lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
From: James.Cupps at sappi.com (James.Cupps@...pi.com)
Subject: Professional Groups

Ok Definitely off topic ... But ...

All of the arguments for unionizing have centered around job security and
control of direction in the company to make life better. 

The later one is simple garbage. If you want to control the direction your
company is taking get into management. The unions don't decide that even
where they are effective and well run (and yes there are some despite the
typical horror stories).

As far as job security, outsourcing to other countries seems to be the key
issue being discussed. 

Outsourcing itself is not much of a big deal it seems to be a cyclical trend
at every company I have seen. For three to five years the trend is to
"consolidate resources" (read bring it inside). Most companies try to do
this during a time of labor surplus (now and for the next 6 months to a
year). They are usually hampered by their bureaucracy so the process
typically lags the rest of the economy by 1 to two years. 

Don't believe me? Compare the data at the Bureau of Labor Statistics with
info from the Fed reserve. http://www.dol.gov/
http://www.federalreserve.gov/ 

This brings me to the next point the Fed is keeping loan rates at the 1%
range for one reason at this point. To alter the trade deficit. (oh they
won't say that, but the money supply problem is now over so the economy is
now growing) They can do this because the inflation rate is mostly stable.
It is mostly stable because most of our largest importing partners (in Asia)
have tied their currency to the dollar (one key exception to this is Japan
but that is an entire other subject). As the dollar grows weaker against the
rest of the world currencies it becomes less and less expensive for them to
buy from us. This will increase the attractiveness of producing within the
US. At the same time it puts substantial pressure on other countries that
have linked their currency to the dollar. They gain none of the benefits
(most of them are already very cheap compared to the rest of the world) and
gain all of the same detriments. They will have to alter their artificial
exchange rates. Meanwhile they will be loosing talent in droves but not to
the US but to EU, Australia and Japan. You have heard the term Brain Drain.

What does all of this mean? It means that while international outsourcing is
here to stay it will have a minimal actual impact on most of the service
sector in the US. It also means that the fed has a scary amount of control
over our lives. At least they are on our side.

So no real reason to Unionize.

Now I have to ask what does any of this do with Info Security let alone
vulnerability exposure?

James Cupps


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Funk Jr, Joseph C. [mailto:jcfunkjr@...bucks.pa.us]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:12 AM
> To: Lan Guy; Daniel Sichel; full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] Professional Groups
> 
> 
>      I know this has gone way off list but to add my couple pennies and
> agree with LanGuy.  I happen to be stuck in a union environment - all the
> NW Engineers are union all the way down to helpdesk.   I am and have been
> on contract for almost 3 years with this union shop (Local Govt.) and
> cannot get a job because they are union all they way to the lowest level
> but they need me so they've extended my contract past an original 2 months
> time and again.  They can't hire me because of grievances, they can't fire
> anyone who shouldn't be working in their position because of grievances.
> Unions are fine for some jobs, but things like engineers, scientists, and
> the like should not be Union IMVHO.  I believe it only servers to keep the
> talent pool in Union shops to an all time low.  It ends up something akin
> to pre-perestroika Soviet work ethics.  Why work harder (learn more / new
> things) if there is no benefit to doing so, and no danger of loosing your
> employment from doing otherwise!
>   (sitting on their collective laurels).  Union has it's place, I just
> don't think this is it -yet.
> 
> -joe-
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lan Guy [mailto:rlanguy@...mail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:55 AM
> To: Daniel Sichel; full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Professional Groups
> 
> 
> Have you considered the disbenefit of such a move. Your employer could end
> up having to pay you less. Force you into a group life savings plan
> (saving
> the employer money). Force your employer to decide your HMO.
> 
> What I think you really mean is that we need an indepentent testing
> mechanism, that is not vendor baised, that can judge by a persons
> knowledge,
> education and experience.
> But we already have that:
> http://www.sans.org/
> http://www.comptia.org/default.asp
> 
> Just look around
> Lan Guy
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Daniel Sichel" <daniels@...derosatel.com>
> To: <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 10:31 PM
> Subject: [Full-Disclosure] Professional Groups
> 
> 
> > > It's time we as a professional group start talking and walking like
> > > adults (at least more than in the past), I think. Just playing with
> > > computers is fine, but not enough.
> >
> > >Agreed.  And believe me, I have spent many an hour trying to figure out
> >
> > >how to approach the problem.  Unfortunately, every solution I can come
> > >up with involves educating the masses . . . many of whom don't want to
> > >be confused with facts . . .  ;>
> >
> > This is off topic but I couldn't help myself. What we need is a union.
> > Why? Well right now, management generally buys the software that has the
> > cutest infobabes, the best promise, or safe branding (Microsoft). If we
> > had a union that negotiated a contract that paid us extra for fixing
> > software failures or broken installs, so that the bottom line got hurt
> > by the crap these people sell, it would take about 5 minutes for the
> > priorities to change in purchasing decisions and for SLAs and tech
> > support to be ratcheted up where they belong.
> >
> > Speaking as a US citizen, if we were Teamsters and honored their picket
> > lines think of the leverage we would have. Scab truck drivers are
> > available, but imagine the chaos of scab sys admins or firewall
> > administrators? And of course when the Teamsters honor our picket lines,
> > that wouldn't hurt a bit.
> >
> > Be nice to keep our jobs from going to third world countries where tech
> > professionals are even more exploited than here.
> >
> > But of course, all my technical professional colleagues will pooh-pooh
> > the idea of a union. They always do. Think about this, a union for us
> > could be like the bar associatio for lawyers or the AMA for doctors. We
> > could impose stringent professional abilities, certifications, and
> > requirements to ensure we are a professional, capable body of people. We
> > could institute apprenticeships so we have  a supply of people who are
> > more than paper MCSEs or CCNAs.
> >
> > I am very fortunate that I work in an enlightened company that pays more
> > than lip service to standards and security. Management totally backs us
> > up on secure and safe computing. No IM, no HTML mail, no user installed
> > software. A budget for security and training. It is wonderfule.  It is
> > also the first employer in my 15 years of IT experience that follows
> > through on these things. But I remember the pain and anguish from
> > before. If we are going to change our industry so that we can succeed at
> > our jobs, we need a union. Period.
> >
> >
> > Dan Sichel, Network Engineer
> > Ponderosa Telephone Company
> > (559) 868-6367
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
This message may contain information which is private, privileged or
confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
named in the message. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
please notify the sender thereof and destroy / delete the message. Neither
the sender nor Sappi Limited (including its subsidiaries and associated
companies) shall incur any liability resulting directly or indirectly from
accessing any of the attached files which may contain a virus or the like. 


Powered by blists - more mailing lists