Recent comments in /f/technology

Cozimo64 t1_je2i2qn wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in I Would Love to Have Enough Time and Money to Go to an Office to Work All Day - Perhaps Steven Rattner and the executives complaining to him about their remote employees could lend me a hand (or $50,000 more a year). by speckz

You know you can quit a job, right? You don't owe a company labour, it's a joint agreement of labour in exchange for pay - if either party wishes to terminate that agreement, they can at any time.

7

AlericandAmadeus t1_je2hch3 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in I Would Love to Have Enough Time and Money to Go to an Office to Work All Day - Perhaps Steven Rattner and the executives complaining to him about their remote employees could lend me a hand (or $50,000 more a year). by speckz

What’s funny is that the vast majority of jobs in America very specifically state multiple times in the hiring process that your employment terms are not a contract lol.

That leaves the employers a lot more flexibility and outs when it comes to termination/how they treat you.

You’re so off base it’s amazing. Workers in America would benefit immensely from actual employment contracts. Those are usually what unions push for, actually.

23

Turdmonkey2 t1_je2ghzi wrote

Reply to comment by SheriffComey in I Would Love to Have Enough Time and Money to Go to an Office to Work All Day - Perhaps Steven Rattner and the executives complaining to him about their remote employees could lend me a hand (or $50,000 more a year). by speckz

Well, yeah they were low on time, the yacht was gassed up and the jacuzzi was warm.... what.. are they supposed to let the champaign come to room temperature or something?!

22

arbutus1440 t1_je2fgot wrote

Reply to comment by BachthovenIB in I Would Love to Have Enough Time and Money to Go to an Office to Work All Day - Perhaps Steven Rattner and the executives complaining to him about their remote employees could lend me a hand (or $50,000 more a year). by speckz

>CEO’s are in reality salesmen for the business.

IDK why this doesn't get said more often. If a CEO actually gives a fuck about employees, then shareholders want them removed. If a CEO keeps shareholders happy, then either 1) the employees hate them, or 2) the CEO is slick enough in their salesmanship that they've hoodwinked enough employees into buying into their bullshit. In my industry, I can't tell you how often I've heard someone in a leadership position crow about how we employees really love "serving our clients' needs." NO WE DON'T, WE JUST HAVE BILLS TO PAY, YOU FUCKING TOOL. Nobody has ever loved "serving our clients' needs" since the dawn of time. Be a human for chrissakes.

25

Fake_William_Shatner t1_je2f6ax wrote

Reply to The US government is gearing up for an AI antitrust fight by OutlandishnessOk2452

I predict a lot of bad decisions that try and prevent drastic changes to the status quo without trying to actually look at the logic of copyright and IP and the future.

Of course, what else can they do? Admit that market capitalism and intellectual property are perhaps obsolete? While sure, there are limits on raw resources, a good chunk of the "scarcity" in products is labor and know-how -- in learning the skills to improve or adapt. That's essentially going to be zero in cost in the near future.

So much of this hype around "jurisprudence" and there is little theology in play; it's merely going with keeping track of who owns what and preserving whatever the status quo is -- then reverse engineering that onto whatever some law said. Over many iterations of interpretation -- some of these concepts bare little resemblance to their Constitutional underpinnings.

And, it's not like we could pass any Amendments today to save our lives -- we can't even save our lives over Global Warming.

1