241–250 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither are other engineers (in the US). There are certifications (e.g. PE) but you can get a job with or without them.
Not so. If you are not a licensed Professional Engineer, there are jobs you can't get. And that's what I mean by "licensed".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For starters, we are not licensed. And I suspect that a non-citizen couldn't get an engineering license.
What? Of course non-citizens can get an engineering license. It can be trickier if your education is from outside the US, but citizenship is not an issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Much like America, we think we're all temporarily embarrassed millionaires. The reason that old canard doesn't carry a lot of weight around SV and the other tech hubs is that a lot of rank-and file, non-manager techies actually _are_ millionaires.
While the capital class makes billions off their backs, colludes with each other to restrict wages and labor mobility, and exploits H1-B subcontractors to do more of the same. Why settle for this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not so. If you are not a licensed Professional Engineer, there are jobs you can't get. And that's what I mean by "licensed".
There are jobs you can't get, but there are also plenty of other engineering jobs that you can get.
If you don't have the right piece of paper, you can't be one of those.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the root cause of this problem is that -companies violate privacy rights to gather more big data -more data translates to more investment (I'm seeing this happen at my current company right now) -VCs, who are the top of the food chain, are the ones pushing for higher returns (like any rational actor would do) -then shouldn't the government step in and regulate this area? Define standards that would limit the amoun…
Of course the government should do something about it. But I'd bet most people would agree that killing or stealing are immoral, even in the absence of laws against it. In fact, every one here has, on innumerable occasions, not stolen something even though they could have been sure they wouldn't be caught. Your game theory applies to people as well: if you find a wallet on the street, it doesn't make sense to give it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course the government should do something about it. But I'd bet most people would agree that killing or stealing are immoral, even in the absence of laws against it. In fact, every one here has, on innumerable occasions, not stolen something even though they could have been sure they wouldn't be caught. Your game theory applies to people as well: if you find a wallet on the street, it doesn't make sense to give it…
True, some corporations might be altruistic, but probably not all. Murderers still exist in society, and for those we need laws to guide everyone. If all laws and police disappeared suddenly, I think it would take less than 5 years for societies to descend into complete chaos. Laws still seem necessary?
One example I recently heard was from a woman who was fired after attending her husband's funeral. That probably happens less than a dozen times per year, and might just not warrant a law. It still shouldn't happen.
(The problem, of course, is that with people our sense of morality is largely guided by other peoples' reaction to our behaviour. Corporations will never have the same sense of shame, and the closest analogy – boycotts – rarely work)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's not wrong. Which part of his comment is the bigotry you feel like projecting? Is approval for stronger border protection bigotry? Is thinking the EO on immigration is fine bigotry? Is making assumptions about every single political opinion someone has based on a single statement bigotry? Do you think that liberals or tech employees are somehow above bigotry and treating people poorly? Remember Talia Jane and…
No, the reason it's laughable is that the ones expected to bridge this divide are the ones who believe in rights and human dignity for everyone, not the ones who believe that others should be treated as second class citizens. Look at what happened when Obama won. Those on the left were expected to reach out to those on the right, and they did so. But then look at what happened when Trump won: Once again, the ones exp…
Since we've asked you repeatedly not to do these things and you ignored us, I've banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crossing a picket line is kind of a moral choice where you decide how much value you place on A) the success of that particular strike and B) ever having anything to do with those picketers again. It is weird to talk about in terms of tech, but nevertheless, if there is a union that represents you, ignoring a strike would probably not be free, it would just be a different kind of cost. Maybe how many numbers you get…
> if there is a union that represents you, ignoring a strike would probably not be free, it would just be a different kind of cost To elaborate on what that cost would be: If a union represents you, it can compel you to go on strike (even for a cause to which you object on ethical or moral grounds). If you refuse, they can terminate your membership. For a closed shop, that's equivalent to firing you.
While I am saying that collective bargaining is an important tool to increase workers' negotiating power, I'm not defending every specific implementation. I admire businesses who work with union employees because it implies that the power relationship is at least somewhat in balance, and workers are represented. I don't know if that also means I support "closed shops" where if somebody leaves the union they lose their job... But it sounds like maybe in supporting one I'm implicitly supporting the other.
Thanks for the comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have done just fine negotiating my salary on my own, thank you very much. And many, many other people haven't. Those people will unionize and won't care a lick to see you go.
Awesome. They can do that, and I will work for the multitude of companies and startups out there that will not unionize. You can't unionize every startup in the world, and non unionized employees will be able to demand a premium. Other people are free to burden themselves with union rules, and I will be free to accept the higher salary that I can command because my competition is hindered. It is a competitive advanta…
Empirically, this is completely untrue. Union workers have higher compensation than nonunion workers overall.
>It is a competitive advantage to not be burdened by union rules.
Doesn't look like that to me. Unions don't just have advantages in terms of salaries; they have the advantage of helping to grease the wheels between companies, between jobs for the unemployed, and between skillsets. Unions are an important source of job-training for an ever-changing field like tech.
Why pay for a web-programming bootcamp if your union dues entitle you to one?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's people like this commenter who need to be won over if a union would have any chance in tech. But I don't know how to do it. At my first ever job everybody at the company was an automatic member of a union (it was a grocery store in my home town). I knew that when I took a paid break, or a vacation, or got time and a half for night work, I was benefiting from industrial action taken by those who went before me. I…
Winning me over is easy. Give me a better deal. If the union job pays 50% more then I will take it. I'd have to be stupid not to. But don't expect my loyalty to the union. As soon as it become a better deal to do something else, I am going to do that thing. I don't care about solidarity, or "crossing the picket line" or whatever. I will take the best deal that is offered to me.
It's because when workers at one company have their salaries suppressed - by collusion in hiring, by wage theft, by death-march management - the market rate for their labor goes down overall. When any one company can abuse its workers, we all lose from that injury to the labor market we all share, as well as from the lost productivity from sub-optimal allocation of labor.