Re: [CGUYS] Gulag
Adil Godrej wrote: P.S. Okay, I'm done. It's going to be a long week at work. I'll accept whatever you send my way, but I'm afraid I will not be able to respond. Yeah, I'm running away from the fight. It's only the ethical thing to do (being as I'm at work). (Did I just hear a collective sigh of relief from the ComputerGuys community?) No! Thank you for your input. The only other comment I have to this exchange is: If you don't know that GM crops are bad in many ways, you are ignoring the real science and buying into the government/corporate lies. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag
On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Adil Godrej wrote: P.S. Okay, I'm done. It's going to be a long week at work. I'll accept whatever you send my way, but I'm afraid I will not be able to respond. Yeah, I'm running away from the fight. It's only the ethical thing to do (being as I'm at work). (Did I just hear a collective sigh of relief from the ComputerGuys community?) Thank you for your input. Your opinion is very important to us. Beep. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
As some wag put it, they are not called the Ten Suggestions. tjpa wrote: On Nov 27, 2009, at 6:03 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: I also stated that business should be run in as ethically as possible. Do you consider that ethical? Definitely not. The as possible is a cop out. It is like preaching the Ten Commandments as optional as convenient. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
On Nov 28, 2009, at 2:09 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: I can be judged by the Ten Commandments but I would rather be saved by Grace. Mass murderers the world over rejoice. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag
On Nov 28, 2009, at 8:06 PM, Adil Godrej wrote: A person living on Rs 2/day (about 4 cents) in India typically has one meal of rice every two days. No matter how ethical he is, he cannot afford to be ethical in those circumstances. Telling him that it is unethical to eat genetically-modified rice, even if that is all he can get, is a sure way to let him die. Yet, there are people who'd rather that such poor people die than allow GM rice to be available. These that the flag-wavers I was talking about. Should I be on the side of such flag wavers? In your words, hell no. Let there be enough food so that there is no need to grow GM foods, then talk about getting the GM stuff out of the food supply. This requires sufficient income for people so that they have a choice. Would it surprise you to know that the poor often have equally good ethics as those who are better off? Here the relevant issue is who is being unethical? The starving person is certainly making an ethical decision to reject suicide. The problem is with the people who are falsely claiming that there is something wrong with GM. They conveniently neglect to acknowledge that humans have been genetically modifying plants and animals for 1000s of years. Everything we eat is GM and has been for a very long time. On Nov 28, 2009, at 8:06 PM, Adil Godrej wrote: I hope you now understand what I meant when I said cannot afford to be ethical. It was shorthand for those in such dire straights that they have no time for ethics. This is where we part. I don't see any situation where one cannot afford to be ethical. If that were truly the case then the starving person you described would simply kill their neighbor and eat them. Problem solved. Have you observed this to be the case? I suspect that the starving person is possibly the most ethical of individuals. They are starving because they reject the unethical alternatives. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag
Yah didn't you know monsanto has been GM food for thousands of years. They have laboratories that date back to the ice age. On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:04 AM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Nov 28, 2009, at 8:06 PM, Adil Godrej wrote: A person living on Rs 2/day (about 4 cents) in India typically has one meal of rice every two days. No matter how ethical he is, he cannot afford to be ethical in those circumstances. Telling him that it is unethical to eat genetically-modified rice, even if that is all he can get, is a sure way to let him die. Yet, there are people who'd rather that such poor people die than allow GM rice to be available. These that the flag-wavers I was talking about. Should I be on the side of such flag wavers? In your words, hell no. Let there be enough food so that there is no need to grow GM foods, then talk about getting the GM stuff out of the food supply. This requires sufficient income for people so that they have a choice. Would it surprise you to know that the poor often have equally good ethics as those who are better off? Here the relevant issue is who is being unethical? The starving person is certainly making an ethical decision to reject suicide. The problem is with the people who are falsely claiming that there is something wrong with GM. They conveniently neglect to acknowledge that humans have been genetically modifying plants and animals for 1000s of years. Everything we eat is GM and has been for a very long time. On Nov 28, 2009, at 8:06 PM, Adil Godrej wrote: I hope you now understand what I meant when I said cannot afford to be ethical. It was shorthand for those in such dire straights that they have no time for ethics. This is where we part. I don't see any situation where one cannot afford to be ethical. If that were truly the case then the starving person you described would simply kill their neighbor and eat them. Problem solved. Have you observed this to be the case? I suspect that the starving person is possibly the most ethical of individuals. They are starving because they reject the unethical alternatives. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
you make the typical judgement. Religious Grace is not world freedom to do anything. The world sets standards and laws that must be obeyed. Break that law and pay a civil penalty. If it be a business fined or an individual sentenced to a penalty so be it. The comment I made about the ten commandments is about God's judgment on me as an individual within his kingdom of grace. They define our relationship with him. Now when we get into the civil realm we set up a whole host of laws that are supposed to reflect our relationship with him. However since many people do not know a relationship with Him I no doubt do not expect nor do I see behavior that is reflective of that relationship. If I were to judge according to the ten commandments all businesses fail to achieve that goal. Even your vaunted Apple theology fails miserably. So the world is left to pick its standards to apply and follow. Which they have. You can preach all you want your Apple theology and I will still say it fails. So does MS theology. Mass Murderers are judged by the world and suffer their worldly fate. Stewart At 11:25 AM 11/29/2009, you wrote: On Nov 28, 2009, at 2:09 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: I can be judged by the Ten Commandments but I would rather be saved by Grace. Mass murderers the world over rejoice. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag
At 01:04 PM 11/29/2009, you wrote: Date:Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:04:14 -0500 From:tjpa t...@tjpa.com Subject: Re: Gulag On Nov 28, 2009, at 8:06 PM, Adil Godrej wrote: A person living on Rs 2/day (about 4 cents) in India typically has one meal of rice every two days. No matter how ethical he is, he cannot afford to be ethical in those circumstances. Telling him that it is unethical to eat genetically-modified rice, even if that is all he can get, is a sure way to let him die. Yet, there are people who'd rather that such poor people die than allow GM rice to be available. These that the flag-wavers I was talking about. Should I be on the side of such flag wavers? In your words, hell no. Let there be enough food so that there is no need to grow GM foods, then talk about getting the GM stuff out of the food supply. This requires sufficient income for people so that they have a choice. Would it surprise you to know that the poor often have equally good ethics as those who are better off? Here the relevant issue is who is being unethical? The starving person is certainly making an ethical decision to reject suicide. The problem is with the people who are falsely claiming that there is something wrong with GM. They conveniently neglect to acknowledge that humans have been genetically modifying plants and animals for 1000s of years. Everything we eat is GM and has been for a very long time. Here we get to the nub of it: you view rejecting suicide as an ethical decision. Sure, if you want to define it that way. I view suicide more as a moral issue, rather than an ethical one. And morality is defined by the society one lives in. For example, allowing one self to not be subject to heroic medical procedures to save one's life is, in my opinion, is the right ethical thing to do, but many people consider it immoral. I think we are agreeing on the basics, but our points of reference are different. Also, I picked GM because that is one of those things people get excited over. My take on GM is actually very similar to yours. Although, I must admit that I don't think human beings have been modifying plants with animal genes for very long. On Nov 28, 2009, at 8:06 PM, Adil Godrej wrote: I hope you now understand what I meant when I said cannot afford to be ethical. It was shorthand for those in such dire straights that they have no time for ethics. This is where we part. I don't see any situation where one cannot afford to be ethical. If that were truly the case then the starving person you described would simply kill their neighbor and eat them. Problem solved. Have you observed this to be the case? I suspect that the starving person is possibly the most ethical of individuals. They are starving because they reject the unethical alternatives. Okay, I see what you are getting at. Point well taken. Although I think that killing is more about morals that ethics. Otherwise we'd never be able to defend against attacks against our selves. If a farmer commits suicide so that the government will be shamed into helping his starving family, did he just do something unethical because he didn't reject suicide? This isn't a made-up example, but what has happened with a lot of farmers in some states in India recently. Failed monsoons are the main reason for the starving families. Now, was your victory over this issue an ethical or moral one? :) As Stewart alluded to earlier, though, we have now degenerated to an academic argument, rather than action. So, let's go make our donations this Sunday to our favorite charity, crack open a beer, and feel good.(from the donation and the beer). If we make our donations online, we won't be accused of being off-topic, either. Adil * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag
Easy to say sitting at your desk in this country. The poorest of us in the US have not an inkling what real poverty is. On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 4:19 PM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Nov 29, 2009, at 5:32 PM, Adil Godrej wrote: My reading of the farmer suicide in India was that these farmers thought they were out of options and therefore killed themselves. The problem with their action was that it was based on an incorrect assessment of their situation -- put simply where there is life there is hope. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
Doctors, nurses and teachers have powerful professional associations. They're highly educated professionals. Professional organizations are somewhat different than labor unions, and they try to distinguish themselves from unions. I think that professional organizations place more emphasis on lobbying efforts than they do on collective bargaining as is the case with labor unions... ...If programmers and coders wanted the same flexibility, along with confidence that they could get similar wages, benefits and protections were they to change employers, they would have to be able to obtain professional representation in many companies within a given territorial area to help avoid having to move to another locale in order to find suitable work... Teachers have professional associations and unions because they work on contracts, and those contracts need to be negotiated. Same for nurses, dietitians, and some doctors who deal with HMOs. Artists and models have agents [sometimes associations] rather than unions who handle contracts; these are people who move around a lot and rarely have a single employer or any kind of job security. Agents and associations add a little security to very insecure professions. Electricians and plumbers are highly skilled professionals, too. Electricians, more than plumbers, work for unions. The unions are the brokers for electricians and are the ones that negotiate prices with companies that need electrical work. The representation you describe can be done through good old union organizing. It's daunting because there are too many coders who can't imagine being in a union, and potential employers who fight unionization with vicious ferocity. It's worth fighting for representation. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
I don't know about you but I do not want to be judged by the Ten Commandments as I would fail. When Is aid as ethically as possible I leave in the fact that everyone is going to screw up somehow sometime. I can be judged by the Ten Commandments but I would rather be saved by Grace. Stewart At 12:51 PM 11/28/2009, you wrote: Definitely not. The as possible is a cop out. It is like preaching the Ten Commandments as optional as convenient. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
No but two Wrights made an airplane. Stewart At 12:52 PM 11/28/2009, you wrote: I think they call this two wrongs make a right. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall popoz...@earthlink.net wrote: No but two Wrights made an airplane. Three lefts do make a right. -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
Which is similar to a stopped clock is right at least twice a day. Stewart At 01:14 PM 11/28/2009, you wrote: On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall popoz...@earthlink.net wrote: No but two Wrights made an airplane. Three lefts do make a right. -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag
At 01:58 PM 11/28/2009, you wrote: Date:Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:58:12 -0500 From:tjpa t...@tjpa.com Subject: Re: Gulag? On Nov 27, 2009, at 9:20 PM, Adil Godrej wrote: Obviously, the whole thing is quite complicated, specially when you add in those people who cannot afford to be ethical if they are to survive. Let's take the much-maligned WalMart. Many people who work there also shop there because that's what they can afford. And they work there because that may be the best job they could get. Waving the ethical banner at people who are living on the edge isn't very ethical in itself (think about that!). Once you get them off the edge, then go ahead and wave that banner. That (living on the edge), however, is not an excuse that those in power can use. What's their excuse for not helping others? The cannot afford to be ethical concept is totally false. Does one rush out to snatch the baby from out of the path of the rushing car? Does one run into the burning house to save grandma? According to what you hare written, the answer is Hell no! I have to respond to you with Hell no! Oh, I agree that one must snatch the baby and save grandma. If you are willing to actually help the people, then go ahead and wave the ethical banner all you want. But, if grandma is in a burning house, it doesn't help her to tell her she should not have been in the house because it was made of non-renewable wood. Or telling a starving child that he shouldn't eat that corn because it was produced with pesticides. Unless you are willing to help that child, you cannot afford to wag your finger. That's what I said. Believe me, I have seen plenty of dire poverty and starvation up close to know that those who are starving don't need sermons on ethics, but assistance. You are talking about assisting these people (saving grandma), and I have no quarrel with that. A person living on Rs 2/day (about 4 cents) in India typically has one meal of rice every two days. No matter how ethical he is, he cannot afford to be ethical in those circumstances. Telling him that it is unethical to eat genetically-modified rice, even if that is all he can get, is a sure way to let him die. Yet, there are people who'd rather that such poor people die than allow GM rice to be available. These that the flag-wavers I was talking about. Should I be on the side of such flag wavers? In your words, hell no. Let there be enough food so that there is no need to grow GM foods, then talk about getting the GM stuff out of the food supply. This requires sufficient income for people so that they have a choice. Would it surprise you to know that the poor often have equally good ethics as those who are better off? I prefer to be on the side of those who would raise the lot of the poor so that they can actually exercise their ethics. First, find that starving person some ethically grown food. Raise his standard of living so that he can exercise his ethics. Then you are welcome to criticize him if he still goes for the GM stuff. Your examples of those rushing to snatch the baby and save grandma are examples of people who would help first. I hope that most rational people would do the same. I hope you now understand what I meant when I said cannot afford to be ethical. It was shorthand for those in such dire straights that they have no time for ethics. Should a person not work at WalMart if it results in his family becoming homeless due to a lack of a job? Fortunately for me, I earn enough so that that is not a question I need worry about: I don't patronize WalMart. But I don't believe in being patronizing to those who would patronize WalMart, unless I am willing to actually do something, as opposed to talking about, it. Dictators who starve their people (North Korea, Zimbabwe, etc.) know that a starving man is too busy surviving to care about what is being done to others, let alone be able to do something about ousting the dictator. Yes, there are some who rise above that and create resistance to the abusive rule, but there are very few who succeed in the dictator's lifetime. If North Korea sends food that it has kept from its own starving people to Sudan, should a starving Sudanese man not eat it because it would be unethical? That man doesn't really care where the food came from and cannot afford to be ethical. You and I can afford to care about where the food came from. But what are you and I going to do about it? That's the question. Adil * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag
You don't throw a drowning man a sandwich. We like to pontificate when we really should be helping. I donate extra computer equipment all the time. I give away computers when I can to the right people. They do not care if it is a Mac or a PC as long as it works and they can work. Stewart At 07:06 PM 11/28/2009, you wrote: Oh, I agree that one must snatch the baby and save grandma. If you are willing to actually help the people, then go ahead and wave the ethical banner all you want. But, if grandma is in a burning house, it doesn't help her to tell her she should not have been in the house because it was made of non-renewable wood. Or telling a starving child that he shouldn't eat that corn because it was produced with pesticides. Unless you are willing to help that child, you cannot afford to wag your finger. That's what I said. Believe me, I have seen plenty of dire poverty and starvation up close to know that those who are starving don't need sermons on ethics, but assistance. You are talking about assisting these people (saving grandma), and I have no quarrel with that. A person living on Rs 2/day (about 4 cents) in India typically has one meal of rice every two days. No matter how ethical he is, he cannot afford to be ethical in those circumstances. Telling him that it is unethical to eat genetically-modified rice, even if that is all he can get, is a sure way to let him die. Yet, there are people who'd rather that such poor people die than allow GM rice to be available. These that the flag-wavers I was talking about. Should I be on the side of such flag wavers? In your words, hell no. Let there be enough food so that there is no need to grow GM foods, then talk about getting the GM stuff out of the food supply. This requires sufficient income for people so that they have a choice. Would it surprise you to know that the poor often have equally good ethics as those who are better off? I prefer to be on the side of those who would raise the lot of the poor so that they can actually exercise their ethics. First, find that starving person some ethically grown food. Raise his standard of living so that he can exercise his ethics. Then you are welcome to criticize him if he still goes for the GM stuff. Your examples of those rushing to snatch the baby and save grandma are examples of people who would help first. I hope that most rational people would do the same. I hope you now understand what I meant when I said cannot afford to be ethical. It was shorthand for those in such dire straights that they have no time for ethics. Should a person not work at WalMart if it results in his family becoming homeless due to a lack of a job? Fortunately for me, I earn enough so that that is not a question I need worry about: I don't patronize WalMart. But I don't believe in being patronizing to those who would patronize WalMart, unless I am willing to actually do something, as opposed to talking about, it. Dictators who starve their people (North Korea, Zimbabwe, etc.) know that a starving man is too busy surviving to care about what is being done to others, let alone be able to do something about ousting the dictator. Yes, there are some who rise above that and create resistance to the abusive rule, but there are very few who succeed in the dictator's lifetime. If North Korea sends food that it has kept from its own starving people to Sudan, should a starving Sudanese man not eat it because it would be unethical? That man doesn't really care where the food came from and cannot afford to be ethical. You and I can afford to care about where the food came from. But what are you and I going to do about it? That's the question. Adil * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
I guess I don't quite understand why the employment situation of illegal aliens in the construction and food processing industry reflects NEGATIVELY on the moral character and industriousness of U.S. computer workers. I just don't see how the current situation proves that we have bred laziness and inefficiency into computer programmers and knowledge workers and that they think they do not have to work to earn a living. I thought that the original point was that computer workers were, basically, asked to work on hardship schedules without extra pay, and under constant threat of being downsized or outsourced. These people are computer professionals who have put in quite a lot of effort to get trained for what they do, usually at their own expense. Instead, they're being ripped off to pile up surplus value in the bank accounts of their corporate employers. Why shouldn't they be distressed about their employment situation? If the best practices standard is to employ computer professionals under the same personnel practices as illegal aliens in a slaughterhouse--and then tell them my way or the highway--then we're in more trouble than we thought. (This has echoes of labor practices in the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, too; remember If you don't come in on Sunday, don't come in on Monday?) It bothers me when I see corporations using HR practices that make them look a lot like turn-of-the-century coal barons. (You can look that up if you like--I'm sure Wikipedia has something on them.) --Constance Warner On Nov 26, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: I cannot speak to the construction industry but can tell you about the food processing industry. When I worked for a major animal processing plant they had a 100% turn around of personnel every year. Of that number the immigrants were the ones who stayed while the Anglos and African Americans were the ones who rotated out with regularity. I trained with line workers (I was an industrial chaplain) and a number of folks dropped out when they toured the facility and then dropped while working on the lines. Regularly when overtime was offered the Hispanics offered to work it. When the line would shut down early the Hispanics asked for extra work to get more hours. Part of the problem is that we have bread laziness and inefficiency into our folks letting them think that they do not have to work to earn a living. One of my members works for a contractor and is represented by a union. He said one of the problems with is union is that it uses LCD to make the standards. Lowest Common Denominator. Now understand I do not endorse moving work off shore and overseas to make the bottom line. Where I live most (or should I say all) the mils and fabric processing lines have closed and the companies have shuttered many many factories. But we also are the culprits, we want everything at the lowest price possible. We are willing to spend the least to get what we want. The top brands of cars bought on the clunkers rebates were mostly foreign. Now everyone has touted the reliability and quality of foreign automobiles. However recent surveys have found that a number of US manufacturers rate very high. So often it is a perceived problem not a real one. So before we start making snide comments let us make sure we are not also part of the problem. Stewart At 04:20 PM 11/26/2009, you wrote: Of course the won't show up excuse is dishonest nonsense. These dishonest employers want to employ the Mexicans because they can pay them substandard wages, give them little or no benefits, and demand that they put in extra time off the clock. Sometimes they don't even pay the wages that are owed. To keep this on topic: a few years ago M$ was sued over their labor practices, not as bad as those in the construction industry, but plenty despicable. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 ** *** ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** ** *** * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
Constance I was talking about the comment on Hispanic workers. If people are not willing to work then they are lazy. If they are not willing to stay gainfully employed they are lazy. I think way too much emphasis is placed on workers freedom and not enough on work. The working conditions in America are far better than many places in the world. No one is living in a Gulag here in America. If you would like to experience a Gulag I can arrange passage for you to Siberia. Far too often over exaggerated comparisons are made and we pick up on them. Do I make as much as I would like? Heavens no, but I make better than others. Work for anyone but yourself and you value is what is set by your employer and you are expected to make money for your employer or you no longer have a job. Want to set your own hours, and make money only for yourself? Become self employed. Tom jump in here and tell me if you do not expect your employees to make money and value for your firm. Are corporate rules and experiences in this country totally ethical? No as I said earlier, capitalism has become another ism with all the trappings of a religion. Until we separate out capitalism from corporate responsibility it will not change, but that will take a whole new paradigm. Stewart At 10:42 AM 11/27/2009, you wrote: I guess I don't quite understand why the employment situation of illegal aliens in the construction and food processing industry reflects NEGATIVELY on the moral character and industriousness of U.S. computer workers. I just don't see how the current situation proves that we have bred laziness and inefficiency into computer programmers and knowledge workers and that they think they do not have to work to earn a living. I thought that the original point was that computer workers were, basically, asked to work on hardship schedules without extra pay, and under constant threat of being downsized or outsourced. These people are computer professionals who have put in quite a lot of effort to get trained for what they do, usually at their own expense. Instead, they're being ripped off to pile up surplus value in the bank accounts of their corporate employers. Why shouldn't they be distressed about their employment situation? If the best practices standard is to employ computer professionals under the same personnel practices as illegal aliens in a slaughterhouse--and then tell them my way or the highway--then we're in more trouble than we thought. (This has echoes of labor practices in the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, too; remember If you don't come in on Sunday, don't come in on Monday?) It bothers me when I see corporations using HR practices that make them look a lot like turn-of-the-century coal barons. (You can look that up if you like--I'm sure Wikipedia has something on them.) --Constance Warner On Nov 26, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: I cannot speak to the construction industry but can tell you about the food processing industry. When I worked for a major animal processing plant they had a 100% turn around of personnel every year. Of that number the immigrants were the ones who stayed while the Anglos and African Americans were the ones who rotated out with regularity. I trained with line workers (I was an industrial chaplain) and a number of folks dropped out when they toured the facility and then dropped while working on the lines. Regularly when overtime was offered the Hispanics offered to work it. When the line would shut down early the Hispanics asked for extra work to get more hours. Part of the problem is that we have bread laziness and inefficiency into our folks letting them think that they do not have to work to earn a living. One of my members works for a contractor and is represented by a union. He said one of the problems with is union is that it uses LCD to make the standards. Lowest Common Denominator. Now understand I do not endorse moving work off shore and overseas to make the bottom line. Where I live most (or should I say all) the mils and fabric processing lines have closed and the companies have shuttered many many factories. But we also are the culprits, we want everything at the lowest price possible. We are willing to spend the least to get what we want. The top brands of cars bought on the clunkers rebates were mostly foreign. Now everyone has touted the reliability and quality of foreign automobiles. However recent surveys have found that a number of US manufacturers rate very high. So often it is a perceived problem not a real one. So before we start making snide comments let us make sure we are not also part of the problem. Stewart At 04:20 PM 11/26/2009, you wrote: Of course the won't show up excuse is dishonest nonsense. These dishonest employers want to employ the Mexicans because they can pay them substandard wages, give them little or no benefits, and demand that they put in
[CGUYS] Gulag?
Now let me get this straight. You are saying that employers should screw as much work out of their employees as they possibly can, regardless of labor laws, custom, the health of their workers, human decency, and the employers' long-term best interests and enlightened self-interest? And if the employees don't roll over and play dead, and put up with any crap the employers want to dish out, they're lazy bums who think the world owes them a living? That's a recipe for the kind of in-effect slavery similar in kind, if not in degree, to what we used to see in coal country. (Remember I owe my soul to the company store? That's based on real life conditions. I grew up in West Virginia, and we remember those things.) It's also a recipe for labor unrest and class warfare. In W. Va., for example, aggrieved workers made quite a lot of use of dynamite--pretty destructive, but very small potatoes to the damage an aggrieved computer programmer can do, depending on where he is placed and how angry he gets. And as for the Gulag--when I was a kid, I wanted to be a Kremlinologist. I know a lot more about that system than the average person today. I don't think we need to have a situation be 100% as bad as the original Gulag archipelago before we deplore it and do something about it. --Constance On Nov 27, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Stewart Marshall wrote: Constance I was talking about the comment on Hispanic workers. If people are not willing to work then they are lazy. If they are not willing to stay gainfully employed they are lazy. I think way too much emphasis is placed on workers freedom and not enough on work. The working conditions in America are far better than many places in the world. No one is living in a Gulag here in America. If you would like to experience a Gulag I can arrange passage for you to Siberia. Far too often over exaggerated comparisons are made and we pick up on them. Do I make as much as I would like? Heavens no, but I make better than others. Work for anyone but yourself and you value is what is set by your employer and you are expected to make money for your employer or you no longer have a job. Want to set your own hours, and make money only for yourself? Become self employed. Tom jump in here and tell me if you do not expect your employees to make money and value for your firm. Are corporate rules and experiences in this country totally ethical? No as I said earlier, capitalism has become another ism with all the trappings of a religion. Until we separate out capitalism from corporate responsibility it will not change, but that will take a whole new paradigm. Stewart * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
I don't know where you got that, but you cannot have a business unless you are making a profit. There is a difference between making a profit ethically and making a profit unethically. I think that is the real difference. Unless you feel businesses should not make a profit? I happen to be in a business that deals with ethics and morality, and I can tell you they are not much better than anyone else in that area. But I go back to my original question. Do you feel that a business has a right/better yet has a need to make a profit? Stewart At 12:21 PM 11/27/2009, you wrote: Now let me get this straight. You are saying that employers should screw as much work out of their employees as they possibly can, regardless of labor laws, custom, the health of their workers, human decency, and the employers' long-term best interests and enlightened self-interest? And if the employees don't roll over and play dead, and put up with any crap the employers want to dish out, they're lazy bums who think the world owes them a living? That's a recipe for the kind of in-effect slavery similar in kind, if not in degree, to what we used to see in coal country. (Remember I owe my soul to the company store? That's based on real life conditions. I grew up in West Virginia, and we remember those things.) It's also a recipe for labor unrest and class warfare. In W. Va., for example, aggrieved workers made quite a lot of use of dynamite--pretty destructive, but very small potatoes to the damage an aggrieved computer programmer can do, depending on where he is placed and how angry he gets. And as for the Gulag--when I was a kid, I wanted to be a Kremlinologist. I know a lot more about that system than the average person today. I don't think we need to have a situation be 100% as bad as the original Gulag archipelago before we deplore it and do something about it. --Constance Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
If people are not willing to work then they are lazy. If they are not willing to stay gainfully employed they are lazy...Work for anyone but yourself and your value is what is set by your employer and you are expected to make money for your employer or you no longer have a job...Part of the problem is that we have bread laziness and inefficiency into our folks letting them think that they do not have to work to earn a living. Sounds like part of the message here is that you ought to put up with whatever your employer wants to dish out, and if not you're a lazy bum. The employer rules, and anything else is irrelevant. Of course businesses have the right to try to make a profit. But there are some things that are, or should be, off limits. And there are other things that are best avoided because of long-term consequences that won't benefit anyone. (I'm sure everyone can think of examples.) --Constance Warner On Nov 27, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: I don't know where you got that, but you cannot have a business unless you are making a profit. There is a difference between making a profit ethically and making a profit unethically. I think that is the real difference. Unless you feel businesses should not make a profit? I happen to be in a business that deals with ethics and morality, and I can tell you they are not much better than anyone else in that area. But I go back to my original question. Do you feel that a business has a right/better yet has a need to make a profit? Stewart At 12:21 PM 11/27/2009, you wrote: Now let me get this straight. You are saying that employers should screw as much work out of their employees as they possibly can, regardless of labor laws, custom, the health of their workers, human decency, and the employers' long-term best interests and enlightened self-interest? And if the employees don't roll over and play dead, and put up with any crap the employers want to dish out, they're lazy bums who think the world owes them a living? That's a recipe for the kind of in-effect slavery similar in kind, if not in degree, to what we used to see in coal country. (Remember I owe my soul to the company store? That's based on real life conditions. I grew up in West Virginia, and we remember those things.) It's also a recipe for labor unrest and class warfare. In W. Va., for example, aggrieved workers made quite a lot of use of dynamite--pretty destructive, but very small potatoes to the damage an aggrieved computer programmer can do, depending on where he is placed and how angry he gets. And as for the Gulag--when I was a kid, I wanted to be a Kremlinologist. I know a lot more about that system than the average person today. I don't think we need to have a situation be 100% as bad as the original Gulag archipelago before we deplore it and do something about it. --Constance * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
On Nov 26, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: One of my members works for a contractor and is represented by a union. He said one of the problems with is union is that it uses LCD to make the standards. Lowest Common Denominator. This is just more Fox News style propaganda. Unions typically have apprenticeship programs to teach people trades and test worker's skills before they become journeymen. Non-union contractors use day laborers that they pick up each morning at the 7-11. Day laborers will claim expertise in whatever job the contractor is looking for. This is why new construction is so often plagued by crooked walls and cracking foundations. Sidewalks are lumpy and not sloped to drain to the curb. Etc. Etc. Anyone with eyes can see this is neocon fantasyland propaganda. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
So the union member is just lying? Typical Tom Tactic. Just keep fearing your imaginary neomicrosofticons. PSST...if you hadn't noticed, the progressives are in charge cowboy... On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:14 PM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Nov 26, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: One of my members works for a contractor and is represented by a union. He said one of the problems with is union is that it uses LCD to make the standards. Lowest Common Denominator. This is just more Fox News style propaganda. Unions typically have apprenticeship programs to teach people trades and test worker's skills before they become journeymen. Non-union contractors use day laborers that they pick up each morning at the 7-11. Day laborers will claim expertise in whatever job the contractor is looking for. This is why new construction is so often plagued by crooked walls and cracking foundations. Sidewalks are lumpy and not sloped to drain to the curb. Etc. Etc. Anyone with eyes can see this is neocon fantasyland propaganda. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
On Nov 27, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Constance Warner wrote: I thought that the original point was that computer workers were, basically, asked to work on hardship schedules without extra pay, and under constant threat of being downsized or outsourced. These people are computer professionals who have put in quite a lot of effort to get trained for what they do, usually at their own expense. Instead, they're being ripped off to pile up surplus value in the bank accounts of their corporate employers. This is what happens when spreadsheet jockeys get control of the corporation. They don't understand the product and they don't understand what is required to survive past the current quarter. All they know is that firing 10,000 employees next week will get then a $1,000,000 bonus. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
On Nov 27, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Constance Warner wrote: It bothers me when I see corporations using HR practices that make them look a lot like turn-of-the-century coal barons. (You can look that up if you like--I'm sure Wikipedia has something on them.) Where are the Molly McGuires when we need them? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c6/Molly_coffinnotice.gif * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
I do not disagree with anything you have written. Personally, I think that a prime reason that high-tech computing professionals, as they see themselves, shun the thought of organizing for their own betterment is because they tend to associate such organization of workers as being blue collar in nature. This relates to issues of pride as you have pointed out. Organizing of workforces, and unions in general, has been cast as something that the lower castes involve themselves in. It has become a class issue as a result of hype associated with efforts to undo such attempts on the part of workers to achieve more for themselves. Doctors, nurses and teachers have powerful professional associations. They're highly educated professionals. High-tech computing professionals need to look away from their computer monitors and take a look around at what other professionals are doing. The companies whose work they do are not considering the best interests of the employees and especially the contractors. Computing professionals have to understand that organizing is the best thing for their own selfish interests as well as the conditions of the profession as a whole. Or they can seethe alone, listening to Faux News as they work [overtime, on salary, without extra pay]. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
On Nov 27, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Stewart Marshall wrote: Tom jump in here and tell me if you do not expect your employees to make money and value for your firm. I expect it to be a two way street, a symmetric relationship. Neither employee nor employes should be acting in an abusive manner. I just can't abide ruthless thugs and do-nothings who got their positions due to birth or social connections who abuse the hard- working employees who are the source of their wealth. I understand that many in the rectitude business feel they have to pander to the wealthy to get those all important contributions. I'm appalled to watch those kissing Bill Gate's ass instead of demanding he account for how he got all that money. Or the Catholic bishops lining up to oppose health care reform. What would Jesus do? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
Okay, I resisted this discussion until this email of yours, Stewart. Yes, business has a right to make a profit. But, does it have a right to maximize its profits by maximizing the exploitation of its workers? If the answer to that is yes, then I'd say you have no business of being in the business of ethics and morality. Whatever happened to being humane? Whatever happened to allowing one's workers some balance in their lives so that they spend some time with their families? Have we become so obsessed with profit that we have lost track of why we work: so that we may live? And not the other way around: live so that we may work. Most human beings will work as much as is needed to survive. But isn't one of the objectives of a great country the happiness of its people? Anybody who has hired someone for a standard job (~40 hours/week) but is asking that person, whether directly or indirectly via the work environment, to work 1.5 or double the time as a day-to-day thing (not for short-term peaks) should really have hired 1.5 or 2 people. A $30/hour programmer here is working at $15/hour if he works twice as many hours (and many do). If that business cannot make a profit except by asking each employees to work like two, then that is either a badly-run business or one that should cease to exist. Yes, that might create some additional unemployment, but perhaps we will learn to live with fewer profits and run our businesses better. Too many businesses are run with a focus on attaining a certain profit. Which is why we have the media reporting businesses as being in trouble just because profits fell. Gosh, people, there were profits, not just as much. The business didn't make a loss. So why all the moaning about the business being in trouble? In a down economy, a lower profit, but still a profit, should be good news. It's the kind of thinking that resulted in Gourmet magazine being shut down. We will never defeat China, for example, in profit-making by adopting its labor practices. But, here is the real question: what profiteth a man if he were to become rich on the backs of his brothers? Just as our liberties and values better the lot of others by being shared with humans around the world, similarly our business practices should be looked upon as being better for humanity than the practices of other countries. On a personal level, my father owned and operated an auto dealership and workshop business in India for 50 years. No labor unions in his workshop (too small). However, his workers had a standard 9-6 working day, 5.5 days a week (those were the standard work hours in India at the time: equivalent to 44 hours/week). He had a pension scheme for them; small, but better than the nothing that practically all other such workers had. There was no health insurance, but he paid for expenses that were not already provided free in government hospitals, mainly medicines and operations. When a labor union tried to organize the workers and get them to strike (a popular way to make the employer come to the bargaining table), his workers came and told him about it and refused to strike. When the business had a major loss one year, the workers voluntarily gave up one month's salary and presented that as a solution to my father, without his asking it of them. Of course, they knew that if the business failed they'd be out of a job, but his competitors had labor strikes practically every year and bad worker morale. Guess where my dad learned these business practices? He attended an executive MBA program (although they weren't called those back then) in the US in the 40s. The program was fully funded by GM and took only 40 people each year. Now in his 90s, my dad still thinks that the US taught him how to treat people well and make a profit. However, his profit was less than half of that which others in the same type of business could make. My dad wasn't some kind of business saint, but just practiced what he'd been taught, and felt that we each have an ethical and moral duty to other human beings. When I started working in my current job, I felt that long weeks were expected of me. So, I often put in 60-hour weeks. After some years of this, I came to my senses. I deliberately tried to work toward 40-45 hour weeks. Guess what? My productivity went up, and I actually could do more work in less time. Granted, I don't make widgets on a production line: my job is that of a university faculty member (although my work is research and I help operate a lab that raises its own money and operates like a non-profit business) and requires much thinking things through, same as programmers require. Of late, India has adopted the current business practices of the US. Believe it or not, their programmers work long hours, too, except at a fraction of the salary here. So, yes, they've managed to put many of our programmers out of work. But, guess which business is
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
Quoting tjpa t...@tjpa.com: On Nov 27, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Constance Warner wrote: [. . .] expense. Instead, they're being ripped off to pile up surplus value in the bank accounts of their corporate employers. This is what happens when spreadsheet jockeys get control of the corporation. They don't understand the product and they don't understand what is required to survive past the current quarter. All they know is that firing 10,000 employees next week will get then a $1,000,000 bonus. Just ask Circuit City. . .oh wait. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
I also stated that business should be run in as ethically as possible. Do you consider that ethical? But we have also caused some of this behavior as we demand the lowest priced product available. Plus I think Wall Street is also responsible as they demand that a business publicly held show a profit. Stewart At 03:36 PM 11/27/2009, you wrote: Okay, I resisted this discussion until this email of yours, Stewart. Yes, business has a right to make a profit. But, does it have a right to maximize its profits by maximizing the exploitation of its workers? If the answer to that is yes, then I'd say you have no business of being in the business of ethics and morality. Whatever happened to being humane? Whatever happened to allowing one's workers some balance in their lives so that they spend some time with their families? Have we become so obsessed with profit that we have lost track of why we work: so that we may live? And not the other way around: live so that we may work. Most human beings will work as much as is needed to survive. But isn't one of the objectives of a great country the happiness of its people? Anybody who has hired someone for a standard job (~40 hours/week) but is asking that person, whether directly or indirectly via the work environment, to work 1.5 or double the time as a day-to-day thing (not for short-term peaks) should really have hired 1.5 or 2 people. A $30/hour programmer here is working at $15/hour if he works twice as many hours (and many do). If that business cannot make a profit except by asking each employees to work like two, then that is either a badly-run business or one that should cease to exist. Yes, that might create some additional unemployment, but perhaps we will learn to live with fewer profits and run our businesses better. Too many businesses are run with a focus on attaining a certain profit. Which is why we have the media reporting businesses as being in trouble just because profits fell. Gosh, people, there were profits, not just as much. The business didn't make a loss. So why all the moaning about the business being in trouble? In a down economy, a lower profit, but still a profit, should be good news. It's the kind of thinking that resulted in Gourmet magazine being shut down. We will never defeat China, for example, in profit-making by adopting its labor practices. But, here is the real question: what profiteth a man if he were to become rich on the backs of his brothers? Just as our liberties and values better the lot of others by being shared with humans around the world, similarly our business practices should be looked upon as being better for humanity than the practices of other countries. On a personal level, my father owned and operated an auto dealership and workshop business in India for 50 years. No labor unions in his workshop (too small). However, his workers had a standard 9-6 working day, 5.5 days a week (those were the standard work hours in India at the time: equivalent to 44 hours/week). He had a pension scheme for them; small, but better than the nothing that practically all other such workers had. There was no health insurance, but he paid for expenses that were not already provided free in government hospitals, mainly medicines and operations. When a labor union tried to organize the workers and get them to strike (a popular way to make the employer come to the bargaining table), his workers came and told him about it and refused to strike. When the business had a major loss one year, the workers voluntarily gave up one month's salary and presented that as a solution to my father, without his asking it of them. Of course, they knew that if the business failed they'd be out of a job, but his competitors had labor strikes practically every year and bad worker morale. Guess where my dad learned these business practices? He attended an executive MBA program (although they weren't called those back then) in the US in the 40s. The program was fully funded by GM and took only 40 people each year. Now in his 90s, my dad still thinks that the US taught him how to treat people well and make a profit. However, his profit was less than half of that which others in the same type of business could make. My dad wasn't some kind of business saint, but just practiced what he'd been taught, and felt that we each have an ethical and moral duty to other human beings. When I started working in my current job, I felt that long weeks were expected of me. So, I often put in 60-hour weeks. After some years of this, I came to my senses. I deliberately tried to work toward 40-45 hour weeks. Guess what? My productivity went up, and I actually could do more work in less time. Granted, I don't make widgets on a production line: my job is that of a university faculty member (although my work is research and I help operate a lab that raises its own money and operates like a non-profit
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
Yes, you did state that business should be run as ethically as possible. And, yes, I do consider as ethically as possible to be ethical (if that was your question). Obviously, one can always improve, but I do recognize that there will be compromises sometimes. (Just saw The Crime of Padre Amaro last night, which kind of deals with how an ethical church can go off the rails in pursuit of good. Of course, it deals with other things, too, such as corruption of morals.) I agree with you 123.7% that we have caused this behavior by demanding the lowest priced product available. When the price of a piece of goods falls below what it would cost to produce it by ethical means, we all lose. Fortunately, there are now some better alternatives appearing in the wider market at a reasonable price (e.g., food) which were only available in very limited urban areas at very high prices. Although I work in the environmental area out of choice, I am not averse to buying food grown with fertilizers or pesticides, or clothing that has been manufactured in a large mill as opposed to with thread I've spun myself. Industry and science have given us better things and made life easier. It is some of those who manage those industries that have let greed get the better of them. And Wall Street does have a lot to answer for. I do appreciate that I can earn quite well living here, as opposed to most any other place. And I'm quite sure I've done plenty of unethical things, knowingly and un-. On the other hand, I was once accused of having too high morals by someone at work, as though that was something really, really bad (and it wasn't really that high a bar: it was something quite ordinary, like not fudging one's timesheet). That spoke volumes about the culture of business. But, you see, Wall Street is also, in many ways, us. I'm sure many of us own stocks or shares in mutual funds. The former can be chosen with care, if one wants to avoid problem industries for whatever reason (ethical or moral or just because). Mutual funds, though, because they own many stocks, can be difficult to select. Interestingly, many business schools now have rediscovered ethics. Let's see if this is real. Time will tell. Obviously, the whole thing is quite complicated, specially when you add in those people who cannot afford to be ethical if they are to survive. Let's take the much-maligned WalMart. Many people who work there also shop there because that's what they can afford. And they work there because that may be the best job they could get. Waving the ethical banner at people who are living on the edge isn't very ethical in itself (think about that!). Once you get them off the edge, then go ahead and wave that banner. That (living on the edge), however, is not an excuse that those in power can use. What's their excuse for not helping others? I don't think what I've said here is something you'd disagree with in a large way, if I read you correctly (in this debate and in others over the years). Adil At 06:09 PM 11/27/2009, you wrote: Date:Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:03:52 -0600 From:Rev. Stewart Marshall revsamarsh...@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Gulag? I also stated that business should be run in as ethically as possible. Do you consider that ethical? But we have also caused some of this behavior as we demand the lowest priced product available. Plus I think Wall Street is also responsible as they demand that a business publicly held show a profit. Stewart At 03:36 PM 11/27/2009, you wrote: Okay, I resisted this discussion until this email of yours, Stewart. Yes, business has a right to make a profit. But, does it have a right to maximize its profits by maximizing the exploitation of its workers? If the answer to that is yes, then I'd say you have no business of being in the business of ethics and morality. Whatever happened to being humane? Whatever happened to allowing one's workers some balance in their lives so that they spend some time with their families? Have we become so obsessed with profit that we have lost track of why we work: so that we may live? And not the other way around: live so that we may work. rest snipped * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:51 PM, b_s-wilk b1sun...@yahoo.es wrote: Doctors, nurses and teachers have powerful professional associations. They're highly educated professionals. Professional organizations are somewhat different than labor unions, and they try to distinguish themselves from unions. I think that professional organizations place more emphasis on lobbying efforts than they do on collective bargaining as is the case with labor unions. This is not to say that labor unions do not also lobby. Lawyers also belong to professional organizations, but there has probably never been any collective bargaining going on within any law firm. Again, the lobbyist is their big weapon. I do not know how transient computer programmers and coders are in the workplace. From what I see and understand, they seem to move about a bit. If that is the case, unlike a Detroit automobile assembly line worker who will likely make a career of working for only auto manufacturers, unionization may be viewed as not worth the effort since they will not be able to transfer gains made at one type of firm to another. I used to work, here in Northern Virginia, for a company that produced exhibits for trade shows, museums, government, etc. We were under the Carpenter's Union. Numerous other firms of the same type in the area were also union shops. Therefore, there existed the ability of workers to leave one company and go to work at another in the area and be able to realize pretty much the same or better wages, benefits and protections. If programmers and coders wanted the same flexibility, along with confidence that they could get similar wages, benefits and protections were they to change employers, they would have to be able to obtain professional representation in many companies within a given territorial area to help avoid having to move to another locale in order to find suitable work. To be able to gain professional representation in numerous firms is a daunting task and takes a goodly amount of time, and can be especially difficult to achieve when many of these firms are foreign owned and operated. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
You are 100% right. I like to buy from companies I know. I like to buy local. When I cant do that I pick and choose. Stewart At 08:20 PM 11/27/2009, you wrote: Yes, you did state that business should be run as ethically as possible. And, yes, I do consider as ethically as possible to be ethical (if that was your question). Obviously, one can always improve, but I do recognize that there will be compromises sometimes. (Just saw The Crime of Padre Amaro last night, which kind of deals with how an ethical church can go off the rails in pursuit of good. Of course, it deals with other things, too, such as corruption of morals.) I agree with you 123.7% that we have caused this behavior by demanding the lowest priced product available. When the price of a piece of goods falls below what it would cost to produce it by ethical means, we all lose. Fortunately, there are now some better alternatives appearing in the wider market at a reasonable price (e.g., food) which were only available in very limited urban areas at very high prices. Although I work in the environmental area out of choice, I am not averse to buying food grown with fertilizers or pesticides, or clothing that has been manufactured in a large mill as opposed to with thread I've spun myself. Industry and science have given us better things and made life easier. It is some of those who manage those industries that have let greed get the better of them. And Wall Street does have a lot to answer for. I do appreciate that I can earn quite well living here, as opposed to most any other place. And I'm quite sure I've done plenty of unethical things, knowingly and un-. On the other hand, I was once accused of having too high morals by someone at work, as though that was something really, really bad (and it wasn't really that high a bar: it was something quite ordinary, like not fudging one's timesheet). That spoke volumes about the culture of business. But, you see, Wall Street is also, in many ways, us. I'm sure many of us own stocks or shares in mutual funds. The former can be chosen with care, if one wants to avoid problem industries for whatever reason (ethical or moral or just because). Mutual funds, though, because they own many stocks, can be difficult to select. Interestingly, many business schools now have rediscovered ethics. Let's see if this is real. Time will tell. Obviously, the whole thing is quite complicated, specially when you add in those people who cannot afford to be ethical if they are to survive. Let's take the much-maligned WalMart. Many people who work there also shop there because that's what they can afford. And they work there because that may be the best job they could get. Waving the ethical banner at people who are living on the edge isn't very ethical in itself (think about that!). Once you get them off the edge, then go ahead and wave that banner. That (living on the edge), however, is not an excuse that those in power can use. What's their excuse for not helping others? I don't think what I've said here is something you'd disagree with in a large way, if I read you correctly (in this debate and in others over the years). Adil At 06:09 PM 11/27/2009, you wrote: Date:Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:03:52 -0600 From:Rev. Stewart Marshall revsamarsh...@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Gulag? I also stated that business should be run in as ethically as possible. Do you consider that ethical? But we have also caused some of this behavior as we demand the lowest priced product available. Plus I think Wall Street is also responsible as they demand that a business publicly held show a profit. Stewart At 03:36 PM 11/27/2009, you wrote: Okay, I resisted this discussion until this email of yours, Stewart. Yes, business has a right to make a profit. But, does it have a right to maximize its profits by maximizing the exploitation of its workers? If the answer to that is yes, then I'd say you have no business of being in the business of ethics and morality. Whatever happened to being humane? Whatever happened to allowing one's workers some balance in their lives so that they spend some time with their families? Have we become so obsessed with profit that we have lost track of why we work: so that we may live? And not the other way around: live so that we may work. rest snipped * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:44 PM, betty b1sun...@yahoo.es wrote: Unlike people who are captured and forced into slavery, the high tech workers choose that for themselves because they're too proud, short-sighted, uninformed, disconnected, to organize. Hotel workers organized and improved their lot, why not programmers? As long as they're ordinary employees or contractors [as opposed to having a written, defined, fixed contract] and not on par for negotiating with employers, the situation won't change and could get worse. I do not disagree with anything you have written. Personally, I think that a prime reason that high-tech computing professionals, as they see themselves, shun the thought of organizing for their own betterment is because they tend to associate such organization of workers as being blue collar in nature. This relates to issues of pride as you have pointed out. Organizing of workforces, and unions in general, has been cast as something that the lower castes involve themselves in. It has become a class issue as a result of hype associated with efforts to undo such attempts on the part of workers to achieve more for themselves. As service and data oriented industries have increased, and more workers are now involved in jobs that require them to sit in front of computers all day wearing suits or dressy clothing as their uniforms, distinctions have been sharpened between them and those who work in manufacturing jobs. These distinctions create powerful images, in large part promoted through advertising and other forms of propaganda, that work to greatly effect the mindsets of all workers. Lines become drawn and hardened, and we even see this being reflected in our political landscape. I.e., Palin vs. Biden = blue collar vs. white collar = working class joe six-pack vs. rich aloof elitist. Of course, we all actually know that Pain and Co. are opposed to unions and such, so go figure. Okay, I got a bit political there for a moment, but felt I had to point that out as paralleling this discussion. Has the internet been instrumental in any of this, one way or the other? I do not know, but if internet oriented communications could be of use in organizing for those working in the various fields of data entry, programming and coding, those workers need to be very careful since corporations apparently have the right to intercept and read e-mails sent or received on company owned systems. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
On Nov 24, 2009, at 11:11 AM, Tony B wrote: Around here it's got nothing to do with extra hours. It's construction jobs being lost to 'Mexicans' (anyone that speaks spanish). I've heard it from both sides though - the employers complain the local guys just won't show up on time consistently (or at all). I have no idea what sorts of extra hours these workers may put in, or if they're paid for them. But I can imagine they whine a lot less about extra work in general. Of course the won't show up excuse is dishonest nonsense. These dishonest employers want to employ the Mexicans because they can pay them substandard wages, give them little or no benefits, and demand that they put in extra time off the clock. Sometimes they don't even pay the wages that are owed. To keep this on topic: a few years ago M$ was sued over their labor practices, not as bad as those in the construction industry, but plenty despicable. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
I cannot speak to the construction industry but can tell you about the food processing industry. When I worked for a major animal processing plant they had a 100% turn around of personnel every year. Of that number the immigrants were the ones who stayed while the Anglos and African Americans were the ones who rotated out with regularity. I trained with line workers (I was an industrial chaplain) and a number of folks dropped out when they toured the facility and then dropped while working on the lines. Regularly when overtime was offered the Hispanics offered to work it. When the line would shut down early the Hispanics asked for extra work to get more hours. Part of the problem is that we have bread laziness and inefficiency into our folks letting them think that they do not have to work to earn a living. One of my members works for a contractor and is represented by a union. He said one of the problems with is union is that it uses LCD to make the standards. Lowest Common Denominator. Now understand I do not endorse moving work off shore and overseas to make the bottom line. Where I live most (or should I say all) the mils and fabric processing lines have closed and the companies have shuttered many many factories. But we also are the culprits, we want everything at the lowest price possible. We are willing to spend the least to get what we want. The top brands of cars bought on the clunkers rebates were mostly foreign. Now everyone has touted the reliability and quality of foreign automobiles. However recent surveys have found that a number of US manufacturers rate very high. So often it is a perceived problem not a real one. So before we start making snide comments let us make sure we are not also part of the problem. Stewart At 04:20 PM 11/26/2009, you wrote: Of course the won't show up excuse is dishonest nonsense. These dishonest employers want to employ the Mexicans because they can pay them substandard wages, give them little or no benefits, and demand that they put in extra time off the clock. Sometimes they don't even pay the wages that are owed. To keep this on topic: a few years ago M$ was sued over their labor practices, not as bad as those in the construction industry, but plenty despicable. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] Gulag?
I was at the library yesterday afternoon. While I was there, I read an article in an issue of Wired that discussed the cubicle-type workplaces where so many work in the field of computer programing and coding. The article was dealing with the fact that many of the workers who toil in these places find themselves mired in a environment that reeks of constant fear of job loss. With outsourcing looming over their heads on a daily basis, or with thoughts of workers being imported from abroad, millions of those who are employed in the various fields of work that revolve around programming and coding will do almost anything to keep their jobs. Specifically, the article focused on how workers will work very long hours, far beyond what they ever initially anticipated when they first took these jobs and agreed on compensation. These workers suffer from abiding fears that if they do not give their employers many hours of free labor, they can be easily replaced by someone who will, either through outsourcing of through the importing of foreign workers. Basically, we have something akin to a form of virtual slavery. These workplaces have no organizations, unions or groups who will speak up for those who work there. Each worker is on his or her own to have to deal with the multiple layers of supervisors and management if they feel they are being treated unfairly. The article pointed out that giving up free time, working all those extra hours, not taking vacations, etc., rarely does anything to actually help the employees retain their jobs. Usually, if a worker is going to be replaced by another because it will be advantageous to the employer to do so, it is going to happen anyway. When that occurs, those employees who sacrificed so much of their own time, giving it up for free to their employers, will look back on the situation and find they only have themselves, along with their acquiescence to this new form of neo-slavery, to blame. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
Hardly News. The US enjoyed many years of great affluence after being the sole 'winner' of WW2, but aside from that this 'virtual slavery' has always been the norm. Gives you a great admiration for the labor organizers, until someone points out that's socialism and must be stamped out at all costs. Sigh. On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 7:22 AM, phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.com wrote: Basically, we have something akin to a form of virtual slavery. These workplaces have no organizations, unions or groups who will speak up for those who work there. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
Okay, I think I see the 'new' take on it. Or, at least I see it from Wired's perspective. Around here it's got nothing to do with extra hours. It's construction jobs being lost to 'Mexicans' (anyone that speaks spanish). I've heard it from both sides though - the employers complain the local guys just won't show up on time consistently (or at all). I have no idea what sorts of extra hours these workers may put in, or if they're paid for them. But I can imagine they whine a lot less about extra work in general. On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:24 AM, phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.com wrote: You are right that this is not anything particularly new. That being said, it appears as though programmers and coders, as well as others in the computer field are the main domestic workers who regularly lose their jobs to foreign workers even as the companies they used to work for remain in business here in the United States. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Tony B ton...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, I think I see the 'new' take on it. Or, at least I see it from Wired's perspective. Around here it's got nothing to do with extra hours. It's construction jobs being lost to 'Mexicans' (anyone that speaks spanish). I've heard it from both sides though - the employers complain the local guys just won't show up on time consistently (or at all). I have no idea what sorts of extra hours these workers may put in, or if they're paid for them. But I can imagine they whine a lot less about extra work in general. I know a couple or so folks who have labor intensive businesses and who say that they can seriously count on Hispanic workers to be more punctual, honest and efficient than their native born counterparts. These business owners are good to their employees and do not take unfair advantage of them. By the way, the article in Wired made it clear, as is the case with my brother, that the high number of extra hours worked by employees who fear for their jobs if they do not work those extra hours, are not being paid for the extra time. These are salaried workers who did not count on so many working hours when they accepted the job, yet now find themselves having to give up so much of thier own time lest they be replaced by someone else. I am reminded of those poor Walmart employees who were locked in the stores, forced to work overtime for which they were not being paid. While that situation made headlines, similar things are taking place daily, but are being overlooked because they are seen as being completely voluntary in nature even though the threat of job loss is the same if the employee does not acquiesce. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
Hate to pour gasoline on the fire, but pretty nearly every type of job can be outsourced, shipped abroad, contracted out to a contract worker (who's actually an employee, but who doesn't get any benefits and perks), given to an illegal, or--a Washington area favorite-- assigned to an unpaid or underpaid intern. For example, editorial jobs are now being outsourced to India. So if your company's newsletter or annual report sounds slightly, well, foreign, or maybe just really, really odd--that could be why. (Editing is my bag--or one of them, anyway. And, yes, I'm now looking for a job.) Of course, as a cost-cutting measure, lots of things don't get edited at all, which is why they sound as though they were written by fourth graders who need tutoring in basic language skills. The only thing about this story that's shocking to me is that it's happening to computer programmers and other computer personnel. We who are mush-brained liberal arts types just assumed that you tekkies were far ahead of us in the employability sweepstakes, and that you would always be much better paid--and much better treated--than we were. One way out: political action. In the modern world, computer services of all kinds are necessary, so you aren't completely without leverage. That means computer professionals are going to have to be very politically savvy, worldly, and socially active to get out of the trap. (BTW, in my book, political action includes labor unions.) I really wonder, though, why employers are treating programmers (and other computer professionals) so badly--it's not in their long-term best interests or their enlightened self-interest.They depend on you guys--they can't do ANYTHING without you. Besides, an editor with a grudge can't do very much damage to a company--but a computer programmer? --Constance Warner On Nov 24, 2009, at 11:11 AM, Tony B wrote: Okay, I think I see the 'new' take on it. Or, at least I see it from Wired's perspective. Around here it's got nothing to do with extra hours. It's construction jobs being lost to 'Mexicans' (anyone that speaks spanish). I've heard it from both sides though - the employers complain the local guys just won't show up on time consistently (or at all). I have no idea what sorts of extra hours these workers may put in, or if they're paid for them. But I can imagine they whine a lot less about extra work in general. On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:24 AM, phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.com wrote: You are right that this is not anything particularly new. That being said, it appears as though programmers and coders, as well as others in the computer field are the main domestic workers who regularly lose their jobs to foreign workers even as the companies they used to work for remain in business here in the United States. ** *** ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** ** *** * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
You have seen the unemployment numbers right? I'm not saying this is good, but if my choice is working my ass off and feeding my kids or not having a job. Easy choice. On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Reid Katan ka...@his.com wrote: Quoting phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.com: current job. He leaves for work as the sun rises and usually never gets home until after dark. He has not taken a single day of vacation in the two years he has now worked for this new employer. His hobby and personal interests languish through disuse and being ignored. His health suffers from exhaustion and he is basically devoid of a personal life. He usually continues working even when at home in the evening. And he actually *wants* to *keep* this job? What's he working for? The betterment of The Company (praise The Company!), or himself? He'd be better off getting a job as a dish washer or garbage man and getting some free time. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
In my opinion, the answer to your last question is ... the one that has been around forever... since the middle ages ... since the stone age ... since the dawn of time. If leaders/ bosses/ chiefs of countries, towns, corporations, companies, can lead others to make a profit for themselves, they do it. Why wouldn't they? That personal profit motive is POWERFUL and when the others don't dispute it / do the same for their own personal interests... they end up flattened increasingly and progressively. As unfair as that may be to a rational or humanistic mind, there is simply no equation for too much profit ... personal or otherwise. Remember the word peasant and all that it con notates? Who says that only could happen in the middle ages? All the media is now controlled by several mega companies. There is also huge consolidation of power in tech. Those leaders and their managers and the stock holders make oodles by doing exactly what you are complaining about. They will never suffer materially for it. The only question is what you (and the rest of us others... the peasants to be ...) are going to do about it and when. I think ultimately it comes down to the parable in every John Ford Western. When do the peasants who have the gross numbers and ultimate power, exercise it and take back what is fairly due them from the few black hats that will naturally exercise power by advantage of a gun or the merits of privileged/ advantageous position or wealth. To say what is currently happening in employment in the US doesn't make sense and is not fair is not really true. Make sense and fairness for who? The world operates rationally... you just have to start by looking at the right framework...drawing the rational conclusions ... making the rational choices and doing the rational thing. ps: Not sure rational is the right word to use ... but the problem and question facing us is still the same... db Constance Warner wrote: Hate to pour gasoline on the fire, but pretty nearly every type of job can be outsourced, shipped abroad, contracted out to a contract worker (who's actually an employee, but who doesn't get any benefits and perks), given to an illegal, or--a Washington area favorite--assigned to an unpaid or underpaid intern. For example, editorial jobs are now being outsourced to India. So if your company's newsletter or annual report sounds slightly, well, foreign, or maybe just really, really odd--that could be why. (Editing is my bag--or one of them, anyway. And, yes, I'm now looking for a job.) Of course, as a cost-cutting measure, lots of things don't get edited at all, which is why they sound as though they were written by fourth graders who need tutoring in basic language skills. The only thing about this story that's shocking to me is that it's happening to computer programmers and other computer personnel. We who are mush-brained liberal arts types just assumed that you tekkies were far ahead of us in the employability sweepstakes, and that you would always be much better paid--and much better treated--than we were. One way out: political action. In the modern world, computer services of all kinds are necessary, so you aren't completely without leverage. That means computer professionals are going to have to be very politically savvy, worldly, and socially active to get out of the trap. (BTW, in my book, political action includes labor unions.) I really wonder, though, why employers are treating programmers (and other computer professionals) so badly--it's not in their long-term best interests or their enlightened self-interest.They depend on you guys--they can't do ANYTHING without you. Besides, an editor with a grudge can't do very much damage to a company--but a computer programmer? --Constance Warner On Nov 24, 2009, at 11:11 AM, Tony B wrote: Okay, I think I see the 'new' take on it. Or, at least I see it from Wired's perspective. Around here it's got nothing to do with extra hours. It's construction jobs being lost to 'Mexicans' (anyone that speaks spanish). I've heard it from both sides though - the employers complain the local guys just won't show up on time consistently (or at all). I have no idea what sorts of extra hours these workers may put in, or if they're paid for them. But I can imagine they whine a lot less about extra work in general. On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:24 AM, phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.com wrote: You are right that this is not anything particularly new. That being said, it appears as though programmers and coders, as well as others in the computer field are the main domestic workers who regularly lose their jobs to foreign workers even as the companies they used to work for remain in business here in the United States. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
At least we don't have to worry about putting gas in the car or paying the mortgage. g cb via iphone. _ On Nov 24, 2009, at 16:32, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote: You have seen the unemployment numbers right? I'm not saying this is good, but if my choice is working my ass off and feeding my kids or not having a job. Easy choice. On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Reid Katan ka...@his.com wrote: Quoting phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.com: current job. He leaves for work as the sun rises and usually never gets home until after dark. He has not taken a single day of vacation in the two years he has now worked for this new employer. His hobby and personal interests languish through disuse and being ignored. His health suffers from exhaustion and he is basically devoid of a personal life. He usually continues working even when at home in the evening. And he actually *wants* to *keep* this job? What's he working for? The betterment of The Company (praise The Company!), or himself? He'd be better off getting a job as a dish washer or garbage man and getting some free time. *** *** *** ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** *** *** *** *** ** ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** *** ** * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Gulag?
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:08 PM, tjpa t...@tjpa.com wrote: That's why there is such a vast propaganda engine pushing these ideas -- stuff like Fox News. Too often I encounter working people whose thoughts have been thoroughly clouded. They support exactly those things that run counter to their interests and keep them enslaved. Stupid but nevertheless true. So net neutrality is bad, health care reform is bad, putting monopolies in their place is bad, fighting media concentration is bad. They effectively become their own jailers. Most employment laws regard these virtually forced servitude situations to be voluntary in nature. In other words. if the worker doesn't like it, they are typically free to leave and get another job elsewhere. Problem is, it can be quite difficult to find a similar job that fits the same set of job skills that will offer an outcome that is any different. Plus, you are not all that likely to get a good recommendation toward future employment if your boss thinks that you are leaving because of dissatisfaction. Change careers? A possible cure, but then again, what about of all the time and money spent getting that education and work experience? Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
