kafkaesq

As if anyone reads those things.

But in practical terms -- this is basically saying it will never be solved at all.

So I guess what I was trying to say was, while it isn't new, it's become so common that one could say that things have basically "tipped".

And it's the idea that this state of affairs is somehow "standard" -- is what's the invention.

That is, by lower quality standards and working conditions.

If its own internal (non technical) sectors are to be taken as any indication.

Which again, is why I referred to it as the "lesser of nightmares".

Actually it's a fairly recent invention. It only seems "standard" if one has no recollection of a time and a place (not so far back) when outsourcing (and the systematic discounting of blue collar workers, generally) wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is today.

They may be working at Facebook, but they work for their own company.

We all acknowledge that that's the way things (technically) are. What's at issue is whether that's the way they ought to be.

And the extent to which, while it may be technically correct that these people are working for different companies... on a deeper, more fundamental level -- it's just a big gimmick.

Or that is to say, "regulated".

Well, we'll see about that.

Being as, you know, it's not like companies such as Facebook have some inalienable right to exist, or anything like that.

You keep getting back to your experience as an on-site, and highly paid (compared to most folks) tech worker.

The whole point of the original article is the experience of low-paid, contract service workers is vastly different.

It seems obvious to me that they are employees of the food service company, and should be.

Whether they should or should not be is something one can have various points of view on.

I just don't think that just because they, currently, technically, "are" has any bearing on the "should be" part.

I'll call it "the lesser of nightmares".

Being as we've seen where "just let property owners do whatever they want" has lead us to in the past.

There's this "respect" part, which is one of the major points of the article. And the fact that you apparently don't even see it as an issue -- while those on the other side of the coin insist that it is, in fact, quite a huge issue -- is a great part of what makes it such a huge issue.

If there's a wage issue in this case, it's not Facebook's issue to sort it out.

Right -- it's a matter for the legislators and the courts.

And if Facebook can't, or won't do the right thing for their workers, on this front -- they'll be made to do it.

Which is what the Dude above was referring to.

The Dude is absolutely right and spot on with this of course -- and in any case shouldn't have been downvoted for pointing it out.

Systematic social segregation and pervasive, manufactured feelings of inadequacy and inferiority aren't merely "bugs" in modern capitalism; they're among its core features.

That's the "real" problem here (as other commenters have identified in this thread).

This may be technically true, but ultimately it's just window dressing. And for FB (and many other companies that play the same game with its more expendable workers), a convenient dodge in terms of both expenses and liabilities.

If you show up at Facebook's building every morning, work in their cafeteria, mop their floors and scrub their toilets -- then for all practical purposes, you're working for Facebook.

I've done contract programming, on site, for a blue collar heavy business. I didn't get invited to their functions either.

Let's please not try to compare the "plight" of contract tech workers to to the situation that bottom-tier contract service workers are in.

Even so - I find the stance "You're super easily hurt / offended / etc" (or as the above commenter put it, "ruffled") - "and I'm not, so I need to do what's best for both of us, and talk down to you" - to be distasteful, on multiple levels.

No, they're not problems of "high traffic". That would be things like too many people on the lawn above intended capacity, and what not.

The point is that by any common sense definition, the kinds of activities noted by the authorities constitute "abuse", not "use" (as there is no intended allowance of things like trampling flower beds, etc, at any level of capacity). And hence, in any place where you have actual working municipal governance, you'll find that they're dealt with appropriately.

If you don't see the importance of this distinction -- sorry, but you're very confused.

The parks weren't just being "used", people were littering, staying after hours, trampling on flowerbeds and stuff. Or did you miss that part of the article?

So many normally sedentary people were getting up and going out and doing shit and getting exercise .. and people still went out of their way to be dicks about it... I don't get it.

Say what you want about the city's misguided attempts at enforcement. But by no means was it in response to "normally sedentary people getting exercise."

Do you really think these people are that emotionally fragile?

That they really can't take (let alone appreciate the value of) a simple and straightforward "No", with metrics and reasons?

As in any other context where one hears lines like these -- the only person who's meant to "feel better" after giving excuses like these is the person giving them.

The basic message it conveys is: "We're secure. You're not."

Then we'd be shifting the goalposts.

The point is that, while it's not like he toils away in a coal mine -- and we know he ain't no brain surgeon -- whatever it is that Branson actually does, by any common sense definition it qualifies as "work".

But something tells me probably does something besides sit around and sip Daiquiris (or read HN) all day. "Networking", if you want to call it that. Or "investing" in ways that don't actually lose money takes actual work, you know.

That is: "work", nonetheless.

Hmm. I'm not going to say you're overgeneralizing, because you probably do have observational data behind your summation above. But even if it applies to the majority of "escapists" -- there's a significant percentage out there who not only do have plan; they make up for a good chunk of the truly brilliant and creative people who do anything truly interesting, at all.

The closest I can get to these people's underlying thought mechanics is that they just don't want to subordinate any time at all to anyone else. They want complete 100% control over all of their time. Which would be really nice, but c'mon now.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. But is it really that outlandish? There's this category of people known as "small business owners", you know - who basically fit that description. In fact, if you look around, there's quite a lot of them out there. In addition to, you know, genuinely creative people -- successful film makers, musicians and the like.

Are you saying they all should've just thrown in the towel, gotten a teaching job or something because... there's just no "there" in these pursuits they were almost blindingly attracted to?

C'mon now.

No - they just hate wasting time. Like time spent living someone else's dreams, for example.

And I can have conversations, share what I know, and learn at work.

That's great for you. Not all jobs work out like that for everyone, unfortunately. In fact they're nearly 100% "dead time" for many people I know. An acceptable enough tradeoff (given the available choices), mind you -- I'm not saying these people are complaining. But in and of itself -- 8-12 a day (depending on your commute) gone straight down the toilet, nonetheless.

So like the author of the original post himself acknowledges -- the grass certainly ain't always greener, on "the other side". But I don't poo-poo these people for trying. In fact I'd wager it'd be a much more boring world to live in if people didn't try to "break loose", as often as they do.

Yeah, that's the issue basically. These things (and a lot of the golden handcuffs companies, especially inexperienced startups, like to slap on new employees - as if they didn't know any better) go way farther than anything remotely reasonable.

The end result being to discourage genuine trust and collaboration, rather than to foster it.

It's not "violent". It's the exact opposite of that, in fact.