What do systems/network engineers think of the unionized electricians in the comm. room?
Ruy Lopez
joined the company shortly after spring 2000 - I had been working at
Internet companies previously, since that's where the money was, but when
NASDAQ started crashing I knew that that ride was over.
Since I had to submit a timesheet every week, I know I worked an average of
over 60 hours every week, and some weeks I worked over 80 hours a week. The
hours alone don't reflect all the hours I worked - there was a rotating
shift in place as well, where I would work a 7AM-6PM shift about once every
two weeks, an on-call shift every two weeks and a weekend shift once a
month. The on-call shift menat I would work 8:30AM-6PM at work required,
then I would be on-call until 8:30AM the next morning. I averaged about 2
calls a night when on-call, often being woken up at 3 in the morning. At
your discretion, you were usually allowed to come in late if you had to work
late on an issue. Weekend shift meant you were on-call from Friday 6PM
until Sunday 6PM, and you would have work to do as well - on Saturday you
would usually have an average of 6-8 hours of work. If you worked over 6
hours on assigned work on the weekend, you could take a day off during the
week.
The above is all required work, it does not include projects we would have
to work on, where we were often expected to work late. So sometimes during
the week you would work to 10PM, or even to 2AM on a project that a manager
was pressuring to be done. So the above, plus the 8:30AM-6:00PM shift was
required, but usually we had work that lasted past 6PM, which, as I said
could stretch until 8PM, 10PM or even 2AM.
When I started the job, I was worried I might not have enough free time for
a social life. Before I left, my main concern was that I had enough time to
sleep. I couldn't believe how many hours I was scheduled to work. On top
of this, we went through a round of layoffs, where the criteria was the
person's "competence and judgement", and "how hard they worked" which meant
how many free hours they put in on top of the above schedule. We were told
by manager's that people who were laid off or fired (3 SA's were fired
within my year there, 3 laid off , within a group of about 30 people) lacked
competence/judgement or that they were slackers (even though everyone worked
the required 50 hours a week plus 72 hours of on-call a month).
I should also add that during my year there, the bonus was cancelled, and
our salaries were reduced, as well as some other things (medical coverage,
401K matching etc. got worse). Also yearly salary raises were cancelled.
All this in an environment that was very stressful, as it was a fast-paced
Fortune 100 company. People who requested work knew we didn't have enough
time and resources to do it, so they felt if they were a pain we'd be more
likely to do their work. The problem is everyone took this tack so there
was generally nastiness all around. Before the bonus cut, people were
jockeying for a cut of the bonus which made co-workers more cuthroat than
fraternal. Actually, I was in a sub-group with a differently structured
bonus pool so there was more fraternity in my group within the group.
The bottom line is conditions pretty much sucked. In years past, people
always said if a job sucked, "find another one". Nowadays, there is a lot
more supply than demand, and conditions are deteriorating all over. I
always, always, always worked over 40 hours a week as a systems
administrator, however there were certain conditions which had changed. The
hours worked were mandatory, not something that I chose to do as in the
past. Also, in the past I had a nice chunk of ownership in the companies,
which were growing fast, so working hard benefitted my company, but
benefitted me as well - my stock option situation was abysmal at the new
place, so much so that I never signed the agreement as they were next to
worthless. Maybe a third reason is in the early days I was learning a lot
and was happy to have a job as an SA, but after five years I am not learning
as quickly. Speaking of that, I should add on top of the time required at
work, we were also expected to spend our own time training ourselves on the
newest technologies that were being rolled out in our organizations.
From having talked with the network administrator's and systems
administrators at this former company, I know I am fighting an uphill battle
in trying to get all the worker's agreeing to band together to improve
working conditions. What were the problems:
On was that the co-worker was an H1-B. About half of the SA's and NA's
there were H1-B's. The H1-B's had even less move around room then we did -
if they get fired they have to go back to their home country within a few
days to find work. The H1-B's don't care about pay or working conditions
that much, well they do, but they feel they can't do anything. They are all
getting paid less than we are, even though they work many hours like we do.
They all feel more stuck to the company than we do, because if they leave
for another company, they all have to start their green card application
process all over again. They all are applied for a green card and they all
want one. The company is not helpful in helping them get green cards
because they know as soon as the H1-B gets a green card, he will leave.
When your co-workers are semi-indentured, this does not make life easy on
you.
There were other problems, but the one I want to talk about is some of their
philosophical arguments. Everyone had complaints about work, be it the
hours required, the pay cuts or whatnot. But some of them had an attitude
that the competent, hard-working workers would stay and prosper, and the
people being laid off were incompetent and lazy. These people usually hated
the electricians who worked in the comm. room. The electricans, unlike us,
had normal 9 to 5 hours. They also had A LOT more job security than us.
They said that the electricians were lazy, that "work had to be done,
because the business needed it, and the electricians didn't care". Also the
electricians actually got paid overtime if they worked over 40 hours! We
got no overtime, and with the bonus cut not even the carrot of possibly
being rewarded for our overtime (at the bosses discretion). One thing these
people never explained is that if "the business needed something to be
done", that they didn't get the resources to do it instead of making us work
60+ hour weeks and even longer if there was a "business need emergency".
Our company made over $1 billion in profit. Profit doesn't include the fat
salaries and bonuses managing directors gave themselves. Why did the
business need fall on our backs, why couldn't more SA's be hired if the
business needed it so we could work downwards to a 40-hours-required week?
My co-workers harped on an on about how they were hard-working and the
electricians were lazy. They gave examples of union laziness, mostly from
other places they had worked since our electricians were pretty good.
Honestly, they do have some of a point, I can't refute what they were saying
totally, However, things had deteriorated so badly, with 60+ hour weeks,
salary cuts, with the pendelum swinging towards worse for us (less pay, more
time), that it was definitely time in my mind to swing that pendelum the
other way (more free time for us, more money - or at least our salaries
should keep up with inflation). If more free time for us meant that every
piece of work the company wanted done didn't get done right away, so be it.
Let them hire more people to do it. If there weren't enough experienced
people to do it, then spend some money on training, give people time during
the workday to do training.
One funny thing is the H1-B's agreed more than anyone. They were being
screwed by the company worse than us, since because of the green card thing
they felt like they couldn't leave. If they do get a green card, hopefully
they'll keep this attitude.
I don't want to hear I am not hard working because I have worked my ass off
my entire life. I am also quite competent and experienced, and not just in
my immediate field - I can configure Cisco equipment, set up databases,
program and do things other than system administration. But I think
SA's/NA's and programmers should be more conscious of the issues that effect
them and their co-workers. Even if you disagree with some remedies, it's in
your best interest to address a lot of these issues. H1-B's coming in do
not help you at all. I don't mind Indians and Chinese engineers coming into
the country, but I don't like how the H1-B enslaves them to the company for
a green card. This just makes them and their co-workers miserable, the only
people who benefit are the owners of the company. My main concern isn't the
H1-B's here, it's the hundreds of thousands of H1-B's coming into the
country next year, in 2002, and the year after that, 2003. Legally, they're
only supposed to fill jobs there are no workers for, but I have seen many
examples where this isn't true, and many examples of people who have been
replaced by H1-B's. They are also supposed to be paid a prevailing wage,
which is not happening as well, they are all underpaid the ones I know.
Here are two links about H1-B's - the first explaining everything and the
second you can look up what H1-B's are earning in your company or state:
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.html
http://www.zazona.com/
Again, I like and am friends with the H1-B's at my company. My main concern
is NEW H1-B's, ie. the hundreds of thousands coming in this year, next year,
the year after that etc. as our economy and IT industry is on the downslope.
Another thing is there has been law for decades called the FLSA which sets
working conditions for workers, such as you can't force them to work over a
certain number of hours a week without overtime pay and so forth. This has
been repealed if you are a computer engineer! You can do a web search on
the Fair Labor Standards Act to learn more about this.
Again as far as hard-working - I am very hard-working (I put in a lot of
hours), but I have always worked hard and many hours for a reason, to better
myself financially. Yesterday we worked 60 hour weeks for the money.
Nowadays, they are cutting the money but say we have to keep working 60 hour
weeks. This is BS, if the economy is dumpy, and there is no work out there,
then what are we working 60 hours a week for? ie. if things have slowed
down and there is no work to do, why are we working 60 hour weeks for less
pay, and our company earned (profits, not revenues) over $1 billion last
year? Yes, I am hard working but I do not work hard for free. I expect to
be paid for my hard work.
I really envy the union electricans in our comm room. Yes I have had work
"held up" by them because I am working 60+ hours a week and they work 40
hours a week. I always have to do things ASAP when my management tells me
and they only have to work 9AM-5PM. Most of my co-workers hate them for
this, but I say to myself, who is being stupid here, us or them? One of my
managers, who is actually a nice, good guy told me once that our lives had
to revolve around our job. The electricians actually have time for their
families (or girlfriends, friends, hobbies, whatever). When I was in my
early 20's I didn't care so much about having free time, but now I want that
40 hour workweek that worker's struggled for in decades past, or at least
something near it, maybe down to a "45 hour" workweek at least. I had a
very nice girlfriend, and although not the only reason, the hours and stress
of my job contributed to us breaking up.
I really like being a systems administrator. A lot of aspects of it
fascinate me and I love learning the new technologies, as well as learning
more deeply about things such as disk I/O, memory usage etc. I like doing
what I'm doing, although less nowadays than before, probably because of what
I've been talking about.
I want to hear what people think about the union electricians in the comm.
rooms. Usually there is a lot of dislike and I think it should be aired
out. Personally, I am one of the minority who thinks SA's and NA's can
benefit by being more like union electrican. I doubt if SA's or NA's will
ever be in a union, but there should at least be associations like doctors
and lawyers have (AMA, ABA), that fight for things like against the new
H1-B's, and repealing the FLSA just for computer engineers and so forth.
Things like SAGE don't really cut it as they're focused more on technical
issues than labor issues. So even if you don't agree with all of my ideas,
maybe you agree in some of them, and it is in your and mine and others who
agree on those issues to get together and work to improve things. Like
these anti-engineer laws being passed/repealed (H1-B, FLSA). Even if
politically you dislike the FLSA don't you dislike that every profession
except yours is protected by it? It's like saying "everyone can carry a gun
except engineers" or "everyone can practice religion of their choosing
except computer engineers". Agree or disagree, it's unfair to single us
out, either give it to everyone or do away with it totally. I think other
issues can be helped by more of an association that has labor/law issues as
a concern, not just technical concerns.
Thanks.
hehe
why don't ya go back to burger flipping or maybe a ford factory
"Ruy Lopez" <ruyl...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:GNal7.8344$IP6.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Dave Hinz
: if ya don't want to do the work
: why don't ya go back to burger flipping or maybe a ford factory
My, what an insightful response to his articulately worded question.
Your brevity and obvious grasp of the subtleties of the issue are
truly masterful.
Jerry Leslie
: if ya don't want to do the work
: why don't ya go back to burger flipping or maybe a ford factory
McDonald's has closed at least 250 restaurants, and Ford has announced
layoffs of ~5,000 workers.
Start looking at http://216.150.6.70/ for layoff news. I'd use the name
but some software will censor that.
HP/CPQ has already announced that at least 15,000 people will be
"derecruited" as a result of HP's acquisition of Compaq.
Know anyone who said from their deathbed
"Gee, I sure wish I'd spent more time at my jobs"
--Jerry Leslie (my opinions are strictly my own)
Anonymous
says...
Nothing about Routers or Bridges. Your post is off topic. It is negative and
not relevant to this newsgroup.
Anonymous
john kawakami
Now, it's entirely relevant! I'm in support of Ruy and his ideas. They
make sense.
In article <Qpbl7.3819$4z.1...@www.newsranger.com>, Anonymous
Thumper
wrote:
>I want to hear what people think about the union electricians in the comm.
>rooms. Usually there is a lot of dislike and I think it should be aired
>out. Personally, I am one of the minority who thinks SA's and NA's can
>benefit by being more like union electrican. I doubt if SA's or NA's will
>ever be in a union, but there should at least be associations like doctors
>and lawyers have (AMA, ABA), that fight for things like against the new
>H1-B's, and repealing the FLSA just for computer engineers and so forth.
>Things like SAGE don't really cut it as they're focused more on technical
>issues than labor issues. So even if you don't agree with all of my ideas,
>maybe you agree in some of them, and it is in your and mine and others who
>agree on those issues to get together and work to improve things. Like
>these anti-engineer laws being passed/repealed (H1-B, FLSA). Even if
>politically you dislike the FLSA don't you dislike that every profession
>except yours is protected by it? It's like saying "everyone can carry a gun
>except engineers" or "everyone can practice religion of their choosing
>except computer engineers". Agree or disagree, it's unfair to single us
>out, either give it to everyone or do away with it totally. I think other
>issues can be helped by more of an association that has labor/law issues as
>a concern, not just technical concerns.
>
>Thanks.
Sounds like you needto get unionized. Instead of venting about the
union electricians you should be focusing your rath on the company.
Thumper
Terry Gabriel
>
> In my last job, I was a systems administrator at a Fortune 100 >company.
<snip>
Try doing a google search on labor unions. Look for the
Communications Workers of America
Check them out.
If you are an employee and not a contractor and not
considered to be part of management (a very narrow
definition exists here) the conditions you describe are
illegal.
Why in the hell do you think the electricians have a union?
Stop whining about your conditions and educate yourself.
Over the last 30 years in America, workers have lost ground
in every conceivable way to the power of the bosses. You are
an example of the extreme.
Only you can change your life.
--
Well it's oil for the rich and babies for the poor
We've got everyone believing that more is more
If a reckoning comes maybe we'll know what to do then...
John Barlow
Steve
the answer to all of your prayers. That being said, one needs only look at
the working conditions of the I/T people at your site versus the conditions
of the electricians. This is simply yet another case of corporate greed
taking presidence over the welfare of workers.
For months / years, many persons have argued the need for some form of
representation or organization of professional personnel within the US.
Most of the blame for our current working conditions lies squarely on our
own shoulders for indifference & failure to act. While I do not know the
ultimate remedy to this situation, I do know that conditions such as you
describe will continue, perhaps become worse until such a time as workers
refuse to tollerate deplorable working conditions.
- S D R -
"Ruy Lopez" <ruyl...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:GNal7.8344$IP6.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
joe
these rights
and a 9am to 5pm workday...
So what.. its the price you pay to change the world.. Bill Gates once
worked
100+ hours a week. Do you plan to be a 50 year old sys admin...
installing
windows 2025 on a p30000 server with a 1000 Exabyte hard-drive.. come
on...
IT shit is for people under 25+ that want fast cars and pussy their
loser friends cant get on $20K/year jobs.. you want to live hard, you
have to work hard.. When your 40 and your a CTO (or CEO) and make
$400K a year to tell
someone like yourself what to do, and act like you know what you are
talking about at board meetings, etc...
Electricians for the most part (especially unionized) do not have the
opportunities an IT person has..
Many IT staff, have become consultants, and executives (at a much
higher rate)
than electricians. I know of several that have fun lives and live
better than Jimmy Hoffa did, sucking down union kickbacks. Unions are
Marxist
Social Agenda platforms, absolutely what we don't need in a fast
paced, "FEED THE EAGLES" industry. IT will continue to be more and
more competive, so get used to long shifts, smaller paychecks, and
larger layoffs. Face it, no courts, UN-treaties, Labor-unions, news
programs, members of congress or anything will stand in the way of
Executives getting rich off the working poor (which now is anyone
making less than $250K)
"Steve" <stev...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9n3lo8$924$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
R. Martin
>
> Just becaused your unionized dosent mean you automatically get all
> these rights
> and a 9am to 5pm workday...
Right, you have to use the bargaining power you gain from unionizing
to negotiate for those rights. The negotiations can be friendly or
nasty, depending.
>
> So what.. its the price you pay to change the world.. Bill Gates once
> worked
> 100+ hours a week.
Possibly an invalid analogy since Bill Gates had a large equity stake
in his company while Ruy probably doesn't.
rest snipped
followups trimmed so the snitty networking types won't complain some
more
Regards,
Russell
Nate Vanderschaaf
the time is right for the overemployed to get cut. Either hang in there
until the weak-willed drop out, or be the weak-willed and get the hell out.
If you really are good at your job, let everyone else leave the industry and
you will emerge victorious.
Nate Vanderschaaf
"Ruy Lopez" <ruyl...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:GNal7.8344$IP6.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Philotsopher
"joe" <n...@mortgageit.com> wrote in message
news:79240318.01090...@posting.google.com...
> Just becaused your unionized dosent mean you automatically get all
> these rights
> and a 9am to 5pm workday...
>
Yes, NAFTA and the Trade Promotion Authority (Fast Track renamed) are
undermining unions at an alarming rate.
Philotsopher
"Ruy Lopez" <ruyl...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:GNal7.8344$IP6.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> hours), but I have always worked hard and many hours for a reason, to
better
> myself financially.
We know you work hard but prepare for the shills that will call you a
slacker and a loser. They will come out of the woodworks.
Yesterday we worked 60 hour weeks for the money.
> Nowadays, they are cutting the money but say we have to keep working 60
hour
> weeks. This is BS, if the economy is dumpy, and there is no work out
there,
> then what are we working 60 hours a week for? ie. if things have slowed
> down and there is no work to do, why are we working 60 hour weeks for less
> pay, and our company earned (profits, not revenues) over $1 billion last
> year? Yes, I am hard working but I do not work hard for free. I expect
to
> be paid for my hard work.
>
> I really envy the union electricans in our comm room. Yes I have had work
> "held up" by them because I am working 60+ hours a week and they work 40
> hours a week. I always have to do things ASAP when my management tells me
> and they only have to work 9AM-5PM. Most of my co-workers hate them for
> this, but I say to myself, who is being stupid here, us or them?
That depends on whether you think having your own life is important or
whether it's more important to sacrifice you time so that your executives
can earn huge bonuses.
One of my
> managers, who is actually a nice, good guy told me once that our lives had
> to revolve around our job.
Of course what boss wouldn't want their workers to do nothing but work?
The electricians actually have time for their
> families (or girlfriends, friends, hobbies, whatever). When I was in my
> early 20's I didn't care so much about having free time, but now I want
that
> 40 hour workweek that worker's struggled for in decades past, or at least
> something near it, maybe down to a "45 hour" workweek at least. I had a
> very nice girlfriend, and although not the only reason, the hours and
stress
> of my job contributed to us breaking up.
>
> I really like being a systems administrator. A lot of aspects of it
> fascinate me and I love learning the new technologies, as well as learning
> more deeply about things such as disk I/O, memory usage etc. I like doing
> what I'm doing, although less nowadays than before, probably because of
what
> I've been talking about.
>
> I want to hear what people think about the union electricians in the comm.
> rooms. Usually there is a lot of dislike and I think it should be aired
> out.
The people that hate the electricians are puppets. They have been led to
believe that everyone is a slacker if they don't work 60 hour weeks. That is
just what all corporations want people to accept. Craftsmen were smart
enough to realize the folly of this corporate thinking so they formed unions
to prevent it. I don't know why techies have never been able to take control
of their careers in the same way. Perhaps they are just more gullible to
propaganda.
Personally, I am one of the minority who thinks SA's and NA's can
> benefit by being more like union electrican. I doubt if SA's or NA's will
> ever be in a union, but there should at least be associations like doctors
> and lawyers have (AMA, ABA), that fight for things like against the new
> H1-B's, and repealing the FLSA just for computer engineers and so forth.
> Things like SAGE don't really cut it as they're focused more on technical
> issues than labor issues. So even if you don't agree with all of my
ideas,
> maybe you agree in some of them, and it is in your and mine and others who
> agree on those issues to get together and work to improve things. Like
> these anti-engineer laws being passed/repealed (H1-B, FLSA). Even if
> politically you dislike the FLSA don't you dislike that every profession
> except yours is protected by it? It's like saying "everyone can carry a
gun
> except engineers" or "everyone can practice religion of their choosing
> except computer engineers". Agree or disagree, it's unfair to single us
> out, either give it to everyone or do away with it totally. I think other
> issues can be helped by more of an association that has labor/law issues
as
> a concern, not just technical concerns.
>
In a way techies deserve what they are getting. They continue to vote for
the politicians that are putting them out of their jobs. Union memebers
would never be so foolish.
David Schwartz
> The bottom line is conditions pretty much sucked. In years past, people
> always said if a job sucked, "find another one". Nowadays, there is a lot
> more supply than demand, and conditions are deteriorating all over.
If there was more supply of burgers than demand and Burger King
couldn't make a profit, would you have a problem with them conspiring
with McDonald's to fix prices?
> On was that the co-worker was an H1-B. About half of the SA's and NA's
> there were H1-B's. The H1-B's had even less move around room then we did -
> if they get fired they have to go back to their home country within a few
> days to find work. The H1-B's don't care about pay or working conditions
> that much, well they do, but they feel they can't do anything. They are all
> getting paid less than we are, even though they work many hours like we do.
> They all feel more stuck to the company than we do, because if they leave
> for another company, they all have to start their green card application
> process all over again. They all are applied for a green card and they all
> want one. The company is not helpful in helping them get green cards
> because they know as soon as the H1-B gets a green card, he will leave.
> When your co-workers are semi-indentured, this does not make life easy on
> you.
So the solution is to fix the laws to liberate H1-B workers. However,
unions universally have been trying to make tighter and tighter
restrictions.
> There were other problems, but the one I want to talk about is some of their
> philosophical arguments. Everyone had complaints about work, be it the
> hours required, the pay cuts or whatnot. But some of them had an attitude
> that the competent, hard-working workers would stay and prosper, and the
> people being laid off were incompetent and lazy. These people usually hated
> the electricians who worked in the comm. room. The electricans, unlike us,
> had normal 9 to 5 hours. They also had A LOT more job security than us.
> They said that the electricians were lazy, that "work had to be done,
> because the business needed it, and the electricians didn't care". Also the
> electricians actually got paid overtime if they worked over 40 hours! We
> got no overtime, and with the bonus cut not even the carrot of possibly
> being rewarded for our overtime (at the bosses discretion). One thing these
> people never explained is that if "the business needed something to be
> done", that they didn't get the resources to do it instead of making us work
> 60+ hour weeks and even longer if there was a "business need emergency".
> Our company made over $1 billion in profit. Profit doesn't include the fat
> salaries and bonuses managing directors gave themselves. Why did the
> business need fall on our backs, why couldn't more SA's be hired if the
> business needed it so we could work downwards to a 40-hours-required week?
Basically you were exploited. Learn from it and negotiate a better deal
for yourself next time.
> H1-B's coming in do
> not help you at all.
Even if they help the company be more competitive, survive, and make
higher earnings helping to aviod layoffs? Do you thing managers hire
H1-B workers because they're stupid?!
> I don't mind Indians and Chinese engineers coming into
> the country, but I don't like how the H1-B enslaves them to the company for
> a green card.
Then fix the laws to liberate them!
> This just makes them and their co-workers miserable, the only
> people who benefit are the owners of the company.
You had stock options, right? Hey, genius, you were an owner of the
company!
> Again, I like and am friends with the H1-B's at my company. My main concern
> is NEW H1-B's, ie. the hundreds of thousands coming in this year, next year,
> the year after that etc. as our economy and IT industry is on the downslope.
So you think by raising labor rates the IT industry will get out of its
downslope? Are you really that incapable of economic analysis? The IT
industry is in a downslope, it needs *help*. You think higher labor
rates will bring it out? Duh.
> Another thing is there has been law for decades called the FLSA which sets
> working conditions for workers, such as you can't force them to work over a
> certain number of hours a week without overtime pay and so forth. This has
> been repealed if you are a computer engineer! You can do a web search on
> the Fair Labor Standards Act to learn more about this.
I guess they figure that if you're bright enough to be an engineer
you're bright enough to negotiate a reasonable employment contract. I
guess the government needs to be warned that there are a lot more dumb
engineers than they figured.
> Yes, I am hard working but I do not work hard for free. I expect to
> be paid for my hard work.
Then neogitiate a reasonable wage. Why do you need anyone else's help
to do that?
> I want to hear what people think about the union electricians in the comm.
> rooms. Usually there is a lot of dislike and I think it should be aired
> out. Personally, I am one of the minority who thinks SA's and NA's can
> benefit by being more like union electrican. I doubt if SA's or NA's will
> ever be in a union, but there should at least be associations like doctors
> and lawyers have (AMA, ABA), that fight for things like against the new
> H1-B's, and repealing the FLSA just for computer engineers and so forth.
Man, you are just really dumb. Let me try to make this so simple you
can understand it. The way the law stands now, you can negotaite pretty
much any labor arrangement you want. If you want to negotatiate for
overtime, you can. If you want to forgo overtime pay for a higher base
salary, you can. If you were required to be paid overtime, that would
just be one less point for you to negotiate. You can demand overtime now
if you want.
A benefit you could negotiate for but can't negotiate away is actually
a detriment. Imagine if a law was passed saying management has to give a
new Ferarri to every sys admin they hire. Would that help you or hurt
you? Obviously, when you're hired, the cost of the Ferrari will
effectively be deducted from the salaray you could negotiate. And you
may or may not want a Ferrari.
What you really want to do is stop others from working too hard. That's
all the law would do. If management has to pay me if I work overtime,
then if you don't work overtime, you don't look so bad. So you want to
bring yourself ahead by holding other back. If that's not what you want,
then why do you need a law? Just insist on overtime.
> Things like SAGE don't really cut it as they're focused more on technical
> issues than labor issues. So even if you don't agree with all of my ideas,
> maybe you agree in some of them, and it is in your and mine and others who
> agree on those issues to get together and work to improve things. Like
> these anti-engineer laws being passed/repealed (H1-B, FLSA).
H1-B's help the company you work for, and own part of, survive. So how
is it anti-engineer. As for FLSA, as it is you have *more* negotiating
leverage because you can ask for overtime or no overtime. How would it
help you to take it away? Oh, that's right, you would seem taller if my
feet were cut off.
> Even if
> politically you dislike the FLSA don't you dislike that every profession
> except yours is protected by it? It's like saying "everyone can carry a gun
> except engineers" or "everyone can practice religion of their choosing
> except computer engineers".
No, it's like saying nobody can carry a gun except engineers. As it is,
engineers are the only ones able to forgo overtime in exchange for
things they want more. Anyone can insist on overtime pay.
> Agree or disagree, it's unfair to single us
> out, either give it to everyone or do away with it totally. I think other
> issues can be helped by more of an association that has labor/law issues as
> a concern, not just technical concerns.
We have the right to negotiate our overtime, they don't.
DS
Nick Bachmann
[snip]
My advice to you is to find a semi-rural area and get a job there. Good
hours, decent benefits, and 80 hours a week is unheard of. Working for
a good midsize company, a school district, or a small branch of a larger
company (like a TelCo) would be ideal, and possibly offer a little more
job security.
Just my $.02.
--
Regards,
N
-----------------------------------
Nicholas Bachmann
nabac...@yahoo.com
http://hermie.freeshell.org
"To Boldly Go Where Angels Fear To Tread"
-From the Infocom Game "Stationfall"
----------------------------------
David Caldwell
be a legitimate gripe.
"hehe" <he...@usa.com> oozed crap from his piehole
news:j3bl7.623$832.3...@news.uswest.net...
David Caldwell
"Anonymous" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:Qpbl7.3819$4z.1...@www.newsranger.com...
Diresu Drowssap
I make a LOT more money than the people around me. In fact I make 30% to
40% more than my buddies (although they don't know that) and I still
survived a major company downsizing. Maybe I look at a career differently
than most but I think work SUCKS! I hate taking crap from my superiors and
I hate working overtime. However, I've never found a situation that was
much different than any another. Industries tend to have a personality even
more dominating than individual employment circumstances. Since I know I'll
be pressured into overtime and I'll always have at least 1 idiot co-worker
and 1 idiot boss pushing me around I make sure I get paid for it. No union
is EVER going to do that for you. You'll all make the same miserable wage
until your inefficient company is put out of business.
Having said that, your situation sounds worse than most. You might want to
look elsewhere.
--diresu drowssap
"David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:3B95CC69...@webmaster.com...
xganon
Also, he has a two inch penis and is impotent.
---
This post was anonymized at http://www.xganon.com
Come visit the newest xganon server http://www.xganon.org providing
rights and freedom related news.
---
Thumper
wrote:
>Listen to David, he knows what he's talking about. I work at a place where
>I make a LOT more money than the people around me. In fact I make 30% to
>40% more than my buddies (although they don't know that) and I still
>survived a major company downsizing. Maybe I look at a career differently
>than most but I think work SUCKS! I hate taking crap from my superiors and
>I hate working overtime. However, I've never found a situation that was
>much different than any another. Industries tend to have a personality even
>more dominating than individual employment circumstances. Since I know I'll
>be pressured into overtime and I'll always have at least 1 idiot co-worker
>and 1 idiot boss pushing me around I make sure I get paid for it. No union
>is EVER going to do that for you. You'll all make the same miserable wage
>until your inefficient company is put out of business.
>
>Having said that, your situation sounds worse than most. You might want to
>look elsewhere.
>
>--diresu drowssap
Maybe you don't need a union but it sure sounds like all the other
guys who work there do. Maybe you never have found a different
situatio but others have. Incidentally, many IT workers are salaried
and do not get overtime for the extra hours they work.
Thumper
David Schwartz
> David Schwartz is a fucking corporate SHILL!
> Also, he has a two inch penis and is impotent.
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, that doesn't change the arguments I made.
DS
David Schwartz
> Maybe you don't need a union but it sure sounds like all the other
> guys who work there do. Maybe you never have found a different
> situatio but others have. Incidentally, many IT workers are salaried
> and do not get overtime for the extra hours they work.
> Thumper
Let me just state for the record that I have no objection to unions or
collective bargaining in principle. What I do object to are:
1) Stupid arguments in support of unions. (Like that workers are too
dumb to negotiate on their own, or arguments that amount to attempts to
cripple the company so that it can't affort to hire you anymore.)
2) Stupid policies unions argue for. (Like fewer H1-Bs, more
restrictions on H1-Bs, mandatory overtime pay, limits on hours worked,
and so on.)
DS
gaius.petronius
> Ruy Lopez wrote way too much:
>
> [snip]
>
> My advice to you is to find a semi-rural area and get a job there. Good
> hours, decent benefits, and 80 hours a week is unheard of. Working for
> a good midsize company, a school district, or a small branch of a larger
> company (like a TelCo) would be ideal, and possibly offer a little more
> job security.
>
> Just my $.02.
The real solution to this is for UNIX system administrators to form a
guild as craftsmen did in the middle ages.
The guilds of the middle ages failed due to, among several reasons,
the gradual uniformity of mass production and the emergence of a
"factory" society where cheap labor etc, etc, yes we all know.
Now the condition is reversed.
We need a guild that may or may not evolve out of these so-called
certifications like CCNA, CCIE, Sun certification, SAGE, et cetera.
The guild will provide a way to authenticate UNIX SAs and distinguish
them from inauthentic SAs. I once thought that SAGE would be that
guild, but then i noticed that when applying for a job no one knew who
the hell SAGE is nor gave a damn.
The question is not whether or not we need this; the question is who
would try to kill this and why has it not yet come to pass?
IMHO
-------------
cave Jabberwock
xganon
Jay
I don't want motherfucking H-1Bs scabs here and neither do ~82% of American
citizens.
I want mandatory overtime pay. (I'll go out on a limb here and say that
most people would too).
I want a limit on the # of hours I am FORCED to work. (ditto).
Jay
>
> DS
--
Killfiled Trolls/Idiots: Jacobson, Donovan, Antunes, Neglay, Terje.
(Provided as a public service)
David Schwartz
> I don't want motherfucking H-1Bs scabs here and neither do ~82% of American
> citizens.
Right, they work hard and make you look bad. You don't want H-1Bs to
work harder than you. You want to pull them down to your level.
> I want mandatory overtime pay. (I'll go out on a limb here and say that
> most people would too).
Then refuse to work unless you get it. What you *really* want is *me*
to have overtime pay whether I want it or not. That way I don't make you
look bad by working overtime for free. Again, you want to pull me down.
> I want a limit on the # of hours I am FORCED to work. (ditto).
Unless you have an employment contract (which would probably specify
the number of hours), then this request makes no sense. If you are an
at-will employee, you can be fired at any time for any reason. If your
employer didn't get his money's worth out of you, he'd fire you.
Nobody can force you to work if you don't want to. Listen to Nancy
Reagan and Just Say No. The reality is, *YOU* want a limit on the number
of hours that *I* am forced to work. Because if I can be forced to work
for 80 hours, then who is going to hire you?
You don't want anything for yourself, you just want to take things from
me. Fuck off.
DS
TakeThisOut
>
>> I don't want motherfucking H-1Bs scabs here and neither do ~82% of American
>> citizens.
>
> Right, they work hard and make you look bad. You don't want H-1Bs to
>work harder than you. You want to pull them down to your level.
You've got it all backwards, IMHO. It's the spineless "I just can't say no" IT
worker who is pulling the rest down to his level.
>
>> I want mandatory overtime pay. (I'll go out on a limb here and say that
>> most people would too).
>
> Then refuse to work unless you get it. What you *really* want is *me*
>to have overtime pay whether I want it or not. That way I don't make you
>look bad by working overtime for free.
Face it- you work OT for free, who looks bad?
>Again, you want to pull me down.
>
>> I want a limit on the # of hours I am FORCED to work. (ditto).
>
> Unless you have an employment contract (which would probably specify
>the number of hours), then this request makes no sense. If you are an
>at-will employee, you can be fired at any time for any reason. If your
>employer didn't get his money's worth out of you, he'd fire you.
It seems like that should read: "If the employer doesn't get double his money's
worth out of you, you're expendable."
I'd really like to know, after all is said and done, what your typical IT
worker is pulling down PER HOUR.
>
> Nobody can force you to work if you don't want to.
What a stupid statement. With that logic, you can justify anything.
Listen to Nancy
>Reagan and Just Say No. The reality is, *YOU* want a limit on the number
>of hours that *I* am forced to work.
The reality is, he wants to better the working conditions in his industry.
Because if I can be forced to work
>for 80 hours, then who is going to hire you?
>
> You don't want anything for yourself, you just want to take things from
>me. Fuck off.
>
> DS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TAKETHISOUT budysbackagain(@)THAT TOO a-oh-ell dot com
Tim Slattery
>Thumper wrote:
>
>> Maybe you don't need a union but it sure sounds like all the other
>> guys who work there do. Maybe you never have found a different
>> situatio but others have. Incidentally, many IT workers are salaried
>> and do not get overtime for the extra hours they work.
>
>> Thumper
>
> Let me just state for the record that I have no objection to unions or
>collective bargaining in principle. What I do object to are:
>
> 1) Stupid arguments in support of unions. (Like that workers are too
>dumb to negotiate on their own, or arguments that amount to attempts to
>cripple the company so that it can't affort to hire you anymore.)
Not too dumb, but too powerless. One employee deciding not to work
for a particular company because of abusive practices won't have any
effect on that company. Several hundred potential employees making
that decision will get their attention.
> 2) Stupid policies unions argue for. (Like fewer H1-Bs, more
>restrictions on H1-Bs, mandatory overtime pay, limits on hours worked,
>and so on.)
I thought you were going to list the stupid policies. These all make a
lot of sense to me.
--
Tim Slattery
Slatt...@bls.gov
Dave Hinz
: Only the Rev would post this shit to answer a post.
Oh, I dunno. The rev is a lot of things, but I don't think "anonymous
coward" is one of them.
Nate Vanderschaaf
smarter, not harder. I have gotten far in life by working the 40 hour week,
but by getting more done in 40 hours than most do in 60. I refuse to put in
long hours. That's what computers are for. It's my laziness that drives me
to work smarter so I don't have to work so hard in the future. (I can't
take credit for this concept. I've got to give credit where credit is due:
Thanks, Larry Wall! Not that I know him personally; but I'd like to.)
http://paulagordon.com/shows/wall/
Nate Vanderschaaf
> The bottom line is conditions pretty much sucked. In years past, people
> always said if a job sucked, "find another one". Nowadays, there is a lot
> more supply than demand, and conditions are deteriorating all over. I
> always, always, always worked over 40 hours a week as a systems
> administrator, however there were certain conditions which had changed.
The
> hours worked were mandatory, not something that I chose to do as in the
> past. Also, in the past I had a nice chunk of ownership in the companies,
> which were growing fast, so working hard benefitted my company, but
> benefitted me as well - my stock option situation was abysmal at the new
> place, so much so that I never signed the agreement as they were next to
> worthless. Maybe a third reason is in the early days I was learning a lot
> and was happy to have a job as an SA, but after five years I am not
learning
> as quickly. Speaking of that, I should add on top of the time required at
> work, we were also expected to spend our own time training ourselves on
the
> newest technologies that were being rolled out in our organizations.
>
> From having talked with the network administrator's and systems
> administrators at this former company, I know I am fighting an uphill
battle
> in trying to get all the worker's agreeing to band together to improve
> working conditions. What were the problems:
>
> On was that the co-worker was an H1-B. About half of the SA's and NA's
> there were H1-B's. The H1-B's had even less move around room then we
did -
> if they get fired they have to go back to their home country within a few
> days to find work. The H1-B's don't care about pay or working conditions
> that much, well they do, but they feel they can't do anything. They are
all
> getting paid less than we are, even though they work many hours like we
do.
> They all feel more stuck to the company than we do, because if they leave
> for another company, they all have to start their green card application
> process all over again. They all are applied for a green card and they
all
> want one. The company is not helpful in helping them get green cards
> because they know as soon as the H1-B gets a green card, he will leave.
> When your co-workers are semi-indentured, this does not make life easy on
> you.
>
> your best interest to address a lot of these issues. H1-B's coming in do
> not help you at all. I don't mind Indians and Chinese engineers coming
into
> the country, but I don't like how the H1-B enslaves them to the company
for
> a green card. This just makes them and their co-workers miserable, the
only
> people who benefit are the owners of the company. My main concern isn't
the
> H1-B's here, it's the hundreds of thousands of H1-B's coming into the
> country next year, in 2002, and the year after that, 2003. Legally,
they're
> only supposed to fill jobs there are no workers for, but I have seen many
> examples where this isn't true, and many examples of people who have been
> replaced by H1-B's. They are also supposed to be paid a prevailing wage,
> which is not happening as well, they are all underpaid the ones I know.
>
> Here are two links about H1-B's - the first explaining everything and the
> second you can look up what H1-B's are earning in your company or state:
>
> http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.html
> http://www.zazona.com/
>
> Again, I like and am friends with the H1-B's at my company. My main
concern
> is NEW H1-B's, ie. the hundreds of thousands coming in this year, next
year,
> the year after that etc. as our economy and IT industry is on the
downslope.
>
> Another thing is there has been law for decades called the FLSA which sets
> working conditions for workers, such as you can't force them to work over
a
> certain number of hours a week without overtime pay and so forth. This
has
> been repealed if you are a computer engineer! You can do a web search on
> the Fair Labor Standards Act to learn more about this.
>
> Again as far as hard-working - I am very hard-working (I put in a lot of
> hours), but I have always worked hard and many hours for a reason, to
better
> myself financially. Yesterday we worked 60 hour weeks for the money.
> Nowadays, they are cutting the money but say we have to keep working 60
hour
> weeks. This is BS, if the economy is dumpy, and there is no work out
there,
> then what are we working 60 hours a week for? ie. if things have slowed
> down and there is no work to do, why are we working 60 hour weeks for less
> pay, and our company earned (profits, not revenues) over $1 billion last
> year? Yes, I am hard working but I do not work hard for free. I expect
to
> be paid for my hard work.
>
> I really envy the union electricans in our comm room. Yes I have had work
> "held up" by them because I am working 60+ hours a week and they work 40
> hours a week. I always have to do things ASAP when my management tells me
> and they only have to work 9AM-5PM. Most of my co-workers hate them for
> this, but I say to myself, who is being stupid here, us or them? One of
my
> managers, who is actually a nice, good guy told me once that our lives had
> to revolve around our job. The electricians actually have time for their
> families (or girlfriends, friends, hobbies, whatever). When I was in my
> early 20's I didn't care so much about having free time, but now I want
that
> 40 hour workweek that worker's struggled for in decades past, or at least
> something near it, maybe down to a "45 hour" workweek at least. I had a
> very nice girlfriend, and although not the only reason, the hours and
stress
> of my job contributed to us breaking up.
>
> I really like being a systems administrator. A lot of aspects of it
> fascinate me and I love learning the new technologies, as well as learning
> more deeply about things such as disk I/O, memory usage etc. I like doing
> what I'm doing, although less nowadays than before, probably because of
what
> I've been talking about.
>
> I want to hear what people think about the union electricians in the comm.
> rooms. Usually there is a lot of dislike and I think it should be aired
> out. Personally, I am one of the minority who thinks SA's and NA's can
> benefit by being more like union electrican. I doubt if SA's or NA's will
> ever be in a union, but there should at least be associations like doctors
> and lawyers have (AMA, ABA), that fight for things like against the new
> H1-B's, and repealing the FLSA just for computer engineers and so forth.
> Things like SAGE don't really cut it as they're focused more on technical
> issues than labor issues. So even if you don't agree with all of my
ideas,
> maybe you agree in some of them, and it is in your and mine and others who
> agree on those issues to get together and work to improve things. Like
> these anti-engineer laws being passed/repealed (H1-B, FLSA). Even if
> politically you dislike the FLSA don't you dislike that every profession
> except yours is protected by it? It's like saying "everyone can carry a
gun
> except engineers" or "everyone can practice religion of their choosing
> except computer engineers". Agree or disagree, it's unfair to single us
> out, either give it to everyone or do away with it totally. I think other
> issues can be helped by more of an association that has labor/law issues
as
> a concern, not just technical concerns.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
hehe
Hey MORON, ever realize that, this is a job and by definition a Job is
something you do for someone else to get reimbursed according to what you
BOTH believe you are entitled to, U do not have to do it if u feel the
compensation is insufficient.
Jobs as people do 'em started because the barter system needs exchanges, u
get paid for the service u provide and the laws of supply and demand.
By artificially decreasing supply like unions do, u only initiate alternate
means of supply.
Take Gas for example, we depend heavily on the middle east [ we have to
preserve alaska for now ]
what if gas started costing us $10/gallon, in the 90's we fought with Iraq
not because we cared about Kuwait, but because we cared about the
monopolizing
of the oil resources. Now if say the whole oil bloc decided to raise prices
so that we had to pay $10 a gallon, how soon do u think before we have
alternative sources of oil or a different source of energy altogether
"David Caldwell" <d...@knology.net> wrote in message
news:ImBl7.248487$rV6.11...@e420r-atl2.usenetserver.com...
bit-b...@maney.org
[...]
: I don't want motherfucking H-1Bs scabs here and neither do ~82% of American
: citizens.
The *only* reason we even have H1B (and other types) immigrant workers
in the US is because our educational system is completely worthless and
can not produce the quality of workers that our industries require. Take
a wild guess why that is the case. That's right, the "standardization"
and "unionization" of the educational system. The deliberate dumbing
down of America so that we will all accept the New World Order of
socialism that is supported and promoted by the Unions.
: I want mandatory overtime pay. (I'll go out on a limb here and say that
: most people would too).
If you want overtime pay, then you should negotiate that in your contract
from the start. If you didn't that's your own fault and you have *no one*
to blame but yourself.
: I want a limit on the # of hours I am FORCED to work. (ditto).
Sounds like the same broken record as above. Who's fault is this?
fpsm
--
| Fredrich P. Maney maney at maney dot org |
| "Sometimes, fear has a good and useful purpose." |
| --Fredrich P. Maney |
| Do NOT send me HTML formatted E-mail or copies of netnews posts! |
| Address in header is a spamtrap. Use one in signature for replies. |
| Please review http://www.maney.org/fred/site/uce/ before emailing. |
bit-b...@maney.org
: David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
[...]
:> Let me just state for the record that I have no objection to unions or
:>collective bargaining in principle. What I do object to are:
:>
:> 1) Stupid arguments in support of unions. (Like that workers are too
:>dumb to negotiate on their own, or arguments that amount to attempts to
:>cripple the company so that it can't affort to hire you anymore.)
: Not too dumb, but too powerless. One employee deciding not to work
: for a particular company because of abusive practices won't have any
: effect on that company. Several hundred potential employees making
: that decision will get their attention.
Sounds like exactly what would happen if we had a true capitalist
economy instead of the government stepping in to "protect the rights
of the poor workers".
:> 2) Stupid policies unions argue for. (Like fewer H1-Bs, more
:>restrictions on H1-Bs, mandatory overtime pay, limits on hours worked,
:>and so on.)
: I thought you were going to list the stupid policies. These all make a
: lot of sense to me.
All of them are stupid because they raise the bottom line for the company.
Which in turn makes it more likely that they will need to "downsize" some
of their employees and replace them either with temporary workers or
move their business to other countries that are less restrictive in
order to protect their profit margin to keep their stockholders happy.
no.one
times have you been shown the door after working 60+ hour weeks because the
company hires someone at half your age that they THINK can do you job? The
plain fact is that no matter how hard one works, no matter how smart one is,
under the current employment laws, everyone becomes disposable over time.
Additionally, the last thing that I want is to see is the situation where
good technical people are forced into management as a matter of professional
survival, and succumb to the "Peter Principal."
In closing, whether we like it or not, we are all business people.
Responsible business owners work overtime to grow their companies, not for
fun. The main reason people become contractors and consultants is because
they have decided to maximum their return on investment (ROI). As we all
know, ROI equals revenue minus cost divided by cost. As a responsible
businessman, I place a cost on my time (i.e., the old saying time is money).
Applying a cost to my time makes me more, not less of a professional as the
definition of a professional versus an amateur is that a professional is
compensated for their work. Also, most of the practitioners in the
traditional professional occupations such as doctors, lawyers, CPAs are
compensated on a fee for service basis; hence, they are in fact paid for
every hour that they work, or they receive a fixed salary plus a hefty
percentage of the organization's profit.
no.one
nineteen-nineties and are a glorified computer operator and "script kiddy"
(i.e., feel free to insert para-professional, gray-collar worker here), I
can see that you are too wet behind the ears to know anything about being a
professional in this field.
P.S. What are you academic credentials? Vendor certification is toilet
paper.
no.one
hehe <he...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:ihLl7.220$1V2.1...@news.uswest.net...
> Jobs as people do 'em started because the barter system needs exchanges,
u
> get paid for the service u provide and the laws of supply and demand.
> By artificially decreasing supply like unions do, u only initiate
alternate
> means of supply.
The same argument can be made about H-1B. H-1B artificially increases the
supply, which in effect is a corporate subsidy (i.e., welfare).
Jay
>
> Jay wrote:
>
> > I don't want motherfucking H-1Bs scabs here and neither do ~82% of American
> > citizens.
>
> Right, they work hard and make you look bad. You don't want H-1Bs to
> work harder than you. You want to pull them down to your level.
Working hard is besides the point you moron. This is just a
sympathy ploy. Illegal aliens work hard, "they thus deserve
citizenship". H-1Bs work hard (mostly due to that they
are indentured and will get their sorry butts Fedex-ed
back to their point of origin if they don't "work hard"
for cheap), so they "deserve" to be here.
A scab is a scab. Their job is to pull down our salaries
and turn IT jobs into low status McJobs.
>
> > I want mandatory overtime pay. (I'll go out on a limb here and say that
> > most people would too).
>
> Then refuse to work unless you get it. What you *really* want is *me*
> to have overtime pay whether I want it or not. That way I don't make you
> look bad by working overtime for free. Again, you want to pull me down.
Well this has been answered better than I can by other posts, so I will just
insult you...
That's tough for you. You are a obnoxious moron. Pulling you down is a
benefit.
>
> > I want a limit on the # of hours I am FORCED to work. (ditto).
>
> Unless you have an employment contract (which would probably specify
> the number of hours), then this request makes no sense. If you are an
> at-will employee, you can be fired at any time for any reason.
Fuck low-protection "at-will" employment. You live a motherfucking
"Right To Work" shithole State?
> If your
> employer didn't get his money's worth out of you, he'd fire you.
> Nobody can force you to work if you don't want to. Listen to Nancy
> Reagan and Just Say No. The reality is, *YOU* want a limit on the number
> of hours that *I* am forced to work. Because if I can be forced to work
> for 80 hours, then who is going to hire you?
You are a obnoxious moron. Non-morons want a life. I have no problems
with fucking you up. If I work 40 hours and get paid the same that
you do for your 80 hours, guess who is getting paid twice as much per hour?
Duhhh!
>
> You don't want anything for yourself, you just want to take things from
> me. Fuck off.
I would keep your obnoxious attitude to the net, because you don't want
to spew that shit in real life.
Tim Slattery
>Sounds like exactly what would happen if we had a true capitalist
>economy instead of the government stepping in to "protect the rights
>of the poor workers".
If you actually believe that garbage, you're beyond hope. Unregulated
capitalism is what we had in the late 19th century, when
industrialists could abuse their employees any way they liked. We had
child labor, 7 day work weeks, physical attacks on anybody who would
dare to try to organize the workers, all that good stuff.
>:> 2) Stupid policies unions argue for. (Like fewer H1-Bs, more
>:>restrictions on H1-Bs, mandatory overtime pay, limits on hours worked,
>:>and so on.)
>
>: I thought you were going to list the stupid policies. These all make a
>: lot of sense to me.
>
>All of them are stupid because they raise the bottom line for the company.
>Which in turn makes it more likely that they will need to "downsize" some
>of their employees and replace them either with temporary workers or
>move their business to other countries that are less restrictive in
>order to protect their profit margin to keep their stockholders happy.
If they can only keep their stockholders and their executives happy by
abusing their employees, then they don't deserve to be in business.
--
Tim Slattery
Slatt...@bls.gov
xganon
no.one
Tim Slattery <Slatt...@bls.gov> wrote in message
news:mj9fpt0r8cjbqr0k4...@4ax.com...
>
> If they can only keep their stockholders and their executives happy by
> abusing their employees, then they don't deserve to be in business.
>
I believe that any U.S. corporation that manufactures abroad should be
subject to import tariffs just like foreign-owned companies. We are
rapidly coming to the point where the U.S. portion of many companies
consists of nothing but a sales and marketing organization. Hence, these
companies are for all intents and purposes are foreign companies. I wonder
how Jack "we can squeeze infinite juice from the lemon" Welch would feel
about GE being classified as a foreign-owned company. Jack, alone, earns as
much as fifteen thousand of his offshore workers . I guess it is time
for "The Jungle" to, once again, become mandatory reading for all citizens
(an online version of this book is available at:
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Literature/Sinclair/TheJungle/ ).
hehe
hehe hehe hehe hehe hehe
hehe hehe hehe hehe hehe
hehe hehe hehe hehe hehe
hehe hehe hehe hehe hehe
hehe hehe hehe hehe hehe
hehe hehe hehe hehe hehe
hehe hehe hehe hehe hehe
hehe hehe hehe hehe hehe
"xganon" <nob...@xganon.com> wrote in message
news:ae2cc39d2e859b0e...@xganon.com...
Dave Hinz
: Seeing that you have only been in the business since the early
My, what odd statements to be coming from someone who is so ashamed of
who they are, that they hide behind anonymity.
no.one
desire to be an agent of change. I learned a long time ago that the only
way to change things is to move up. However, in order to perform this feat,
one must hold their cards very close to their chest. This means never
letting your opponent know what you are thinking. Let's just say that my
professional and academic credentials are very solid.
Dave Hinz <dh...@earth.execpc.com> wrote in message
news:3b97b5a1$0$12825$272e...@news.execpc.com...
Dave Hinz
: My anonymity has nothing to do with shame. It has to do with SPAM, and my
: desire to be an agent of change. I learned a long time ago that the only
: way to change things is to move up.
How much credence do you really think people give an anonymous poster? If
it's spam you fear, then post with a real-sounding name; who would ever know?
: However, in order to perform this feat,
: one must hold their cards very close to their chest. This means never
: letting your opponent know what you are thinking.
I see. Don't tell 'em who you are, and don't say what you're thinking.
Yup, seems like a pretty effective way to convince someone to come around
to your way of thinking...
: Let's just say that my
: professional and academic credentials are very solid.
Uh huh, I'm sure they are. After all, I read it on the *internet*.
Dave Hinz
no.one
> no.one (no....@no.where.to.be.found.presently.com) wrote:
>
> How much credence do you really think people give an anonymous poster? If
> it's spam you fear, then post with a real-sounding name; who would ever
know?
>
Posting with a name does not add credibility to the posting. Any posting on
the Internet should be considered suspect until proven to be true.
>
> I see. Don't tell 'em who you are, and don't say what you're thinking.
> Yup, seems like a pretty effective way to convince someone to come around
> to your way of thinking...
>
You clearly lack political prowess (i.e., the art of the hidden agenda).
The full frontal assault never works in an organization. I post here
anonymously because, believe it or not, people in high ranking positions
within organizations scan posts to groups such as this one for names to
blacklist. As I said, on order to change things, one must move up;
however, in order to move up, one must not let on that they think that the
status quo stinks. Additionally, there are plenty of high-ranking members
of our industry that write under pseudonyms; thus, the author name on any
given posting may be an alias.
>
> Uh huh, I'm sure they are. After all, I read it on the *internet*.
>
My credentials are verifiable through means other than the Internet.
Dave Hinz
: Dave Hinz <dh...@earth.execpc.com> wrote in message
: news:3b97c58e$0$10815$272e...@news.execpc.com...
: > no.one (no....@no.where.to.be.found.presently.com) wrote:
: >
: > How much credence do you really think people give an anonymous poster? If
: > it's spam you fear, then post with a real-sounding name; who would ever
: know?
: >
: Posting with a name does not add credibility to the posting. Any posting on
: the Internet should be considered suspect until proven to be true.
And yet, the absence of a name, to some, automatically disqualifies
any credibility at all.
: > I see. Don't tell 'em who you are, and don't say what you're thinking.
: > Yup, seems like a pretty effective way to convince someone to come around
: > to your way of thinking...
: You clearly lack political prowess (i.e., the art of the hidden agenda).
Thank you for the compiment.
: The full frontal assault never works in an organization.
Works in the organization that has employed me for the last 11 years...
: I post here
: anonymously because, believe it or not, people in high ranking positions
: within organizations scan posts to groups such as this one for names to
: blacklist.
OK, if you say so. I guess I hang out with a different group of people.
: As I said, on order to change things, one must move up;
: however, in order to move up, one must not let on that they think that the
: status quo stinks. Additionally, there are plenty of high-ranking members
: of our industry that write under pseudonyms; thus, the author name on any
: given posting may be an alias.
Which industry are *you* in? Also, I believe you have the concept of
a pen-name confused with a name like "nob...@nowhere.nohow.com" or whatever
it is you use.
: > Uh huh, I'm sure they are. After all, I read it on the *internet*.
: >
: My credentials are verifiable through means other than the Internet.
You're not going to convince me that I should value the words of someone
who hides behind anonymity, for whatever reason. I'm sure you feel
strongly that it's necessary or desirable for you to do so, but I feel
equally strongly that your opinion, whatever it may be, is not relevant
to the case at hand, simply by your lack of identity.
Dave Hinz
bit-b...@maney.org
: Seeing that you have only been in the business since the early
Since you didn't bother to include any of the text of the message
you are responding to, I have to ask, exactly who is this directed
towards?
Steve Frank
"no.one" wrote:
>
> My anonymity has nothing to do with shame. It has to do with SPAM, and my
> desire to be an agent of change. I learned a long time ago that the only
> way to change things is to move up. However, in order to perform this feat,
> one must hold their cards very close to their chest. This means never
> letting your opponent know what you are thinking. Let's just say that my
> professional and academic credentials are very solid.
>
All of us attempt to limit SPAM. This is most often accomplished
modifying our email addresses as posted to discourage automated replies.
Hiding behind anonymity is something else. Are you an agent of change
or an agent provocateur? If change is truly your goal, stand behind
your statements, don't hide behind them. If your goal is to initiate a
flamewar by making provocative statements, use another NG. It's
inappropriate here.
My professional and acedemic credentials are solid, too. That's why my
name is attached to this posting. I have nothing to hide.
Using the nom-de-noise of "no one" casts doubt on everything you say.
BTW, what are electricians doing running around the comm. room anyway?
In my experience, the only time electricians ever came in my comm. room,
they were invited to perform specific tasks at my request. Other times,
it was forbidden territory.
Steve Frank
no.one
>
> And yet, the absence of a name, to some, automatically disqualifies
> any credibility at all.
>
So, what you are saying is that if I am not willing to lay my children's
future on the line in an open forum, then my what I have to say means
nothing. I find your stance to be ludicrous. I guess that you think that
"Deep Throat's" part in breaking the Watergate story does not count because
he/she hid behind a wall of anonymity.
>
> : The full frontal assault never works in an organization.
>
> Works in the organization that has employed me for the last 11 years...
>
It does not work in my area of the country. Full frontal assault gains one
the reputation of being a wildcard! If I want to change the rules, I have
to appear to be playing the game.
>
> Which industry are *you* in? Also, I believe you have the concept of
> a pen-name confused with a name like "nob...@nowhere.nohow.com" or
whatever
> it is you use.
>
No, I do not have the the concept of "pen-name" and alias confused.
People use an alias (an "no.one" qualifies as an alias) to shield their true
identity.
>
> You're not going to convince me that I should value the words of someone
> who hides behind anonymity, for whatever reason. I'm sure you feel
> strongly that it's necessary or desirable for you to do so, but I feel
> equally strongly that your opinion, whatever it may be, is not relevant
> to the case at hand, simply by your lack of identity.
>
Fair enough!
Thumper
>In comp.unix.admin Jay <j...@jay.jay.org> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>: I don't want motherfucking H-1Bs scabs here and neither do ~82% of American
>: citizens.
>
>The *only* reason we even have H1B (and other types) immigrant workers
>in the US is because our educational system is completely worthless and
>can not produce the quality of workers that our industries require. Take
>a wild guess why that is the case. That's right, the "standardization"
>and "unionization" of the educational system. The deliberate dumbing
>down of America so that we will all accept the New World Order of
>socialism that is supported and promoted by the Unions.
>
It has nothing to do with the quality of worker or the educational
system. It's all about undercutting American workers wages by
increasing the supply of workers.
Wait until you are 55 and they throw your ass out and bring in a 25
year old from India for half the price. People scream about all the
foreign imports coming in and undercutting American goods prices. Why
the hell aren't they bitching about importing workers? The
politicians bitch about some poor mexican migrant worker while they
bring programmers in the back door.
Thumper
Thumper
wrote:
Why don't you stay on the subject and discuss the issues? Maybe it's
because you have nothing intelligent to say.
Thumper
David Schwartz
> If you actually believe that garbage, you're beyond hope. Unregulated
> capitalism is what we had in the late 19th century, when
> industrialists could abuse their employees any way they liked. We had
> child labor, 7 day work weeks, physical attacks on anybody who would
> dare to try to organize the workers, all that good stuff.
And we didn't have desktop computers either! It was terrible.
The funny thing is, the immigrants kept coming. You would think one
person would have sent a letter back home saying, "the child labor and
working conditions are horrible here, stay home" but that never
happened.
The reality, of course, is that conditions were far better than
practically anywhere else in the world. The problems were due simply to
time. Go back in time and you'll find starvation, slavery, poor living
conditions, poor working conditions, poor sanitary conditions -- and
you'll find them everywhere. Things just can't improve overnight.
DS
David Schwartz
> So, what you are saying is that if I am not willing to lay my children's
> future on the line in an open forum, then my what I have to say means
> nothing.
What exactly are you afraid of?
> I find your stance to be ludicrous. I guess that you think that
> "Deep Throat's" part in breaking the Watergate story does not count because
> he/she hid behind a wall of anonymity.
Well, a few things here. First of all, deep throat was not anonymous.
Those who asked us to believe his claims knew who he was, and assured us
with their reputations that what he said is real. That is, the actual
claims were vouched for by people who we had reason to trust.
But in any event, you are right that an argument can be true or false
regardless of who makes it. That someone has a history of making true
claims can be used to presume their claims true, and that someone has a
history of making false claims can be used to ignore them until evidence
is available.
But you really didn't make any claims (that is, allege that particular
facts are true that you personally and uniquely observed). You argued
that things are true in general and you made deductions and claims based
upon that. So it doesn't matter who you are. You aren't asking us to
specifically take your word for anything.
DS
David Schwartz
>
> David Schwartz wrote:
> >
> > Jay wrote:
> >
> > > I don't want motherfucking H-1Bs scabs here and neither do ~82% of American
> > > citizens.
> >
> > Right, they work hard and make you look bad. You don't want H-1Bs to
> > work harder than you. You want to pull them down to your level.
>
> Working hard is besides the point you moron. This is just a
> sympathy ploy. Illegal aliens work hard, "they thus deserve
> citizenship".
I'm not saying they deserve citizenship.
> H-1Bs work hard (mostly due to that they
> are indentured and will get their sorry butts Fedex-ed
> back to their point of origin if they don't "work hard"
> for cheap), so they "deserve" to be here.
No, but their employers should not be able to threaten them with
deportation. I agree that indentured servitute or slavery in exchange
for residency is a problem.
> A scab is a scab. Their job is to pull down our salaries
> and turn IT jobs into low status McJobs.
I guess you are just trying to ignore the realities that IT is a global
market and that the IT industry in the US is in trouble. I know you have
a selfish interest in seeing IT salaries go up, but you are not the
entire picture.
> > > I want mandatory overtime pay. (I'll go out on a limb here and say that
> > > most people would too).
> > Then refuse to work unless you get it. What you *really* want is *me*
> > to have overtime pay whether I want it or not. That way I don't make you
> > look bad by working overtime for free. Again, you want to pull me down.
>
> Well this has been answered better than I can by other posts, so I will just
> insult you...
> That's tough for you. You are a obnoxious moron. Pulling you down is a
> benefit.
I'm sure you feel that way.
> > > I want a limit on the # of hours I am FORCED to work. (ditto).
> > Unless you have an employment contract (which would probably specify
> > the number of hours), then this request makes no sense. If you are an
> > at-will employee, you can be fired at any time for any reason.
> Fuck low-protection "at-will" employment. You live a motherfucking
> "Right To Work" shithole State?
I live in a state with at-will employment. Even if I didn't, I'd
probably prefer an at-will arrangement anyway, and could negotiate one
through an employment contract. But it's hard to say, there are
advantage and disadvantages both ways. With an employment contract, you
can negotiate things like stock options and severance better, but you
lose the flexibility to walk away any time you want. The implied threats
go both ways -- "you don't work this saturday, you're fired" "well, you
make me work more than 50 hours this week, and I'll quit".
> > If your
> > employer didn't get his money's worth out of you, he'd fire you.
> > Nobody can force you to work if you don't want to. Listen to Nancy
> > Reagan and Just Say No. The reality is, *YOU* want a limit on the number
> > of hours that *I* am forced to work. Because if I can be forced to work
> > for 80 hours, then who is going to hire you?
> You are a obnoxious moron. Non-morons want a life. I have no problems
> with fucking you up. If I work 40 hours and get paid the same that
> you do for your 80 hours, guess who is getting paid twice as much per hour?
> Duhhh!
I agree with your last comment. So why do you want to stop me from
working 80 hours? You don't need a law to stop you, just don't do it.
> > You don't want anything for yourself, you just want to take things from
> > me. Fuck off.
> I would keep your obnoxious attitude to the net, because you don't want
> to spew that shit in real life.
I deal with selfish envy the same way on the net as I do in real life.
DS
David Schwartz
> How old are you David?
31
> What are your obligations outside of work?
Wife. Three kids.
> How many
> times have you been shown the door after working 60+ hour weeks because the
> company hires someone at half your age that they THINK can do you job?
I'm not old enough to be replaced by someone half my age. But if the
company I was working for didn't think that I was the perfect person for
the job, I'd quit. I have no desire to stay where I'm not appreciated.
Hey, if they don't want me, fine, I'll go where I'm wanted.
But let me say one thing -- no matter how old I get, I refuse to resent
someone for being younger than me or working harder than me. Let them
work harder and maybe even earn more. I don't have to make the most
money. In fact, the job I have right now doesn't pay anywhere near the
salary I could get if money were my prime motivator. I keep the job I
have now because I love the company and because it gives me flexibility
to deal with my obligations outside of work.
> The
> plain fact is that no matter how hard one works, no matter how smart one is,
> under the current employment laws, everyone becomes disposable over time.
Right, as soon as I'm no longer the right person for the job. That's
when it's time to move on. Do you expect to hold your present job
forever?
> Additionally, the last thing that I want is to see is the situation where
> good technical people are forced into management as a matter of professional
> survival, and succumb to the "Peter Principal."
So then don't go into management. If you feel pressured at your current
job, find a new one. Better yet, negotiate these things ahead of time.
> In closing, whether we like it or not, we are all business people.
Definitely.
> Responsible business owners work overtime to grow their companies, not for
> fun.
Well, some do for both.
> The main reason people become contractors and consultants is because
> they have decided to maximum their return on investment (ROI). As we all
> know, ROI equals revenue minus cost divided by cost. As a responsible
> businessman, I place a cost on my time (i.e., the old saying time is money).
> Applying a cost to my time makes me more, not less of a professional as the
> definition of a professional versus an amateur is that a professional is
> compensated for their work.
Absolutely.
> Also, most of the practitioners in the
> traditional professional occupations such as doctors, lawyers, CPAs are
> compensated on a fee for service basis; hence, they are in fact paid for
> every hour that they work, or they receive a fixed salary plus a hefty
> percentage of the organization's profit.
You can negotiate any terms you like and refuse to work if you don't
find satisfactory terms. If you are unable to find satisfactory terms,
it's either because the people who won't hire you are stupid or because
you aren't worth as much as you think you are.
DS
Steve Frank
"no.one" wrote:
>
> >
> > snipped
>
> You clearly lack political prowess (i.e., the art of the hidden agenda).
> The full frontal assault never works in an organization. I post here
> anonymously because, believe it or not, people in high ranking positions
> within organizations scan posts to groups such as this one for names to
> blacklist. As I said, on order to change things, one must move up;
> however, in order to move up, one must not let on that they think that the
> status quo stinks. Additionally, there are plenty of high-ranking members
> of our industry that write under pseudonyms; thus, the author name on any
> given posting may be an alias.
>
> snipped
You are paranoid. Both your statements of politics and cringing
statements like the above indicate to me that you are running from
shadows. If an organization were so frightened of change as to
blacklist people who advocate it, who would want anything to to with
them? I've met people who blacklist others because of ideas (most of
them are Republicans) and have learned to steer clear of them.
Perhaps you should find a less stressful environment and seek some
counseling. Then, when the world looks a little better to you, rethink
your ideologies.
Steve
no.one
Steve Frank <s...@nospam.nwinet.com> wrote in message
news:3B97E4F0...@nospam.nwinet.com...
>
> You are paranoid.
>Both your statements of politics and cringing
> statements like the above indicate to me that you are running from
> shadows. If an organization were so frightened of change as to
> blacklist people who advocate it, who would want anything to to with
> them? I've met people who blacklist others because of ideas (most of
> them are Republicans) and have learned to steer clear of them.
>
If one spends a few years working the Washington D.C. Metro Area, and they
learn to watch what they say in public forum. People on the West Coast
have no idea of how conservative people are on the East Coast.
Dave Hinz
: Why don't you stay on the subject and discuss the issues? Maybe it's
: because you have nothing intelligent to say.
Because the opinion of someone who is so cowardly as to hide behind
a pseudonym and/or anonymity, is meaningless. That, and you people need
to take your little rant *off* of the technical discussion groups.
Dave Hinz
(followups fixed to remove a technical discussion group or two)
David Schwartz
> The same argument can be made about H-1B. H-1B artificially increases the
> supply, which in effect is a corporate subsidy (i.e., welfare).
When the government gets out of your way, it's a handout? Now *that* is
worse than double-speak, that's double-think.
DS
Philotsopher
"Steve Frank" <s...@nwinet.com> wrote in message
news:3B97D1AA...@nospam.nwinet.com...
>
>
> "no.one" wrote:
> >
>
> My professional and acedemic credentials are solid, too. That's why my
> name is attached to this posting. I have nothing to hide.
>
said something that the thought police are offended by.
bio...@erols.com
>
> Because the opinion of someone who is so cowardly as to hide behind
> a pseudonym and/or anonymity, is meaningless. That, and you people need
> to take your little rant *off* of the technical discussion groups.
>
I know no.one. I worked with him at a major telecommunications
equipment manufacturer. I will vouch for his credentials. He is one
of the most talented communication software architects that I have met
(he also has impeccable academic credentials). His work on network and
element management software is legendary (especially, his broadband
stuff). HE DOES HAVE A LOT TO LOSE if his real views are known because
HE WORKS AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL IN THE INDUSTRY; thus, he has to appear to
be the ultimate team player.
Philotsopher
"no.one" <no....@no.where.to.be.found.presently.com> wrote in message
news:9n8q0k$bv9$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
say they have nothing to hide, but they don't know who is looking, and for
what.
Philotsopher
"David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:3B97FB4B...@webmaster.com...
purpose is to manipulate the labor market. If you think that the government
shouldn't control immigration than you must believe that we shouldn't be a
sovereign nation. You can't have one without the other.
You are a globalist, and your thinking will ruin this nation.
Philotsopher
> Jay wrote:
>
> > I don't want motherfucking H-1Bs scabs here and neither do ~82% of
American
> > citizens.
>
> Right, they work hard and make you look bad. You don't want H-1Bs to
> work harder than you. You want to pull them down to your level.
>
Philotsopher
a way to squeeze 10% more out of your 40 hour work week, your boss will
demand another 10%. Eventually you will be forced to work overtime. You must
not have been in the business very long or you would know how the system
works.
"Nate Vanderschaaf" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:J6Ll7.158$Owe.19...@news.frii.net...
> Look, IT is special. It's far from normal. One thing about it is: Work
> smarter, not harder. I have gotten far in life by working the 40 hour
week,
> but by getting more done in 40 hours than most do in 60. I refuse to put
in
> long hours. That's what computers are for. It's my laziness that drives
me
> to work smarter so I don't have to work so hard in the future. (I can't
> take credit for this concept. I've got to give credit where credit is
due:
> Thanks, Larry Wall! Not that I know him personally; but I'd like to.)
>
> http://paulagordon.com/shows/wall/
>
> Nate Vanderschaaf
>
>
> "Ruy Lopez" <ruyl...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:GNal7.8344$IP6.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > In my last job, I was a systems administrator at a Fortune 100 company.
I
> > joined the company shortly after spring 2000 - I had been working at
> > Internet companies previously, since that's where the money was, but
when
> > NASDAQ started crashing I knew that that ride was over.
> >
> > Since I had to submit a timesheet every week, I know I worked an average
> of
> > over 60 hours every week, and some weeks I worked over 80 hours a week.
> The
> > hours alone don't reflect all the hours I worked - there was a rotating
> > shift in place as well, where I would work a 7AM-6PM shift about once
> every
> > two weeks, an on-call shift every two weeks and a weekend shift once a
> > month. The on-call shift menat I would work 8:30AM-6PM at work
required,
> > then I would be on-call until 8:30AM the next morning. I averaged about
2
> > calls a night when on-call, often being woken up at 3 in the morning.
At
> > your discretion, you were usually allowed to come in late if you had to
> work
> > late on an issue. Weekend shift meant you were on-call from Friday 6PM
> > until Sunday 6PM, and you would have work to do as well - on Saturday
you
> > would usually have an average of 6-8 hours of work. If you worked over
6
> > hours on assigned work on the weekend, you could take a day off during
the
> > week.
> >
> > The above is all required work, it does not include projects we would
have
> > to work on, where we were often expected to work late. So sometimes
> during
> > the week you would work to 10PM, or even to 2AM on a project that a
> manager
> > was pressuring to be done. So the above, plus the 8:30AM-6:00PM shift
was
> > required, but usually we had work that lasted past 6PM, which, as I said
> > could stretch until 8PM, 10PM or even 2AM.
> >
> > When I started the job, I was worried I might not have enough free time
> for
> > a social life. Before I left, my main concern was that I had enough
time
> to
> > sleep. I couldn't believe how many hours I was scheduled to work. On
top
> > of this, we went through a round of layoffs, where the criteria was the
> > person's "competence and judgement", and "how hard they worked" which
> meant
> > how many free hours they put in on top of the above schedule. We were
> told
> > by manager's that people who were laid off or fired (3 SA's were fired
> > within my year there, 3 laid off , within a group of about 30 people)
> lacked
> > competence/judgement or that they were slackers (even though everyone
> worked
> > the required 50 hours a week plus 72 hours of on-call a month).
> >
> > I should also add that during my year there, the bonus was cancelled,
and
> > our salaries were reduced, as well as some other things (medical
coverage,
> > 401K matching etc. got worse). Also yearly salary raises were
cancelled.
> > All this in an environment that was very stressful, as it was a
fast-paced
> > Fortune 100 company. People who requested work knew we didn't have
enough
> > time and resources to do it, so they felt if they were a pain we'd be
more
> > likely to do their work. The problem is everyone took this tack so
there
> > was generally nastiness all around. Before the bonus cut, people were
> > jockeying for a cut of the bonus which made co-workers more cuthroat
than
> > fraternal. Actually, I was in a sub-group with a differently structured
> > bonus pool so there was more fraternity in my group within the group.
> >
> > The bottom line is conditions pretty much sucked. In years past, people
> > always said if a job sucked, "find another one". Nowadays, there is a
lot
> > more supply than demand, and conditions are deteriorating all over. I
> > always, always, always worked over 40 hours a week as a systems
> > administrator, however there were certain conditions which had changed.
> The
> > hours worked were mandatory, not something that I chose to do as in the
> > past. Also, in the past I had a nice chunk of ownership in the
companies,
> > which were growing fast, so working hard benefitted my company, but
> > benefitted me as well - my stock option situation was abysmal at the new
> > place, so much so that I never signed the agreement as they were next to
> > worthless. Maybe a third reason is in the early days I was learning a
lot
> > and was happy to have a job as an SA, but after five years I am not
> learning
> > as quickly. Speaking of that, I should add on top of the time required
at
> > work, we were also expected to spend our own time training ourselves on
> the
> > newest technologies that were being rolled out in our organizations.
> >
> > From having talked with the network administrator's and systems
> > administrators at this former company, I know I am fighting an uphill
> battle
> > in trying to get all the worker's agreeing to band together to improve
> > working conditions. What were the problems:
> >
> > On was that the co-worker was an H1-B. About half of the SA's and NA's
> > there were H1-B's. The H1-B's had even less move around room then we
> did -
> > if they get fired they have to go back to their home country within a
few
> > days to find work. The H1-B's don't care about pay or working
conditions
> > that much, well they do, but they feel they can't do anything. They are
> all
> > getting paid less than we are, even though they work many hours like we
> do.
> > They all feel more stuck to the company than we do, because if they
leave
> > for another company, they all have to start their green card application
> > process all over again. They all are applied for a green card and they
> all
> > want one. The company is not helpful in helping them get green cards
> > because they know as soon as the H1-B gets a green card, he will leave.
> > When your co-workers are semi-indentured, this does not make life easy
on
> > you.
> >
> > There were other problems, but the one I want to talk about is some of
> their
> > philosophical arguments. Everyone had complaints about work, be it the
> > hours required, the pay cuts or whatnot. But some of them had an
attitude
> > that the competent, hard-working workers would stay and prosper, and the
> > people being laid off were incompetent and lazy. These people usually
> hated
> > the electricians who worked in the comm. room. The electricans, unlike
> us,
> > had normal 9 to 5 hours. They also had A LOT more job security than us.
> > They said that the electricians were lazy, that "work had to be done,
> > because the business needed it, and the electricians didn't care". Also
> the
> > electricians actually got paid overtime if they worked over 40 hours!
We
> > got no overtime, and with the bonus cut not even the carrot of possibly
> > being rewarded for our overtime (at the bosses discretion). One thing
> these
> > people never explained is that if "the business needed something to be
> > done", that they didn't get the resources to do it instead of making us
> work
> > 60+ hour weeks and even longer if there was a "business need emergency".
> > Our company made over $1 billion in profit. Profit doesn't include the
> fat
> > salaries and bonuses managing directors gave themselves. Why did the
> > business need fall on our backs, why couldn't more SA's be hired if the
> > business needed it so we could work downwards to a 40-hours-required
week?
> >
> > My co-workers harped on an on about how they were hard-working and the
> > electricians were lazy. They gave examples of union laziness, mostly
from
> > other places they had worked since our electricians were pretty good.
> > Honestly, they do have some of a point, I can't refute what they were
> saying
> > totally, However, things had deteriorated so badly, with 60+ hour
weeks,
> > salary cuts, with the pendelum swinging towards worse for us (less pay,
> more
> > time), that it was definitely time in my mind to swing that pendelum the
> > other way (more free time for us, more money - or at least our salaries
> > should keep up with inflation). If more free time for us meant that
every
> > piece of work the company wanted done didn't get done right away, so be
> it.
> > Let them hire more people to do it. If there weren't enough experienced
> > people to do it, then spend some money on training, give people time
> during
> > the workday to do training.
> >
> > One funny thing is the H1-B's agreed more than anyone. They were being
> > screwed by the company worse than us, since because of the green card
> thing
> > they felt like they couldn't leave. If they do get a green card,
> hopefully
> > they'll keep this attitude.
> >
> > I don't want to hear I am not hard working because I have worked my ass
> off
> > my entire life. I am also quite competent and experienced, and not just
> in
> > my immediate field - I can configure Cisco equipment, set up databases,
> > program and do things other than system administration. But I think
> > SA's/NA's and programmers should be more conscious of the issues that
> effect
> > them and their co-workers. Even if you disagree with some remedies,
it's
> in
> > your best interest to address a lot of these issues. H1-B's coming in
do
> > not help you at all. I don't mind Indians and Chinese engineers coming
> into
> > the country, but I don't like how the H1-B enslaves them to the company
> for
> > a green card. This just makes them and their co-workers miserable, the
> only
> > people who benefit are the owners of the company. My main concern isn't
> the
> > H1-B's here, it's the hundreds of thousands of H1-B's coming into the
> > country next year, in 2002, and the year after that, 2003. Legally,
> they're
> > only supposed to fill jobs there are no workers for, but I have seen
many
> > examples where this isn't true, and many examples of people who have
been
> > replaced by H1-B's. They are also supposed to be paid a prevailing
wage,
> > which is not happening as well, they are all underpaid the ones I know.
> >
> > Here are two links about H1-B's - the first explaining everything and
the
> > second you can look up what H1-B's are earning in your company or state:
> >
> > http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.html
> > http://www.zazona.com/
> >
> > Again, I like and am friends with the H1-B's at my company. My main
> concern
> > is NEW H1-B's, ie. the hundreds of thousands coming in this year, next
> year,
> > the year after that etc. as our economy and IT industry is on the
> downslope.
> >
> > Another thing is there has been law for decades called the FLSA which
sets
> > working conditions for workers, such as you can't force them to work
over
> a
> > certain number of hours a week without overtime pay and so forth. This
> has
> > been repealed if you are a computer engineer! You can do a web search
on
> > the Fair Labor Standards Act to learn more about this.
> >
> > Again as far as hard-working - I am very hard-working (I put in a lot of
> > hours), but I have always worked hard and many hours for a reason, to
> better
> > myself financially. Yesterday we worked 60 hour weeks for the money.
> > Nowadays, they are cutting the money but say we have to keep working 60
> hour
> > weeks. This is BS, if the economy is dumpy, and there is no work out
> there,
> > then what are we working 60 hours a week for? ie. if things have slowed
> > down and there is no work to do, why are we working 60 hour weeks for
less
> > pay, and our company earned (profits, not revenues) over $1 billion last
> > year? Yes, I am hard working but I do not work hard for free. I expect
> to
> > be paid for my hard work.
> >
> > I really envy the union electricans in our comm room. Yes I have had
work
> > "held up" by them because I am working 60+ hours a week and they work 40
> > hours a week. I always have to do things ASAP when my management tells
me
> > and they only have to work 9AM-5PM. Most of my co-workers hate them for
> > this, but I say to myself, who is being stupid here, us or them? One of
> my
> > managers, who is actually a nice, good guy told me once that our lives
had
> > to revolve around our job. The electricians actually have time for
their
> > families (or girlfriends, friends, hobbies, whatever). When I was in my
> > early 20's I didn't care so much about having free time, but now I want
> that
> > 40 hour workweek that worker's struggled for in decades past, or at
least
> > something near it, maybe down to a "45 hour" workweek at least. I had a
> > very nice girlfriend, and although not the only reason, the hours and
> stress
> > of my job contributed to us breaking up.
> >
> > I really like being a systems administrator. A lot of aspects of it
> > fascinate me and I love learning the new technologies, as well as
learning
> > more deeply about things such as disk I/O, memory usage etc. I like
doing
> > what I'm doing, although less nowadays than before, probably because of
> what
> > I've been talking about.
> >
> > I want to hear what people think about the union electricians in the
comm.
> > rooms. Usually there is a lot of dislike and I think it should be aired
> > out. Personally, I am one of the minority who thinks SA's and NA's can
> > benefit by being more like union electrican. I doubt if SA's or NA's
will
> > ever be in a union, but there should at least be associations like
doctors
> > and lawyers have (AMA, ABA), that fight for things like against the new
> > H1-B's, and repealing the FLSA just for computer engineers and so forth.
> > Things like SAGE don't really cut it as they're focused more on
technical
> > issues than labor issues. So even if you don't agree with all of my
> ideas,
> > maybe you agree in some of them, and it is in your and mine and others
who
> > agree on those issues to get together and work to improve things. Like
> > these anti-engineer laws being passed/repealed (H1-B, FLSA). Even if
> > politically you dislike the FLSA don't you dislike that every profession
> > except yours is protected by it? It's like saying "everyone can carry a
> gun
> > except engineers" or "everyone can practice religion of their choosing
> > except computer engineers". Agree or disagree, it's unfair to single us
> > out, either give it to everyone or do away with it totally. I think
other
> > issues can be helped by more of an association that has labor/law issues
> as
> > a concern, not just technical concerns.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
>
>
Philotsopher
<bit-b...@maney.org> wrote in message
news:9n81ng$ltv$2...@newsread.stdio.com...
> In comp.unix.admin Jay <j...@jay.jay.org> wrote:
>
>
> The *only* reason we even have H1B (and other types) immigrant workers
> in the US is because our educational system is completely worthless and
> can not produce the quality of workers that our industries require.
That's bullshit. The industry stooges are using that as an excuse to cut out
American workers. If you think our schools are so bad, why don't you send
your kids to India where they are so great. The fact is you won't send them
there because our schools are far superior.
Take
> a wild guess why that is the case. That's right, the "standardization"
> and "unionization" of the educational system. The deliberate dumbing
> down of America so that we will all accept the New World Order of
> socialism that is supported and promoted by the Unions.
>
The Unions aren't the ones pushing the New World Order. Do a google search
on "Trade Promotion Authority" and you will see that it is the industry
giants that are pushing the agenda you so despise. I can see your problem is
that you believe the corporate propaganda. Get out of that rut or you will
just be another stooge.
David Schwartz
> Slaves that picked cotton worked very hard also. So what?
So anyone who wanted to raise their wages or reduce the hours they can
work is scum. The moral position would be to *free* them!
DS
Philotsopher
I would think that anyone with a brain would want to:
* work less
* earn more
* retire early
Some of the people that do this are:
* politicians
* CEOs
* executives
* athletes
I thought you loved these people, why are you calling them scum?
According to you programmers should work harder, work longer, and ask for
less pay. Either you think they are a bunch of dumb asses or you are a shill
that is just hoping to convince us to work for less so that you can:
* work less
* earn more
* retire early
Jay
Correct.
Morons who attack anonymity usual do so because
they are too incompetent to actually have an
substantive argument and that is their only option of attack.
Anyone who attacks anonymity on Usenet just has no clue
of what Usenet is about.
Lastly, assholes demanding all posts must include their
real name, address and social security number usually are
corporate dick suckers who only write corporate butt-kissing posts
that only their managers could love.
Jay
--
Killfiled Trolls/Idiots: Jacobson, Donovan, Antunes, Neglay, Terje.
(Provided as a public service)
Philotsopher
"Jay" <j...@jay.jay.org> wrote in message
news:3B983FD3...@jay.jay.org...
> Philotsopher wrote:
> >
>
> Morons who attack anonymity usual do so because
> they are too incompetent to actually have an
> substantive argument and that is their only option of attack.
>
That's true. They are brain dead.
> Anyone who attacks anonymity on Usenet just has no clue
> of what Usenet is about.
>
What's funny is that they always claim that they are hotshot programmers.
Remember Jacobson used to pull the same crap.
> Lastly, assholes demanding all posts must include their
> real name, address and social security number usually are
> corporate dick suckers who only write corporate butt-kissing posts
> that only their managers could love.
>
> Jay
>
That's a good point. They figure they can't lose if they post dick sucker
letters. They are the one reason I hope communists take over this country.
They will hunt these dip shits down and send them to re-education camps.
Unknown
>rooms.
No you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't have ranted about H1B's (I have
yet to meet a H1B electrician...) and how poor your job situation is.
> So even if you don't agree with all of my ideas,
>maybe you agree in some of them
Actually, it appears I don't agree on any of them...
> I think other
>issues can be helped by more of an association that has labor/law issues as
>a concern, not just technical concerns.
Then join one. Preferably in another field. Or start one. Which is
I assume what you're trying to do with this message. Personally, I'm
doing better on my own than if I had to fight for my incompetent
"union brotherhood" to get the same benefits I already have and would
prefer not to lose. Perhaps that's not so in your case.
I'm not anti-union, I'll support your right to attempt to organize one
and hold the vote for one. But I won't vote for one and I won't join
one. Life's too good without them. Sorry.
Jeff
Steve Frank
Thought police? Get real.
When the founding fathers decided to break away from King George they
didn't fear the "Thought Police." They then wrote a constitution that
had first and foremost "Freedom of Speech." The United States
government is based on the principle that not only is it our right, it's
our duty to speak up against things we disagree with. This is not
always a painless process. It is definitely not for the weak.
The reactionary, repressive types in this country fear change, thus,
attempt to keep things status quo because it's to their advantage to do
so. If you are satisfied with this, keep your mouth shut and allow them
to have their way. If you think you're getting a raw deal, speak up.
You may get fired. You may be blacklisted. However, there will be
someone out there that will applaud your efforts and may be of help. We
have laws in this country that prohibit unfair employment practices.
Some of them are good, some are not. It's your responsibility to know
which are which. Hiding in the shadows and whimpering is not a
particularly good strategy for fighting injustice.
Sit down with your management and present a business case why you think
things are bad. Take credit for it. It will most likely fall on deaf
ears. They will, however, respect you more for looking them in the eye
and telling them that they're full of shit than telling them
anonymously.
Steve
Tim Slattery
>The reality, of course, is that conditions were far better than
>practically anywhere else in the world. The problems were due simply to
>time. Go back in time and you'll find starvation, slavery, poor living
>conditions, poor working conditions, poor sanitary conditions -- and
>you'll find them everywhere. Things just can't improve overnight.
It took years to change those conditions. They were changed because
the workers formed unions, and fought the capitalists tooth and nail
for every reform. Eventually they got laws passed setting basic
standards of employment.
--
Tim Slattery
Slatt...@bls.gov
bit-b...@maney.org
: "no.one" wrote:
H-1B visas (like all other visas) are distributed, and controlled, by
the government. So, allowing foreign nationals into the country to do
the jobs (H-1Bs) is a government subsidy of corporations that want
these workers. If you really wanted a "free-market", you'd either need
to have the government limit that to the US and it's citizens (*no*
H-1Bs) or open it to the entire world (anyone can come, no visa required).
What you are advocating is the worst of both worlds in my opinion.
fpsm
--
| Fredrich P. Maney maney at maney dot org |
| "Sometimes, fear has a good and useful purpose." |
| --Fredrich P. Maney |
| Do NOT send me HTML formatted E-mail or copies of netnews posts! |
| Address in header is a spamtrap. Use one in signature for replies. |
| Please review http://www.maney.org/fred/site/uce/ before emailing. |
bit-b...@maney.org
: On 6 Sep 2001 14:37:36 GMT, bit-b...@maney.org wrote:
:>In comp.unix.admin Jay <j...@jay.jay.org> wrote:
:>
:>[...]
:>
:>: I don't want motherfucking H-1Bs scabs here and neither do ~82% of American
:>: citizens.
:>
:>The *only* reason we even have H1B (and other types) immigrant workers
:>in the US is because our educational system is completely worthless and
:>can not produce the quality of workers that our industries require. Take
:>a wild guess why that is the case. That's right, the "standardization"
:>and "unionization" of the educational system. The deliberate dumbing
:>down of America so that we will all accept the New World Order of
:>socialism that is supported and promoted by the Unions.
:>
: It has nothing to do with the quality of worker or the educational
: system. It's all about undercutting American workers wages by
: increasing the supply of workers.
If you truly believe that you are just proving my point. American (by
that I assume you mean *only* US citizens, not anyone from any of the
other countries in the Americas?) workers (IT only, right?) are not
sufficient for the demand (there are *still* more IT jobs in the US
than there are US citizens with the skills and knowledge to do them).
Why is that if the educational system in the US isn't failing to
properly train the citizenry to fill those positions? Since there are
more citizens than IT jobs, the only other possible answer is that
Americans are too lazy or picky to do those jobs.
: Wait until you are 55 and they throw your ass out and bring in a 25
: year old from India for half the price.
Personally I plan on being retired and living off a huge chunk of money
"in the bank" or "working" at some other job that is far more fun than
work by the time I'm 55. But then again, I plan and work toward my dreams
instead of sitting around whining to the government and expecting to live
off the dole for the rest of my life.
: People scream about all the
: foreign imports coming in and undercutting American goods prices.
And yet they continue to buy those products like mad because they are
higher quality/lower cost than the domestic alternatives.
: Why the hell aren't they bitching about importing workers? The
: politicians bitch about some poor mexican migrant worker while they
: bring programmers in the back door.
In both cases the immigrant workers are filling jobs that American
citizens either can not, or will not, fill. Until that issue is resolved,
you have no reason to be bitching and neither do they.
[...]
bit-b...@maney.org
: <bit-b...@maney.org> wrote in message
: news:9n81ng$ltv$2...@newsread.stdio.com...
:> In comp.unix.admin Jay <j...@jay.jay.org> wrote:
:>
:>
:> The *only* reason we even have H1B (and other types) immigrant workers
:> in the US is because our educational system is completely worthless and
:> can not produce the quality of workers that our industries require.
: That's bullshit. The industry stooges are using that as an excuse to cut out
: American workers. If you think our schools are so bad, why don't you send
: your kids to India where they are so great. The fact is you won't send them
: there because our schools are far superior.
I take it you haven't even been near a US public school since you graduated?
US Public Schools don't even hold a candle to the public school systems
of *any* major industrialized nation in the world.
I don't have any children, but I have kept tabs on the public schools
through my younger siblings (several have already graduated and the
youngest just started kindergarten) and I can tell you that when I do
have kids they are either going to private school or being home schooled
because the morons in the public school system aren't, and haven't been
for quite some time, doing their damn job.
Instead of teaching the skills that kids need to survive and become
functioning contributing members of society, they spend their time "fixing"
the "problems" in society through social engineering programs and feel good
subjects. Don't get me wrong, art and music are important to our culture,
however they come nowhere near the level of importance of neccessary skills
like language, math and science. Teach the important stuff first, then the
kids can pick up the fluff and become more "well-rounded" when they reach
college.
: Take
:> a wild guess why that is the case. That's right, the "standardization"
:> and "unionization" of the educational system. The deliberate dumbing
:> down of America so that we will all accept the New World Order of
:> socialism that is supported and promoted by the Unions.
: The Unions aren't the ones pushing the New World Order. Do a google search
: on "Trade Promotion Authority" and you will see that it is the industry
: giants that are pushing the agenda you so despise. I can see your problem is
: that you believe the corporate propaganda. Get out of that rut or you will
: just be another stooge.
The Unions are, some of, the ones that are pushing the New (Socialist)
World Order that was so loved by Bill and Hillary. Personally I prefer
stick with the Framers of the Constitution and to have as little government
as absolutely neccessary for protection of the society. That means
throwing out a *very* large portion of the laws and "rights" that have
been created in the last 60 years.
bit-b...@maney.org
: a way to squeeze 10% more out of your 40 hour work week, your boss will
: demand another 10%. Eventually you will be forced to work overtime. You must
: not have been in the business very long or you would know how the system
: works.
Damn, not only are you a damn full-quoting top-poster, but you are also
a damn pro-union/government socialist.
In my experience (7 years+) in the IT industry (since college), I've
found that every time I've managed to automate/standarize/simplify
my job in such a manner to allow me to get more work done in a shorter
amount of time than my boss expected I've gotten a raise/bonus/attaboy
of some sort.
Of course your boss is going to want you to get as much done in as
little time as possible. It's called business. It is exactly like what
you want when you call the plumber or electrician. You don't want him
poking along padding the time in order to milk you for as much money
as possible, you want him to come in and do the work as quickly as
possible so you don't have to pay him as much. You know the interesting
thing about that? The people who can get the most work done in the
least amount of time without dropping the quality of their work almost
always get paid more and work less hours.
no.one
news:9namsq$63i$1...@newsread.stdio.com...
> In comp.unix.admin Philotsopher <Philot...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> subjects. Don't get me wrong, art and music are important to our culture,
> however they come nowhere near the level of importance of neccessary
skills
> like language, math and science.
>
If music is such a waste of time subject, then why are most of the top
engineers and computer scientists musically-gifted? If you took the time
to study music instead of running your mouth, you would know that music is
the division of time and frequency (i.e., it also has other mathematical
relationships such as a major triad is a major-third interval plus a
minor-third interval). Music is abstraction that is creative and has a
structured notation. These are the same abilities it takes to be a GOOD
SOFTWARE ENGINEER, but, then again, you are just a glorified computer
operator and "script kiddy;" so, what would you know about it takes to be a
REAL COMPUTER SCIENTIST OR SOFTWARE ENGINEER. Once again, I ask, what are
your academic credentials? Vendor certification is toilet paper!
P.S. Please visit the following site:
http://www.texaco.com/asp/frameit.asp?tn=ws_1at_nav.html&bn=ws_1ab_nav.html&
cn=/support/social/docs/early_notes.html
bit-b...@maney.org
: <bit-b...@maney.org> wrote in message
: news:9namsq$63i$1...@newsread.stdio.com...
:> In comp.unix.admin Philotsopher <Philot...@my-deja.com> wrote:
:>
:> subjects. Don't get me wrong, art and music are important to our culture,
:> however they come nowhere near the level of importance of neccessary
: skills
:> like language, math and science.
:>
: If music is such a waste of time subject, then why are most of the top
: engineers and computer scientists musically-gifted?
I never said it was a waste of time. I said that it's importance in
the overall scheme of things is much less than language, science and
mathematics. It looks like you really need to work on your reading
comprehension skills.
: If you took the time to study music instead of running your mouth, you
: would know that music is the division of time and frequency (i.e., it
: also has other mathematical relationships such as a major triad is a
: major-third interval plus a minor-third interval).
I guess my 15 years in chorus and 3 in band (plus 2 years of piano) don't
count for anything?
: Music is abstraction that is creative and has a
: structured notation. These are the same abilities it takes to be a GOOD
: SOFTWARE ENGINEER, but, then again, you are just a glorified computer
: operator and "script kiddy;" so, what would you know about it takes to
: be a REAL COMPUTER SCIENTIST OR SOFTWARE ENGINEER.
Ah, so you were aiming that at me. I thought so, but given your inability
to properly post, respond and quote, I wasn't certain. Being a systems
administrator is at least as challenging as being a programmer or systems
architect. I've done all three. They simply require different skills. Your
poor attempt at an insult just goes to provide more evidence of your
ignorance.
: Once again, I ask, what are your academic credentials? Vendor
: certification is toilet paper!
Interesting, you insist on hiding behind an anonymous id in order
to protect the future and welfare of your children and refuse to
provide any of your own credentials, yet you demand that I present
my credentials. How utterly imbecilic and immature.
Once again, what is your name? What are your credentials? Why are you
posting this off-topic garbage in a technical discussion group?
no.one
<bit-b...@maney.org> wrote in message
news:9nb2ge$g5g$1...@newsread.stdio.com...
>
> Ah, so you were aiming that at me. I thought so, but given your inability
> to properly post, respond and quote, I wasn't certain. Being a systems
> administrator is at least as challenging as being a programmer or systems
> architect. I've done all three. They simply require different skills. Your
> poor attempt at an insult just goes to provide more evidence of your
> ignorance.
>
System administration is no where near as challenging or difficult as
developing circuit provisioning software for broadband ATM networks or
communication protocol stacks. Systems administrators are NOT TOP-TIER
COMPUTER SCIENTISTS! They are computer scientist wannabes! They are
glorified computer operators!
>
> Interesting, you insist on hiding behind an anonymous id in order
> to protect the future and welfare of your children and refuse to
> provide any of your own credentials, yet you demand that I present
> my credentials. How utterly imbecilic and immature.
>
> Once again, what is your name? What are your credentials? Why are you
> posting this off-topic garbage in a technical discussion group?
>
Name: Withheld
Academic Credentials: Bachelor of Science in Computer Science, University of
Maryland and Master of Software Engineering, Carnegie Mellon (both of these
schools are at the top of the pack when it comes to CS and SE).
I see that you attended the University of Kentucky. Boy, now that is a real
computer science school! You might as well be a graduate of the University
of Bombay.
j...@pizza73.com
no.one wrote:
> <bit-b...@maney.org> wrote in message
> news:9nb2ge$g5g$1...@newsread.stdio.com...
>
>>Ah, so you were aiming that at me. I thought so, but given your inability
>>to properly post, respond and quote, I wasn't certain. Being a systems
>>administrator is at least as challenging as being a programmer or systems
>>architect. I've done all three. They simply require different skills. Your
>>poor attempt at an insult just goes to provide more evidence of your
>>ignorance.
>>
>>
>
> System administration is no where near as challenging or difficult as
> developing circuit provisioning software for broadband ATM networks or
> communication protocol stacks. Systems administrators are NOT TOP-TIER
> COMPUTER SCIENTISTS! They are computer scientist wannabes! They are
> glorified computer operators!
>
Now I know this is just flamebait, but come now. You're telling me
that my skills are negligible because I choose to perform system
administration, rather than be stuck in some cube grinding out code?
I've done both, and let me tell you, the rewards of being a good
sysadmin far outweigh the rewards of being a code monkey. As a
sysadmin, I am the one who cleans up after your errors. I am the one
who ensures that your pretty little servers that are running this
provisioning software run, and continue to do so day and night. I am
the one that fixes your programs when you're too (slow, dull-witted,
uninterested, etc...) to do anything about it. Who gets the call at
3:00 AM when your software barfs all over the machine because of a
stupid bug? Me. Is the machine back up and running when you get back
in? damn right! I can't count the number of developers I've cleaned
up after, all because they can't write good software. and what do the
users know about all this? little or nothing. Why? because as a
good sysadmin, I make sure that all they see is the machines "just
working" if at all possible. As a sysadmin I do more covering for low
quality programmers than anything else. Sure you may have your fancy
degrees and your nice comfortable cube with an Aeron chair. Remember
however, I'm the one that makes sure your stuff works, I'm the one
that makes you look good, and I'm the one that gets the flack for your
stupid mistakes.
>>Interesting, you insist on hiding behind an anonymous id in order
>>to protect the future and welfare of your children and refuse to
>>provide any of your own credentials, yet you demand that I present
>>my credentials. How utterly imbecilic and immature.
>>
>>Once again, what is your name? What are your credentials? Why are you
>>posting this off-topic garbage in a technical discussion group?
>>
>>
>
> Name: Withheld
>
> Academic Credentials: Bachelor of Science in Computer Science, University of
> Maryland and Master of Software Engineering, Carnegie Mellon (both of these
> schools are at the top of the pack when it comes to CS and SE).
>
> I see that you attended the University of Kentucky. Boy, now that is a real
> computer science school! You might as well be a graduate of the University
> of Bombay.
This part of the post is of course of such low quality that this is
all the reply I can be bothered to write to it.
Jeff
Steve Frank
"no.one" wrote:
>
> <bit-b...@maney.org> wrote in message
> snipped
> >
>
> System administration is no where near as challenging or difficult as
> developing circuit provisioning software for broadband ATM networks or
> communication protocol stacks. Systems administrators are NOT TOP-TIER
> COMPUTER SCIENTISTS! They are computer scientist wannabes! They are
> glorified computer operators!
>
snipped
> Name: Withheld
>
> Academic Credentials: Bachelor of Science in Computer Science, University of
> Maryland and Master of Software Engineering, Carnegie Mellon (both of these
> schools are at the top of the pack when it comes to CS and SE).
>
System administration is more challenging than programming. That's why
I got into it. I liked the variety. That's all I'm going to say about
this subject.
The reason I responded to this post at all is the following little
anecdote.
When I was a system administrator for one of the largest corporations in
the country (name withheld out of courtesy) they hired as a second level
manager a very nice gentleman who had a PhD from Carnegie Mellon. He
called me in a panic one day because he was no longer able to log into
the DEC Alpha. I walked over to his office to troubleshoot the
problem. I went to his terminal and slapped the 'Return' key a couple
of times. Seeing immediately what the problem was, I moved the power
switch from the 'OFF' to the 'ON' position. The moral of this story is:
an advanced degree from Carnegie Mellon means you have more theoretical
knowledge than most people in the industry and know precisely Dick about
practical matters.
Steve
Ted Spradley
> ...(there are *still* more IT jobs in the US
> than there are US citizens with the skills and knowledge to do them).
Uh, can you support that?
You know I've heard that song a lot in the 30-odd years I've been in
this business. It's always sung the loudest when techie's salaries go
up a bit, and it's always sung loudest by "journalists" who get their
information from the same "captains of industry" who support them with
advertising money.
I've learned over the years that when I hear that song, it means I'll be
out of work soon, like now.
R. Martin
>
> In comp.unix.admin Philotsopher <Philot...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> : <bit-b...@maney.org> wrote in message
> : news:9n81ng$ltv$2...@newsread.stdio.com...
> :> In comp.unix.admin Jay <j...@jay.jay.org> wrote:
> :>
> :>
> :> The *only* reason we even have H1B (and other types) immigrant workers
> :> in the US is because our educational system is completely worthless and
> :> can not produce the quality of workers that our industries require.
>
> : That's bullshit. The industry stooges are using that as an excuse to cut out
> : American workers. If you think our schools are so bad, why don't you send
> : your kids to India where they are so great. The fact is you won't send them
> : there because our schools are far superior.
>
> I take it you haven't even been near a US public school since you graduated?
> US Public Schools don't even hold a candle to the public school systems
> of *any* major industrialized nation in the world.
>
> I don't have any children, but I have kept tabs on the public schools
> through my younger siblings (several have already graduated and the
> youngest just started kindergarten) and I can tell you that when I do
> have kids they are either going to private school or being home schooled
> because the morons in the public school system aren't, and haven't been
> for quite some time, doing their damn job.
Then I suggest you get busy and have some kids, because that will put
you in closer touch with the schools than watching your younger siblings
ever would. At that time you will find that there are good schools and
bad schools, good school districts and bad school distincts. Half of
everything is below median. If you live in a good school district near
good public schools your children will get a fine education attending
them.
comp.* followups snipped
Regards,
Russell
TakeThisOut
>>rooms.
>
>No you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't have ranted about H1B's (I have
>yet to meet a H1B electrician...)
And the reason is because there is a professional organization (The IBEW) that
is watching. And whenever an employer starts the process to import H1-Bs they
nip it in the bud.
> and how poor your job situation is.
>
>> So even if you don't agree with all of my ideas,
>>maybe you agree in some of them
>
>Actually, it appears I don't agree on any of them...
>
>> I think other
>>issues can be helped by more of an association that has labor/law issues as
>>a concern, not just technical concerns.
>
>Then join one. Preferably in another field. Or start one. Which is
>I assume what you're trying to do with this message. Personally, I'm
>doing better on my own than if I had to fight for my incompetent
>"union brotherhood" to get the same benefits I already have and would
>prefer not to lose. Perhaps that's not so in your case.
>
>I'm not anti-union, I'll support your right to attempt to organize one
>and hold the vote for one. But I won't vote for one and I won't join
>one. Life's too good without them. Sorry.
>
>Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TAKETHISOUT budysbackagain(@)THAT TOO a-oh-ell dot com
TakeThisOut
I'd say it has more to do with the educational system still being in
"Industrialized nation" mode long after we've become a "service sector"
economy.
>
>: Wait until you are 55 and they throw your ass out and bring in a 25
>: year old from India for half the price.
>
>Personally I plan on being retired and living off a huge chunk of money
>"in the bank" or "working" at some other job that is far more fun than
>work by the time I'm 55. But then again, I plan and work toward my dreams
>instead of sitting around whining to the government and expecting to live
>off the dole for the rest of my life.
>
>: People scream about all the
>: foreign imports coming in and undercutting American goods prices.
>
>And yet they continue to buy those products like mad because they are
>higher quality/lower cost than the domestic alternatives.
I don't know what you've been buying, but with the exception of cars (which are
built better and cost more) seems everything else from clothing to consumer
electronics has fallen in price AND quality.
>
>: Why the hell aren't they bitching about importing workers? The
>: politicians bitch about some poor mexican migrant worker while they
>: bring programmers in the back door.
>
>In both cases the immigrant workers are filling jobs that American
>citizens either can not,
Can not because the pay is far too low to support a person at an acceptable
standard of living. Of course, it is acceptable to immigrant workers because
ANY step is a step UP.
>or will not, fill. Until that issue is resolved,
>you have no reason to be bitching and neither do they.
>
>[...]
Thumper
wrote:
>System administration is more challenging than programming. That's why
>I got into it. I liked the variety. That's all I'm going to say about
>this subject.
This means nothing. SYS Admin may be more challenging for you simply
because you aren't very good at it. One of my co-workers typically
takes 5 to 10 times as long as I to troubleshoot problems. Of course
my boss made a remark the other day about how so and so did such a
great job "on that really tough problem." Of course the problem
wasn't tough at all for the rest of us but it was a tough problem for
this guy. Every problem is tough for this guy but because he sticks
with a 1/2 hour problem for the whole day, he gets the props.
Thumper
>
>The reason I responded to this post at all is the following little
>anecdote.
>
>When I was a system administrator for one of the largest corporations in
>the country (name withheld out of courtesy) they hired as a second level
>manager a very nice gentleman who had a PhD from Carnegie Mellon. He
>called me in a panic one day because he was no longer able to log into
>the DEC Alpha. I walked over to his office to troubleshoot the
>problem. I went to his terminal and slapped the 'Return' key a couple
>of times. Seeing immediately what the problem was, I moved the power
>switch from the 'OFF' to the 'ON' position. The moral of this story is:
>an advanced degree from Carnegie Mellon means you have more theoretical
>knowledge than most people in the industry and know precisely Dick about
>practical matters.
>
>Steve
Nice little anecdote but it means nothing except that there are
unqualified people everywhere and in all professions.
David Schwartz
> In comp.unix.admin David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> : "no.one" wrote:
> :> The same argument can be made about H-1B. H-1B artificially increases the
> :> supply, which in effect is a corporate subsidy (i.e., welfare).
> : When the government gets out of your way, it's a handout? Now *that* is
> : worse than double-speak, that's double-think.
> H-1B visas (like all other visas) are distributed, and controlled, by
> the government.
Right.
> So, allowing foreign nationals into the country to do
> the jobs (H-1Bs) is a government subsidy of corporations that want
> these workers.
Getting the government to not interfere with a voluntary arrangement is
*not* a handout. That's double-think.
> If you really wanted a "free-market", you'd either need
> to have the government limit that to the US and it's citizens (*no*
> H-1Bs) or open it to the entire world (anyone can come, no visa required).
I actually have no economic problems at all with open borders. So long
as the crime, security, and infrastructure issues can be worked out,
there is absolutely no economic reason not to open borders to those who
wish to engage in voluntary transactions with those in the United
States.
> What you are advocating is the worst of both worlds in my opinion.
I, so far, have not advocated anything in this exchange. I'm just
saying that it's deceptive in the extreme to claim that the government
not interfering in a voluntary arrangement is a handout. Is it a handout
when the government lets me buy a Whopper at Burger King? After all,
they could stop people from doing that, couldn't they?
A handout is when you are given something you didn't earn, not when you
are allowed to exercise freedom. To suggest the reverse is to suggest
that all our rights are gifts from the government.
DS
Thumper
wrote:
>Then I suggest you get busy and have some kids, because that will put
>you in closer touch with the schools than watching your younger siblings
>ever would. At that time you will find that there are good schools and
>bad schools, good school districts and bad school distincts. Half of
>everything is below median. If you live in a good school district near
>good public schools your children will get a fine education attending
>them.
>
>comp.* followups snipped
>
>Regards,
>Russell
I'll second that. In addition I'd like to put in a good word for the
teachers that are so often demonized by the anti union people. If it
weren't for several dedicated teachers my stepson would never have
graduated from High School. He was a handful but because there were
teachers that put in hours of their own time helping him, he just
started college. The teachers were always there for him and us.
Thumper
bio...@erols.com
>
>
> I actually have no economic problems at all with open borders. So long
> as the crime, security, and infrastructure issues can be worked out,
> there is absolutely no economic reason not to open borders to those who
> wish to engage in voluntary transactions with those in the United
> States.
>
Clearly, you have never served any time in the military. We are a
sovereign, democratic nation. We the people control how business is
conducted in America. Generations of Americans have given their lives
in support of our country and our way of life. Now, you say "Who gives
a rat's behind about individual rights. Corporate greed is more
important than individual rights."
The truly amazing thing is those in this country who have the most to
gain by our market economy give back the least. They do not send their
sons and daughters off to war; so, that they can maintain access to
cheap oil. No, they put this burden on the backs of working class
Americans who are being put out of work by these same companies.
>
> I, so far, have not advocated anything in this exchange. I'm just
> saying that it's deceptive in the extreme to claim that the government
> not interfering in a voluntary arrangement is a handout. Is it a handout
> when the government lets me buy a Whopper at Burger King? After all,
> they could stop people from doing that, couldn't they?
>
Once again, who is the government? The government is me and you. We
pay the bills. Workers pay the bulk of the bills. Capitalists
currently pay 20% tax on money earned with money (they want to decrease
that figure to 15%). My wife and I pay 31% Federal Income Tax for the
privilege of working. Capitalist earning the same amount of income off
of capital investment pays 20% (or less). Additionally, I am hit with
the 15.3% Federal Self-Employment Tax when I work 1099 and the 7.62%,
employee portion of the FICA tax when I work W-2. The capitalist does
not pay these taxes because they are payroll, not income taxes. Hence,
when I work for myself, I net 46.2 cents on the dollar (31% Federal
Income Tax, 7.5% State and County Tax, 15.3 Self-Employment Tax). The
capitalist nets 72.5 cents on the dollar (20% Federal Capital Gains Tax
and 7.5% State and County Tax on Capital Gains). The whole tax system
is rigged to scr*w the working American citizen, and keep them from
amassing wealth through work; especially, if they run a small business.
Philotsopher
Of course not, you're stupid.
So long
> as the crime, security, and infrastructure issues can be worked out,
> there is absolutely no economic reason not to open borders to those who
> wish to engage in voluntary transactions with those in the United
> States.
You are the dumbest asshole I have read, even Jacobson was smarter than you.
>
> > What you are advocating is the worst of both worlds in my opinion.
>
> I, so far, have not advocated anything in this exchange. I'm just
> saying that it's deceptive in the extreme to claim that the government
> not interfering in a voluntary arrangement is a handout. Is it a handout
> when the government lets me buy a Whopper at Burger King? After all,
> they could stop people from doing that, couldn't they?
>
OK, you pea brain. The government controls our borders, immigration, and
therefore how many H-1Bs come here to take our jobs. They also subsidize
your hamburgers. I don't know why I waste my time talking to somebody that
ate so many hamburgers they got Mad Cow Disease. My only question is how
many of your brain cells still work?
> A handout is when you are given something you didn't earn, not when you
> are allowed to exercise freedom. To suggest the reverse is to suggest
> that all our rights are gifts from the government.
>
Mad Cow Disease at it's best folks, just read this shill.
Margaret Bartley
> I actually have no economic problems at all with open
borders. So long
> as the crime, security, and infrastructure issues can be
worked out,
> there is absolutely no economic reason not to open borders
to those who
> wish to engage in voluntary transactions with those in the
United
> States.
I think it is important for people to understand what the
real agenda here is with the h1-b program.
Most advocates of H1-b and "immigration reform" are more
circumspect that David is, but he is absolutely correct.
The current attitude of American legislators is "bring 'em
on in!".
Take a look at Calcutta or Mexico City or Shanghai. That is
what is in store for US citizens if we don't get control of
our borders. Most of the rest of the world, understandably,
wants what we have. If we are unwilling to defend it, and
control our borders, we will loose it, and deservedly so.
They are going after the "high-tech" positions because they
know that is the weak spot in the US labor force.
Traditionally, computer people have considered themselves
professionals, but it is actually more like a factory floor
for most people, but unlike our blue-collar workers, we
consider ourselves better able to negotiate one-on-one with
our employers, and therefore not in need of any kind of
collective bargaining or legislative protection.
Why do you think legislators have specifically exempted ONLY
computer people from over-time pay protection?
Because we love our jobs so much we wouldn't dream of asking
for time-and-a-half, like every other civilized worker? No,
because the legislators know they can get away with it.
Soon, they will look at computer people working long hours,
and want to do the same to everyone. End of a hundred years
of labor struggle for the 40-hour work week.
The same thing is happening with bringing in foreign
workers. They will do it because they can. And people like
David are either part of the world that wants to see the US
destroyed, or else is incredibly young and naive. It
doesn't really matter, because whether he is consciously
part of the program, or has just bought in the rhetoric,
it's important that we see where it leads.
Stefaan A Eeckels
"Margaret Bartley" <REMOVETHISma...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
> news:3B998CAD...@webmaster.com...
>
>> I actually have no economic problems at all with open
> borders. So long
>> as the crime, security, and infrastructure issues can be
> worked out,
>> there is absolutely no economic reason not to open borders
> to those who
>> wish to engage in voluntary transactions with those in the
> United
>> States.
>
> I think it is important for people to understand what the
> real agenda here is with the h1-b program.
> Most advocates of H1-b and "immigration reform" are more
> circumspect that David is, but he is absolutely correct.
>
> The current attitude of American legislators is "bring 'em
> on in!".
And if that's what they really think, they're absolutely
correct.
Attracting the best, most enterprising minds of the rest
of the world has been the USA's recipe for success since
the early 19th century.
>
> Take a look at Calcutta or Mexico City or Shanghai. That is
> what is in store for US citizens if we don't get control of
> our borders.
Nonsense. In any case, the USA has its fair share of problem
neighborhoods (ever been to Patterson, NJ?), and the people
that get in want it better than "at home", not the same.
> Most of the rest of the world, understandably,
> wants what we have. If we are unwilling to defend it, and
> control our borders, we will loose it, and deservedly so.
That's the same paranoia that is more and more prevalent in
Europe. The fact is that the Western world is afflicted with
an aging population, and that (unless we all become fundamentalist
Catholics) we _need_ immigration to keep the economy going and
pay the pensions in thirty years time.
> They are going after the "high-tech" positions because they
> know that is the weak spot in the US labor force.
They come to the USA because they can earn a lot, and
because their own countries can't pay them enough to
stay. Would you rather have Indian programmers coming
to the US and pay taxes, or software companies outsourcing
development to India?
> Traditionally, computer people have considered themselves
> professionals, but it is actually more like a factory floor
> for most people, but unlike our blue-collar workers, we
> consider ourselves better able to negotiate one-on-one with
> our employers, and therefore not in need of any kind of
> collective bargaining or legislative protection.
> Why do you think legislators have specifically exempted ONLY
> computer people from over-time pay protection?
Have they _specifically_ exempted people who program or
admin computers, or is it a side effect of the type of
employment contract? Aren't stock brokers exempted from
over-time pay protection as well? And what about
medical residents?
> Because we love our jobs so much we wouldn't dream of asking
> for time-and-a-half, like every other civilized worker? No,
> because the legislators know they can get away with it.
> Soon, they will look at computer people working long hours,
> and want to do the same to everyone. End of a hundred years
> of labor struggle for the 40-hour work week.
Legislators aren't going to force people to work longer hours.
> The same thing is happening with bringing in foreign
> workers. They will do it because they can. And people like
> David are either part of the world that wants to see the US
> destroyed, or else is incredibly young and naive. It
> doesn't really matter, because whether he is consciously
> part of the program, or has just bought in the rhetoric,
> it's important that we see where it leads.
If managed properly, poaching the best brains from the rest
of the world will ensure America's continued economic
dominance. If you close your borders, you will no longer
get the likes of Linus Torvalds or Ted T'so. Most Americans
don't have to go much further back than 3 to 4 generations
to find the courageous people who fought the odds to get
to the land of opportunity, sweated to better themselves,
and doing so, made the USA what it is now. Turn your back
on your heritage, and before you know it you'll have lost
what you believe to be your birthright.
Take care,
--
Stefaan
--
Please visit our Webster http://xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx, write or e-mail to X&x
promptly,if you are interested.And X&x shall be pleased to render you any
further services. -- Spam from China
Philotsopher
"Margaret Bartley" <REMOVETHISma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ncnss$k0d$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> on in!".
>
> Take a look at Calcutta or Mexico City or Shanghai. That is
> what is in store for US citizens if we don't get control of
> our borders. Most of the rest of the world, understandably,
> wants what we have. If we are unwilling to defend it, and
> control our borders, we will loose it, and deservedly so.
>
> They are going after the "high-tech" positions because they
> know that is the weak spot in the US labor force.
Yes, they will pick at the weakest links first. No American worker is safe
because they will get us one group at a time. A classic example of this is
the indifference the IT community had towards the plight of steel workers.
Now other worker groups will turn their head and cover their eyes as our
software industry is shipped overseas.
bit-b...@maney.org
[...]
:> So, allowing foreign nationals into the country to do
:> the jobs (H-1Bs) is a government subsidy of corporations that want
:> these workers.
: Getting the government to not interfere with a voluntary arrangement is
: *not* a handout. That's double-think.
The point is that the government lets H1B workers into the country on
relaxed immigration rules in order to allow companies to hire them.
There is no double-think here. That is a government subsidy, albeit
an indirect one.
[...]
:> What you are advocating is the worst of both worlds in my opinion.
: I, so far, have not advocated anything in this exchange. I'm just
: saying that it's deceptive in the extreme to claim that the government
: not interfering in a voluntary arrangement is a handout. Is it a handout
: when the government lets me buy a Whopper at Burger King? After all,
: they could stop people from doing that, couldn't they?
Invalid comparision. A valid comparision would be allowing certain groups
of people to import beef from England because they can't get decent veal
in the US due to animal cruelty laws, while denying the rest of us from
doing the same thing because of the fear of the hoof and mouth disease.
: A handout is when you are given something you didn't earn, not when you
: are allowed to exercise freedom. To suggest the reverse is to suggest
: that all our rights are gifts from the government.
Not true. In this case it is a gift because the government is giving
special consideration to specific groups of people. It is allowing
certain people to do things that most of us are not allowed to do.
That is not "exercising freedom", it is most definitely a way that
the government is supporting corporations.
bit-b...@maney.org
: bit-b...@maney.org wrote:
:> ...(there are *still* more IT jobs in the US
:> than there are US citizens with the skills and knowledge to do them).
: Uh, can you support that?
Only anecdotally right now, but I'm certain I could find cites if
pressed. The fact of the matter is that most of the IT people in
the US (or, to be fair, the parts of the US that I've worked in)
are incompetent. The rest are typically immigrants and the decreasing
number of US citizens who were lucky enough to actually get something
resembling an education from this godawful "educational system" we
have.
Margaret Bartley
Stefaan A Eeckels <Stefaan...@ecc.lu> wrote in message
news:ec8dn9...@justus.ecc.lu...
> > The current attitude of American legislators is "bring
'em
> > on in!".
>
> And if that's what they really think, they're absolutely
> correct.
> Attracting the best, most enterprising minds of the rest
> of the world has been the USA's recipe for success since
> the early 19th century.
When the h1-b program was originally created, it brought in
about 15,000 people a year. At that time, a case could be
made for "best and brightest". But half a million kids out
of school? This is just using the US as a vast On-The-Job
Training program for the Indian high-tech sector.
> The fact is that the Western world is afflicted with
> an aging population, and that (unless we all become
fundamentalist
> Catholics) we _need_ immigration to keep the economy going
and
> pay the pensions in thirty years time.
I'm not saying that there should be no immigration. I'm
saying that immigration should be done with the idea in mind
of making this country better, not worse. Flooding the job
market with hundreds of thousands of cheap workers is hardly
what I call making the country better.
> They come to the USA because they can earn a lot, and
> because their own countries can't pay them enough to
> stay. Would you rather have Indian programmers coming
> to the US and pay taxes, or software companies outsourcing
> development to India?
Actually, it's both. In five or ten years, we will see the
software companies in India, anyway, thanks to the training
provided by the US workers.
> Have they _specifically_ exempted people who program or
> admin computers, or is it a side effect of the type of
> employment contract? Aren't stock brokers exempted from
> over-time pay protection as well? And what about
> medical residents?
Computer people specifically have been excluded. Stock
brokers work on commission.
> Legislators aren't going to force people to work longer
hours.
One of the reasons the US has a better standard of living
than some other countries is because the citizens have voted
in politicians who passed laws like minimum wage, mandatory
time-and-a-half for overtime, holidays, safety standards,
and other things that we have come to consider "civilized".
I realize that the US is pretty far down the list, compared
to worker protection in Europe, but nevertheless, there is
still a lot there to protect. Legislators aren't going to
force people to work longer hours, but they, in the past,
have forced employers to pay a premium when the workers have
to work overtime. That is starting to unravel, at the both
the Federal, and state level. The Feds have specifically
excluded computer people from overtime pay protection, as
have the the states of California and Washington. I don't
know about any other states, there may be more. I have seen
articles in the press over the past several months
indicating that since that didn't seem to draw any flack,
they might expand the list of occupations that do not get
state-mandated overtime pay for hourly employees.
Margaret Bartley
Talking about all the money US taxpayers and companies are
investing in India, moving software there.
"In the next 18 months we expect $3 billion worth of venture
capital funds to flow in to the Indian IT sector".
Within a few months of each other last year, Bill Gates,
Rupert Murdoch, and Bill Clinton were in India. Can't wait
to invest.
bio...@erols.com
>
> Only anecdotally right now, but I'm certain I could find cites if
> pressed. The fact of the matter is that most of the IT people in
> the US (or, to be fair, the parts of the US that I've worked in)
> are incompetent. The rest are typically immigrants and the decreasing
> number of US citizens who were lucky enough to actually get something
> resembling an education from this godawful "educational system" we
> have.
>
The quality of one's public educational systems is proportional to the
tax base, and the expectations/involvement of parents. Caucasian
students in Montgomery County Maryland recently averaged 1,200 on the
SAT. Public Universities in the area are some of the best schools in
the country, public or private. The poor educational experience that
we see in many areas is mainly due to shrinking tax bases, and lack of
parental involvement due to the fact that both parents have to work long
hours to make ends meet. Another problem I see is the "Hip Hop"
culture. A culture that promotes Ebonics and illiteracy.