Google Illegally Spied On Workers Before Firing Them, US Labor Board Alleges (theverge.com) 116
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Google violated US labor laws by spying on workers who were organizing employee protests, then firing two of them, according to a complaint to be filed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) today. The complaint names two employees, Laurence Berland and Kathryn Spiers, both of whom were fired by the company in late 2019 in connection with employee activism. Berland was organizing against Google's decision to work with IRI Consultants, a firm widely known for its anti-union efforts, when he was let go for reviewing other employees' calendars. Now, the NLRB has found Google's policy against employees looking at certain coworkers' calendars is unlawful. "Google's hiring of IRI is an unambiguous declaration that management will no longer tolerate worker organizing," Berland said in a statement. "Management and their union busting cronies wanted to send that message, and the NLRB is now sending their own message: worker organizing is protected by law."
Spiers was fired after she created a pop-up for Google employees visiting the IRI Consultants website. "Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities," the notification read, according to The Guardian. The company said Spiers had violated security policies, a statement that hurt her reputation in the tech community. Now, the NLRB has found the firing was unlawful. "This week the NLRB issued a complaint on my behalf. They found that I was illegally terminated for trying to help my colleagues," Spiers said. "Colleagues and strangers believe I abused my role because of lies told by Google management while they were retaliating against me. The NLRB can order Google to reinstate me, but it cannot reverse the harm done to my credibility."
Spiers was fired after she created a pop-up for Google employees visiting the IRI Consultants website. "Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities," the notification read, according to The Guardian. The company said Spiers had violated security policies, a statement that hurt her reputation in the tech community. Now, the NLRB has found the firing was unlawful. "This week the NLRB issued a complaint on my behalf. They found that I was illegally terminated for trying to help my colleagues," Spiers said. "Colleagues and strangers believe I abused my role because of lies told by Google management while they were retaliating against me. The NLRB can order Google to reinstate me, but it cannot reverse the harm done to my credibility."
NLRB can order Google to reinstate me, (Score:2)
and what will that do?
Get back seniority?
Get back PTO and PTO rate?
Get back same job and shift
Get back same pay rate?
Have recourse for being fired for any other thing?
Re: (Score:1)
Get a permanent record in Google files, that every employment agency has access to and be blocked from tech employment at any major corporation for life!
What they have done for us, demonstrated exactly what Alphabet/Google do with all the information they data mine, attack those who they deem are a threat to their profits and ego and economically DESTROY them. Drop that extremely negative rating in the corporate social media score, FLAGGED in other words.
Re: (Score:2)
This, it would be like someone shoots at you and misses so you give them a do-over.
Re: (Score:2)
I think most people would be counseled to take the $5 million dollars and sign the NDA. For the typical person, this basically amounts to the ability to live comfortably and never work again if they don't want to, but with enough visibility there's probably work to be had at a minimum being a speaker for your cause if not eventually building up a consulting career at your primary skill over time.
But if you took the job back for some crazy reason, my guess is that the anti-retaliation rules more or less mea
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
While I hate to be on the side of the evil that is Google, I do remember when these idiots were fired. They were let go simply because they broke with company policy that states something to the effect of Thou shall not publicly discuss company procedures. Had they only been recruiting on the inside, and then subsequently let go, they would have a leg to stand on. Posting a bunch of shit talk on Twitter, unfortunately for them, counts as a public forum.
not discuss company procedures = anit union (Score:4, Interesting)
not discuss company procedures = anit union.
So you can't make rules like that.
Re:Not surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
''anecdotal evidence that these Silicon Valley companies operate like the Gestapo.''
Oh no, the Gestapo wasn't as creative. The biggest evil ''Silicon Valley'' has been successfully doing over the past 10 years is to shield themselves from the responsibility, liability and expense for the majority of the tasks, skills and talent used for the work they specifically create, direct and specify quality standards for, so as to feign equal compensation or responsibility for requirements of completion of the work per their standards.
In doing so they have created a class of experts that aren't equally compensated, and a number of businesses that make the majority of their income hiring talent to their specs, that they can easily wash their hands of any responsibility for the perpetual use of.
If a business creates tasks, directs employees how to properly execute tasks, requires employees to execute said tasks in the manner they direct, holds that employee [even in a tertiary manner] to maintain those standards,
they are the employer, regardless of how they are paying them currently.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just "Silicon Valley" companies, but a good many large companies. I can tell you multiple stories about a very large and old company that rhymes with "ate tea and pee" that I once contracted with.
The US is a semi-plutocracy. The rich and powerful essentially buy legislators and laws, and it's not being corrected by voters because they are (intentionall
Google spies on everyone (Score:1)
why wouldn't they also spy on employees
Deterrent Required (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it's possible for the company to be forced to re-instate them. Would you want to go back?
It's possible for the company to be forced to change their practices. Until they find another loophole to exploit.
And so, much as this might be abhorrent to C-suite occupants across the country, the only thing to do is strengthen the law until the penalty for being "found out" act as a deterrent that is powerful enough to stop the company from their malpractice.
Here's a few things that a law could do:-
1. Fine the company a significant amount of money [i.e. based on their global gross turnover] and then award a portion of that [i.e. based on multiples of their salary] to the injured employee.
2. Prohibit the company from being awarded any government contracts for a period of time [say 3 years for a first offence; then 5, 10, 20, 50, etc.] so that there is a financial impact on the employer for the practice.
3. Require the company to pay the cost of allowing an independent monitoring third party - like an audit company - to stay on site for a period [of say 3 years, then 5, 10, 20, etc.] and both act as an intermediary and to police the company [with right to access emails, documents, records of meetings, etc. and to "sit in" in any disciplinary hearings]
You get the idea.
Yes, there will be people who read the above suggestions and think, "Hang on, that's a bit drastic. Surely you don't need to be so heavy-handed with a company, do you?"
Yes. Yes, you do. That's because companies that undermine lawful activities like organizing have the power to destroy entire careers, entire lives. We probably remember the way that Google treated James Damore. I'm not arguing to support what Damore wrote, but to point out that Damore's manager initially supported him and encouraged him to develop and post his document internally - but the moment it became politically embarrassing for Google, Damore was fired.
It's the fact that they fired him for no reason other than it became politically expedient for them to do so that is an illustration of a company that has too much power.
There are entire industry sectors - construction used to be a good example - where employers kept files on employees - if you were blacklisted as an organizer you'd never get another job with a major employer or on a major contract.
Employers have become so incredibly powerful already, it seems almost comical that Google would feel the need to undermine lawful organizing. The fact they do is probably the best argument in favour of a more impactful deterrent we could think of.
"sit in" in any disciplinary hearings UNION YES! (Score:2)
"sit in" in any disciplinary hearings UNION YES!
Re: (Score:3)
1. In a typical corporate disciplinary review, the employer takes three roles, the employee gets one. Those employer roles are [to borrow from legal vernacular]:
i. Counsel for the Prosecution
ii. Judge
iii. Jury
Even in scenarios where the employer acts with total integrity, honesty and transparency, that's a stacked deck. It gives the employer *so much* power, that they can arbitrarily decide to take
Incomplete Transmission (Score:2)
"Do no evil" (Transmission ended unexpectedly)
(Transmission resumed)
"for the shareholders"
Re: (Score:2)
(Transmission resumed)
What is Alphabet's motto...
Re: (Score:2)
For Alphabet, it would be "do the right thing", source: https://abc.xyz/investor/other... [abc.xyz]
Google's "don't be evil" is still there, in the end: https://abc.xyz/investor/other... [abc.xyz]
It never was "do no evil".
Re: Incomplete Transmission (Score:2)
"Right" could not be more vague.
We of course know what it obviously will be right for.
Re: Incomplete Transmission (Score:3)
Oh please! It's just a slight acoustic distortion.
It's actually: "Do mo' evil"
Time to break up Tech!! (Score:3)
Google has a Monopolistic data path, acquire data, store data, process data, sell data, There is no competition to sell data from the acquire to the storage. 100% of Google data goes to Google data processing. or not used.
Each stage is not a monopoly but the sum of all the stages of Google is a monopoly.
Ongoing (Score:5, Insightful)
Late stage capitalism will see Super Corporations.
That's what they said about the East India Trading Company. And US Steel. And IBM. And General Motors. And Standard Oil. And AT&T.
We've been in "late stage" capitalism for centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
Late stage capitalism will see Super Corporations.
That's what they said about the East India Trading Company. And US Steel. And IBM. And General Motors. And Standard Oil. And AT&T.
We've been in "late stage" capitalism for centuries.
At that time they were monopolies, but there was also the "Locke's Wilderness" back then, that allowed for growth. If you look at cost of resources, and the cost of patents now, there is not much wilderness to left. Machine Learning is the new wilderness area, But I am afraid of what made be found there.
How smart is it to make something smarter than us?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Late stage capitalism will see Super Corporations.
That's what they said about the East India Trading Company. And US Steel. And IBM. And General Motors. And Standard Oil. And AT&T.
We've been in "late stage" capitalism for centuries.
Rome was never granted Too Big To Fail status, unlike mega-corps today who can obtain a valuation of billions while never actually turning a fucking profit.
Much like the problem of automation and AI decimating the human workforce in the future, you can stop looking at history as if you're going to find an answer there. There isn't one. The game, has changed, not just the rules. And unless many governments figure out how to deal with mega-corps (other than waiving their right to pay any tax and giving out
Re: (Score:3)
Let's see what happened to them. East India Company was nationalized. AT&T was broken up. Standard Oil was broken up. GM and U.S. Steel were at least partially checked by unions.
Perhaps the new crop of huge corporations are about due for correction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am against a generalisation as it targets the free economy. Better create laws requiring unions for large companies. We already demand gender and racial diversity, no discrimination of any kind, etc., and we should follow this line of thinking. Protect employees when and where necessary, but otherwise leave corporations as much freedom and power as possible. Anything that limits the ability to compete is however not only going to damage corporations, but all of us. Our corporations are in a sense our armi
Re: (Score:2)
We already demand gender and racial diversity
no discrimination of any kind
These two things are mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're wrong. You're just failing at seeing how you are creating a circular argument for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, what you have is a circular argument. To take on your thinking would mean to believe there was always discrimination, thus not ever no discrimination, and hence indistinguishable from one another, so therefore there is no discrimination. In short, it makes on sense.
You will have to accept that there is such a thing as no discrimination, i.e. the percentage of male vs. female in nature, which is about 49% to 51%, and not run off arguing nature itself was somehow discriminating humans. It simply isn't
Re: (Score:2)
You will have to accept that there is such a thing as no discrimination.
I accept it wholeheartedly. However it directly contradicts a governmental requirement for diversity, whatever that means. They cannot co-exist. You cannot claim no discrimination on one hand and require business to carefully discriminate based on race, gender or whatever on another. This was the entire mandate basis of Affirmative Action: if two equally qualified candidates apply, you choose the under represented group. i.e discrimination. True fairness and non discrimination would require flipping a
Re: (Score:2)
... However it directly contradicts a governmental requirement for diversity, whatever that means. ...
It means to end discrimination. I'm going to ignore you though, because you're just going in circles. Remember when I wrote you're having a circular argument? That's why you don't get out of your loop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The foundation of the idea rests entirely upon the absurd proposition that Marx developed some sort of "scientific history" that allowed him to accurately predict the future. It would not be possible to identify the end stage of anything before it happened unless one had the ability to accurately predict
Conflicted (Score:1)
On one hand it's good to see a company get called out for doing something illegal.
On the other hand, this is more showboating by the outgoing failure to "stick it" to big tech. Since he couldn't tie Pentagon funding to a review or revocation of Rule 230 [cbsnews.com], this is how he's getting back. Expect to see more cases like this over the next month and a half before he's escorted off the premises.
James Damore must be laughing his ass off (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet these employees would like some tolerance of diverse *opinions* right now and to be able to share some social commentary with their colleagues without the employer retaliating.
You'd think if you were orgainizing against google (Score:4, Insightful)
you'd use yahoo to search for IRI consultants and use Microsoft teams to organize the protest.
Re: (Score:2)
''and use Microsoft teams ''
Because we all know how much secure any MS project is.
Re: (Score:2)
Google's not going to hack it
Re: You'd think if you were orgainizing against go (Score:2)
No need. MS will offer Google a "performance dashboard".
There is "legal" spying?? (Score:2)
Huh? Don't think so!
So, no more TPS reports? (Score:2)
Time clock is spying on your work hours.
Manager is spying on your work.
Customers are spying on your companies quality and value.
Retail stores video tape all workers.
So, Google is not supposed to check if their workers are actually working?
Pichai needs to go (Score:2)
Was it really spying? (Score:2)
Um, spying? They looked at a slide deck! .. That's pretty weak "spying". I don't envision that being made into the plot of a James Bond movie. Real spying would be if they setup webcams or mics or something like that .. viewing someone's slide deck, which was (speculation here) apparently public and open to other employees, is hardly "spying."
Don't be evil --- (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
... was once Google' motto. Apparently not anymore.
That has happened a long time ago.
Pop up ... (Score:2)
She pushed an un-reviewed and unprofessional commit for an internal tool used company wide.
What reputation is there for Google to hurt? If Google wasn't now forced to put her on the payroll she'd never get hired for a security role ever again.
Illegal spying? (Score:1)
When I first read that I was thinking - what don't they know about almost every one of us? They probably know down to the bathroom habits of most of us. Where we eat, where we go, who we see. Even what we say. What we're interested in.
This sounds like pretty Cut and Dry Case (Score:2)
She literally published a piece of code that would spy on her colleagues and push her own agenda. This was likely illegal. She could've used mailing lists or bulletin boards to spread her message, instead she hacked into coworkers systems.
Time to... (Score:1)
Re:google is growing up (Score:5, Insightful)
What you guys really need is a nice healthy dose of class consciousness.
Re: (Score:2)
Most social advances in the workplace were done because it improved worker productivity, not because the employers did it out of charity with a loss to their bottom line. Companies aren't involved in ideologies, they just look at ways to make money.
And part of the reason we don't have much class consciousness in the US (other than blaming the opposite political side of being too elitist or rich) is because we've been fed this myth that everyone has equal opportunities no matter your background, sex, income,
Re:google is growing up (Score:5, Insightful)
Most social advances in the workplace were done because it improved worker productivity...
Most advances in workers rights were gained by fighting for them, sometimes literally. But yes, you're right about Americans believing the propaganda they're fed.
It seems odd to me that you guys don't look at the life Germans live (for example) and decide to have that for yourselves. I can't see why you wouldn't.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems odd to me that you guys don't look at the life Germans live (for example) and decide to have that for yourselves. I can't see why you wouldn't.
I remember David Graeber saying that part of how we humans define our cultures is by refusing to do some sensible things that we see other cultures doing. It immediately made me think of Americans and universal healthcare.
Re: (Score:2)
As each and every step taken to reduce the price has instead caused costs to rise, it seems foolish to think that reducing the price to zero will have a different outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Only an American would try to claim that which proves my original contention nicely. Thanks for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What a bloody stupid idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Healthcare is universally available in America. Payment is an individual responsibility.
As each and every step taken to reduce the price has instead caused costs to rise, it seems foolish to think that reducing the price to zero will have a different outcome.
This is one of those interesting cases where logic leads one astray and evidence is need to correct the logic. Every developed country with universal healthcare (and you know what I mean by that, despite your quibble) spends half as much per capita on healthcare as the US does. This means one of the assumptions you used to arrive at your logical conclusion that "it seems foolish to think that reducing the price to zero will have a different outcome" is wrong. Which assumption is it, do you think?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need the government to control your health in order to have a system that is able to provide care for everyone. A healthy market will do the job just fine, so long as the feedback mechanisms are intact and you don't artificially inflate demand or deflate supply.
Thing is, though... having the government control healthcare to control costs and provide care for everyone has been demonstrated to work multiple times in multiple nations. Having the market do so has never been demonstrated. There has only been unsupported theorizing that it might work. It's the cold fusion of healthcare funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans are taught that America is the greatest country on Earth, and that therefore all other ways of life must be inferior. They are made to pledge allegiance to this way of life from childhood, in school and at social events.
Once that idea is baked in it becomes very hard to believe it might not be true. It's a common issue, people get used to thinking a certain way, their brains become wired to do it. The reason CBT works for depression is that it seeks to rewire those thought pathways to avoid negati
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems weird that you think that there are only two ways of thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or look at it this way - under Socialism, a central authority controls all the means of production. That doesn't just mean factories, it means everything that goe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: google is growing up (Score:2)
Oo-kay... Then you are my slave now.
Prepare your diddly-hole!
(QED)
Re: (Score:2)
I like the fact that the company in question is growing up, in their teens they were socialist and now they have finally seen the light.
You know we can Google, right? (Score:4, Informative)
> I mean sure, adjusted for inflation we're all making less than we did for equivalent work 20 years ago.
Do you seriously think we are all utter morons?
US median income 2000: $42,148
US median income 2010: $49,445
US median income 2020: $68,400
That's an increase of 38% in the last ten years, 62% in the last 20 years.
Inflation over the same period was 19% and 49%, respectively.
Rsilvergun, when you post total lies that anyone can very easily see are absolute bullshit, it's really insulting. You must really think we are all total morons who will fall for any bullshit you post; you must think nobody here even knows how to Google "median income 2000".
Re:You know we can Google, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now do college tuition, the price of a home, and rent.
Re:You know we can Google, right? (Score:5, Informative)
You know CPI (inflation) includes housing costs, I'm sure. But if you want to cherry-pick, let's do that.
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
(You do realize housing prices and rent are essentially the same thing, right?)
$70/ sq foot in 2000.
$118 / sq foot in 2019
That's an increase of 68%.
I think we saw median income went up 62% over that same time, right?
So we discovered that if you cherry-pick that cost that has gone up the most, housing costs have gone up about as much as salaries, while other costs have not.
A more interesting fact, to me, is that the average home was 1,600 square feet when I was born in 1975. It was 2,467 square feet by 2015. People are buying MUCH bigger houses now. And whining that a house 85% bigger costs more.
Re: (Score:2)
I know that CPI includes a nearly fictional "imputed rent" [slate.com] that has little to do with housing costs. You apparently do not.
Re: (Score:1)
The imputed rent used by the CPU does have a problem. Well, a pair of problems which both cause it to over-state.
It's the amount you could rent the house out for, and assumes that's your actual cost as a homeowner. Of course that implies that landlords don't make any money - that the cost of the mortgage is the same as the rent. We know that landlords do make money, generally. So mortgage cost is actually lower than rent. So CPI overstates housing cost for that reason.
Secondly, it ignores the single large
Re: (Score:1)
Ps, the article you linked to argues that if you rent a place for a long time, your rent doesn't go up a whole lot every year, just a little bit ...
Therefore we should assume that your mortgage has been increasing faster than rents every month!
What the actual fuck? What kind of reasoning is that?
Mortgages are MORE STABLE than rent. You pay pretty much the same mortgage payment for 20-30 years. That's one reason that buying a really fucking good idea - because ten years from now your mortgage payment will be
Re: (Score:2)
Rents will increase, and your mortgage will stay stable, but your taxes are likely to increase, as well as your upkeep costs. I don't pay for it when my appliances fail or the foundation needs to be jacked up. It depends on your rental jurisdiction, but I can actually refuse a rent increase here, from my understanding. (It's Montreal, and the rental market is weird. I know this isn't a uniform scenario across Canada, let alone the USA.)
I've owned a home and the upkeep costs were more than I expected (my par
Re: (Score:1)
PPS - while clearly we're not going to agree on that main topic of this thread. You're interesting to talk to, though, so I wonder if we would agree on this:
CPI *should* represent the *actual cost* of housing. The imputed rent method kinda sucks
The argument against using actual costs of owning a home is this:
Using the actual cost of owning a home would acknowledge that higher mortgage rates mean it costs more to buy a house.
Policy makers raise interest rates to try to reduce inflation. Using actual costs
Re: (Score:2)
If you're worried about rent and home prices, what about undoing the policies and zoning changes that made so many cities unaffordable?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know if he does or not, but I know that you're quoting household income statistics for a question that is directed not merely to personal income, but to personal income for "equivalent work."
You're attempting to compare apples and oranges, and doing it poorly.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you're suggesting that people work more than they did 20 years ago?
Do you want to check the numbers before you go with that, or are you gonna stick with that and see how it turns out?
Re: (Score:2)
Build your own case. But household income is not the way to do it no matter that you assume, so try again Ray.
Re: (Score:2)
So ... you're sticking with "household income increased by 62% because people worked 62% more"?
Of course, the median hours worked has actually gone DOWN, while pay has gone up.
Re: (Score:3)
So, you're avoiding quoting personal income or wage statistics because you're too embarrassed by reality [sagepub.com]? Did you forget that 50% inflation means that they didn't work 62% more? Or are you just that dishonest?
"The number of dual-income households has been steadily increasing over the past few decades." Wow... and household income rose. Shocking.
Re:You know we can Google, right? (Score:4, Informative)
I was was going to let this go with a flip response, but hell, fight me [pewresearch.org], let's watch you implode.
"[T]oday's real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers."
Now I've only had an assload of statistics education, so when I tell you that if an average is flat and values are increasing only on the high end, the median by definition is going down, you'd better believe it.
Thus, yeah, I'm going to stick with things and see how it turns out. Because Mike's wages don't go up simply because Molly goes to work to boost the household income.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you want to switch from "lower than 10 years ago" to "not much higher than 40 years ago". Is that the new goal posts you'd like to use?
Re: (Score:2)
The goalposts were never at "10 years ago," and you moved the goalposts to household income instead of real wages, so you don't get to complain.
Wasn't talking about the US Median (Score:2)
Also for most Americans wages have barely budged [pewresearch.org]. Meanwhile Housing, food, education & healthcare have all shot up in price. You make make food look cheaper with that "basket of goods" bullshit where you substitute Y for X with no regard to practicality, but you can't play those games with Housing, School & healthcare.
Re:Wasn't talking about the US Median (Score:4, Insightful)
I can keep going on. The costs are up, but it's no where near the same as it was. The standard of living has gone up. I am sure there are hard working people who deserve more, but in my personal life experience some of the richest people I know make the least amount of money. They know how to save and invest. It has also been my experience that people making half as much as me some how manage to have a new TV and car every year or two. Again, I don't mean to discredit anyone not deserving of such dismissal, but I bet 8 of 10 "poor" people are poor for their own doings.
When covid started, the power company sent out a notice saying they were not going to disconnect anyone due to non-payment if they claim money problems. The power company sent mail a few months back saying that an ordinate number of people are not paying their bills and according to the city, we do not have that many lost jobs and businesses are doing quite well. They even more recently sent notice that will we be starting to do disconnections in the spring if people don't get squared away. And don't think it isn't because they can't get help. I've been hounded by charity groups trying to shove money at me because I applied for energy assistance nearly 20 years ago. It's actually a city level issue at this point, people decided to stop paying their bills and been spending all of their saved money. I know people blowing their unpaid energy bills on new FANCY TVs and video games, and they're whining that the energy company is threatening to cut them off if they don't pay over $1000 in back bills.
Re: (Score:2)
> was talking about tech workers, which is what, by and large, you'll find on /..
Has your salary gone down?
Mine sure as F hasn't. The 30 million tech workers in the Payscale database haven't seen their real salary (adjusted for inflation) go down either.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a bigger problem with productivity than inflation.
https://www.epi.org/productivi... [epi.org]
The productivity pay gap is huge; we produce more value per unit work than we ever have, but wages haven't kept up. Why haven't they kept up? Who's sucking up all that excess productivity if it's not the workers? (No bonus points for guessing exactly who benefits.)
It's also worth noting that minimum wage jobs used to cover a lot more expenses than they do today. If you adjust THOSE jobs for inflation, they should be p
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't buy the argument that minimum wage jobs are 'unskilled', 'easy' or 'starter' jobsâ"I wouldn't want to work a lot of those jobs.
Maybe I'm not following your logic here - I wouldn't want to stay in my "starter" job my whole life either. I showed up on time to flip burgers and didn't act like a dick, so that by the time I was 16 1/2 I was at least the assistant manager. Then I put in some time learning stuff, because I didn't want to stay in my first job. I'm not seeing how "I wouldn't wan
Re: (Score:2)
There are necessarily fewer jobs at that level than below it; not everyone can be a crew chief or a manager. In my own work, I"m a 'senior programmer', but I manage nobody. Managing jobs are much scarcer, so if I wanted to progress through that track, I'm suddenly competing with a lot more people for fewer spots. (Fortunately, my position pays perfectly well and I don't want any of the hassles of management. But that's a completely different industry.) Also, let's be real, the top 0.1% are who are sucking u
Re: (Score:2)
> There are necessarily fewer jobs at that level than below it; not everyone can be a crew chief or a manager.
I see you've never been exposed to a large company like Verizon, or the government. :)
It is true that when you 4X as many supervisors as you have front-line workers, it's inefficient. Perfectly possible, it happens all the time - just not a goal to aspire to.
> The Amazons and Apples of the world make a few people at the top insanely wealthy
It *is* very much true that there are very, very few J
Re: (Score:2)
Ps, I said it was hard for me working 60 hou s plus going to school. Well, hard is relative.
In 1968 in backwoods Mississippi there was a poor negro girl.
She was 14 year, and pregnant. She was pregnant from sexual abuse at home, so she had to flee and try to make it on her own.
Being 14, poor, black, and pregnant in 1960s Mississippi, then trying to care for a child when you still ARE a child - that's hard. That's harder than what I've done.
She did make it, btw. It was was really hard, but she worked hard
Re: (Score:2)
Google the difference between mean and median.
Bezos has exactly the same affect in the median that you do.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll save you a Google - median means half the people make more than that number.
Re: Who needs Unions (Score:2)
Unions are your side of the swing in the balancing of the free market.
Yeah... Who needs his own side, with the other one being filled by the 800 ton kraken from hell... --.--
Did you ever actually think about anything you parroted? Like ... ever?
Re: (Score:2)