You happen to have a source for that? I have heard that before but no one has been able to back it up.
400 karma · joined August 3, 2021
For PACs where most of the money was spent: Left: 44.8 Right: 23.2
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recipients?id=D000073694&cy...
If you download the PAC list and sum it up it totals: Left: 44.8 Right: 23.2
So yes millions was given to both parties, but one party received far more.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recipients?id=D000073694&cy...
Now take out the left's donations and we still have have 23.2m in donations from a company committing fraud. All 23.2m to the right and where it went needs to be investigated without question. However claiming roughly half the money went to the republicans is not true.
Yet if you go to the actual link the article provides (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recipients?id=D000073694&cy...) it shows a massive unbalance in the donations to PACs. How can the author claim the company sprinkled around campaign donations evenly yet link to a page that shows a massive unbalance the PACs section?
1. In the US at least we know a majority of the workers are hourly. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johncaplan/2021/03/12/americas-...) So I would absolutely argue those people are paid for their time. I understand the scenario you laid out, but in a big corporation I do not think they would look at it like you are. They would simple look at who is costing the most. Both are costing 100k/yr so compare their output. Anytime their are massive layoffs, lots of important people are let go. This is because often times the people doing the firing, do not know the employees. They are simply lines on a spreadsheet to them. So in your situation above after a mass firing often times the candidate fresh out of school will be the one left.
2. I personally completely agree with you here. From my experience there is absolutely a burn out point. However major corporations do not see it this way at all. They absolutely believe throwing hours at problems brings about solutions. It doesn't matter to them if its making existing employees work 4 extra hours a day or hiring a new employee. It matters which is cheaper in the end. If the position is salaried its cheaper to have existing employees work more. Look at what musk is asking at twitter. If it is hourly, often times its easier to part ways with the burned out workers and hiring new ones. Look at amazons turn over rates.
3. I agree that Twitter gets to decide the expected compensation for work. But musk now owns twitter. He gets to decided what twitter does and doesn't expect from its employees. He made it clear he is very unhappy with how the arrangement was, and what he expects in the future.
4. I would disagree with you here. An employee can steal from a company many ways. For example, an employee could steal the source code from some twitter service that is considered a company secret. In this case, Twitter is paying an employee x amount for y work. Musk has decided what y work is. If an employee decides to not fulfill y work, and still take there whole pay, how is that not a form of stealing? If they're hourly employees they call it timesheet fraud. The idea that an employee can only steal if the are paid more than they bring in is pretty interesting but I think we would be hard pressed to find a single major corporation that views it that way. I think close to 100% of them would go after an employee spending 50% of their time working on non work related tasks.
A vast majority of the assumptions are based on them being the norm in corporate America which twitter is apart of.
No one is asking them to write code 40 hours a week. That is not realistic in coding. Most developers' jobs include a lot more than coding. They are saying they spend 15-20 hour a week on all job related work. Whether that is coding, code review, engineering, testing, research, documentation, meetings ect.
If as an employee you do not like the shake up, you always have the right to seek work other places. If you are indispensable (lottery/bus test) you may have some negotiating power but most of the time when up against a big corporation you are just SOL.
Now overall I wouldn't say this is unusual in tech. I know plenty of people at other major tech companies, including other FAANGs, that say the exact same thing. But just because its appears to be a industry wide issue does not make it okay. It seems to me like that this would signify bloat. You only have enough work for your developers to be working half time.
We aren't even getting into the whole rest and vest. That has been discussed here many times: https://www.google.com/search?q=rest+and+vesters+paid+for+no...
PUFA: Polyunsaturated fatty acids are fatty acids that contain more than one double bond in their backbone
Not once did the article tackle the question of where did the money go or why is it okay for this persons company to misplace billion of dollars of customer money?
Sure some corporations have things like CompanyX dollars that they could give out to employees who then redeem them for something. But in these situations those dollars are back by nothing.
So my question is did you have a problem with that bias also? Because half the country has watched twitter push left wing talking points before elections for numerous years. In fact I remember them banning several true stories about the left.
I also want to point out the white house straight up lied and said biden was responsible when he was not (hence the deletion) and you are upset this lie was called out?
Also just an fyi the feature is not something musk added. It was being worked on long before he took over.
https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...
According to a leak to Business Insider[0], they are still "employed" but are not allowed to work. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/read-blunt-email-telling-twi...
So it seems they are still being paid and get their benefits until Feb 2th