To paint a wall in an individual office on Market St, San Francisco, with whiteboard paint, is upwards of $10000 in labor, because of union regulations.
Unions are ripe to be used as instruments for abuse.
I was present when a facilities manager explained why we shouldn't use spray-cleaner to clean whiteboards, because it wore down the paint faster, and repainting it cost $10k, and that they had already paid to repaint them twice.
...and then the facilities manager threw up their hands, sighed, said "yeah, but what can you do..." flipped through a couple of emails on the old smart phone, then went and sat down and watched some crap on youtube for a few more hours, until oh... 4:35 PM, close enough, and clocked out for the day, with the wall still unpainted. C'est la vie.
My understanding is that per regulations only union labor is permitted to perform various tasks -- you can't just call any old contractor to install light fixtures.
This was a requirement having to do with the location, I am not sure about the specifics (if it was a city thing or if the building owner had entered into such an agreement) but I'd like to have a better understanding. On the face of it, it does seem absurd.
That is one thing unions specifically address..."work rules". What can, and cannot, be automated.
It does require the union to have the upper hand in the first place in order to get a company management to sign a union contract with restrictions like that.
However, for this particular story, it makes no sense, because the union only has leverage with their employer, not with the big name companies that have chosen their employer as the provider of the service. The big name companies would just switch to a new provider if they didn't like what was happening.
I took this course. It used Idle when I did it. Got a very high percentage but still do not know how to do much with python. Learned how to use the basic, how to compute Big O, but not really how to "make" anything.
Order forbears 27 provisions of title II and over 700 associated regulations. Will not impose rate regulation, tariffs, burdensome administrative filing requirement or network sharing requirements.
The proposed Order would apply fewer sections of Title II than have applied to mobile voice networks for over twenty years.
Stop being so cynical. Not sure what is up with this community. When FCC was reluctant to do anything on net neutrality everyone here was up in arms. Now that FCC has passed something, you are still up in arms. So much cynicism - for all you know most of the regulations passed might be pro-consumer. At least I would like to believe that it is better than the current model - which in itself is a good step forward.
It's for this reason that I cannot follow this debate anymore. Every time this debate comes up buzzwords get thrown around and people take sides but the issues keep moving.
From what I read in the comments, these rules make all packets equal in terms of prioritization. If that's the case, then Net Neutrality has won, right? Can we start a new debate to work on the other problems?
There's wide disagreement over allowing the FCC to pass a large framework for regulating the Internet without allowing the public to see what's in it.
It's outrageous the FCC did this. Who knows what new powers were just granted to the government. You have no idea, because you were not allowed to see it. Recognizing that fact, is not cynical.
> It's outrageous the FCC did this. Who knows what new powers were just granted to the government. You have no idea, because you were not allowed to see it.
Are you outraged at every FCC regulation? They're pretty much all passed before publication.
Yes, I find any government regulations that pass in a clandestine fashion without allowing the public to first have an opportunity to know what is being passed, to be truly vile. Who wouldn't be bothered by that approach to government? It's the kind of mentality that leads to laws like the Patriot Act.
It's the: we have to pass the bill, before we can know what's in it, form of government authoritarianism.
When it comes to not publishing what they're doing, I'm outraged in proportion to the scale or impact of the action. This was an extraordinarily large regulatory action, impacting the best vehicle for free speech that has ever existed.
The same government that has spent the last decade massively abusing Americans when it comes to privacy, just got handed regulatory keys to the Internet, without the right of the public to first review the new regulations.
You're stating that you think the US government can create 700 new Internet regulations and not mess things up?
I'm stating that I think the US government is mainly made up of morons, especially in regards to technical issues.
The cynicism is from the fact that there are 300+ pages to do what would apparently be a fairly simple change, so there's more to it than just the "Net Neutrality for everyone!" bit.
The Affordable Healthcare Act was gigantic and created by morons, but by most metrics is improving the American healthcare system. The argument that the government can not act in a way that improves things, even if it is not the perfect solution, is contrary to fact.
EDIT: I treat down-votes in the absence of a counter-argument as up-votes.
The morons part was just me being facetious. Since I edited my comment I went from -3 to 0, so apparently people agree. I don't know why asking for a counter-argument would get me banned, or how you know anything about being banned from HN when you've been a member for 86 days and I've been a member for over 600 days. I've never actually heard of banning here.
I don't know why asking for a counter-argument would get me banned
You didn't do that. You wrote snark about downvotes.
or how you know anything about being banned from HN when you've been a member for 86 days
What, you think they charge for accounts around here, or something? Why in the world would you think I haven't used other accounts before? If you made it to 600 days and haven't heard of the slow-down (whatever it's called) or hell-banning, then you haven't been paying much attention.
Unfortunately, not really. You might know it better as Obamacare, though. It created health insurance exchanges that are subsidized for low income people and reformed other aspects of medical reimbursement and regulations governing health insurance. The aspects you think are problematic will depend on whether you're criticizing it from the right (it increased government involvement, and the complexity of the healthcare system, etc.) or the left (that it gave private insurance companies too much power, wasn't universal, and didn't fundamentally address some of the problems driving cost increases, etc.). Either way, the data shows that healthcare costs are growing more slowly after implementation and that more people are insured than were in the past.
These are not the rules the FCC has adopted; these are sections of Title II that could be applied to ISPs if classified as Title II Common Carriers. Keep in mind that DSL was considered Title II until it was reclassified in 2005. It's not like broadband was never regulated under Title II. It used to be, we tried things without it and things went to shit, so we're trying it again.
I like this one:
47 U.S.C. Section 202
(a) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
This one is pretty good, too:
47 U.S.C. Section 208
(a) Any person, any body politic or municipal organization, or State commission, complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any common carrier subject to this Act, in contravention of the provisions thereof, may apply to said Commission by petition which shall briefly state the facts, whereupon a statement of the complaint thus made shall be forwarded by the Commission to such common carrier, who shall be called upon to satisfy the complaint or to answer the same in writing within a reasonable time to be specified by the Commission. If such common carrier within the time specified shall make reparation for the injury alleged to have been caused, the common carrier shall be relieved of liability to the complainant only for the particular violation of law thus complained of. If such carrier or carriers shall not satisfy the complaint within the time specified or there shall appear to be any reasonable ground for investigating said complaint, it shall be the duty of the Commission to investigate the matters complained of in such manner and by such means as it shall deem proper. No complaint shall at any time be dismissed because of the absence of direct damage to the complainant.
This one is pretty great:
47 U.S.C. Section 251
(a) GENERAL DUTY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS.--Each
telecommunications carrier has the duty--
(1) to interconnect directly or indirectly with the facilities and
equipment of other telecommunications carriers; and
(2) not to install network features, functions, or capabilities that do
not comply with the guidelines and standards established pursuant to
section 255 or 256.
255 is with regard to the use of telephones by those with disabilities, so it will very likely undergo forbearance.
256 is fairly long, so I won't reproduce it here. The title is pretty important though: "Coordination for interconnectivity." The full text is available here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/256
I use this EVERY DAY. I get a notification at 9:30am (you can set your own time) telling me about a new organization. I donate about$1 a week and about every other week I will search for tech organizations (example: Helping bolivians connect to the internet) and do a "match" donation of $5. It is great.
The notifications display perfectly on my moto 360 too!
Why does it have to be violent at all? Many people on this site are a fan of Larry Lessig. Check out his alternative to the "violent end" of big business Mayday.us
