Apple can call it anything they want, but that doesn't make it so. At least not IMO.
Words evolve.
"A campus is traditionally the land on which a college or university and related institutional buildings are situated. Usually a campus includes libraries, lecturehalls, residence halls, student centers or dining halls, and park-like settings. The definition currently describes a collection of buildings that belong to a given institution, either academic or non-academic."
If company has a bunch of building (and land in between) rather than a single-building HQ, why wouldn't you call it a campus? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Apple run shuttle busses between their buildings? "Campus" is much more descriptive than "headquarters" especially if you're describing what a security guard is responsible for. I work at a one-building company and our guards sit at the front desk and occasionally walk the halls. If we had a campus, they would also be responsible for the grounds.
Do you think Apple, or other companies, wouldn't try and pay a wage lower than the performance value of the work being done?
Of course, who wouldn't. Now read what I wrote!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
Increasing the wage for a job does not increase the performance value of the work being done!
If you can't support a family on a security salary, get a better job!
Underpaying for higher performance value is not my point, but rather, simply paying more does not add more value. You might argue that this effort may bring the wage up to meet the current value, but to do so, you would have to show that value. To argue that someone who watches a tv, or walks/drives around monitoring activity, is anything but a starter job or retirement job, is expecting too much.
This obviously does not include higher level security services, but I'm sure they are paid well as they come with training.
Wtf. Why is this apples problem, however they should employ their own security team. All UK universities do, no reason why Apple should subcontract this important aspect of their business when potentially the security could be a security risk.
<p>Increasing the wage for a job does not increase the performance value of the work being done! </p><p> </p><p>If you can't support a family on a security salary, get a better job! </p>
So only those with good paying jobs can have families?
There where alternatives. Leaving the world without twinkles is pretty sad.
Instead of giving in to the Unions, they just shut down and killed all of the jobs! I thought that was a great move! Let that be a lesson for all thuggish Unions!
It would have been better to reopen the factory someplace else without the union. The sad thing here is that I'm certain many of those union members think they did the right thing. The destruction of a company like this however can never be considered the right thing, it is just too bad the union and its members couldn't have addressed the issues before them honestly. This is perhaps the biggest problems with Unions, they get to that stupid thuggish stage and can't seem to recover.
So only those with good paying jobs can have families?
In a better world this is exactly what would happen. If you want to spend your life as a welfare momma you should be required to undergo permanent sterilization. One of our countries biggest problems right now is allowing woman on welfare to have babies, more and more babies that end up becoming nothing but criminals. All you need to do is to look at Ferguson to see what harm families that aren't capable of raising their children do to this country.
In a better world this is exactly what would happen. If you want to spend your life as a welfare momma you should be required to undergo permanent sterilization. One of our countries biggest problems right now is allowing woman on welfare to have babies, more and more babies that end up becoming nothing but criminals. All you need to do is to look at Ferguson to see what harm families that aren't capable of raising their children do to this country.
Actually the existence of Federal welfare programs that create lifelong dependencies is a big part of the problem, regardless of skin color and location. If people are given handouts, of course they'll take them. Most people will want to work as little as possible.
Some of the replies in this and other threads make me so so thankfull I do not live in the USA. Simple things like Universal health care, a safety net welfare system or just basic workers protection seem to be anathema to some of you. But as long as the rich get richer then damn everyone else the ultimate in selfishness that ensures inequality remains entrenched. I could go on with my rant but I won't.
Literally!
There where alternatives. Leaving the world without twinkles is pretty sad.
It would have been better to reopen the factory someplace else without the union. The sad thing here is that I'm certain many of those union members think they did the right thing. The destruction of a company like this however can never be considered the right thing, it is just too bad the union and its members couldn't have addressed the issues before them honestly. This is perhaps the biggest problems with Unions, they get to that stupid thuggish stage and can't seem to recover.
Yea because highly paid moronic executives never kill companies.
Some of the replies in this and other threads make me so so thankfull I do not live in the USA.
Simple things like Universal health care, a safety net welfare system or just basic workers protection seem to be anathema to some of you. But as long as the rich get richer then damn everyone else the ultimate in selfishness that ensures inequality remains entrenched.
I could go on with my rant but I won't.
If you don't understand the constitutional protections that are meant to restrict the powers of our Federal government, then you will not understand why federally run healthcare is a very bad idea. The US is a republic, in other words, a bunch of states that remain distinctly different. We are not a dictatorship, nor are we a kingdom.
So only those with good paying jobs can have families?
That is exactly what I didn't write!
People with entry level jobs don't deserve high pay. If security guard is your career path, you have bigger problems than minimum wage.
Aside from that, let's not be ignorant of economics. You can pay everyone $15, $20, $80 per hour and all it will do is raise the cost of providing the goods or services. Making $15/hr to watch a CCTV or sack groceries means nothing when milk cost $5 gallon!
Artificially increasing the wage for a job does nothing to help the poor.... Or has any min wage hike helped? No!!
Comments
Apple can call it anything they want, but that doesn't make it so. At least not IMO.
Words evolve.
"A campus is traditionally the land on which a college or university and related institutional buildings are situated. Usually a campus includes libraries, lecture halls, residence halls, student centers or dining halls, and park-like settings. The definition currently describes a collection of buildings that belong to a given institution, either academic or non-academic."
If company has a bunch of building (and land in between) rather than a single-building HQ, why wouldn't you call it a campus? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Apple run shuttle busses between their buildings? "Campus" is much more descriptive than "headquarters" especially if you're describing what a security guard is responsible for. I work at a one-building company and our guards sit at the front desk and occasionally walk the halls. If we had a campus, they would also be responsible for the grounds.
How is that a conflict of interest? Transparency can only lead to a much better run, and healthier company.
It's a conflict of interest if the union leader is on the board of directors and is compensated, as is typical for board members.
1. Maybe the union leader isn't compensated as a director.
2. Even if he/she is, what's the conflict? The best interests of the company and the best interests of the workforce are largely aligned.
Increasing the wage for a job does not increase the performance value of the work being done!
If you can't support a family on a security salary, get a better job!
And they've done just that in the last 10-15 years in which production has increased greatly yet wages have stagnated.
http://nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunday-review/americas-productivity-climbs-but-wages-stagnate.html
Do you think Apple, or other companies, wouldn't try and pay a wage lower than the performance value of the work being done?
Of course, who wouldn't. Now read what I wrote!!
Increasing the wage for a job does not increase the performance value of the work being done!
If you can't support a family on a security salary, get a better job!
Underpaying for higher performance value is not my point, but rather, simply paying more does not add more value. You might argue that this effort may bring the wage up to meet the current value, but to do so, you would have to show that value. To argue that someone who watches a tv, or walks/drives around monitoring activity, is anything but a starter job or retirement job, is expecting too much.
This obviously does not include higher level security services, but I'm sure they are paid well as they come with training.
There where alternatives. Leaving the world without twinkles is pretty sad.
Twinkie are back though! I've seen them in the store recently.
I believe that some other company took over and is now making them, I don't know all of the details.
So only those with good paying jobs can have families?
If a person can not provide for children, then they should not have any family.
In a better world this is exactly what would happen. If you want to spend your life as a welfare momma you should be required to undergo permanent sterilization. One of our countries biggest problems right now is allowing woman on welfare to have babies, more and more babies that end up becoming nothing but criminals. All you need to do is to look at Ferguson to see what harm families that aren't capable of raising their children do to this country.
Actually the existence of Federal welfare programs that create lifelong dependencies is a big part of the problem, regardless of skin color and location. If people are given handouts, of course they'll take them. Most people will want to work as little as possible.
Simple things like Universal health care, a safety net welfare system or just basic workers protection seem to be anathema to some of you. But as long as the rich get richer then damn everyone else the ultimate in selfishness that ensures inequality remains entrenched.
I could go on with my rant but I won't.
Yea because highly paid moronic executives never kill companies.
If you don't understand the constitutional protections that are meant to restrict the powers of our Federal government, then you will not understand why federally run healthcare is a very bad idea. The US is a republic, in other words, a bunch of states that remain distinctly different. We are not a dictatorship, nor are we a kingdom.
A free(r) market sorts those things out. There are myriad issues which could end a business. That's life and that's risk.
So only those with good paying jobs can have families?
That is exactly what I didn't write!
People with entry level jobs don't deserve high pay. If security guard is your career path, you have bigger problems than minimum wage.
Aside from that, let's not be ignorant of economics. You can pay everyone $15, $20, $80 per hour and all it will do is raise the cost of providing the goods or services. Making $15/hr to watch a CCTV or sack groceries means nothing when milk cost $5 gallon!
Artificially increasing the wage for a job does nothing to help the poor.... Or has any min wage hike helped? No!!