[Rancid]

Even the constitution of the USA is a freedom from governments interference, not corporations.

[Politics_Observer]

@MistyTiger

There are a lot of ways that hackers can find your information just simply over Google using Google hacking techniques. This is what is called passive reconnaissance because the hacker is not directly scanning a network to where it could be logged in a network's log files. They do this to get things like your email address for example (they can also get a whole lot of other information on you too that you might not want to be public and might not even be aware is public on the internet).

Then, they can send you spear phishing email to trick you into visiting a website that could have malware on it to infect your computer and then following up by attempting to hack other computers or servers in your local area network. A lot of hackers use custom built zero day malware that the traditional signature based malware scanners that most people use can't detect in order to successfully evade malware scanners that are on most computers. Good hackers rely heavily on stealth and remaining undetected.

Networks that have good layered network defenses in place can be broken into primarily through these type social engineering attacks to help keep the hacker undetected. If they do active reconnaissance like port scanning a server, computer, live host or doing a ping sweep of a network and that network has good system administrators monitoring it, they are most certainly would get detected. Hence, why passive reconnaissance and social engineering plays such a crucial role in hacker attacks and breaches. The weakest link in most network defenses are human beings, which is another reason why social engineering attacks are so successful, effective and employed by malicious actors.

Hackers have also been employed to track people down, simply using Google hacking techniques. They have found missing people who thought they did everything to fall off the radar only to be tracked down by hackers who used Google hacking techniques extensively. You would be amazed at the information that is available about you on the internet that can be easily found if somebody knows how to use Google hacking techniques to their advantage. You can find out all kinds of information on people if you have that knowledge and wanted to.

Using Google Hacking is not illegal in itself. I have used Google Hacking techniques to find hard to find authoritative sources for papers as a source of research for some of my college classes.

[Oxymoron]

I just played a small part in a union drive at work and it's hilarious (if nauseating) to read corporate union-busting bullshit propaganda being repeated verbatim by @Oxymoron. I'm half expecting him to start scolding me about how "there's only one pot of money" and a union will "destroy our culture".

In reality, of course, unionised workers make significantly more than non-union counterparts. And the idea that companies "reward the best workers" is absolute horseshit. They reward yes-men and friends of the boss. Anyone who has spent five minutes in a reasonably sized company knows that middle management and above tends to be a sea of gutless mediocrities. Lol.

They make more money, and lower productivity... Until their employer can no longer compete with non Union competitors. Then the Unions start squirming because people start loosing their jobs. Companies do reward their best workers, like I said this is not always the case but most times it is the case. Those companies that have a high turn over of employees are typically not healthy companies. You tell me I am spewing propaganda, but at least I made an argument. Your argument is that Union workers make more money.....

[ckaihatsu]

Union Worker power is crap, the real worker power is skill, know-how and experience. Unions degrade them and create obvious economic inefficiency, as they try to equate all workers no matter what their skill level is. Meaning going above and beyond serves no purpose, that is really the crux of all Marxist ideolofical problems when faced with real world conditions. I do agree working for small business is far better, as you have less middle management. Who are in my opinion one level removed from my dislike of Unions. If anything is wrong with modern capitalism its middle management.

You're talking about the quality of the labor-commodity on the market, while laborers are *people*, too, at the same time, and should be able to physically organize themselves in-person, just as employers have their professional associations, and conferences, and so on.

The Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) was a federation of unions that organized workers in industrial unions in the United States and Canada from 1935 to 1955. Created in 1935 by John L. Lewis, who was a part of the United Mine Workers (UMW), it was originally called the Committee for Industrial Organization but changed its name in 1938 when it broke away from the American Federation of Labor.[1] It also changed names because it was not successful with organizing unskilled workers with the AFL.[2]

The CIO supported Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal Coalition, and was open to African Americans. Both the CIO and its rival the AFL grew rapidly during the Great Depression. The rivalry for dominance was bitter and sometimes violent. The CIO (Congress for Industrial Organization) was founded on November 9, 1935, by eight international unions belonging to the American Federation of Labor.

In its statement of purpose, the CIO said it had formed to encourage the AFL to organize workers in mass production industries along industrial union lines. The CIO failed to change AFL policy from within. On September 10, 1936, the AFL suspended all 10 CIO unions (two more had joined in the previous year). In 1938, these unions formed the Congress of Industrial Organizations as a rival labor federation. Section 504 of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 required union leaders to swear that they were not Communists, which many CIO leaders refused to do; in 1965, the Supreme Court struck down this part of the law as unconstitutional.[3] In 1955, the CIO rejoined the AFL, forming the new entity known as the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_ ... anizations

[Oxymoron]

You're talking about the quality of the labor-commodity on the market, while laborers are *people*, too, at the same time, and should be able to physically organize themselves in-person, just as employers have their professional associations, and conferences, and so on.

I never said they should not have a right to, I was just pointing out as constituted today Unions are actually counter productive for workers.
I do not at all mind free association between any group of people.

[ckaihatsu]

I never said they should not have a right to, I was just pointing out as constituted today Unions are actually counter productive for workers.
I do not at all mind free association between any group of people.

Why are unions today 'counter productive for workers'?

[ckaihatsu]

@Rancid

I think it's OK to have some inefficiency if that means taking care of people a little better. You don't want too much inefficiency though because then the business and the economy become un-sustainable due to a lack of efficiency. It's that happy middle ground.

Please notice that you're taking the perspective of the *owner* / employer, and you're *not* including the perspective of the *worker* at all -- this means that the owner / employer is the *protagonist*, and *controls* the business and revenue, while the worker *doesn't*.

Why wouldn't the employer just *ask* the workers how to 'take care of people a little better'? (Rhetorical question, of course.)


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show

---

How would you feel if a inferior worker got the same compensation? If a person feels under appreciated, then they aren't being taken care of, now are they.

An 'inferior worker' -- and who, exactly, *makes* that determination?

You're acting as though this is some kind of mythological 'clean' market transaction, between the employer and the worker, with no power dynamic involved, and no economic / material coercion involved. (I'd be glad to explain what I mean, if you like.)

I know a pat on the back can work, and other ways of appreciating people. But nothing in the world signifies it like partaking in the success you help produce.

Whose 'success', exactly? Do you realize how *patronizing* all of this sounds? It's because there's a *power relation* involved -- the employer and worker are not some pair of chummy businesspeople, no matter how much you may *pretend* it to be so.

Not taking care of your workers, is the same as not taking care of your equipment or your bank account. The workers are part of your success, and should be treated that way Union or no Union. Those companies and leaders who understand this concept succeed, and even though there are many that do not value their workers and still do well... The market will make them pay eventually, and the best practices will always bubble to the top.

More mythology. Now for a reality check:

Opposition to trade unions

A sticker expressing an anti-Amazon message is pictured on the back of a street sign in Seattle.
Amazon has opposed efforts by trade unions to organize in both the United States and the United Kingdom. In 2001, 850 employees in Seattle were laid off by Amazon.com after a unionization drive. The Washington Alliance of Technological Workers (WashTech) accused the company of violating union laws and claimed Amazon managers subjected them to intimidation and heavy propaganda. Amazon denied any link between the unionization effort and layoffs.[55] Also in 2001, Amazon.co.uk hired a US management consultancy organization, The Burke Group, to assist in defeating a campaign by the Graphical, Paper and Media Union (GPMU, now part of Unite the Union) to achieve recognition in the Milton Keynes distribution depot. It was alleged that the company victimized or sacked four union members during the 2001 recognition drive and held a series of captive meetings with employees.[56]

An Amazon training video that was leaked in 2018 stated "We are not anti-union, but we are not neutral either. We do not believe unions are in the best interest of our customers or shareholders or most importantly, our associates."[57] Two years later, it was found that Whole Foods was using a heat map to track which of its 510 stores had the highest levels of pro-union sentiment. Factors including racial diversity, proximity to other unions, poverty levels in the surrounding community and calls to the National Labor Relations Board were named as contributors to "unionization risk".[58] Data collected in the heat map suggest that stores with low racial and ethnic diversity, especially those located in poor communities, are more likely to unionize.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism ... ade_unions

---

That is actually not true, giving a competitive salary/benefits to workers in a strategic way, actually improves morale and productivity which in turn increases profits.

Every dollar given to the workers in the form of wages and benefits is a dollar that is *definitely* not going to the owner / employer as profit.

Its not as simple as giving more money, work needs incentives both financial, personal growth, and appreciation. If a worker is making less then he needs to live comfortably his work will demonstrate that(late for work, leaving early etc). your second statement about classic tactics, those tactics were a response and in conflict with the vile Marxist undercurrents of the 19th early 20th century. When that insidious ideology is at bay, Capitalist want nothing more then to help and support their workers. Even back then people Like Ford and Hershey specifically thought of the well being of their workers, the first gave highest wages for his workers and the latter actually built a whole town to make life better for this workers. I think people miss the forest for the trees.

A company town is a place where practically all stores and housing are owned by the one company that is also the main employer. Company towns are often planned with a suite of amenities such as stores, houses of worship, schools, markets and recreation facilities. They are usually bigger than a model village ("model" in the sense of an ideal to be emulated).

Some company towns have had high ideals, but many have been regarded as controlling and/or exploitative. Others developed more or less in unplanned fashion, such as Summit Hill, Pennsylvania, United States, one of the oldest, which began as an LC&N Co. mining camp and mine site nine miles (14.5 km) from the nearest outside road.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town

---

I remember when there was no online.

Were you friends with the stegosaurs back then -- ? (grin) (just fucking around)


---

They make more money, and lower productivity... Until their employer can no longer compete with non Union competitors. Then the Unions start squirming because people start loosing their jobs. Companies do reward their best workers, like I said this is not always the case but most times it is the case.

With blue ribbons and gumdrops. (yeesh)

Those companies that have a high turn over of employees are typically not healthy companies. You tell me I am spewing propaganda, but at least I made an argument. Your argument is that Union workers make more money.....

Well, don't the workers have an intrinsic interest in making more money, like any other person?

[Politics_Observer]

@ckaihatsu

I have been on both sides of the coin, both the worker and the owner. So I have a strong appreciation for both sides. I do think becoming a business owner will greatly improve your work ethic. They earn everything they get too. Plus, you have a better understanding of how to be a better employee. However, when you start dealing with huge corporations, that's much different than what a small business owner deals with. That's a whole different ball game when you are an employee or manager or big whig for a big corporation.

Most of those big corporations have shareholders and various different managers who have never really owned their own business nor appreciate what it takes to be a small business owner. But I think giving a try at being a business owner will give you a whole new appreciation of the value of a dollar and what they have to deal with on their end.

I also think business owners and managers who have never been an employee should be an employee too so they can see what employees deal with. Some of those business owners and managers might not ever have been an employee but I can't say for sure because I wasn't born into a family that owned it's own business or owned a huge business empire.

[Oxymoron]

Why are unions today 'counter productive for workers'?

I have already outlined why.

[Oxymoron]

An 'inferior worker' -- and who, exactly, *makes* that determination?

You're acting as though this is some kind of mythological 'clean' market transaction, between the employer and the worker, with no power dynamic involved, and no economic / material coercion involved. (I'd be glad to explain what I mean, if you like.)

Who makes that determination, the management. Or do you not believe there are metrics to measure productivity and their effects on the company?
Obviously different positions have different metrics but I doubt you believe its impossible to measure a workers value to the company. Your second statement,
I do not see how it affects the situation. If you would expand on this point perhaps I can answer it.

Whose 'success', exactly? Do you realize how *patronizing* all of this sounds? It's because there's a *power relation* involved -- the employer and worker are not some pair of chummy businesspeople, no matter how much you may *pretend* it to be so.

Success of the company means success of the worker, if this is not the case then the morale of the worker is low and that is the fault of bad management and the company will not do well long term. I view it the same way as Gut bacteria relationship to the body. Yes bacteria is easily replaceable but your stomach will hurt if you mistreat it. You might also get sick, and your life expectancy will go down.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu

I have been on both sides of the coin, both the worker and the owner. So I have a strong appreciation for both sides. I do think becoming a business owner will greatly improve your work ethic. They earn everything they get too. Plus, you have a better understanding of how to be a better employee. However, when you start dealing with huge corporations, that's much different than what a small business owner deals with. That's a whole different ball game when you are an employee or manager or big whig for a big corporation.

Most of those big corporations have shareholders and various different managers who have never really owned their own business nor appreciate what it takes to be a small business owner. But I think giving a try at being a business owner will give you a whole new appreciation of the value of a dollar and what they have to deal with on their end.

I also think business owners and managers who have never been an employee should be an employee too so they can see what employees deal with. Some of those business owners and managers might not ever have been an employee but I can't say for sure because I wasn't born into a family that owned it's own business or owned a huge business empire.

This is nice and everything, PO, but ultimately this isn't about *personal experience*, it's about workers and owners *in society*.

You're taking an *interpersonal* approach to something that's a matter of *political economy*, or base-and-superstructure, or how social production gets done -- currently by capitalist *commodity* production, by exploiting labor.


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show

[ckaihatsu]

Union Worker power is crap, the real worker power is skill, know-how and experience. Unions degrade them and create obvious economic inefficiency, as they try to equate all workers no matter what their skill level is. Meaning going above and beyond serves no purpose, that is really the crux of all Marxist ideolofical problems when faced with real world conditions. I do agree working for small business is far better, as you have less middle management. Who are in my opinion one level removed from my dislike of Unions. If anything is wrong with modern capitalism its middle management.

You're talking about the quality of the labor-commodity on the market, while laborers are *people*, too, at the same time, and should be able to physically organize themselves in-person, just as employers have their professional associations, and conferences, and so on.

I never said they should not have a right to, I was just pointing out as constituted today Unions are actually counter productive for workers.
I do not at all mind free association between any group of people.

Why are unions today 'counter productive for workers'?

I have already outlined why.

You're speaking in terms of the *labor-commodity*, though, as to what *exchange value* its products have on the market, for the employer -- you're not *describing* how 'unions degrade [workers]'.

Again, since *employers* can associate and organize, as at professional conferences, for the sake of limiting market competition, through cartels and price-fixing, then workers should be able to *also* organize along the lines of *their* economic interests, which is for higher wages and benefits. Employers have the power to *fire* workers, so workers can best protect their interests-in-common by organizing to *save their own jobs*, for example, as a priority objective of their (rank-and-file) organizations. This is called 'collective bargaining'.

[Potemkin]

I also think business owners and managers who have never been an employee should be an employee too so they can see what employees deal with.

An excellent idea, @Politics_Observer....

[ckaihatsu]

An 'inferior worker' -- and who, exactly, *makes* that determination?

You're acting as though this is some kind of mythological 'clean' market transaction, between the employer and the worker, with no power dynamic involved, and no economic / material coercion involved. (I'd be glad to explain what I mean, if you like.)

Who makes that determination, the management. Or do you not believe there are metrics to measure productivity and their effects on the company?
Obviously different positions have different metrics but I doubt you believe its impossible to measure a workers value to the company.

Sure, I know what *data* is -- you're admitting that capital ownership's *management* makes the day-to-day decisions over how labor is treated, based on the interests for *productivity* that benefits the ownership and its bottom-line. (If a worker *increases productivity* they get no additional benefit from doing that, as in a wage rise or increased benefits.)

Your second statement,
I do not see how it affects the situation. If you would expand on this point perhaps I can answer it.

The *power dynamic* between the employer and the employed / worker, is that the worker can't live a modern life *without* the capitalist economics of the job / wage, but the employer / owner *can* live a comfortable life without any given worker, and even without *all* workers of the workplace, for a time, because of accumulated capital. Workers have no accumulated capital, otherwise they'd be *using* that capital and would be capitalists, to some degree, by definition.


---

Whose 'success', exactly? Do you realize how *patronizing* all of this sounds? It's because there's a *power relation* involved -- the employer and worker are not some pair of chummy businesspeople, no matter how much you may *pretend* it to be so.

Success of the company means success of the worker, if this is not the case then the morale of the worker is low and that is the fault of bad management and the company will not do well long term. I view it the same way as Gut bacteria relationship to the body. Yes bacteria is easily replaceable but your stomach will hurt if you mistreat it. You might also get sick, and your life expectancy will go down.

Raising wages does *not* benefit the employer / company, though -- this is the stark economics of it, that the employer and worker have *diametrically opposed* interests for a larger portion of the revenue, respectively. (Labor household expenses are an *externality* to the business balance sheet, and must be taken out of one's own wages.)

Companies are *known* for paying as little as possible to workers, and for lobbying against regulations that are pro-worker-interests, like for a higher minimum wage.

The Fight for $15 is an American political movement advocating for the federal minimum wage to be raised to $15 (United States dollars) per hour. The federal minimum wage was set at $7.25 per hour in 2009 (equivalent to $8.64 in 2019, so the purchasing power of $7.25 has reduced by $1.44 since 2009, "[2]),[3] and as of 2019 it has not been increased since. The movement has involved strikes by child care, home healthcare, airport, gas station, convenience store, and fast food workers for increased wages and the right to form a labor union. The "Fight for $15" movement started in 2012 (equivalent to $16.7 in 2019),[3] in response to workers' inability to cover their costs on such a low salary, as well as the stressful work conditions of many of the service jobs which pay the minimum wage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_for_$15

[Rancid]

I wonder how CEOs that worked their way up to the top feel about workers.

[Politics_Observer]

@Potemkin

Potemkin, your digs on capitalism, though sarcastic are pretty funny.

[Oxymoron]

Sure, I know what *data* is -- you're admitting that capital ownership's *management* makes the day-to-day decisions over how labor is treated, based on the interests for *productivity* that benefits the ownership and its bottom-line. (If a worker *increases productivity* they get no additional benefit from doing that, as in a wage rise or increased benefits.)

You are making a strawman argument...

If you read what I wrote, you would see that paying workers adequately (not under paying them) actually promotes productivity... also you if you pay more then adequately and have bonus systems and reward systems, that makes your company even more productive and efficient. Since there would be less disruptions, less turn over, and a more vested worker.

The *power dynamic* between the employer and the employed / worker, is that the worker can't live a modern life *without* the capitalist economics of the job / wage, but the employer / owner *can* live a comfortable life without any given worker, and even without *all* workers of the workplace, for a time, because of accumulated capital. Workers have no accumulated capital, otherwise they'd be *using* that capital and would be capitalists, to some degree, by definition.

Only true if there is no other options. the worker can find another job. I been there, if I did not like the way my boss treated me I would leave and find a better job.Only time your scenario is accurate is in a State controlled economy, were your supervisor truly does have control over you.

Raising wages does *not* benefit the employer / company, though -- this is the stark economics of it, that the employer and worker have *diametrically opposed* interests for a larger portion of the revenue, respectively. (Labor household expenses are an *externality* to the business balance sheet, and must be taken out of one's own wages.)

Companies are *known* for paying as little as possible to workers, and for lobbying against regulations that are pro-worker-interests, like for a higher minimum wage.

What a ridiculous statement, you I am sure never actually owned a company or were in a management role. The goal of any company is to make more money and be more productive. Having less turnover, having high morale workforce is very much in the interest of the company. Paying as little as possible will get you the same type of worker, doing as little as possible not to get fired. You get what you pay for my friend.

[ckaihatsu]

You are making a strawman argument...

If you read what I wrote, you would see that paying workers adequately (not under paying them) actually promotes productivity... also you if you pay more then adequately and have bonus systems and reward systems, that makes your company even more productive and efficient. Since there would be less disruptions, less turn over, and a more vested worker.




Only true if there is no other options. the worker can find another job. I been there, if I did not like the way my boss treated me I would leave and find a better job.Only time your scenario is accurate is in a State controlled economy, were your supervisor truly does have control over you.




What a ridiculous statement, you I am sure never actually owned a company or were in a management role. The goal of any company is to make more money and be more productive. Having less turnover, having high morale workforce is very much in the interest of the company. Paying as little as possible will get you the same type of worker, doing as little as possible not to get fired. You get what you pay for my friend.

If you wanna talk *managerial*, each employee is *not distinct* -- they are the fillers of certain work roles, or positions, the sum total of which is the entire operations of the business.

You make it sound as though management is like the cultivation of a *garden*, when it's *really* more about the sorting of the labor-commodity (employees), into the office landscape of cubicle spaces -- more like *farming* than gardening. If one sprout or employee really doesn't look viable, for whatever reason, no problem -- it gets plucked out and replaced with the next unit, or person.

Employee turnover

In some business contexts, churn rate could also refer to employee turnover within a company. For instance, most fast food restaurants have a routinely high churn rate among employees. For larger companies, such as Fortune 500 companies, the attrition rate tends to be much lower compared to a fast food franchise. Company size and industry also play a key role in attrition rate. An "acceptable" attrition rate for a given company is relative to its industry. It would not be useful to compare the attrition of fast food employees with a Fortune 500 company in a corporate setting. Regardless of industry or company size, attrition rate tends to be highest among the lowest paying jobs, and lowest for the highest paying jobs.[citation needed]

Attrition rate has always played a role in how cash flow is affected for employee payroll.[citation needed] For example, if a company has 10,000 employees, and needs to save money on payroll, it may be wise to simply institute a temporary "hiring freeze" knowing that some people will leave the company through natural attrition, thus saving employee payroll by not replacing or hiring new employees. It could be expected that if the average employee makes $40,000 per year, and the company has 10,000 employees, a natural attrition rate could be between 1–5 percent depending on the size and industry of the company.[according to whom?] A rate of five percent or more for a larger company most often indicates layoffs in addition to natural attrition, early retirement, and firing.[according to whom?]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churn_rat ... e_turnover

[skinster]

In my last two jobs in NYC that I was doing simultaneously I was getting paid minimum wage and everyone knew my politics, two bosses at one job had access to my social media where I'm not exactly quiet. We would argue politics too (they were liberals) and they let me get away with calling them out.

My penultimate job in Birmingham, everyone knew too. I used to have long chats with my second manager who was on the same page to some degree. We would call those chats "meetings" in the stupid timesheets.

In my most recent job I didn't share anything with the partners but with others I would talk and I had some haters and some comrades.

Two jobs in-between and one I currently do part-time are with like-minded folks and they've been my favourite.

How anyone can separate their politics from their shitty jobs is beyond me.

[Black Consequense]

Do you still live/work in NYC now?