labor and the "abuses" actually represented an improvement over the condition that many of those laborers would have been in were it not for the job offered under those conditions.
Wow, just wow. You actually believe that horseshit, don't you? That it's perfectly fine for people to be abused, simply because they might "have it worse" otherwise?
In pure capitalism, politicians would not have enough control over the economic system to provide sufficient advantage to be worth the cost of bribing the politician.
Says who? Captialism is an economic model, and has absolutely nothing to do with form of government. Furthermore, Capitalism is purely about getting more money, so there is nothing in Capitalism that would prevent someone from being able to bribe politicians in their favor.
I would call that a petty squabble that doesn't refute my point. Furthermore, Microsoft's copyright was on their specific OS and their specific office application suite. There were others out there. Saying that they were government helped because Red Hat couldn't sell Windows to compete with Microsoft is silly.
If your program encounters a bug, it crashes and is useless. It's not "largely operating".
Depends on what the bug is. Currently, a tool I work on has a "bug" where the list of steps loses its coloring after someone clicks on an item in it. It's definitely a bug, but it's not making the tool itself "useless".
Again, simply because things are not purely free market does NOT mean that they aren't still largely free market.
I would imagine it's quite likely to not only get a fat settlement out of this, but that they would also get vesting of their current options as part of the settlement.
No, there is no way this is legal. At least, there is absolutely no reason why this should be legal. They are given a "choice", but it's not really much of a choice. Lose your stock, or lose your job and then your stock. To call it a choice is an insult.
You've literally declared your inability to distinguish between anyone who isn't completely trustworthy, unable to even think of defrauding their employees.
Given the opportunity, ALL employers would be willing to do this shit. Keeping that kind of attitude in mind when dealing with any of them is the only way to possibly not get fucked over.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it is a subsidy. And quite frankly, if they are getting those subsidies, then they absolutely should not bitch about anyone else receiving them. The second that happens, they should lose the subsidy.
No, you are absolutely full of shit. The labor rights movement DID need to happen, because without it, labor would not have been able to empower themselves to help eliminate those abuses. The fact that you think that labor doesn't need to work to improve their position is absolutely disgusting.
Wow, way to completely and utterly disregard the point.
But the large problem is not this case or any case, it's the fundamental question - why are people forced into pension plans and why are businesses forced to provide them by government?
Really? Name any private employers that actually offer a pension plan. They'll be in the absolute, tiny, tiny minority. Most employees got fucked over and were given "401k plans", which are absolute shit compared to pensions. However, to your point, they are entirely voluntary. You are not required to contribute to your 401k, although you miss out on company matching if you don't.
No, I'm one of those people that finds it disgusting that others would actually be ok with that abuse, and would use it as an excuse as to why the labor rights movement didn't need to happen.
No, the end goal in Capitalism is to amass as much capital as possible, at whatever cost.
So now the capitalists are bribing state politicians. Nothing's changed.
the fact is that it only happened in circumstances where there was a surplus of labor and the "abuses" actually represented an improvement over the condition that many of those laborers would have been in were it not for the job offered under those conditions.
Wow, just wow. You actually believe that horseshit, don't you? That it's perfectly fine for people to be abused, simply because they might "have it worse" otherwise?
You are a Grade-A jackass.
WRONG. Those players took those risks purely on their own.
In pure capitalism, politicians would not have enough control over the economic system to provide sufficient advantage to be worth the cost of bribing the politician.
Says who? Captialism is an economic model, and has absolutely nothing to do with form of government. Furthermore, Capitalism is purely about getting more money, so there is nothing in Capitalism that would prevent someone from being able to bribe politicians in their favor.
I would call that a petty squabble that doesn't refute my point. Furthermore, Microsoft's copyright was on their specific OS and their specific office application suite. There were others out there. Saying that they were government helped because Red Hat couldn't sell Windows to compete with Microsoft is silly.
If your program encounters a bug, it crashes and is useless. It's not "largely operating".
Depends on what the bug is. Currently, a tool I work on has a "bug" where the list of steps loses its coloring after someone clicks on an item in it. It's definitely a bug, but it's not making the tool itself "useless".
Again, simply because things are not purely free market does NOT mean that they aren't still largely free market.
Doing so requires POLITICAL interference via government.
And who do you think lobbied those politicians to take that action? The capitalists themselves.
Investors and financial people really hate Google, but they love Google's money.
I would imagine it's quite likely to not only get a fat settlement out of this, but that they would also get vesting of their current options as part of the settlement.
No, this is bullshit.
Wouldn't the employer then be looking for any excuse and going through all the hoops to have that person leave the company anyhow.
Maybe, but they'd have to be extremely careful, as just about any action like that could be taken as retaliation, and grounds for another lawsuit.
Oh bull fucking shit. Who the fuck are you to say whether a windfall is justified?
No. You are trying to justify this shitbag action, and it's quite despicable.
And perhaps employees should start demanding those rights.
No, there is no way this is legal. At least, there is absolutely no reason why this should be legal. They are given a "choice", but it's not really much of a choice. Lose your stock, or lose your job and then your stock. To call it a choice is an insult.
. It's a startup. It's not supposed to behave like a large corporation, or nobody would work there.
No, but fucking the employees isn't something that they are expected to do either.
You've literally declared your inability to distinguish between anyone who isn't completely trustworthy, unable to even think of defrauding their employees.
Given the opportunity, ALL employers would be willing to do this shit. Keeping that kind of attitude in mind when dealing with any of them is the only way to possibly not get fucked over.
It is promised compensation. And this isn't the employee deciding to quit, this is the company being an absolute shitbag.
Furthermore, Zynga is in California. Non-Competes aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
Believe it or not, among talented software engineers, the job market is still quite good.
Bull fucking shit. More worthless anti-union propaganda.
Blah blah blah, irrational anti-union sentiment.