Apple Sued For Turning Workers Into Slaves 1153
SwiftyNifty writes "Apple employees are putting together a class action lawsuit for not receiving overtime pay. A Lawsuit filed Monday in California seeks class action status alleging that Apple denied technical staffers required overtime pay and meal compensation in violation of state law.
Filed in the US District Court for Southern California, the complaint claims that many Apple employees are routinely subjected to working conditions resembling indentured servitude, or 'modern day slaves,' for lack of better words."
No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:4, Insightful)
News... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know for all the flak we give the traditional media, at least they don't have headlines like this.
Not properly dispensing overtime pay is not the same thing as slavery, and the disconnect between the inflammatory headline and TFA is appalling.
On a lighter note, the CAPTCHA for me is unionize.
Slaves, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Slavery? (Score:4, Insightful)
'Slavery' seems like far too extreme of a word the 'indentured servitude' is slightly less inaccurate. And concerning 'servitude' the 13th amendment only prohibits "involuntary servitude". These people can quit if they would like.
Queue the jokes, and something serious... (Score:2, Insightful)
I've already seen a "joke" about cultists (it was crap, I'm expecting better), any more?
But yeah, a random comment, capitalism sucks.
Seriously, people often don't have a real choice (the freedom to starve...) when it comes to signing contracts, especially in countries (such as the USA) where significant workers rights aren't enshrined in law.
In this case, it appears that the workers signed contracts which said that they wouldn't get paid an hourly rate, which means that they don't get overtime. Which means (at least in this case), that they can get over worked for nothing.
And that is a problem (I've heard it is a very big problem in Japan generally).
Basically (and I'm taking off my anarchist hat for a minute), workers rights do require regulation in a capitalist economy, otherwise they get screwed.
Overexaggerate Much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Indentured Servitude [wikipedia.org]: An indentured servant is a form of debt bondage worker, in which the indentured individual is intentionally, unethically and illegally deprived of their human rights, their civil rights and their personal freedom and liberty.
Unfortunately TFA is Slashdotted right now so I can't read all of the details, but if the summary is anything to go by, I really, really doubt Apple was forcing these guys to work due to debt and/or was holding them captive. What they did do was make their workers work OT without paying them correctly, which is an inexcusably naughty practice, but it's hardly indentured servitude, slavery, or any other form of bondage.
Furthermore this shit is fairly common, Apple isn't the first company or the last company to stiff their employees on OT. That doesn't make it right and certainly knocks Apple down a few pegs in my own eyes, but get some perspective here people.
Cry me a river (Score:2, Insightful)
"Lead plaintiff David Walsh was employed by Apple as a network engineer from 1995 until 2007. His complaint says he was often required to work more than 40 hours per week, miss meals, and spend his evenings and even entire weekends on call without any overtime pay or meal compensation. He fielded technical support calls that often came after 11 pm."
Sounds like a typical work week for me. I don't get overtime pay or meal compensation either. And I don't get a free iPod or iPhone as a Christmas gift.
Re:Slaves, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn right, they are 'Resources' not Slaves.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
The same thing is happening to the American Auto Industry.... But SUV's don't fit into shipping containers so easily, so the industry settles for Mexico (rather than China) for cheap non-EEOC non-ADA non-EPA (etc...) production labor and closes as many of their (often union labor run) US plants as they can get away with.
Hooray NAFTA! (/sarcasm)
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:1, Insightful)
A more apt comparison would be the working conditions at the iPod factory vs the working conditions at other jobs available in the area. Maybe the iPod factory is a great job considering the alternatives the workers face.
My Wife's A Teacher (Score:5, Insightful)
She and her colleagues have "X" number of contract days for which they must report to work.
However of late, the practice has begun of additional "nonmandatory" meetings, training sessions, and general workdays. You know, "for the children." This has grown to the point where she is probably present "at work" during about 12 to 15 days of her summer vacation. None of this time is compensated in any way; in fact, with gasoline costs as they are, you may readily say SHE is paying for this privilege.
Oh, it's "not mandatory," but it is "expected" by the administrators, who like to boast to their peers about the amount of "donated time" they're getting out of their teachers. "Failure to cooperate" can lead to subtle retaliation.
My point is that this isn't "slavery" but it is d*mned inconsiderate. If you want to climb the "ladder of success," don't do it on the backs of your "underlings."
Is everyone a freakin slave these days? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good god it appears to be the phrase of the year "We are just modern slaves". Top of the shop of abuse of the term is Sepp "I'm a nutter" Blatter who in reference to someone who is paid about $300,000 A WEEK said that it was just like modern slavery [google.co.uk].
These people aren't slaves because.... THEY COULD QUIT. It might be tough, it might be hard, but either quit and get another job or work out a constructive way of fixing it.
Don't compare it to the physical ownership of another human being and the sort of destruction of human rights that entails.
Re:Queue the jokes, and something serious... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
try working in a iPod factory in China
Yes, they are working 15-hour days and making "only" $50/month and living in shared dorms. But before they moved to the factory, they were still working 15-hour days as subsistence farmers, making no money, and living in squalor.
So while I wouldn't trade my life for theirs (as an understatement), their lives (and the lives of their families) are appreciably BETTER - not worse - due to Apple's contractor's factory.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:1, Insightful)
Come on, it's the Age of Hyperbole! Get on board the train!
In an age where fools routinely think the Patriot Act has turned the United States into a police state resembling Nazi Germany, it's just another symptom of our spoiled culture having absolutely no sense of historical perspective.
(And yes, I'm not a fan of many of the provisions of the patriot act, but if you think it affects any significant number of people in any practical way, then you are deluded)
Re:Queue the jokes, and something serious... (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, state law typically trumps any/all contract law - if the contract signed was illegal, then you're not held to it.
I don't get paid for showing up to work per hour. I get paid to work and do a job.
We're in America - we're free to fail, and I think that people don't like that sometimes - they felt they are owed for simply trying. You're not. Hence the complaints about stupid stuff like this where people FEEL "trapped" when they're not in it as much as they think they are. Successful people don't whine about their circumstances - they go out and try to change them.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
Honda, Toyota, and Subaru seem happy to build cars in the US.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but look at the states they build in. They are non Union right to work states. The real issue is that Unions are now chocking their very businesses to death.
Re:Queue the jokes, and something serious... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Successful people don't whine about their circumstances - they go out and try to change them."
And this is why the US races to the bottom on workers rights and pay.
There's more to life than work, and being coerced into working hundreds of extra hours a month because you don't have much choice (everywhere does it) and "that's what you do if you want to succeed". It's a very quick way to have an overworked and underpaid population with all the money staying at the top.
Europe manages to be competitive with the US and yet we work less hours and (due to exchange rates) usually get paid more.
Successful countries don't need a slave economy.
Welcome to Corporate America (Score:5, Insightful)
... where, unless you are upper management, you are getting the shaft. Being a developer, I particularly like how (at my company anyway) our sales staff pulls down Director level salary and obscene commissions on the gross (NOT net) product they push out the door ... even when it means a loss for the company.
I remember back years ago where there were a few movements to form programmers unions ... doomed to failure from the inception. Programmers don't need huge entrenched installations to do our work like, say, UAW workers do ... and since every cocky high school kid who has churned out "Hello World" in Visual Basic thinks they can do real development ... and the typical management position that developers are an easily replaced commodity.
I dunno. I'm just old and jaded. Always do the best work you are capable of doing, and if you feel you deserve better compensation when your company is either unwilling (don't see you as a valuable asset) or unable (poor decisions have left them so fubar that they can't) then it is time to move on. Possibly more important ... if you are unhappy doing what you are doing, forget the compensation and move ASAP.
Suing your own company for a perceived lack of compensation is the best way to build resentment and to nail the coffin shut on your future with that, or any other, company.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
The point you make is the exact point all corporations make in order to exploit cheap foreign labor. "Well, their lives sucked, so let us pay them peanuts, then they must be happy"
Also it is beyond my understanding that someone tells us that what is being done is good for them without seeing there, talking to anyone working there. Don't you think it is way too arrogant to "know" what is good for them?
Re:News... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yours is one of many posts saying the same thing (and getting +5 insightful).
Why are you guys focusing on bashing the headline instead on the actual problem, which is that highly skilled people are working over time for nothing?
This IS a serious problem because,
- It is so common in the industry that there aren't lots of alternatives.
- The more they work the more others (even in other countries) are forced to work.
- Quitting is not a serious option unless you are rich and work for sport.
Re:Queue the jokes, and something serious... (Score:3, Insightful)
"We're in America - we're free to fail"
If you're a little guy, sure. But if you're a company that's "too big to fail", like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, etc, then the socialism kicks in and you get bailed out.
Non-competes (Score:2, Insightful)
The US and, in particular, California are a far cry from not having any significant workers' rights enshrined in law. Also, none of these people were above working elsewhere if the pay they got at Apple was really that awful for the hours they were putting in.
Employment contracts often have something called a "covenant not to compete", enforced to at least some extent in pretty much every U.S. state but California.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems to me that goes both ways. A lot of folks agitating for changes in oversea working conditions (at least with respect to China) might be very surprised to learn the actual opinions of all those poor, downtrodden folks they are "protecting."
what a twit (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple employees aren't slaves. Or even indentured servants. The comparison is offensive given there is real slavery going on elsewhere in the world.
Are they asked to work unreasonable hours and compensated unfairly? Maybe. But they can always quit and seek employment elsewhere. If all of Apple's talent just up and leaves, they'll either fail as a company or rectify their compensation strategy. Capitalism at work.
Re:Queue the jokes, and something serious... (Score:2, Insightful)
You know, there's a hell of a lot of room between capitalism and communism. I'm sitting there quite comfortably.
Slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:4, Insightful)
He said he had spent some time in China, and saw that the general public was actually living pretty well. Yes, there are human rights violations, and the government there is oppressive, but there are some things (I think Apple is probably a good example) that look bad at the outset, but from the point of view of the workers there, are OK. Part of the problem, I think, is we are equating a dollar amount to life quality, and I don't think it is too simple- there's cultural differences here, and there is simply scale in general.... while we think working 15 hour days is ridiculous, let's keep in mind that a lot of people in China pray for any employment... remember that China's population is measured in BILLIONS- there's just not enough work to go around.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:4, Insightful)
it's cheaper for foreign auto makers to assemble here in the USA than it is for the Big Three...mostly because of overbearing union activity
Let me call a big BULLS%#T on that. First, Germany has much more powerful employee bargaining and safeguards and other pro-union policies and unions than the US does.
Second, although the big three love to blame all their problems on the unions, they've found enough cash to buy out most of the other automakers on the planet (volvo, saab, jaguar, subaru, range rover ... to name just a few). Yet they haven't found the cash to refit and retool their american factories. They don't bother with those factories, because they can always promise investors short-term profits by shutting down a few factories and putting 10s of thousands of Americans out of work, knowing that in a few months or a year they'll be able to hire (some) again when production picks up.
Meanwhile, the *newly built* foreign carmakers' factories can produce more vehicles more efficiently with greater quality control. With (surprise) those same American workers.
But no, please, blame the workers. It's clearly all their fault.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
it's mostly because of tariffs, not because of the unions.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:1, Insightful)
Never underestimate the power of the bourgeois to manipulate people into believing that they are doing a great job. After all, the bourgeois have centuries of experience in screwing the proletarians.
Think of it each time you buy a trinket advertised on TV -- you seem to have drunk their cool-aid...
Re:Queue the jokes, and something serious... (Score:2, Insightful)
OK. I lol'ed.
Workers rights?
And then you follow it up with the fact that *they* signed contracts?
Perhaps they shouldn't have?
Or...and this is the kicker, perhaps they should realize that in a global market, they're *still* making more than most folks doing the same type of work and count themselves as lucky to even *have* a contract?
Our company doesn't have such things. Hire and fire @ will. Perhaps they'd prefer that?
I know, let's sue apple so they have a good excuse to even further outsource their workforce and employ *no* US citizens. Then they could lower prices, improve quality, *and* still make more money.
The problem isn't Apple. The problem is the US citizen's overblown sense of "self-worth" and "entitlement".
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
I dont know (I didnt RTFA) what their salaries are, but I am pretty sure that these "poor" "slaves" are making more than 75% than the rest of the people living in the USA (which makes them make more than 99% than the rest of the people in the world).
See, thing about *slavery* is that you dont have a "choice". If these "poor" "slaves" don't like how Apple does business, quit, and get another job. Oh, and dont take "perks" which require "repayment" if you leave after a certain amount of time (if this is what they are referring to as indentured servitude).
And yes, I know, they are claiming that Apple "broke-the-law" which Apple should pay(if they indeed did break the law). But calling them *modern day slaves* is just fucking stupid.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slaves, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
On one hand, I agree that the language seems to lack perspective -- though really, is that surprising in today's culture?
On the other hand, the reason baseline working conditions are higher here is because we enforce labor laws that don't exist there, which is what these workers claim to want done at Apple. I don't know the merits of their case, obviously; that's what the court is for. But if they honestly believe the laws aren't being followed, then a factory in China is actually a pretty good image to support their position, under the heading "we don't want to head down this path".
(And just to be clear -- I often argue against "slipperly slope" logic, and certainly I wouldn't claim that by allowing unpaid overtime we're necessarily starting a progression toward sweatshops with insane hours and no minimum wage. However, I am saying that either you enforce your laws or you don't -- there's no slope to talk about. If we want to discuss unpaid overtime as an isolated concept, then we would be discussing whether the law should change.)
Err,actually... Europe is horridly uncompetitive (Score:1, Insightful)
Might want to check up on that. Yes, you work less and are paid more, and given equal outputs, you are therefore less productive.
Thus the low levels of entrepreneurial investment in Europe v. United States.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:2, Insightful)
Wait, you not going to suddenly go all inconsistent and say that's totally different are you?
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
Who manufactured the components in the computer you're using to post on Slashdot?
Re:Err,actually... Europe is horridly uncompetitiv (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm, no, we are about as productive, as the US suffers from "presenteeism", where people show up and don't do anything.
There's only so many useful hours of work you can get out of someone in a week. The law of diminishing returns applies here.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
.
Don't misunderstand, I think it is very macho of you to give your labor away for free. Being taken advantage of by your bosses is the best way to prove that you are an IT god, after all. I'm sure that since you've taken care of your company in this way, they'll take care of you. Even if shipping your job someplace else or just eliminating it makes financial sense, I'm sure you'll be fine. After all, after all the loyalty and dedication you've shown, they'd never do that to you, would they?
Incidentally, iPods/iPhones? Worthless consumer junk, give me the cash not the overpriced trinket.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:4, Insightful)
"don't like how Apple does business, quit, and get another job"
The funny thing about labor markets is if one employer gets away with abusive practices, especially a prominent one, pretty soon they all do it to compete and you wont have any place better to go. Not saying Apple's conditions are abusive, some people could just be whining, but practices at a lot of high tech companies are pretty abusive and probably getting more so.
Unless there is a serious shortage of workers its expected for employers to devolve to the lowest common denominator they can get away with. With a planet bursting at the seems with workers, with globalization, the internet, container ships and fiber optics, the whole world is now the labor pool which means, chances are, working for the man is gonna suck from now on.
You sound like one of those people that thinks the invisible hand of free markets will solve all problems. The only problem is all indications are the invisible hand, unchecked, will result in a small percentage of the world's population, the ones with capital being extremely rich and everyone else being extremely poor. Around 1900 working conditions in the U.S. were pretty similar to China, and wealth was concentrating in the hand of the few. It took the progressive movement, labor unions, and a World War II fueled boom to raise the standard of living for everyone in the U.S. We are now seeing wealth concentration at a disturbing level again and that living standard crater for working people, partially thanks to the Bush administration. A hedge fund manager making billions of dollars a year pays taxes at 15%. Most working people pay around %37.5 counting income and all payroll taxes, and not counting regressive sales taxes. Most people didn't notice but the Republicans instituted an extremely regressive tax system designed to destroy working people and to make the rich, very rich, very fast.
There is an interesting twist lately for manufacturing workers. With soaring oil prices its becoming very expensive to ship heavy commodities and manufactured good half way around the world. The cost for shipping containers from China to U.S. have gone from $3000 to $8000 and container ships are dropping their speed %20 to save fuel increasing shipping times. I read that some manufacturers targeting the U.S. are moving from China back to Mexico to reduce shipping costs.
Re:Queue the jokes, and something serious... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really ? According to an article I read (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the US is the ONLY industrialized nation where annual leave is not a legal requirement. Heck, most DEVELOPING countries have it as a requirement. 14 days a year in South Africa (and if you don't use them all, they have to pay you for it), a full month in Brazil, 2 months in Germany.
And the grand irony - legally protected annual leave has been proven to INCREASE corporate productivity (as much as any economic idea is ever proven anyways).
Re:News... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are you guys focusing on bashing the headline instead on the actual problem, which is that highly skilled people are working over time for nothing?
I'll save everyone the trouble - here's your contrarian dickhead answers in advance.
This IS a serious problem because,
- It is so common in the industry that there aren't lots of alternatives.
"Nonsense. If they don't like it, they have the choice of working somewhere else where they find policy more agreeable!"
- The more they work the more others (even in other countries) are forced to work.
"They, too, have the choice of working somewhere else, and are not!"
- Quitting is not a serious option unless you are rich and work for sport.
"It's their choice to stay alive!"
(Seriously, I fail to see how anyone can honestly disagree with your concise summary of broad consequences of such actions. Well done.)
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, I've made some generalizations in my time, but to make a billion person generalization, that's amazing.
I know your 80 year old friend has seen a lot of years, but I highly doubt with 1 billion people, he has seen nearly enough of the quality of life of at the very least hundreds of millions of Chinese who are drinking water poisoned by industry and starving because their natural food sources like fish are being wiped out.
On top of that, working 15 hours a day for peanuts is what it is. There's no amount of "relative" standard you can apply to it to spin it to sound not so bad.
This kind of #1 economy apologism is the type of disgusting crap you see from Bill O'Reilly. "They don't need more than a couple dollars a day. They don't know any better. They have enough money to buy a bowl of rice and they're happy." The fact that someone has meager goals because they live in a poor situation isn't a justification for the broad statements that presume that they're satisified and happy with their quality of life.
Now personally I believe this is China's problem to deal with internally and we have our own domestic poor that we're not handling that well, but to try to escape any moral association with taking advantage of disgusting labor conditions and wages by making uninformed generalizations and excuses about how self-limiting they are...
I think the argument is ridiculous, the points brought up are illogical and unsupported, and generally the whole effort to whitewash the situation turns my stomach.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
It just comes down to poor strategy in North America. The big 3 had just built plants maybe 10 years ago to pump out trucks, SUVs and minivans, and found themselves scrambling because consumers started demanding cars again. So they will be losing money due to those investments made not too long ago - building a plant is certainly not cheap.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, you not going to suddenly go all inconsistent and say that's totally different are you?
That's totally disingenuous. The Chinese subsistence farmers leave on their own accord (actually have to be kept out of the cities by force). African slaves were rounded up, chained up, and sold. Chinese factory workers can go back to their families on the farm, or can change jobs (and frequently do) as they are not indentured or bound to their employer. Slaves could not go anywhere.
There are certainly elements of the Chinese government's policy that I think infringe on human rights - but to call it slavery is frankly disgusting, since there ARE people living as slaves today (mostly in the sex trade IIRC).
This screws all the Apple Employees (Score:2, Insightful)
Basically, you don't have to have everyone in a class file a class action lawsuit for it be presented, but now everyone at Apple is now tagged as a slacker because a few people that were unhappy and yet too lazy to find jobs elsewhere decided to bring the whole house down. Of course, the employee s might get a free soda or a coffee extra out of the suit, but the lawyers are going to walk away rich out of money that could have gone towards more R&D, headcount, or, earnings per share. So, to make up the slack from the lawsuit, the Apple employees are simply going to have to work -even harder-.
Dumb.
Re:Slaves, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe these people need to talk with someone who has actually been enslaved before they claim they were treated the same way.
Where would you propose to find one of those in the modern era? Especially in a western culture where things might begin to equate?
I dearly hope you're not implying that they should consult a blood relative of someone who used to be a slave in the 1860's for insight into what it was really like...
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:2, Insightful)
Unions are antithetical to Libertarianism. It doesn't really have anything to do with political or social freedom. Unions are by design the antithesis of free markets since they seek to set labor rates not based on supply and demand of workers but artificially by the threat of strikes and by depriving employers of workers unless they pay artificially inflated wages.
Its just an irreconcilable problem that employers without the burden of Unions or government regulation are going to screw workers... unless there is a real shortage of workers which there usually isn't, especially thanks to globalization. Unions on the other hand tend to create inflated wage rates, and workers that aren't held to account for their performance causing horrible efficiency and inflation. There is probably some happy median where there is enough worker organization to keep abusive employers in check, without creating an overpriced and underperforming work force you see with powerful unions. Unfortunately that median can never be held and instead there are wide swings between the extremes.
Thanks to globalization unions are pretty much doomed at the moment. You try to create a union any employer who can will just move to a country where they wont have to put up with unions. Its nearly impossible to unionize the entire planet. Many countries are pro business and openly hostile to unions. In fact the U.S. spent most of the last century toppling governments in the third world that were pro worker, Socialisim and unions. Ostensibly it was to fight Communism but it was also to make the world safe for multinationals and capitalists and to insure an abundant supply of cheap labor for Capitalists.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
while we think working 15 hour days is ridiculous, let's keep in mind that a lot of people in China pray for any employment... remember that China's population is measured in BILLIONS- there's just not enough work to go around.
If there's not enough work to go around, then how come people have to work 15 hours a day to do it?
Re:"entitled" (Score:3, Insightful)
I come from a farming family, and the "working sun-up to after sundown" bit is pure BS.
For about six weeks, yes, my aunt and uncle work from 5 am to around 6 pm: about four weeks in the beginning of the season and about two around harvest time. The remainder of the year they probably work an average 8 hour day just like everybody else. In winter, there's a couple of weeks that they aren't doing anything and often take a vacation.
There's nothing wrong with the American work ethic. It's boneheads like you that live to work, not work to live, that need to figure it out. Most Europeans don't work nearly as many hours as the average American in the same job.. and who's currency is getting trashed right now?
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
Also it is beyond my understanding that someone tells us that what is being done is good for them without seeing there, talking to anyone working there. Don't you think it is way too arrogant to "know" what is good for them?
All I have to know is that the sweatshop workers decided, on their own free will, to go and work for Apple under those conditions to conclude that this is better for them than the alternatives. I am not arrogant enough to think I know better than they do what's good for them. Note that they might hate their job, but it's better than the alternatives.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
As a left-libertarian, I object to your lumping of all libertarians into anti-unionists. Clearly your example is one where less government control will make big improvements in the lot of ordinary people, which is, as you point out, the libertarian thesis of both the right and left.
Don't be sucked in by the weird American right-lib notion that there should only be enough government to give corporations the power/right to rape the people. That's only one form of libertarianism, despite what people here would have you believe. Personally, I'd like to see only enough government to protect the rights of people, and the first thing to go in my ideal world would be the rules that allow corporations to exploit their labour.
Re: unions (Score:2, Insightful)
Auto unions also tend to produce employees who are complacent at best. They know they are protected by the union and do crappy work as a whole.
Toyota is smart, because keeping unions out also increases their ability to ensure quality exists.
Compare GM cars with Toyota, and the results should be obvious.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I have no respect for unions anymore since they are actively trying to unionize illegal workers [cnn.com]. The union was supposed to be about protecting American jobs, not encouraging those who are breaking the law. Now it's all about the $$$.
Unions are about protecting workers, as people.
Solidarity with your fellow worker doesn't necessarily end at the border, at least not for all of us. The whole idea of unionizing is to avoid exploited workers. Illegal immigrants are more vulnerable to that. In fact, their vulnerability is what makes them more interesting for employers.
If illegal immigrants were unionized, they would lose some of their appeal as slave workers, which could even have a beneficial effect for all workers.
Re:News... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are you guys focusing on bashing the headline instead on the actual problem, which is that highly skilled people are working over time for nothing?
Two reasons:
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument is valid only if we are talking about completely unskilled labor that requires no training. Otherwise, there is a fixed cost per worker, so it is cheaper for 1 worker to work 15 hours than 2 worker to each work 7.5 hours, assuming no loss of quality for fatigue.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
If you look back at why unions starter (1920s, 1930s) you will see that most of those reasons (child labor, very unsafe working conditions, no 'fair' pay i.e. working for a 5 cents a day when a day was 18 hours long) have been taken care of by laws.
What does a union get you today? The union set our pay give you more money? If you notice, the more you make the more your union dues are. Have you ever actually been to a union negotiation? The union person and the company person agree to the new contract in under an hour. Then the script is made. The union guys says you will not give us this so I will walk out and we will have a walk out/strike for a two days. Then we will come back and sign. All this over a really nice lunch/dinner. I asked the 7 negotiators that I know on both sides Teamsters, and the business side (three different companies that have each been around for more then 70 years) it was very similar stories. They usually get the contract made in 1-2 hours. Then depending on who got more (workers/the company) they kill time or start the script. Remember the union itself always wins. the workers who pay the union may get a crappy contract. Then the next contract might be better.
The biggest hurdle is the vote. If you don't know, you are told by the union to vote yes or no to a contract. If the union says vote yes and enough workers vote no, that causes a problem. That can happen but usually doesn't. My brother (who works for the telephone company) is being told by the union right now how to vote on his contract.
I find that very odd that the union says vote yes or no. Shouldn't the workers decide that for themselves?
Most unions today are not needed and should go away. I would say all but I do not know about every union. There may be a few that are actually helping the workers. So far, the unions I have seen have all made sure that they (the union) gets paid. Sometimes at the cost of the company, usually at the cost of the workers they are supposed to be helping.
Re:Geeks get overtime pay? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would anyone work over without compensation? No one goes to their daily job because they like to, or because they want to help out the company. Thinking that you're doing so and will see some magical return in good grace is ridiculous. No manager or CEO would ever go out of their way to help you, so you shouldn't go out of your way to help them.
Getting hung up on terminology. (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of people are getting hung up on the use of the word slavery in this context. Now, I agree that what were seeing here isn't remotely close to slavery, indentured servitude, etc.
But use of on "over the top" word doesn't change the possibility that Apple's employment practices may be violation of State or Federal law. A lot of employers over use the salaried position category to avoid paying overtime. Most employee's do not understand their rights enough to know the difference to they put up with it assuming that is just part of the job, when, in fact, they are being abused.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:2, Insightful)
If you look back at why unions starter (1920s, 1930s) you will see that most of those reasons (child labor, very unsafe working conditions, no 'fair' pay i.e. working for a 5 cents a day when a day was 18 hours long) have been taken care of by laws.
Most unions today are not needed and should go away. I would say all but I do not know about every union. There may be a few that are actually helping the workers. So far, the unions I have seen have all made sure that they (the union) gets paid. Sometimes at the cost of the company, usually at the cost of the workers they are supposed to be helping.
I agree that most of the existing unions probably accomplished what they set out to do a couple of decades ago. I would argue that the biggest contribution the larger unions make today is in helping to identify other areas which have not had union representation in the past and are behind the times in wages and benefits; I'm thinking mainly of the fast food/service industry that has been trying to catch up recently. Of course, the existing unions have more than just an altruistic motive to help these other groups unionize; there is that whole lobbying industry to support. I can't remember, have lobbyists unionized yet?
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
Unions are about protecting workers, as people.
Unions used to be about protecting workers, as people.
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Teacher's have it easy (Score:1, Insightful)
"(the year I got my undergrad 40% of education majors were on the deans list less then 5% of engineers were)"
That's because it's a HELL of a lot harder to make Dean's list when you study something HARD.
Back to the blackboard! Do it again, this time show your work!
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:4, Insightful)
What abusive business practices are you talking about? From what I've read, Apple has always been a kinda "grindhouse". Coming from your mindset, Google should be a grindhouse too, since Apple can get away with it. Or perhaps it should be the other way around. Or, maybe more likely, different companies are going to run different ways, regardless of what other companies do (outside of adopting some semi-standard business practices such as time sheets, etc..).
While I might sound like one of "those people" who think the invisible hand of free market will "solve all problems", you sound like one of those far left leaning quasi-communists that believe the oppressive hand of government will create equality for everyone and spread the wealth around. Highly regulated markets are always better than free markets. Right USSR? I know its somehow appealing that the "magical government people" can somehow make things "equal and better" the dangers of the free market are BY AND FAR less dangerous than imposing government. As for your "concentration of wealth" argument, there is alot more to do with new innovations and technologies that created alot of opportunities for small businesses to become big business over the course of a century. Wealth consolidation always happens. Always (just pick up a history book).
Today is the best day to be alive in the history of human kind (outside a few select places). Globalization has improved the conditions of humanity on a scale NEVER witnessed before in human history. And to top it off, much of that globalization, and massive improvements have happened while your most hated enemy, GW Bush, was president of that most horrible nation, the USA (which gives to charities/poor/sick more than all other nations combined). Need a good example, take a look at the contributions to Africa from the nations that RAPED that continent (here's looking to you Europe) compared to the USA. Shameful isnt it?
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
Most unions today are not needed and should go away. I would say all but I do not know about every union.
I keep hearing people mention this opinion, and yet it seems to me like the non-union skilled jobs in the US (specifically tech jobs) have conditions and pay that are well below what unions achieve for e.g. machinists and longshoremen.
Re:News... (Score:5, Insightful)
instead on the actual problem, which is that highly skilled people are working over time for nothing
Let's start by convincing me that this is a problem. These highly skilled people are also highly paid. Overtime pay is important, I will assert, because low paid people deserve a fair wage for their time.
A software developer who makes a $90k salary doesn't quite fit the description. $90k is about $45/hour, if you work 40 hour weeks, and about $34 an hour if you average 50 hour weeks. $34 an hour is hardly starvation money. Whether this is a fair wage for their time is a matter of negotiation between the employee and the employer, in my opinion.
The lack of overtime compensation is not forcing people into poverty, and it's not even abuse. It's apparently a condition of the employment at Apple, that some people don't like. Fair enough - find another job that doesn't demand that level of work.
The right way to state this is that highly paid people are being tasked with work that takes more than 40 hours a week. They are complaining about that, and trying to use the government to renegotiate their salary. I suggest that they go move to France, where the government will help them do so. In the US, I'll be surprised if they succeed, because the laws in most states are pretty clear that professional work is generally excluded from requirements for overtime pay. Professional work is usually defined as that which requires a lengthy period of study to attain, such as accounting, medicine, and engineering.
Personally, I am a little disgusted with the whining attitude of the gen x'rs. I have worked hours over my career that make these claims look paltry by comparison. The result, over time, was that I advanced in my career, and made some significant money when our company went public. My parents did the same. My grandfather worked his ass off on a farm, and was dirt poor. The chinese are working their asses off for $50 a month.
If you all want civil service work conditions, go get a job working for the post office, and see how much fun that is. Develoment is hard, and to make a business of it sometimes means stretching your self. Toughen up and grow a sack. Or understand that you are relegating yourself to the group of workers that your managers will look at as being solely interested in what's in it for you, and therefore placing yourself on the list of those to jettison whenever cuts need to be made.
Don't forget the worst part of this remake... (Score:3, Insightful)
Keanu as Klaatu. Don't forget that part of the story. Keanu Reeves adds suck to just about anything he touches. His manager/agent recently got the rights to do a live-action version of Cowboy Bebop, so now it's almost a certainty that will be FUBAR as well. Keanu will either be Spike or Vicious. Guaranteed suckfest.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
Witty, but not relevant to this situation.
What is actually relevant to this situation is the routine exposure of corruption among the recruiting process for these allegedly horrific conditions.
So, to connect your phrasing to reality,
"Why, my nigger paid the overseer under the table his entire family's life savings plus sold two of his daughters to get to work for me! Don't have to ask him nuttin' do ya?"
When there no longer are stories of that sort about how desperately people bribe anyone they can to get a chance at these allegedly horrific conditions, then perhaps there might be something to discuss.
In the meantime, the politest thing you can say about people who think there is a problem is that they are not familiar with the alternatives available to the workers, and they lack the basic grasp of economics that the only historically effective way to improve working conditions has been to reduce labor surplus, which is most effectively done by increasing number of jobs. (In a few cases restricting supply by unionization or its bastard cousin "professional certification" works too, yes, but simply growing the economy so jobs outpace workforce growth is much better as it does not restrict the freedom of individuals.)
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
I stand corrected. They are making more than $50/month then?
Re:What would Stallman say? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
How about actually enforcing our current laws making it ILLEGAL to even think of hiring ILLEGAL workers in the US? Then, there would be no need for unionizing them, no more exploitation of people scared to speak up due to being here as illegal non-citizens...not to mention less of a drag on the ER rooms (illegals main source of healthcare), and schools...etc.
Get rid of the slave labor by making it highly toxic to business if caught with even a single illegal alien employed here...that will try up the incentive to come here illegally, and will help US citizens and those here legally to have better wages, etc.
Just ask those in the house building industry how illegals have killed the market for US workers who want to raise families in a normal environment, not live 12 to a room/shack or tent somewhere and send what money they do make back home via Western Union.
Re:Queue the jokes, and something serious... (Score:4, Insightful)
If annual leave actually increases corporate productivity, then it will be adopted by corporations operating in a capitalist market. It's that simple. What we do have in the USA is the freedom to decide that between employer and employee, as well as the freedom to experiment with whether and how much paid vacation affects productivity. You can't prove that it increases productivity because you don't have any way to experiment.
That's such a ridiculous fallacy. It turns out the world isn't a perfect capitalist market. That would require perfect knowledge, and it turns out that no one has that. People who make these decisions make them for their own benefit, are terrified of experimenting in a way that could upset the things that are already working, and usually abandon any new ideas the moment any remotely potential problem arises.
The GP points at some of the only evidence we do have, which comes from the powerhouse European economy's generous paid leave. Does that prove anything? No. It lets us make some educated guesses, though, and to think that capitalism means that the best solution will always be adopted and become widespread is a great mistake. At best, capitalism in practice is a series of educated guesses that often leads down very unproductive roads.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:4, Insightful)
The real reason it costs so much less is that contributing to a 401k means that the money is removed from the regular revenue stream. The idiots at GM spent all the money that was supposed to be set aside for pensions which is why they are in so much trouble now.
It turns out when it comes to pensions this was not an uncommon practice but obviously it requires continuous growth which isn't really something that a car company can rely on.
401ks are far safer as employees and employers alike I believe have learned the lesson, plus 401ks are transferrable so if you lose your job after 28 years you don't risk your retirement.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
I've wondered about this. Why not just start hiring all people as independent contractors?
Ah, grasshopper, you think you're the first one to think of this? Certainly would solve a lot of problems if companies could classify employees as contractors at will....
...except the IRS is wise to that game and will nail your ass to the wall. ;)
Here's the IRS's Form [irs.gov] that contains questions that serve as a method of determining whether a given relationship between employer/worker can be that of a contractor or not. And here [wwwebtax.com] is a more readable version.
Basically, there's a list of 20 characteristics that distinguish actual contractors from employees that a shady company is trying to pass off as contractors. Things like who sets the hours, who provides the tools, where is the work done, how are they paid, who pays for business expenses, and so on.
And no, I'm not a lawyer, but a company tried to hire me as a 'contractor' scientist one time, which was a nice way of telling me they wanted to hire me but provide no benefits and no security. My guess is that it wouldn't have stood up in court since they would have basically failed every step of that test linked to.
Re:What would Stallman say? (Score:5, Insightful)
Educators are typically salaried, no?
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
Delivery drivers have been working toward unionizing for a while now - I believe that there are now a few union Pizza Huts. Don't assume that these people are all teenagers who are trying to save up for a nicer car - many of them depended on this money and are now getting screwed over such that their jobs are barely profitable. Somewhat because of the public perceptions you've outlined in your post - not only that these jobs are only held by people who don't need the money, but also that you don't want your pizza to be a dollar more expensive, so the additional cost gets hidden in a "delivery fee" that winds up cutting into tips, so that even if they get a little of the increase it's more than balanced out by the lower tips. I'm not going to say for sure that they should be unionized, but I can see why they are dissatisfied and want to be treated better. They are fronting the money for their own gas, oil, and car repairs, while the pizza places don't care if their policies lead to lower tips.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair to GM and Ford, they have a generation or two of union costs on them that the new Toyota and Honda ventures do not.
Let's put this in context. "A generation or two of union costs on them" does not just appear out of nowhere. The company and the union had to *agree* to it. The difference between the US and the Japanese union legacy costs is that the Japanese, by law, had to actually (heaven forbid!) fund the benefits in advance, not just expect superprofits to cover this completely expected cost when it comes due. The US companies did not. The money that they should logically have set aside to fund the benefits, was instead thrown off as bonuses and dividends.
Btw, when I checked my stock trading account, I looked up GM bonds, and the ones that mature in just *three years* from now, are trading at ~28% yields -- I wish I could link it. That's a HUGE risk premium, and it's probably due to the -$40 billion book value of the company. Yes, *negative* 40 billion when you factor in legacy obligations.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:2, Insightful)
You forgot to add:
*You industry driven into the ground (automotive, airlines, steel, etc.), since the company can no longer make hiring/firing/pay decisions based on economic or performance factors.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit.
Have you ever worked in fast food? If you're in a college town, what you said may be the case. For what it's worth, this applies mainly to privately-owned franchises. Corporate-owned stores are generally much better places to work, and do usually conform to labor laws.
At least where I've worked (rural interstate exits and one genuine college town) fast food jobs are the sole source of income for the people working there. Generally, at least half of the people I worked with were supporting children, either as single parents or through child support payments. (Working 80+ hours a week is hard on marriages.) Minimum wage is a good job where I grew up. The 3 factories in the county all pay minimum wage. Fast food jobs pay better, but only because it's easier to get overtime.
However, the working conditions are hell. Unless business is slow, you do not get anything other emergency bathroom breaks during an 8-hour shift. Meal breaks are only an option if you're working over 10-hour shifts, where there's a chance that someone will come in before another person leaves, giving you a chance to do something other than take or make orders. Being understaffed is one of the few absolutes in fast food.
Conditions are generally worse for managers, as they don't have the right (literally, you sign it away) to say no if they're asked to come in or work extra at any time. Managers do not get breaks of any sort unless things are slow. If you're a salaried manager, you don't get paid for _any_ time you work over 40 hours, and you're _always_ required to work 60-100 hour weeks. One of our store managers tallied it up over a 6 month period and realized he was making $3.45 an hour if time-and-a-half overtime was taken into account. (Mininum wage was $4.75 at the time)
To give you an example, a friend of mine at Subway (I worked at McD's at the time) had managed to get 4 days off over new-years to go on a trip with her kids. They were 100 miles away when she was called into work. She worked 36 hours straight with only 4 bathroom breaks and one 5 minute meal break. She went home for 4 hours, came back and worked a 24 hour shift. If she had refused, she would have been fired after the holiday rush. There aren't any other jobs in the area. Any job is better than none, and the store owner (not manager) knows it.
Anyway, I'm ranting, obviously. Believe it or not, I wasn't exaggerating much. I got lucky and was able to go to college and I'm now in grad school, so I really can't complain.
My point is that fast-food and other minimum wage jobs are places where unions are desperately needed. Local business owners will not comply with labor laws of any sort, and state agencies will not enforce them. Or at least that's been my experience, anyway.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:4, Insightful)
option 4:
Pay them a decent wage by the local standards,nothing amazing but enough that they live comfortably and can send their kids to school.
Keep some decent safety standards in the factory even if the local government is too fucked up to have laws on workplace safety.
End up with a product that's a few percent more expensive but still competetive.
Get decent stock options and bonuses
Keep your soul.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:4, Insightful)
True, I love how Obama's people keep ignoring the fact that the lower capital gains tax has actually increased capital gains revenues. I kinda hope Obama gets elected so we can see how he isn't any different than any other politician.
Re:What would Stallman say? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've taught and I've worked in a factory. Its obvious you have never worked in a factory if you think that is the easy-to-do job. Standing over a press machine in an non-air conditioned building for 12 hours a day is not easy, even if it is mentally challenging.
Also, factory jobs are not exactly easy to come by these days.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
Congratulations. You've just iterated why your children's jobs are moving offshore. Enjoy your retirement.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:2, Insightful)
To be fair to GM and Ford, they have a generation or two of union costs on them that the new Toyota and Honda ventures do not.
Yep. Continuing generous benefits for retirees, the "job bank", and other costs still pile on the balance sheet even though plants are being closed. I'm not sure if it has been reached yet or not, but at some point they are going to be paying more to people that used to work for them than to those that are currently working for them. This insanity is going to end someday. Hopefully it won't be due to the companies going out of business.
McJobs aren't for kids alone. (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you kidding? Why do you want to mess with min. wage fast food jobs? I mean...these are NOT meant to be living wages. They are they are there for high school and college kids to earn extra money while in school.
[...]
Hmm..I don't eat fast food very often [...]
It shows. I mean, when's the last time you saw a fast food restaurant that was mostly staffed by teenagers & college students? For me, it was the 90's, and it was a Chick-Fil-A that made a point of hiring kids from the local foster homes they sponsor.
The vast majority of fast food workers I see are low-income wage slaves who do not (and will not) have a college education, just trying to get by. This is true even if you cut out the kitchen staff (which stopped being kids and started being immigrant labor as far back as when *I* was a kid). I'd say that I only see someone in that high school to college age group maybe 1 in 5 times I eat at a fast food restaurant, and I almost never see two people in that age group.
I have mixed feelings about unionizing fast food, but stop believing the fantasy that kids are the only people working McJobs. It's just not true anymore in the places where I've lived.
Re:What would Stallman say? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately most greedy managers sem unable to see past the bottom line of the next quarter.
Fixed that for you.
MOST of the time, what happens, is that the task of creating a call center comes down from up above, and is handed to a manager, or a manager is hired to head up the project. The manager evaluates his options, and is given a goal to meet. Rather than getting reasonably close to the goal, they decide to undercut the goal to make themselves look better. When they save the company an boatload of money, they're given bonuses, promoted, etc. Some companies automatically give bonuses if managers do well.
The problem is that the effects are not usually immediate and strong enough to stop the manager from being patted on the back and given bonuses/promoted/etc. Its the people down the road that have to deal with all the fallout, and the company is just that much weaker for outsourcing to India for half the cost.
Most CEOs are pretty savvy in the business world. You usually only hear about the ones that aren't.
This kind of thing happens in jobs everywhere. Why would the contractor use better quality materials on your house when they can use things they bought at half price? As long as they're gone it doesn't matter if it lasts. Why should the CEO make good decisions if they can just work for a year or two and then golden-parachute their ways to a few million? Why should your DVD player last for more than a year? The point is, they already have your money. Be it your money in the hands of a manufacturer of a cheap knockoff that lasted two weeks before dying, or be it the money of a company in the hands of some greedy asshole who doesn't give a damn about anything except for his own paycheck.
Re:What would Stallman say? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's conceptually easy. Doing it repeatedly and fast enough to not have the line pile up behind you is not easy. Licking a stamp is extremely easy. Try licking a few thousand an hour and you'll see what I mean.
Re:No, *THESE* are slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
It is true that the unions historically are responsible for many of the better labor conditions in the US.
In an amusing sidestep, they are also therefore responsible for the massive overseas outsourcing.
Simply: due to the unions, the cost of labor in the US skyrocketed. Increased by a factor of 20 in less than a few decades. This got the corporate heads churning as to how they could get the labor costs back down.
Enter China and most of the "developing" world. No unions, few labor laws, Wild Wild West. Cheaper labor by far, and therefore that's where the labor is being purchased. Humanity as a commodity.
So some would argue that this is evidence that the unions are harmful, because in the end they just cost us all our jobs. In fact the reverse is true; the problem is not the unions but the inequity thereof internationally. The next necessary step is to bring the union concept to the margins where it is needed most. First, bring it to the laborers being exploited by predominantly American corporations, whatever countries they are in. Organize them, introduce the idea of supply control (strikes etc, where the "commodity" that is human capital establishes a voice for itself, rather than allowing themselves to be treated as cattle) and allow the cost of labor to rise. Not to rise beyond reason but to realign with reason.
One of the key causal factors of the world's economic problems- and lets face it, economics are at the root of most of the world's other problems (see UN MDGs)- is the inequity between value, price, and cost. For instance, oil costs less than US$27 on average to produce and ship per barrel, yet the world price is set above $140. Capital costs for a 2000 square foot house are barely six figure if well built, yet they go for quadruple that in many American suburbs. And all individuals living in a major American city require something like $15,000 annually to "survive" yet the minimum pay is something like 2/3 of that.
The establishment is supported by ingenious social concepts, ingrained as religion. It is considered not merely acceptable but *right* that the individual at the top of a company makes more than the 500 individuals at the bottom combined. Because one person is *worth* 500 times more than another? My numbers are examples from the extreme but should they exist at all? And that's only looking at same-country employees. What does the chairman of Wal-Mart make in comparison to his average factory worker in China? Quite a disparity.
Unions help to level this playing field. The basic problem that causes the huge disparity in wealth distribution is power distribution. As such, peasants have no power almost by definition. But they do have a hidden power against the elites: need. Individually a peasant is powerless; stop working, and you will be disposed of and replaced. But in quantity, in unity, you cannot be disposed of, because the ruler would destroy himself in the process. What a union does is it organizes the coordination of power plays by the little guys. Collective bargaining is necessary because individual bargaining is impossible.
In my company, certain people are represented by the union while others are not. Generally the split is at management regardless of department. Our tech workers and sales team are part of the same union. Incidentally, our competitors techs are in the union with us, though their sales team is not. I briefly worked for the competitors sales team- and quickly switched back. The union helps keep our pay satisfactory, helps keep us from being fired at random, minimizes the fluctuations in our commission structure, and is currently battling along with seemingly every other union to keep our health benefits. I make about US$60k a year, so I would say I'm in a slightly higher labor caste than the typical call center worker. Why shouldn't they be represented by a union?
The simple pragmatic answer is that, in today's global economy, if the cost of running a US ca
Re:What would Stallman say? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds to me like you've never worked in a factory.
Ever tried scraping Guinea-pig shit off cages for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, in stinking "high" summer? Even after 6 weeks, Monday morning normally involves struggling to keep your breakfast down. (OK, in a hospital, not a factory.)
Ever tried spending all day climbing around inside 10m tall machines, trying to get to obscurely-placed grease points to pump them, or getting to a lube-oil tank to install the drain hose, then fill up with flushing oil, then drain again, then fill with the next year's worth of lube oil. See those 40 mixing vats - go inspect the oil level in every gear box, and top up as necessary ; here's your 25l top-up tank, carry it to the top of each separate tank. This afternoon, you can do the vats in the next building, but they need a different type of oil.
Ever tried dashing up to the top of a 250ft tower, in a Force 9 and rising gale, because NOW is the only opportunity that you're going to have this month to clean the various sensors up there, and it needs to be done this week.
Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt and the industrially-damaged hearing and dermatitis. And believe me,working 20-hour days (bed-to-bed, including 1 hour/day for food, shit and coffee breaks) in the geology lab is a lot preferable to working on the shop floor.
I would really, strongly, advise you to spend one or more of your summers working at the bottom of the industrial pile. NOTHING but NOTHING will improve your motivation to get a better job more than some experience of what for most people is "real life". Love of money and such like trivia are nothing compared to the motivation of avoiding hard work.
Hey, I can even SlashDot while supervising a gas system calibration and doing a system backup!