Aussie Techs Threaten Chaos 267
tintinaujapon writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that NCR staff with key responsibility (among other things) for fast food & supermarket chains, banking ATMs, schools and baggage handling at Sydney airport are preparing to walk off the job next week, in industrial action aimed at resolving a pay dispute. NCR's general manager thinks few people in the general community will care about the plight of the palest workforce, but the union claims potential disruption and financial losses could be huge. The strike could last up to a week and is the most significant action yet taken in Australia by the techie workforce."
E.A. (Score:3, Interesting)
Thats a nice computer you got yourself there (Score:4, Funny)
be a shame if nothing was to happen to it egh ?
Biased headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Biased headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Complicating this is that a lot of geeks are libertarians, and a lot of self-styled libertarians think unions have the smell of socialism. Which is stupid, of course; unions are in fact an admirably free-market solution to the problem of employer-employee conflicts. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that asking someone who calls himself a libertarian about his opinion of organized labor is a good way to distinguish between true libertarians on the one hand, and right-wingers who call themselves libertarians because it's fashionable in certain circles on the other.
Re:Biased headline (Score:4, Insightful)
There are too many regulations that give positive rights to the employees in such situations to call unions in America a market solution.
I, too would find them admirable (much like I find voluntary collective consumer action to be admirable), if the playing-field were __actually__ level (instead of ostensibly so for the benefit of bureaucrats).
Unions without government-intervention would work. Instead of the unions we see now, we would find unions organizing as independent for-profit bargaining/insurance companies.
At the same time, the union company's risk and reward would come from providing some degree of insurance (out of union dues) to newly organized employees.
a thought.
Paul
Who would the union co workers use? (Score:2)
Re:Who would the union co workers use? (Score:2)
I had imagined that such a company would require minimal manpower and that it would all be skilled work... this might not be the case though.
Thanks for the challenge.
Best,
Paul
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
This cuts both ways. The very idea of a company as something that limits liability of the owners and operators is a very anti-free market construct. That's not to say that companies are a bad idea. The limitation allows people to enter business with a calculated risk. But if the allegedly free market is already warp
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
The very idea of a company as something that limits liability of the owners and operators is a very anti-free market construct.
How so? It would appear to be orthogonal to the freeness of a market.
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
It distorts the market by creating a free rider problem. Consider the average VC. He funds 10 companies, knowing that (on average) 7 will go bust, 2 will toddle along, and one will strike it it big. He will make his money out of the last one. But the 7 bankruptcies will cost other people money. In a perfect market, he would have to bear the full risk of his investments.
In your example, the VC is only an investor - if corporations didn't exist, he'd still be out his money on company 1-7, but the people wh
Re:Biased headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Biased headline (Score:5, Insightful)
I consider myself to be something of a libertarian, but I have mixed feelings about unions. On the one hand, collective bargaining can be truly necessary in those situations where the disparity in power between the employer and employee is such that the employer looks upon their workers as faceless, replaceable biological machines that perform a given task and refuses to treat them as human beings. On the other hand, I've seen firsthand the productivity hit and general attitude of entitlement that can result from a strong union, and many unions appear to embody an "us vs. them" mentality that makes it difficult to come to a compromise when the employer's needs/wants need to be taken into consideration, even when they're entirely reasonable.
Having said all of that, one thing that a lot of self-styled libertarians seem to gloss over is the inherent advantage that government confers upon corporations, specifically corporate personhood and all of the stuff that falls out from that, and the fact that corporations exist without fear of any kind of real punishment for criminal acts. I fail to see why some people don't see that for the government intrusion that it is, and then turn around and complain about other government involvement in free markets such as tariffs on imported goods.
Re:Biased headline (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe if you just stepped out of the 50's. But if ALL unions are bad because of a few tomato salesmen, then ALL businesses are bad because of Enron and Wal-Mart.
Re:Biased headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously? All the geeks I know work 70+ hour work weeks... then again I think a lot of that is self-imposed...
More on-topic, though, I've seen many examples of unions just going way too far. They were a good idea, and have wrought many benefits. However the only 2 things they are responsible for are:
(a) Provide for their own survival.
(b) Increase benefits to their members.
Point being, there is no incentive whatsoever for them to act reasonably. Members only makin
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
And how many of them are in unions, or otherwise do something about it?
Precisely.
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
Restored: "Seriously? All the geeks I know work 70+ hour work weeks... then again I think a lot of that is self-imposed... "
That would be the "otherwise doing something". They work the time because of desire for IP reward or bonus or just love of tech. However, I've known lots of geeks over the last 35+ and don't recall any working 70+. That's a geek delusion of heroic grandure, m'thinks.
Re:Biased headline (Score:4, Insightful)
When workers want as much money for as little work as possible, they're spoiled and greedy. When companies want long hours for low pay they're "lean and efficient." How some people can hold both these views simultaneously and fail to see the hypocrisy is beyond me.
Finally on a related note, allowing companies to slash pensions for those who already earned them is legalized theft.
Re:Biased headline (Score:3, Interesting)
However the only 2 things they [unions] are responsible for are: (a) Provide for their own survival. (b) Increase benefits to their members.
The problem, as I see it, is too many unions look only to short term gains and not to long term ones. It is the difference between viewing things in terms of "win-win" or "win-lose". Unions and the company could work together to both provide for the workers and build a strong and healthy company. Instead, the unions "won" in the case of GM at least in the short t
Re:Biased headline (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmm so it is true, Unions HAVE become like big business.
Re:Biased headline (Score:3, Interesting)
Aye, because too many long term deals have been reneged on by employers looking for short term and long term gains.
Re:Biased headline (Score:3, Interesting)
Everybody these days - corperations, politicians, unions and even workers - thinks "short term".
Plenty of listed companies cut staff at the insistance of Wall-Street "analysts" so that they make the share price looks good for end-of-quarter. 3-months isn't exactly long-term planning. Look at the "new" HP - basically the old HP with all the good bits either wound down or sold-off.
How many people in their 3
Re:Biased headline (Score:3, Insightful)
It is rather hard to avoid this attitude when companies routinely sack their employers just to hedge their stock up a few pennies. You cannot demand loyaly from employees if you are unwilling to show them any. You cannot value your profits more than your employees and expect them to value you more than their benefits. If companies refuse to accept this, then they deserve to get screwed; they are only re
Re:Biased headline (Score:5, Informative)
I was googling on workchoice law. This is as per Queensland govt under "What does it mean for employees"
With these kind of laws I dont think they are doing anything wrong. Show solidarity to our tech brothers and sisters down under.
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
Anyway, that comment pulled from the Queensland website is mostly spin - notice the common use of the words 'can' and 'may'. Nobody really knows yet exactly what pr
well, in my case... (Score:5, Interesting)
Every union struck every workplace as often as possible. In the mall, there would be at least one store which was being struck every time you went. The workers didn't seem to notice that a strike is a (legal) act of industrial sabotage, one which will hurt your employer and thus you also. It should be used as rarely as possible, or else you'll just put the company you work for out of business.
GM workers were apparently in need of new contracts, despite having work rules so lax that many would show up to work drunk, or not show up at all. Workers would clock each other in, then work their own job plus that of another, then next week the roles would reverse. This of course led to awful product quality. I do realize there was also a good dose of poor engineering going on at GM at the time too, but that wasn't why you'd get a car with the windshield wipers not properly attached or a wrench thrown into a closed space before it is welded shut.
It was during this time that the UAW agreed to changes which should have changed things so that the most desireable job occupied by the highest-paid workers wasn't a chip handler (floor sweeper). And so that it didn't take 13 people just to repair a press (the mechanical-expert repairman would not be allowed to even flip the switch to turn it back on afer he was done, that was against work rules, it required an electrical specialist). See, the union liked it when a press couldn't be repaired, because then the workers on the line still had to be paid, but didn't have to do any work. Because of this, often equipment would break on Friday, right when some services became unavailable until Monday. If the line was behind on production, the workers would sometimes be paid overtime to man the presses all weekend so that when it was repaired (which it couldn't be), the line could be restarted to catch up.
It was during this time that the UAW extracted the concessions from GM that are strangling them right now. Those are very very high-levels of expensive health care, and the "jobs bank" which pays workers 92% of their salary for up to two years to do nothing but show up at the union hall and not work. GM knew these would be expensive, but the UAW's side of the deal was to work toward a Jobs Classification Reduction to fix the problems I mentioned above. Well, as soon as the contract was signed, the UAW forgot about what they were supposed to do, and GM took it in the shorts badly. They know how much this would cost them in the future, and so they were trying to move out of union strongholds like Michigan and to the south. Meanwhile, Michael Moore reports why is GM closing plants in Michigan when they are profitable (on a current account basis)?
And as to the government not being involved? It's just not true at all. Unions are exempt from anti-trust laws so they can work across state lines and company lines to extract higher wages and benefits. Whereas employers cannot collude to maintain their end (see the rulings against major sports leagues, even though one of them is exempt). Also, some states (Michigan being one of them) have a "union shop" law that says that if a workplace is declared a union shop, you must join the union to work there whether you want to or not. Every grocery store is a union shop in Michigan.
Finally, if there actually is a strike, the unions employ thuggery and illegal sabotage. My grandfather personally beat up replacement workers (called "scabs" even though many aren't even replacement workers, just people who want to continue working) on the strike lines against Westinghouse in Ohio (of course, Ohio doesn't do nearly as much manufacturing now, and Westinghouse is destroyed as a manufacturing company and the last useful
Re:well, in my case... (Score:4, Interesting)
I realize this may sound like flamebait, but _most_ of the people asking for unionizaion of IT come from the least skilled end of the curve. You won't see the guys who run Google's data centers sweating it over unionization -- they don't care, they're irreplaceable (apart from HR violations, I guess) and they know it.
Now, most IT guys aren't irreplaceable -- hard to admit but it's true, especially in a company for which IT is a core/strategic area. 50 years ago a punch card operator used to be a big deal. Today they have been replaced by people who keep our networks running, our OSes patched, our backup tapes safe. They are the equivalent of clerical staff in an 1880s office (being a clerk then was a big deal, btw) -- not key to the business but essential to keeping things moving.
Ultimately, the issue is also one of trust. IT has to necessarily deal with some of the biggest secrets of the company. They get access to the CEO's laptop, they get to guard the salary database, the works. I don't know if managers would be comfortable having unionized employees in those roles.
Re:well, in my case... (Score:2)
You seem to be implying that anyone but the 'creme de la creme' of IT workers doesn't deserve job security, reasonable income, or a decent standard of living. I don't wanna live in your world.
Re:well, in my case... (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't come to Australia to do IT work then.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - The IT industry in Australia is big fucking joke.
Upper-management generally knows less about computers than a grandmother, anyone's grandmother, even a dead one. Middle-management generally knows enough to fool upper management, but doesn't know enough to fool the techs beneath them, and therefore aren't respected by those techs. The techs on the ground floor, the guys that actually do the work, are ignored until s
Re:well, in my case... (Score:4, Insightful)
The union you describe in your post certainly sounds bad, I'd agree.
However, I'm not sure its true to say that "at least one union is bad, hence all unions are bad". That seems as incorrect as saying "at least one company is bad, hence all companies are bad".
Michael
Re:well, in my case... (Score:2)
Re:well, in my case... (Score:2)
No, you don't like unions because you've seen one example, and have committed a schoolboy logical error in assuming that that is universally true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:one example? (Score:4, Interesting)
Another aspect to this that I haven't seen mentioned yet is the origin of the labor union. A century and a half ago, there were no labor laws, no workers' rights, no OSHA, no government busybodies of any kind doing anything for the worker. Working children 'til they dropped (or died) was perfectly acceptable. In that environment it would have been surprising if the workers hadn't banded together to form a mutual defense. But times change, and whether unions are still deserving of the power they currently wield is a question that needs to be answered.
Re:well, in my case... (Score:2, Insightful)
Your post would be 100% true if the majority of the populace cared about value and efficiency versus style and ease. Ford and GM put nicer interiors, sound systems, and gizmos into their cars than the Asian companies do. It's the same reason Linux will never take a signif
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
In theory, you're right. But the only way I can see a union using "free market" m
Re:Biased headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Because that would be stupid for both parties. The workers want a job, the company wants workers. Actually quitting en mass wouldn't do either any good. This is what strikes are for - employees refuse to work, giving managment the option of negotiating or firing the strikers and hiring a new workforce.
They block enterances and refuse to leave. They harass c
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
If you read The Daily WTF [thedailywtf.com] with any regularity, you would doubt that tech worker competence is as high as 3%, never mind 30%...
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
Re:Biased headline (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you need to retake history. The 40 hour work week was started by Henry Ford, prior to any unions being formed in his company (in fact he was very much against unions). Child labor laws weren't fully implemented enofrced until the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act in the US. Again, this had nothing to do with unions, instead coming from the more "socially concious" individuals.
What unions HAVE been goo
Re:Biased headline (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe this was the case in the USA, but in Australia and most of the rest of the industrialized world, the 40 hour work week was earned by unions. In Australia, the "8-hour day" was earned by a collective organization of stonemasons and building workers in Victoria in 1856. Demonstrations were then held by unions to win the same rights for other trades. By the 1880s, the 8-hour day was commonplace in Australia, and "8-hour day" parades were held throughout the late 19th century to celebrate the fact.
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
Re:Biased headline (Score:5, Informative)
"The struggle for the shorter work week is the thread that ties together the history of American labor. The country's first union 1;the National Labor Union in 1866 issued its primary demand, "8 hours shall bethe normal work day." The NLU died. But the demand prompted action. In 1872 in New York City thousands of building trades workers stuck for the 40 hour week. Some won. But their g~~h-s were lost in a tide of depression. In 1877 Pittsburgh workers, led by striking rail workers, seized the city and adopted a shorter day. They were shot back to work by federal troops.
1886. Chicago. The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (later the AFL) called for a national strike for the 8 hour day on May 1. Nearly one million American workers stopped work that day. The nations industrial centers were hushed. Transportation halted. Some employers yielded concessions. Others sighted their targets.
*******
In the 1890's, as wealthy families like the Morgans and Rockefellers tightened their monopolies in industry , Spies' words stood true. The first general strike in the deep south, led by an integrated workforce in New Orleans, won a shorter work day. In this period the U.S. waged two wars. We fought Spain. And the government waged a war on the Western Federation of Miners led by Big Bill Haywood. Casualties in the hundreds. couldn't stop the miners, historically among the most militant of all workers. They won the 8 hour day near the turn of the century."
http://www.pipeline.com/~rgibson/ShorterWorkWeek.
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
Unions did not pass labor laws -- only the the legislature can do that -- but they did succeed in getting child laborers out of the work place, thanks to their unionizing efforts. And when legislatures did pass laws , it was due to the grounswell of awareness and support that unions created. Where do you think this 'social consciouness' came from?
Re:Biased headline (Score:4, Informative)
The interesting thing is that after Ford started the 8 hour day, his competitors followed suit because Ford was achieving higher productivity as a result.
The Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] article has more detail.
In 1924, a consitutional ammendment banning child labor failed to pass.
In 1938, the Wages and Hours (later Fair Labor Standards) Act was passed, banning child labor and setting the 40-hour work week.
There was a court challenge and and the Supreme Court upheld the law in 1941.
In 1835, child workers in employed in the silk mills in Paterson, NJ went on strike for the 11 hour day/6 day week.
In the 1886, the Knights of Labour marched with 80,000 people marched in support of the 8 hour day and in subsequent days, 350,000 workers went on strike.
It is true that Henry Ford paid better and had a shorter work day than other captains of industry.
He also hated unions and hoped treating workers better would help keep unions out of his factories.
But thousands and thousands of workers struck and marched before and after this. Both private police and workers were shot or beaten to death
as part of the struggle.
Many of the events had names like Bayview Massacre, and Thibodaux Massacre.
Local police, National Guard and federal troops have been called in to end strikes.
For their part, early unions hired people to beat up "scabs" and were not afraid of mob violence.
It seems so different than the world we live in today. I have ancestors who worked in the mills in Fall River, Massachusetts.
They were recent immigrants from Ireland and French Canada.
I went there once and visited a museum about the mills, there were pictures
of children with missing fingers working in the mills.
For the most part, people had to fight for an 8 hour day, overtime pay, and to have a childhood.
Re:Biased headline (Score:2, Informative)
I think you need to retake history.
And you're just making up history. Ford was an early adopter, but was in no way the innovator. He adopted the 40-hour work week long after the American union movement made the 40 hour week one of the top agenda items of workers, along with higher wages, safer working conditions, etc.
The 1938 labor law was way behind the curve, as many unions had already obtained their demands in the workplace. Ford just knew which way the wind was blowing.
Re:Biased headline (Score:2, Funny)
MURDER!
The Home Secretary today stated that rising health care costs could be murderous to the nation's podiatrists.
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
Why? Patients can no longer foot the bill?
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
Re:Biased headline (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Biased headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
Try visiting south of the American bordere arcitic. You'll find plenty of Indians.
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
Re:Biased headline (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
Re:Biased headline (Score:4, Insightful)
And again to Libertarians tell me exactly what is wrong with a non governmental organization representing workers in negotiating job contracts? How else are we going to see a minarchist society that provides a living wage for families? For I assure you if the globalists get their way their goal is to pay you as close to the prevailing wage in India and China as possible, don't let them get away with it.
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
Uh.... who's dispensing the FUD now?
Re:Biased headline (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
The IWW [iww.org] is a decent model. The best part is that they never use union dues for political contributions.
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
Hint a software engineer is paid about 15 dollars an hour in India. If that becomes the prevailing wage of IT work you can kiss your nice house and endless supply of cool new gadgets goodbye.
If I made $15/hr in India, I'd be a fucking prince! As it stands, I make about 50% more than the average wage, so I may be able to swing $22/hr.
Re:Biased headline (Score:3, Interesting)
Labor unions did manage to require railroads to keep "firemen" on the trains long after the job was eliminated. However, today the job is gone. Along with a lot of the railroad companies that employed those firemen.
All a labor union can eventually do is drive the company out of business. It might be able to grab some more benefits and sal
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
Re:Biased headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but if the market decides that all programming is worth is $8 an hour, no government or labor union is going to be able to change this, at least over a long term.
"The market" makes these "decisions" because of bargaining between potential employer and potential employee. If no potential employee will accept $8.00/hr, the potential employer will have to offer $9.00.
The problem of offshoring is one of differing economies. For now, workers in India can work for a fraction of the U.S. wage because their cost of living is a fraction of that for U.S. workers.
Of course, even if nothing is done to alter the natural cause and effect, eventually things will equalize, but not before a great deal of suffering happens, and quite possibly not before the U.S. is made a shadow of it's former self.
There are, of course counterbalancing forces that will come into play as well. I predict that if the trend continues, it won't be long before some Indian outsourcing provider realizes that they have all of the expertise they need in-house, so there's no reason they shouldn't just 'in-source' the management and crush their former client (that no longer has anything but a building, a bunch of managers, and a worthless unenforcable contract). That will trigger a big rush of on-shore in-sourcing.
Long Term (Score:2)
Define "long term" and then we can have a discussion.
Because in the "long term" so many things change that you may be completely right... or you might be completely wrong. Or the question may even be irrelevant.
Re:Biased headline (Score:2)
A manager has to make his numbers, and if a few of the little people get squashed in the process, so be it. Besides, it can be entertaining to fsck with people who can't fight back.
Re:Biased headline (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, that's why executive pay has remained mostly stagnant for the last 20 years while the pay, bonuses and pensions given to the working class have exploded. And good, hard working American CEO's have been fired and replaced with cheap MBA's from India. Oh wait, I think I have something backwards here.....
Headline after the strike (Score:5, Funny)
Aussie Techs Warn Of Year 2007 Bug (Score:2, Funny)
solidarity! (Score:5, Funny)
Another type of "Geek Strike" (Score:5, Funny)
One day, when their machines are hopelessly infected with spyware and their rockhead boyfriends can't do a damned thing, they'll finally value us... right???
Re:Another type of "Geek Strike" (Score:2)
How about we announce that we will never, ever do another "computer favor" for a gal that we like, in hopes of "hooking up with them."
How about you grow a set, take her dancing and have her rip your pants off afterwards?
Re:Another type of "Geek Strike" (Score:2)
Fight Club Reference (Score:5, Funny)
Do not fuck with us.
Good on you, mates (Score:2)
These "strikes" are effectively illegal in the United States. Get some popcorn and watch Olde Tyme organized labour in action. Hope they don't shoot them.
Obviously they need Gates (Score:2, Troll)
geeks of the world - UNITE! (Score:2, Insightful)
Tech workers can work in just about any industry and can work just about anywhere.
Here's a clue - IF YOUR JOBS SUCKS, QUIT! Or at least post up on Monster fer-cry-eye
Tech workers are not like a bunch of UAW factory workers who really have no options other than strike when the company they work for pisses them off.
UAW workers can't post up on Dice or Monster and expect any offers
I don't get it, WTF?
"Aussie techs threaten chaos" (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, apparently they're threatening to cause chaos. Just another headline to annoy syntax Nazis.
Re:"Aussie techs threaten chaos" (Score:2)
You could also have some fun mail-bombing, Chaos. Sign them up for lots of useless magazine subscriptions.
politically incorrect (Score:2)
What, they won't care about the _slightly_darker_ workforce?
It should happen in the USA as well (Score:2)
US Management abuses IT workers and has H1B/L1 Visaed and offshored a lot of IT work putting a lot of native IT workers out of work. Then only paying a fraction of what IT slaries used to be paid, and taking away benfits and forcing native IT workers to work 60 to 80 hours a week with no overtime pay.
Screw them, change the passwords, remove administra
Re:It should happen in the USA as well (Score:2)
Screw them, change the passwords, remove administrator access, and shut down the servers and then leave for a week. See what happens.
They fire you and hire someone else to clean up the mess and take your job. Or they offshore the work to India.
In both cases, the company is hurt a lot less than you are.
Yeah we all support your strike. (Score:2)
- Indian Techworkers.
Geeks in Unions? (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember once sitting in an all-hands meeting listening to our CEO, saying that our wages would be frozen for yet another year, and our benefits further cut, even though the company was seeing record profits, and the company was located in an area where living costs were zooming. His explanation: the stockholders won't let me. I wanted to stand up and say, "No, damnit, what you mean is that you're listening to the stockholder complaints about costs and not our complaints about wages and benefits. They're pushing us to earn less; tell me why we shouldn't push back?" But then I looked at my co-workers and tryed to imagine organizing them into a union — and kept my mouth shut.
Obviously things are different in Oz.
Re:We should do that in the US (Score:3, Interesting)
"Thanks you very much for the strike. Now you all are fired. Please hand over your knowledge and terminals to Mr. Venkat and his company arriving from India on H1-B this morning to take over you jobs. They have promised not to bitch about how less they get, while agreed to work 60 hours a week without even a lunch break."
Re:We should do that in the US (Score:2, Insightful)
Screw international law (Score:2)
I'm also opposed to telling other nations how to run theirs.
You would have traded with Hitler (Score:2)
And I don't need a lot of laws. All I have to do is make one law. "If you are producing goods for America in countries where wages are low and working conditions are crap, there is a big, BIG tax on it."
That covers those jobs moving to India.
BTW I like how you equate patriotism with nationalism.
I care about my country more than yours. My family more than yours. Without even a shred of apology.
Re:You would have traded with Hitler (Score:2, Flamebait)
ROTFLMAO!!! I can think of one such country that killed millions of Africans and native Americans, and is involved in an invastion of a foreign nation that wasn't threatening us. Can you guess which one that is?
I can also think of another such country that kills millions of baby girls a year in the name of its one-child policy. Can you tell me which one that is?
Re:You would have traded with Hitler (Score:2, Flamebait)
And don't talk in one breath about how America's market economy prevents mass genocide and then dis America for its mass genocide in the next breath. You're talking out of both sides of your face now.
And we have a God given right to do whatever is necessary to defend our livelihoods. What power are you proposing is available to stop us? No history book will refute that fact. We asserted our God given rights against Germany, J
Why is that overrated? (Score:2)
Re:We should do that in the US (Score:2)
Sadly, that is now against International Law. Should the US impose restrictive tariffs on imports from WTO members the result is that all WTO members get to impose restrictive tariffs on the US, and we may need to pay fines to the WTO.
Ask Iraq about that international law thingy.
Re:We should do that in the US (Score:3, Interesting)
There are many critical industries and professions that are suffering from the offshoring craze, if enough people could organize a walkout, something would get fixed. It's not just IT, but software engineers, electricical engineers, mechanical engineers, etc. all over the country are pissed off. We can't be replaced quickly, and companies will suffer incredible losses.
I hate
The way to solve the H1-B "problem" (Score:2)
Voila. Problem solved.
Before you criticize, think about why this would be a terrific for everybody except companies who lie about why they want to import workers.
Re:The way to solve the H1-B "problem" (Score:2)
And as a national issue, I'd rather have motivated technical people coming to the U.S.
What nobody wants (well, except big multi-nationals) is for really qualified people being lured to this country forced to work 80 hour weeks for $30K per year with t
Re:If workers want more money (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:If workers want more money (Score:2)
Then they are free to start their own company, no person is stopping them.
In a sense, they did! A union can (generally) be seen as a legal entity which sells labor to employers for a comission. Employers do business with them because the union has a needed resource. Sometimes, a union forces employers to sign an exclusive contract (that is, be a union shop).
I won't claim unions are all good, some are quite a problem. However, as long as there are large companies where the employment bargaining power
Re:NCR! They still exist? (Score:2, Interesting)
NCR has always been a company with tons of potential that few managers had the talent to bring out. Apparently none of those managers made it to the land down under.
The strength of NCR, at least here in the states, has always been in it's employee's. During the breakup of AT&T, the worst performing employees were transferred to NCR, average rated employees to Lucent, and the best employees remained with AT&T.
We all
Re:A labor dispute and no mention of healthcare? (Score:2)