41–50 of 138 posts
I think that any funny clauses in the contracts should be abolished and the worker/employer relations should only be regulated by law. This makes me pro-regulation and anti-market, but unfortunately I see exactly zero ways in which market can make contracts better. What are you expected to do in this situation - quit?
Although not around a sex tape, I though about a computer virus released from my Earthlink corporate email account. If I sent it out the virus technically belonged to Earthlink and not me. However, after talking to a lawyer about it years later, he explained there is ways the corporation could get out of the clause.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While it's not a position I hold myself, I imagine such people would argue that unions are not the free market because of the legal protections and privileges they enjoy. I'm no expert, but I know that in at least some jurisdictions a union-endorsed strike carries protections against worker dismissal.
It's odd for you to point out one of the legal protections unions have without also pointing out the things they are prohibited from doing, such as sympathy strikes, mass picketing, and (in some states) the ability to require a union shop. And the law gives company owners protection against personal liability, and taxes companies different from personal income, while it also prohibits employers from having an unsafe…
In other words, I don't think it's unreasonable to say "Device X would be desirable in ideal situation Y, but as the current situation is far from ideal, device X currently does more harm than good".
And again, I don't necessarily personally believe that to be true of unions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's odd to me is that in many cases people who purport to be "pro free market" are also anti-union. As far as I can see, unions are the free market.
Well, "pro free market" is usually (and silently) taken to mean "whatever benefit me as an employeer and screw the workers". As in: "if I want to have people working 20 hours per day, with no overtime for less than minimum wage, I should be FREE to do so, and people are FREE not to work for me". That's the kind of "FREE" the free market stands for usually. Of course, when all employers follow the same idea, or when p…
The primary function of a legal department is to provide advice that prevents legally actionable mistakes. This advice does not have to be sane, or efficient, or indeed have any consideration towards the interests of the company other than "prevents legally actionable mistakes". A few days ago HN saw an article about setting goals and perverse incentives. This is a simple example. Hypothetically, someone was reviewin…
Strong disagreement. As a counterport, would you agree to the following: ``the primary function of a programming department is to crank out code. the code doesn't have to run predictably, nor be maintainable nor indeed have any business requirements. KLOC is the king.''?
When I'm programming privately in my spare time, my code doesn't need to run, be maintainable or useful or anything. But as long as I'm clocked in during office hours, my work should further company's goals, in harmony with other teams and projects. And just as much with legal departments: those should consider the overall effects of advice they give out. If not them, who else is to do such analysis -- some meta-legal department?
Been there just recently; an employment contract template prepared for my company by a lawyer was so one-sided and full of risks for potential employees, I stood up to the CEO and voiced against its proposed form. I've warned the CEO a lot of self-respecting hackers would rather give up offer than work on such conditions. The contract, while legally covering the company, would have detrimental effect on our ability to hire good hackers in the first place.
The primary function of a legal department is to provide advice that prevents legally actionable mistakes. This advice does not have to be sane, or efficient, or indeed have any consideration towards the interests of the company other than "prevents legally actionable mistakes". A few days ago HN saw an article about setting goals and perverse incentives. This is a simple example. Hypothetically, someone was reviewin…
> The primary function of a legal department is to provide advice that prevents legally actionable mistakes. This advice does not have to be sane, or efficient, (...) Strong disagreement. As a counterport, would you agree to the following: ``the primary function of a programming department is to crank out code. the code doesn't have to run predictably, nor be maintainable nor indeed have any business requirements. KL…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While it's not a position I hold myself, I imagine such people would argue that unions are not the free market because of the legal protections and privileges they enjoy. I'm no expert, but I know that in at least some jurisdictions a union-endorsed strike carries protections against worker dismissal.
It's odd for you to point out one of the legal protections unions have without also pointing out the things they are prohibited from doing, such as sympathy strikes, mass picketing, and (in some states) the ability to require a union shop. And the law gives company owners protection against personal liability, and taxes companies different from personal income, while it also prohibits employers from having an unsafe…
Laws enforcing a requirement to purchase from a cartel are about as far from a free market as you can get.
Saying free market supporters should favor unionization is like saying free market supporters should oppose net neutrality. In a free market, net neutrality is certainly something to oppose, but in the world we live in it's necessary to counteract the government granted duopoly held by Verizon/Cable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's odd to me is that in many cases people who purport to be "pro free market" are also anti-union. As far as I can see, unions are the free market.
Well, "pro free market" is usually (and silently) taken to mean "whatever benefit me as an employeer and screw the workers". As in: "if I want to have people working 20 hours per day, with no overtime for less than minimum wage, I should be FREE to do so, and people are FREE not to work for me". That's the kind of "FREE" the free market stands for usually. Of course, when all employers follow the same idea, or when p…
California has a nice law that says that the employee owns IP created on his own time, unrelated to work, etc. This is a reason I moved to CA: the state I was in lacked such a law, and all the tech companies had contracts that failed the sex tape test. I suspect that for a place to flourish like Silicon Valley, it needs a law that protects self bootstrapping startups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's odd to me is that in many cases people who purport to be "pro free market" are also anti-union. As far as I can see, unions are the free market.
I've thought that too. The difference seems to be that in general, an entire workforce in a company is either 'union' or 'non-union'. In places I've worked in that had unions, you didn't have a choice as to whether you wanted to join or not - you want the job, you join the union. At the macro-level, perhaps 'the market' for labor has said "union", but the choice is not there for the individual to join or not. I took…
Huh. Those sort of closed shops are illegal in the European Union, and have been for years, your right to join a trade union must mean you have the right to not join a union. Needless to say, unions and socialists in EU were not so happy with that.
It's weird to think that part of the USA have more union friendly than the EU