Intellectual Property

Through the readings and class discussions, a new topic has been introduced into the realm of computers and ethics. This topic is intellectual property, defined as not actual property but something that is created from the mind that can be copied very easily. Intellectual property requires much work from the creator but little from the consumers. Lessig sees intellectual property as means to creativity. Locke sees intellectual property as a means to self preservation, that in order to survive one must protect the created work. I believe that both of these men are correct. Intellectual Property is vital to the happiness and success of the United States of America. If there existed no new innovations, the country would be stuck in a society that refused to progress, even at a small speed. This would ruin the economy and demolish the base of what the United States was made on. However, although it is a means of creativity, it also must be protected. I agree with Locke in his point, that it is necessary to preserve and protect intellectual property. Otherwise, there would not be any incentive to create and invent. As more people want to use the intellectual property, the creator should be reimbursed for their work. However, with the creation of cyberspace, a whole new world of shared information or "the commons" exists. Although the internet has become a gigantic part of the American society, intellectual property creators must still be protected. What they write should still be their own, and they should be able to charge if they wish. Other ways of money making on the internet is advertising but if not enough people visit a certain page, no one will want to advertise. The internet raises some questions into the intellectual property: Should a creator post on the internet if they do not want their ideas to be copied? Or should they want to benefit the whole of society by solving a problem or writing something and sharing so others can benefit as well?

Employee monitoring in Baase and ‘Modern Times’

Baase pointed out that as our technology improves the ways in which employees are monitored are becoming more sophisticated. We’ve moved far beyond punch clocks to the effect of being able to monitor a worker’s per second output. The intended effect of this is to make production more efficient but some perceive a workplace with decreased freedom. Charlie Chaplin’s movie explored the idea of where technology could take us. Most of these monitoring technologies create access to information that was previously unavailable. Learning to deal with this new information is a task in and of itself but time will surely work any new technology into the norm. It’s important to note that a lot of the humor in ‘Modern Times’ is comes from not understanding the new technology. If your boss pops up on your desk and yells at you for not working, it would only be surprising if you didn’t know it could happen. If you did work in an environment with that capability you would develop some way to cope with it or the management might come to accept the reality that every now and then workers nap at their desks. One way or the other the workplace is only improved with the greater access to information once the environment has matured to the novel idea. Monitoring technology should be used responsibly but the question is at what point would they be abused and not be corrected by public interference. With greater technology there seems to also be greater scrutiny from the public.

Long-Distance Fast-Food

A few weeks ago in class we discussed a new innovation McDonald's had incorporated into some of their restaurants across the United States: a call center for their drive-throughs. I do agree that this will improve efficiency, but it is detrimental to the employment market. Let's say that this calling station uses 25 people to take orders at 100 drive-up windows; this eliminates 75 jobs that people looking for work could use to create an income. This is very inconsiderate given the fact that so many people in our country are impoverished and unemployed. What more is disturbing is the way the employees of the calling center are treated during their hours of work. Although they may come to work dressed however they please, the way these employees are monitored during the day seems superfluous and demeaning. Besides the clock in the break-room that tell the workers how long they've been off-duty and the random pop-up for the worker to click within 1.75 seconds, what frustrates me most is how the manager sits at his desk reading statistics on every worker. If I was running McDonald's I would cut this guy's salary, because he don't do anything all day. He states that "when fractions of a second count, the environment needs to be controlled," but do fractions of a second actually count? When you make billions of dollars a year, what does 75 more salaries and a few minutes a day cost you? It is this mantra that makes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY

Three main features of economic democracy is workers self management, markets, and democratic control of investment. In the economic democracy each productive enterprise is controlled democratically by its worker under the mean of worker self management. Wage labor is applied in the capitalism which all extra money will go to the manager or the owner of the company. While in the economic democracy all the profit is shared by all the component of the company. Another feature of economic democracy is market; market will interact with one another and with consumers in an environment largely free of government price of controls. As what Professor Perry said, the market the people running the company know what people want, if there is no market, we cannot determine what people want. Market is also very important especially in the sophisticated country for example United States and Malaysia, while the Soviet Union and Cuba does not have market. The last feature is social control of investment, the investment in the economic democracy is controlled by the workers, while in the capitalism is controlled by the M-C-M'. In my opinion the economic democracy is much better than the capitalism because the workers also play the role in the company profit, the market and the company investment. In the economic democracy, the capitalist cannot does not have freedom in their own company and at the same time this will reduce the hypermobility. This new kind of economic gives the chance to the worker to involve in the management.

ADVANCE IN TECHNOLOGY

Most of the worker that has computers and other office technology believes that advances in technology have changed their life. The technology actually not really changed their life but, technology is designed to support them. Technology can cut the labor costs and speed up the processing information. At the same time technology will make fewer people can do more work for less money. When fewer people are needed to complete the work this caused the unemployment and part of the community which is unemployed will live their life in hard way. In my opinion, technology is one of the powers that can control market and people. But still the use of technology should be considered, for example in the video clip Charlie Chaplin – Modern Times we can see that through the applications of technology, the manager control the worker which make the worker have no enjoyment while working. Besides that, this control gives bad impact to the worker psychology as they have to do the work repeating continuously. This cause the worker is fired and unemployed. In other means, the technology makes the communication easier, save up time, and the work has more quality. The advances in technology does not changed people life but how people manipulate the technology does changed people life. So, we cannot let the technology control our life, but do control the technology in a good way to empower the market. There is still the use of technology that we can explore and applied which can improve the market.

If given a choice does that mean freedom?

In a handout in class, it discussed the notion that just because someone is given a choice, that does not mean they are necessarily free. In the case of the fast food worker, although they choose to work there, it is an area of "forced choosing" not of "free choosing." However, this argument is based on the concept that each decision and the choices included in it are independent from one another. This is not the case. Life is full of decisions, paths, and options. As each decision is made other possible options are closed and other paths are open. Each decision is not independent of one another. For example, pertaining to the fast food worker, the question needs to be asked: why are they in this position in the first place? Did they not succeed in school? Did they go to jail for petty theft or drugs? If they did not succeed in school was it because of lack of effort, a poor situation, or a lack of resources? Did they go to jail because they could not afford food or to get money for illicit drugs? A person does not merely end up at a decision. The decisions and consequences that are a result shape a person's life, not just one "forced choice" to enter the fast food industry. To say that every person deserves to have the same opportunities, when the effort and ambition is not present would result in a loss of productivity, money, and of innovation in a country.

Is the worker free?

In our discussion in class, the idea of whether the worker is free was brought up. According to several of the readings, including Bravermen, the notion that workers are free is not the case. Braverman believes that the workers are not free. Rather, they are manipulated by management to create money. Management is built on the notion that workers are dispensable, and they can do what they wish with workers without fear. There is no freedom as growth, because the workers are not given any opportunity to grow. However, although division of labor in detail is not the best for the worker, it does not completely ruin the worker. The workers are still capable of living lives and are getting paid. A person's soul is not mortally destroyed by doing the same job over and over. Although it might not exactly be an American Dream, it is a job and it does need to be done. Americans are becoming so complacent. Most Americans believe that they are too good for factory or assembly line work. Thus, companies outsource labor because other countries are willing to do the jobs and work hard for the money. American factor and assembly line workers unionize and do not desire to do the work. As a result, the production is less for a greater amount of money. If American workers would buckle down and do the jobs that are available for the price presented, companies would not feel the need to get rid of labor to other countries.

Freedom and Work

Last week in class we discussed the freedom of employment choices. One of the circumstances presented by Mr. Perry was if the person was presented with being an MTV personality or a fast-food cashier, or something along those lines: a more reasonable alternative versus a less reasonable one. If the person chose the fast-food job, they would have made a fully free choice, as they declined a more acceptable alternative. However, what if the person chose the more acceptable occupation? Would this be considered a free choice, or were they forced into choosing something better because the other alternative was less acceptable? These questions also bring up an even more debatable question: What is an acceptable choice? Where does one draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable? Depending on the person's background, opinions and morals, the line could vary. For example, here at Vanderbilt, I'm sure 99% of us would consider even a management position at Burger King unacceptable. But for a person who has grown up impoverished and not as fortunate, that would be a very acceptable position, maybe even an aspiration. Although this line would seem unique to each person, I believe that there is one underlying rule for an acceptable job: there needs to be respect between the employer and the employee. Any job that does not respect the privacy and freedom of its employees is unethical. This respect includes minimal monitoring and acceptable wages, two things that are not prevalent in a lot of jobs today, but are required for an alternative to be a choice when a worker seeks employment.

Poor Wages Enslave the Working Class

In a world where jobs are more limited than people who can work them there is much room for exploitation. Employers can offer a wage for work that does not reflect the value of the work provided. However, the only alternative for the people who work this job is to not have any source of income at all. If they refuse to work jobs which do not pay adequate wages, they must find other means of surviving. What does this alternative mean? The only ways to survive without an income in seem to be surviving off others, stealing, or living in something near a state of nature. The first requires charity which one could never be certain of; the second is immoral and illegal; and the third portrays an absurd life of living in the woods but in reality is being homeless on the streets. Employers seem to be indifferent to this alternative for the workers they do not provide jobs for. The question is whether it is the employers’ responsibility to pay a fair wage. The people they offer jobs to live a better life than those who still get left with no job; that comparison is true. There will always be some people living in that harsh alternative to a waged job; the numbers and reasons for that are debatable. If life with a poorly paying job is better than one with no job at all doesn’t an employer offering that option of a bad job increase a workers freedom? The status quo of that worker is the alternative we originally discussed; the offer of a bad job is actually an option to increase their quality of life. Consider the individual worker’s choice. He has no job and can’t find any job but the one that pays poorly; he’ll take the job if he wants to have that little income. What if the government barred in from working that job because they didn’t pay him enough? He wouldn’t have that small income and the government is limiting his freedom to get it. The counter argument to this is that employers need workers to make money themselves and with government regulations part of employers’ profits would essentially be transferred to the waged workers. BUT, this is taking away the employers’ option of paying lower wages. Does government intervention really increase freedom? Perhaps, those who would prefer government intervention value other things more than freedom.