Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Feb 23, 2019.
LOL poor deceived workers, MS is working on a lot more effective ways to kill en mass than this.
They should have thought about that before they chose to slam planes into our buildings killing innocent civilians. There's a difference between killing innocent civilians and killing known terrorists and their supporters. If they want to see... whatever the hell his name is so damn much and kill in his name, our military is more than willing to hasten their trip.
I can't wait for MS to fire them all. Shit like this needs to start being put down by the companies at large.
I'm sure they could throw in some "hopes and prayers" to go with that petition while they are "acting". So at least then they hit the trifecta of useless things you can do.
Becoming more efficient at mass murder (whether it be using planes or bombs) is not something the world should be striving towards, particularly when it's driven by the almighty dollar (which it ALL is)
I agree, you get no arguments from me on that one. But... we don't live in a perfect world. You see... we have people in this world that hate us and want to see us all dead. Until we as humanity learn to coexist with one another peacefully, there's going to be a need to defend ourselves and otherwise kill the bad guy. That's just the way it is. I certainly hope that this changes but the cynic in me tells me otherwise.
Sad truth there.
War has been the most enduring constant throughout all of human history. We said World War 1 was going to be the war to end all wars, and then we had World War 2. War is part of our history and will most certainly be part of our future.
Except nowhere in the Constitution is written that workers are required to do so.
There is also no moral or ethical standard that is reasonable that requires them to do so either.
In fact historically in the US its been normal and seen as good thing, yes even going back to the Revolutionary era, that workers would and should be able to do speak back to business employers and do other things like boycotts and such.
Well so have I and I think its fairly reasonable for them to do what they're doing so checkmate right?
Generally speaking I don't either but these guys aren't really rich. They work for a living. Sure its not "manly" back breaking labor but its still work.
not enough ...yet.
Bodycount goals are totally ineffective at changing a country or ethnic groups' minds though.
Vietnam proved that.
Last time I will say this, stay on topic. This thread is about a specific MS project.
Exactly. If the US doesn't keep ahead of China the US will end up like China.
just subcontract the parts out to Microsoft through a front company.
Maintain compartmentalization and sanitation cross work groups, then the workers won't even know what they are working on.
too obvious to just contract out a big juicy contract with clear goals out to Microsoft out in the open.
These companies still get the contracts despite refusing them due to the hippie brigade. It really just ends up becoming a pat-on-the-back win for the ones who don't want to support war.
I'll give props to these people who want to speak out and stand up for what they believe in. I appreciate those who are able to go beyond yelling on an internet forum and actually put their voice out there, even if I disagree with it.
Why do they think killing is entirely bad? Do they not understand how much of life is constant worrying, pain, suffering? Being instakilled by a headshot is quite nice, especially if you live in a poor country. Imagine the perfect tranquility, peace, emptiness. Like letting out a deep breath and finally being free from all desire, strife, longing.
Life can be good of course and quite exciting and happy at times. But its not like its an obvious, unambiguously good thing to be.
Sorry if I come off a bit gloomy, I'm just trying to develop more humility and gratitude and come to terms with all the built-in madness and dissapointment of life.
Invalidated any argument you had on the first line.
For one, the Constitution protects you from the government attacking your free speech, not private companies, so your point isn't valid. Secondly, using your logic and ignoring the first point, nowhere in the Constitution is it written that companies can't fire you for refusing to do you job. Lastly, these idiots (and that is what they are) are "demanding" that MS cancel a $480 million contract when they could just move to a different job or leave the company.
These folks need to move on if they don't like their assignments. They're naive people who have a very simple view of the world. The facts are:
1. They have the privilege of airing their grievances precisely because a military has defended the Constitution and their freedoms for centuries.
2. Do they ever consider the fact that technological improvements in warfare allow the job to be done faster and with less loss of life? Did they ever consider what the Gulf War would've looked like without smart bombs and using saturation bombing instead?
3. Do they not ever think about our enemies and how they're certainly not standing still in military technology? Is our military supposed to stagnate, fall way behind, and at some point in the future, allow us to be defeated and our Constitution trashed? Are they dumb enough to think that they'll set some sort of "noble" example and people in China and Russia will do the same?
If I were MS, I'd call each one into HR, tell them we read their concerns, and that they have 60 days to find another job in the company or they're fired. I don't have a problem with a person not wanting to do a job which may violate their values or conscience. I do have a huge problem with groups of people (and we've seen his at Google and others too) trying to effectively blacklist the military so that it can't take advantage of some of the advances we've made.
I was just pointing out you've got no reasonable basis, in any way shape or form (ie. legal, ethical, moral), to be making the claims you're making.
"Just shut up and work for your Petty Tyrant no matter what they do or their goals" is complete nonsense any way you look at it.
Sure it is. I was pointing out he's got no real legal basis for what he is saying. Sure there might be some nonsense in the forms you sign when you're hired about doing what you're told no matter what but that won't really hold up in a court of law. Its there to scare people into compliance.
True but there are laws on the books regarding when and how you can fire someone as well as dictating what constitutes a valid contract and various other labor laws too. You can't pretend those don't exist. And you can't pretend those laws always and forevermore prevent workers from protesting what their employers do either.
I already addressed this line of reasoning earlier in thread. The short version is its a dishonest argument due to labor market and/or various other possible conditions.
As for the rest of your comments: these workers aren't protesting all weapons development done by anybody in the US. They're protesting their efforts and products based directly on those efforts being put directly into killing people which is something they didn't sign up for. Its perfectly legit for them to not want to do that sort of thing. If they'd gone to work for a weapons development company expressly you probably would never hear a peep from them.
If they’re in an at-will state, they can be fired for nearly any reason and refusing to do your job is a valid reason.
It IS that simple - they can find another job. Whether or not they may or may not be able to find another job is irrelevant to the topic at hand, as that isn’t really Microsoft’s problem. Their choices are: 1) do the work. 2) find another position internally or externally. I promise you that MS isn’t cancelling a $480 million contract to appease them and for the sake of argument, let’s say I’m wrong and they do - what are those guys going to say if Microsoft’s next communication is: “We just lost a $480 million contract and will need to cut staff immediately."
You don’t get to sit there and say “I refuse to do this work!” and when told you need to move on if you don’t like it, say “But finding another job might be hard!” Too bad.
As I said, they can move on if they personally have issues working on that project - it really is that simple and I have no issue with any of that. To DEMAND that their companies cancel contracts, however, is ludicrous. I’m not sure who they think they are, but let me remind them - they’re employees and expected to do a job. Don’t like it? They can leave.
Pretty sure it was developed in either Washington state or California.
But even then in a At-Will state its STILL perfectly legit for workers to write a protest letter and try to change their employers' minds.
"Just find another job in this shit economy oh yeah and maybe up end your life while you're at it too if you don't like it" isn't a reasonable or honest counter argument here. You're de facto allowing the employer to have pretty much all the power in that situation which never works out in the long run because they always abuse it too.
Employees aren't peons or peasants or slaves and employers aren't feudal lords or philosopher god kings who get to ignore what ever those below them say. Also part of having freedom is the ability to exercise it and if you're going to argue that by working for someone they're not allowed to exercise that freedom than it might as well not even exist in the real world.
Keep digging that hole.
A PRIVATE company hired individual(s) who have a CONTRACT for work and they are trying to dictate terms of employment after accepting the job and signing on the bottom line.
Unless Microsoft is breaking the law or violating their contract conditions, to bad so sad.
The choices were resign (if that is even possible under the terms of contract without financial penalty) or shut up.
I don't get a say on who wanders into the door at work either, getting a vote on that isn't in the job description. You attempt to use "muh Constitution" as some sort of shield is hilarious since it mainly pertains to limitations set on the US Government towards its citizens.
Which has nothing to do with this situation unless of course MS is engaging in slavery.
do the job or get the sack , im sure theres plently of others that will do the job working at mictrosoft.
Contracts constantly get renegotiated and/or sued over due to being unfair or outright illegal or just because people change their minds.
You sign a contract? So what? You're not signing your soul over nor is there any sort of moral imperative for the individual to follow everything to the letter of that document. Companies sure don't.
Also the workers are probably not contract workers (1099'ers) per se.
Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution dude.
You don't know a lot about the real world do you?
When you take someones money for a task, you do the task. Unless the employer REQUESTS your opinion, your opinion is irrelevant. The guy paying you is driving the bus and you don't get a turn at the wheel unless of course they are paying you to do so.
These people went to work for Microsoft, if they don't like who Microsoft is doing business with they should walk.
If a group of my staff at work stated "were not going to do x-y-z" after being hired, I would open their job packet and point to the relevant section, remind them what they agreed to when hired and write the lot of them up. Refuse still?
Walked out of the building, keys and id badges in hand.
Edit: I will point out under the State of CT guidelines this is defined as "willful disobedience" and even in this liberal utopia, if fired, you don't get to collect unemployment.
And the same could happen to me. I agreed to x-y-z (which is all pretty reasonable if a 3-ring circus at times) and I do it. If I have some misgiving, I'd bring it to the owner in private. Being a dick in public is just showboating in an attempt make your employer look bad.
Feel free to quote the relevant section and how it pertains.
I find your statements hilarious on the subject and to some degree have already addressed them.
I await your reply on how the Bill of Rights pertains in this case to a private employer engaged in legal commercial activity.
So, in other words, spelling out how the real world works for people to stupid to understand your employer expects you to do what he pays you to do?
The sheer ignorance in the attitudes of employees of these companies is astounding, I don't have hard numbers handy but it is likely every major tech and manufacturing company in America does some sort of defense work either directly or indirectly.
I've been working just fine in it for decades without being fired somehow. Might know more than you think I do!
Whatever "real world" experience you or I have doesn't much matter here though. Its totally irrelevant really.
We're both essentially talking about what should be happening and if these workers' actions or reasonable, not comparing personal experiences.
You said the Constitution was all about limiting the govt. I pointed out that it has the BoR in it too which pertains to personal liberties and gives no special consideration or liberties for employers in it at all. So its far from being about just limiting the govt.
Its relevant to point this out because you and others in thread keep talking as if what these workers are doing is grossly unreasonable, outright illegal, and un-American, etc. and that is just silly to say the least.
Point out the section in the Bill of Rights or you are just blowing hot air and dodging.
Disagree. If you sign on the bottom line when you are hired for a company you are required to do what the company tells you to do. If you don't like it, there's the door; we have others out there that would be more than willing to take your place all because you don't want to do the job. It's very simple... do the job or you don't get paid.
The Constitution only protects you from a tyrannical government, it in no way protects you from a company's dealings.
Of course it is perfectly legit for them to write a letter - but your initial implication that it is constitutionally protected speech, free from consequences from Microsoft, is wrong.
What ISN'T perfectly legit for them to refuse to do their job. It isn't legit for them to "DEMAND" that MS abandon a contract which will likely employee hundreds, if not thousands, for several years.
Yep, you're wrong and hilariously so. Shit economy? Tech jobs are EVERYWHERE. If this is in Washington or California, they can jump ship to any number of other companies. Do you even read what you're saying?
And no, I'm not allowing the employer to have the "power" at all. I am reflecting the reality that when employees and employers have a disagreement where neither party will budge, the employee has the option to suck it up or leave. That's how the real world works and if those special snowflakes don't like it, they're free to band together and form their own company.
YOU, on the other hand, are allowing these folks to have all the power. That isn't how the real world works - at all. The way our system works is that either party has the right out of the employment agreement at any time. Those folks are free to leave, just as Microsoft is free to take any contract it wants. Don't like it? It isn't Microsoft's problem to find you a new job or to even care if you're able to find a new job.
They have the freedom to go find another job, whether internal or external. The only thing MS owes them is the agreed upon compensation for their work - Microsoft answers to its investors, not its employees. They've expressed their opinion and when MS keeps the contract, they'll either have to live with it, find a new internal position, or leave. That's life, that's how the real world works, and I suggest you return to reality with the rest of us.
Not just tech either, we can't hire enough people. Not enough qualified applicants in the pool.
Even with CT crashing the state into an iceberg the job market is roaring.
When you are out on the battlefield, they people shooting at you are the "bad guys".
Makes sense. Where is the battlefield? If you were in my home country shooting at me, I might consider you the bad guy.
That's why most of the world sees americans as the bad guys. Their propaganda is top notch though.
True. But if your country is the one harboring terrorists then you're the bad guy along with the terrorists.
FYI drones have been in use in various ways since the late 1940's. Originally for aerial photography, and target practice. But drones are not a new thing.
I like, and use, BCM. No reason to stop.
It was probably like 5 people out of the 50 actually cared about it, the rest were just idiots who wanted to go with the flow and be liked by the co-workers.
I blame Google.