I love how he brags that Verizon "paid out more than $16 billion in dividends to the millions of average Americans who invest in our stock."
If $16 billion went to average Americans, the amount that went to stupendously wealthy Americans must truly be staggering.
Also, LinkedIn is a festering boil of a social network.
It is, but I've gotten two unsolicited requests that I apply for jobs through it so I'm using it for real instead of trying to create a new type of BINGO based on your connections. (The center square was going to be "A Veterinarian Named 'Katz'".)
I've been experimenting with using social networking software for purposes other than that for which it was designed. I keep in touch with work colleagues through Facebook, chat up women on LinkedIn and spend most of my time on Tinder posting pictures of cats.
The results have been highly enlightening.
"I didn't swipe left*, I was scratching your chin."
* or right, whichever it is.
4. So, are there many furries on Tinder?
Some of the pure essence of crony capitalism in that thread is awesome. Someone justifying an $18M annual salary because ECON!01!!
Gary Scheuer, clearly you don't understand the concept of supply and demand. The reason why this CEO makes what he does, is because he has finely honed skills. Do you think a Union worker is in a mental position to take on the lives of 100,000 people and ensure they have a retirement plan, can feed their family, ensure that the company's strength shows in the market? No. There are few people in this world who can do what he does. And because of that, the incentive to work at Verizon is very strong so the competition doesn't steal him away. Instead of your blatant jealousy. Learn how to do what he does. Make a career out of running companies, and growing them. And then some day you can be paid the same.
Nobody can steal him away from Verizon until the end of the two year contract period without paying the early termination fee.
I have a LinkedIn page which I never visit. I can't even remember why I set it up in the first place.
I do find ResearchGate useful. It's kind of nice being able to track who's viewing/downloading your papers.
Re: the original post, I suppose it shouldn't be surprising by now that these Master Of The Universe types feel entitled to worshipful adulation along with their billions, but somehow the abject neediness of these guys always surprises me anyway.
Is ResearchGate useful? I've never bothered to sign up because I got so very much SPAM from them.
I thought I kept up with all of the latest scandals, but I never heard of ResearchGate.
11: I've found it to be moderately useful. I've occasionally used it to get answers about troubleshooting assays. For computational stuff, I haven't asked any questions on ResearchGate because the dedicated software specific message boards already work fine. It's also kind of interesting to know who is reading which of your papers. I get more pdf requests through ResearchGate than through my University email.
Also, because I'll take whatever small bits of encouragement I can get, I enjoy the weekly emails telling me how many views/downloads/citations my papers have received that week.
The sycophantic toadying quoted in 8 is fantastic.
I assume they don't send you emails when all the numbers are 0.
"There are few people in this world who can do what he does." is a fair description of my cat. Only he's a she.
8, 14: Jesus Christ. Has no one any shame?
OT: Look out! Think piece avalanche!
I like ResearchGate because you can get access to papers that would otherwise cost money. Also, they let me pretend I'm an academic.
I've gotten so used to university journal access that I just go to PubMed when I want to look at anything, even for papers I'm an author on.
Also an option: "Make a career out of ruining companies." You'll be paid at least as much.
My old university has just offered me (and all its alumni, I assume) free JSTOR access. Is this a thing now?
The money for JSTOR access is being wasted if it could be used to pay more to the very few people in the world who know how to run a university.
Calling yourself ResearchGate seems to be tempting fate.
I was motivated some years ago to cut all ties to Verizon, but found it too inconvenient. Can't someone buy them and fire everyone in management?
25: that is definitely going on my Tinder LinkedIn profile.
26: Maybe if we pool our funds? I've got $100 I can spare.
I wonder if anybody has tried to finance a hostile takeover through Kickstarter. Because that seems like a good idea.
29: Yeah! I bet we can raise as much as the potato salad guy!
29,30: On a related note, if someone does a Kickstarter to raise money for the anticipated legal fees that will be incurred by punching the CEO of Verizon in the face*, would the contributors be subject to a conspiracy charge?
*Never mind that Kickstarter wouldn't host it.
25 -- the world definitely needed JSTOR to provide that Tumblr about JSTOR.
Also, maybe I'm going insane with my general view of Sanders as a well-meaning bullshit artist, but I actually found the Verizon CEO's piece sort of convincing. I mean I'm sure the CEO's a dick who should pay his workers more, but if your concern is companies that don't "invest in America" or ship jobs overseas or don't provide middle class jobs Verizon seems like a terrible example -- they do put in tons of money for infrastructure, they do have unionized jobs, etc. They had crappy customer service IME but that doesn't seem like Bernie's critique. It's kinda hard to think of a big US company that does more of the traditional build stuff, keep working-class type jobs at home than Verizon does.
That's pretty inevitable for a land-based telecoms infrastructure company, surely. I mean, until we're all getting our communications via satellite or weather balloons, they pretty much have to employ lots of people in the US to build and maintain it. I don't know if they keep stuff they don't have to onshore, like call centres and IT.
He should have just said, "We're not as bad as Comcast."
34 - Oh of course. They're not doing it out of love. And surely their CEO should be paid less. But they do seem like about the worst possible example of a US company killing off traditional working class type jobs by shipping them overseas. In any plausible version of a more social democratic America, you'd have companies with large unionized US workforces and generous union benefits negotiating over those benefits while investing a bunch of their retained earnings onshore. Which seems like pretty much what's happening at Verizon.
I don't put a lot of stock in telecommunications companies taking credit how much they invest.
They've been granted a quasi-monopoly on a vital piece of infrastructure. Damn right they need to invest - that's their end of the bargain.
Building infrastructure isn't easy, but it's not as hard as the same work in Japan.
If that link doesn't work, try this one.
large unionized US workforces and generous union benefits negotiating over those benefits
Ideally, those negotiations don't lead to a situation where your workers are on strike at the same time your CEO is on LinkedIn bragging about the dividends he hands out to stockholders.
33,34: Yesterday's NPR piece about the Verizon strike mentioned that issue for the unions and Verizon both. The unionized people on strike almost entirely service legacy copper and fiber, while company-wide the large and growing non-unionized force is their call center and mobile phone employees. Those sectors are where Verizon is growing (at least financially), and also where it's offering less to employees and increasing offshoring.
In any plausible version of a more social democratic America, you'd have companies with large unionized US workforces and generous union benefits negotiating over those benefits
This strikes me as a peculiar defense of McAdam and critique of Sanders. "McAdam isn't so bad. After all, he hasn't achieved all of his goals in union negotiations. And when you think about it, isn't it a bit frivolous for Bernie to vocally support a union that hasn't failed?"
The shift from wired to wireless has been in the mix for a long time. A company concerned with the long term welfare of its employees would have used the opportunity to retrain its workforce to shift from one sector to the other. Instead, Verizon seems to have taken it for an opportunity to erode the union's influence.
Here's the transcript of the speech to which McAdam is responding:
"Brothers and sisters. Thank you for your courage and standing up for justice against corporate greed.
Verizon is one of the largest, most profitable corporations in this country, but they refuse to sit down and negotiate a fair contract.
They want to take away the health benefits that you have earned.
They want to outsource decent-paying jobs.
They want to give their CEO $20 million a year.
They want to avoid paying federal income taxes.
In other words, this is just another major American corporation trying to destroy the lives of working Americans.
Today, you are standing up not just for justice for Verizon workers; you're standing up for millions of Americans who don't have a union.
And you're telling corporate America they cannot have it all. You're telling corporate America that workers in this country are not going to be continued to push down and down and down.
The working class of this country deserves to earn decent wages, decent benefits, and not see their jobs go to low-wage countries.
I'm here today not just to support the CWA [Communication Workers of America union]. I know how hard it is, what a difficult decision it is to go out on strike. And I know you thought a whole lot about it, and I know your families are going to pay a price to go out on strike.
But you have chosen to stand up for dignity, for justice, and to take on an enormously powerful special interest.
So on behalf of every worker in America, those facing the same kind of pressure, thank you for what you are doing. We're gonna win this thing!"
Are there any companies concerned with the long-term welfare of their employees? (other than the employees with MBAs)
They'd better not admit it or Bain Capital will buy them out to make them more efficient.
In any plausible version of a more social democratic America, you'd have companies with large unionized US workforces and generous union benefits negotiating over those benefits while investing a bunch of their retained earnings onshore. Which seems like pretty much what's happening at Verizon.
And in the same plausible scenario, politicians would hold companies' feet to the fire when they don't negotiate in good faith (which I assume is happening here, because they have apparently been working without a contract for eight months). Which seems to me exactly what Sanders is doing - not saying they're leeches needing elimination.
Hillary's supporting the Verizon strike too!
And Verizon gave her a lot of money, so there's your proof that Hillary cannot be bought!
Hillary still needs to answer for the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
33
You're suffering from Bernie derangement syndrome. Take 2 vicodin with a glass of scotch, nap until the primaries are over, and you'll feel better.
You're suffering from Bernie derangement syndrome.
Please follow the style manual. That's to be expressed as "anti-Semite!"
So in addition to your $20 million, you also want recognition that you are a great guy doing great things for America? I've heard money can be exchanged for goods and services. Perhaps you could exchange some of that $20 million for social recognition.
Being told you're a great guy who is doing amazing things for America when you're the CEO of Verizon?
I mean, even very expensive prostitutes have limits on what they're willing to do.
Off-topic, but thinking about unions: we do contract work for oil refineries, and I'm far enough removed, that I don't have a clear sense of what the relationship between the unions and the company is, but I do know that when they go on strike, it sounds like an old-school strike.
Refineries are designed to operator 24 hours a day, and it's a complicated process to start them up or shut them down. So, when the operators are out, the company wants to keep things running, even at a slower rate. So they literally have administrators running the plant. They set up cots in the offices; and bring in administrators from other sites (often from out of state, because there aren't that many refineries in any given state) give them a crash course, and have them run the units.
So somebody might be a data analyst in Utah, for example, and they'll get called in for a strike in California and they go, live on site, and try not to blow anything up . . .
There aren't many industries that work like that.
My sister works on ports, and she describes the longshoremans' union about like that.
Yeah, I think that's standard. Back in the eighties, when my mother was out on strike from TWA, they had supervisors working flights.
It is standard enough that I think it is conceptually distinct from scabbing in the eyes of the labor movement. Union A goes out on strike. The company covers the position of one striker by hiring someone off the street -- that person is a scab, who crossed the picket-line, and is properly thought of as a terrible person. They cover another position with a reassigned adminstrator. The administrator is in some sense the enemy in the labor dispute, but hasn't done anything wrongful, and when the strike's over, the union hasn't got a basis for a grudge against them specifically.
I'm not dead sure that I've got the distinction straight, but I think that's right.
56, 57: Managers can honor a picket line like anybody else. But yeah, they are despised by union members for being agents of Oppressive Management rather than being despised as scabs.
56 is right according to my preconceptions anyway. We used to cheer ourselves up on the picket line by remarking that at least the bastards would now have some idea what the job was like.
I mean, even very expensive prostitutes have limits on what they're willing to do.
Illegal and immoral is fine; fattening is a big no-no.
There's a guy on the tv talking about how he used to shit where Ted Cruz did.
I still remember when Dan Rooney took the field for the Steelers in 1987...
61: I'm not aware of a due process right to crapping.
But a guy who eats that much canned soup? Cruel.
I would think that forcing the administrators to do the work would be a win-win thing for the union. They get to force the group of people they're negotiating with to do something difficult that they're not trained to do for the duration of the strike, which makes the stare-off quality of a strike more pointed, and also the company takes a smaller hit economically which is good because real damage to it would probably involve unavoidable loss of jobs. I mean, I doubt it's the administrator negotiating with them that's out there working as well, but managers often seem to me to usually have more solidarity with each other than workers do.
Back in the day my father worked in the low rungs of management for Iconic Telegram Co. and he did exactly as described in 54 & 56 during strikes. He also used to get called out to work on military bases long past the time when he would go onsite to work on equipment for any other client because apparently USN for example gets to call the shots on who repairs their giant warehouse of tangled wires and circuit boards (he took me along once - no idea how he managed that but I think my mother was out of town with siblings along and he got called out in the middle of the night so I suspect he told them they could have him with child or someone else. I remember only night, pajamas, uniforms and rank after rank of equipment).
65: The less work gets done in the absence of union labor, the more power the union has. The union isn't negotiating with the line managers who are taking over the jobs - the union is negotiating with those managers bosses' bosses' bosses.
A strike, like a war, is a negative sum game. Once a strike begins, the goal of unions and management is to minimize damage. The point of a strike -- or a lockout -- isn't so much to win in the current negotiation as it is to win the next ones.
managers often seem to me to usually have more solidarity with each other than workers do.
Managers, by definition, speak with one voice: the voice of the Boss. Labor is inherently disadvantaged by Management's ability to divide and conquer.
I'm running a task force at work that's basically a grievance airing thing for staff, with the idea that the senior managers chairing the group are supposed to make things happen to solve at least some of those grievances.
Lots of the grievances are legit, and as many as possible will get fixed. But Jesus, the paranoia and the us-and-them thinking is amazing.*
I keep having to tell people that $thing that they are absolutely certain is going to happen, and is being kept totally secret from just them and their team, has never been discussed. And then they basically tell me to my face they don't believe me.
* and our place isn't that big, and the hierarchy is pretty flat, so a fair number of the middle managers are still hands-on-worker writing code, or doing research, or whatever. Not pie-in-the-sky executives.
It's not as bad as when managers are paranoid about some of them ganging up on each other behind the scenes but are talking all nice and collaborative in person.
25, 27: Seriously, that's amazing. Also actually what I want out of life. (Someday.)
The shirt, if not the rest, can be yours!
Hm, that's actually a different shirt.
Now you see why Thorn views it as a mirage!
OT: They moved my polling place. Now I have to go vote with strangers and I can't walk there. Assholes.
36: Verizon Wireless is definitely not unionized. Regular Verizon also irritates me, because they tear up the roads and then are cheap when they patch them up. They also didn't hire arborists in my town and cut down a whole bunch of old trees. The town was mad.
Debate thread- Wolf Blitzer reads unfogged!
What, did he make a cock programming joke?
Wow the audience is in the tank for Sanders. (watching late) Clinton is really stealing Sanders thunder on the $15 minimum wage.
CNNs graphics are ridiculous and unfair though. WHICH ONE HAS HAD THE MAGIC MUSHROOM with an arrow pointing to Bernies' side. Anyone else see this shit?
Hmmm I think that was because of who I was streaming from. I feel like Bernie was a little less focused this time. He might be getting tired.
I'm confused, did CNN accuse of taking magic mushrooms? That seems unlikely.
They did apparently accuse him of hating America or something.
Technically they said "large American corporations," but from the CNN perspective that's pretty much the same thing.
Bernie might be tired, I'm definitely tired. (It was WWE)
I wouldn't want to vote for a candidate who hasn't eaten magic mushrooms.
71: I don't actually want the shirt, but thanks.
First you get the free alumnus JSTOR access, then you get the shirts, then you get the women.
||
Oh FFS, Corey Robin's latest at CT is deeply annoying.
|>
I wonder if anyone on the internet has done more to blow up his credibility during primary season than that guy. For me at least he went from "weirdly annoying but interesting" to "I have absolutely no respect for you whatsoever."
I wonder if anyone on the internet has done more to blow up his credibility during primary season than that guy.
The entire portion of the Republican Party that appears on the internet?
I guess that should be liberalish-blog-internet.