Unions are individuals who choose to join together to push back against the corporate collective. Sometimes, they also work against other individuals who would hand all the power right back to the corporate collective.
To be fair, Agile can be freaking awesome. I worked at a devotedly Agile shop and it was a developerocratic utopia. After the few meetings we had, all participants walked away with legitimate action items. You didn't just get called in to listen to something that didn't concern you - if you were invited, it's because you were specifically needed.
I've also worked in places where Agile was a stultifying cover story for "actually waterfall but that doesn't sound as cool so we'll never admit it". That might be the kind of
I know all of those words but still have no idea WTF the summary is talking about. Does this boil down to "Wikipedia teens with infinite free time are trying to build fiefdoms", which is the usual explanation for Wikidrama?
But that’s really just a biological fairy tale. In reality, you are an assemblage of genetically distinctive cells, some of which have radically different operating instructions. This fact has only become clear in the last decade. Even though each of your cells supposedly contains a replica of the DNA in the fertilized egg that began your life, mutations, copying errors and editing mistakes began modifying that code as soon as your zygote self began to divide. In your adult body, your DNA is peppered by pinpoint mutations, riddled with repeated or rearranged or missing information, even lacking huge chromosome-sized chunks. Your data is hopelessly corrupt."
Link to Original Source
Because if you shut down the whole tower, you make things real for a bunch of quiet non-protesting citizens as well. The objective is to just affect the people who already know Big Brother is alive and well.
Companies are merely looking to gain a set of benefits -- mobile communication and availability -- without paying for any of it.
The benefit from their perspective is two fold -- not only are you underwriting a significant cost for them, a device, a phone plan, you're doing it on a personal device, which presumes that you're also providing them with a communications availability that they get without any additional wage compensation.
The problem with it being "industry wide" means that they are no longer competing with each other in terms of a defined workplace compensation, so you really can't shop around in terms of finding a job as to who pays for what, they all just assume you're going to provide it for them and it stops being even something you can negotiate.
Given the chance, employers will always want to provide for employees like they're contractors (ie, nothing) but control them like they were slaves (ie, everywhere).
FWIW, it's easy enough to add an additional email account but I draw the line at importing a security profile on my personal device. If they want/demand that they need to provide a complete device. I will no more allow them to put security controls on my personal device than I will allow them to install security controls on my house.
Should companies pay for part of the cable bill when employee are required to work from home?
I'm perfectly happy with the compensation of "we'll let you use the Internet connection you already had if you want to not come into the office and be distracted by a hundred meetings and other interruptions".
Yes, because anyone who disagrees with you is clearly just ignorant.
Hey, you're the one who said you have no idea how to see a non-rootkit virus/trojan. I believe you referred to yourself as "nothing to hide from". I was being politely quiet on the subject.
Are you sure about that?
In general though, they face a LOT more public anger if they shut down an entire area. It would be even worse if even 1 single 911 call doesn't go through. The kill switch won't block 911 calls and will allow them to shut down coordinators based on cell traffic. Perhaps selectively enough that they could try denying the whole thing.
Protests are coordinated by cellphone these days. The government would love to shut down protests no matter how legal they are.
Finally, I remember that when I was younger (mind you, this was back in the 1970's), having to provide identification and being subjected to searches before being able to travel was the scope of godless Communists and tinpot dictators.
THIS! A million times over.
I specifically remember my social studies teacher in elementary school telling us the U.S. is good and Russia is bad and then explaining why. One reason is because in Russia you had to show your papers just to travel. Another was that in Russia the KGB listened to your phone calls.
The commies didn't die out, they just took over the U.S.
It is a constructive violation of our rights and is only continuing because the courts practically break their necks looking the other way.
Some argue you weren't forced to make a right turn, you were just prohibited from going forward, backing up, turning left or staying where you were. Constructively though, you were forced to turn right.
A strict constructionist wouldn't be bothered in the least if automobiles existed or not back then. They would only be concerned with the freedom of movement and point out that by car is a method of movement and therefor carries that freedom.
A strict constructionist would also recognize that the Constitution is a complete enumeration of the government's power but is far from a complete enumeration of the rights of the people.
Based on that, the extreme argument would be that cars and planes didn't exist back then therefor the government has been granted no authority over them at all. But that would be going to a silly extreme
I believe he was thinking of R22. Certainly a related problem.
They probably rigged their SUVs to actually manufacture CCl4 and immediately release it into the atmosphere just because.
Right now society (jobs, business interactions, legal obligations, etc) are generally structured around the common denominator of automobile transit. Your boss expects you to get to work around the basic parameters of what you can do in a car.
It's great to eliminate the car at some municipal level, now make "the bus didn't show up" or "there were no Uber/Zipcar/Car2Gos available" as some kind of universally accepted, legally unchangeable excuse for missing work, a court appearance, daycare pickup, etc.
One of the problems with the "yay, no cars!" world is that the rest of the world goes on making assumptions about people moving about that are based on the ability to get from point A to point B in a car.
Sure, in some places like NYC, a subway glitch will usually be accepted (in fact, I think they have a process for issuing excuse notes) and when I worked in a downtown office where there were a lot of bus riders, weather problems with the bus were generally not questioned or a cause for action.
But generally speaking society as a whole just assumes you're at fault.