Who manages disputes?
Assuming you mean personal disputes, then I would imagine a team consisting of HR/Legal, dispute resolution person and a couple of peers.
Who decides what projects should move forward and which should be abandoned?
The Steering Committee.
Who decides raises, merit, and promotions?
Merit would need to be well defined using specified goals that can be scored in an unbiased manner. Raises would then be defined based on merit scores and budget. If there are no bosses then what is a promotion?
Who leads the team?
This depends on what is meant by "lead". If you mean, who performs the function of liaison between the team and the customer/business then there should be a team member who takes on that task (this could rotate). If you mean who gets to assign tasks to other team members (especially those tasks that no one wants to do) then there could be a process for that as well that doesn't require someone to be a "boss' (draw lots, etc.). But what I think you mean is someone to make a decision. Consensus processes have a huge problem with this because no one wants to make a hard but correct decision (killing a popular product, disbanding a team that isn't needed anymore, etc.) And yes, some procedure would need to be worked out to make these decisions, and if it is really a bossless environment that's going to be tough to do.
I am doubtful about the possibilities of having a "bossless" workplace but on the other hand, I have my projects and goals for the year and if I don't see my boss for days or weeks at a time I can still do my job and deal with whatever issues come up. I think the biggest issues to address would be
1. Slacking - which would need some sort of team level resolution and escalation process. and
2. Responsiveness - Trying to deal with fast moving strategic requirement changes would be seriously hampered by a committee process.
that the dominant species on our planet also being the only sentient species (that we're aware of) on that same planet is not coincidental.
By what measure do you consider humans to be the dominant species? As the post you responded to said
In evolutionary terms, we're not much of a success; by mass, algae and amoebas are way ahead. We're more populous than monkeys, but then so are mice.
or voice to text
Driver: Text Wife
**Driver gets cut off by another car**
Driver: Stupid Bitch, Stop Texting and Learn to Drive
Car: Text Sent.
you can't get experience without being a book keeper.
Or, you know, in payroll or Accounts Receivable.
most large companies use Quicken and Excel
Most large companies use an ERP system such as Lawson or Infor, maybe Microsoft Dynamics, and yes, a lot of Excel. They certainly aren't outsourcing their internal audit to India.
Sure, if you want a job at a CPA firm you might have a problem, but every company with more than 30 employees has an accounting department.
ITs big problem with recessions is that it looks (to the MBAs) like an easy place to cut "just one more person", you never notice they're gone until the shit hits the fan.
I'm pretty sure that language is a strong requisite for actual thinking.
Animals can problem solve without language, and I would consider thinking to be a requirement for problem solving.
So there are two parts to that. A) Federal citizens have the right to vote
Unless denied that right by the state or federal government. Is it a right if it can be abridged by law?
and B) States shall not deny that right based on gender, age, race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Can the government, Federal or State, grant non-citizens suffrage? Yes.
Can the government, Federal or State, remove suffrage from citizens? Yes, as long as they abide by the restrictions of the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments.
We are a long way from the original topic, which was "What rights does a non-citizen resident have under the constitution?" and the answer is all of them except the right to hold elected office and the "right" to vote. To go even further back on topic, does a non-citizen resident have the right to free movement? And the answer is yes, rights shall not be abridged without due process of law, so until someone has been brought to trial they have the rights associated with being a free person.
Regarding the 6.6% of non-citizens who vote, how many of them are voting legally, that is, how many of them have been granted suffrage by the state in which they reside?
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -- William E. Davidsen