As I said, Tim is free as an individual to voice his personal support for any cause he wants. No question there.
However, Apple contributes to a far-left organization. They are publicly traded and for the first time the donor list was divulged. I plan on voicing my disapproval.
And I'm a stockholder who plans on voicing my approval. Therefore we cancel each other out.
As to whether this organization is "far-left" is subject to interpretation. Seems to me that if one truly believes in the Constitution, any organization that defends the civil rights of people is actually a far-right organization. They're not considered that because too many people on the right want to "pick and choose" who gets which civil rights.
The ACLU is considered by critics to be a leftist organization, but in their strict defense of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I wouldn't consider them as such. In fact, they recently filed a "friend of the court" brief in an NRA case in favor of the NRA and they've actually defended the the right of the KKK to demonstrate in the past.
As I said, Tim is free as an individual to voice his personal support for any cause he wants. No question there.
However, Apple contributes to a far-left organization. They are publicly traded and for the first time the donor list was divulged. I plan on voicing my disapproval.
Your definition of "Far Left" is so misplaced that you would have to think that you actually have no idea of what the Left is. You probably subscribe to the fact that Obama is Left Wing. Sure, he might be to the Left of your average Ayn Rand groupie, but he 's right of center on any normal political spectrum.
Personally, I think that it's great that the CEO of a company takes a moral stance. If you don't like it, take your shares somewhere else... That's what the "free" market lets you do after all.
What is a "healthy society"? Who determines it? Who do you appoint as all-seeing, all-knowing enforcement agent? Soaring rhetoric is no substitute for grounded reality.
Those are questions to be pondered over, not sneered at, so I won't bother engaging with you there. I have some ideas about what I consider to be a healthy society, and the USA is pretty far off the path, however grounded and real it may feel to you.
It is the same. It's about 'principles of basic human dignity' and treating people equally.
No, it's not the same. You're trying to make a moral equivalency out of something that has no such equivalency. Tell me what person wasn't treated with 'principles of basic human dignity' because they were poached from another company. And don't tell me that the "person" was a company, because in spite of what some politicians on the Right think, a company is not a person.
That's like saying that Roosevelt lied once so he was no better than Hitler.
And even if I'm wrong and Tim once made an error of judgement, are you saying that he can never again publicly preach in favor of equality?
While I agree that these are terrible business practices, I would not place them in the category of 'principles of basic human dignity' and civil rights. These terrible business practices are applied equally without regard to gender, race, national origin, age, etc. They have nothing to do with civil rights.
It is the same. It's about 'principles of basic human dignity' and treating people equally.
No, it's not the same. You're trying to make a moral equivalency out of something that has no such equivalency. Tell me what person wasn't treated with 'principles of basic human dignity' because they were poached from another company. And don't tell me that the "person" was a company, because in spite of what some politicians on the Right think, a company is not a person.
That's like saying that Roosevelt lied once so he was no better than Hitler.
And even if I'm wrong and Tim once made an error of judgement, are you saying that he can never again publicly preach in favor of equality?
Do you even know what the illegal No Poach Agreement was about?
"forward" In this context is helping to expand the rights of individuals to pursue their version of happiness.
Rights cannot be given, they are inherent. That's why they are called rights. It's government's function to defend our rights described in the Constitution. Everything not in the Constitution is left to the people.
Regarding equal protection (14th Amendment): "...the Equal Protection Clause was not designed to guarantee equal outcomes, but rather equal opportunities..."
Rights cannot be given, they are inherent. That's why they are called rights. It's government's function to defend our rights described in the Constitution. Everything not in the Constitution is left to the people.
Regarding equal protection (14th Amendment): "...the Equal Protection Clause was not designed to guarantee equal outcomes, but rather equal opportunities..."
The laws in this country are currently geared to favor the those in power or those that can purchase power. The current implementation is very unequal in providing opportunity to those that can't "afford" it. The current legal system is heavily favored to those that have money.
The laws in this country are currently geared to favor the those in power or those that can purchase power. The current implementation is very unequal in providing opportunity to those that can't "afford" it. The current legal system is heavily favored to those that have money.
an agreement between companies to not hire execs from each other?
Steve Jobs initiated an agreement between companies to not hire regular employees (engineers, programmers...) from each other. Having an agreement is against the law.
More than 60,000 tech workers can seek monetary damages from Apple (AAPL), Intel (INTC), Google (GOOG) andAdobe Systems (ADBE) because of a federal judge's ruling in a suit claiming that former Apple CEO Steve Jobs conspired with other local executives to limit the workers' pay by barring them from moving from one company to another.
In granting class-action status to the suit Thursday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose cited what she termed "considerable, compelling common proof" that the Silicon Valley companies engaged in antitrust behavior by agreeing not to try to lure away each others' employees.
In her decision, Koh noted that the accusations largely center on former Apple CEO Jobs, because each of the alleged no-hire agreements involved a company under his control or that shared at least one director who was on Apple's board.
The lawsuit contains several examples of conversations Jobs had with other executives demanding that they not poach Apple's workers. In many cases, the suit claims, the executives complied. In one email Jobs told Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "I would be very pleased if your recruiting department would stop doing this," referring to a Google recruiter contacting an Apple engineer in 2007.
But not everyone complied with Jobs' demands, according to evidence Koh cited in her ruling. She noted as an example an incident in 2007 when Jobs allegedly threatened to sue Palm for patent infringement if it didn't heed the no-poaching arrangement. In response, Palm's former CEO, Edward Colligan, told Jobs the demand was "not only wrong, it is likely illegal."
In the settlement with Pixar, Lucasfilm and Intuit, the three companies -- which employed about 8 percent of the affected workers -- agreed to pay a total of $20 million, according to Kelly Dermody, the plaintiffs' lead lawyer.
Noting that none of the workers have received that money yet, she added that it remains unclear what additional financial damages might be sought at the trial. But aside from the money, she said, just having the case certified as a class-action suit sends an important message "that people need to pay more attention to employee rights and fairness in the workplace."
What did Tim Cook do while this was happening? Nothing.
What is Tim Cook doing about it today? Nothing. He is speaking out for equality for Gays but not his own employees that were harmed by the illegal agreement, the very people that helped make Apple successful.
Rights cannot be given, they are inherent. That's why they are called rights. It's government's function to defend our rights described in the Constitution. Everything not in the Constitution is left to the people.
Regarding equal protection (14th Amendment): "...the Equal Protection Clause was not designed to guarantee equal outcomes, but rather equal opportunities..."
What a pile of nonsense. There is no such thing as a right until it is legally recognised. Your legal framework, the bill of rights and other parts of the constitution, is your prime method of legal recognition.
"Rights can't be given" my eye. Complete balderdash.
Comments
And I'm a stockholder who plans on voicing my approval. Therefore we cancel each other out.As to whether this organization is "far-left" is subject to interpretation. Seems to me that if one truly believes in the Constitution, any organization that defends the civil rights of people is actually a far-right organization. They're not considered that because too many people on the right want to "pick and choose" who gets which civil rights.
The ACLU is considered by critics to be a leftist organization, but in their strict defense of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I wouldn't consider them as such. In fact, they recently filed a "friend of the court" brief in an NRA case in favor of the NRA and they've actually defended the the right of the KKK to demonstrate in the past.
Yet guys like Tim Cook stood around and did nothing with the No Poach Agreements.
Today, Apple is claiming they should not have to pay damages.
Tim is such a great guy! /s
Yes, violating a no poach agreement is exactly the same as discriminating against millions of people because of their race. Brilliant thinking.Yet guys like Tim Cook stood around and did nothing with the No Poach Agreements.
Today, Apple is claiming they should not have to pay damages.
Tim is such a great guy! /s
Yes, violating a no poach agreement is exactly the same as discriminating against millions of people because of their race. Brilliant thinking.
It is the same. It's about 'principles of basic human dignity' and treating people equally.
Why would you say this? What has Andy Rubin or any executive at Google done that indicates they disregard human dignity?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/10156683/Google-under-pressure-to-stop-illegal-drug-ads.html
http://rt.com/usa/google-safari-cookies-settlement-961/
Your definition of "Far Left" is so misplaced that you would have to think that you actually have no idea of what the Left is. You probably subscribe to the fact that Obama is Left Wing. Sure, he might be to the Left of your average Ayn Rand groupie, but he 's right of center on any normal political spectrum.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Personally, I think that it's great that the CEO of a company takes a moral stance. If you don't like it, take your shares somewhere else... That's what the "free" market lets you do after all.
It is the same. It's about 'principles of basic human dignity' and treating people equally.
No, it's not the same. You're trying to make a moral equivalency out of something that has no such equivalency. Tell me what person wasn't treated with 'principles of basic human dignity' because they were poached from another company. And don't tell me that the "person" was a company, because in spite of what some politicians on the Right think, a company is not a person.
That's like saying that Roosevelt lied once so he was no better than Hitler.
And even if I'm wrong and Tim once made an error of judgement, are you saying that he can never again publicly preach in favor of equality?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/10156683/Google-under-pressure-to-stop-illegal-drug-ads.html
http://rt.com/usa/google-safari-cookies-settlement-961/
While I agree that these are terrible business practices, I would not place them in the category of 'principles of basic human dignity' and civil rights. These terrible business practices are applied equally without regard to gender, race, national origin, age, etc. They have nothing to do with civil rights.It is the same. It's about 'principles of basic human dignity' and treating people equally.
No, it's not the same. You're trying to make a moral equivalency out of something that has no such equivalency. Tell me what person wasn't treated with 'principles of basic human dignity' because they were poached from another company. And don't tell me that the "person" was a company, because in spite of what some politicians on the Right think, a company is not a person.
That's like saying that Roosevelt lied once so he was no better than Hitler.
And even if I'm wrong and Tim once made an error of judgement, are you saying that he can never again publicly preach in favor of equality?
Do you even know what the illegal No Poach Agreement was about?
Rights cannot be given, they are inherent. That's why they are called rights. It's government's function to defend our rights described in the Constitution. Everything not in the Constitution is left to the people.
Regarding equal protection (14th Amendment): "...the Equal Protection Clause was not designed to guarantee equal outcomes, but rather equal opportunities..."
This quotation was a favorite of Steve Jobs.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
Do you even know what the illegal No Poach Agreement was about?
an agreement between companies to not hire execs from each other?
Companies cannot help or prevent a person's happiness, or their pursuit thereof.
Corporations have more influence on government and the policies they make then the populace does at this time.
If you really believe what you say, then you are incredibly naive.
KRR
Rights cannot be given, they are inherent. That's why they are called rights. It's government's function to defend our rights described in the Constitution. Everything not in the Constitution is left to the people.
Regarding equal protection (14th Amendment): "...the Equal Protection Clause was not designed to guarantee equal outcomes, but rather equal opportunities..."
This quotation was a favorite of Steve Jobs.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
The laws in this country are currently geared to favor the those in power or those that can purchase power. The current implementation is very unequal in providing opportunity to those that can't "afford" it. The current legal system is heavily favored to those that have money.
KRR
I'm well aware of the corporatism that exists in revolving-door Washington, the point was that no person or job can make you happy. That's up to you.
"Currently"? Now who's naive?
an agreement between companies to not hire execs from each other?
Steve Jobs initiated an agreement between companies to not hire regular employees (engineers, programmers...) from each other. Having an agreement is against the law.
More than 60,000 tech workers can seek monetary damages from Apple (AAPL), Intel (INTC), Google (GOOG) andAdobe Systems (ADBE) because of a federal judge's ruling in a suit claiming that former Apple CEO Steve Jobs conspired with other local executives to limit the workers' pay by barring them from moving from one company to another.
In granting class-action status to the suit Thursday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose cited what she termed "considerable, compelling common proof" that the Silicon Valley companies engaged in antitrust behavior by agreeing not to try to lure away each others' employees.
In her decision, Koh noted that the accusations largely center on former Apple CEO Jobs, because each of the alleged no-hire agreements involved a company under his control or that shared at least one director who was on Apple's board.
The lawsuit contains several examples of conversations Jobs had with other executives demanding that they not poach Apple's workers. In many cases, the suit claims, the executives complied. In one email Jobs told Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "I would be very pleased if your recruiting department would stop doing this," referring to a Google recruiter contacting an Apple engineer in 2007.
But not everyone complied with Jobs' demands, according to evidence Koh cited in her ruling. She noted as an example an incident in 2007 when Jobs allegedly threatened to sue Palm for patent infringement if it didn't heed the no-poaching arrangement. In response, Palm's former CEO, Edward Colligan, told Jobs the demand was "not only wrong, it is likely illegal."
In the settlement with Pixar, Lucasfilm and Intuit, the three companies -- which employed about 8 percent of the affected workers -- agreed to pay a total of $20 million, according to Kelly Dermody, the plaintiffs' lead lawyer.
Noting that none of the workers have received that money yet, she added that it remains unclear what additional financial damages might be sought at the trial. But aside from the money, she said, just having the case certified as a class-action suit sends an important message "that people need to pay more attention to employee rights and fairness in the workplace."
Oct 25, 2013 http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24390480/judge-oks-class-action-suit-against-apple-intel-google-adobe
Tim Cook talks out of both sides of his mouth.
What did Tim Cook do while this was happening? Nothing.
What is Tim Cook doing about it today? Nothing. He is speaking out for equality for Gays but not his own employees that were harmed by the illegal agreement, the very people that helped make Apple successful.
Rights can not be given, except they are, by your Constitution, which moreover can be amended to give more.
Our constitutional rights are enumerated in the Constitution, they aren't "given".
"Rights can't be given" my eye. Complete balderdash.
Not sure I buy that. That what you guys across the Pond believe?