f



EA treats it's employee's worse than it's customers!

Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA

http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/

http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php 


0
Bill
11/21/2004 2:30:51 PM
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg 10727 articles. 0 followers. jonahnynla (1774) is leader. Post Follow

145 Replies
907 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 17

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:30:51 GMT, "Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom>
wrote:

>Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>
>http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>
>http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php 

I would love to start boycotting EA because of their poor treatment of
staff, but I am already boycotting them for making so many crap games
they are actually damaging the industry and our art.
0
koorb
11/21/2004 3:29:03 PM
"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message
news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>
> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php

I work in IT, I get a bit over six figures to write Java code, and I work a
normal 40 hour week.  Nearly all of my peers are in the same situation.  We
are always hiring new people and my firm has thousands of job postings that
go largely unanswered.  Is the work as excitement as "game development".
Honestly, no.  But why would someone subject himself to 85 hour work weeks
and asshole management when the only reward at the end is a pink slip?  The
obvious recourse is to quit and work on modestly less interesting business
software until the game shops get desperate and start offering normal work
hours and better management.

People need to abandon this dream of being a "game dev" and wake up to the
reality that the industry is not interesting enough to warrant the hassle
and frankly most of the shipping games are 95% script code (i.e.
uninteresting "kiddie" work) layered on top of a licensed engine (i.e.
Carmack does the interesting stuff, you don't).  Unless those firms shape
up, the programmers should walk and get less interesting but ultimately more
fulfilling (from a "life" perspective) jobs writing financial or other
business SW.


0
Dark
11/21/2004 3:34:39 PM
Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.


Bill wrote:
> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> 
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> 
> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php 
> 
> 

0
Destroy
11/21/2004 3:45:53 PM
"Dark Basic" <darkbasic@cox.net> wrote in message 
news:jA2od.122$1t.23@lakeread07...
> "Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message
> news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
>> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>>
>> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>>
>> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
>
> I work in IT, I get a bit over six figures to write Java code, and I work 
> a
> normal 40 hour week.  Nearly all of my peers are in the same situation. 
> We
> are always hiring new people and my firm has thousands of job postings 
> that
> go largely unanswered.  Is the work as excitement as "game development".
> Honestly, no.  But why would someone subject himself to 85 hour work weeks
> and asshole management when the only reward at the end is a pink slip? 
> The
> obvious recourse is to quit and work on modestly less interesting business
> software until the game shops get desperate and start offering normal work
> hours and better management.
>
> People need to abandon this dream of being a "game dev" and wake up to the
> reality that the industry is not interesting enough to warrant the hassle
> and frankly most of the shipping games are 95% script code (i.e.
> uninteresting "kiddie" work) layered on top of a licensed engine (i.e.
> Carmack does the interesting stuff, you don't).  Unless those firms shape
> up, the programmers should walk and get less interesting but ultimately 
> more
> fulfilling (from a "life" perspective) jobs writing financial or other
> business SW.
>

I optimize assembler and count cycles all day long...now that's boring :)
(not really)


0
Grackle
11/21/2004 3:54:04 PM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:30:51 GMT, "Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom>
wrote:

>Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA

Well, I don't see how not buying EA products will help their employees
but something needs to be done about these butt fuckers. Better labor
laws are what's needed.
0
Denston
11/21/2004 4:04:25 PM
"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message 
news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>
> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php

Just more reasons to play MOHAA: SH. See the server IP's below.

-- 
Visit the [FLOT] servers: 12 Player TDM/Moded 67.18.175.230!
16 Player Mixed Mode/OBJ/TOW: 67.18.175.229!
http://www.flotserver.net 


0
Gr
11/21/2004 4:09:58 PM
"Denston Degare" <DD@no.email> wrote in message
news:0ve1q0huhruen177uuokid58nk1ohqoicr@4ax.com...
>
> Well, I don't see how not buying EA products will help their employees
> but something needs to be done about these butt fuckers. Better labor
> laws are what's needed.


Unfortunately, don't count on George W. Bush to come through.  He's on the
side of the employers before he's on the side of the employees.


0
NightSky
11/21/2004 4:13:52 PM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:45:53 GMT, Destroy <ask@meplease.com> wrote:

>Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.

Not when you have a family to feed and bills to pay. It's easy to get
trapped in a job.
0
Denston
11/21/2004 4:14:20 PM
"Dark Basic" <darkbasic@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jA2od.122$1t.23@lakeread07...
> "Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message
> news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
> > Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> >
> > http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> >
> > http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
>
> I work in IT, I get a bit over six figures to write Java code, and I work
a
> normal 40 hour week.

Wow you mean to tell me your job hasn't been offshored yet?


0
bioderm
11/21/2004 4:39:35 PM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 09:13:52 -0700, "NightSky 421"
<nightsky421@reply-to-group.com> wrote:


>
>Unfortunately, don't count on George W. Bush to come through.  He's on the
>side of the employers before he's on the side of the employees.
>

One thing people can do that may get some action is a letter/email
campaign to EA's headquarters expressing our disgust with their
employee treatment. Shame them into action.

I've had to deal with an employer that refused to pay overtime before
but I was able to force them to pay me the overtime after I quit by
making a complaint to the labor board. Of course that employer tried
to screw me over for that by giving me a bad work reference at my next
job but I proved them wrong on that count too.
0
Denston
11/21/2004 4:54:34 PM
This sounds like a job for alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe.

Dav Vandenbroucke
davanden at cox dot net
0
Dav
11/21/2004 4:59:02 PM
"Destroy" <ask@meplease.com> wrote in message 
news:RK2od.50957$ye4.42996@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.
>

Ignorant statement of the week award!


0
Grackle
11/21/2004 5:05:49 PM
Ha! Even Wikipedia has some criticism of EA listed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Arts
Electronic Arts has from time to time been criticised for its
employment policy of requiring employees to work extraordinarily long
hours - up to 85 hours per week - at "crunch" times leading up the the
scheduled releases of products. "The current mandatory hours are 9am
to 10pm -- seven days a week--with the occasional Saturday evening off
for good behavior (at 6:30pm)"[1]
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/). The company, as of late
2004, is facing a class action suit [2]
(http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/11/11/news_6112998.html).
0
Denston
11/21/2004 5:09:35 PM
"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message 
news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>
> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php

I've seen employers screw many people over countless times where I work, 
with little recourse.  The law is a joke except in extreme circumstances, 
usually regarding some form of discrimination.  Other than that, it's full 
of loopholes, and employers can do whatever they want, regardless of the 
impact it has on its employees.  At least that's the case in white collar 
world.  As an example, you can fire someone who's perfectly competant (but 
you don't like him/her for whatever reason), claim the position has been 
abolished, hire someone new for the old position, but give the old position 
a new name.  Sure that's 'illegal', but you have to prove it actually 
occured, and there's the rub -- you can't. 


0
Grackle
11/21/2004 5:18:21 PM
  It's because white-collar workers didn't unionize.  They thought unions
were for the blue-collar slobs beneath them.   I wish I could end with some
kind of punchline, but it eludes me....


0
magnulus
11/21/2004 6:24:51 PM
"Grackle" <nospam@lalaland.com> wrote in message
news:FV3od.10129$Le1.86859@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Destroy" <ask@meplease.com> wrote in message
> news:RK2od.50957$ye4.42996@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.
> >
> Ignorant statement of the week award!

Maybe in the way he worded it... but what he said effectivly rings true:  If
you don't like your job, be it this one or another, then quit or look for
something else to do.

I say this because:

First, this is the way of life in most companies, not just game companies,
where they have strict deadlines... and people going to work for these
companies should have an idea of that.  Then compound that with the need to
keep the price down for end user consumption... it makes it hard for the
company to hire on a slew of extra employees to come in and help meet the
deadline and still keep the product at its target price.

Secondly, they can count themselves lucky that theirs are not jobs that have
been offshored yet.  Its a tough thing to say, but in todays day and age its
true: alot more companies are going overseas for cheap workers... sadly,
North American workers do have to put up with abit more nowadays because
there is always that fear that they could lose their job to somebody in SE
Asia or India.

Then there are questions one can ask about the article...

First: Is this problem, the big crunch time, the result of EA and its
management?  Or is it the result of the people working before the crunch
time?  Case in point: My own company.  I've had a few times in the past 2
years where we've had a big crunch time at the end to meet a deadline (where
everybody is working 15-18 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a month) and in
every case it was because someone down the line was slacking off and wound
up delaying the project for a couple of weeks where everybody had no choice
but to sit around for 3 or 4 weeks waiting for him to catch up with the rest
of us... and then we had to put in all the overtime to get back on schedule.

Second: Is this standard, or 'worst case scenario'?  I know 3 people who
work for the EA offices in British Columbia... one is a project manager, the
other is voice talent and the third is a playtester.  The first two have
nothing bad to say about the company and work pretty much long hours now and
then, but they aren't totally imprisoned by work and aren't working 80-90
hours a week. The third guy (playtester) does work long hours, upwards of
60-80 hours a week... but to him it balances out: he might work 0 hours for
the first 2 weeks and then 60-90 hours the next 2 weeks, in all he is still
working about the same hours per month that a full time worker has (maybe
abit more) but it all balances out in the long run.

There are other questions you could ask...

Like: How truthful is the account?  Is the person taking their worst
possible time at the company and making it sound like it happens all the
time?  Or embelishing the story a little?   I think back to when I worked
for the government of British Columbia in "Mainframe Operations".  There was
16 of us in the department and we worked 12 hours a day for 12 days a month
for $90,000 a year.  Like I say, there was 16 of us... if you asked 14 of us
we would tell you that we loved the job for the pay, what we had to do
(mostly nothing) and and how much free time it gave us (we usually worked 3
days in a row, but once a month you had to do 4 days in a row... between
shifts we would get 3, 4 or 7 days off).  But thats only 14 of the 16 that
would say that... we had two women up there who if you asked them would tell
you how much they hated the job and wished they could move on... their
complaints were usually:  sometimes they had to work weekends, it was cold
(we worked in a data center, the main server rooms were cold but sometimes
it would trickle into our workarea), four 12 hour shifts in a row was
tiring, when they work a 12hr day there isn't much else you can do before or
after work (we worked 7am to 7pm), sometimes the job was really boring, they
couldn't use MSN Messenger from work...

I'm sure with the right spin you could make it sound like the job was a real
horror show...

work on weekends = "They make me work weekends, 12 hours a day! I don't get
to spend time with my kids" (which is true! But everybody has to work 1, and
only 1, weekend a month)

its cold = "I have to work in a room thats kept at a constant 5 celsius!"
(which is true! But we only go in there 2-3 times a shift for at the most 5
minutes at a time)

four 12 hour shifts in a row = "They make me work 48 hours in 4 days!"
(which is true! But it doesn't mention that every 4 days in a row shift you
get 7-10 days off in a row)

job is boring = "The job is repetitive and not mentally challenging" (which
is true! But what do you expect when the job description is "monitor CPIC",
"monitor bank communications lines", "monitor transaction activity"...
somebody who would say that are probably the same people that could complain
when something goes wrong and suddenly there is a flurry of life)

can't use Messenger from work = "They don't let me talk to my family during
the day!" (This one is actually not true... you can't use Messenger from
work, but of the two I am talking about who hate the job 1 goes for a 10
minute cigarette break each hour and spends it outside smoking and chatting
on the phone... the other spends atleast 5 hours of her 12 hour shift on her
cellphone chatting with her kids and/or husband from work)


Going back to the original posting/article... you could also ask: Does
everybody feel the same as the person who posted the article?
A legitimate question... because to some being able to work 50, 60, 70 or
80+ hours in a week might be a good thing about the job (a perk) because
they can save up more and when they do get their time off they can go on
better vacations, spend more during the holidays, etc.
Again, thinking back to personal experience:  I had a job as a retail store
manager I worked during the day and went to school 2-3 nights a week.  For 5
years I worked a minimum 60 hours a week and up to 90 per week, with the
yearly average probably being 75 hrs a week... it was great for me because
the job paid only a little over minimum wage but I made so much extra
working so many hours that I was able to afford expensive night school
courses and when I took my vacation each year I had a few thousand bucks
saved up for it.


In all this... this isn't the only job on the planet, and there are alot
more people out there that are worse off.  Another reply to the above post
said "its easy to get trapped in a job" and that is very true!  But that
really only applies to low income/minimum wage jobs where you make so little
that you are unable to save up any money to be able to afford to quit or do
a proper job search (I was there as well at a point in my life years ago...
where after I got paid for the month and paid my rent and bills off and
bought basic groceries I had about $50 leftover.  In order to save up so I
could quit my job and go work somewhere else it would take me years if I was
only able to save $50 a month (and thats presuming I didn't spend it on
something else) but even then you can still atleast send out resumes and
with voicemail get back in touch with people calling you up with job
prospects)  but the article posted suggests that the posters significant
other is a programmer/developer and they probably make enough that after 3
or 4 months of that job at EA (working 85+ hrs per week) they should have
enough bankrolled to be able to afford a few months off work to go find a
new job.

So I really gotta go with what "Destroy" said: If you don't like, quit and
find another job.

Clint


0
Augustus
11/21/2004 6:54:00 PM
amen!

As long as the employees sticks to the conditions nothing will improve.
Employers usually improves the working conditions when employees *starts
leaving* their company - not before. Though it is a little late for the
employee though ...

Rikard


"Augustus" <Imperial.Palace@Rome.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:30c6giF2ufrakU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Grackle" <nospam@lalaland.com> wrote in message
> news:FV3od.10129$Le1.86859@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > "Destroy" <ask@meplease.com> wrote in message
> > news:RK2od.50957$ye4.42996@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.
> > >
> > Ignorant statement of the week award!
>
> Maybe in the way he worded it... but what he said effectivly rings true:
If
> you don't like your job, be it this one or another, then quit or look for
> something else to do.
>
> I say this because:
>
> First, this is the way of life in most companies, not just game companies,
> where they have strict deadlines... and people going to work for these
> companies should have an idea of that.  Then compound that with the need
to
> keep the price down for end user consumption... it makes it hard for the
> company to hire on a slew of extra employees to come in and help meet the
> deadline and still keep the product at its target price.
>
> Secondly, they can count themselves lucky that theirs are not jobs that
have
> been offshored yet.  Its a tough thing to say, but in todays day and age
its
> true: alot more companies are going overseas for cheap workers... sadly,
> North American workers do have to put up with abit more nowadays because
> there is always that fear that they could lose their job to somebody in SE
> Asia or India.
>
> Then there are questions one can ask about the article...
>
> First: Is this problem, the big crunch time, the result of EA and its
> management?  Or is it the result of the people working before the crunch
> time?  Case in point: My own company.  I've had a few times in the past 2
> years where we've had a big crunch time at the end to meet a deadline
(where
> everybody is working 15-18 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a month) and in
> every case it was because someone down the line was slacking off and wound
> up delaying the project for a couple of weeks where everybody had no
choice
> but to sit around for 3 or 4 weeks waiting for him to catch up with the
rest
> of us... and then we had to put in all the overtime to get back on
schedule.
>
> Second: Is this standard, or 'worst case scenario'?  I know 3 people who
> work for the EA offices in British Columbia... one is a project manager,
the
> other is voice talent and the third is a playtester.  The first two have
> nothing bad to say about the company and work pretty much long hours now
and
> then, but they aren't totally imprisoned by work and aren't working 80-90
> hours a week. The third guy (playtester) does work long hours, upwards of
> 60-80 hours a week... but to him it balances out: he might work 0 hours
for
> the first 2 weeks and then 60-90 hours the next 2 weeks, in all he is
still
> working about the same hours per month that a full time worker has (maybe
> abit more) but it all balances out in the long run.
>
> There are other questions you could ask...
>
> Like: How truthful is the account?  Is the person taking their worst
> possible time at the company and making it sound like it happens all the
> time?  Or embelishing the story a little?   I think back to when I worked
> for the government of British Columbia in "Mainframe Operations".  There
was
> 16 of us in the department and we worked 12 hours a day for 12 days a
month
> for $90,000 a year.  Like I say, there was 16 of us... if you asked 14 of
us
> we would tell you that we loved the job for the pay, what we had to do
> (mostly nothing) and and how much free time it gave us (we usually worked
3
> days in a row, but once a month you had to do 4 days in a row... between
> shifts we would get 3, 4 or 7 days off).  But thats only 14 of the 16 that
> would say that... we had two women up there who if you asked them would
tell
> you how much they hated the job and wished they could move on... their
> complaints were usually:  sometimes they had to work weekends, it was cold
> (we worked in a data center, the main server rooms were cold but sometimes
> it would trickle into our workarea), four 12 hour shifts in a row was
> tiring, when they work a 12hr day there isn't much else you can do before
or
> after work (we worked 7am to 7pm), sometimes the job was really boring,
they
> couldn't use MSN Messenger from work...
>
> I'm sure with the right spin you could make it sound like the job was a
real
> horror show...
>
> work on weekends = "They make me work weekends, 12 hours a day! I don't
get
> to spend time with my kids" (which is true! But everybody has to work 1,
and
> only 1, weekend a month)
>
> its cold = "I have to work in a room thats kept at a constant 5 celsius!"
> (which is true! But we only go in there 2-3 times a shift for at the most
5
> minutes at a time)
>
> four 12 hour shifts in a row = "They make me work 48 hours in 4 days!"
> (which is true! But it doesn't mention that every 4 days in a row shift
you
> get 7-10 days off in a row)
>
> job is boring = "The job is repetitive and not mentally challenging"
(which
> is true! But what do you expect when the job description is "monitor
CPIC",
> "monitor bank communications lines", "monitor transaction activity"...
> somebody who would say that are probably the same people that could
complain
> when something goes wrong and suddenly there is a flurry of life)
>
> can't use Messenger from work = "They don't let me talk to my family
during
> the day!" (This one is actually not true... you can't use Messenger from
> work, but of the two I am talking about who hate the job 1 goes for a 10
> minute cigarette break each hour and spends it outside smoking and
chatting
> on the phone... the other spends atleast 5 hours of her 12 hour shift on h
er
> cellphone chatting with her kids and/or husband from work)
>
>
> Going back to the original posting/article... you could also ask: Does
> everybody feel the same as the person who posted the article?
> A legitimate question... because to some being able to work 50, 60, 70 or
> 80+ hours in a week might be a good thing about the job (a perk) because
> they can save up more and when they do get their time off they can go on
> better vacations, spend more during the holidays, etc.
> Again, thinking back to personal experience:  I had a job as a retail
store
> manager I worked during the day and went to school 2-3 nights a week.  For
5
> years I worked a minimum 60 hours a week and up to 90 per week, with the
> yearly average probably being 75 hrs a week... it was great for me because
> the job paid only a little over minimum wage but I made so much extra
> working so many hours that I was able to afford expensive night school
> courses and when I took my vacation each year I had a few thousand bucks
> saved up for it.
>
>
> In all this... this isn't the only job on the planet, and there are alot
> more people out there that are worse off.  Another reply to the above post
> said "its easy to get trapped in a job" and that is very true!  But that
> really only applies to low income/minimum wage jobs where you make so
little
> that you are unable to save up any money to be able to afford to quit or
do
> a proper job search (I was there as well at a point in my life years
ago...
> where after I got paid for the month and paid my rent and bills off and
> bought basic groceries I had about $50 leftover.  In order to save up so I
> could quit my job and go work somewhere else it would take me years if I
was
> only able to save $50 a month (and thats presuming I didn't spend it on
> something else) but even then you can still atleast send out resumes and
> with voicemail get back in touch with people calling you up with job
> prospects)  but the article posted suggests that the posters significant
> other is a programmer/developer and they probably make enough that after 3
> or 4 months of that job at EA (working 85+ hrs per week) they should have
> enough bankrolled to be able to afford a few months off work to go find a
> new job.
>
> So I really gotta go with what "Destroy" said: If you don't like, quit and
> find another job.
>
> Clint
>
>
>



0
Rikard
11/21/2004 7:44:32 PM
"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message
news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>
> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php

I'm sorry that they are treating you so badly, but since this is the USA
your partner is  free to quit and find another job that is more to your
liking. I don't buy EA products since the generally put out crap (and now I
see why if all their projects are run like the one your partner is working
on).

Try boycotting their payroll dept by quitting and see how much you would
rather your partner work to death instead of both of you starving.
>
>


0
john
11/21/2004 9:34:51 PM
>I've seen employers screw many people over countless times where I work, 
>with little recourse.  The law is a joke except in extreme circumstances, 
>usually regarding some form of discrimination.  Other than that, it's full 
>of loopholes, and employers can do whatever they want, regardless of the 
>impact it has on its employees.  At least that's the case in white collar 
>world.  As an example, you can fire someone who's perfectly competant (but 
>you don't like him/her for whatever reason), claim the position has been 
>abolished, hire someone new for the old position, but give the old position 
>a new name.  Sure that's 'illegal', but you have to prove it actually 
>occured, and there's the rub -- you can't. 

  We all had to sign a contract where I work that says 'we can fire you at any
time and we don't have to give you a reason'. 

 Does this mean that they can fire people for combing their hair in a manner
unbecoming for an employee in their fine company ? Legally, no... 

  But since I make money for the company and am beneficial to the company it
would be stupid of them to get rid of me, simple as that. My work ethic is my
security. 

  Does the company do stupid things ? Sometimes. :) Am I perfect ? No. Do I
stand head and shoulders above the rest of the companies employees ? Yes ! Of
course most people feel that way about themselves IMHO [sic].

  To sum up. If EA in fact runs their company as badly as the original poster
indicates ( we're not getting EA's side of the story here ),  then its time to
move on, or work to improve the situation at the job. BTW software companies
are the worst run companies in the wide, wonderful world of business, generally
speaking, IMO. 

  Have a nice day ! :)
0
gdt876
11/21/2004 10:25:17 PM
Destroy wrote:
> Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.
> 
> 
Not that easy... I on that road after being sort of in such a labor trap 
(things like that can happen outside the US as well)
then being 4 months unemployed is not fun, gladly I did not have wife 
and kids, it is easier to leave if you are in my situation, but it is 
hard if the life of others depend on you.
0
werner
11/21/2004 10:44:58 PM
I thought I was trapped into a job, too, but it really is that 
simple.....get another one! Now I manage a company, my hours are short, and 
my pay is decent, around 80k. If your BH doesn't have time to look, you must 
have the time to help, as you have time to gripe about it here.
PS If your OH helped write AA, pass this on...IT SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Very poor single person gameplay! 


0
none
11/21/2004 10:54:53 PM
koorb <koorb@raidrs.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen 
news:luc1q0pq89k487sbfni307n3q5dj2lle5n@4ax.com:

> I would love to start boycotting EA because of their poor treatment of
> staff, but I am already boycotting them for making so many crap games
> they are actually damaging the industry and our art.

Subscribe!

-- 
Arcana Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
d++e++N++T+++Om-KAWML!34567'!S'!8!9!u+uC+uF+++uG-u
LB�----uAnC+nH++nP+nI----nPT-nS+++nT----o---oE---xz
http://www.phyton.dk/games.htm
0
Arcana
11/22/2004 1:07:33 AM
It's not about leaving and finding another job, it's about slavery having
been abolished in the US.  Obviously business regrets that decision and the
government agrees with them, hence the offshoring of so many American jobs.





"Destroy" <ask@meplease.com> wrote in message
news:RK2od.50957$ye4.42996@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.
>
>
> Bill wrote:
> > Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> >
> > http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> >
> > http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
> >
> >
>


0
Me
11/22/2004 1:42:04 AM
"Dav Vandenbroucke" <dav_and_frances_vandenbroucke@compuserve.com> wrote in 
message news:58i1q09fnvoo20gudg9b54murn8anlvke0@4ax.com...
> This sounds like a job for alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe.
>
> Dav Vandenbroucke
> davanden at cox dot net

Yes, let's expand that subject line:

EA treats it is employee is worse than it is customers!

Hmm, something doesn't sound quite right there -- hope the original poster 
doesn't have aspirations of becoming an editor. 


0
Grackle
11/22/2004 2:03:03 AM
Hi, while it sounds like you and I think alike on many issues, I do
want to address some things.  You seem to be coming from the point of
view that the two women you discussed, who appeared to be lazy butt's
who wanted to IM their spouses all day, are the norm for anyone who
complains about their job.  This may not be what you are attempting to
do, or it may be this is your only experience and therefore the only
side you see (doesn't sound like it) ... I don't know.  You may just
be presenting it as a possible option, and are well aware that
something else could exist.  I just wanted to make sure that other
side was well presented also.  Besides, you sound like a reasonable
person and I enjoy conversations with reasonable people.  (What group
are you on anyway - don't recognize the name.)

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:54:00 -0800, "Augustus"
<Imperial.Palace@Rome.com> wrote:

>
>"Grackle" <nospam@lalaland.com> wrote in message
>news:FV3od.10129$Le1.86859@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> "Destroy" <ask@meplease.com> wrote in message
>> news:RK2od.50957$ye4.42996@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>> > Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.
>> >
>> Ignorant statement of the week award!
>
>Maybe in the way he worded it... but what he said effectivly rings true:  If
>you don't like your job, be it this one or another, then quit or look for
>something else to do.

I half agree and half don't.  We all have the right to quit our jobs
and go look for something else.  But it's still not always as simple
as that.  I left a job a good year and a half ago because it was ready
to give me a heart attack.  (Which not only wouldn't be much fun, but
I didn't have insurance and the hospital bills would've put me in much
worse position than I'm in right now. :-))  I had two part-time jobs
and this job was the majority of my income.  I had intended on
increasing the other job to full-time, as already discussed with my
boss, until a certain governor who shall remain nameless (since I
voted for him) made a whole lot of weirdo budget cuts and essentially
cut me out of increasing this job to full-time.  (Even though the
demand is there.)  I was then screwed of doing that, have managed to
pick up a little other part-time work, but for the most part have been
working only part-time for a year and a half.  So really, not always
so easy.  I, however, sometimes like to put my health first and am
willing to take such risks, don't have a family to support, and
between savings and my dad giving us muchos amounts of money last
Christmas, and my brilliant ability to live low-budget, I've been OK.

>
>I say this because:
>
>First, this is the way of life in most companies, not just game companies,
>where they have strict deadlines... and people going to work for these
>companies should have an idea of that.

I agree with this to some point.  The following:
"When asked for specifics about what "working long hours" meant, the
interviewers coughed and glossed on to the next question; now we know
why."
.... tells me these people should've had a clue that something was
fishy here.  It shows a bit of ignorance.

>  Then compound that with the need to
>keep the price down for end user consumption... it makes it hard for the
>company to hire on a slew of extra employees to come in and help meet the
>deadline and still keep the product at its target price.

Don't know enough, between the rumors, to agree or disagree.  One
rumor says they have plenty to spare.  I dunno - haven't looked at
their books.  At the same time, I really don't wanna pay more for
games.  Nor do I want the employees getting screwed.  A good example
for those who don't understand that the economy is a big circle and
what affects one of us affects us all.  (That is, it's not some
self-contained little world where you can only worry about yourself.)

>
>Secondly, they can count themselves lucky that theirs are not jobs that have
>been offshored yet.  Its a tough thing to say, but in todays day and age its
>true: alot more companies are going overseas for cheap workers... sadly,
>North American workers do have to put up with abit more nowadays because
>there is always that fear that they could lose their job to somebody in SE
>Asia or India.

Fear of something being worse doesn't make it better.

>
>Then there are questions one can ask about the article...
>
>First: Is this problem, the big crunch time, the result of EA and its
>management?  Or is it the result of the people working before the crunch
>time?  Case in point: My own company.  I've had a few times in the past 2
>years where we've had a big crunch time at the end to meet a deadline (where
>everybody is working 15-18 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a month) and in
>every case it was because someone down the line was slacking off and wound
>up delaying the project for a couple of weeks where everybody had no choice
>but to sit around for 3 or 4 weeks waiting for him to catch up with the rest
>of us... and then we had to put in all the overtime to get back on schedule.

This happens a lot, I agree.  My brother is a programmer on some
defense R&D projects, and I knew another guy who did similar, and I
hear this all the time.  (The other guy worked with a lady who put
together all the "presentational" material after the fact, and had a
sign on her door that said something like "Delays on your part do not
create emergencies on mine." :-))  However, this isn't always the
case.  If the article that lady wrote is assumed to be truthful and
representive of the situation, this doesn't sound like the case.

>There are other questions you could ask...
>
>Like: How truthful is the account?  Is the person taking their worst
>possible time at the company and making it sound like it happens all the
>time?  Or embelishing the story a little?

No way to know that without talking to everyone and getting to the
truth of the matter.  (And remembering that human nature is to
complain when things are bad and say nothing when things are good.)
The only problem I have is that you're presenting an example that
makes it sound like this might not be truthful, accurate, normal,
unembellished, etc.  Again, I don't know if this is what you meant to
do.

>
>I'm sure with the right spin you could make it sound like the job was a real
>horror show...
>
>work on weekends = "They make me work weekends, 12 hours a day! I don't get
>to spend time with my kids" (which is true! But everybody has to work 1, and
>only 1, weekend a month)
>
>its cold = "I have to work in a room thats kept at a constant 5 celsius!"
>(which is true! But we only go in there 2-3 times a shift for at the most 5
>minutes at a time)
>
>four 12 hour shifts in a row = "They make me work 48 hours in 4 days!"
>(which is true! But it doesn't mention that every 4 days in a row shift you
>get 7-10 days off in a row)

Personally, I would start losing my cookies doing 12 hour shifts four
days in a row, and it wouldn't matter about the time off in between,
especially if this were the norm.  I'd rather even it out a bit more,
though I wouldn't mind some longer shifts here and there compensating
with some time off.  But this is me.  Point being though - for some
people this really *is* a problem.

>
>job is boring = "The job is repetitive and not mentally challenging" (which
>is true! But what do you expect when the job description is "monitor CPIC",
>"monitor bank communications lines", "monitor transaction activity"...
>somebody who would say that are probably the same people that could complain
>when something goes wrong and suddenly there is a flurry of life)

Personally speaking, I cannot tolerate that kind of boredom.  It's
like shear torture.  Some people don't mind it.  I can't handle it.  I
once had a job years ago where I came home every night literally in
tears because I was, quite literally, bored to tears.  A friend of
mine thought I was totally nuts - but she was bored most of the time
anyway because she had no interests, so she may as well have gotten
paid for her boredom.  I think this is a legit complaint, assuming it
really is torturous to them.

>
>can't use Messenger from work = "They don't let me talk to my family during
>the day!" (This one is actually not true... you can't use Messenger from
>work, but of the two I am talking about who hate the job 1 goes for a 10
>minute cigarette break each hour and spends it outside smoking and chatting
>on the phone... the other spends atleast 5 hours of her 12 hour shift on her
>cellphone chatting with her kids and/or husband from work)

Well, yeah, you got me there. :-)  I agree - this just sounds like
laziness.

>
>
>Going back to the original posting/article... you could also ask: Does
>everybody feel the same as the person who posted the article?

Good question.

>A legitimate question... because to some being able to work 50, 60, 70 or
>80+ hours in a week might be a good thing about the job (a perk) because
>they can save up more and when they do get their time off they can go on
>better vacations, spend more during the holidays, etc.

My one brother who does contract work, and usually for extremely
ambitious technological R&D companies, ends up at a lot of places
where these people just love putting in 100 hours a week, for two
years straight, just for the *possible* chance at making some really
big bucks at the end.  And if it pulls off, they might never have to
work again, sure.  I don't personally think it's worth it.  (And
neither does my brother, which is why he prefers a limit of 2-3 months
on these contracting jobs.)  But I also realize there *are* people
like this.

Of course, my brother's also been in situations where he was told
there would be no overtime, and there was.  He's usually under
contract, and I recall a couple of years ago when he quit a contract
because they didn't live up to their end of it.

>Again, thinking back to personal experience:  I had a job as a retail store
>manager I worked during the day and went to school 2-3 nights a week.  For 5
>years I worked a minimum 60 hours a week and up to 90 per week, with the
>yearly average probably being 75 hrs a week... it was great for me because
>the job paid only a little over minimum wage but I made so much extra
>working so many hours that I was able to afford expensive night school
>courses and when I took my vacation each year I had a few thousand bucks
>saved up for it.

I couldn't hack that.

>In all this... this isn't the only job on the planet, and there are alot
>more people out there that are worse off.

A) Other people being worse off isn't an excuse.
B) Depends on your definition of worse off

>  Another reply to the above post
>said "its easy to get trapped in a job" and that is very true!  But that
>really only applies to low income/minimum wage jobs where you make so little
>that you are unable to save up any money to be able to afford to quit or do
>a proper job search

I have to totally disagree here.  If you're making *really* big bucks,
sure you can have enough put away to survive for quite a long time, or
invest it and live off the investments, or whatever.  But opposites
aren't the only thing that exist - you say this like big bucks and low
income are the only two extremes that exist.  Which just isn't true.
At a medium-end job, one can probably survive for a period of time...
but first it's not fun using up your savings while searching for
another job.  And second, you can still only make it for so long.
I've only been employed part-time for a year and a half.  Sure, the
part-time income helps "hold off" running out of money, but that's
still a long time to go.  Even someone at a middle-class income can
only survive for so long.  (And even worse if you happen to run into
some major expenses or your kids happen to be in college at the time,
or whatever.)

>
>So I really gotta go with what "Destroy" said: If you don't like, quit and
>find another job.

Or more appropriately, look for another job and then quit.  Assuming
you have time to look for it.  Being able to job-search online
certainly helps in this respect.  However, I've noticed that in my
case searching online is about useless, except that I can get to the
ads from the local paper online, like late Sunday evening if I wish,
and then apply for most online or by sending an emailed resume.  Still
gotta get to the interview during working hours though.  And what if
you fear your current employer knowing you're looking for another job
- this can be difficult.  Although I've found that prospective
employers seem to be very understanding of these types of things and
will sometimes do after-hours interviews, etc.  

Yes, I know I sound like I'm disagreeing with myself a lot. :-)  I'm
just seeing both sides here is all.

---
erimess

My therapist told me a way to achieve 
inner peace was to finish things I had 
started. Today I finished 2 bags of potato 
chips, a lemon pie, a fifth of Jack Daniel's 
and a small box of chocolate candy. 
I feel better already.
0
erimess
11/22/2004 2:03:16 AM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:18:21 -0500, "Grackle" <nospam@lalaland.com>
wrote:

>"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message 
>news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
>> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>>
>> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>>
>> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
>
>I've seen employers screw many people over countless times where I work, 
>with little recourse.  The law is a joke except in extreme circumstances, 
>usually regarding some form of discrimination.  Other than that, it's full 
>of loopholes, and employers can do whatever they want, regardless of the 
>impact it has on its employees.  At least that's the case in white collar 
>world.  As an example, you can fire someone who's perfectly competant (but 
>you don't like him/her for whatever reason), claim the position has been 
>abolished, hire someone new for the old position, but give the old position 
>a new name.  Sure that's 'illegal', but you have to prove it actually 
>occured, and there's the rub -- you can't. 
>

So... if you hired someone to mow your lawn, and the guy's doing a
good job, but for whatever reason you don't happen to like his
personality and would prefer not to deal with him... so you decide to
get someone else to mow your lawn.  Keeping in mind that this is
*your* money you're spending, would you appreciate the government
coming in and telling you that you *have* to keep on the first guy and
pay him your hard-earned money?  Probably not.

And, yes, it *is* the same thing.  It's just that everyone forgets
that there's another side -- and that side consists of people, just
like you, and their money, just like you.  But apparently no one
thinks that side has any rights.

And no, I'm not condoning the behavior of any company... I've worked
for mostly crap companies my whole life.  It's just that, unlike
apparently 3/4th of this world, I recognize that employees do *not*
have *more* rights than the people they work for.  You're allowed to
quit with no excuse, but they can't let you go with no excuse?  That
means you think you have *more* rights than they do, and seem to
forget, it goes both ways.

Sometimes it's easier for them to replace you.  And sometimes it's
easier for you to replace them (with another job).  It's just supply
and demand, like everything else.

Of course, you have a right to complain all you want.

---
erimess

My therapist told me a way to achieve 
inner peace was to finish things I had 
started. Today I finished 2 bags of potato 
chips, a lemon pie, a fifth of Jack Daniel's 
and a small box of chocolate candy. 
I feel better already.

0
erimess
11/22/2004 2:03:32 AM
<erimess> wrote in message 
news:c7i2q0de866m3uh92e92a8cco29khir8jb@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:18:21 -0500, "Grackle" <nospam@lalaland.com>
> wrote:
>
> And no, I'm not condoning the behavior of any company... I've worked
> for mostly crap companies my whole life.  It's just that, unlike
> apparently 3/4th of this world, I recognize that employees do *not*
> have *more* rights than the people they work for.  You're allowed to
> quit with no excuse, but they can't let you go with no excuse?  That
> means you think you have *more* rights than they do, and seem to
> forget, it goes both ways.
>

Quiting and being fired have two very different effects on both sides. 
Getting fired, especially with dependants to support, can disrupt someone's 
entire life, while quitting can at worst disrupt a company's profits 
(usually not).  The two are not equivalent. 


0
Grackle
11/22/2004 3:39:09 AM
<erimess> wrote in message
news:4jf2q05r6jdjevi4h4m5grvrimqsqq1fb4@4ax.com...
> Hi, while it sounds like you and I think alike on many issues, I do
> want to address some things.  You seem to be coming from the point of
> view that the two women you discussed, who appeared to be lazy butt's
> who wanted to IM their spouses all day, are the norm for anyone who
> complains about their job.  This may not be what you are attempting to
> do, or it may be this is your only experience and therefore the only
> side you see (doesn't sound like it) ... I don't know.  You may just
> be presenting it as a possible option, and are well aware that
> something else could exist.  I just wanted to make sure that other
> side was well presented also.  Besides, you sound like a reasonable
> person and I enjoy conversations with reasonable people.  (What group
> are you on anyway - don't recognize the name.)

I hail from comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (I've read a couple of other groups
this thread is going to... but not in a loooooooong time)

As for my post...

First off, what started this whole thread was that we had somebody come in
and say "I read this article about the horror of working for EA!!!  We
should boycott their product based on this one article!"

Now, I'm not saying what was in the article is either true or false...
nobody will really know for sure, since not only is the article posted
anonymously (which takes away some of its credibility) but its also posted
by somebody other than the complaintant (posted by the wife or husband of an
EA employee, which takes away even more of its credibility)

I hearken this to something like when a couple gets divorced...  in most
cases the friends of the wife side with her and hate and despise the
husband... and the friends of the husband side with him and hate and despise
the wife.  This happens almost every time and its because the friends
involved only hear one side of the story, which casts their friend (either
the husband or wife) in the best possible light and with as much
embellishment of the truth as he/she wants to paint the other as the bad
guy/gal.

That might sound like a stretch, but realistically thats what the OP to this
thread was doing... coming in here and saying "Here is a story about life at
Electronic Arts of which you will hear only a limited and brief recap of
events from only one side of story of one person... because of this we
should hate EA!"

And thats where the whole "2 women I worked with at the Government of
British Columbia" tale I recounted came from...  the point there was that
with the proper spin doctoring you could make that job look like "a dream
job come true" or "a real horror show where any and all should pity the poor
employees who work there"

But either way, this is one person's story... even if its the absolute truth
its abit of a stretch to ask people to boycott a company because of it.

And then if you actually read the full article... it has these magic words:
"EA salaried employees"

Which comes from:
"for the honor of this treatment EA salaried employees receive a) no
overtime; b) no compensation time! ('comp' time is the equalization of time
off for overtime -- any hours spent during a crunch accrue into days off
after the product has shipped); c) no additional sick or vacation leave."

IMPORTANT: This is not just an EA policy...  this is pretty much the norm
for salaried employees throughout the US (Doesn't the US Dept of Labor
actually have a list of regulations about what salaried employees are and
are not entitled to?)

This is one of the most clear cut cases of "If you don't like the job,
QUIT!".    In the interview he/she was told it was going to be long hours,
especially at crunch time...  they know its a salaried position, so they
should have known what benefits they were and were not entitled to...  If
short hours and OT and Comp Time were so important to them, they shouldn't
have even taken the job in the first place

But thats just my 2 cents...

Clint




0
Augustus
11/22/2004 7:10:54 AM
magnulus bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed... 

>  It's because white-collar workers didn't unionize.  They thought unions
>were for the blue-collar slobs beneath them.   I wish I could end with some
>kind of punchline, but it eludes me....
>
Unions are powerless in the face of massive off-shoring. Try again.

The government has to step in now. That will not happen as we are currently
ruled by the "First Church of the Free Market." It would take widespread
violence to get our current leadership (on BOTH sides of the aisle) to
understand that market forces are not patriotic, or moral, or even controllable
without measured economic activism on the part of the government.

If we don't wake up our leadership, we're fucked.


--
Zag

Guns cause crime
   like flies cause garbage 

		...bumper sticker
0
Zaghadka
11/22/2004 9:03:12 AM
erimess bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed... 

>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:18:21 -0500, "Grackle" <nospam@lalaland.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message 
>>news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
>>> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>>>
>>> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>>>
>>> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
>>
>>I've seen employers screw many people over countless times where I work, 
>>with little recourse.  The law is a joke except in extreme circumstances, 
>>usually regarding some form of discrimination.  Other than that, it's full 
>>of loopholes, and employers can do whatever they want, regardless of the 
>>impact it has on its employees.  At least that's the case in white collar 
>>world.  As an example, you can fire someone who's perfectly competant (but 
>>you don't like him/her for whatever reason), claim the position has been 
>>abolished, hire someone new for the old position, but give the old position 
>>a new name.  Sure that's 'illegal', but you have to prove it actually 
>>occured, and there's the rub -- you can't. 
>>
>
>So... if you hired someone to mow your lawn, and the guy's doing a
>good job, but for whatever reason you don't happen to like his
>personality and would prefer not to deal with him... so you decide to
>get someone else to mow your lawn.  Keeping in mind that this is
>*your* money you're spending, would you appreciate the government
>coming in and telling you that you *have* to keep on the first guy and
>pay him your hard-earned money?  Probably not.
>
>And, yes, it *is* the same thing.  It's just that everyone forgets
>that there's another side -- and that side consists of people, just
>like you, and their money, just like you.  But apparently no one
>thinks that side has any rights.
>
>And no, I'm not condoning the behavior of any company... I've worked
>for mostly crap companies my whole life.  It's just that, unlike
>apparently 3/4th of this world, I recognize that employees do *not*
>have *more* rights than the people they work for.  You're allowed to
>quit with no excuse, but they can't let you go with no excuse?  That
>means you think you have *more* rights than they do, and seem to
>forget, it goes both ways.
>
>Sometimes it's easier for them to replace you.  And sometimes it's
>easier for you to replace them (with another job).  It's just supply
>and demand, like everything else.
>
>Of course, you have a right to complain all you want.

Ah, another brother of the First Church of The Free Market.

"If a clod be washed away by the sea, [America] is the less, as well as if a
promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were:
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." 

(America swapped for Europe)

The First Church of John Donne. Do a little reading about the values this
country was founded upon. It wasn't founded upon the supposed *right* of the
wealthy to indiscriminately destroy American lives so that they might increase
their wealth and strengthen the third world to the status of "mostly
intolerable." There are no patriots in a free market.

We need a protectionist economy and we need it now before the damage is
irreversable. Ever hear the phrase "The wealthy remain so at the sufference of
the poor?" If these trends continue for another 40 years there will be
bloodshed that will make the Union busting efforts of the early 20th C look
like a picnic.

Mind you, I don't condone such violence, but that is where we are headed if
American business doesn't start THINKING and ACTING rather than surrendering
itself to the forces of nature. Due to stock market issues, they aren't allowed
to do that, so it's up to our government to step in. Of course, the bucks are
leaving Bush's desk faster than they can stop there.


--
Zag

Guns cause crime
   like flies cause garbage 

		...bumper sticker
0
Zaghadka
11/22/2004 9:16:42 AM
john graesser bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white
hot flames, and screamed... 

>
>"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message
>news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
>> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>>
>> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>>
>> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
>
>I'm sorry that they are treating you so badly, but since this is the USA
>your partner is  free to quit and find another job that is more to your
>liking. 

If it's so easy, you quit your job. Shouldn't affect you at all, right? Did it
ever occur to you that quitting (no unemployment benefits, BTW) is just as bad
a choice as staying? Ever hear the term "wage slave"? This man is not "free."
That goes double because he has a family.

>I don't buy EA products since the generally put out crap (and now I
>see why if all their projects are run like the one your partner is working
>on).
>
>Try boycotting their payroll dept by quitting and see how much you would
>rather your partner work to death instead of both of you starving.

That is truly despicable. Indeed worthy of Ebenezer Scrooge. Where do you get
off mocking anyone with a choice between watching her husband get slowly worked
to death or watching the both of them and her family starve to death. Do you
believe in GOD?

"If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a
promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were:
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." -- John Donne

You figure out how that applies to the situation.


--
Zag

Guns cause crime
   like flies cause garbage 

		...bumper sticker
0
Zaghadka
11/22/2004 9:29:20 AM
All this time, and noone's pointed out that you misspelled "customer's".
Tch.


-- 
Hong Ooi                              | "COUNTERSRTIKE IS AN REAL-TIME
hong@zipworld.com.au                  |  STRATEGY GAME!!!"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ |    -- RR
Sydney, Australia                     |
0
Hong
11/22/2004 11:10:28 AM
"Zaghadka" <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vja3q0tu1c5euh1pl0gjpvo7ftkr7lckmm@4ax.com...
> Unions are powerless in the face of massive off-shoring. Try again.
>

  I agree.  Unions are useless without a "fair trade" policy.   People don't
seem to realize "free trade" is not fair trade when you are dealing with a
counry like China, which is breaking it's WTO treaty obligations and
devaluing its currency to attract business and foreigners to buy its
exports.  It also helps when you have control over the population viz a viz
human rights abuse.  Then you can make sure a labor movement never starts
and that people will continue to work for slave wages.

  And also, as John Kerry said, it's one thing to allow outsourcing.  It's
anothed to aid and abett it through tax codes and favorable regulations.

> The government has to step in now. That will not happen as we are
currently
> ruled by the "First Church of the Free Market." It would take widespread
> violence to get our current leadership (on BOTH sides of the aisle) to
> understand that market forces are not patriotic, or moral, or even
controllable
> without measured economic activism on the part of the government.
>
> If we don't wake up our leadership, we're fucked.

  Here's what I see as the problem.  The current US government's strategy,
and the US government in general, has been to encourage exports and
investments by devauling our currency, keeping wages low, making our country
attractive to businesses.     The problem is they are doing it in a way that
will attract low-paying jobs.   Rather than invest money in infrastructure,
education, social programs, etc., that will make our country attractive to
high-tech and high quality businesses, we are instead not investing in
infrastructure, cutting social programs and cultural capital, and cutting
taxes on the wealthiest Americans.  Rather than focusing on making a quality
finished products or services, the US government is focusing on raw
materials, components, metal etc., and agricultural products.

   We are going in a downward, not upward spiral, a race to see how fast we
can lower wages to attract employment (and already, our employment is one of
the worlds lowest, yet we have one of the highest poverty rates in the world
in relative terms, and in absolute terms we are in the middle... the problem
is not lack of jobs, it's lack of high paying jobs relative to price
inflation and the overall cost of living.  We also, frankly, have a bloated
government with alot of redundancy).   Talk of unemployment during the
campaign was a red herring- the real issues is the quality of the jobs that
are present, the inccrease in poverty, and the price inflation.    The
endgame analysis seems very simple to me:  the government no longer cares
about the American people's welfare.  They just want to keep wages and our
standard of living low, so corporations can reap profits.

   Is it any coincidence that George W. Bush and the Congress is turning a
blind eye to illegal immigration (especially in the failed 9/11 Comission
bill, which left out a provision to tighten illegal immigration?), most of
it from Mexico and South America?  No coincidence, it's called a "Banana
Republic".


0
magnulus
11/22/2004 1:20:44 PM
"Zaghadka" <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:usa3q01574jid7dn955qn6vbhc616mdu8m@4ax.com...
> We need a protectionist economy and we need it now before the damage is
> irreversable. Ever hear the phrase "The wealthy remain so at the
sufference of
> the poor?" If these trends continue for another 40 years there will be
> bloodshed that will make the Union busting efforts of the early 20th C
look
> like a picnic.
>

  I'm not sure we need 70's style protectionism where we were stuck with
crappy American products, no matter what.  But we do need "fair trade".  I
think we can trade fairly with Europe.  We cannot trade fairly with China,
because the government has too much control over the economy, down to the
suppression of human rights.   With India, it just depends on how fast they
can build up their own economy internally- I have my doubts that's going to
be an easy task in a country with rampant poverty, huge internal language
barriers and high illiteracy.

  Another thing that is hurting the US is the military spending. Other
countries don't spend so much on their militaries, and those that do
inevitably have alot of problems.  One reason the Soviet union and Russia
have so many problems is because of their large military.  Saddam Hussein's
Iraq was also hobbled economicly by military spending (not to mention Saddam
Hussein's palaces).   Most countries have small militaries and don't pursue
an aggressive foreign policy anymore.  It's just not worth it to them.

   Of course, the US needs the big military because we pursue a very
interventionist foreign policy, and we are also very dependent on foreign
oil- two things that inevitably conflict.  Intervention in the Israeli-Arab
conflicts starting in the 1940's, and allying ourself with the Israeli cause
to a great degree (as oppossed to just supporting the UN mandate), is
probably the single most costly decisions the US has ever made, and I can
really see little economic or political benefit from the relationship of
supporting a country with an economy in continual recession that antagonizes
its neighbors - many of whom are powerful, have alot of oil, and can make
life unpleasant for the US.  But try telling that to the average America.
1/4 of our country believes that support of Israel is necessary by a
religious mandate.  So politicians become whores while the rest of the world
looks on in shame (remember when Clinton said he was ready to "die for
Israel"?)


0
magnulus
11/22/2004 1:35:26 PM
I'd like to point out that you mispelled "no-one".




"Hong Ooi" <hong@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
news:u7i3q0l9qgi9ef0kck782jn8rsj2b9j156@4ax.com...
> All this time, and noone's pointed out that you misspelled "customer's".
> Tch.
>
>
> -- 
> Hong Ooi                              | "COUNTERSRTIKE IS AN REAL-TIME
> hong@zipworld.com.au                  |  STRATEGY GAME!!!"
> http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ |    -- RR
> Sydney, Australia                     |


0
Me
11/22/2004 2:07:25 PM
"Augustus" <Imperial.Palace@Rome.com> wrote:

> job is boring = "The job is repetitive and not mentally challenging"
> (which is true! But what do you expect when the job description is
> "monitor CPIC", "monitor bank communications lines", "monitor
> transaction activity"... 

90 grand a year for *that* kind of job???

~T.
0
Thomas
11/22/2004 8:36:48 PM
Denston Degare <DD@no.email> wrote in message
0ve1q0huhruen177uuokid58nk1ohqoicr@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:30:51 GMT, "Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom>
> wrote:
>
> >Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>
> Well, I don't see how not buying EA products will help their employees
> but something needs to be done about these butt fuckers. Better labor
> laws are what's needed.

And unions (or better unions). Even some socialists would be useful,
maybe...

Alfredo


0
Alfredo
11/22/2004 9:24:06 PM
magnulus bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed... 

>
>"Zaghadka" <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:usa3q01574jid7dn955qn6vbhc616mdu8m@4ax.com...
>> We need a protectionist economy and we need it now before the damage is
>> irreversable. Ever hear the phrase "The wealthy remain so at the
>sufference of
>> the poor?" If these trends continue for another 40 years there will be
>> bloodshed that will make the Union busting efforts of the early 20th C
>look
>> like a picnic.
>>
>
>  I'm not sure we need 70's style protectionism where we were stuck with
>crappy American products, no matter what.  But we do need "fair trade".  I
>think we can trade fairly with Europe.  We cannot trade fairly with China,
>because the government has too much control over the economy, down to the
>suppression of human rights.   With India, it just depends on how fast they
>can build up their own economy internally- I have my doubts that's going to
>be an easy task in a country with rampant poverty, huge internal language
>barriers and high illiteracy.
>
I'm not actually referring to trade protectionism. I'm referring to employment
protectionism: protecting and encouraging higher paying jobs for the American
worker. Protecting our workers against employer abuses, off-shoring, and the
relentless pursuit of an attractive bottom line at the expense of American
workers. It's directly related to the parent of this thread.

One of the assumptions about an "exempt" (salaried) job is that there is
*supposed* to be a general expectation of a 40-hour work week. That expectation
is gone these days and ethical companies mitigate the problem by comping their
exempt employees when they have to work extra hours. It would appear that less
ethical companies grind their employees to dust and move on. We need to improve
our labor laws, the days when "exempt" employees made sense are GONE. Accepting
a salaried job in this country is a death wish at this point. Especially when
the job is "cool." We need employment law that is up to date with modern times
and not the 1940's.

It's true we've got a tremendous trade deficit, but I really can't figure a
solution to that when workers in the American manufacturing sector must receive
such high pay relative to the rest of the world. Remember too that
manufacturing automation has finally reached its potential and that also has
destroyed American jobs. Manufacturing jobs are gone by circumstance and
they're not coming back.

Americans have spoken with their consumer habits, they'd rather have cheap
goods from China that they throw away than more expensive goods from developed,
enlightened nations that last and provide better value. With the plunging wages
in this country, we can't afford the more expensive durables any way. Expect to
see more homes go up in flames from shorts in poor quality appliances. ;^)

The hard truth is that our people are not an asset in the current economy and
our government, and its corporate allies, have no desire or creativity to try
and change that condition and level the playing field for the American worker.
As I've said, the brutality with which our business elites rape the working
American public is directly proportional to the quality of the spin escaping
their PR firms. 

In the case of business, this is understandable. They are doing what is good
for their business. I expect nothing less.

In the case of government, it is sickening. Our government is supposed to be
"for the People" not "for a few rich People" or "for large businesses." We
certainly have the best government money can buy. Relevant campaign finance
reform anyone?

I'm glad there's a class-action against EA. Maybe our judiciary can help us
out. Our legislature and executive is busily getting its dick sucked 5 times a
day by monied interests. They have no ethics on this issue. None of them.

But even the judiciary is getting overwhelmed by appointments from those
corrupted branches. Though it is the slowest acting branch of our government
and the slowest to change, the judiciary will soon be in the pockets of
government whoredom and monied interests.  Bush's coming battery of Supreme
Court appointees is going to help things along nicely. 

It'll take 20-40 more years. At that point, God help us.

>  Another thing that is hurting the US is the military spending. Other
>countries don't spend so much on their militaries, and those that do
>inevitably have alot of problems.  One reason the Soviet union and Russia
>have so many problems is because of their large military.  Saddam Hussein's
>Iraq was also hobbled economicly by military spending (not to mention Saddam
>Hussein's palaces).   Most countries have small militaries and don't pursue
>an aggressive foreign policy anymore.  It's just not worth it to them.
>

I've heard this argument before but I still don't understand how military
spending hurts the US economy. I believe it to be a very fickle and antiquated
basis for an economy. I believe that we need to stop singing the same song that
brought us out of the Great Depression in the forties. But it *is* an economic
basis, and if the only way our people can get quality jobs is by working for
defense contractors... well, I can think of worse things. ;^)

>   Of course, the US needs the big military because we pursue a very
>interventionist foreign policy, and we are also very dependent on foreign
>oil- two things that inevitably conflict.  Intervention in the Israeli-Arab
>conflicts starting in the 1940's,
>
Don't get me started. I'd actually like to stick to the economic discussion for
now though. ;^) This thread is already perilously off-topic and should be
re-parented. Maybe we can relate this all to folks selling +1 Swords of Slaying
from Diablo on eBay.

Anyone want to speak to quality jobs in Ultima Online? ;^)

[snippers]

--
Zag

Guns cause crime
   like flies cause garbage 

		...bumper sticker


BTW: Thank God for sane discussion on Usenet.
0
Zaghadka
11/22/2004 9:40:38 PM
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:40:38 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>It's true we've got a tremendous trade deficit, but I really can't figure a
>solution to that when workers in the American manufacturing sector must receive
>such high pay relative to the rest of the world.

Quite easy:  require US minimum wage to be paid to people who make
products imported into the US.
0
drocket
11/22/2004 10:02:24 PM
"Thomas Adams" <thomas.o.adams@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95A9DBD7C1511thomasoadamsgmailcom@127.0.0.1...
> "Augustus" <Imperial.Palace@Rome.com> wrote:
>
> > job is boring = "The job is repetitive and not mentally challenging"
> > (which is true! But what do you expect when the job description is
> > "monitor CPIC", "monitor bank communications lines", "monitor
> > transaction activity"...
>
> 90 grand a year for *that* kind of job???

If you looked at the overall job description, it would probably be something
like:
- Monitor CPIC, banking, attorney general and insurance computer
systems/networks
- Provide second tier helpdesk support
- Empty and refill line printers
- Backup web servers
- Reboot fax servers
- Backup Sun servers
- Backup mainframe computers
- Load 9 track tapes into tape drives per system requests
- Correct JCL on failed batch jobs

Most of the time I wound up just working in the tape room... on a standard
shift I'd spend most of the time in the tape room (a small room with 90,000
tapes and 10 tape drives) and the machine would tell me what tapes they
wanted me to load.  Monday mornings saw a flurry of tape activity as we
would send 20,000 tapes to Chicago for archiving (So the printer would spit
out a list of 20,000 tapes in a specific order and I would have to go find
those tapes and then box them up in order)

The job paid well because the skill set you needed to work there was very
specialised... you needed to know the basics of mainframe operations, JCL
coding, MVS and JES2 (operating system languages), OS/400, OS/390, OS2,
Unix, working with databases like DB2, Oracle and MS SQL, etc.

So yeah, most of the time was spent staring at 24 computer screens and
watching for problems... or answering the phone and hearing about
problems... or walking around with a checklist and performing server
backups... or sitting in the tape room and loading tapes... or walking
around and checking the air conditioners were running... but when things
happened you had to be "on the ball" and able to fix any problems with the
system.


0
Augustus
11/22/2004 10:03:21 PM
In message <6to4q0lfrhsbeeq9l13q41j9ik3q14s1pn@4ax.com>, drocket 
<drocket@hotmail.com> writes
>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:40:38 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>It's true we've got a tremendous trade deficit, but I really can't figure a
>>solution to that when workers in the American manufacturing sector 
>>must receive
>>such high pay relative to the rest of the world.
>
>Quite easy:  require US minimum wage to be paid to people who make
>products imported into the US.
Translation - quadruple the prices of half the goods in Wal-Mart. 
That'll go down well with the voters.
-- 
John Secker
0
John
11/22/2004 10:39:31 PM
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:39:31 +0000, John Secker
<john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Translation - quadruple the prices of half the goods in Wal-Mart. 
>That'll go down well with the voters.

I know.  That's why America will continue right on down the path that
its on, losing more and more high-paying jobs, which will only be
replaced with minimum-wage service-industry jobs.  They better
appreciate the cheap, shoddy Walmart goods, because its the only thing
they'll be able to afford.

0
drocket
11/22/2004 11:39:45 PM
Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:qkb3q09dg8lt61d80hfku3891e01ivb6i7@4ax.com: 

> If it's so easy, you quit your job. Shouldn't affect you at all, right?
> Did it ever occur to you that quitting (no unemployment benefits, BTW)
> is just as bad a choice as staying?
I would think that having to work 80 hour work week would qualify as 
quitting with a cause and being entitled to unemployment benefits. Isn't it 
so in US?

In any case he could find another job first. Careful reading of the 
referred article produces "... the salary was right and the benefits were 
good...", which I suppose is the culprit. Very often that kind of companies 
[that make employees work long hours] will offer better benefits and higher 
salary than the company where people work usual hours. This makes it hard 
to find "better" job [as in being paid more] and to change the job one 
would have to take 10-20% pay cut. Though, considering 40 vs 80 hour work 
week, it's not pay cut at all. However, it's still psychologically hard to 
take pay cut and that's probably what those companies are counting on.

Alex.
0
QQalextiQQ
11/23/2004 12:52:49 AM
"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote:

>Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA

NY Times is chiming in on this too. Turing into a PR disaster for EA,
and deservedly so:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/business/yourmoney/21digi.html?ex=1258693200&en=40a60cc6d7971ab2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

Joe
0
Joe62
11/23/2004 6:12:33 AM
"Augustus" <Imperial.Palace@Rome.com> wrote:

>First: Is this problem, the big crunch time, the result of EA and its
>management?  Or is it the result of the people working before the crunch
>time?  Case in point: My own company.  I've had a few times in the past 2
>years where we've had a big crunch time at the end to meet a deadline (where
>everybody is working 15-18 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a month) and in
>every case it was because someone down the line was slacking off and wound
>up delaying the project for a couple of weeks where everybody had no choice
>but to sit around for 3 or 4 weeks waiting for him to catch up with the rest
>of us... and then we had to put in all the overtime to get back on schedule.

What a load of HORSESHIT. Schedule slippages are always management's
fault. In every case. By definition. It is management's JOB to manage
schedules, people, and sort out dependencies before they cause
problems. If it's not happening, you are not doing YOUR job. Don't
blame some worker because your project managers are lazy or
incompetent. 

>A legitimate question... because to some being able to work 50, 60, 70 or
>80+ hours in a week might be a good thing about the job (a perk) because
>they can save up more and when they do get their time off they can go on
>better vacations, spend more during the holidays, etc.

They don't get time off for overtime worked.

Joe
0
Joe62
11/23/2004 6:18:10 AM
erimess wrote:

>And, yes, it *is* the same thing.  It's just that everyone forgets
>that there's another side -- and that side consists of people, just
>like you, and their money, just like you.  But apparently no one
>thinks that side has any rights.

Corporations are not people, so it is not at all the same thing. To
assign them the same rights as a person as a matter of course is
lunacy.

Joe
0
Joe62
11/23/2004 6:21:36 AM
"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>  I'm not sure we need 70's style protectionism where we were stuck with
>crappy American products, no matter what.  But we do need "fair trade".  

Well said, good post Magnulus. I'm all for open trade, including
outsourcing jobs, to any and all countries that have equivalent human
rights and employee protection standards. We can compete with anyone
on the planet on a level field (one that respects human rights and
dignity).

Joe
0
Joe62
11/23/2004 6:24:48 AM
drocket bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed... 

>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:39:31 +0000, John Secker
><john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Translation - quadruple the prices of half the goods in Wal-Mart. 
>>That'll go down well with the voters.
>
>I know.  That's why America will continue right on down the path that
>its on, losing more and more high-paying jobs, which will only be
>replaced with minimum-wage service-industry jobs.  They better
>appreciate the cheap, shoddy Walmart goods, because its the only thing
>they'll be able to afford.

The minimum wage thing is an unworkable idea because the economies of the
countries (and their peoples) we are exploiting are at a completely different
level from ours. If we paid our Chinese workers the American minimum wage
they'd be able to buy the government in a month. In other words, given the
track record of the Chinese gov't, they'd be shot and pushed into mass graves.

Actually, it's more likely they'd all have the money to leave, and would do so
at their earliest convenience, completely ruining our workforce of slaves.

Yup. We Americans have the power to vote with our dollars, but we just...
can't... resist... those... incredible... bargains. Download yourself a copy of
"Something Wall-Mart This Way Comes" at alt.binaries.southpark. It's a riot.


--
Zag

Guns cause crime
   like flies cause garbage 

		...bumper sticker
0
Zaghadka
11/23/2004 10:23:39 AM
alexti bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed... 

>Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:qkb3q09dg8lt61d80hfku3891e01ivb6i7@4ax.com: 
>
>> If it's so easy, you quit your job. Shouldn't affect you at all, right?
>> Did it ever occur to you that quitting (no unemployment benefits, BTW)
>> is just as bad a choice as staying?
>I would think that having to work 80 hour work week would qualify as 
>quitting with a cause and being entitled to unemployment benefits. Isn't it 
>so in US?

Unfortunately, in the US, we have this lovely thing called "at will"
employment, which means that the employer has the right to let you go at any
time for any reason. In return, the worker has the "freedom" to leave at any
time for any reason. The results are decidedly one-sided and a worker who quits
due to unjust working conditions is treated exactly the same as an employee who
quits because he'd rather scratch his ass all day.

I'm not sure if that's a Federal law or a state by state law. I think it's what
we call a "uniform state law." That means all the states pass the same law
after meeting at a state law convention. For all I know, it might just apply to
my home state of Illinois, though. I know they have the same law in New Jersey.

Just about the only thing you can do is try to prove some kind of
discrimination, which is great if you can classify yourself as part of some
put-upon, victimized minority (strangely enough, women, who comprise over 50%
of our population are considered one of these minorities), but which is not so
great because as a result, everyone is clamoring to figure out how they're
being unjustly fucked in this country so they can sue somebody. If you're a
white male, as I am, welcome to being a worker drone. White men are suposed to
take their Soma and shut up.


--
Zag

Guns cause crime
   like flies cause garbage 

		...bumper sticker
0
Zaghadka
11/23/2004 10:36:26 AM
Destroy <ask@meplease.com> wrote in news:RK2od.50957$ye4.42996@twister.rdc-
kc.rr.com:

> Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.

The *real* world is not always that simple.  Where I live jobs are in short 
supply and someone I know very well who hates their job has been looking 
for months to get out and only get crap offers to do customer service/tech 
support (now there is a hell job) for substantially lower that their 
current income (which is an insult).  Her situation does not allow her to 
just up and go as there are obligations and responsibilities to consider 
first.

Looking at your response Destroy I find myself doubting that you have 
gotten too far through college much less had any real experience in the 
outside world.  Good luck when you finally get there.  As Dr. Zaius said to 
Taylor "You might not like what you find.".

Skeksis
0
Skeksis
11/23/2004 11:22:34 AM
"john graesser" <graesser@tca.net> wrote in
news:10q225vk1lvhm58@corp.supernews.com: 

> I'm sorry that they are treating you so badly, but since this is the
> USA your partner is  free to quit and find another job that is more to
> your liking. I don't buy EA products since the generally put out crap
> (and now I see why if all their projects are run like the one your
> partner is working on).
> 
> Try boycotting their payroll dept by quitting and see how much you
> would rather your partner work to death instead of both of you
> starving. 

Well I think that this post puts you pretty high on the list of 'cold 
insensative bastards with no clue'.  I can relate to the author of the 
weblog knowing too many people trapped in lousy jobs abused by their 
employers in the name of the Almighty Green Jesus (tm) and how have been 
trying to get out but have been unsuccessful and it is not because they 
are not qualified and skilled people.  Hell, I have even been there 
myself.

The job market absolutely sucks in the North East unless you are willing 
to do C/S work and even that is horrendously underpaid compared to the 
daily shit sandwich you have to eat.  The issue here is quality of life 
something that too many companies actively wish to deny their employees.  
Saying just quit and starve shows that you have no comprehension that the 
real world is anything different than the broadcast sludge you obviously 
spend too much time watching.

Maybe some day you will either grow up or develop some empathy towards 
others, maybe once you stop letting the masturbate-media spoonfeed you 
your thoughts and opinions, but I am not going to waste anytime worrying 
about you.  You will be forgotten as soon as the mesage thread dies out, 
you won't even rate a tee shirt, but don't worry, there are lot of other 
ignorant selfish pricks to take your place.

Skeksis
0
Skeksis
11/23/2004 11:42:14 AM
>
>"Dark Basic" <darkbasic@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:jA2od.122$1t.23@lakeread07...
>> "Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message
>> news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
>> > Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>> >
>> > http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>> >
>> > http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
>>
>> I work in IT, I get a bit over six figures to write Java code, and I work
>a
>> normal 40 hour week.
>


Awful story, but as the writer points out the practice is illegal so
shoudln't she or her spouse and his collegues report them to the
relevent labour authority, maybe even consult a labour attorney?

LYnley
0
Lynley
11/23/2004 1:13:54 PM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:18:21 -0500, "Grackle" <nospam@lalaland.com>
wrote:

>"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message 
>news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
>> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>>
>> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>>
>> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
>
>I've seen employers screw many people over countless times where I work, 
>with little recourse.  The law is a joke except in extreme circumstances, 
>usually regarding some form of discrimination.  Other than that, it's full 
>of loopholes, and employers can do whatever they want, regardless of the 
>impact it has on its employees.  At least that's the case in white collar 
>world.  As an example, you can fire someone who's perfectly competant (but 
>you don't like him/her for whatever reason), claim the position has been 
>abolished, hire someone new for the old position, but give the old position 
>a new name.  Sure that's 'illegal', but you have to prove it actually 
>occured, and there's the rub -- you can't. 
>


I always thought US labour law to be quite robust and equitable.
Referring to my other post demonstrates this belief.  Down here, South
Africa, our labour law is very much centered around worker rights and
many beleive too much so.

Lynley
0
Lynley
11/23/2004 1:13:56 PM
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:36:26 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>alexti bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
>flames, and screamed... 
>
>>Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:qkb3q09dg8lt61d80hfku3891e01ivb6i7@4ax.com: 
>>
>>> If it's so easy, you quit your job. Shouldn't affect you at all, right?
>>> Did it ever occur to you that quitting (no unemployment benefits, BTW)
>>> is just as bad a choice as staying?
>>I would think that having to work 80 hour work week would qualify as 
>>quitting with a cause and being entitled to unemployment benefits. Isn't it 
>>so in US?
>
>Unfortunately, in the US, we have this lovely thing called "at will"
>employment, which means that the employer has the right to let you go at any
>time for any reason. In return, the worker has the "freedom" to leave at any
>time for any reason. The results are decidedly one-sided and a worker who quits
>due to unjust working conditions is treated exactly the same as an employee who
>quits because he'd rather scratch his ass all day.
>
>I'm not sure if that's a Federal law or a state by state law. I think it's what
>we call a "uniform state law." That means all the states pass the same law
>after meeting at a state law convention. For all I know, it might just apply to
>my home state of Illinois, though. I know they have the same law in New Jersey.
>
>Just about the only thing you can do is try to prove some kind of
>discrimination, which is great if you can classify yourself as part of some
>put-upon, victimized minority (strangely enough, women, who comprise over 50%
>of our population are considered one of these minorities), but which is not so
>great because as a result, everyone is clamoring to figure out how they're
>being unjustly fucked in this country so they can sue somebody. If you're a
>white male, as I am, welcome to being a worker drone. White men are suposed to
>take their Soma and shut up.

Although not at all socially acceptable, this type of thing is what
madethe US economy so powerful.  By being able to adapt to changing
conditions almost instantaneously, US companies continue to survive
and thrive.

Lynley
0
Lynley
11/23/2004 1:29:25 PM
> IMPORTANT: This is not just an EA policy...  this is pretty much the norm
> for salaried employees throughout the US (Doesn't the US Dept of Labor
> actually have a list of regulations about what salaried employees are and
> are not entitled to?)

Note that I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but this comment
strikes me as a clear case of using the letter of the law to defeat
the spirit of the law.  Yes, salaried employees don't get overtime or
even legal comp time, but this does *not* mean that workers that agree
to be salaried are giving up their personal rights.  While what EA is
doing in this case is not illegal, it's clearly unethical and should
not be rewarded.

> In the interview he/she was told it was going to be long hours,
> especially at crunch time...

....and in the accompanying log entry from "EA Spouse" it was made
clear that during the interview EA *sidestepped* direct questions
about overtime and crunch time.  The employee, being a veteran of the
industry, was well aware of the requirements of crunch time prior to
roll-out, but when they asked for more detailed information those
points were avoided.  In his/her own words:

"I remember that they asked him in one of the interviews: "how do you
feel about working long hours?" It's just a part of the game industry
-- few studios can avoid a crunch as deadlines loom, so we thought
nothing of it. When asked for specifics about what "working long
hours" meant, the interviewers coughed and glossed on to the next
question; now we know why."

-- http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/

So, though the employee in this case was informed of long hours and
crunch time, when they took the responsible approach of asking for
more information they were met with complete obsfucation.

> If short hours and OT and Comp Time were so important to them, they shouldn't
> have even taken the job in the first place

Note provided quote above.  This worker was well aware of what the
industry required, and was a veteran.  His/her expectations were
almost certainly realistic going into the front door.  It's EA's
actions following the hiring process that has led to this issue. EA
misled this worker during the hiring process.  Period.  IMHO this is
clearly an actionable offense, and I wish the employee luck.

And, of course, this just my two cents.

Tony Bruno

"'My Country Right or Wrong' is like saying 'My Mother, Drunk or
Sober'."
--Chesterton
0
tbruno
11/23/2004 3:35:03 PM
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:24:06 GMT, "Alfredo Tutino" <powernews@libero.it>
wrote:

>
>Denston Degare <DD@no.email> wrote in message
>0ve1q0huhruen177uuokid58nk1ohqoicr@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:30:51 GMT, "Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>>
>> Well, I don't see how not buying EA products will help their employees
>> but something needs to be done about these butt fuckers. Better labor
>> laws are what's needed.
>
>And unions (or better unions).

Unions don't work well in an industry with a high turnover rate.  

On the other hand, a large-scale IT guild might work in the same way it
works for Lawyers and other similar professions...



0
bk039
11/23/2004 5:38:38 PM
"drocket" <drocket@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6to4q0lfrhsbeeq9l13q41j9ik3q14s1pn@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:40:38 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >It's true we've got a tremendous trade deficit, but I really can't figure
a
> >solution to that when workers in the American manufacturing sector must
receive
> >such high pay relative to the rest of the world.
>
> Quite easy:  require US minimum wage to be paid to people who make
> products imported into the US.

That means that countries that import US goods would require that US workers
earn the same wage as their workers.   So if US "Company X" tried to sell a
product in India, then the US worker would only receive $.45/hr (assuming
that's the standard wage in India).

We're living in a global economy.


0
OldDog
11/23/2004 6:37:22 PM
"Joe62" <NOSPAMjmcginn@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:rem5q05dfe7pqunmq78iut8tm34ticvt5f@4ax.com...
> "magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >  I'm not sure we need 70's style protectionism where we were stuck with
> >crappy American products, no matter what.  But we do need "fair trade".
>
> Well said, good post Magnulus. I'm all for open trade, including
> outsourcing jobs, to any and all countries that have equivalent human
> rights and employee protection standards. We can compete with anyone
> on the planet on a level field (one that respects human rights and
> dignity).
>
> Joe

My sister worked for a US shoe company for several years.   The plant
manager came in and told the workers that the plant was closing and going
overseas.   It cost them $24 to a make a shoe in the US.   They could make
the shoe overseas for under $10.

While min wage is part of the cost, Health care for the employees is a big
factor too.


0
OldDog
11/23/2004 6:40:11 PM
"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message
news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>
> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
>
>

Back in '85, I worked on DoD contracts.  My job was pretty laid back, and I
could come and go so long as my work got done on time.   I had a friend that
did similiar work for another company.     But my friend's company changed.
His company redid the bid on their DoD contract with the military to provide
more hrs of work for the same amount of $.   What this meant was that the
company asked their employees to "voluntarily" work 1hr a day extra but with
no pay.  So you put in 9hrs a day but only get paid for 8hrs.

But you guessed it.   If you didn't work the extra hr a day, the management
would harass you about it.


0
OldDog
11/23/2004 6:51:00 PM
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:37:22 GMT, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com>
wrote:

>That means that countries that import US goods would require that US workers
>earn the same wage as their workers.   So if US "Company X" tried to sell a
>product in India, then the US worker would only receive $.45/hr (assuming
>that's the standard wage in India).

No, because it would simply be a minimum.  If they want to pay their
workers more, they can certainly feel free to.  It wouldn't override
any local laws (unless some country has a 'maximum wage' law, though
I'm not aware of any...)  Its ultimately no different from applying US
safety laws to imported products.

0
drocket
11/23/2004 7:33:19 PM
< cut >

> Although not at all socially acceptable, this type of thing is what
> madethe US economy so powerful.  By being able to adapt to changing
> conditions almost instantaneously, US companies continue to survive
> and thrive.

True enough. This is the kind of fact that when somebody says "Economy"
prompts me to ask "Econo-whose, exactly?"

Alfredo



0
Alfredo
11/23/2004 8:39:03 PM
< cut >

> "'My Country Right or Wrong' is like saying 'My Mother, Drunk or
> Sober'."
> --Chesterton

That's quite good, Toni. My compliments.

Alfredo




0
Alfredo
11/23/2004 8:39:03 PM
Zaghadka wrote:
> john graesser bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white
> hot flames, and screamed...
....
> >I'm sorry that they are treating you so badly, but since this is the USA
> >your partner is  free to quit and find another job that is more to your
> >liking.
> 
> If it's so easy, you quit your job. 

If I worked for a company that required me to work more than 40 hours a week
on a regular basis without compensating me for it, I would. I don't need to.
The person we're discussing, on the other hand, does.

> ... Shouldn't affect you at all, right? 

Other than the loss of salary and benefits? Lots more time to spend with family.

> ... Did it
> ever occur to you that quitting (no unemployment benefits, BTW) is just as bad
> a choice as staying? Ever hear the term "wage slave"? This man is not "free."

So he finds another job. Plenty of them out there. Maybe not with a game company,
but it's a matter of what's more important. Obviously, up to now his free time
and his family have been less important to him than getting the game out, or he
would've quit long before it got this bad. When he gets his priorities straight,
he'll quit.

He ought to find a new job before quitting, if possible, although that's
really hard to do if you have to work 12 hours a day, every day.
Assuming he has a couple of months salary in savings, it shouldn't
be a major hardship. If he doesn't have any savings, then it's time
he started putting something aside and making a little freedom.

> That goes double because he has a family.

Well, he has an "SO", who later implies she's his wife. No mention is made
of children. But, for the sake of argument we'll assume she doesn't work,
because that's the case that involves more hardship. He still ought to leave.
0
Carl
11/23/2004 11:44:27 PM
"Zaghadka" <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qkb3q09dg8lt61d80hfku3891e01ivb6i7@4ax.com...
> john graesser bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked,
white
> hot flames, and screamed...
>
> >
> >"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message
> >news:vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no...
> >> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> >>
> >> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> >>
> >> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
> >
> >I'm sorry that they are treating you so badly, but since this is the USA
> >your partner is  free to quit and find another job that is more to your
> >liking.
>
> If it's so easy, you quit your job. Shouldn't affect you at all, right?
Did it
> ever occur to you that quitting (no unemployment benefits, BTW) is just as
bad
> a choice as staying? Ever hear the term "wage slave"? This man is not
"free."
> That goes double because he has a family.
>
> >I don't buy EA products since the generally put out crap (and now I
> >see why if all their projects are run like the one your partner is
working
> >on).
> >
> >Try boycotting their payroll dept by quitting and see how much you would
> >rather your partner work to death instead of both of you starving.
>
> That is truly despicable. Indeed worthy of Ebenezer Scrooge. Where do you
get
> off mocking anyone with a choice between watching her husband get slowly
worked
> to death or watching the both of them and her family starve to death. Do
you
> believe in GOD?

I took the path of less money, took a job paying 1/3 of what I had
previously because the first job was killing me. Now I am healthy and wise,
just not wealthy.

You would be surprised how much you can live without if you just cut the
strings and let it go.

I stand by my previous post, they can either live the life they chose
willingly, or they can just walk away.


0
john
11/24/2004 2:59:33 AM
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:59:33 -0600, "john graesser" <graesser@tca.net>
wrote:


>I stand by my previous post, they can either live the life they chose
>willingly, or they can just walk away.
>
Yea, and go live in a cardboard box in some dark alley.
0
Trout
11/24/2004 7:50:56 AM
"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote:
>Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>
>http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>
>http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php 

OH NO
THE WHITE MAN HAS TO MOVE HIS FAT LITTLE FINGERS 12 HOURS A DAY
SOMEBODY PLEASE HELP THE WHITE MAN!!!!

I can't believe they are complaining that they can't get a job somewhere
else because EA and all the "bad guys" are buying up the little
companies. It's their fault EA et al are buying up the little companies
because they are putting so much effort into making EA a success.
Computer geeks are so easy to push around. They have no life skills at
all.
0
Bateau
11/24/2004 1:09:45 PM
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:39:03 GMT, "Alfredo Tutino"
<powernews@libero.it> wrote:

>< cut >
>
>> Although not at all socially acceptable, this type of thing is what
>> madethe US economy so powerful.  By being able to adapt to changing
>> conditions almost instantaneously, US companies continue to survive
>> and thrive.
>
>True enough. This is the kind of fact that when somebody says "Economy"
>prompts me to ask "Econo-whose, exactly?"
>
>Alfredo
>
>

Obviously it benefits those at the top.  Even if Execs are retrenched,
downsized in the US, they will still get huge severance packages.  All
this benefits the few at the top and the rest of us just have to hope
and pray that we are indispensable

Lynley
0
Lynley
11/24/2004 1:25:28 PM
"Trout" <fish@no.email> wrote in message
news:d9f8q0ldeq4qa9k82fe5ehp3tcthmtrjpk@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:59:33 -0600, "john graesser" <graesser@tca.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >I stand by my previous post, they can either live the life they chose
> >willingly, or they can just walk away.
> >
> Yea, and go live in a cardboard box in some dark alley.

Yeah, you told him!

The fool, he doesn't realise like you do that the only company on the planet
hiring right now is Electronic Arts and that the poster had a choice:
continue to work for EA or become a street person

Don't you hate those ignorant people who post without thinking like that?
Sheesh, other companies are hiring?  What was he thinking?  What magical
dream world does he live in?


0
Augustus
11/24/2004 4:35:43 PM
Lynley James bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white
hot flames, and screamed... 

>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:39:03 GMT, "Alfredo Tutino"
><powernews@libero.it> wrote:
>
>>< cut >
>>
>>> Although not at all socially acceptable, this type of thing is what
>>> madethe US economy so powerful.  By being able to adapt to changing
>>> conditions almost instantaneously, US companies continue to survive
>>> and thrive.
>>
>>True enough. This is the kind of fact that when somebody says "Economy"
>>prompts me to ask "Econo-whose, exactly?"
>>
>>Alfredo
>>
>>
>
>Obviously it benefits those at the top.  Even if Execs are retrenched,
>downsized in the US, they will still get huge severance packages.  All
>this benefits the few at the top and the rest of us just have to hope
>and pray that we are indispensable
>
Which, unless you've written some ungodly piece of COBOL of AS/400 code, we
aren't.


--
Zag

Guns cause crime
   like flies cause garbage 

		...bumper sticker
0
Zaghadka
11/24/2004 5:31:39 PM
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:35:43 -0800, "Augustus"
<Imperial.Palace@Rome.com> wrote:


>Yeah, you told him!
>
>The fool, he doesn't realise like you do that the only company on the planet
>hiring right now is Electronic Arts and that the poster had a choice:
>continue to work for EA or become a street person
>
>Don't you hate those ignorant people who post without thinking like that?
>Sheesh, other companies are hiring?  What was he thinking?  What magical
>dream world does he live in?
>
Read his post again. He never mentioned getting another job, he said,
"just walk away".
0
Trout
11/24/2004 5:46:33 PM
Carl Burke bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed... 

>So he finds another job. Plenty of them out there.

That really depends on where you live, and in today's economy, I'd have to say
you're talking out your hindquarters anyway. There is NO abundance of
acceptable jobs out there. We've actually lost American jobs over the past four
years for the first time since the Great Depression.

When's the last time you did a job search?

What's out there are lots of minimum wage jobs with no health benefits, a
choice that pretty much amounts to "starve to death" or "get sick to death."
Certainly means "throw away your hopes and aspirations." True, it's better than
no job at all, but only trivially so.

Plus, and this is key, some people NEED those health benefits. If he provides
the insurance and someone in his family, possibly himself, is chronically ill,
then he really does have no choice at all. At that point it becomes keep your
job with the health insurance or someone dies or becomes incapacitated by
illness.

I can't imagine you're older than 25. If you are, you've managed to insulate
yourself from reality pretty well. Getting a new job is not as trivial as you
make it out to be. Especially when you've established a long term career (the
guy's suposedly a game industry veteran).

I don't see why this guy, after probably having established himself a career,
made investments, accrued savings, bought a house, taken on the major
responsibility of supporting a family, etc. should have to go work at
MacDonald's and lose ALL OF IT because some unreasonable, crooked company's
legal department has advised them that they can get away with abusing their
employees. Do you?

I consider such employment practices akin to grand larceny. I hope EA gets hurt
bad by this class action. Their games suck anyway. No great loss. They probably
run a sweatshop because it's the only way they can profit from such garbage.


--
Zag

Guns cause crime
   like flies cause garbage 

		...bumper sticker
0
Zaghadka
11/24/2004 5:47:23 PM
Augustus bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed... 

>
>"Trout" <fish@no.email> wrote in message
>news:d9f8q0ldeq4qa9k82fe5ehp3tcthmtrjpk@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:59:33 -0600, "john graesser" <graesser@tca.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I stand by my previous post, they can either live the life they chose
>> >willingly, or they can just walk away.
>> >
>> Yea, and go live in a cardboard box in some dark alley.
>
>Yeah, you told him!
>
>The fool, he doesn't realise like you do that the only company on the planet
>hiring right now is Electronic Arts and that the poster had a choice:
>continue to work for EA or become a street person
>
>Don't you hate those ignorant people who post without thinking like that?
>Sheesh, other companies are hiring?  What was he thinking?  What magical
>dream world does he live in?
>

I think he meant, "Why not cut the strings and go live in a cardboard box?"
It's always an option.

Not a lot of companies are hiring right now. I know a guy in Texas who has a
PhD in geology and worked for the oil industry. Jobs were cut, he got trapped
(Family and stuff, real estate became unsellable, y'know? Maybe you don't. I
hope you don't know first hand because it's terrifying.) and now he manages a
Crown books. PhD in geology. Crown books. You do the math. This is not a dumb,
ignorant, or risk averse person either. It's just that his career decisions do
not only affect him, they affect his children.

How is wasting this guy's intelligence and potential helping our country, too?

When I came to Chicago, I was unburdened by others (single), I slept on my
winter coat in a cheap apartment devoid of furniture. I drank tap water with
lemons in it and ate nothing but Grape Nuts for a month while I lined up my
prospects. A single person has the option to do this.

I couldn't dream of doing something like that now. I have chronic illness in my
life. I need health insurance. Have you ever seen the joy of COBRA insurance
continuance? While you're unemployed, you get to drop 3/4 of your salary, if
not all of it, on your health care while trying to maintain enough dignity,
cleanliness, and meaningful health to actually carry out a job search.

Jefferson said one of our inalienable rights was "The pursuit of happiness."
Would you care to explain how people are supposed to pursue happiness when
employers are allowed to abuse the hell out of the "exempt" status jobs like
this?

Oh, that's right, they can learn how to say "Do you want to Super Size that?"
Bollux!


--
Zag

Guns cause crime
   like flies cause garbage 

		...bumper sticker
0
Zaghadka
11/24/2004 6:02:19 PM
Skeksis bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed... 

>"john graesser" <graesser@tca.net> wrote in
>news:10q225vk1lvhm58@corp.supernews.com: 
>
>> I'm sorry that they are treating you so badly, but since this is the
>> USA your partner is  free to quit and find another job that is more to
>> your liking. I don't buy EA products since the generally put out crap
>> (and now I see why if all their projects are run like the one your
>> partner is working on).
>> 
>> Try boycotting their payroll dept by quitting and see how much you
>> would rather your partner work to death instead of both of you
>> starving. 
>
>Well I think that this post puts you pretty high on the list of 'cold 
>insensative bastards with no clue'.  I can relate to the author of the 
>weblog knowing too many people trapped in lousy jobs abused by their 
>employers in the name of the Almighty Green Jesus (tm) and how have been 
>trying to get out but have been unsuccessful and it is not because they 
>are not qualified and skilled people.  Hell, I have even been there 
>myself.
>
>The job market absolutely sucks in the North East unless you are willing 
>to do C/S work and even that is horrendously underpaid compared to the 
>daily shit sandwich you have to eat.  The issue here is quality of life 
>something that too many companies actively wish to deny their employees.  
>Saying just quit and starve shows that you have no comprehension that the 
>real world is anything different than the broadcast sludge you obviously 
>spend too much time watching.
>
>Maybe some day you will either grow up or develop some empathy towards 
>others, maybe once you stop letting the masturbate-media spoonfeed you 
>your thoughts and opinions, but I am not going to waste anytime worrying 
>about you.  You will be forgotten as soon as the mesage thread dies out, 
>you won't even rate a tee shirt, but don't worry, there are lot of other 
>ignorant selfish pricks to take your place.
>

[sarcasm]
Well jeez. There was no need to actually match his insensitive nastiness about
it. ;^)
[/sarcasm]

Thanks for the jolt in perspective. Seriously. I'm clearly giving these trolls
more respect than they deserve.


--
Zag

Guns cause crime
   like flies cause garbage 

		...bumper sticker
0
zaghadka (700)
11/24/2004 6:08:41 PM
Bateau bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed... 

>"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote:
>>Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>>
>>http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>>
>>http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php 
>
>OH NO
>THE WHITE MAN HAS TO MOVE HIS FAT LITTLE FINGERS 12 HOURS A DAY
>SOMEBODY PLEASE HELP THE WHITE MAN!!!!
>
>I can't believe they are complaining that they can't get a job somewhere
>else because EA and all the "bad guys" are buying up the little
>companies. It's their fault EA et al are buying up the little companies
>because they are putting so much effort into making EA a success.
>Computer geeks are so easy to push around. They have no life skills at
>all.

Do you realize what an insensitive, ignorant prick you are? Please do us all a
favor and stop abusing your keyboard priveleges.

Oh, and the "white man" shit is completely racist, despite what Al Sharpton may
tell us.


--
Zag

Guns cause crime
   like flies cause garbage 

		...bumper sticker
0
Zaghadka
11/24/2004 6:10:49 PM
Zaghadka wrote:
> 
> Carl Burke bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
> flames, and screamed...
> 
> >So he finds another job. Plenty of them out there.
> 
> That really depends on where you live, and in today's economy, I'd have to say
> you're talking out your hindquarters anyway. There is NO abundance of
> acceptable jobs out there. We've actually lost American jobs over the past four
> years for the first time since the Great Depression.
> 
> When's the last time you did a job search?

About 20 years ago. I still get calls from time to time, but have no interest
in changing jobs. But maybe that's just the IT market on the east coast.
All I see around here is people hiring IT staff because companies have more
work than they have people for. But, sure, the job market isn't the same
everywhere. Maybe he should move to where the work is. I did. Lots of other
people do.

....
> I don't see why this guy, after probably having established himself a career,
> made investments, accrued savings, bought a house, taken on the major
> responsibility of supporting a family, etc. should have to go work at
> MacDonald's and lose ALL OF IT because some unreasonable, crooked company's
> legal department has advised them that they can get away with abusing their
> employees. Do you?

Has he? You assume he has children, a house, lots of responsibilities.
There was nothing in the LJ entry about children, home, debts, or any
reason other than inertia why they couldn't just work somewhere else.
Maybe he does, but it isn't stated up front. I have trouble picturing anybody
over 25 or so putting up with that garbage just to be a game programmer,
and few people that young are going to have much in the way of responsibilities,
but those are just my assumptions. Nothing is documented one way or the other.
You also assume he has to go work at McDonald's for minimum wage, throwing
away at least a few years of experience as a programmer. That's senseless.

But even assuming it wasn't. Suppose the only choice between working
an illegal 84 hour week for 40-hour-a-week wages is an unskilled job
flipping burgers. What do you suggest he do? Either he stays at EA,
or he leaves. If he stays there, knowing how bad it is, but doesn't do
anything to fix the problem, then he's just a whiny little victim.
At least leaving takes the responsibility for his life into his own hands.

Here's a thought, take the bastards to court. Work 40 hours a week,
get fired, and sue thier asses if thier practices are actually illegal.
And he gets unemployment benefits while he looks for another job.
He might want to get some _real_ legal advice before going down that road,
of course.
0
Carl
11/24/2004 7:23:03 PM
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:31:39 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Lynley James bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white
>hot flames, and screamed... 
>
>>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:39:03 GMT, "Alfredo Tutino"
>><powernews@libero.it> wrote:
>>
>>>< cut >
>>>
>>>> Although not at all socially acceptable, this type of thing is what
>>>> madethe US economy so powerful.  By being able to adapt to changing
>>>> conditions almost instantaneously, US companies continue to survive
>>>> and thrive.
>>>
>>>True enough. This is the kind of fact that when somebody says "Economy"
>>>prompts me to ask "Econo-whose, exactly?"
>>>
>>>Alfredo
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Obviously it benefits those at the top.  Even if Execs are retrenched,
>>downsized in the US, they will still get huge severance packages.  All
>>this benefits the few at the top and the rest of us just have to hope
>>and pray that we are indispensable
>>
>Which, unless you've written some ungodly piece of COBOL of AS/400 code, we
>aren't.

Why do you think I left coding and am now studying to be a CA?  And
before anyone asks a Chartered Accountant is NOT comparable to a CPA.

Lynley
0
Lynley
11/24/2004 8:56:31 PM
Joe62 <NOSPAMjmcginn@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<krl5q0prljb2d5onnj79ko56hdk0f3qdrc@4ax.com>...
> "Augustus" <Imperial.Palace@Rome.com> wrote:
> 
> >First: Is this problem, the big crunch time, the result of EA and its
> >management?  Or is it the result of the people working before the crunch
> >time?  Case in point: My own company.  I've had a few times in the past 2
> >years where we've had a big crunch time at the end to meet a deadline (where
> >everybody is working 15-18 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a month) and in
> >every case it was because someone down the line was slacking off and wound
> >up delaying the project for a couple of weeks where everybody had no choice
> >but to sit around for 3 or 4 weeks waiting for him to catch up with the rest
> >of us... and then we had to put in all the overtime to get back on schedule.
> 
> What a load of HORSESHIT. Schedule slippages are always management's
> fault. In every case. By definition. It is management's JOB to manage
> schedules, people, and sort out dependencies before they cause
> problems. If it's not happening, you are not doing YOUR job. Don't
> blame some worker because your project managers are lazy or
> incompetent. 
> 
Just curious as to the reasoning behind this. The project manager
assigned a chap 1 week to finish certain work, which he failed to
complete. The project manager then has no choice but to reassign some
of the work to others on the team, so now everyone has to work for
some extra hours to catch up. And it becomes the project manager's
fault? Or should the person who fails to finish the assigned tasks on
schedule should be fired?

I would really like to know about everyone's opinions on this.   :-)
0
inferno2000
11/25/2004 1:38:13 AM
"inferno2000" <inferno2000@my-deja.com> wrote in message 
news:a9390719.0411241738.28f509b8@posting.google.com...
> Joe62 <NOSPAMjmcginn@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
> news:<krl5q0prljb2d5onnj79ko56hdk0f3qdrc@4ax.com>...

>> What a load of HORSESHIT. Schedule slippages are always management's
>> fault. In every case. By definition. It is management's JOB to manage
>> schedules, people, and sort out dependencies before they cause
>> problems. If it's not happening, you are not doing YOUR job. Don't
>> blame some worker because your project managers are lazy or
>> incompetent.
>>
> Just curious as to the reasoning behind this. The project manager
> assigned a chap 1 week to finish certain work, which he failed to
> complete. The project manager then has no choice but to reassign some
> of the work to others on the team, so now everyone has to work for
> some extra hours to catch up. And it becomes the project manager's
> fault? Or should the person who fails to finish the assigned tasks on
> schedule should be fired?

Depends on who decided 1 week was enough.  Did the manager ask the 
programmer for his opinion if 1 week was enough?  Did the programmer 
disagree but the manager said "do it anyways"?  Did the programmer agree and 
said "no problem; I'll have it done", but then failed? 


0
Nonymous
11/25/2004 2:11:05 AM
drocket <drocket@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6347q0l0igt2ihu5bstkkr0mgoj3mms7fj@4ax.com>...
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:37:22 GMT, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >That means that countries that import US goods would require that US workers
> >earn the same wage as their workers.   So if US "Company X" tried to sell a
> >product in India, then the US worker would only receive $.45/hr (assuming
> >that's the standard wage in India).
> 
> No, because it would simply be a minimum.  If they want to pay their
> workers more, they can certainly feel free to.  It wouldn't override
> any local laws (unless some country has a 'maximum wage' law, though
> I'm not aware of any...)  Its ultimately no different from applying US
> safety laws to imported products.

Since the annual average income in China is $316, which is way below
the amount earned if paid with minimum wages, even earning minimum
wages will be extremely attractive in certain industries. The problem
is, the companies will then find it is completely infeasible to invest
overseas and therefore employ local instead.

It ends up many industry paying minimum wages to their employees
(which is not what everyone wants), the oversea trade market has died
off because they can hardly afford the products, and therefore, the
production is mainly for domestic consumption and maybe trading with
nations like European countries and Japan. As for the poorer Third
World, they form their own little economic circle and strives on Linux
instead of Windows. Microsoft increases software price to offset the
reduction in demand. Sames goes with many other industries which
derives part of their income from export. Many rich people are upset
because they have to pay more to their employees and has a smaller
market than before. Many goods increase in price because the labor
cost has increased.

Is this really a solution? Economy is a big circle in which when you
change one thing, you change everything. Sure, globalization as it is
now is making richer man in rich country become richer and poorer man
in rich country become poorer. But just setting a global minimum wage
does seem to cause a whole lot more problems than it tries to solve.
0
inferno2000
11/25/2004 2:42:30 AM
On 24 Nov 2004 18:42:30 -0800, inferno2000@my-deja.com (inferno2000)
wrote:

>It ends up many industry paying minimum wages to their employees
>(which is not what everyone wants), the oversea trade market has died
>off because they can hardly afford the products, and therefore, the
>production is mainly for domestic consumption and maybe trading with
>nations like European countries and Japan. As for the poorer Third
>World, they form their own little economic circle and strives on Linux
>instead of Windows. Microsoft increases software price to offset the
>reduction in demand. Sames goes with many other industries which
>derives part of their income from export. Many rich people are upset
>because they have to pay more to their employees and has a smaller
>market than before. Many goods increase in price because the labor
>cost has increased.

I call BS on your entire argument (except the rich people being mad,
part.  F*** the rich people.)  To start with (simply because its the
easist part), pretty much no-one outside of the US, Canada and parts
of Europe is buying Microsoft products anyway.  What little software
is sold in South America, Africa and Asia is pretty much 100% pirated.
When you're making $300 per year, $100+ for a copy of XP just isn't
going to happen.  Microsoft isn't going to lose any sales.  If
anything, the additional money being paid to the people who are
currently being paid slave wages, will create an additional market for
MS's (and other company's) products.

Now, the, addressing different parts seperately...

>It ends up many industry paying minimum wages to their employees
>(which is not what everyone wants)
Who exactly doesn't want this?  Oh, you mean the company owners who
are forcing 10 year olds to work 12 hour shifts making shoes for
barely enough money to avoid starving to death?  Yeah, I suppose they
probably wouldn't be terribly happy about it.  Fuck 'em.  Hope they
die.

Other than that, though, I suspect most people would be pretty happy
to earn enough to survive.

>the oversea trade market has died
>off because they can hardly afford the products
Partially, true, I suppose, though only because we didn't do this
already 20 years ago.  Better late than never, though:  things aren't
going to get any better as long as we continue to ship all our
high-paying jobs overseas so Walmart can make another percentage point
of profit.

Unless you're talking about the overseas markets not being able to
afford US products?  Its hard to say - you're not being particularly
clear.  If that is what you mean, what exactly makes you think that
they can afford US products already?  Again, you're not going to be
buying a copy of Windows XP for $100 when you're barely making enough
to buy rice.  If anything, raising wages overseas will create a new
market for US products.

>and therefore, the
>production is mainly for domestic consumption and maybe trading with
>nations like European countries and Japan.
Ok, then...  You ARE talking about US-produced goods?  Maybe?  If so,
then it doesn't matter:  Japan and Europe are, for the most part,
already making US-minimum wage, and won't be affected in any
meaningful way.  

>Many goods increase in price because the labor
>cost has increased.
So what you're arguing is that slavery and starvation wages are good,
as long as it leads to cheap shoes?


0
drocket
11/25/2004 3:44:33 AM
Nonymous bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed... 

>
>"inferno2000" <inferno2000@my-deja.com> wrote in message 
>news:a9390719.0411241738.28f509b8@posting.google.com...
>> Joe62 <NOSPAMjmcginn@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
>> news:<krl5q0prljb2d5onnj79ko56hdk0f3qdrc@4ax.com>...
>
>>> What a load of HORSESHIT. Schedule slippages are always management's
>>> fault. In every case. By definition. It is management's JOB to manage
>>> schedules, people, and sort out dependencies before they cause
>>> problems. If it's not happening, you are not doing YOUR job. Don't
>>> blame some worker because your project managers are lazy or
>>> incompetent.
>>>
>> Just curious as to the reasoning behind this. The project manager
>> assigned a chap 1 week to finish certain work, which he failed to
>> complete. The project manager then has no choice but to reassign some
>> of the work to others on the team, so now everyone has to work for
>> some extra hours to catch up. And it becomes the project manager's
>> fault? Or should the person who fails to finish the assigned tasks on
>> schedule should be fired?
>
>Depends on who decided 1 week was enough.  Did the manager ask the 
>programmer for his opinion if 1 week was enough?  Did the programmer 
>disagree but the manager said "do it anyways"?  Did the programmer agree and 
>said "no problem; I'll have it done", but then failed? 
>
For one work slippage, no. No firing.

For consistent failure to miss deadlines in the way you describe. Yes. Of
course the employee should be fired. That's a given.

If the project manager are unrealistic however, he pays. He pays with high
turnover from firing people who don't make ridiculously unrealistic deadlines
or from defections of truly talented people who are pissed off. The few gems
that really make your operation shine are EVERYTHING.

Hopefully, the project manager's boss notices all the turnover and then the
*project manager* gets fired. It seldom works this way however, as current
corporate culture seems to buy the "It's all the employee's fault" argument far
too often and far too willingly. The dilligent, effective worker is all too
often seen as a pawn to exploit and not an asset. The blame game is frequently
used to preserve middle management jobs. It's quite effective.

What is supposed to happen is first there is high turnover. Then entire teams
start to fall apart as the work schedule becomes a constant game of catch up in
bringing the new folks up to speed. When entire teams start missing their
deadlines, then it's time to replace your project managers, NOT allow them to
put your green, constantly changing workforce on eternal crunch time. 

Once again, the work suffers if you don't discipline/fire people. Any upper
manager who accepts high turnover and Draconian work conditions from his
project managers is shooting himself in the foot.

I think it's pretty clear that the buck keeps travelling up the line until the
CEO either reads the writing on the wall and bails taking all the money he can
(or an insanely generous serverance) or gets himself fired by the board with a
somewhat less generous, but still insane severance.

In other words, such problems spiral up the management chain until someone is
held accountable. Too often, it spirals right past the board room and off into
orbit. It is critical to a company that the MANAGERS be held accountable for
crap like poor working conditions or high turnover.

Thus, the slippages are not "always" management's fault, but it is, IMHO, a
more intelligent strategy to see it that way. Let the new manager fix what's
screwed up instead of playing the blame game. When middle management turnover
goes nuts, you replace upper management. Hopefully, they fix what's fucked up.
That doesn't work? Replace the CEO. Your management is what secures real talent
and makes every effort to retain them.

So yes. If the project manager is always compensating for incompetant workers,
then he's making POOR HIRES and is resposible. There is no reason for things to
spiral so completely out of control as EA_Spouse alleges EA has allowed.

If she's correct that it's all deliberate, then it sounds like it goes all the
way up to the CEO. If that's the case, I hope that class action suit stings.
More likely, he'll just get an insane severance and move on.


--
Zag

Guns cause crime
   like flies cause garbage 

		...bumper sticker
0
Zaghadka
11/25/2004 8:58:53 AM
Lynley James bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white
hot flames, and screamed... 

>On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:31:39 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Lynley James bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white
>>hot flames, and screamed... 
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:39:03 GMT, "Alfredo Tutino"
>>><powernews@libero.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>>< cut >
>>>>
>>>>> Although not at all socially acceptable, this type of thing is what
>>>>> madethe US economy so powerful.  By being able to adapt to changing
>>>>> conditions almost instantaneously, US companies continue to survive
>>>>> and thrive.
>>>>
>>>>True enough. This is the kind of fact that when somebody says "Economy"
>>>>prompts me to ask "Econo-whose, exactly?"
>>>>
>>>>Alfredo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously it benefits those at the top.  Even if Execs are retrenched,
>>>downsized in the US, they will still get huge severance packages.  All
>>>this benefits the few at the top and the rest of us just have to hope
>>>and pray that we are indispensable
>>>
>>Which, unless you've written some ungodly piece of COBOL of AS/400 code, we
>>aren't.
>
>Why do you think I left coding and am now studying to be a CA?  And
>before anyone asks a Chartered Accountant is NOT comparable to a CPA.

What is it comparable to then? Just curious. All I can think of is the
"Vocational Guidance Counselor" sketch.

--
Zag

I want to be a lion tamer!
0
Zaghadka
11/25/2004 9:11:24 AM
Carl Burke bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed... 

>Here's a thought, take the bastards to court. Work 40 hours a week,
>get fired, and sue thier asses if thier practices are actually illegal

There's a class action against EA. That's exactly what's happening.

I agree with you completely there. Problem is, current labor law regarding the
"exempt" employee is far too liberal towards management abuse of employees.

IANAL, but it's very possible that EA is within their rights to do all the
things EA_Spouse claims. The fact that there is any doubt, even if EA_Spouse
hasn't embellished a thing, says something about the state of labor law.


--
Zag

Guns cause crime
   like flies cause garbage 

		...bumper sticker
0
Zaghadka
11/25/2004 9:18:29 AM
Carl Burke bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed... 

>Has he? You assume he has children, a house, lots of responsibilities.
>There was nothing in the LJ entry about children, home, debts, or any
>reason other than inertia why they couldn't just work somewhere else.
>Maybe he does, but it isn't stated up front. I have trouble picturing anybody
>over 25 or so putting up with that garbage just to be a game programmer,
>and few people that young are going to have much in the way of responsibilities,
>but those are just my assumptions.

True. I've made some assumptions. Point taken. We've actually found some common
ground here, and I'm pleasantly surprised. He should sue the bastards.


--
Zag

Guns cause crime
   like flies cause garbage 

		...bumper sticker
0
Zaghadka
11/25/2004 9:20:47 AM
On 24 Nov 2004 17:38:13 -0800, inferno2000@my-deja.com (inferno2000)
wrote:

>Just curious as to the reasoning behind this. The project manager
>assigned a chap 1 week to finish certain work, which he failed to
>complete. The project manager then has no choice but to reassign some
>of the work to others on the team, so now everyone has to work for
>some extra hours to catch up. And it becomes the project manager's
>fault? 

Yup. That's a faulty schedule. Such tight dependencies need to be
identified and planned for in advance. Not saying that's easy ... but
if you lack this ability or a method of doing this, you cannot be a
good software project manager, period.

Secondly, you need to look at WHY the task was late. Rarely is the
cause a "lazy employee" (and if so why is he still working for you?).
Usually it's bad time estimates. It's also the project manager's job
to get accurate time estimates ... and to build in slack in the
schedule for typical known causes of slippage ...  illness of
employees, inexperience of a particular person doing the task or
estimating time for it, novelty of the task (e.g., is it something
your company has never done before)? So not only do you get realistic
estimates, you have actual formulas for expanding the time based on
how inaccurate you know the estimate itself to be.

Oh yeah, to get back on topic re EA and overtime ... a typical cause
of bad time estimates is that employers *rarely* track how long it
actually takes to do something. So someone codes something in two
weeks during a crunch, and it's never logged that the programmer
actually worked 140 hours in those two weeks. So the same mistake is
repeated on the next project, a similar task is scheduled for two
weeks.
0
Joe62
11/25/2004 5:20:47 PM
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 02:58:53 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Thus, the slippages are not "always" management's fault, but it is, IMHO, a
>more intelligent strategy to see it that way. 

Well said Zag, good post and worded more diplomatically than I
managed. ;-)

As you note solutions can only come from the top down, byf holding
management and project managers responsible for the kind of situation
EA as degraded into. Of course that's easier said than done. Even if
the EA CEO decided today that he wanted to work more intelligently, it
wouldn't be easy to turn a ship that big around. Because essentially
it would mean to change 180 degrees the philosophy of every manager in
the company  ... something we all know is nearly impossible for even
one manager. These managers were hired and promoted precisely because
of their incompetent galley-slave-driver philosophy.

The other direction that change may come from is shareholder revolt.
As this brilliant article puts it, "It's not just Abusive. It's
Stupid.":
http://enginesofmischief.com/blogs/ramblings/archives/2004/11/11/643#more-643
0
Joe62
11/25/2004 5:33:52 PM
In message <a9390719.0411241738.28f509b8@posting.google.com>, 
inferno2000 <inferno2000@my-deja.com> writes
>Joe62 <NOSPAMjmcginn@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
>news:<krl5q0prljb2d5onnj79ko56hdk0f3qdrc@4ax.com>...
>> "Augustus" <Imperial.Palace@Rome.com> wrote:
>>
>> >First: Is this problem, the big crunch time, the result of EA and its
>> >management?  Or is it the result of the people working before the crunch
>> >time?  Case in point: My own company.  I've had a few times in the past 2
>> >years where we've had a big crunch time at the end to meet a deadline (where
>> >everybody is working 15-18 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a month) and in
>> >every case it was because someone down the line was slacking off and wound
>> >up delaying the project for a couple of weeks where everybody had no choice
>> >but to sit around for 3 or 4 weeks waiting for him to catch up with the rest
>> >of us... and then we had to put in all the overtime to get back on schedule.
>>
>> What a load of HORSESHIT. Schedule slippages are always management's
>> fault. In every case. By definition. It is management's JOB to manage
>> schedules, people, and sort out dependencies before they cause
>> problems. If it's not happening, you are not doing YOUR job. Don't
>> blame some worker because your project managers are lazy or
>> incompetent.
>>
>Just curious as to the reasoning behind this. The project manager
>assigned a chap 1 week to finish certain work, which he failed to
>complete. The project manager then has no choice but to reassign some
>of the work to others on the team, so now everyone has to work for
>some extra hours to catch up. And it becomes the project manager's
>fault? Or should the person who fails to finish the assigned tasks on
>schedule should be fired?
>
>I would really like to know about everyone's opinions on this.   :-)
Very clear, it is the PM's fault. It is his job to identify a piece of 
work which will take a week (or whatever), assign it to someone who is 
capable of completing the work in the time, and then monitor progress to 
ensure it happens. If the employee had been with the company some time, 
the PM should have known their capabilities, or found out. If the 
employee was a new hire, then the PM should not have assigned them to a 
critical task, and/or should have monitored progress closely enough to 
take corrective action in time. If it turns out that the employee is 
incompetent then they may eventually be sacked because they are not up 
to the job, of course, but the blame for the late delivery of the 
project lies squarely with the PM. It is a constant refrain from weak 
PMs whose jobs are late - "It's all Jim's fault, he did a bad job". It 
is the PM's responsibility to ensure that Jim does the job right, or 
give it to someone who can.
-- 
John Secker
0
John
11/25/2004 7:39:32 PM
Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:5b4bq0dtv390o0a1e2ncij5vt0v706m7pi@4ax.com: 

> Nonymous bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked,
> white hot flames, and screamed... 
> 
>>
>>"inferno2000" <inferno2000@my-deja.com> wrote in message 
>>news:a9390719.0411241738.28f509b8@posting.google.com...
>>> Joe62 <NOSPAMjmcginn@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
>>> news:<krl5q0prljb2d5onnj79ko56hdk0f3qdrc@4ax.com>...
>>
>>>> What a load of HORSESHIT. Schedule slippages are always management's
>>>> fault. In every case. By definition. It is management's JOB to
>>>> manage schedules, people, and sort out dependencies before they
>>>> cause problems. If it's not happening, you are not doing YOUR job.
>>>> Don't blame some worker because your project managers are lazy or
>>>> incompetent. 
>>>>
>>> Just curious as to the reasoning behind this. The project manager
>>> assigned a chap 1 week to finish certain work, which he failed to
>>> complete. The project manager then has no choice but to reassign some
>>> of the work to others on the team, so now everyone has to work for
>>> some extra hours to catch up. And it becomes the project manager's
>>> fault? Or should the person who fails to finish the assigned tasks on
>>> schedule should be fired? 
>>
>>Depends on who decided 1 week was enough.  Did the manager ask the 
>>programmer for his opinion if 1 week was enough?  Did the programmer 
>>disagree but the manager said "do it anyways"?  Did the programmer
>>agree and said "no problem; I'll have it done", but then failed? 
>>
> For one work slippage, no. No firing.
> 
> For consistent failure to miss deadlines in the way you describe. Yes.
> Of course the employee should be fired. That's a given.
And how will it help you to get the job done? The problem in the industry 
is that it is very difficult to find competent programmers. While reading 
Usenet it may not seem that way, but when you need one, somehow all those 
good programmers seem to be happily employed somewhere else. And those who 
apply for the position usually have a good reason to be looking for a job. 
Something like function that reverses the string often appears to be 
unsurmountable challenge (it may look like a joke, but it is not). I think 
(but it's more of a guess) that this problem comes from the dot-com times, 
when the companies were hiring just about everybody. 

Alex.
0
QQalextiQQ
11/26/2004 12:29:12 AM
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:29:12 GMT,
QQalextiQQ@videotron.few.useless.chars.ca (alexti) wrote:

>And how will it help you to get the job done? The problem in the industry 
>is that it is very difficult to find competent programmers. 

It's MUCH harder to find competent managers. That's the real problem.
;-)
0
Joe62
11/26/2004 1:11:30 AM
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:29:12 GMT,
QQalextiQQ@videotron.few.useless.chars.ca (alexti) wrote:

>And how will it help you to get the job done?

How will continuing to employ someone who's not doing the job help you
get the job done?  If anything, you're just going to wind up having
your productive employees quit on you because they're sick of getting
unnecessary work dumped on them when the loser is slacking off.
0
drocket
11/26/2004 1:12:15 AM
Dito


"Alfredo Tutino" <powernews@libero.it> wrote in message
news:HdNod.47473$Ni.1648782@twister1.libero.it...
> < cut >
>
> > "'My Country Right or Wrong' is like saying 'My Mother, Drunk or
> > Sober'."
> > --Chesterton
>
> That's quite good, Toni. My compliments.
>
> Alfredo
>
>
>
>


0
DoubleEntendre
11/26/2004 1:40:17 AM
In article <7Qvpd.11367$Ae.5236@newsread1.
dllstx09.us.to.verio.net>, "DoubleEntendre" <potatoesjoe@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Dito
>
>
>"Alfredo Tutino" <powernews@libero.it> wrote in message
>news:HdNod.47473$Ni.1648782@twister1.libero.it...
>> < cut >
>>
>> > "'My Country Right or Wrong' is like saying 'My Mother, Drunk or
>> > Sober'."
>> > --Chesterton

HUH ? I don't know about you, but I'd support my mom [ God rest
her soul ] drunk or sober.

Jim







0
bombelly
11/26/2004 2:07:06 AM
Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Bateau bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
>flames, and screamed... 
>
>>"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote:
>>>Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>>>
>>>http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>>>
>>>http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php 
>>
>>OH NO
>>THE WHITE MAN HAS TO MOVE HIS FAT LITTLE FINGERS 12 HOURS A DAY
>>SOMEBODY PLEASE HELP THE WHITE MAN!!!!
>>
>>I can't believe they are complaining that they can't get a job somewhere
>>else because EA and all the "bad guys" are buying up the little
>>companies. It's their fault EA et al are buying up the little companies
>>because they are putting so much effort into making EA a success.
>>Computer geeks are so easy to push around. They have no life skills at
>>all.
>
>Do you realize what an insensitive, ignorant prick you are? Please do us all a
>favor and stop abusing your keyboard priveleges.

I don't see you refuting me. Truth hurts bitch.

>Oh, and the "white man" shit is completely racist, despite what Al Sharpton may
>tell us.

I bet you're one of those self hating whites.
0
Bateau
11/26/2004 12:44:14 PM
Destroy <ask@meplease.com> wrote in message news:<RK2od.50957$ye4.42996@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.
> 
> 
> Bill wrote:
> > Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> > 
> > http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> > 
> > http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php 

Yeah, everyone should leave.  It is called a strike!

- Richard Hutnik
0
richardhutnik
11/26/2004 1:34:39 PM
John Secker bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white
hot flames, and screamed... 

>In message <a9390719.0411241738.28f509b8@posting.google.com>, 
>inferno2000 <inferno2000@my-deja.com> writes
>>Joe62 <NOSPAMjmcginn@shaw.ca> wrote in message 
>>news:<krl5q0prljb2d5onnj79ko56hdk0f3qdrc@4ax.com>...
>>> "Augustus" <Imperial.Palace@Rome.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >First: Is this problem, the big crunch time, the result of EA and its
>>> >management?  Or is it the result of the people working before the crunch
>>> >time?  Case in point: My own company.  I've had a few times in the past 2
>>> >years where we've had a big crunch time at the end to meet a deadline (where
>>> >everybody is working 15-18 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a month) and in
>>> >every case it was because someone down the line was slacking off and wound
>>> >up delaying the project for a couple of weeks where everybody had no choice
>>> >but to sit around for 3 or 4 weeks waiting for him to catch up with the rest
>>> >of us... and then we had to put in all the overtime to get back on schedule.
>>>
>>> What a load of HORSESHIT. Schedule slippages are always management's
>>> fault. In every case. By definition. It is management's JOB to manage
>>> schedules, people, and sort out dependencies before they cause
>>> problems. If it's not happening, you are not doing YOUR job. Don't
>>> blame some worker because your project managers are lazy or
>>> incompetent.
>>>
>>Just curious as to the reasoning behind this. The project manager
>>assigned a chap 1 week to finish certain work, which he failed to
>>complete. The project manager then has no choice but to reassign some
>>of the work to others on the team, so now everyone has to work for
>>some extra hours to catch up. And it becomes the project manager's
>>fault? Or should the person who fails to finish the assigned tasks on
>>schedule should be fired?
>>
>>I would really like to know about everyone's opinions on this.   :-)
>Very clear, it is the PM's fault. It is his job to identify a piece of 
>work which will take a week (or whatever), assign it to someone who is 
>capable of completing the work in the time, and then monitor progress to 
>ensure it happens. If the employee had been with the company some time, 
>the PM should have known their capabilities, or found out. If the 
>employee was a new hire, then the PM should not have assigned them to a 
>critical task, and/or should have monitored progress closely enough to 
>take corrective action in time. If it turns out that the employee is 
>incompetent then they may eventually be sacked because they are not up 
>to the job, of course, but the blame for the late delivery of the 
>project lies squarely with the PM. It is a constant refrain from weak 
>PMs whose jobs are late - "It's all Jim's fault, he did a bad job". It 
>is the PM's responsibility to ensure that Jim does the job right, or 
>give it to someone who can.

Spot on, John.


--
Zag

Guns cause crime
   like flies cause garbage 

		...bumper sticker
0
Zaghadka
11/26/2004 6:57:47 PM
Bateau bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed... 

>Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Bateau bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
>>flames, and screamed... 
>>
>>>"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote:
>>>>Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>>>>
>>>>http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>>>>
>>>>http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php 
>>>
>>>OH NO
>>>THE WHITE MAN HAS TO MOVE HIS FAT LITTLE FINGERS 12 HOURS A DAY
>>>SOMEBODY PLEASE HELP THE WHITE MAN!!!!
>>>
>>>I can't believe they are complaining that they can't get a job somewhere
>>>else because EA and all the "bad guys" are buying up the little
>>>companies. It's their fault EA et al are buying up the little companies
>>>because they are putting so much effort into making EA a success.
>>>Computer geeks are so easy to push around. They have no life skills at
>>>all.
>>
>>Do you realize what an insensitive, ignorant prick you are? Please do us all a
>>favor and stop abusing your keyboard priveleges.
>
>I don't see you refuting me. Truth hurts bitch.
>
You don't have to refute an opinion that is idiotic, callous, racist,
inflammatory and typed up without a second's thought. You think I'm going to
bother wasting my time with a thought out rebuttal of someone who uses the word
"bitch" in his return arguments? You're an ignoramus. That's the only thing I
need write.

In other words, my mentally challenged friend, this is and was a FLAME not a
rebuttal.

>>Oh, and the "white man" shit is completely racist, despite what Al Sharpton may
>>tell us.
>
>I bet you're one of those self hating whites.

That made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Please take your computer into the
shower, plug it in, and turn the water on. Thank you.

Bwhahahahahahaha!
0
Zaghadka
11/26/2004 7:10:18 PM
drocket <drocket@hotmail.com> wrote in 
news:ir0dq0hu7f6h6v5cm16t3l6gc7dede8hl4@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:29:12 GMT,
> QQalextiQQ@videotron.few.useless.chars.ca (alexti) wrote:
> 
>>And how will it help you to get the job done?
> 
> How will continuing to employ someone who's not doing the job help you
> get the job done?  If anything, you're just going to wind up having
> your productive employees quit on you because they're sick of getting
> unnecessary work dumped on them when the loser is slacking off.
They would still to have to do the same work, whether you fire employee who
keeps missing deadlines or not. On the other hand, if that employee is 
capable of doing reasonable work in his own time, you may just stop giving 
him anything urgent. Some people totally crumble under the pressure, while 
they can do acceptable job when the pressure is not there (and others are 
exactly opposite). 

Of course, it could be nice to replace him with a much better programmer, 
but in practice you often have to do with resources you've got.

So I'd say the good manager has to recognize each individual's strong and 
week sides and use them wisely.

Alex.


0
QQalextiQQ
11/27/2004 12:12:38 AM
You misspelled three words in your title. It should be:

EA treats its employees worst than its customers


Is your apostrophe key randomly activated or something?

Sincerely,
Mr. 720 GRE verbal




"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote in message news:<vE1od.297559$%k.36542@pd7tw2no>...
> Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> 
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> 
> http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
0
digital_puer
11/27/2004 3:39:03 AM
< cut >

> >> > "'My Country Right or Wrong' is like saying 'My Mother, Drunk or
> >> > Sober'."
> >> > --Chesterton
>
> HUH ? I don't know about you, but I'd support my mom [ God rest
> her soul ] drunk or sober.
>
> Jim

Me too, even if she's still alive ;-).

I've never seen her more than the weest bit tipsy, however...

But I find that this is both obvious and not very meaningful. If somebody I
love makes a very bad mistake - for instance because she's drunk - I'd do
everything I can to protect her from any harm, as a matter of course; but I
would not say that what she did is right or that the persons she may have
harmed are wrong or do not deserve some sort of compensation. And even less
I'd contribute to harm them further.

And the best way to protect and help a person who is drunk is (generally) to
take (temporarily) away her right to decide for
herself. Thus: to protect her is ok. To let her lead is wrong.

Mutatis mutandis, it might be interesting to apply some of this back to the
case of "my
country"...

Alfredo




0
Alfredo
11/27/2004 10:44:44 PM
Richard Hutnik <richardhutnik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
37bc9e37.0411260534.33e5802@posting.google.com...
> Destroy <ask@meplease.com> wrote in message
news:<RK2od.50957$ye4.42996@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.
> >
> >
> > Bill wrote:
> > > Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> > >
> > > http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> > >
> > > http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
>
> Yeah, everyone should leave.  It is called a strike!

Oh my, a four letter word! No, wait, let me count, it is a FIVE letter word!
ONE LETTER WORSE!!!
Too long too. You are one of those I-know-all types, aren't you?

Alfredo


0
Alfredo
11/27/2004 10:44:52 PM
In message <80678590.0411261939.6d4c44a7@posting.google.com>, Digital 
Puer <digital_puer@hotmail.com> writes
>You misspelled three words in your title. It should be:
>
>EA treats its employees worst than its customers
>
>
>Is your apostrophe key randomly activated or something?
>
No, he's a greengrocer in real life (or does that only work in the UK?)
-- 
John Secker
0
John
11/28/2004 1:45:51 AM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:30:51 GMT, "Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom>
wrote:

>Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>
>http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>
>http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php 
>


Doesn't the state of California have strict overtime compensation
laws?
0
Mitch
11/28/2004 2:46:36 PM
"Alfredo Tutino" <powernews@libero.it> wrote in message news:<Er7qd.55343$Es2.1185055@twister2.libero.it>...
> Richard Hutnik <richardhutnik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> 37bc9e37.0411260534.33e5802@posting.google.com...
> > Destroy <ask@meplease.com> wrote in message
>  news:<RK2od.50957$ye4.42996@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > > Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.
> > >
> > >
> > > Bill wrote:
> > > > Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> > > >
> > > > http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> > > >
> > > > http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
> >
> > Yeah, everyone should leave.  It is called a strike!
> 
> Oh my, a four letter word! No, wait, let me count, it is a FIVE letter word!
> ONE LETTER WORSE!!!
> Too long too. You are one of those I-know-all types, aren't you?
> 
> Alfredo

Well, at least I know a few things (considering by undergrad degree
was in Management). This is better than the know nothings who yell
about the world and argue for the world to be worse for themselves, in
the name of "principles".

Yes, a "STRIKE".  It is something workers collectively do to get
better work conditions.  Do you SERIOUSLY think corporations will
magically try to make things better for workers, when their main
principle is to maximize profits?

- Richard Hutnik
0
richardhutnik
11/28/2004 5:30:59 PM
Richard Hutnik <richardhutnik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
37bc9e37.0411280930.53d2bdea@posting.google.com...
> "Alfredo Tutino" <powernews@libero.it> wrote in message
news:<Er7qd.55343$Es2.1185055@twister2.libero.it>...
> > Richard Hutnik <richardhutnik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > 37bc9e37.0411260534.33e5802@posting.google.com...
> > > Destroy <ask@meplease.com> wrote in message
> >  news:<RK2od.50957$ye4.42996@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > > > Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bill wrote:
> > > > > Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
> > >
> > > Yeah, everyone should leave.  It is called a strike!
> >
> > Oh my, a four letter word! No, wait, let me count, it is a FIVE letter
word!
> > ONE LETTER WORSE!!!
> > Too long too. You are one of those I-know-all types, aren't you?
> >
> > Alfredo
>
> Well, at least I know a few things (considering by undergrad degree
> was in Management). This is better than the know nothings who yell
> about the world and argue for the world to be worse for themselves, in
> the name of "principles".
>
> Yes, a "STRIKE".  It is something workers collectively do to get
> better work conditions.  Do you SERIOUSLY think corporations will
> magically try to make things better for workers, when their main
> principle is to maximize profits?
>
> - Richard Hutnik

Excuse me, Richard. I was trying to be funny (I even miscounted the number
of letters in "strike"!). But I didn't succeed.

I quite agree, in fact, with what you said about strikes and the need for
it, of course. I was trying (rather clumsily, it now turns out) to make just
the point that so many things that have been associated with communism
socialism and other forms of left-wing activity, but have in fact good
reasons to exist quite independently from it (as, for instance, strikes)
have come to be treated by some people (especially beyond the Atlantic) as
unspeakable horrors - even sometimes as some form of moral degeneracy - and
not as a normal part of the way any real democratic society manages the
differences among its components.

The matter of course would deserve much longer (and more serious)
discussion, and this is not the place for it.

For the sake of clarity, let me state at any rate, that: 1) I do think that
strikes are often a necessary tool for workers - and not only I've been on
strike myself, I've even been among the organizers of strikes; 2) I'm truly
sorry of having expressed my meaning so clumsily in my previous post.
Probably I should be wary of trying my hand at humor in a foreign language.

Alfredo


0
Alfredo
11/28/2004 9:27:26 PM
Digital Puer bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white
hot flames, and screamed... 

>You misspelled three words in your title. It should be:
>
>EA treats its employees worst than its customers
>
>
>Is your apostrophe key randomly activated or something?
>
>Sincerely,
>Mr. 720 GRE verbal
>
>
>
More importantly, what the hell happened to your "E" key? It's not *that* close
to the "T" key. The above should read:

E'A' !rreatsszz izz employee'z *worse* thannnn izzz cuztemersz. ;^)

--
Zag
Mr. 750 GRE vicious, biting, and mostly irrelevant sarcasm
0
Zaghadka
11/28/2004 9:39:15 PM
"Alfredo Tutino" <powernews@libero.it> wrote in message news:<2prqd.56550$Es2.1227833@twister2.libero.it>...
> Richard Hutnik <richardhutnik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> 37bc9e37.0411280930.53d2bdea@posting.google.com...
> > "Alfredo Tutino" <powernews@libero.it> wrote in message
>  news:<Er7qd.55343$Es2.1185055@twister2.libero.it>...
> > > Richard Hutnik <richardhutnik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > 37bc9e37.0411260534.33e5802@posting.google.com...
> > > > Destroy <ask@meplease.com> wrote in message
>  news:<RK2od.50957$ye4.42996@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > > > > Umm..if you don't like your job - LEAVE. Simple as that.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill wrote:
> > > > > > Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, everyone should leave.  It is called a strike!
> > >
> > > Oh my, a four letter word! No, wait, let me count, it is a FIVE letter
>  word!
> > > ONE LETTER WORSE!!!
> > > Too long too. You are one of those I-know-all types, aren't you?
> > >
> > > Alfredo
> >
> > Well, at least I know a few things (considering by undergrad degree
> > was in Management). This is better than the know nothings who yell
> > about the world and argue for the world to be worse for themselves, in
> > the name of "principles".
> >
> > Yes, a "STRIKE".  It is something workers collectively do to get
> > better work conditions.  Do you SERIOUSLY think corporations will
> > magically try to make things better for workers, when their main
> > principle is to maximize profits?
> >
> > - Richard Hutnik
> 
> Excuse me, Richard. I was trying to be funny (I even miscounted the number
> of letters in "strike"!). But I didn't succeed.

Forgive me for replying like that.  I have been posting on
alt.politics.bush way too long, and I get responses like that.

> I quite agree, in fact, with what you said about strikes and the need for
> it, of course. I was trying (rather clumsily, it now turns out) to make just
> the point that so many things that have been associated with communism
> socialism and other forms of left-wing activity, but have in fact good
> reasons to exist quite independently from it (as, for instance, strikes)
> have come to be treated by some people (especially beyond the Atlantic) as
> unspeakable horrors - even sometimes as some form of moral degeneracy - and
> not as a normal part of the way any real democratic society manages the
> differences among its components.

This world has become warped now.  When I see Ralph Nader pleading his
case to be elected with readers of "American Conservative" magazine,
you tell me what is left-wing and right-wing any more.  It seems like
left-wing global-minded socialists are now doing the work of
multi-national corporations.

> The matter of course would deserve much longer (and more serious)
> discussion, and this is not the place for it.
> 
> For the sake of clarity, let me state at any rate, that: 1) I do think that
> strikes are often a necessary tool for workers - and not only I've been on
> strike myself, I've even been among the organizers of strikes; 2) I'm truly
> sorry of having expressed my meaning so clumsily in my previous post.
> Probably I should be wary of trying my hand at humor in a foreign language.

No worry.  Again, I thought MAYBE you were trying to joke, but wasn't
sure.

Maybe sticking a :-P emoticon at the end would of helped.

- Richard Hutnik
0
richardhutnik
11/29/2004 12:59:08 PM
On 28 Nov 2004 09:30:59 -0800, richardhutnik@hotmail.com (Richard
Hutnik) wrote:

>Yes, a "STRIKE".  It is something workers collectively do to get
>better work conditions.  Do you SERIOUSLY think corporations will
>magically try to make things better for workers, when their main
>principle is to maximize profits?

Of course, you could also go all out and do the 'General Strike' and
demand political reform and in some cases real social change, from it.
This depends on if there is high enough political conciousness amongst
workers. Something tells me that the bush/blair war has caused a
raising of political awareness amongst people which has not been seen
since the late 60's.

The best game I have seen this modelled is 'Victoria' by paradox;
don't give you workers what they need, or tax them too much, they gain
militancy and conciousness and if it gets to bad, hey, you just
converted to a Communist State. 




0
kevin
11/29/2004 2:40:34 PM
Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Bateau bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
>flames, and screamed... 
>
>>Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Bateau bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
>>>flames, and screamed... 
>>>
>>>>"Bill" <mrspamnobillo@nospam.bom> wrote:
>>>>>Just more reasons not to by Anything from EA
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.igda.org/qol/open_letter.php 
>>>>
>>>>OH NO
>>>>THE WHITE MAN HAS TO MOVE HIS FAT LITTLE FINGERS 12 HOURS A DAY
>>>>SOMEBODY PLEASE HELP THE WHITE MAN!!!!
>>>>
>>>>I can't believe they are complaining that they can't get a job somewhere
>>>>else because EA and all the "bad guys" are buying up the little
>>>>companies. It's their fault EA et al are buying up the little companies
>>>>because they are putting so much effort into making EA a success.
>>>>Computer geeks are so easy to push around. They have no life skills at
>>>>all.
>>>
>>>Do you realize what an insensitive, ignorant prick you are? Please do us all a
>>>favor and stop abusing your keyboard priveleges.
>>
>>I don't see you refuting me. Truth hurts bitch.
>>
>You don't have to refute an opinion that is idiotic, callous, racist,
>inflammatory and typed up without a second's thought.

Then why did you reply?

>You think I'm going to
>bother wasting my time with a thought out rebuttal of someone who uses the word
>"bitch" in his return arguments? You're an ignoramus. That's the only thing I
>need write.

Using the word "bitch" means what exactly? I'm glad you're not arguing
with me because someone so illogical could only frustrate me.

>In other words, my mentally challenged friend, this is and was a FLAME not a
>rebuttal.
>
>>>Oh, and the "white man" shit is completely racist, despite what Al Sharpton may
>>>tell us.
>>
>>I bet you're one of those self hating whites.
>
>That made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Please take your computer into the
>shower, plug it in, and turn the water on. Thank you.
>
>Bwhahahahahahaha!

0
Bateau
11/30/2004 10:10:34 AM
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:21:36 GMT, Joe62 <NOSPAMjmcginn@shaw.ca> wrote:

>erimess wrote:
>
>>And, yes, it *is* the same thing.  It's just that everyone forgets
>>that there's another side -- and that side consists of people, just
>>like you, and their money, just like you.  But apparently no one
>>thinks that side has any rights.
>
>Corporations are not people, so it is not at all the same thing. To
>assign them the same rights as a person as a matter of course is
>lunacy.

Yes, I realize this is old, but I've had some personal things going on
and haven't been on here.  I'm only answering this, because this
attitude is starting to *really* tick me off, so I'm going to have my
say about it.

First of all, NOT ALL COMPANIES ARE CORPORATIONS!!!!!!!  I am SOOOOO
sick of hearing this.  Corporations are in the minority.  And a good
many of those are small, closely held corporations.  I'm tired of
everyone acting like every issue that is related to employment is
somehow related to the "big, bad corporation."  This is just total
bull.

Sole proprietorships and partnerships are owned *directly* by people.
They OWN those companies.  It's their property.  It's their
investment.  Just like your house.  This is also true of the small
closely held corporations.

As for the the minority of companies that happen to be bigger,
publicly traded companies, they ARE owned by people.  They're called
stockholders.  Yes, I realize most people also interpret stockholders
as "bad people."  But it's their money.  They invested in that company
and have a stake in that company.  If you invest your money into
something, are you saying you have no interest in what happens to your
money?  You have no say in the matter?  The employees have their
rights, but you as a stockholder would also be a PERSON and have
rights.  Do the employees have MORE rights?  NO!!

So to say that we shouldn't give the same rights to corporations as we
do to people is basically saying we shouldn't give the same rights to
stockholders as we do to people.  Huh?  Stockholders ARE people.  So
you're saying we shouldn't give the same rights to SOME people as we
do to OTHER people?  They're all people.

I hate to tell you this, but the economy is one big giant circle, and
everything that happens affects everything else.  And it all comes
back to people, whether the person is an employee, a stockholder, a
customer, a patient, whatever... it will always come back around to
people.  You don't want the government telling you what brand of bread
you have to buy.  And you say, it's a loaf of bread, not a person, so
it has no rights, and therefore I should have the right to choose.
Who makes the bread?  People.  But I bet you don't think about them,
do you?  Do they have rights?  Of course.  So why doesn't the
government make a law about which brand you have to buy so that you
can help keep someone in a job.  If you think that sounds ridiculous,
it's because you're not getting the analogy.

---
erimess

My therapist told me a way to achieve 
inner peace was to finish things I had 
started. Today I finished 2 bags of potato 
chips, a lemon pie, a fifth of Jack Daniel's 
and a small box of chocolate candy. 
I feel better already.
0
erimess
12/7/2004 5:19:29 AM
In article <68ear0hj8bl005vjav803ud6ahg0s00ii7@4ax.com>,
 <erimess@cluemail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:21:36 GMT, Joe62 <NOSPAMjmcginn@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>So to say that we shouldn't give the same rights to corporations as we
>do to people is basically saying we shouldn't give the same rights to
>stockholders as we do to people.  Huh?  Stockholders ARE people.  So
>you're saying we shouldn't give the same rights to SOME people as we
>do to OTHER people?  They're all people.

Cars are owned by people. Should cars therefore be protected by the
human rights charter?

We couldn't limit the noise output of cars because they have a freedom
of expression.

We should do our utmost to educate our cars because they have a right
to education.

We shouldn't shut our cars in garages because they have the right to
freedom.

It is my position that rights afforded to people are afforded to
_people_, not to those people's possessions. Companies, corporations
and other theoretical constructs aren't people even though they may be
owned by and run by people. Much like a car is owned by and run by
people and yet it is not protected by the human rights charter.

Cheers
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs
0
bcd
12/7/2004 4:09:28 PM
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:19:29 -0500, erimess wrote:

>So to say that we shouldn't give the same rights to corporations as we
>do to people is basically saying we shouldn't give the same rights to
>stockholders as we do to people.  

>Stockholders ARE people.  So
>you're saying we shouldn't give the same rights to SOME people as we
>do to OTHER people?  They're all people.

Nope, I'm saying coporations should not have the same rights as
people. Stockholders have their own rights as humans. But because they
choose to invest some of their money into a corporate *system*, that
system should therefore have the same rights as living breathing
people? It's absurd to speak of corporate "rights" at all, the very
concept is illogical. A corporation is a system of manmade rules.
Nothing more nothing less. It is neither good nor bad; it is by
definition amoral.
0
Joe62
12/7/2004 10:40:28 PM
quit whining , let it rest, and being the newsgroup back to the game.

Jim

"Joe62" <jmcginnNOSPAM@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote in message 
news:msbcr0dsebbvoh7qra97d7b65m1e4b6f9r@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:19:29 -0500, erimess wrote:
>
>>So to say that we shouldn't give the same rights to corporations as we
>>do to people is basically saying we shouldn't give the same rights to
>>stockholders as we do to people.
>
>>Stockholders ARE people.  So
>>you're saying we shouldn't give the same rights to SOME people as we
>>do to OTHER people?  They're all people.
>
> Nope, I'm saying coporations should not have the same rights as
> people. Stockholders have their own rights as humans. But because they
> choose to invest some of their money into a corporate *system*, that
> system should therefore have the same rights as living breathing
> people? It's absurd to speak of corporate "rights" at all, the very
> concept is illogical. A corporation is a system of manmade rules.
> Nothing more nothing less. It is neither good nor bad; it is by
> definition amoral. 


0
jim
12/8/2004 12:53:45 AM
erimess wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:21:36 GMT, Joe62 <NOSPAMjmcginn@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>erimess wrote:
>>
>>>And, yes, it *is* the same thing.  It's just that everyone forgets
>>>that there's another side -- and that side consists of people, just
>>>like you, and their money, just like you.  But apparently no one
>>>thinks that side has any rights.
>>
>>Corporations are not people, so it is not at all the same thing. To
>>assign them the same rights as a person as a matter of course is
>>lunacy.
>
>Yes, I realize this is old, but I've had some personal things going on
>and haven't been on here.  I'm only answering this, because this
>attitude is starting to *really* tick me off, so I'm going to have my
>say about it.
>
>First of all, NOT ALL COMPANIES ARE CORPORATIONS!!!!!!!  I am SOOOOO
>sick of hearing this.  Corporations are in the minority.  And a good
>many of those are small, closely held corporations.  I'm tired of
>everyone acting like every issue that is related to employment is
>somehow related to the "big, bad corporation."  This is just total
>bull.
>
>Sole proprietorships and partnerships are owned *directly* by people.
>They OWN those companies.  It's their property.  It's their
>investment.  Just like your house.  This is also true of the small
>closely held corporations.
>
>As for the the minority of companies that happen to be bigger,
>publicly traded companies, they ARE owned by people.  They're called
>stockholders.  Yes, I realize most people also interpret stockholders
>as "bad people."  But it's their money.  They invested in that company
>and have a stake in that company.  If you invest your money into
>something, are you saying you have no interest in what happens to your
>money?  You have no say in the matter?  The employees have their
>rights, but you as a stockholder would also be a PERSON and have
>rights.  Do the employees have MORE rights?  NO!!
>
>So to say that we shouldn't give the same rights to corporations as we
>do to people is basically saying we shouldn't give the same rights to
>stockholders as we do to people.  Huh?  Stockholders ARE people.  So
>you're saying we shouldn't give the same rights to SOME people as we
>do to OTHER people?  They're all people.
>
>I hate to tell you this, but the economy is one big giant circle, and
>everything that happens affects everything else.  And it all comes
>back to people, whether the person is an employee, a stockholder, a
>customer, a patient, whatever... it will always come back around to
>people.  You don't want the government telling you what brand of bread
>you have to buy.  And you say, it's a loaf of bread, not a person, so
>it has no rights, and therefore I should have the right to choose.
>Who makes the bread?  People.  But I bet you don't think about them,
>do you?  Do they have rights?  Of course.  So why doesn't the
>government make a law about which brand you have to buy so that you
>can help keep someone in a job.  If you think that sounds ridiculous,
>it's because you're not getting the analogy.

So what you're saying is... houses should have the same rights as
people?
0
Bateau
12/8/2004 9:34:14 AM
erimess wrote in news:68ear0hj8bl005vjav803ud6ahg0s00ii7@4ax.com:

> I hate to tell you this, but the economy is one big giant circle, and
> everything that happens affects everything else.  And it all comes
> back to people, whether the person is an employee, a stockholder, a
> customer, a patient, whatever... it will always come back around to
> people.  You don't want the government telling you what brand of bread
> you have to buy.  And you say, it's a loaf of bread, not a person, so
> it has no rights, and therefore I should have the right to choose.
> Who makes the bread?  People.  But I bet you don't think about them,
> do you?  Do they have rights?  Of course.  So why doesn't the
> government make a law about which brand you have to buy so that you
> can help keep someone in a job.  If you think that sounds ridiculous,
> it's because you're not getting the analogy.

The analogy doesn't matter. The role of government is the redistribution of 
wealth. Money is power, and those in power invariably work to gain more 
power. Redistribution of wealth towards common defense, the common 
resources (environment, etc.), and the welfare of our weaker citizens are 
the central reasons we created our democracy. We didn't create it to 
protect the right of the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. 
Giving all of the same rights to corporations as people is just stupid. 
Would you give the right to privacy to a corporation? So that they can be 
free to commit atrocities to generate profits without anyone knowing? Don't 
say it wouldn't happen becuase it would. They give corporate officers 
millions of dollars to make the corporation profitable NO MATTER WHAT. They 
will do anything they can get away with, and often even do things they 
can't get away with and try to cover it up and try to get away with it 
anyway. If you don't see that happening in the news then you have blinders 
on.

-- 
FMLB
0
FatManLittleBoy
12/8/2004 4:12:26 PM
FatManLittleBoy wrote:
> erimess wrote in news:68ear0hj8bl005vjav803ud6ahg0s00ii7@4ax.com:
> 
> 
>>I hate to tell you this, but the economy is one big giant circle, and
>>everything that happens affects everything else.  And it all comes
>>back to people, whether the person is an employee, a stockholder, a
>>customer, a patient, whatever... it will always come back around to
>>people.  You don't want the government telling you what brand of bread
>>you have to buy.  And you say, it's a loaf of bread, not a person, so
>>it has no rights, and therefore I should have the right to choose.
>>Who makes the bread?  People.  But I bet you don't think about them,
>>do you?  Do they have rights?  Of course.  So why doesn't the
>>government make a law about which brand you have to buy so that you
>>can help keep someone in a job.  If you think that sounds ridiculous,
>>it's because you're not getting the analogy.
> 
> 
> The analogy doesn't matter. The role of government is the redistribution of 
> wealth. Money is power, and those in power invariably work to gain more 
> power. Redistribution of wealth towards common defense, the common 
> resources (environment, etc.), and the welfare of our weaker citizens are 
> the central reasons we created our democracy. We didn't create it to 
> protect the right of the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. 
> Giving all of the same rights to corporations as people is just stupid. 
> Would you give the right to privacy to a corporation? So that they can be 
> free to commit atrocities to generate profits without anyone knowing? Don't 
> say it wouldn't happen becuase it would. They give corporate officers 
> millions of dollars to make the corporation profitable NO MATTER WHAT. They 
> will do anything they can get away with, and often even do things they 
> can't get away with and try to cover it up and try to get away with it 
> anyway. If you don't see that happening in the news then you have blinders 
> on.
> 

I get periodic proxy mailings from some stocks my parents
bought for me. You're supposed to vote on things to do
with how the company is run. The proxies come with a
pamphlet to give you some idea of what you're voting on.
One thing I've noticed is that recently an awful lot
of these proxies have been asking stockholders to vote
yes on giving the company permission to do things without
shareholder approval. They never used to do this.
Makes you wonder.
0
nospam21 (19047)
12/8/2004 8:15:23 PM
In article <YbWdnX218dx3uircRVn-iw@giganews.com>,
FatManLittleBoy  <fatmanlittleboy@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The analogy doesn't matter. The role of government is the redistribution of 
>wealth.

Funny, when I took civics in high school they told me that the purpose
of government was protecting the rights of its citizens.

Redistribution of wealth, per se, is hardly unique to government.  I
bought a sandwich today for lunch; that was a redistribution of wealth.
Before I went into the Subway I had six bucks.  When I left the wealth
has been redistributed such that Subway had the six bucks.  What the
government can do that no private organization can legally do is
redistribute wealth *by force*.  That's an important point and shouldn't
be glossed over.

>Money is power, and those in power invariably work to gain more 
>power.

Very true.  I tend to think of this as a good reason why the government's
power to redistribute wealth should be limited.  When it isn't, the
wealthy and powerful invariably seize control of the government and use
it as a tool to redistribute wealth towards themselves.

>Redistribution of wealth towards common defense, the common 
>resources (environment, etc.), and the welfare of our weaker citizens are 
>the central reasons we created our democracy.

My reading of history suggests that, to put the point charitably, this
is not the case.  (Assuming you are referring to the United States, of
course.)  The central reasons we created our democracy (well, our
republic, but why quibble) were laid out in the Declaration of
Independence: "...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires
that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
There isn't much discussion in the Declaration of the environment or
welfare.  There is rather a lot of stuff about the exercise of arbitrary
power, taxation, standing armies, trade restrictions, and other violations
of individual rights.

>We didn't create it to protect the right of the rich to get richer at
>the expense of the poor.

We did create it to protect the rights of the rich and poor equally,
though.  Consider John Adams' _Defence of the Constitutions of Government
of the United States_:

  "It is agreed that 'the end of all government is the good and ease
  of the people, in a secure enjoyment of their rights, without
  oppression;' but it must be remembered, that the rich are people
  as well as the poor; that they have rights as well as others;
  that they have as clear and as sacred a right to their large
  property as others have to theirs which is smaller; that oppression
  to them is as possible and as wicked as to others; that stealing,
  robbing, cheating, are the same crimes and sins, whether committed
  against them or others.  The rich, therefore, ought to have an
  effectual barrier in the constitution against being robbed, plundered
  and murdered, as well as the poor..."

>Giving all of the same rights to corporations as people is just stupid. 

Here we can agree, although I suspect for different reasons.  Individual
people have rights.  Associations of people (of which corporations are
a specific type) do not (or should not) possess rights beyond those
possessed by the individuals who make up the association.  And such
rights as the associations do possess are not theirs directly, but
only as a derivative of the rights possessed by their individual
members.

>Would you give the right to privacy to a corporation? So that they can be 
>free to commit atrocities to generate profits without anyone knowing?

Er, privacy rights don't prevent criminal investigations.  Jeffrey
Dahmer had a right to privacy, but on sufficient cause the police
could obtain a search warrant and examine the contents of his home.
I see no reason why similar criteria should not apply to corporations.
Putting the point slightly differently, why should the government need
to get a warrant to gain access to e-mails I send for personal reasons
but not to gain access to e-mails I send for work-related reasons?

>They give corporate officers millions of dollars to make the corporation
>profitable NO MATTER WHAT. They will do anything they can get away with,
>and often even do things they can't get away with and try to cover it
>up and try to get away with it anyway. If you don't see that happening
>in the news then you have blinders on.

Don't look now, but governments and extra-governmental organizations
do exactly the same thing.  I offer the United Nations Oil-For-Food
scandal as a contemporary illustration.
0
khaight1 (83)
12/8/2004 10:18:34 PM
"Bent C Dalager" wrote

> It is my position that rights afforded to people are afforded to
> _people_,

And animals. 


0
Vince
12/9/2004 8:24:02 AM
In article <CYTtd.138289$38.17843@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Vince <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>"Bent C Dalager" wrote
>
>> It is my position that rights afforded to people are afforded to
>> _people_,
>
>And animals. 

Actually, I find that rights given to people apply to people and
rights given to animals apply to animals.

Cheers
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs
0
bcd
12/9/2004 12:29:21 PM
"Bent C Dalager" <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:cp9gf1$jui$1@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
> In article <CYTtd.138289$38.17843@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Vince <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >"Bent C Dalager" wrote
> >
> >> It is my position that rights afforded to people are afforded to
> >> _people_,
> >
> >And animals.
>
> Actually, I find that rights given to people apply to people and
> rights given to animals apply to animals.
>
> Cheers
> Bent D
> -- 
> Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
>                                     powered by emacs

Hmmm-m-m-mm !

If a right is "given" is it really a "right" ?

Aren't rights just assumed by the entities willing to fight for them ?

Elrikk






0
elrikk
12/9/2004 4:51:03 PM
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 12:29:21 +0000 (UTC), bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C
Dalager) wrote:

>In article <CYTtd.138289$38.17843@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>Vince <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Bent C Dalager" wrote
>>
>>> It is my position that rights afforded to people are afforded to
>>> _people_,
>>
>>And animals. 
>
>Actually, I find that rights given to people apply to people and
>rights given to animals apply to animals.
>

I find that animals don't have any rights in the first place.  

0
rgorman
12/9/2004 5:51:57 PM
In article <vl%td.15177$bD6.61934@wagner.videotron.net>,
elrikk <elrikk@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>Hmmm-m-m-mm !
>
>If a right is "given" is it really a "right" ?

I'm not sure that it matters how you came about it.

>Aren't rights just assumed by the entities willing to fight for them ?

I have a lot of rights I never fought for because others did it for me
(I never fought for freedom of expression and yet I have it). Some of
them, I am sure I wouldn't even fight to keep (automatic copyright,
for instance, is one I have little regard for). Indeed, in the US (as
an example) there's a lot of people fighting for rights to be taken
away from themselves (e.g., the right to bear arms).

Cheers
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs
0
bcd
12/10/2004 11:38:06 AM
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:51:57 GMT I used my godlike powers to observe
the following from rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston):

>On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 12:29:21 +0000 (UTC), bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C
>Dalager) wrote:
>
>>In article <CYTtd.138289$38.17843@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>>Vince <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>"Bent C Dalager" wrote
>>>
>>>> It is my position that rights afforded to people are afforded to
>>>> _people_,
>>>
>>>And animals. 
>>
>>Actually, I find that rights given to people apply to people and
>>rights given to animals apply to animals.
>>
>
>I find that animals don't have any rights in the first place.  

Nor do humans until they are bestowed upon them. Nature grants no
rights to any animal, including humans.
-- 
Best wishes,
Jeff

There is so much living to be done, yet so little time in which to live.
0
Jeff
12/10/2004 6:21:52 PM
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 10:12:26 -0600 I used my godlike powers to observe
the following from FatManLittleBoy <fatmanlittleboy@hotmail.com>:

>erimess wrote in news:68ear0hj8bl005vjav803ud6ahg0s00ii7@4ax.com:
>
>> I hate to tell you this, but the economy is one big giant circle, and
>> everything that happens affects everything else.  And it all comes
>> back to people, whether the person is an employee, a stockholder, a
>> customer, a patient, whatever... it will always come back around to
>> people.  You don't want the government telling you what brand of bread
>> you have to buy.  And you say, it's a loaf of bread, not a person, so
>> it has no rights, and therefore I should have the right to choose.
>> Who makes the bread?  People.  But I bet you don't think about them,
>> do you?  Do they have rights?  Of course.  So why doesn't the
>> government make a law about which brand you have to buy so that you
>> can help keep someone in a job.  If you think that sounds ridiculous,
>> it's because you're not getting the analogy.
>
>The analogy doesn't matter. The role of government is the redistribution of 
>wealth. Money is power, and those in power invariably work to gain more 
>power. Redistribution of wealth towards common defense, the common 
>resources (environment, etc.), and the welfare of our weaker citizens are 
>the central reasons we created our democracy. We didn't create it to 
>protect the right of the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. 
>Giving all of the same rights to corporations as people is just stupid. 
>Would you give the right to privacy to a corporation? So that they can be 
>free to commit atrocities to generate profits without anyone knowing? Don't 
>say it wouldn't happen becuase it would. They give corporate officers 
>millions of dollars to make the corporation profitable NO MATTER WHAT. They 
>will do anything they can get away with, and often even do things they 
>can't get away with and try to cover it up and try to get away with it 
>anyway. If you don't see that happening in the news then you have blinders 
>on.

Corporations are defined as having all the rights of individuals by
law.
-- 
Best wishes,
Jeff

There is so much living to be done, yet so little time in which to live.
0
george666 (65)
12/10/2004 6:25:11 PM
elrikk <elrikk@videotron.ca> wrote in message
vl%td.15177$bD6.61934@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> "Bent C Dalager" <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote in message
> news:cp9gf1$jui$1@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
> > In article <CYTtd.138289$38.17843@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> > Vince <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > >"Bent C Dalager" wrote
> > >
> > >> It is my position that rights afforded to people are afforded to
> > >> _people_,
> > >
> > >And animals.
> >
> > Actually, I find that rights given to people apply to people and
> > rights given to animals apply to animals.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Bent D
> > --
> > Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
> >                                     powered by emacs
>
> Hmmm-m-m-mm !
>
> If a right is "given" is it really a "right" ?
>
> Aren't rights just assumed by the entities willing to fight for them ?
>
> Elrikk

IMHO, the right word for "animal rights" is "humans' duties (towards other
animals)". For the very reason you give. This may also be applied (to a
lesser extent, possibly) to children. I say so to show that I do not think
this (in itself, can weaken, in any way, the case for "animal rights".

Alfredo


0
Alfredo
12/10/2004 10:15:31 PM
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:15:23 GMT, nospam <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
>I get periodic proxy mailings from some stocks my parents
>bought for me. You're supposed to vote on things to do
>with how the company is run. The proxies come with a
>pamphlet to give you some idea of what you're voting on.
>One thing I've noticed is that recently an awful lot
>of these proxies have been asking stockholders to vote
>yes on giving the company permission to do things without
>shareholder approval. They never used to do this.
>Makes you wonder.

Then perhaps it's the job of the stockholders to get ticked off and do
something about it.  Or, to choose to put their money elsewhere.

---
erimess

My therapist told me a way to achieve 
inner peace was to finish things I had 
started. Today I finished 2 bags of potato 
chips, a lemon pie, a fifth of Jack Daniel's 
and a small box of chocolate candy. 
I feel better already.
0
erimess
12/11/2004 5:13:12 AM
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 10:12:26 -0600, FatManLittleBoy
<fatmanlittleboy@hotmail.com> wrote:

>erimess wrote in news:68ear0hj8bl005vjav803ud6ahg0s00ii7@4ax.com:
>
>> I hate to tell you this, but the economy is one big giant circle, and
>> everything that happens affects everything else.  And it all comes
>> back to people, whether the person is an employee, a stockholder, a
>> customer, a patient, whatever... it will always come back around to
>> people.  You don't want the government telling you what brand of bread
>> you have to buy.  And you say, it's a loaf of bread, not a person, so
>> it has no rights, and therefore I should have the right to choose.
>> Who makes the bread?  People.  But I bet you don't think about them,
>> do you?  Do they have rights?  Of course.  So why doesn't the
>> government make a law about which brand you have to buy so that you
>> can help keep someone in a job.  If you think that sounds ridiculous,
>> it's because you're not getting the analogy.
>
>The analogy doesn't matter. The role of government is the redistribution of 
>wealth.

I would have to just answer that it's simply a fundamental difference
of what we see as the role of government, because I don't see this as
their role.  It's my government and I don't want them doing this.

> We didn't create it to 
>protect the right of the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. 

Just to prove how much I don't want the government doing this... I'm
poor.  I have no desire to take money from the rich and have it given
to me.  And really, I don't want much out of the government in that
sense.

>Giving all of the same rights to corporations as people is just stupid. 
>Would you give the right to privacy to a corporation?

No, but I give the right to privacy to the owners of it.

> So that they can be 
>free to commit atrocities to generate profits without anyone knowing?

The people who RUN the company don't have a right to do "whatever"
without the owners having some say in it.  That's supposed to be the
concept of voting.  (Which is an entirely different issue from whether
that actually works or not.)  The people who run the company don't
have a right to privacy against the owners knowing what's going on.
The owners themselves have a right to privacy just like anyone else.

>  If you don't see that happening in the news then you have blinders 
>on.

Trust me.  I'm far from blind.  You seem to be interpreting my
opinions as not caring what corporations do, or that I think it's OK,
or that they aren't doing it, or that I approve.  I never said that
and don't mis-interpret my statements as saying that.

I just noticed you cut out my NG.  Hmm... may or may not catch up with
this on another group.  (I always regret jumping into these simply
cause after a round or two I get tired of it.)

---
erimess

My therapist told me a way to achieve 
inner peace was to finish things I had 
started. Today I finished 2 bags of potato 
chips, a lemon pie, a fifth of Jack Daniel's 
and a small box of chocolate candy. 
I feel better already.
0
erimess
12/11/2004 5:26:45 AM
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 17:34:14 +0800, Bateau <Gamera@work.stomping.aza>
wrote:


>
>So what you're saying is... houses should have the same rights as
>people?

As far as I'm concerned, you're just feeding my argument.  A house
can't do anything.  It can't cause anything to happen.  If a
corporation is simply an entity, then it can't do anything either, can
it?  If it's just an entity, it can't fire anyone.  It can't hire
anyone either.  It can't care.  It really can't do anything.  It is,
after all, just a set of buildings and machinery and furniture and
files, and really, just a legal document.

Only PEOPLE can do those things.  And those people have rights, just
like everyone else.

So what you're saying is... a set of buildings and machinery and
furniture can actually fire someone?

---
erimess

My therapist told me a way to achieve 
inner peace was to finish things I had 
started. Today I finished 2 bags of potato 
chips, a lemon pie, a fifth of Jack Daniel's 
and a small box of chocolate candy. 
I feel better already.


0
erimess
12/11/2004 5:35:07 AM
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 22:40:28 GMT, Joe62
<jmcginnNOSPAM@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:19:29 -0500, erimess wrote:
>
>>So to say that we shouldn't give the same rights to corporations as we
>>do to people is basically saying we shouldn't give the same rights to
>>stockholders as we do to people.  
>
>>Stockholders ARE people.  So
>>you're saying we shouldn't give the same rights to SOME people as we
>>do to OTHER people?  They're all people.
>
>Nope, I'm saying coporations should not have the same rights as
>people. Stockholders have their own rights as humans. But because they
>choose to invest some of their money into a corporate *system*, that
>system should therefore have the same rights as living breathing
>people? It's absurd to speak of corporate "rights" at all, the very
>concept is illogical. A corporation is a system of manmade rules.
>Nothing more nothing less. It is neither good nor bad; it is by
>definition amoral.

Show me where I said the *corporation* itself had the rights of a
human being.  The concept *is* illogical.  You have all missed the
point of my entire argument.  See post to Bateau.

---
erimess

My therapist told me a way to achieve 
inner peace was to finish things I had 
started. Today I finished 2 bags of potato 
chips, a lemon pie, a fifth of Jack Daniel's 
and a small box of chocolate candy. 
I feel better already.
0
erimess
12/11/2004 5:39:45 AM
erimess wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 17:34:14 +0800, Bateau <Gamera@work.stomping.aza>
>wrote:
>>So what you're saying is... houses should have the same rights as
>>people?
>
>As far as I'm concerned, you're just feeding my argument.

What argument is that anyway?

>A house
>can't do anything.  It can't cause anything to happen.  If a
>corporation is simply an entity, then it can't do anything either, can
>it?  If it's just an entity, it can't fire anyone.  It can't hire
>anyone either.  It can't care.  It really can't do anything.  It is,
>after all, just a set of buildings and machinery and furniture and
>files, and really, just a legal document.
>
>Only PEOPLE can do those things.  And those people have rights, just
>like everyone else.
>
>So what you're saying is... a set of buildings and machinery and
>furniture can actually fire someone?
>
>---
>erimess
>
>My therapist told me a way to achieve 
>inner peace was to finish things I had 
>started. Today I finished 2 bags of potato 
>chips, a lemon pie, a fifth of Jack Daniel's 
>and a small box of chocolate candy. 
>I feel better already.
>

0
Bateau
12/11/2004 12:12:11 PM
"Bent C Dalager" wrote

> (e.g., the right to bear arms).

Is that one of the animal rights you mentioned?


0
Vince
12/12/2004 6:45:39 PM
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:35:07 -0500, erimess wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 17:34:14 +0800, Bateau <Gamera@work.stomping.aza>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>So what you're saying is... houses should have the same rights as
>>people?
>
>As far as I'm concerned, you're just feeding my argument.  A house
>can't do anything.  It can't cause anything to happen.  If a
>corporation is simply an entity, then it can't do anything either, can
>it?  

A corporation is a group of people.  As such they can do things.  

0
rgorman
12/12/2004 9:05:15 PM
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:05:15 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David
Johnston) wrote:

>A corporation is a group of people.  As such they can do things.  

I'm not sure which side you're arguring for, but...

The people can do things.  The corporation itself is merely some
scraps of paper that say it exists.  The idea that a corporation
'acts' is a lie that corporation owners and workers tell others to
avoid legal responsibilities, and tell themselves to avoid feeling
guilty about their actions.  "Oh now, I'M not paying third-world
workers barely enough to avoid starvation, that's the corporation
that's doing that.  Its the CORPORATION'S fault that those people are
so underpaid that they're forced to sell their children into
indentured servitude making shoes, not mine.  I just work there."  Its
a fiction that helps rich people sleep at night, unburdened by the
guilt over the fact that they're destroying people's lives so they can
afford another vacation beach house.  Its the corporation that's doing
those horrible things, not them.

0
drocket
12/13/2004 1:35:46 AM
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:45:39 GMT, "Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

>"Bent C Dalager" wrote
>
>> (e.g., the right to bear arms).
>
>Is that one of the animal rights you mentioned?
>

No, that would be the right to arm bears.



0
bk039
12/13/2004 3:53:45 AM
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 01:35:46 GMT, drocket <drocket@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:05:15 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David
>Johnston) wrote:
>
>>A corporation is a group of people.  As such they can do things.  
>
>I'm not sure which side you're arguring for, but...
>
>The people can do things.  The corporation itself is merely some
>scraps of paper that say it exists.  The idea that a corporation
>'acts' is a lie that corporation owners and workers tell others to
>avoid legal responsibilities, and tell themselves to avoid feeling
>guilty about their actions.  "Oh now, I'M not paying third-world
>workers barely enough to avoid starvation, that's the corporation
>that's doing that.  Its the CORPORATION'S fault that those people are
>so underpaid that they're forced to sell their children into
>indentured servitude making shoes, not mine.  I just work there."  Its
>a fiction that helps rich people sleep at night, unburdened by the
>guilt over the fact that they're destroying people's lives so they can
>afford another vacation beach house.  I

Oh please.  They aren't "destroying people's lives" by hiring them.  

0
rgorman
12/13/2004 4:44:11 AM
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 04:44:11 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David
Johnston) wrote:

>Oh please.  They aren't "destroying people's lives" by hiring them.  

Hiring them?  No.  But that's far from what most of these corporations
do in countries like China.  They quite literally chain people to
workbenches in small windowless rooms and force them to work 12 hours
per day.  Of course, the 'nice' companies merely keep the employees in
perpetual debt via the good old-fashioned 'company store', thereby
preventing them from ever quitting because if they do so, they
immediately go to jail.  

But please, feel free to continue with your fantasy that forcing 12
year olds to work 14 hours per day making Nike shoes is a 'good'
thing.

0
drocket
12/13/2004 8:37:54 AM
drocket <drocket@hotmail.com> wrote in message
t8spr05bg16bj7lmp199mnivq5htfitu24@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:05:15 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David
> Johnston) wrote:
>
> >A corporation is a group of people.  As such they can do things.
>
> I'm not sure which side you're arguring for, but...
>
> The people can do things.  The corporation itself is merely some
> scraps of paper that say it exists.  The idea that a corporation
> 'acts' is a lie that corporation owners and workers tell others to
> avoid legal responsibilities, and tell themselves to avoid feeling
> guilty about their actions.  "Oh now, I'M not paying third-world
> workers barely enough to avoid starvation, that's the corporation
> that's doing that.  Its the CORPORATION'S fault that those people are
> so underpaid that they're forced to sell their children into
> indentured servitude making shoes, not mine.  I just work there."  Its
> a fiction that helps rich people sleep at night, unburdened by the
> guilt over the fact that they're destroying people's lives so they can
> afford another vacation beach house.  Its the corporation that's doing
> those horrible things, not them.
>

"We know that - all that. It's not us, it's the bank. A bank ain't like a
man. An owner with fifty thousan acres, he's not like a man either. That's
the monster.
Sure, cried the tenant men, but it's our land. We measured it and broke it
up. We were born on it, and we were killed on it, died on it. Even if it's
no good, it's still ours. That's what make it ours - being born on it,
working it, dying on it. That makes ownership, not a paper with numbers on
it.
We're are sorry. It's not us. It's the monster. The bank isn't like a man.
Yes, but the bank is only made of men.
No, you're wrong there - quite wrong there. The bank is something else than
men. It happens that every man in a bank hates what the bank does, and yet
the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It's the
monster. Men made it but they can't control it."
                                        from "The Grapes of Wrath" - by John
Steinbeck

I wonder, though: do you Americans still read great your great American
writers?

- or, to put it in a nutshell: how does a person's right to make more money
by investing his money compare with the right of another person to make a
(reasonable) living by working (normally)?

Alfredo


0
Alfredo
12/13/2004 9:50:23 PM
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:39:45 -0500, erimess wrote:

>Show me where I said the *corporation* itself had the rights of a
>human being.  

"So to say that we shouldn't give the same rights to corporations as
we do to people is basically saying we shouldn't give the same rights
to stockholders as we do to people"
0
Joe62
12/13/2004 10:57:52 PM
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:50:23 GMT, "Alfredo Tutino"
<powernews@libero.it> wrote:

>I wonder, though: do you Americans still read great your great American
>writers?

Rarely.  There's usually far more important things to worry about.
The new season of American Idol, for instance.
0
drocket
12/13/2004 11:14:59 PM
"Alfredo Tutino" <powernews@libero.it> wrote in
news:z8ovd.25618$Zk.443613@twister2.libero.it: 

> "We know that - all that. It's not us, it's the bank. A bank ain't
> like a man. An owner with fifty thousan acres, he's not like a man
> either. That's the monster.
> Sure, cried the tenant men, but it's our land. We measured it and
> broke it up. We were born on it, and we were killed on it, died on it.
> Even if it's no good, it's still ours. That's what make it ours -
> being born on it, working it, dying on it. That makes ownership, not a
> paper with numbers on it.
> We're are sorry. It's not us. It's the monster. The bank isn't like a
> man. Yes, but the bank is only made of men.
> No, you're wrong there - quite wrong there. The bank is something else
> than men. It happens that every man in a bank hates what the bank
> does, and yet the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I
> tell you. It's the monster. Men made it but they can't control it."
>                                         from "The Grapes of Wrath" -
>                               by John 
> Steinbeck
>
> Alfredo
 
Nominated for "Best use of a Steinbeck quote in a gaming newsgroup".

-- 
FMLB
0
FatManLittleBoy
12/13/2004 11:16:59 PM
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 11:51:03 -0500, "elrikk" <elrikk@videotron.ca>
wrote:

>
>"Bent C Dalager" <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote in message
>news:cp9gf1$jui$1@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
>> In article <CYTtd.138289$38.17843@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>> Vince <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >"Bent C Dalager" wrote
>> >
>> >> It is my position that rights afforded to people are afforded to
>> >> _people_,
>> >
>> >And animals.
>>
>> Actually, I find that rights given to people apply to people and
>> rights given to animals apply to animals.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Bent D
>> -- 
>> Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
>>                                     powered by emacs
>
>Hmmm-m-m-mm !
>
>If a right is "given" is it really a "right" ?
>
>Aren't rights just assumed by the entities willing to fight for them ?

In theory, one could say that rights can not be given - only taken
away.  But if one entity fights to stop a right from being taken away
from many others, one could claim that the first entity gave the right
to the others. 

0
Kaos
12/14/2004 5:59:46 AM
In article <rskqr09k41tjlvb07tab2bjasadtdass4q@4ax.com>, 
drocket@hotmail.com says...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 04:44:11 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David
> Johnston) wrote:
> 
> >Oh please.  They aren't "destroying people's lives" by hiring them.  
> 
> Hiring them?  No.  But that's far from what most of these corporations
> do in countries like China.  They quite literally chain people to
> workbenches in small windowless rooms and force them to work 12 hours
> per day.  Of course, the 'nice' companies merely keep the employees in
> perpetual debt via the good old-fashioned 'company store', thereby
> preventing them from ever quitting because if they do so, they
> immediately go to jail.  

And this applies to EA programmers, how?

- Gerry Quinn
0
Gerry
12/14/2004 10:39:22 AM
 < cut >

> Nominated for "Best use of a Steinbeck quote in a gaming newsgroup".
>
Thank < apologetic shrug>

Alfredo


0
Alfredo
12/15/2004 9:34:23 PM
 < cut >

> Nominated for "Best use of a Steinbeck quote in a gaming newsgroup".
>
Thank < apologetic shrug>

Alfredo


0
Alfredo
12/15/2004 9:34:23 PM
 < cut >

> Nominated for "Best use of a Steinbeck quote in a gaming newsgroup".
>
Thank < apologetic shrug>

Alfredo


0
Alfredo
12/15/2004 9:34:24 PM
"Alfredo Tutino" <powernews@libero.it> wrote in news:A52wd.28728$Zk.509058
@twister2.libero.it:

>  < cut >
> 
>> Nominated for "Best use of a Steinbeck quote in a gaming newsgroup".
>>
> Thank < apologetic shrug>
> 
> Alfredo
> 
> 
> 

w00t! three times now! this is a red letter day for post duping!
0
FatManLittleBoy
12/15/2004 10:59:03 PM
Reply: