backtop

Print 194 comment(s) - last by jconan.. on Feb 21 at 2:34 AM

Should foreign employees be laid off before Americans? A Republican Senator from Iowa thinks so.  (Source: Bnet.com)
A prominent Republican Senator has some controversial suggestions for Microsoft on its job cuts

Faced with the wrath of its shareholders after missing its earnings targets badly, Microsoft announced that it would be laying off 5,000 employees, a sharp reverse of years of hiring and growth.  The layoffs are starting to be announced this week.

Sen. Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, where Microsoft has a significant presence, wrote a letter to Microsoft with suggestions about the layoff.  In his letter, he states, "I am concerned that Microsoft will be retaining foreign guest workers rather than similarly qualified American employees when it implements its layoff plan."

Sen. Grassley is a prominent member of the Senate, as the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.  His stance is that Microsoft should layoff foreign workers on visas before laying off American citizens.  He argues this will help protect the U.S. economy.

Microsoft's foreign workers typically have H-1B visas, a special program for workers in government-designated "specialty occupations".  Microsoft can't seem to get enough of the visas and has repeatedly pleaded with the federal government to increase the allotment.  The temporary visas are used by some other companies, and frequently used by universities as well.

Current statements from Microsoft indicate that it will not be showing any preference in who is laid off.  A Microsoft spokesperson stated in e-mail, "We care about all our employees, so we are providing services and support to try to help every affected worker, whether they are U.S. workers or foreign nationals working in this country on a visa."

Several thousand foreign employees currently work for Microsoft on visas, a significant portion of the company's 19,000+ dedicated workforce.  Sen. Grassley directed his letter to Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer, and asks Mr. Ballmer to provide him with statistics on how many visa workers are laid off compared to Americans.

He states, "Microsoft has a moral obligation to protect these American workers by putting them first during these difficult economic times."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
The first...
By MrBlastman on 1/26/2009 11:10:48 AM , Rating: 4
Agreeable comment from a Senator in a long time - this makes complete sense. However... it is up to the company to ultimately decide what is best for their bottom line.

I'd say a better solution would be - lay off the less qualified talent, regardless of nationality, and keep the best talent.




RE: The first...
By RamarC on 1/26/2009 11:21:30 AM , Rating: 5
Grassley has been working on legislation dealing with H1-B visa permits for a while. http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4092
Most H-1B workers accept salaries far below the going rate and often without any benefits. So cutting them won't reduce costs as 'quickly' as cutting a citizen employee. Unfortunately, that could prompt companies to layoff citizens first.


RE: The first...
By sunjava04 on 1/26/2009 11:50:40 AM , Rating: 1
this link has do with companies who doesn't exist and people who get visa by that, they work as illegally to other store and pay more taxes to maintain h1b visa.

but the other hand, Microsoft have 8 interviews only for training purposes so think about employee who obtain h1B visa from Microsoft. they are born genius. MS always want more allotment coz in the tech field they don't have choice without international people(mostly indian and chinese).
multinational company like ms think next 20 year ahead of future. our economy is for time being bad.
senetor is either big fool or making it political propaganda.


RE: The first...
By MrBlastman on 1/26/2009 11:55:53 AM , Rating: 3
Your post gave me a headache. Are you saying they should hire people like yourself for their tech support phone line?

Grammar, fluidity of spoken english, and ability to be understood are paramount criteria for all non-American employees, or at least is should be. If they can pass through this one barrier with flying colors, if their talent is there, then they should be given a shot.


RE: The first...
By VaultDweller on 1/26/2009 12:23:08 PM , Rating: 1
Wait, what? How on earth did you get tech support out of that? I don't see any reference to tech support, or even any phrases or words used in passing that could be construed as suggesting technical support or call centers.

Or are you just being facetious and obnoxious?


RE: The first...
By MrBlastman on 1/26/2009 12:40:30 PM , Rating: 1
facetoius and obnoxious ;)

Trying to inject a little humor in an otherwise volatile topic.


RE: The first...
By MrBlastman on 1/26/2009 12:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
now with 100% more mispellings too!

facetious, not facetouis. :-|


RE: The first...
By MrBlastman on 1/26/2009 12:45:05 PM , Rating: 5
I also misspelled mispellings.

I'm on a boat, it is called fail. All aboard!


RE: The first...
By Myg on 1/27/2009 6:28:12 AM , Rating: 3
"HMS Epic Fail" more like; but I am sure we will all agree that its better to untie your bow line and let you adrift on your own for a bit...

;-)


RE: The first...
By rohith10 on 1/27/2009 7:27:54 AM , Rating: 2
You just did it again! :D

I guess you'd have noticed.


RE: The first...
By BPB on 1/26/2009 12:43:40 PM , Rating: 3
How about because his post reads like something an Indian tech would say. I was hard to read, and somewhat hard to understand. If I were to read that post to my coworkers (I'm a programmer) they'd think foreign tech support. If you don't see it, then you are either blind or not looking.


RE: The first...
By JasonMick (blog) on 1/26/2009 12:59:09 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I was hard to read

You were?


RE: The first...
By mezman on 1/26/2009 3:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed.


RE: The first...
By Scott586 on 1/26/2009 3:32:34 PM , Rating: 3
What was this story about again please? Geez you guys/gals are clearly off-topic, but it does make for a lighter read. I agree with the "hard to read" comment; insufferable more like.


RE: The first...
By omnicronx on 1/26/2009 3:58:46 PM , Rating: 1
What are you a skinhead? You don't need to be able to speak perfect English, have perfect spelling/grammatical skills to be a programmer. People with views like yours are usually the ones that are under qualified, and have no other argument other than making fun of people.

The previous poster had a great argument in which he stated that scrutiny a foreigner must go through in order to get a job at Microsoft. Some of the best programmers at my workplace can barely speak english, but comprehend and can read it perfectly. Do you want do know why this is ok? BECAUSE ITS NOT THEIR JOB! THATS WHAT A B/A IS FOR!

I am the first person to agree that outsourcing call centre jobs to a country in which workers can barely speak english is just plain stupid, but remarks like yours and the fact other posters seem to agree with you seems to show that you guys don't know what you are talking about.

Some of these foreigners can run circles around you when it comes to programming skill, but you guys pick on their accents and speaking ability, even though it does not make them any less qualified.


RE: The first...
By MrBlastman on 1/26/2009 4:30:47 PM , Rating: 5
Where did I say I was a programmer? Currently, I am not. However, I was previously - I ran the technology end of a .com and programmed quite a bit.

Now, you say that a programmer has no business knowing good grammar or spelling? I find this amusing. How on earth do you expect a programmer to communicate with his peers in an efficient, collaborative manner if he is unable to clearly state his point in a coherent manner? One which can not be misconstrued in any way?

I'd say that it would make conducting business very difficult. So difficult, that a more cost effective measure would have to be adopted - namely employees who can be understood. Proper spelling and grammar are essential and not even attempting to achieve such (nobody is perfect) is laziness of the highest degree.

Look, not a day goes by without me being saddened by our youth not trying to achieve a higher degree of clarity in their written and verbal communication. Thirty years ago, people took pride in this skillset. Nowadays, it, as you so eloquently illustrated, is being shoved off as "not important."

I think this attitude is the real crime here. Not whether you are a programmer or a under-qualified, neener-neener businessman. The ability to be a good programmer does not make you good at life.


RE: The first...
By omnicronx on 1/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 5:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "BECAUSE ITS NOT THEIR JOB! THATS WHAT A B/A IS FOR!"

If only a "B/A" needed good communication skills, there wouldn't be a verbal portion to the SAT.


RE: The first...
By monomer on 1/27/2009 2:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
"I deal with the god damn customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people? "


RE: The first...
By 16nm on 1/27/2009 7:51:53 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You don't need to be able to speak perfect English, have perfect spelling/grammatical skills to be a programmer.


You don't? Ahh... Now I know how Vista got all fudged up.


RE: The first...
By BansheeX on 1/26/2009 1:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most H-1B workers accept salaries far below the going rate and often without any benefits.


What are you insinuating here, that this is a bad thing? Why shouldn't I or anyone else in this country, regardless of origin, have the capacity to underbid someone else? And look at it from the perspective of the consumer: why would I want artificial, protectionist high wages raising the cost of things I buy?

The free trade vs unions is just a distraction from the real source of debt and poverty in this country: fiat money and the government ponzi scheme excess it begets. Chinese labor wouldn't be so cheap if they weren't able to recycle all the inflation we create into more of our bonds to suppress the true value of their currency. We enable that, not them. We're the ones who traded all our manufacturing capacity to foreigners in exchange for a 40 year consumption binge with the government leading the way.


RE: The first...
By surt on 1/26/2009 1:18:23 PM , Rating: 1
It's good for you. It's bad for americans who don't have a social support network and experience, and possibly even the option of taking their earning and going back to a cheaper country to live in the long run. You can underbid because you don't have to commit to living here for your whole life.

Protectionism is about leveling the playing field. It allows us to say: you can use slave labor to make products, but we'll add a tax to make up the difference in price so that our workers don't have to be slaves to compete.

Protectionism is a very, very good thing.


RE: The first...
By ZmaxDP on 1/26/2009 2:41:52 PM , Rating: 3
WHAT?

Protectionism is NOT a very very good thing. It is a very very BAD thing because of what it encourages in the marketplace - a lack of competition. One of the MAJOR reasons our automotive industry is near collapse is due to protectionism.

These policies TEMPORARILY "level" the playing field, but the market moves much much faster than our politicians. You might level it for year, but 4 years from now you'll have given someone a huge leg up so they don't have to compete. Then, 20 years down the road you'll have three huge "to big to fail" companies that are near collapse and require MY tax money to stay afloat.

Protectionism ONLY works on the premise that there is some magical "balance" in our economy. In other words, if there was a "right" labor price for some item, then protecting that price is an effective economic solution. Unfortunately, the economy never has been and never will be a moral environment. There is no "right" price, only the price people will pay for it. So, bitch and whine about someone who is willing to do something cheaper in India or China, but if they are willing then someone will pay them to do it. We've got two options - take advantage of that to drive our own growth, or enact protectionist policies and let other people grow as a result while we watch it pass us by. The fact is that if some "specialized" labor becomes cheaper to do elsewhere, it will be done elsewhere. Those who are unwilling to do it for a competitive price should find other employment. The only real constant in the economy is change - the quicker we all accept that the better.


RE: The first...
By TheDoc9 on 1/26/2009 3:57:21 PM , Rating: 3
At least you admit this is about money and not talent. Your way of thinking is part of what's gotten us into this economic mess - outsource everything for the bottom line. Your example of unions is one extreem, but as wages in the tech industry have dropped so much it might not be a bad idea.

Many of my Indian friends who are here temporarily on projects tell me of how they send their earnings back home. How our money is worth so much more there, and how they'd be making practically nothing at home. Do you consider exporting our money a good thing as well?


RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 5:07:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Do you consider exporting our money a good thing as well?
Economically, it is. Dollars exported overseas ultimately return, in the form of foreign goods and services. That's a net positive. In the case of dollars held overseas indefinitely and never returned, that's an even better deal for us here in America, as it essentially correlates to an IOU that is issued, but never returned for payment. We get the free services of a programmer, without ever having to pay off in goods or services.


RE: The first...
By sinful on 1/26/2009 11:37:34 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Dollars exported overseas ultimately return, in the form of foreign goods and services. That's a net positive.


What??
If US dollars go to India, and then that money purchases goods from China (for instance), the US does not benefit.

The only way it would possibly benefit the US is if it is used to purchase US products and services - in which case, it would have just as well to keep that cash in the US to begin with.

What we want is wealth accumlulation in the US, not in other countries.

Exporting cash out of the US is literally exporting the wealth out of our country.


RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 11:53:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What?? If US dollars go to India, and then that money purchases goods from China (for instance), the US does not benefit.
Sure it does. Either China then uses those dollars to purchase US goods/services, or it retains them indefinitely. Either way, the US wins...even more so in the latter case.

quote:
"What we want is wealth accumlulation in the US"
But currency is not wealth. Wealth is tangible-- real estate, full or partial ownership of a business or corporation, a mine, factory, fleet of cars, or some other hard asset. Currency, however, is simply an IOU drawn against (for the US) the Federal Reserve. If that IOU is never cashed in, the US benefits.

Consider the US (or someone in it) gives $1000 to China (or someone in it) for a shipment of steel. The US has received a tangible benefit, China has received nothing but a slip of paper. If China keeps that paper forever, never asking to return it for US goods, that steel came to the US totally free of charge.

If foreign nations continue to hold a growing amount of US currency, the laws of supply and demand take hold, and US money gets more expensive, whereas theirs depreciates. This is the basic factor behind floating exchange rates. It also explains why the US dollar has been so strong for many decades. The stability of the dollar led many overseas to hold large US reserves, or even to use it in place of their own currency. That led to a much higher exchange rate, which meant cheap foreign goods in the US, at the downside of making US goods more expensive overseas.

Your fear of "sending dollars overseas" is a phantom chimera. By all means, let foreign workers send their money overseas If it comes back, it does...if it doesn't, so much the better for us.


RE: The first...
By BansheeX on 1/28/2009 3:01:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your fear of "sending dollars overseas" is a phantom chimera. By all means, let foreign workers send their money overseas If it comes back, it does...if it doesn't, so much the better for us.


Ha, so you understand the con, and yet you think it benefits us? Yes, for a certain period of time we get all their production while they accumulate our IOUs, but guess what else foreigners accumulated? Huge financial leverage and our manufacturing capacity. We're no better off than any ponzi operator. Eventually, the continuous stream of foreign loans on which we depend to service our previous loans is going to dry up, and all lenders are going to realize how foolish they were to subsidize our politicians' pet projects and welfare promises.

Imagine what would happen if the world cut their losses and starting become net sellers rather than net buyers of US bonds. The whole damn thing would collapse. And what would we be left with? Service jobs and a printing press. It would take us decades to reacquire the prosperity we enjoyed when the credit was flowing and the economy was 70% consumption. Conversely, what would china have? Factories and a much stronger currency to replace our consumption with their own.


RE: The first...
By derwin on 1/28/2009 9:08:57 AM , Rating: 2
China is growing faster than us not because they hold a large portion of our bonds. There are a plethora of conditions that make china ripe for growth, the most notable being the lack there of in all of modern history - but not limited to and including such things as massive labor population, emerging connectivity, large supplies of both old and new industrial raw materials (i.e. iron and cadmeum) and so on.

China will surpase the US economically. It happens. It is not because we turned to wolves and ate our own as you describe. It is something that is so complexly circumstancial, that to claim it to be the fault of one thing (such as the fiat currecny) is ludacris.

And on another point, I must ask you why do you refer to us as a ponzi operator? Tangible goods and services are given in return (the stated welfare and pet projects, as well as defense and infastructure). They are not just handing out the investments in hope of larger investments.

If you are complaining about the inflationary model of economics we are running, that is a different story. That is not a ponzi scheme, and yes, it is enabled by fiat currency, but it is not neccisarily a bad thing. Whenever an economy allows for the borrowing of money for interest, inflation occurs, and without an inflationary currency, the interest earned on investments (shares in corporations or interest earned on bonds) create an intangible growth. Inflationary currency allows the economy to grow with the inflation that is inherent in new ventures and expansion of old ones.


RE: The first...
By BansheeX on 1/28/2009 6:00:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
China is growing faster than us not because they hold a large portion of our bonds. There are a plethora of conditions that make china ripe for growth, the most notable being the lack there of in all of modern history - but not limited to and including such things as massive labor population, emerging connectivity, large supplies of both old and new industrial raw materials (i.e. iron and cadmeum) and so on.


The size of a population has little to do with their growth, they had more people than us when they were far more economically socialist and went absolutely nowhere. They're growing because they've opened up trade, they have little regulation cost, no forced welfare taxes, no forced benefits, the government has allowed its workers to decide what they're willing to work for. They saved their money and loaned it to us, becoming the wealthy creditor we used to be. It got to the point where it became an expectation: we issue debt, they finance it. Thus, we've borrowed from the world to consume what they produce, and it's made us completely uncompetitive and dependent. When the music ends, we go to the Fed who buys it all with their magic checkbook (counterfeit, inflation, call it whatever you want). When that hyperinflation finally reflects in prices, they'll have to raise rates just as fast and hard as they lowered them. The Fed is powerless to stop the imbalance they've created, but they have thrown the charter out the window to try and reinflate this thing.

quote:
And on another point, I must ask you why do you refer to us as a ponzi operator? Tangible goods and services are given in return (the stated welfare and pet projects, as well as defense and infastructure). They are not just handing out the investments in hope of larger investments.


We run a 1 trillion dollar trade deficit every year. That means the world is providing us with 1 trillion more of goods and services than we provide them. The government is in massive short-term debt and has to pay off the interest every year plus the principle on bonds that have matured, there is no slush fund of foreign reserves for welfare payouts. This next year, we will be creating 2 trillion more in bonds at 0%. What is it for? Everything BUT increasing our productive capacity to make a REAL return on foreign investment. We have to continuously find more and more new lenders willing to accept more dollars (which costs us nothing) instead of an actual product. This is a ponzi scheme, just like Madoff, but with a counterfeiting element. Madoff took investor money, spent all of it on other people's products, then found new investors to pay off the old investors, and so on and so forth until he couldn't find more lenders and the fraud was exposed. To old investors who got their payments, it appeared that legitimate returns were being made, but it was simply money from later investors. Our treasury market and Social Security system operates exactly like this, and the GAO under David Walker said as much. But people are idiots, this scam is subtle enough to fly over 99% of people's heads.


RE: The first...
By surt on 1/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 6:23:52 PM , Rating: 5
> "The current meltdown destroying our economy is primarily from lack of protectionism."

Eh? Nothing could be further from the truth. Do you think it was called the subprime meltdown for nothing? The real estate and banking sectors were by far the hardest hit -- exactly the sectors that are affected the least by outsourcing and cheap foreign imports.

> "If the prices of autos made by foreigners using slave labor were higher"

Err, the prices of foreign autos *is* higher. They still sell better. And, by the way, a huge percentage of those "foreign" cars are made in the US, by US workers.


RE: The first...
By RU482 on 1/26/2009 1:19:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most H-1B workers accept salaries far below the going rate and often without any benefits. So cutting them won't reduce costs as 'quickly' as cutting a citizen employee. Unfortunately, that could prompt companies to layoff citizens first.


Hmm, kinda like the automotive industry with it's domestic structure that costs more than the foreign competition?


RE: The first...
By Hiawa23 on 1/26/2009 1:47:15 PM , Rating: 3
The senator has good intentions, but not sure I agree with him trying to tell Microsoft who they should be laying off.


RE: The first...
By kilkennycat on 1/26/2009 1:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
Probably totally incorrect in the case of Microsoft. I worked on a H1B visa for a major company with close ties to Microsoft for several years and was paid on exactly the same salary-scale with the same benefits as my US-citizen co-workers. In fact, I was in a management position and could decide on the salaries of the employees in my group. No pressure was put on me at any time to differentiate salaries between H1B and US citizens.


RE: The first...
By RamarC on 1/26/2009 2:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
Conversely, I've worked with for companies that heavily used Cognizant Technical Services and Tata Consultancy Services and almost all of their developers were billed at hourly rates well below our average developer salary. Only their project leads were billed at a rate comparable to a regular (non-lead) developer and CTS/TCS was still cheaper since there required no fringe benefits/payroll taxes/workers compensation fees etc.


RE: The first...
By noirsoft on 1/26/2009 7:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
Presumably that's because he was talking about H1B visas (people who come to work in the US) and your situation seems to be outsourcing (where the workers stay in their home country) -- Totally different things.


RE: The first...
By RamarC on 1/27/2009 10:46:23 AM , Rating: 2
nope. they worked in the same offices with us and they all had H1Bs. same thing.


RE: The first...
By proel on 1/26/2009 7:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, that's wrong, companies are legally required to compensate H1B's at the same rate as they would American employees.


RE: The first...
By RandallMoore on 1/26/2009 11:22:00 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
lay off the less qualified talent, regardless of nationality, and keep the best talent.


You are exactly right. And by that standard affirmative action should be completely done away with also. The "most qualified" individual should be chosen. Not the "white guy", "black guy", "Chinese", or "American". It should be strictly the most qualified.

On a side note, if I owned a company of my own... I would employ only Americans simply because I support helping my fellow comrades first.


RE: The first...
By Bateluer on 1/26/2009 11:23:23 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, but what if someone who's only 80% qualified is willing to work for 50% of what the 100% qualified person wants? Acceptable?


RE: The first...
By RandallMoore on 1/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: The first...
By icrf on 1/26/2009 11:50:45 AM , Rating: 5
Okay, what if your best American available is only 80% qualified, and a foreigner is 100% capable of doing the job? Assuming similar salaries, is it enough to forgo business for politics? What is the foreigner will work for half the less qualified American?

Companies are in business to make money, and most look to short-term solutions, and H1B fits both bills.


RE: The first...
By RandallMoore on 1/26/2009 12:50:35 PM , Rating: 1
I Guess I should have specified between private and public companies and corps.

I would hire an American first before any others if I owned a private business. "If" someone is an immigrant and looking for work in America then they would be best suited for public corporations with regards to my views on the private sector. (public companies are obligated to conform to equality standards, private sectors are only encouraged)

The exception to the rule would be outsourcing if employment could absolutely NOT be met within means. That means if I simply could not find an American that could do the job and do it right within the allotted expense, I would have to turn to a qualified individual with a visa. After hiring, I would encourage to strive for U.S. citizenship.

I just want to keep the money and jobs within our borders. Nothing is wrong with that.

I agree that most business are in it only to make a profit. I consider myself a traditionalist in the aspect that I think people should be motivated more by service and deed to your community and country than money alone. Yes, everyone needs money for modern day survival in society, but there is a consideration of crossing the line of greed. I try to not be motivated by greed, although I'm not perfect just like everyone else. Your challenging question and statements are justifiable though...


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 12:55:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I Guess I should have specified between private and public companies and corps.
The mode of ownership of a company doesn't change its liability with respect to employment law, period. It's been said a few times already.
quote:
public companies are obligated to conform to equality standards, private sectors are only encouraged
Absolutely false.


RE: The first...
By RandallMoore on 1/26/2009 1:33:08 PM , Rating: 1
You are quite wrong. Private companies under 15 employees can hire whoever they want based on whatever criteria they want. End of story. I worked for a private company that happened to be christian based. Was I hired specifically because I am a Christian? No. Could he have made that hiring decision? Absolutely yes. Are you going off of business law experience or just what you think is correct?

Moreover, how can you prove intentions of hiring?

It's like proving the non-existence of something.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 1:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, that very small companies (fewer than 15 employees) are not covered by many federal anti-discrimination lays. But these smaller companies still must follow the federal Equal Pay Act, and smaller companies are also subject to anti-discrimination laws as the state and local level.

Furthermore, by engaging in discrimination, even small companies run the risk of costly civil lawsuits, regardless of the applicability of federal regulations.


RE: The first...
By RandallMoore on 1/26/2009 1:53:17 PM , Rating: 1
Well, nothing is immune to the radical nut jobs that sue for everything. lol, cheers!

Don't forget, I don't condone any harmful discrimination. I'm just fighting for everyone's right to "respectfully" discriminate.


RE: The first...
By Myg on 1/27/2009 6:38:14 AM , Rating: 2
Actually; It would be very easy for a company to hire based on religion.

You would simple model the questions based on a particular belief system...

Oh wait a second, isn't that done already?

:-)


RE: The first...
By Smilin on 1/26/2009 2:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
80% qualified = not qualified.
100% qualified = qualified.

Pay is an unrelated topic. You don't hire someone who isn't qualified no matter what the salary.


RE: The first...
By tdawg on 1/26/2009 6:58:29 PM , Rating: 5
What if the other 20% is learnable on the job? There are many factors that should go into a hiring decision. An absolute bastard that is 100% qualified is probably a worse choice than the 80% qualified person that is able to work in a team environment and such, as long as the other 20% can be learned or picked up by another team member.

Very seldom is this cut and dry (surgery is probably one place where 100% qualified is a requirement).


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: The first...
By BadAcid on 1/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: The first...
By VaultDweller on 1/26/2009 11:47:21 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, nope. I've read and re-read TomZ's post, and I see no mention of race.

Don't fall into the delusion that white supremacy is the only form of prejudice.


RE: The first...
By bhieb on 1/26/2009 3:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
No mention of race and the law is "nation of origin" not race. So yes this would be illegal. Love it that our "law" makers don't know the law.

http://www.eeoc.gov/origin/index.html


RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 3:21:01 PM , Rating: 1
> "the law is "nation of origin" not race"

The law is actually both race and nation of origin, along with a few other pertinent factors, such as color, ethnic background, etc.


RE: The first...
By William Gaatjes on 1/26/2009 12:35:53 PM , Rating: 3
I have never read a post from TomZ that made me assume he is a racist. Nationalist and patriot yes, but that is nothing to be ashamed off.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 12:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
There's something ironic about being called a racist due to a post where I'm quite clearly defending equal protection under the law for everyone. :o)


RE: The first...
By JediJeb on 1/26/2009 2:26:10 PM , Rating: 2
There is a definate difference between being a Nationalist and a Racist. A person does not have control of their race, but they can choose their nationality.

Just like it would not seem improper for the Democratic Party to not hire a staunch Republician to be their leader, I don't think it would be wrong for an American company to not hire a Chinese national if they so choose.

And I guess if the Senator wanted to really push the point, he could work to cancel all the H-1B Visas and if that happened MS would have no choice, I just hope the economy doesn't get so bad that that is seen as a necessary measure to protect the American workforce.


RE: The first...
By JS on 1/26/2009 6:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
For most people in the world changing nationality is just as impossible as changing their race.

People from wealthy Western democracies often can. The rest are normally not able to.


RE: The first...
By RandallMoore on 1/26/2009 11:40:40 AM , Rating: 2
A company of my OWN, meaning I own %100 of it. That means what I say goes. Excluding a certain race, religion, or citizenship is perfectly legal in private organizations. Of course I wouldn't do any of them on purpose.

With regards to hiring only Americans, I would do so within reason. Meaning if I absolutely could not find a qualified American then of course I would outsource. Wanting to keep jobs and money within my own country has NOTHING to do with being prejudice.

You immediately jumping to that conclusion leads me to believe that you are a liberal who loves to give rights to people that don't deserve them.

If you had to choose between donating a organ to a family member or a stranger which one would you choose? Don't discriminate in your decision now...


RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 11:50:35 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Excluding a certain race, religion, or citizenship is perfectly legal in private organizations.
Err, no it isn't. Federal equal opportunity law applies to all employers, and prohibits hiring based on race, religion, age, national origin, pregnancy status, and a few other factors.


RE: The first...
By sunjava04 on 1/26/2009 11:55:08 AM , Rating: 3
but did forgot about sociology term called "old-boy network".


RE: The first...
By icrf on 1/26/2009 12:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
I've always been curious how far such things can go. Boy Scouts of America can restrict atheists and homosexuals from being leaders. Catholicism bans women from being priests. Somehow the federal equal opportunity law doesn't apply.


RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 12:40:10 PM , Rating: 1
It doesn't apply because the law specifically allows exclusion for cases where disciminatory criteria would bear on job perfcrmance. If your religious code bars women in a role that teaches religious code, it doesn't apply...just as you don't have to consider women for male parts in Hollywood films.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: The first...
By BPB on 1/26/2009 1:01:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There may be a legal basis for these groups "getting away" with discrimination, but at least in my mind they are both wrong to try to do so.

What I also find interesting about these two groups specifically is that the overall spirit of their guiding principles is absolutely against the type of exclusion and hatrid that drives these policies, moreso in the case of BSA.

I personally left and rejected the Catholic church as a youth because of their marginalization of women, as well as a few other key issues, and I have actively chosen to keep my children from becoming involved (my wife is/was Catholic).

In the case of BSA, that is a real conflict for me personally. I was in scouting as a kid and really enjoyed it, and I want my sons to have the same positive experience. So when my one son joined this past year, my daughter (a twin) also wanted to join. So the first lesson my daughter learned from BSA was that of discrimination/exclusion. Real nice.

I don't want this to become a discussion of the BSA or Catholic Church, but nobody is coerced into joining the Scouts or the Catholic Church. They’re VOLUNTARY organizations. The understanding being that the reason you want to join is you agree with the principles they state. Why is that so hard for some people to understand? Heck, the Scouts are essentially for kids, guess I should sue because I’m too old to be anything but a leader. NOT FAIR!

I wonder how many folks here who post such poorly reasoned logic would get ticked if I and others started posting completely off-topic stuff here? Heck, there are folks who’d scream for me or others to be removed and logons to be revoked if it kept up. Why? Because I and the others wouldn’t be following the voluntary rules we agreed to follow. Why is that so hard for others to understand? If you don’t understand it, let me know. I’ll start posting my feelings about how a healthy Boston Bruins teams should be one of the 2 or 3 favorites to win the Stanley Cup this year. There’s plenty I can post, so just give it a try. We’ll see how long it takes for you to complain.

As to the Catholic Church, you got your two cents in showing us you have zero understanding of theology, so please keep things related to the topic.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 1:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
I can see you are sensitive about this subject, but contrary to the tone of your post, I don't think you enlightened anybody or added to the discussion at all.


RE: The first...
By Krotchrot on 1/26/2009 2:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
I think he made a very good point and pretty much destroyed your argument. Especially about the BSA.


RE: The first...
By MrBlastman on 1/26/2009 1:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
Women are not permitted on scouting functions - at least in the old school units. I was once out camping with my wife and noticed some moms on a scouting trip with the troop. They totally ruined the harmony that was achieved from the traditional all-male outing.

It is called "boy scouts" for a reason. ;)

Look, I'm all for equality in this world, but sometimes we need to use common sense. There are times and places for male-bonding, and scouting is one of those last remaining bastions for this. As a married man, I can appreciate this - and so can my wife. She wholeheartedly agrees that Scouting should be kept male only. It is nice to find a female out there that still keeps this traditional value.

Let the men and boys bond together, I do not see any harm in that. The values taught in Scouting last a lifetime, as do the friendships that are created. Some of the friends made within the organization become the closest, strongest friendships you can ever have. As for the values, they are very good values which lead to stronger character when the boys become adults. I don't know a single Eagle Scout that does not possess these traits.


RE: The first...
By RandallMoore on 1/26/2009 1:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look, I'm all for equality in this world, but sometimes we need to use common sense.


It seems like there is a lot less people like you left in the world. I don't think I could agree more.


RE: The first...
By overzealot on 1/28/2009 6:07:04 AM , Rating: 2
I find that point of view quite strange.
I was in Scouts (in Australia) from Cub to Venturer, and never found that girls or female leaders in any negative way affected the group dynamic.
They stand out at first, in exactly the same way men/boys do - they don't have Scouting experience and I wouldn't expect any different.
Most of the girls/women who join Scouts have no problems acting like "one of the boys", in my experience.

I guess we'd really need the opinion of someone currently in American Venturing, to decide whether it changed anything for them or not.

The Christian aspect of Scouting I found quite perplexing, even as a young Catholic. That feeling has not changed since becoming an Athiest adult.


RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 1:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "So the first lesson my daughter learned from BSA was that of discrimination/exclusion"

BSA excludes pedophiles, convicted felons, and many other classes of people. Is that exclusion a bad lesson for your daughter to learn?

In the eyes of the BSA, the decision to engage in homosexual behavior is improper, and not a lesson they wish to set for their young members. I don't personally agree with their rationale, but I will, as the saying goes, fight to the death for their right to exercise it.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 1:23:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
BSA excludes pedophiles, convicted felons, and many other classes of people. Is that exclusion a bad lesson for your daughter to learn?
Yes, of course, because there is a compelling reason for those types of exclusions (personal safety of the children).

But the exclusion of girls is irrational. Every activity and every lesson that my son is learning from BSA applies and makes sense equally to my daughter.

The values that BSA teaches are not specific to Christians, heterosexuals, or males only. That is my point really.


RE: The first...
By RandallMoore on 1/26/2009 1:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
Not trying to sound like an ass, honestly, but that's what the Girl Scouts are for. Some people are just taking it to the extreme.

Also, joining the BSA is a privilege not a right. Those same moral values and life lessons can be taught by responsible parents and friends.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 2:08:41 PM , Rating: 1
People used the same logic to justify Jim Crow laws. Sorry, but that makes no sense. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are not equivalent organizations for opposite genders. That's an intellectual shortcut you're taking there. I have a kid in each, and they are very different organizations.

But really the point is that I would like these types of organizations to be more inclusive and less discriminatory. That is more consistent with the guiding principles of these organizations, and of our country.


RE: The first...
By RandallMoore on 1/26/2009 2:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
Just what are your kids missing out on by not being able to be in both? I don't understand.

Contrary to what most people believe, a small amount of respectful discrimination is healthy. Forced integration is a very bad, liberal minded idea that is destructive.

I see what you are saying though, but you also have to agree that if some things were not exclusive and discriminative, then we would all be medium sized neutral gray blobs that see everything in neutral gray colors. (unless you don't understand my point, this life would be extremely boring.)


RE: The first...
By Jimbo1234 on 1/26/2009 2:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Who would want to watch the NFL, NBA, NHL, or many other sports if they had to allow women on their teams? Is it fair? No. Is it dicriminating? Yes. Is there an separate but equivelant sport for women? No. Do I care? Not particularly.

Forced integration into certain things is bad. Some things are just better left alone.


RE: The first...
By MrBlastman on 1/26/2009 2:57:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'd take it one step further and say: Who would want to watch a Boxing match after forced equality was muscled into the ring?

What kind of enjoyment would you find watching a 220 lb heavyweight male fighting a female? I dare say it would be a massacre and only the most masochistic of us all would find any enjoyment in it. I can tell you from my martial arts background, that the woman wouldn't have a chance in heck.

That is why we have women's boxing. It isn't for pure exploitation, but more of an equalizer to keep the women pitted against more equal opponents. Also, it affords the men the enhanced risk of facing off only against men.

Everything in life doesn't have to be equal for everyone. There are boundaries that shouldn't be crossed and age-old traditions that should be kept within reason.


RE: The first...
By omnicronx on 1/26/2009 5:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Agreed. Who would want to watch the NFL, NBA, NHL, or many other sports if they had to allow women on their teams?
Are you kidding? I would pay to see a 350 pound grown man tackle a 120 pound woman ;)


RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 2:55:18 PM , Rating: 3
> "People used the same logic to justify Jim Crow laws"

Are separate bathrooms for men and women discriminatory? What about laws that require women to cover their breats, while men can go topless? What about the fact that you can legally make contact with a man's chest, but the same contact on a woman can net you sexual offender status? How about shelters that give assistance only to battered women, does that discriminate against men? How about the ten-year old boys in your neighborhood, that don't let the girls into their clubhouse? Should the federal government get involved here as well?

People use to have a love of freedom in this country. Freedom means equal protection under the law. It also means that a group of men -- or women -- should be allowed to participate in a same-sex club if they wish. There is a vast difference between the Boy Scouts and denying women the right to vote.


RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 5:13:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What about laws that require women to cover their breats
Did I actually type that? My life, my life for an edit function...


RE: The first...
By afkrotch on 1/26/2009 2:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
It's the BSA. It's a program that is of course geared towards boys and young men. Yes, many of the things learned can also apply to females.

I personally think the main reason is the menstrual cycle. Hell, what guy wants to deal with that crap while trying to learn about bears, leaves, and whatever else the BSA learns.

Not much a clue to me though. I joined the Explorer side of BSA, which is boys and girls allowed.


RE: The first...
By MrBlastman on 1/26/2009 3:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention a bloody tampon will attract the bears.

I can just see it now: "Bobby, can you go help little Jenny dispose of her tampon and make it animal proof?"


RE: The first...
By rcc on 1/26/2009 4:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
The exclusion of girls is perfectly rational, whether you agree or not. We are talking about young males ranging from "ew, girls, cooties", to "wow, girls, let's go spy on 'em". Either way they aren't learning what they are there to learn, or doing what they are there to do.

The scout leaders would spend all their time keeping the kids/couples out of the bushes and less time teaching everyone what they are there to learn.

And regardless of gender, do you start requiring the scout leaders to tone down their activities to the lowest common denominator? So sorry, we can't hike that trail folks, Timmy and Sally can't make that climb.

Now, you could certainly make a case for a mixed scouting group, but the activities and organizations would be quite different. But leave people their otherness.

I understand that we want to eliminate discrimination, etc. But there are activities and situations where one size fits all is not useful.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 4:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The exclusion of girls is perfectly rational, whether you agree or not.
How so? What activities or teachings of the BSA are really only applicable to boys and inappropriate for girls? Let me know just one thing.
quote:
And regardless of gender, do you start requiring the scout leaders to tone down their activities to the lowest common denominator?
That's already the case today. BSA is focused on each boy "doing their best." They do not have to meet some kind of physical performance criteria. This allows all boys (and potentially girls) to participate equally.
quote:
Now, you could certainly make a case for a mixed scouting group, but the activities and organizations would be quite different.
How so? Do girls not enjoy camping? Do girls not enjoy learning about our community, families, nature, etc.? Do girls not enjoy crafts, social meetings, earning awards?


RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 5:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How so? Do girls not enjoy camping?
Let's pose a hypothetical. Your daughter is 14. She wants to spend the weekend at a friend's house. The friend is a boy.

Do you let her? Careful: think before you discriminate!


RE: The first...
By RandallMoore on 1/26/2009 6:07:58 PM , Rating: 2
$1,000 says that he will never answer that. If by chance he does, it will contradict everything he's said so far.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 10:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's pose a hypothetical. Your daughter is 14. She wants to spend the weekend at a friend's house. The friend is a boy.
No, we wouldn't let our daughter spend the night at any friend's house - boys or girls. :o)


RE: The first...
By rcc on 1/29/2009 7:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How so? What activities or teachings of the BSA are really only applicable to boys and inappropriate for girls? Let me know just one thing.


Tom,

Did you even bother reading my post, it was quite clear and had little to do with what they were teaching.


RE: The first...
By RandallMoore on 1/26/2009 4:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. It's like banning all sports because the disabled community can't fully participate.

That concept, I'll admit, was one of Bush's failing when he endorsed the no child left behind. I was personally affected by that one in a sense that I was forced to dumb down to the lowest level because of degenerates and slackers. *learning disabilities do not apply*


RE: The first...
By rcc on 1/29/2009 7:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
I've always prefered "no child held back" to "no child left behind". Although, they don't have to be mutually exclusive, they just are in the current system.


RE: The first...
By BansheeX on 1/26/2009 12:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
There's a difference between physical incapacities and mental ones. A woman cannot play a man in a film, play football against men, do heavy manual labor... but why is she incapable of teaching? He's got a point unless the so-called "non-profit" sector has different rules.


RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 1:01:16 PM , Rating: 2
> "but why is she incapable of teaching?"

Because she's being asked to teach the religious code that only men should be allowed to teach. Her very existence is a contradiction.

Honestly, this principle that an employer can't exercise reasonable judgement as to what sort of applicant can properly fill a job has gone far overboard. This country was founded on freedom, particularly religious freedom. Personally, I'm an athiest, but a church has a right to select their religious leaders by whatever principles make sense to them.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 1:15:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Because she's being asked to teach the religious code that only men should be allowed to teach. Her very existence is a contradiction.
Huh? I don't follow. Why wouldn't a woman be just as capable as a man to teach and lead in the ways required to be an effective priest?
quote:
a church has a right to select their religious leaders by whatever principles make sense to them
Our country was also founded on equal protection and equal opportunity for all. Looking at the situation from the perspective of a woman who is both capable and interested in that job, the restriction seems like nonsense and it deprives here of her liberty. If I were a woman interested in the job, I'd sue the church all day long.


RE: The first...
By BPB on 1/26/2009 1:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, lets ban all religion, they all exclude somebody who's otherwise breaking no laws. They exclude males from this or females from that, kids can't do this and adults can't do that. Ban 'em all! Judaism? Gone! Christianity? Gone! Islam? Gone, gone, gone!

And let's ban all other exclusionary groups. Boy Scouts? Gone! Girl Scouts? Gone! WNBA? Gone! They go, but not the NBA, the NBA would put a female on a team in a heartbeat if she was good enough. But other than genetically engineering one, they ain't gonna find one. The WNBA though, they're no men allowed (except, of course, the refs and coaches, but I want to be a player!).

Still, we need to go further. My wife and I should be banned from society too. She prefers female doctors for certain visits, and I prefer male. We are bad, very bad people. We must be locked away or put down. Oh, anybody attending a baby shower that excluded men, you go to directly to jail too! No get out of jail free card, you maggots. Don't you know there's no logical reason to ever ban the opposite sex from something. Ever!

Darn we do all this and the only people left will be TomZ and his family. Then again, TomZ and his family might be locked up for hate crimes. They apparently hate the BSA and religious folk. We can't let any haters roam free any more than we can discriminators. Of course, they do hate those who I suppose should be hated. Tough call.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 2:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not calling for the end of all social groups. :o) Just that they end all discrimination. Isn't it clear to people like you that this is the natural evolution of the human species? We humans are maturing in our social interactions. I look forward to the day when "discrimination" is a hollow word with only historical meaning. I would like to see that happen in my lifetime, but I doubt it.


RE: The first...
By Jimbo1234 on 1/26/2009 2:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'd beg to differ with the statement about maturing in our social interactions. The only thing that is really changing is the technology with which we interact.


RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 3:04:16 PM , Rating: 3
> "Huh? I don't follow. Why wouldn't a woman be just as capable as a man to teach and lead in the ways required to be an effective priest?"

Because, for these priests, part of what they're required to teach is that women can't be effective in that role.

Can a woman effectively teach that women can't be effective Catholic priests? The very idea itself is silly. Either she's ineffective and should be fired...or she's effective, and thereby disproves her own lesson plan.

> "Our country was also founded on equal protection and equal opportunity for all"

Anyone in this country has equal opportunity to become a religious leader. They simply don't have the right that the Catholic Church pay them for doing so. You want to teach religion? Find a church that allows women, or found your own. End of problem.

As for equal protection, see my other posts as to why it doesn't apply here.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 3:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because, for these priests, part of what they're required to teach is that women can't be effective in that role. Can a woman effectively teach that women can't be effective Catholic priests? The very idea itself is silly. Either she's ineffective and should be fired...or she's effective, and thereby disproves her own lesson plan.
LOL, interesting circular logic there. I'm sure the same could be applied to justify discrimination against black teachers, or really exclusion of any group.


RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 3:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
> "LOL, interesting circular logic there."

It's a tautology actually -- self-evident on its face. A woman can't be an effective Catholic priest, as long as Catholic dogma forbids it.

Change the dogma, and the problem is resolved...but then you're in the business of having government dictate religious ideals.

> "I'm sure the same could be applied to justify discrimination against black teachers"

Bear in mind that there are radical black religions that preach the superiority of the "sun race", and the inferiority of white skin. They don't ordain white priests. Should the federal government force them to change their policies?


RE: The first...
By RandallMoore on 1/26/2009 3:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
The more posts you make, the more obvious it is to everyone that your reasoning is very dangerous and counterproductive to society. He is only trying to make the point that it's ridiculous to be legally aggressive to pursue forced integration when it's obvious to all common knowledge that the said forced integration is a ludicrous concept.

Example: A known rapist doctor sues a city because no females want to engage in health care at his gynecology office. The idea of that is absolute lunacy. Are you going to find a defense for that scenario?


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 4:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He is only trying to make the point that it's ridiculous to be legally aggressive to pursue forced integration when it's obvious to all common knowledge that the said forced integration is a ludicrous concept.
I'm sure that's what many Separatists believed in the south before the Jim Crow laws were stuck down and the schools re-integrated.

And besides, I'm not even advocating forced integration; I'm advocating acceptance. In other words, if my daughter wants to join BSA, then let her do it, that's all. I really don't see the harm in that. BSA would be better if it were a co-ed organization. Heck, the local leadership is already comprised of lots of moms, so in a way it is already.


RE: The first...
By RandallMoore on 1/26/2009 4:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
BSA is an organization whose members are voluntary.
BSA is a non profit org.
BSA operates under certain morals and rules that, unless enforced would NOT make it BOY Scouts of America.

quote:
I'm not even advocating forced integration


You are without realizing it. If I were to form a private club for 20 year old, white males, that attend college are you going to insist that your daughter be able to join? The club would therefore lose its intended purpose and unique qualities.

I would, however, not mind seeing separate organization called Boys and Girl Scouts of America if that would please some people. But I will never support forced integration when it is obvious that it would be unnecessary.


RE: The first...
By BPB on 1/26/2009 4:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
I really, REALLY wish people wouldn't post about those things of which they have NO knowledge. Who in God's name says woman can't teach in the Catholic Church, or that priests are there to teach? A priest's primary role is a sacramental role. Any priest who teaches get his authority from his bishop. Believe it or not, there have been, and are, priests who do not have authority to celebrate Mass, give homilies, or teach.

Have you never seen a religious order of nuns? Are they not all headed by women? Are they not taught primarily by woman? Geez, I'm so sick of this kind of crap. Tell me, how many hospitals and schools in the world were run by woman before Catholic nuns started doing those things? You'll find the amswer is very, very, small. It may even be zero. You'll also find that in places where the Church was run out, those very same nuns were generally replaced by men, not women. My sister went to an all girls Catholic college run by woman. If they're not allowed to teach, then those men who did the teaching sure did dress funny and sound funny.

For Catholics, it's very simple. They believe that Jesus Himself wanted an all male priesthood, and that the Church has no authority to make it otherwise. That may sound foolish to you, but it's not a hard conclusion to make and agree with once you come to the conclusion that there was a Jesus, and He was, or is the God/man who walked the earth. Of course if you can't get past that, the rest is moot.

By the way, who is it that Catholics revere above all other humans? A woman named Mary. Did you know there are far more female saints than male saints? The theology, logic, and reasoning are all quite sound. That doesn't mean you or anybody else should find it compelling to the point that you believe, but it is not some poorly reasoned excuse for discrimination. It's start from a premise that, once reached, makes very good sense.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 4:15:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
some poorly reasoned excuse for discrimination
Yes it is.

Give me a break - the Pope, Bishops, and all Priests are required to be men - but Catholics "revere" women?!? Traditional Catholic teaching reveres women - only when they are in their proper place! Giving birth, serving men, you get the picture.


RE: The first...
By BPB on 1/26/2009 5:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, yes, Catholics do revere women. At least those who truly practice the faith. Those would be the folks held up as saints. Find me a one who didn't revere women. Those are the ones to be held up as models, not me, not even the pope (though I do think he'll become one). It's hard, very hard to be a truly good Catholic, and as such most folks fail, many miserably. But don't judge the Church by those who fail.

And regarding the priesthood, look at it this way. Assume for a moment that you believe in God, and that you believe He created man and woman. If you believe that God is anything like the Judeo-Christian God, then you believe there are no coincidences regarding what He does. That being the case, it's no coincidence that He created us male AND female. He created such that men can do some things women can't, and women can do some things that men can't. I can't get pregnant, I can't have a baby. Does that mean God discriminated against me? Think about it, Catholics believe that God actually works with women to create life, physical AND spiritual life. Something even the angels can't do. Men help start the process, but it happens within the woman, the man is out of the picture at that point.

Similarly Catholics believe we have spiritual roles to go along with our physical roles. Men can be priests, women can not. If you believe in a spiritual as well as physical world, then why not believe that both have there ways for males and females.

I don't get mad at God for not letting me have a baby, or create a life. Why should a woman get mad she can't be a priest? We have our roles that God chose for us, is that so hard to understand?

Look at it this way; if we don't have spiritual roles as well as physical, then women, in the end, have it up on men. They get to create life AND do all the things men would get to do. So they'd actually have us beat, we would not be equal.

I'm really rushing as I have to go teach CCD, I hope I was clear.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 5:52:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We have our roles that God chose for us, is that so hard to understand?
Obviously I believe that the subservient role that women play in the Catholic church was chosen by the church's male leaders, not by God, not by Jesus. Fortunately, most other Christian faiths have figured this out already.

Tell me one ability that God gave men, and didn't give women, that uniquely qualifies them for leadership positions in the Catholic church.


RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 6:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tell me one ability that God gave men, and didn't give women, that uniquely qualifies them for leadership positions in the Catholic church
He gave them the ability to be priests, for one.

The Catholic Magisterium is, according to Catholic dogma, divinely inspired. By it, women cannot be priests. You may not find the "because god said so" argument particularly compelling. But such is the entire basis of any and all religions.

There are, after all, quite a few religions that not only allow female priests, but bar men from the priesthood. It's not the Catholic Church's fault that so few people wish to belong to these religions.


RE: The first...
By BPB on 1/26/2009 8:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obviously I believe that the subservient role that women play in the Catholic church was chosen by the church's male leaders, not by God, not by Jesus. Fortunately, most other Christian faiths have figured this out already.
Actually, you're wong about most other faiths. If you mean most other "churches", you are correct. But if you mean most Christians, you are wrong. The combination of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches completely overwhelm the numbers of non-Catholics and non-Orthodox. Heck, the Catholic Church alone does that. Yes, in America it appears your way, but not world-wide.
quote:
Tell me one ability that God gave men, and didn't give women, that uniquely qualifies them for leadership positions in the Catholic church.

Tell me why god even bothered to make men and women, and not simply people? If you believe in God, then does it not make sense to believe that He had a reason for making men and women, and not some genderless people?

As to your actual question, it's not about ability. That's like saying I won't recognize Obama as my president because I don't think he's up to the job. Or George Bush wasn't my president because he was a boob. Sorry, it doesn't matter what you think, the law says Bush was president and Obama is president. We believe that God says men can be priests and women can't. Mind you, if you want I can quote at length the theology of all this, but in the end it still comes down to what we believe about how God made us and all creation.

Of course part of the problem here is that you perceive power in the priesthood, power that women aren't allowed to posses. When in reality, the holiest of priests are complete servants who serve and do not wield power.
quote:
Personally, I'm not only an athiest, but I'm fully prepared to argue the proto-catholic church was largely responsible for the downfall of the Roman Empire, and the subsequent millennia of chaos and barbarism.

What do you meant by this? Do you have a problem with the Church creating hospitals? Improving writing? Creating the university system? Or is it that they created the scientific method? I'm not sure I understand. Maybe it was their teaching of loving thy neighbor and enemy? Was it elevating women to posts of leadership in these hospitals, schools, and religious orders? I'm confused.

Your millennia, I assume, is meant to end at the Enlightenment, though it started a bit more than 1000 years after Rome's downfall. What changed then, and how did it end barbarism? Did it stop the French from brutalizing their people, especially Catholic religious? Did it stop Lenin, Mao, Hitler and the like from killing over 100,000,000 people? That's 100 million!

Man, talk about off topic!


RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 11:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What do you meant by this?
My views on the Church's role in instigating the Dark Ages come primarily from Gibbon. Read the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire for a very compelling and well researched exposition on the topic.

quote:
"Do you have a problem with the Church creating [the] scientific method?"
I won't speak to your other claims, but this one is such blatant historical revisionism I can scarcely believe you typed it without spraining a finger. The scientific method began with Aristotle. During the Middle Ages, the height of the Church's power, the scientific method was practiced almost exclusively by Muslim scholars.

The modern view of the scientific method was developed by people like Galileo, Decartes, and Bacon, one of whom was prosecuted by the Church, another who had his books banned by the Church, and the third who didn't even belong to the Catholic Church at all.

quote:
Did it stop the French from brutalizing their people, especially Catholic religious?
Eh? Again this shows a shocking revionist slant. The most brutal acts in French history were by Catholics against those of other faiths, such as the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of the Huguenots.


RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 5:48:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Give me a break...Traditional Catholic teaching reveres women - only when they are in their proper place! Giving birth, serving men, you get the picture
According to Catholic dogma, the highest position any human has ever held, second only to God himself, is occupied by the Virgin Mary. A woman, I do believe.

Personally, I'm not only an athiest, but I'm fully prepared to argue the proto-catholic church was largely responsible for the downfall of the Roman Empire, and the subsequent millennia of chaos and barbarism. But even I can't pretend the Church hates women, simply because it bars them from the priesthood.


RE: The first...
By Myg on 1/27/2009 12:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, this was a very hefty conversation over something so simple.

Women can't be priests, simple as that; take it or leave it and move on with your lives :-)

Call it what you want, it is what it is.

Tomz obviously has some serious issues he needs to sort out.


RE: The first...
By MrBlastman on 1/26/2009 12:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
The Boy Scouts of America is a Christian-based organization, hence, they fall under the provision of Freedom of Religion.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 1:00:44 PM , Rating: 2
That's not really true. Most of the discrimination they participate in is related to membership. And since they are a private organization (i.e., no direct government funding), they are free to invite and "dis-invite" whomever they please.

With repect to the employment issues, I don't expect those policies to stand the test of time, because I think they are clearly illegal. And in fact you see this already - BSA has backed down on its all-male-leaders policy and now women (moms) are allowed to take leadership positions within BSA.


RE: The first...
By MrBlastman on 1/26/2009 1:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
The great thing about Scouts is there are multiple troops in an area. Women are allowed to take positions on the adminstrative end of things - and, if you are looking to find a troop for your son and one of them has a woman in the leadership circle, there more than likely is another troop right around the corner that does not. You are free to choose. Some of us still favor the old-school values of yesteryear within Scouting.

They are a private organization - I think it is fully within their right to choose who can and who can not join.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 1:58:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The great thing about Scouts is there are multiple troops in an area.
Acutally, the great thing about scouts is that, at the local level, they don't execute the same intolerance and hate that is advocated at the national leadership level.


RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 3:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the great thing about scouts is that, at the local level, they don't execute the same intolerance and hate that is advocated at the national leadership level
Come now Tom, I've grown to expect better of you. Disagree with the all-male policy all you wish, but ascribing their motivations to "hatred" is petty and mean-spirited. I really don't think there are many misogynists in the BSA.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 3:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Disagree with the all-male policy all you wish, but ascribing their motivations to "hatred" is petty and mean-spirited.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. The hatred the BSA has is mainly towards homosexuals, not girls. This was demonstrated very clearly in their lawsuit where their legal defense was basically that they were a deeply homophobic group and admidding even a single gay leader would destroy the organization. I stand by what I said.


RE: The first...
By JediJeb on 1/26/2009 3:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Acutally, the great thing about scouts is that, at the local level, they don't execute the same intolerance and hate that is advocated at the national leadership level.


I think hate is a word that is overused and poorly used these days, seems everything that is not in line with someones ideas is considered hate against them.

hate (ht)
v. hat·ed, hat·ing, hates
v.tr.
1.
a. To feel hostility or animosity toward.
b. To detest.
2. To feel dislike or distaste for.
v.intr.
To feel hatred.
n.
1. Intense animosity or dislike; hatred.
2. An object of detestation or hatred:

Dislike for something, eg. women in leadership or homosexuals in the orginization, is the closest thing that could be considered hate by the defintion. If someone does not feel something is correct does not mean they hate it.

Intolerance is also not always a bad thing. Would not feeling comfortable leaving your young child alone with a know pediphile be considered intolerance or hate? I hope this society never comes to the point where you could be put in jail for having such feelings. I am personally very intolerant of people who drive drunk, and will report anyone I suspect of doing so, other people tolerate that with no problem. The freedoms this country was founded on allow people of like mindedness to gather together, be it in religion or social groups. To say they must accept anyone into their group who does not believe as they do is to say they nolonger have the freedom to gather as like minds. If this is nolonger allowed then the Political parties need to be disbanded, and if you carry it to the extreme the entire country needs to be dissolved since we who are citizens agree that we are to be Americans and exclude Canadians from being Americans because they have not agreed to our beliefs.

Taken to the extreme this sounds kinda silly, but where do we draw the lines? Who is allowed do draw the lines?

As for the BSA, if I had a daughter I would not want her to join them, a son I would have no problems with him joining. Separation of boys and girls is not a bad thing. To me any partent who would want their daughter to be out on a camping trip as the only girl in a group of boys( especially if in her teens) is not a wise parent. I'm sure I will be flamed for saying that but it's what I believe, and everyone else is free to believe as they wish.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 4:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
As I said above, the hate I describe is the BSAs attitude towards homosexuals.

quote:
if I had a daughter I would not want her to join them
Yes, if you start teaching girls early about all they things they are not allowed to do or accomplish because of their gender, who knows what they'll become!

No, sorry - I'm trying to raise my daughter with the opposite view - that there's nothing she can't accomplish with focus and hard work.


RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 6:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm trying to raise my daughter with the opposite view - that there's nothing she can't accomplish with focus and hard work
Creating a great work of art is an accomplishment. Discovering a new scientific law is an accomplishment. Buiding a massive bridge or skyscraper is an accomplishment.

But forcing a group of people to surrender their long-cherished tradition of male bonding is not an accomplishment. At least not one to be proud of.


RE: The first...
By RandallMoore on 1/26/2009 1:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Title VII and the ADA cover all private employers, state and local governments, and education institutions that employ 15 or more individuals.


When we get down to the specifics you can see that not all companies are legally obligated to some of the business practice laws. It is perfectly legal if I wanted to run a small company with only Christian employees. That's my choice, if I were to do that, and not any concern of the governments. However discrimitory, it is still none of the gov.'s business how I run my company within this constraint. Again I'll say, I do not live by those standards because I try everything in my power not to harmfully discriminate.

For example: I apply to work at restaurant that, unknown to me, employs only black Americans. I get denied because I am white. If they want to run a business that only employs a certain criteria of individuals then that’s fine and dandy with me. Although I wouldn’t agree with those practices, it’s not my place to judge and feel offended right off the bat. Maybe they only hire blacks because it’s an authentic style restaurant that caters to preserving their specific heritage… Would I be offended in that situation? No. Demand legal rights to work there? No.

Opposing situation: Same as first scenario only they won’t hire because they hate other races. Would I be offended? Probably. Would I demand legal rights to work there? No. Why seek rights to be integrated into a mix that aggressively doesn’t want me there? Forced integration is idiotic and causes problems. Just like what this country is headed for. If things keeping going like they are, everyone will have the right to do “everything and nothing” all at the same time because everyone is infringing on someone elses rights.

This is not aimed at you pointing out legal facts. I’m just ranting about how ridiculous rights, privileges, and being offended is getting. Our government has waaaaay too much control over our lives nowadays. I also think USA is too big to support its own weight. I hate to say it, but all signs are pointing to another eventual civil war. Think about leaving England for America to get away from taxes and other oppressions and then take a moment to laugh at our amount of taxation in today’s time.


RE: The first...
By bhieb on 1/26/2009 3:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
The one important one you forgot was "nation of origin" which would make this moron Senator's idea completely illegal.

http://www.eeoc.gov/origin/index.html


RE: The first...
By SandmanWN on 1/26/2009 3:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
National Origin != Nationality

National origin refers to the lineage of a US citizen to be used as discrimination against hiring.

Nowhere does it say you must consider non US citizens for the job. Hiring American only is perfectly legal.

The gray area for Microsoft may be that they specifically asked for a certain amount of foreign worker visas and might be obligated to maintain those employment levels.


RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 5:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "Nowhere does it say you must consider non US citizens for the job. Hiring American only is perfectly legal."

This isn't true, as nationality is construed as a proxy test for national origin. An employer can rightfully fail to consider applicants for which they would be required to perform additional effort to lawfully hire (such as an H1-B transfer), but if a non-citizen has resident status and full rights to work, you cannot lawfully remove them from consideration.


RE: The first...
By wetwareinterface on 1/26/2009 6:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
sorry but federal equal opportunity law does not apply to all employers. only employers who are based in a non-ethnically/religiously/age/pregnancy impacted sector are required to follow equal opportunity laws...

for instance
korean grocer, can hire as many family members as he wants, never has to bow to equal opportunity because he is hiring what is classified as minorities.

county employees... ever notice that district attorney's offices only hire single unwed mothers for their family services divisions (these are the individuals who handle the child support payment process)

christian/jewish/islamic orginisations can hire exclusively based on their particualr religious background.

etc...

the law only applies to hire equally by force if you are not considered an impacted minority. if you are considered to be in the majority or in a well represented (by population) minority group you have to abide by equal opprotunity laws. there is a huge double standard and even the government falls in there as well.


RE: The first...
By afkrotch on 1/26/2009 12:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wanting to keep jobs and money within my own country has NOTHING to do with being prejudice.


Maybe you should look up prejudice, cause I just got a hell of a lot of it from that sentence. At which point, you'd start discriminating against others. Illegally too.

quote:
You immediately jumping to that conclusion leads me to believe that you are a liberal who loves to give rights to people that don't deserve them.


I don't see it that way. If someone from another nation comes to ours by legal means, I do not feel they should be discriminated against when looking for employment. The US was built on immigration.

quote:
If you had to choose between donating a organ to a family member or a stranger which one would you choose? Don't discriminate in your decision now...


I am an organ donor. I plan on giving up all my organs (minus my heart) to whoever needs it. Written on my Idaho drivers license and my Government ID card. I by no means plan on giving any of them up before I die, but if by some chance a close family member does need one, I will give it to them. Is it discrimination? Sure. Is it illegal? No.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 11:24:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Agreeable comment from a Senator in a long time - this makes complete sense. However... it is up to the company to ultimately decide what is best for their bottom line.
Seems like you are contradicting yourself there.

I personally think Grassley's statement is idiodic. I can understand the extreme nationalistic tendency - especially in this time of profound FUD - but really you are right that Microsoft should have the right to decide who they hire and fire.

But, on the other hand, Microsoft is going to have to be less adament about their support for H1 visas going forward. With rising unemployment here, the argument about not being able to find engineers here becomes pretty weak.


RE: The first...
By MrBlastman on 1/26/2009 11:28:03 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I am pretty Patriotic so it is hard to ignore the ever rising unemployment rate in America at the moment. I won't though, let that Patriotism get in the way of logic and reason, hence why I challenged my original statement with further detail.

Blind Patriotism has shown in the past - that undesireable results are likely to occur.


RE: The first...
By IGoodwin on 1/26/2009 12:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
Having come to America on a H1B visa I think I can comment on a few facts about foreign workers.

Number 1 is that the American company hiring is supposed to prove that the job cannot be filled by an American and the position has to be advertised for a set period before it can be offered abroad.

Number 2 Anyone accepting such a job has to move to America and pay taxes their, as well as discovering that they are working for less money. The usual reason given is to help pay for the visa.

Number 3 It is more difficult for a person with a visa to get another job, as many American companies do not whish to incur the cost of sponsoring an individual, let alone the legal transfer issues. Let’s not forget the aspect of finding a home, kids in school and all that upheaval.

Number 4 After getting permanent residency status, which can easily take 5 years, you cannot apply to be a citizen for another 5 years. All this is while paying taxes.

In short, what this Senator has said, is fire the people that can’t vote before those that can, even though they are paying taxes, contributing to society, and already in a position where they will find it even more difficult to get another job.


RE: The first...
By grenableu on 1/26/2009 12:09:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
what this Senator has said, is fire the people that can’t vote before those that can
More accurately, he's saying fire the foreigners who will then go home and be an unemployed drain on their home country's economy, rather than American unemployed, which will be a drag on our own.

Whats wrong with that?


RE: The first...
By FITCamaro on 1/26/2009 12:11:41 PM , Rating: 2
A valid point.


RE: The first...
By IGoodwin on 1/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: The first...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 12:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let alone there was a war fought taxation without representation… can’t remember where!
I don't think the cases are quite equal. Should a tourist visiting America for a week be able to vote? They pay sales tax while they're here, after all. What about someone who's never even been to the US, but pays tax on property owned here? How about US citizens under the age of 18? 12 year olds pay taxes, why are they denied equal representation?

That said, the proper method of addressing this situation is for government to restrict the visa pool, not companies to discriminate in hiring or firing. I've been a strong proponent of the H1-B program in the past. But that was when the industry had essentially full employment. If that's no longer the case, then those visa quotes need to drop sharply.


RE: The first...
By IGoodwin on 1/26/2009 1:49:30 PM , Rating: 2
Way to go to be too specific. I was talking about people working here on a visa, not tourists, that can clame the sales tax back if they keep receips.


RE: The first...
By SlyNine on 1/27/2009 3:04:48 AM , Rating: 2
Sounded to me like a sob story for H-1B holders, and while I feel for them. I don't think it validates anything as the same sob stories can be made for American workers.

I agree with Ashers comments 100%.


RE: The first...
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 12:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whats wrong with that?
The idea that the government should be making that decision. The decision to hire and fire should rest with the employer as much as possible. The government should only meddle in the operation of companies when it is absolutely necessary.


RE: The first...
By BZDTemp on 1/26/2009 12:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
Did you not get the part about those people paying taxes in the US?

The practice you suggest seems like modern slavery! You are saying take a good education then come to the US and work when the US needs it. Then when we are done just go away and do whatever.

It certainly sounds to me like the US is a proud nation - proud to care only for itself!


RE: The first...
By Larrymon2000 on 1/26/2009 11:45:48 AM , Rating: 2
Definitely. Who cares what nationality the person is? Microsoft should be in the interest in the being the best. If you have 1000 competent Canadian/Indian/Chinese/European developers and 1000 less competent homegrown devs, why paint everything with the same brush and damage your own talent pool? I'm sure M$ is carefully scrutinizing their performance evaluations now.


RE: The first...
By mvpx02 on 1/26/2009 1:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...If you have 1000 competent Canadian/Indian/Chinese/European developers and 1000 less competent homegrown devs...


Nobody is talking about laying off more-qualified foreigners in favor of less-qualified Americans:

quote:
In his letter, [Sen. Charles Grassley] states, "I am concerned that Microsoft will be retaining foreign guest workers rather than similarly qualified American employees when it implements its layoff plan."


RE: The first...
By Spivonious on 1/26/2009 11:59:12 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, let's discriminate based on citizenship. Land of the free my butt.


RE: The first...
By BZDTemp on 1/26/2009 1:01:32 PM , Rating: 2
It is already done big time. One of the results of all the wonderful laws after 911 is that any none-citizen can be detained secretly and as long as desired!

Imagine you visit the US as a tourist and you name happens to sound similar to some bad guy. Next you might get a vacation a lot longer than you planed and you're loved ones may not even get to know whats up. In fact if you are really lucky you get a bonus flight to a "friendly" nation where the use of torture is even more freely than in the US of A!

Fortunately Obama seems to want to change things. Then maybe one can visit the US again without thinking twice. It is a great nation just a shame so many things are wrong!


RE: The first...
By Spivonious on 1/26/2009 1:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
Please show me this law.

Also, Obama is just the President. He has zero powers to introduce legislation, which is the only way to really change things. Read the Constitution sometime and you'll get very upset at all of the things the government is doing that it's not allowed to.


RE: The first...
By BZDTemp on 1/26/2009 2:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
It is the Patriot Act. An easy place to read about it wiki.

Here is someone that tells is pretty well: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011005_r...
(This was written before the law was passed but the comment still stand)
The wiki is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Title... and the part I am on about is described almost at the end.

As for Obama he is having Guantanamo closed and has put an end to rendition so he is changing things but of course there is more to be done. It is a long process which needs more than the White House fixing things.


RE: The first...
By BPB on 1/26/2009 1:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
True, this happens hundred of times daily. No, more like dozens. Well, er, actually, I'm not sure that it's ever happened. But you keep your paranoia going, I'm sure it'll be good for something. If nobody out of 300 million plus has gone through this deportation you describe, then it must be horrible. And I agree about The One, He'll fix things, just you wait. All those folks in charge at the White House and in congress were fools in need of straightening out when these laws passed. Let's hear it for The One!


RE: The first...
By zombiexl on 1/26/2009 1:36:00 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sorry, if your name is Osama bin Haden, Sadam Whosain or something you might not want to visit the US.

Closing gitmo is a political move that will more than likely backfire and cause us (the US) more harm. All he's doing is paying off on a liberal promise made during the campaign.

It's pretty darn concerning to me that during his press conference he couldn't even explain what he was signing and had no clue what they are going to do with all the people that are there right now. "Oh were going to figure that out later." <-- paraphrasing..

Now a question for you: Would be OK with shipping the detainees from gitmo to a prison or jail close to your home?


RE: The first...
By Donkeyshins on 1/26/2009 5:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now a question for you: Would be OK with shipping the detainees from gitmo to a prison or jail close to your home?


I would be OK with either charging the detainees and sending them to trial or releasing them if there was insufficient evidence to bring them to trial. I don't care if they are foreign nationals; we're in violation of our own Constitution (5th and 6th Amendments of the Bill of Rights, to be specific) when we subject detainees to imprisonment without due process and without any prospect of a speedy trial.

You can't simultaneously say "They hate us because we're free...They hate our freedoms." and then circumvent those same freedoms in the name of security. Remember the warning from Ben Franklin: "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."


RE: The first...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/27/2009 9:18:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't care if they are foreign nationals; we're in violation of our own Constitution (5th and 6th Amendments of the Bill of Rights, to be specific) when we subject detainees to imprisonment without due process and without any prospect of a speedy trial.

This only applies to citizens of the USA, and anyone that steps foot on American soil. Hence keeping them at Gitmo.

quote:
Remember the warning from Ben Franklin: "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

That warning tossed around by people that don't understand it means nothing. If you honestly think in a nonconventional war that they would have a problem with harsh interrogation/torture your nuts. Infact I'm pretty sure we wrote the book on bringing down a large army using unconventional and guerilla tactics.


RE: The first...
By overzealot on 1/28/2009 6:33:44 AM , Rating: 2
People detained by Americans for fighting against Americans should be tried in America, or by their own country.
How can you justify sending them to a 3rd party?


RE: The first...
By zombiexl on 1/29/2009 12:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
Would you change your mide when they are released and kill the service men/women in Iraq and are re-caught?

It wouldnt be the first time that it happened, thats why we keep them there. Even all-knowing all-seeing Obama has admitted that is not something he wants.


RE: The first...
By SoWUT on 1/26/2009 2:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot: home of the whopper.


RE: The first...
By FITCamaro on 1/26/2009 12:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with both the Senators statements and yours.


RE: The first...
By descendency on 1/26/2009 1:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
It does make sense. Microsoft should be required to pay import taxes on large volumes of code as if they were importing the entire OS.

The reason why companies go overseas and stop hiring Americans is because it's cheaper. When we make it infeasible to use foreign labor and sell products in the US, either our quality of life will go down or they will quit this and start trying to rebuild the US economy.

It is their fault. (granted, the blame doesn't go squarely on MS.)


RE: The first...
By zombiexl on 1/26/2009 1:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
The reason companies go overseas is because of our corporate tax laws. Same reason many companies incorporate in DE, its simply cheaper.

You cant tax companies because your tax policy have pushed them elsewhere.. well i guess you could, but it isnt helping the problem it's creating a new problem.

Cut corporate, capital gains and personal taxes and see what that does. Besides forcing the government to be more fiscally responsible, it will stimulate the economy far more in the long term than worrying about saving a few jobs right now and passing a pork filled stimulus package.


RE: The first...
By sweetsauce on 1/26/2009 2:28:31 PM , Rating: 1
I would argue our stupid market is what drives these companies abroad. When we have companies like microsoft making huge profit and still laying off employees, we have a problem. When they have to worry about their stock being devalued because some arbitrary profit number wasn't reached in a quarter, then its time to look at this system and make changes. What happened to the days of common sense? When did making profit become a bad thing? MS's earnings gets reported like its a huge tragedy, yet they still made a shit ton of money.


RE: The first...
By noirsoft on 1/26/2009 7:18:53 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the reson why many tech people go overseas is a lack of qualified applicants here. I have worked for several tech places, and anytime that they have considered outsourcing, it has been after months of fruitless searches for people locally. It can also highly benefit the consumer because if an outsourcing group already has a staff and management structure in place, the product can get to the customers much faster than building up a completely new group locally.

I'm not saying all outsourcing is good, just that it's not all about bottom line either.


RE: The first...
By tdawg on 1/26/2009 6:49:17 PM , Rating: 2
What?! This is ridiculous. The senator can't find anything better to do? This is a blatant attack on foreign-born workers under the guise of "protecting" American jobs. The odds that these H-1B visa holders will "support" the American economy by shopping / racking up debt is the same as American-born employees, and one that doesn't help anyway (look how that last stimulus package helped).

I'm glad that Microsoft issued a press release basically saying, "F- off" to this idea. I can imagine the snickering that was had when this request came in. I hope they don't give this jackass the requested metrics either, since it's none of his business.


RE: The first...
By truthbetold on 2/2/2009 10:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
Laying off of American workers first had to stop absolutely.

All high tech companies I have worked or applied jobs have preferred H1B visa workers because they work for more hours and often on weekend as they do not complain and get lesser pay for it.

I will give you a very good example here.
My friend Mr. XYZ, an American citizen worked in art.com Inc., an Emeryville,CA , high-tech posters company (allposters.com) was recently layed off by this company after working for 8 years. An he complained to me that Art.com Inc. never layed off a single foreignermost of them from India) with H1B visa as they are payed way less than him and they work extra hours.

This is normally the Rule here in san francisco, bay area silicon valley companies.

How long will this happen here in USA. Till some senator makes a law in the congress to stop this, all companies will keep this as their cost-cutting way.


RE: The first...
By jconan on 2/20/2009 11:56:20 AM , Rating: 2
It's a very union like response from the senator. that's why the big 3 are in so much trouble. They couldn't get rid of the non-talented employees because of these union rules. Microsoft should be able to do what it wants since like Google they hire the top and those that are underperforming may not be their best... The big 3 do retain a lot of underperforming employees and that could be one of the reasons why some of the cars in the past had so many problems to begin with. <complacency>!


I LOL'd IRL...
By Whaaambulance on 1/26/2009 12:24:50 PM , Rating: 2
Asking M$ to take the Moral high road...that is pretty funny.

M$ cares about M$, that is all.




RE: I LOL'd IRL...
By Totally on 1/26/2009 3:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
If Microsoft were to take the moral highroad it will seek to cut individuals with porked salaries which consequently are probably more citizens than foreigners. This is a form of discrimination. Is it legal? Yes, because they are foreigners and aren't citizens, is it ethical? Depends on who you ask.

This senator is only looking out for his paycheck, if Americans get cut it means taxes collected will be much lower for 2 reasons, foreigners make less and percentage taxed is substantially less.


RE: I LOL'd IRL...
By omnicronx on 1/26/2009 4:21:44 PM , Rating: 2
What a sad world this has become if being moral equates to firing foreign, instead of domestic workers.

MS cares about the bottom line, I don't see how hiring/firing based on nationality fits into this ideal.

MS does care about MS, and thats why they will keep those of value(i.e mix of skill and paygrade), not those with the right skin colour/nationality.


RE: I LOL'd IRL...
By jconan on 2/21/2009 2:34:03 AM , Rating: 2
ha... it's not about Microsoft taking the high road. It's about the senator's cronyism beliefs. If I were Microsoft I wouldn't even look at background. I would look at performance, accomplishments, and potential and release the under performers back into the pool. Basically protectionist policies amount to cronyism and complacency. That all leads to a collapse of a company... Look at Yahoo and compare them with Google and you get the point. Most of Google's employees are PhDs.


Begging MS?
By Davelo on 1/26/2009 12:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
Why doesn't this Senator propose legislation that imposes a tax on foreign workers? It's about time we Americans stuck up for our own country. Pat Buchanan had it correct all along, America First.




RE: Begging MS?
By arunvb on 1/26/2009 2:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
The H1-B visa holders are paying social security and medicare taxes though they will not be entitled to any of those benefits unless they decide to become citizens some time in the future and not every immigrant becomes a citizen. So, they are already pay taxes in some form for the benefit of the American citizens though they are not entitled to it (not that social security is in great shape ;) ).


RE: Begging MS?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 5:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
though they will not be entitled to any of those benefits unless they decide to become citizens
Eh? This isn't true at all. Anyone lawfully present in the US is entitled to Social Security.

In fact, since your average immigrant works in the US for less than their entire lifetime, Social Security is an even better deal for them, number-wise, than your average citizen.


RE: Begging MS?
By proel on 1/26/2009 7:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
An H1B gets only 10 days to find a new job if he is fired, so if he does not become a citizen/green card holder (and many don't) he/she will never get the benefit of that Social Security.


I am an American
By PAPutzback on 1/26/2009 11:45:39 AM , Rating: 2
I say keep the Americans employed first.




RE: I am an American
By sunjava04 on 1/26/2009 12:02:19 PM , Rating: 1
dude, everybody wanna do that and nobody wanna do hectic immigration paper work for h1B employee. but they don't have choice in certain fields. even student who studied phd and do residency have h1B visa.

if u go to big school's research center, u will find mostly Indian, Chinese coz only few americans want to do hardwork.
our nation economy come from new technologies and their patent and for that u need heavy research programm which is why we need international people.


RE: I am an American
By acase on 1/26/2009 12:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what country you are from, but take some of that "hardwork" you are capable of and study some grammar, sentence structure, or spelling. Your posts are incredibly painful to read.


RE: I am an American
By sweetsauce on 1/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: I am an American
By afkrotch on 1/26/2009 3:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
It's standard stupid Americans. I see it all the time.

"OMG! Listen to how bad that guy speaks English. It's even worse, check out how bad he writes English."

All the while, the so called "stupid" person they talk about knows one their native language and knows how to poorly speak/write another language.


M$ not really American
By n0nsense on 1/26/2009 12:18:27 PM , Rating: 1
People, M$ has footprint in many countries.
In some cases they opened R&D centers in other they bought existing companies with all workers included :)
So, they are kind of international corporation. Which means they layoff 5000 of global workforce, not American workforce.
On the other hand, foreign workers in US, not always hired directly IN US for US. They may be just promoted/transfered from their original place for some reasons.
It is hard to find American that can think and figure things out. Usually Americans do things by the book. If something not in the book, it's not existing :)




RE: M$ not really American
By zombiexl on 1/26/2009 1:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
Disclaimer: This response is only based on my personal experience. Your experience may be different.

quote:
It is hard to find American that can think and figure things out. Usually Americans do things by the book. If something not in the book, it's not existing.


My experience has been that most foreign workers actually tend to be the by the book workers. I've had a number of foreign coworkers ask me how i did something becuase they couldnt figure it out, etc.

Now I also found foreign workers to be a bit more loyal (for better or worse) to their employer and more willing to work excessive overtime when on salary.

Language is always the biggest hurdle and its not just can they speak english. There is also termnology that is used in certain industries that doesnt translate well. So my final thought is that many times it takes longer to have a foreign (i'm sure this is also the true for americans working abroad) worker understand what they are supposed to be doing for a given task.


RE: M$ not really American
By BZDTemp on 1/26/2009 1:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
Local news here in Denmark is that some 80-90 people are let go and we have the biggest MS development section outside the US so we do seem to get of easy. Maybe it help us that it is business software being done here and not the entertainment stuff (which seems to be hit hard by Microsoft).


RE: M$ not really American
By n0nsense on 1/26/2009 7:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
Same local news in Israel. 50 of 750 going home. Most of them from company bought by M$ few years ago. But there is some bright side. M$ VP said to press that they will recruit for some new project.


Ability before nationality
By jadeskye on 1/26/2009 11:17:31 AM , Rating: 3
Plain and simple, you should hold on to your most talented/productive staff regardless of their nationality.




RE: Ability before nationality
By itlnstln on 1/26/2009 11:21:54 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. In the the case of MS, they are hiring these folks because they can't find enough US citizens to fill the positions they need. If they prioritize lay-offs in the manner the senator suggests, MS may compromise quality (save the jokes :) ) to keep Americans hired. This may be good in the short term, but if it were to impact growth for MS, it could mean the company ultimately going under or not beign able to hire Americans in the future.


Not the best solution.
By VooDooAddict on 1/26/2009 12:59:19 PM , Rating: 3
It's hard to dicate who is laid off due to cuts mostly hapening to projects and not individuals within projects.

I think it's better to suspend the entire H1-B visa program. i.e. stop issuing MORE H1-B visas as there are more then enough qualified individuals already (citizen or existing H1-B that was just laid off).




RE: Not the best solution.
By Ananke on 1/26/2009 1:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
This post is absolutely correct. H1B visa program was designed and impelmented as supplemental for a lacking workforce. At the current status of the economy obviusly the trend is exactly oposite, so that program should be suspended. Meanwhile, MS was the biggest supporter of the program, because it allowed the company and other high-tech employers to practice "stripping", i.e. to retire expensive citizens and hire H1B contractors. That translates 10ish % less expensive than total expense for the expensive retired employees, however huge loss to the fisk. Employer was not involved in benefits payments, vertain taxes, and most likely the savings of the H1B holder would be transfered one day abroad. As a temporary fix, the visa program may work, but ultimately is beneficiary only to the employers, and causes lower wages, more expensive higher education and increased health expenses. These statistics are already in teh Senate, thus the letter. Our politicians know very well how screwing is the visa program, they just don't want to pronounce it loudly. The letter is quiet reminder to MS not to mess to much, and it makes sense.


Congress needs a layoff...
By bkslopper on 1/26/2009 11:56:50 AM , Rating: 4
While the rest of us have to cut back, maybe Congress should make a few sacrifices now and then, instead of giving themselves annual raises. I'd love to see the headline that reads:

Congress to Slash 50% of its Workforce.

Seriously, if each state had 1 senator, the balance of power would be the same, and we'd be spending half as much on these stupid election campaigns.




Keep the best.
By CurtOien on 1/26/2009 11:25:53 AM , Rating: 2
If you get rid of your best and send them to another country, they can start their own company and be your competitor.




By Dribble on 1/26/2009 12:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
But for some reason daily tech chose not too making the Senator even more popular for essentially doing nothing.

He can write any letter he wants to MS, but it is meaningless - it has no more legally binding impact then you or I writing it.

I expect MS will fire whoever they want as always. Perhaps the only impact of the letter is MS will now have to be a little more careful about firing foreigners in case they seem to be showing prejudice - something they are legally not allowed to do.




Yeah..OK
By AnnaG on 1/26/2009 1:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
Our DC Politboro masters speaks so the "Little Peoploe" will obey...Else be thown into a cage...




Layoff double speak
By wallijonn on 1/26/2009 2:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Current statements from Microsoft indicate that it will not be showing any preference in who is laid off.


MS loves their Visa workers, just as many companies prefer consultants because they don't need to pay them benefits. So it may not be a matter of "showing any preference in who is laid off," but rather showing a preference in who is not laid off, in this case, Visa workers.




I'm going to be brutally honest
By Hieyeck on 1/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm going to be brutally honest
By xti on 1/26/2009 11:37:58 AM , Rating: 2
well its not like India outsources jobs to the US...otherwise MAYBE your comment would have grounds.

<joeBlow> Hello, thank you for calling the help desk this morning, how may I help you?

<habib> fkn american akksentz, eye kan nebbar understand dem.


RE: I'm going to be brutally honest
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 11:53:19 AM , Rating: 5
If Congress wishes to protect American jobs, the proper way to do so is to reduce the H1-B visa quota, rather than asking US firms to engage in counterproductive and quite possibly illegal firing practices.


RE: I'm going to be brutally honest
By TomZ on 1/26/2009 12:15:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If Congress wishes to protect American jobs, the proper way to do so is to reduce the H1-B visa quota, rather than asking US firms to engage in counterproductive and quite possibly illegal firing practices.
Exactly! QFT.


RE: I'm going to be brutally honest
By zombiexl on 1/26/2009 1:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
As far as I know most states are rigth to work states. That generally means you can be fired without cause at any time. So technically yes this may be immoral, but in many places not illegal.

Also for the last few jobs that I've held I signed an agreement that the relationship could be terminated at anytime without notice by either party. They still had to pay out anything due (vacation time, etc) and I had to turn over anyhthing belonging to the company, but that was all.


By zombiexl on 1/26/2009 1:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
Let me change that first statement. I meant to say Employment at will states.. I was thinking about something else when i wrote this.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2009 2:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
> " So technically yes this may be immoral, but in many places not illegal."

Even in an employment at will state, you still cannot legally disciminate based on national origin in hiring or firing practices.


By radializer on 1/26/2009 7:43:24 PM , Rating: 2
What you have stated is the clearest rational response in this whole thread filled with emotional responses.

History-wise; this is the trend -->
The quota was always 65,000 visas until the whole Y2K fiasco, when the industry petitioned to get additional "programmers" to help out. At this point, the quota was raised to 195,000 or 3X the original value (this was during the Clinton administration).

During this phase, even a trained monkey that knew the word "Java" could get a job on an H1-B visa - and we all know where that tech bubble led us. In the lean years that followed, the quota was brought back to 65,000 where it is today. There was talk of raising the quota in April 2008 but I doubt any sane person would consider this now.

A few points that Grassley advocates are somewhat valid - they relate to the use of the H1-B visa program by foreign companies which he sees as a subversion of the program (DOL stats show that the top 10 foreign companies use up 33% of the total H-1B visa capacity - which defeats the purpose of the initial charter under which this program was created)

The article may represent Grassley's desire to "speed up" the actual legislative process by putting some PR/media pressure on MS - of course, the direction is wrong, it is possibly illegal and I also doubt it will work (MS will probably ignore him outright) - but I wonder if this shows a sign of desperation that he isn't getting much traction in the House for the modifications he has been proposing.

Disclaimer: I used to be on an H-1B (PhD in nanoelectronics) and became a permanent resident of the U.S. some time ago - I believe truly that the H-1B program, when used efficiently, has a lot of merits and can strengthen the U.S. technologically. However, there are many legal loopholes that probably need to be closed - and the quota numbers need frequent review by the legislative body with inputs from industry leaders.

One other point; many have mentioned that H-1B workers are employed for lower pay and harsher hours - this is not true for mainstream U.S. employers, where a person hired for a given position is paid according to that position irrespective of visa status. I admit; this may not be true with other less ethical employers.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki