>
>For one, they overestimate their own bargaining power and possibilities
>for upward mobility. For two, unions are for vulgar workers, not for
>distinguished professionals!
>
>Doug
of course, the guy who was typing about how techs can extort employers has said he makes about 200k a year as a consultant. therefore, he probably makes 100k. given the propensity for dick slinging among geeks (friggin joke 'k?) tho maybe he really makes 400k since there are a ton of feds on the list hoping that a hacker will reveal something they can be nailed on.
otoh, chris susi's response made it clear that he sees how non consultant IT d00ds, working for firms in the conventional sense of having a "job" and not contracted labor, ARE seeing a plateau, if not outright decline in salaries.
seems to me, as i said to someone offlist, no capitalist (and probably more importantly, no upper level management from the CIO on down) is going to take anything like the attitudes that were conveyed in the posts i forwarded under "Overtime". what was most interesting about that post was that the person advised chris susi to "train" "vishay". well, if chris does his job training "vishay" then "vishay" can do the job just as well as chris can. so the implicit assumption of the person penning that post was, "vishay" is, by birth, inferior. that is because that person believes that IT work like he does is something one has a natural talent for and is special and the rest of us aren't capable, something in direct contradistinction, of course, to others who've piped up here. hmmm. the guy that was speaking cut his teeth working on many os projects as i recall. double hmmmmmm. (NO i'm not ignoring the good coders, i'm simply saying as i have all along, nothing is that simple)
how is capital and mgmt going to control IT workers, even tho it seems that they have almost a "natural" monopoly on knowledge?
they make this very clear in their continued insistence that IT workers are uppity slackers that need to be under the surveillance of technology in order to make sure they are doing their jobs. something came across my screen the other day when writing about this, since i had to do a special issue on "information security and productivity" iow, an issue on "quit fucking around downloading mp3s because it's a security problem and we don't like it even when you do it on your lunch hour." this is for a very tolerant company in that regard! iow, i had to, basically, lie by omission and construct reality for everyone. not that anyone reads what i write unless they have to spend some overtime in the commode but...the point is that this is what THEY WANT ME TO SAY, so it's an indicator of how they'd like to control the work place.
anyway, salon reported that people are making way more of the potential for slacking with email and the internet, as compared to other technologies when they were introduced into the work place: the telephone, the copy machine, the fax, etc. none of these elicited the same uproar. which is a no-brainer as to why.
so, my guess from where i sit in a job in which i'm intimately familiar with what the bosses want, is that they're happily turning to technological and other kinds of surveillance as part of the process of keeping IT workers in their place. the recent firings re porn and the big to do made abt that, case in point. it is no accident that while the majority of Infosec consulting firms work on technological fixes to the problem, a bunch are also making their niche in the "infosec is really abt (controlling) people" (bruce schneirer for example. here's a big cryptogeek who was way into crypto as technological fix, now going into infosec by saying it's all about the user. which is true, but i'm getting at the wider implications of how something seemingly benign can be manipulated for the benefit of capital/mgmt)
what's that, you ask? the people who "control" and "monopolize" information and tehcnology (IT consultants) will never let that happen! that would be the answer from a surface glance at the dynamics.
ha! when they create the clever tools to control machines remotely so they can hack into a machine because they gots a woody for information and are just curious and want to learn, they are making the technology needed to step up work place surveillance. yes, everyone knows this. but what no one is realizing is the very people who are concerned about threats to privacy are also the people who can create the technology that will ultimately be used to control them. the whole war over crypto illustrated that nic ely, if you ask me.
another case in point: the utterly bizarre twist that has happened in the infosec mgmt news. after the DDoS attacks, as well as the ILoveYou incident, what has happened? while they are still demonizing hackers (limited to what has been referred to here as "ankle biters" "script kiddies" (the young, unprofessional types who go about defacing web sites and pulling stupid stunts that give hackers a bad name), they are also valiantly fighting against the movement of some to turn their skills into white hat consultants where some are making $2grand a day as consultants for firms, showing them how to protect their networks from "evil hackers". so, there are a slew of articles "should you hire a hacker?" the authors typically walk a fine line, but basically they advise everyone "no, don't hire 'hackers'"
my take: somewhere, someone is going to want and demand that people show them evidence that they are trustworthy, that they can be trusted with a firm "data" and "information". how do you do that? professionalize by formalizing a code of ethics, a way to formally socialize people to uphold that code, and people within the profession to sanction those who fail to uphold it)
exacerbating the trend to surveillance because IT folks are seen as having too much control is the shift from demonizing hackers (script kiddies) to maintaining that a firm's biggest threat is the "inside" job: information espionage, holding firms hostage because of retaliating employees, etc. not surprising that mich makay just did a big spread on how to fire the IT employee properly!
and that's the way it was!
k "Oh yeah, I never speak for my employer, even when I send e-mail from an account that my employer pays for. I'm paid to control employee behavior in the name of information security, they pay other people to have opinions. Your mileage may vary. Close cover before striking. Unleaded fuel only. This product may cause birth defects. Consult a professional before reading this message. Rinse thoroughly after use. (paraphrased disclaimer originally penned by Joseph Noonan!! couldn't say it better myself)