Just because they're not completely low doesn't mean they haven't been artificially lowered. It's quite possible that, without this agreement, the salaries would be even higher.
Quit apologizing for behavior which very clearly has no purpose other than to fuck over employees.
Also, this is completely and utterly the company's fault. The government has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Stop trying to shift blame away from the entities who deserve it. These companies are run by big boys; they can take responsibilities for their own fucking actions.
Yes, it is a problem. Your solution requires resources that very well might not be available.
I honestly cannot fathom how fucking retarded people like you must be to say that companies can do whatever the fuck they want without any kind of consequences. You are sick.
And no, there is nothing with "fake currency" doing anything like this. The exact same fucking problem would exist if people were paid in gold coins. Stop bringing your retarded red herrings into discussions.
It's just that Cathy can't mention the fact that Mike makes more than her up when she's negotiating pay with her manager.
And that's why policies like that shouldn't be allowed. If the salary was justified, then the manager could point out what Mike is doing more than Cathy to justify the salary. If it wasn't, then Cathy should be brought up to the appropriate level.
Clearly, sir, you don't know the first thing about conservative principles.
Clearly, sir, you don't actually listen to what the conservative politicians say.
ell me, do you think that conservatives support competition or not?
No, they don't. Their actions have shown this.
In other words, do most conservative policies, such as school vouchers, less regulation, lower union involvement, a desire for reduced government subsidies, tend to support competition amongst companies or discourage it?
Half of the things you mentioned have absolutely fuck-all to do with "competition". They do, however, have a lot to do with allowing companies to exert their power over people. Tell me, how the fuck does "lower union involvement" promote competition? Do you feel that it's completely acceptable for the entire fucking company to band together against individual employees during bargaining, and not to allow the employees to do the same, in order to try and even out the balance of power somewhat?
However, it would be best if the employer spelled that out with a contract. It would probably be best if such enterprises had their employees sign a "non-compete" for the industry their organization is in, effective in case the employee voluntarily chose to leave, and with a small salary continuing for the non-compete period to secure the employee from being hired by a competitor during that period. This is more fair to both employer and employee -- the employee cannot be poached, unless the employee is fired without cause; if the employee is released with cause, or chooses to leave the business, they continue to be paid a sustaining wage. The competitor can offer the 33% increase after the 2 or 3 year period.
This is quite possibly the WORST POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM YET. You have basically said that employers should not have to compete for employees, and that any employee who feels they are not a fit, or that they want to move on should have to do so at a sacrifice to both their earning power and their skillset, making them less attractive to other potential employers.
If you don't want your employees to leave, treat them better. That's all you have to do. Yes, that can cost money, and yes, it means that you won't have absolute control over them. But idiots like you would rather solve the problem by fucking over workers, because the actual way to do so means that you lose some profits.
Considering most companies have no loyalty to their employees, I don't care that employees don't show loyalty to their employers. In fact, I prefer it.
The nature of the calls is likely to result in loss of increased employee costs; either in the form of increased pay to existing employees, or to pay for recruitment of new employees and training to enable existing staff to cover the hole left by valuable team member.
Sucks to be them. That's the nature of competition.
Increased churn, corporate brain drain, loss of company memory, lower morale.
If that's happening, then clearly the employer was not treating their employees good enough. I cannot blame a worker for deciding to go to another company who is willing to treat them better.
You get a call about once a week from someone offering you significantly more money to come work for them
It's not always significantly more. And if it's anything like cold calls for software people, then many times it can be quite irrelevant to what you're interested in.
Because "paying them to work" is completely worthless in this situation. You know as well as I do that everyone who's paid to work is not doing work all the time. Hell, how many people comment on Slashdot when they're "supposed to be working"?
Because the employees are not slaves? They are free to pursue other opportunities as they wish, and other companies are free to compete for that employee's skills?
Someone paying you to work doesn't mean shit, and it definitely does not mean that they own you, despite what a lot of the "pro-business" right wing would lead you to believe.
He didn't say this was the most evil thing they've ever done. He did say that this was clearly into "evil" territory, which is something Google claims to try and not do.
If all you have are robots, though, then why would you need a cave? Have the robots build the structure and get the plants started. Then humans can come with life support systems and take over.
I don't care if nasa built an environmentally friendly building. That has nothing to do with space exploration.
Actually, it does. Much of the technologies used in the building were technologies first developed for use in space, where resources are extremely scarce, and need to be used sustainably.
While I would love that too, the problem is that it costs a lot of money to go into space. Money that many people are seeming hesitant to give them, as they don't think they get anything out of it. Projects like these demonstrate the practical applications of technologies developed for space exploration, and hopefully make it much more attractive to fund them for more space exploration.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because they're not completely low doesn't mean they haven't been artificially lowered. It's quite possible that, without this agreement, the salaries would be even higher.
Quit apologizing for behavior which very clearly has no purpose other than to fuck over employees.
Other articles on this subject have revealed that it was not to hire each others employees at all.
So you're saying that companies should not be required to compete for employees? You're an idiot.
Also, this is completely and utterly the company's fault. The government has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Stop trying to shift blame away from the entities who deserve it. These companies are run by big boys; they can take responsibilities for their own fucking actions.
Yes, it is a problem. Your solution requires resources that very well might not be available.
I honestly cannot fathom how fucking retarded people like you must be to say that companies can do whatever the fuck they want without any kind of consequences. You are sick.
And no, there is nothing with "fake currency" doing anything like this. The exact same fucking problem would exist if people were paid in gold coins. Stop bringing your retarded red herrings into discussions.
It's pretty hard to do so when they aren't required to give a reason why they're terminating you.
It's just that Cathy can't mention the fact that Mike makes more than her up when she's negotiating pay with her manager.
And that's why policies like that shouldn't be allowed. If the salary was justified, then the manager could point out what Mike is doing more than Cathy to justify the salary. If it wasn't, then Cathy should be brought up to the appropriate level.
No, but you could take the head of the company to court. Because they would be responsible.
Clearly, sir, you don't know the first thing about conservative principles.
Clearly, sir, you don't actually listen to what the conservative politicians say.
ell me, do you think that conservatives support competition or not?
No, they don't. Their actions have shown this.
In other words, do most conservative policies, such as school vouchers, less regulation, lower union involvement, a desire for reduced government subsidies, tend to support competition amongst companies or discourage it?
Half of the things you mentioned have absolutely fuck-all to do with "competition". They do, however, have a lot to do with allowing companies to exert their power over people. Tell me, how the fuck does "lower union involvement" promote competition? Do you feel that it's completely acceptable for the entire fucking company to band together against individual employees during bargaining, and not to allow the employees to do the same, in order to try and even out the balance of power somewhat?
That's not a good choice. That doesn't do shit.
Tell that to the several incumbents who were voted out of office in 2010.
And yet, he believes they should be perfectly free to do this shit.
However, it would be best if the employer spelled that out with a contract. It would probably be best if such enterprises had their employees sign a "non-compete" for the industry their organization is in, effective in case the employee voluntarily chose to leave, and with a small salary continuing for the non-compete period to secure the employee from being hired by a competitor during that period. This is more fair to both employer and employee -- the employee cannot be poached, unless the employee is fired without cause; if the employee is released with cause, or chooses to leave the business, they continue to be paid a sustaining wage. The competitor can offer the 33% increase after the 2 or 3 year period.
This is quite possibly the WORST POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM YET. You have basically said that employers should not have to compete for employees, and that any employee who feels they are not a fit, or that they want to move on should have to do so at a sacrifice to both their earning power and their skillset, making them less attractive to other potential employers.
If you don't want your employees to leave, treat them better. That's all you have to do. Yes, that can cost money, and yes, it means that you won't have absolute control over them. But idiots like you would rather solve the problem by fucking over workers, because the actual way to do so means that you lose some profits.
A team member who lacks loyalty
Considering most companies have no loyalty to their employees, I don't care that employees don't show loyalty to their employers. In fact, I prefer it.
The nature of the calls is likely to result in loss of increased employee costs; either in the form of increased pay to existing employees, or to pay for recruitment of new employees and training to enable existing staff to cover the hole left by valuable team member.
Sucks to be them. That's the nature of competition.
Increased churn, corporate brain drain, loss of company memory, lower morale.
If that's happening, then clearly the employer was not treating their employees good enough. I cannot blame a worker for deciding to go to another company who is willing to treat them better.
You get a call about once a week from someone offering you significantly more money to come work for them
It's not always significantly more. And if it's anything like cold calls for software people, then many times it can be quite irrelevant to what you're interested in.
Because "paying them to work" is completely worthless in this situation. You know as well as I do that everyone who's paid to work is not doing work all the time. Hell, how many people comment on Slashdot when they're "supposed to be working"?
Because the employees are not slaves? They are free to pursue other opportunities as they wish, and other companies are free to compete for that employee's skills?
Someone paying you to work doesn't mean shit, and it definitely does not mean that they own you, despite what a lot of the "pro-business" right wing would lead you to believe.
No, this was evil, plain and simple. Working to keep salaries down for people is evil.
He didn't say this was the most evil thing they've ever done. He did say that this was clearly into "evil" territory, which is something Google claims to try and not do.
Incorporation itself does not mean you obligate yourself to the pursuit of profit over all else. Having outside investors does.
Wrong. Mainly because unions are simply attempting to even the balance of power between corporations and employees. Nothing wrong with that.
If all you have are robots, though, then why would you need a cave? Have the robots build the structure and get the plants started. Then humans can come with life support systems and take over.
When a tree gets over a certain age (not sure...not a plant scientist) it consumes more oxygen than it produces.
Depends on the age at which that happens. If it's quite old when that happens, then the tree could be replaced by a younger one when that happens.
I don't care if nasa built an environmentally friendly building. That has nothing to do with space exploration.
Actually, it does. Much of the technologies used in the building were technologies first developed for use in space, where resources are extremely scarce, and need to be used sustainably.
While I would love that too, the problem is that it costs a lot of money to go into space. Money that many people are seeming hesitant to give them, as they don't think they get anything out of it. Projects like these demonstrate the practical applications of technologies developed for space exploration, and hopefully make it much more attractive to fund them for more space exploration.