SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Computing is notorious for not having a worthwhile professional association. Some practitioners join the IEEE, the IET or the ACM. However, membership typically costs hundreds of dollars per year and offers little practical help to computer professionals working in small companies. If you're working for government or a large corporation or you're a super programmer in a well funded start-up then you probably have a union or you don't need a union. However, if you're the sole techie in a small business, appreciation for your dedication is just the start. What happens when you're asked to do something unethical or illegal? Where do you turn when a job goes sour? How do you avoid the problem? How can you avoid really toxic employers?
Rather than paying hundreds of dollars per year for talks and conferences, you require local experts who have first-hand experience of local employers and local employment problems. How can this be achieved reliably and cost-effectively? This is where our expertise should shine. Firstly, union entry should be at least as stringent as the conceirge union. Secondly, there should be a web-of-trust within each metropolitan region (and ideally between regions). In the best case, the network distance between all members should be four or less. Thirdly, an obligatory website should incur less hits than SoylentNews and therefore an upper bound for costs can be established for a volunteer effort. Essentially, it should be possible to run a union from donations of US$3000 per year or significantly less. Indeed, the major cost to members would be food and drink expenses when informally meeting other members.
So who wants to join a computer professional union with sensible fees and obligations?
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday July 04 2017, @03:30PM (2 children)
If you regularly under-pay people for services rendered then I have a right to not associate with you. I also have the right to tell others why I do not associate with you and I would like to do so in a manner which is understood by a court of law.
If you infringe privacy then I have a right to not associate with you. I also have the right to tell others why I do not associate with you and I would like to do so in a manner which is understood by a court of law.
If you spam people then I have a right to not associate with you. I also have the right to tell others why I do not associate with you and I would like to do so in a manner which is understood by a court of law.
If you sell a product which is dangerously defective then I have a right to not associate with you. I also have the right to tell others why I do not associate with you and I would like to do so in a manner which is understood by a court of law.
If you wish to associate with such people then I have a right to not associate with you. I also have the right to tell others why I do not associate with you and I would like to do so in a manner which is understood by a court of law.
If information is power then I wish accurate and pertinent information to be propagated more widely. If that raises standards and eases my conscience then I would do it whether it raised or lowered my salary.
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 04 2017, @06:43PM (1 child)
Ok, great. Freedom of speech. The first amendment provides all of the above.
What does this have to do with "union scabs" only being hired by "scumbag employers"? What if a fantastic employer wants to hire someone who doesn't happen to be in a union? Do you want to wring your hands on a picket line because oh noes, teh scabosaurus rex is taking yer jerbs? If that's as far as it goes, more power to you. Picket all you like.
But if you try to interfere in the contracts of third parties unconnected to you, you're just one more damned powerplayer trying to dictate to the rest of the world, and you'll get all the love and respect as such that you deserve, like other would-be tyrants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:43AM
Gawd, you are stupid.
The first amendment says the THE GOVERNMENT can't lock you up for e.g. calling Trump a worthless piece of shit.
if you try to interfere in the contracts of third parties unconnected to you
Since you didn't provide a real-world example of something that actually happened which illustrates your "point", I'm going to call you stupid once again.
It's sad that 11 year olds get to post their ignorance here.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]