Now this guy is a dck... - Page 2

Mikedogg · 07-13-2012, 15:54 | posts: 2,872 | Location: The Freak Show - Earth.

^Someone need a timeout?

OP: I have the perfect 'meme' for this thread. But I think it's a little too rude lol.

IPlayNaked · 07-13-2012, 16:00 | posts: 6,559

Quote:

Originally Posted by dchalf10

Their overtime is also outlined...and 6-12 months of full time work load unpaid does not fakl within any legally allowed amount of overtime. It is not left to employer disgression it is government regulated and judging from all the reports that have come out not only have development staff been underpaid for overtime but they're been blackmailed from declaring in by name.

Don't even try to justify it you pathetic f#%@.

Still at a loss for how it isn't an option to simply find another job not requiring such hours.

If a company is not meeting a contract, that's a different issue. If there is overtime pay that should be awarded on the basis of an agreement between the employee and employer, that absolutely should be paid, and a suit taken if it is not.

But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about requiring developers to participate in crunch time approaching a new release.

CronoGraal · 07-13-2012, 16:01 | posts: 3,438 | Location: Sweden

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLEH!

Employment laws in the states seem to be woefully behind the rest of the Western world in some areas...

They're behind in many things my friend.

dchalf10 · 07-13-2012, 16:14 | posts: 4,044

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPlayNaked

Still at a loss for how it isn't an option to simply find another job not requiring such hours.

If a company is not meeting a contract, that's a different issue. If there is overtime pay that should be awarded on the basis of an agreement between the employee and employer, that absolutely should be paid, and a suit taken if it is not.

But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about requiring developers to participate in crunch time approaching a new release.

When it is not specified in the contract those 'hours' are not required. It becomes a problem when hours NOT in the contract are demanded, hence the public complaints by anonymous people in the games industry. The hours demanded of them account for 50-100% of their contracted hours which no industry is allowed to allocate.

@Mikedogg

A time-out suggestion coming from the most paranoid conspiracy theorist on Guru3D...must have struck a nerve?

P.S don't set the Masons/Illuminati, drop bears, reverse vampires on me...

Mikedogg · 07-13-2012, 16:19 | posts: 2,872 | Location: The Freak Show - Earth.

That's rich coming from you, really.

I recall one user got a timeout for saying "Aw who gives a ****" a while back. Calling someone a "pathetic f#ck" would be passable.

Dustpuppy · 07-13-2012, 16:29 | posts: 4,144

Look when a guy with no medical insurance and maybe 1,000 bucks to his name, negotiates with somebody with a few million/billion he's not likely to be in a good enough bargaining position to get a fair shake. Labor laws exist to balance that out a bit.

dchalf10 · 07-13-2012, 16:34 | posts: 4,044

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikedogg

That's rich coming from you, really.

I recall one user got a timeout for saying "Aw who gives a ****" a while back. Calling someone a "pathetic f#ck" would be passable.

Mikedogg · 07-13-2012, 16:40 | posts: 2,872 | Location: The Freak Show - Earth.

dchalf10 · 07-13-2012, 16:48 | posts: 4,044

Nice deflection. Let me know when they come for you, I'll be eagerly waiting.

You're not a raelian are you ? Because they're a special strain of crazy, one that makes Scientologists look like Hari Krishna's.

Mikedogg · 07-13-2012, 16:52 | posts: 2,872 | Location: The Freak Show - Earth.

No I don't think I am.

But clearly you suffer from an extreme case of "Cognitive Dissidence."

dchalf10 · 07-13-2012, 16:55 | posts: 4,044

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikedogg

No I don't think I am.

But clearly you suffer from an extreme case of "Cognitive Dissidence."

Whoa man, you must be like omg super conscious of your place in the universe. Let me know when the intergalactic phone rings.

Mikedogg · 07-13-2012, 17:05 | posts: 2,872 | Location: The Freak Show - Earth.

Ring ring, ring ring, here, it's for you.

Click to show spoiler

IPlayNaked · 07-13-2012, 17:08 | posts: 6,559

Welp. That got out of hand, fast.

WhiteLightning · 07-13-2012, 17:11 | posts: 20,492 | Location: Netherlands

This thread needs a nice rainbow

Mikedogg · 07-13-2012, 17:12 | posts: 2,872 | Location: The Freak Show - Earth.

Yeah well I was just trying to help keep the thread civilized.

So much for vigilante justice.

JohnMaclane · 07-13-2012, 17:12 | posts: 4,835 | Location: Malta

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPlayNaked

Not everything is about being "protected"

There are two sides to this transaction. There's an employer, and there's an employee. When a job is accepted, a contract is created between them. I do not like that some third party believes they can dictate the terms of my contract with my employer. I further believe that if my employer does not wish to employ me, for any reasons, that is well within their rights to do so. I have no claim on their money. I cannot force them to employ me.

Just as they cannot force me to stay. It's a two way street. If you believe that employees should not be forced into certain situations or actions, then you should also believe that employers receive similar treatment.

Further, I do not know all of your laws, just as you don't know mine. One of the protections I enjoy is that a union cannot dominate a job. Joining the union cannot be a prerequisite for taking a job here. There is no forced enrollment. Do you enjoy the same protection?

My point is, my protections relate to protecting the agreement between the employer and the employee, whatever agreement that is.

I do not want to fight or anything but I find your post filled with strikingly american paranoia of anything not-capitalist.

Contracts by definition are upheld by the law, the law of which as we all know is supreme. The government already in any country regulates contracts; example contracts cannot be made in bad faith, or under duress or a gazillion other pieces of legislation.

That is why your whole first paragraph makes no sense. You're wrong the government does dictate how and on what terms you make contracts. So much so that the US has a labour law, just its not as strong as lets say Germany.

IF we let employers have free reign like you're saying, it would be 1850 again. Employers in industrialised systems have too much leverage and its common sense that without protection employees would be used and abused. You yourself enjoy some degree of protection, if there wasn't believe me the conditions would be much worse.

Why do you automatically think that just because I come from Europe we have some communist led regime which forces employees into a union. Its nothing of the sort, the law in my country is that anyone with 7 or more workers in the same place of employment can form a union if they want with membership being voluntary. A workplace can have multiple unions however collective agreements (the reason why workers join unions) are usually negotiated with the largest union.

You cannot however fire at will here; 'they are to be a good and justifiable reasons' with the act going into real detail on what constitutes a good and justifiable reason. Firing for economic reasons is allowed but comes with guarantees that if the company is re-hiring preference is given to ex-employees.

Nothing crazy as you can see.

Whats up with mikedoggg and dcalf

IPlayNaked · 07-13-2012, 17:34 | posts: 6,559

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnMaclane

I do not want to fight or anything but I find your post filled with strikingly american paranoia of anything not-capitalist.

Contracts by definition are upheld by the law, the law of which as we all know is supreme. The government already in any country regulates contracts; example contracts cannot be made in bad faith, or under duress or a gazillion other pieces of legislation.

That is why your whole first paragraph makes no sense. You're wrong the government does dictate how and on what terms you make contracts. So much so that the US has a labour law, just its not as strong as lets say Germany.

IF we let employers have free reign like you're saying, it would be 1850 again. Employers in industrialised systems have too much leverage and its common sense that without protection employees would be used and abused. You yourself enjoy some degree of protection, if there wasn't believe me the conditions would be much worse.

Why do you automatically think that just because I come from Europe we have some communist led regime which forces employees into a union. Its nothing of the sort, the law in my country is that anyone with 7 or more workers in the same place of employment can form a union if they want with membership being voluntary. A workplace can have multiple unions however collective agreements (the reason why workers join unions) are usually negotiated with the largest union.

You cannot however fire at will here; 'they are to be a good and justifiable reasons' with the act going into real detail on what constitutes a good and justifiable reason. Firing for economic reasons is allowed but comes with guarantees that if the company is re-hiring preference is given to ex-employees.

Nothing crazy as you can see.

Whats up with mikedoggg and dcalf

You're throwing out words about how I think you're communist, or I'm paranoid of anything "not capitalist" which is just insane and not true. I don't base decisions of meaningless words, I think them through. I don't look a scenario and go "Not capitalist, bad. Capitalist, good" I say "This is bad and here's why"

As to your point that we would be back in 1850, this is fundamentally and absolutely false. The reason conditions were so atrocious then was a simple matter of labor "monopolies". The "If you don't like this job, go find another" was much, much, more difficult as most jobs were factory or service, there was little room for doing what you wanted, and those jobs paid poorly because there were so many employees willing to work in such conditions.

Today, laws or not, there would be no such thing. Not in developed nations, like the US. If I don't like how this company treats me, there's another trucking company who needs IT staff next door, down the street. There are so so so many options in this city alone, nevermind other cities that I can choose where I want to be.

Hell, I can even start my own.

The idea that labor laws are what keeps civilized employment running is ridiculous. Employees demand healthy work environments (or work environments they're willing to work in) just as much as employers demand competent employees. If you were to remove the laws tomorrow, my company wouldn't suddenly tell us we all have to work 30 extra hours and week and that they're turning off the air conditioning. Why? Because we're all skilled workers, well, most of us, and if you ****ing do that, I'm finding a job that takes care of me.

Employers know this. Employers know that they are in competition for decent employees just as much as employees are in competition for decent jobs. A good employer has benefits that attract good employees. My company offers a wellness program that pays you for good habits, medical, dental, eye care, christmas bonuses, holiday time, good, paid vacation which you are encouraged to take, a relaxed atmosphere, employee get-togethers, sponsors a local kids group for 100k+ per year at Christmas...The list goes on and on. No laws require these things. They could just as easily say "Here's your salary, do your work"

But they know that these extra things we do make us work together harder, better, inspire loyalty to the company, and goodwill among the employees.

As I said. These things are not required in any way by any law, and yet they are done. If what you say is true, if society would just devolve into the 1850s if the laws didn't exist...Why are there companies with such huge benefits/goodwill packages?

airbud7 · *Last edited by airbud7; 07-13-2012 at 19:26.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLEH!

Employment laws in the states seem to be woefully behind the rest of the Western world in some areas...

Wrong...>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_average_wage

1.Country with the highest average wage...>United States of America...

2.Country with the most millionaire households...>United States of America...

3.Country with the most billionaires...*drum roll*..>United States of America...

Denial · 07-13-2012, 19:26 | posts: 6,351 | Location: Above Earth in a Big Rocket Ship

Quote:

Originally Posted by airbud7

Wrong...>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_average_wage

The average wage is hardly an indicator of the status of employment laws of a particular country.

airbud7 · 07-13-2012, 19:27 | posts: 2,017 | Location: Evans Ga,USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denial

The average wage is hardly an indicator of the status of employment laws of a particular country.

Whatever, Dude...Where I come from...Cash is King

Denial · *Last edited by Denial; 07-13-2012 at 19:44.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by dchalf10

When it is not specified in the contract those 'hours' are not required. It becomes a problem when hours NOT in the contract are demanded, hence the public complaints by anonymous people in the games industry. The hours demanded of them account for 50-100% of their contracted hours which no industry is allowed to allocate.

If additional hours are demanded of them above their contract and they have a problem with it, they can easily quit and collect unemployment. We have people do it all the time for the construction company I do IT for. They get hired for a job, work the minimum requirement, which I think is only two weeks now, quit then collect unemployment through a stupid claim, and because of recent laws they can get extensions for nearly 2 years. Not to mention they can probably file suit and one of the hundred billion lawyers in the country will get them the additional money they were robbed of.

Maybe if more people would actually exercise the rights they do have, instead of writing "public complaints" the companies would be forced to change their development process. Or they could even unionize and demand better working conditions. But that would actually require people to do something, so let's not do that...

Year · 07-13-2012, 19:51 | posts: 11,660 | Location: ♫

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPlayNaked

If they're not paying you what you want for the hours you're working, you just don't take the job.

hello 47, Diana here.. got a new job for ya, you interested?

the perfect job.

PR-0927 · 07-13-2012, 20:21 | posts: 1,666 | Location: Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A.

Quote:

Originally Posted by airbud7

Whatever, Dude...Where I come from...Cash is King

Your ignorance on the relevance of economic indices is not helped by this comment.

Also, cash is always king. What in the world was the point of that comment? Income disparity in the U.S. is among the world's worst.

- PR-0927

airbud7 · *Last edited by airbud7; 07-13-2012 at 21:16.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR-0927

Your ignorance on the relevance of economic indices is not helped by this comment.

Also, cash is always king. What in the world was the point of that comment?

- PR-0927

Instead of putting me down(and your country) Why dont you prove your statement....>Income disparity in the U.S. is among the world's worst.

also...>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash

Kinda has something to do with(economic indices)...Ya think...

Edit: Yes I get mad when people talk about the USA...In an attempt to make there country look better...sorry if I offended anyone...

PR-0927 · 07-13-2012, 22:41 | posts: 1,666 | Location: Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A.

Quote:

Originally Posted by airbud7

Instead of putting me down(and your country) Why dont you prove your statement....>Income disparity in the U.S. is among the world's worst.

also...>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash

Kinda has something to do with(economic indices)...Ya think...

Edit: Yes I get mad when people talk about the USA...In an attempt to make there country look better...sorry if I offended anyone...

Sure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GI...chedcolors.png

Obviously nations in Africa and South America are a bit worse off. But you need to compare the U.S. to peer nations and developed ones - and it sucks in comparison in regards to income inequality.

Also, if you think stating the simple truth about your country is "putting it down," you need to open up your mind a bit. I'm staunchly pro-American hegemony, but that doesn't make me blind to the evils of America (or any nation).

Also, I believe this should demonstrate our widening gap problems (which is fairly often an indicator of economic collapse - the middle class is shrinking, while the rich get richer - this is DANGEROUS for any economy:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ca-chart-graph

- PR-0927