3 ms·

> And therefore it seems like you think that every employee should expect that their company may switch to weapons systems development, and so therefore no one

by kmlx 8y ago

> And therefore it seems like you think that every employee should expect that their company may switch to weapons systems development, and so therefore no one should object should that happen? This assertion is so preposterous I'm not going to reply to it. You have personal issues with weapons systems development. I get it. But why should anyone stay with a company that isn't to their liking? Is it a sense of nostalgia as to "how things were before"? Is it peer pressure? Companies changes, products change, people come and go. It's the course of life. >You write: "i would like to bring everything out in the open" Well, that's not going to happen, so what's your backup plan? It's already out in the open. No backup plan needed. That's what happens when the likes of MS or Amazon are involved. Again, I'd rather keep it that way. You want to send it back to Raytheon so that we don't hear about it again. No, thank you. > Regarding "regarding quitting", since Google and Microsoft are huge corporations, your reply acknowledges that it can be effective for employees to protest without (or before) actually quitting, in order to change policy. Which is what you are seeing here. Why then are you saying that it isn't effective? One can quit and then tell the world about what's going on. That would make the prevailing narrative very convincing. Or one could continue to collect their paycheck while at the same time protest. Making their narrative extremely skewed, even hypocritical.

eesmith 8y ago
You've never answered my question, and the only clues you've given lead to that 'preposterous' interpretation. "You have personal issues with weapons systems development" To quote you, "Preposterous." Where have I ever said or even implied that? "But why should anyone stay with a company that isn't to their liking?" Of course they shouldn't. But the entire point of my comments is the flip side - why shouldn't an employee try to change the direction of a company? There's plenty of history to show that that's possible. Your last paragraph is simply that there are only two options: work without public complaint or quit. Over and over again, labor history shows that other options exist and are effective. I would argue even more effective. On the one hand we have the Oakland teachers' strike, where the teachers got what they wanted - http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/this-is-why-oakland-teachers-are-on-strike.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/this-is-why-oakland-t... . On the other hand, we have Oklahoma, where over 1/3 of the teachers have left over six years, due to lack of funding, lack of respect, and excess workload - http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2019/02/ok-voting-with-60000-feet.html http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2019/02/ok-voting-with-60... . But in that case the teachers individually walked out. The narrative of the collectively striking teachers of Oakland has been much more convincing than the narrative of the individually leaving teachers of Oklahoma in making policy change. "It's already out in the open." Umm. Okay, so please define "open", since it appears to be "whatever Microsoft does which Raytheon wouldn't have done." Microsoft doesn't have a long, traditional history of being "open" either, as the AARD code, the so-called 'Halloween documents', and others show. But suppose they are now "open". What is the basis of that openness? Is it part of the corporate charter, or employee contract? If they decide to not be open, or are found to not be open, what should the employees do? It sounds like your only response is "quit", which leaves them in the same place they are now.

by kmlx 8y ago

eesmith 8y ago

You've never answered my question, and the only clues you've given lead to that 'preposterous' interpretation. "You have personal issues with weapons systems development" To quote you, "Preposterous." Where have I ever said or even implied that? "But why should anyone stay with a company that isn't to their liking?" Of course they shouldn't. But the entire point of my comments is the flip side - why shouldn't an employee try to change the direction of a company? There's plenty of history to show that that's possible. Your last paragraph is simply that there are only two options: work without public complaint or quit. Over and over again, labor history shows that other options exist and are effective. I would argue even more effective. On the one hand we have the Oakland teachers' strike, where the teachers got what they wanted - http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/this-is-why-oakland-teachers-are-on-strike.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/this-is-why-oakland-t... . On the other hand, we have Oklahoma, where over 1/3 of the teachers have left over six years, due to lack of funding, lack of respect, and excess workload - http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2019/02/ok-voting-with-60000-feet.html http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2019/02/ok-voting-with-60... . But in that case the teachers individually walked out. The narrative of the collectively striking teachers of Oakland has been much more convincing than the narrative of the individually leaving teachers of Oklahoma in making policy change. "It's already out in the open." Umm. Okay, so please define "open", since it appears to be "whatever Microsoft does which Raytheon wouldn't have done." Microsoft doesn't have a long, traditional history of being "open" either, as the AARD code, the so-called 'Halloween documents', and others show. But suppose they are now "open". What is the basis of that openness? Is it part of the corporate charter, or employee contract? If they decide to not be open, or are found to not be open, what should the employees do? It sounds like your only response is "quit", which leaves them in the same place they are now.