A - gun makers have been sued in civil courts, wich are completely different than criminal courts.
B - everyone who has ever sued a gun maker because someone was killed with a gun has lost, namely because it's legally accepted that blaming inanimate objects for what people do with them is idiotic.
20 Mbps isn't broadband, under the administrations new rules. The subsidies start at 25 Mbps in rural areas and the plan is to require at least 100 Mbps. Can you get 100 Mbps for $20? Probably not, but if you you slacked off in high school, you'll be able to get it and have someone else pay for it now.
So why can't Android just use fucking Samba?!
No, it's not the same story. The story now is about what Sourceforge did after that (i.e., locking the GIMP-for-Windows developer out of his account -- despite the fact that he had not "abandoned" it as Sourceforge claimed -- and distributing the crapware-bundled installer anyway).
Well, (D) and (R) often represent different corporations. There's only a few, like the investment banks and cable companies who bribe everyone.
Where is the humbleness of a scholar, the curiosity of a adventurer and the tenacity of a researcher?
This is Slashdot. By long tradition, we present first the ego of the autodidact and the arrogance of the Trekkie. As for tenacity, the Slashdot user is unrivaled -- holding fast to the belief that their thoughts opinions are infallible.
In other words, instead of nerds that we are attracting, Slashdot ends up attracting a bunch of ignorant assholes who think they are smarter than the rest of the humankind
That would be correct. Though to be fair, it's really only been this way since ~1997.
When the assets are liquidated, the ex-employees are paid first along with all the other liabilities. The company will pay. If they don't have the money to pay off all of their liabilities the shareholders get nothing at all. Not one cent. This is accounting 101 here.
If the shareholders really thought the company could survive they could have simply paid off some of the liability and avoided bankruptcy. Instead they chose this route.
I can't claim to know how bankruptcy laws work in France, but in the U.S. secured creditors get paid before priority unsecured creditors, which include employee claims for wages. So employees get paid last, since any corporate debt is sure to be secured. This is a company with only $600k per year in revenue that has already filed for bankruptcy once, so I doubt it is standing on a pile of cash.
If the company had the money to pay these severance payments, they wouldn't have had to declare bankruptcy as soon as the courts ruled against them.
you're changing the goalposts
we were talking about leaders of nations, and now you are talking about the unrelated honorific applied to sports stars
so if you're changing the subject, i'll take that as your intellectually dishonest way of conceding my point here
i'm glad i've been able to show you something about your world. it's ugly. it's unfortunate. but it's reality we have to deal with
okay, you don't like that stalin was a leader, he didn't deserve it
i agree with you
but how are you going to change that?
welcome to an ugly aspect of your reality
Here in the more libertarian US, lots of employees have been hung out to dry when the employer goes BK.
I assume employees are hung out to dry when their employer goes BK in France too. Unless the government pays them on behalf of the bankrupt company, or there are assets left over after creditors have been paid (which is very unlikely if the company went bankrupt).
Hold on a second. The employees were looking after their own best interests, the shareholders decided to bail instead of pay their debts, and you are saying it is the fault of employee protection laws. How absurd. Pay your debts or go under. That is true for every human being. It is true for every corporation too in a sane society.
If the company had these debts because of negotiations they made with the employees then I would blame the company's negotiators for the debts. If the company had these debts because of laws, then I would blame the laws for those debts, or perhaps the people who decided to start their company in France and/or not leave the country if these laws were enacted after it was founded.
Regardless, the company would not be bankrupt if the country's laws didn't force them to pay employees who don't even work there anymore. I don't think the company should be able to get out of paying them because that is the law, but it is still the fault of those laws that the company went bankrupt.
Sure, it's a net win. The assets will be sold, and the employees will be paid their severance package. They also get paid for unused vacation days, and after the vacation days are over they also get paid unemployment benefits.
You seem to be suggesting that failing to pay what is owed to some (and maybe more than the initially laid off people if they would have run out of money later anyway) would somehow have been better.
That's a really nice fantasy you have there. The employees will likely get absolutely nothing now, because the actual creditors will have priority over any liquidated assets. If they had the money to pay off the workers, they wouldn't being going bankrupt in the first place.
This is the scenario where everyone loses. That is why Mandriva was hoping the courts would allow them to pay in installments.
Boo hoo. A corporation didn't get to leave its employees holding the bag.
No sympathy whatsoever.
The employees were left holding the bag anyway, since the company filed bankruptcy and won't be able to pay them. Literally no one won in this scenario. Probably the only people who won were the executives who can now get another CxO job at a company that can give bigger bonuses.
First off, it's the fucking law that they have to pay severance. So, by law, they sure as hell do owe employees something
From what the article says, the CEO wasn't trying to get out of paying anything to the workers. The company was asking to be allowed to pay installments so they could avoid bankruptcy. The government either wasn't legally able to bend on this, or hoped investors would invest more money after they exhausted all other options. The investors decided not to put more money in, and the company filed for bankruptcy. So basically everyone loses, which sometimes happens in a game of chicken.
This is what happens when your labor laws are too heavily weighted towards the worker. It generally hurts overall GDP because companies suffer, but that is counterbalanced by the population's desire to give up a little GDP to have a better quality of life. I would like for my country (the U.S.) to give up a little GDP for better worker rights too (not as good as France though), but it is naive to think we can have these better worker rights without companies failing because companies cannot be as "agile".
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?
