You're talking about a service, not an open source text like source code. A service can't be "open source" unless it lives on a computing block chain like Etherium or something, because actual human beings have to do things on private assets.
No, it's on the same level as "make major life changes" to either a depressed person, or someone working in a non-union environment. There is no analogy needed. Sometimes you cannot make major life changes, even if it might help with significant problems. But we don't know that. It's valid advice. Unlike everything else said in this thread.
None of that elaborate rationalization you just performed changes anything. You admit you counseled something unethical, but you want to insist that reflects on OP, not on you. So now it's not just a failure of integrity, but it's also sophistry.
I know most of the comments here are from ignorant disinterested observers who aren't really thinking through what they are saying, but man. If the first thing you think of is fraud and sabotage when your employer acts within the boundaries of your contract, you're a bad person.
There are two camps in this thread. On one side you have people saying to move to a workplace with a union. On the other hand you have people advising criminal retaliation, vandalism, sabotage, and fraud. And you have a problem with the unionists.
Of COURSE they don't 100% trust fallible human beings with their multi million dollar assets and consignments. It's not insulting unless you are all up in your ego, any more than having to sign something saying that you've inspected the cargo is.
And if you do anything company doesn’t like you will be punished.
Doesn't change anything. You don't have to swim faster than the shark, you just have to swim faster than the worst trucker on staff. Just means that they have better data to make the same decisions they were already making. It's all zero-sum and if it's bad for one trucker, it's good for another who was until now going without recognition.
It was an ersatz cooperative, where the executives attempted to respect member's interests, paid dividends, etc; but there was no legal protection or ownership.
When MEC incorporated, there was not an option under Canadian law to have a legal cooperative. They attempted to conduct themselves as one, but in the end, members were not owners, so it was never a cooperative. That situation did eventually change, but MEC didn't restructure to take advantage of the new laws.
Jerkface (any/all) @ jerkface @lemmy.ca Posts 6Comments 2,311Joined 2 yr. ago
You dropped your friggin'
>in another thread and I just stepped on it. Pain like Lego.