HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
Subject: Re: FREELANCE PHOTOGRAPHY
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:25:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct12.211306.29378@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman) writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.161025.23785@crd.ge.com>, mmrwlm@sn370.utica.ge.com writes:
> |>
> |>EASY WORK!  EXCELLENT PAY!
> |>Taking snapshots.  For info, send a self-addressed,
> |>stamped envelope to:
> |>
> |>	PHOTOS: #1
> |>	P.O. Box 962
> |>	Utica, NY 13503-0962
> To save me the cost of postage, two envelopes and minor wear and tear on my
> curiosity...Has anyone responded to this?  If so, what was the "deal"?  This
> sounds like the ads that used to be in the back of Popular Science.  "Earn big
> money selling GRIT"

Not only that, but it is a breach of "netiquette" at the very least to
post commercial notices via internet. Private equipment sales are one thing,
advertising your "business" is quite another. 
===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
From: lily@gagme.chi.il.us (Lily Moy)
Subject: Re: How to answer these contract head hunters
Originator: lily@gagme
Organization: GAGME - Public Access UNIX of Chicago, Illinois, USA, Earth
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:04:42 GMT

I've been approached to be a contract-for-hire.

Basically, I'll be an employee of Company X, working at Company Z
for a 2 month trial period. Company Z has the option to hire me
full-time after that trial period.

Has anyone experienced this? 

I am looking for a full-time position and this opportunity is in the area 
I want, and provides a foot into the door of Company Z (my first choice).

What are the pros and cons? DO alot of companies NOT hire you after
the trial period?  Thanks.

--Lily

Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
From: ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying)
Subject: Re: Family Leave Act
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:36:36 GMT

betsyp@apollo.hp.com (Betsy Perry) writes:

>In article <ted.718056682@sage0> ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) writes:
>>	Not really.  Spoken like a true pragmatist.  Terry was trying to
>>	point out the reality of what would happen.  Currently, in the
>>	US, a government mandated family leave policy would end up with
>>	companies offering family leave to women, but not to men (I
>>	believe that the family leave package proposed only mandates that
>>	women be granted paid leave for pregnancy and recovery periods).

>You remember incorrectly.  The Family Leave Act that Bush vetoed
>proposed *unpaid* leave of up to twelve weeks for all *parents* (male
>or female) to recuperate from childbirth,  care for a newly-adopted
>child, or care for a sick family member.  (There were limitations
>based on company size and on the "indispensability" of the
>employee as well; I believe the sick family member could be a
>parent as well as a child.)

	Mea culpa...and thanks for the correction (rather more politely
	than many around here!  :-) ).

	I'm wondering whether I'm the only one around who had this
	misperception...some other people I've spoken to recently
	might also have believed as I did.

	I still think that there is a problem with family leave that
	will be difficult to compromise on.  Nowadays many companies
	are small companies with much of the work/productivity being
	dependent upon every employee.  Each employee is a critical
	and integral part of the company and difficult to replace.
	For any employee, male or female, to take an extended leave
	of 8+ weeks from this company, would be a great inconvenience
	and potentially a major disability for them.  In such small
	organizations, it is much more difficult to deal without one
	particular employee temporarily.  It is difficult to deal
	without that employee and then difficult to reintegrate the
	employee back into the work after the leave.

	How do small companies in other parts of the world deal with
	this problem (since they all have supported family leave
	practices)?  Does anyone have any information about this?

	Ted Ying			ted@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
	Hughes/STX			Goddard Space Flight Center
From: kjh@loral.cts.com (Ken Hallwachs)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
Subject: Engineers Wanted
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:09:30 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Loral Instrumentation


                         SENIOR SOFTWARE
                    SYSTEM LEVEL PROGRAMMERS

Loral Instrumentation is a leader in providing real-time solutions to the most 
demanding telemetry, avionics test and integration, satellite ground stations 
and space experimentation applications.  We are involved in a wide range of 
technologies including data flow computer networks, Unix/C/X Windows, OSF, 
Motif, FDDI, as well as PC applications using Windows.  Our Engineers are 
required to have advanced software skills, experience or potential for project 
leadership, an understanding of successful product development cycle, and the 
energy to participate in winning and sustaining market share.  We are currently
seeking several individuals with SYSTEM LEVEL PROGRAMMING EXPERIENCE AND SKILLS.

Requirements include BSCS (or equivalent work experience), three to five years 
programming work experience using C under UNIX.  Experience with real-time 
systems using VxWorks, graphics or X Windows is required.

We are also seeking individuals with a minimum of three to four years 
experience with PC applications using C or C++ and at least one year of Windows
SDK programming.  In addition, experience with real-time device drivers and 
developing visual basic custom controls is a plus.

If you have the skills and are interested in working in a technically 
challenging environment where you will be able to contribute to "what's 
possible", please send resume to:

                      Professional Staffing
                      LORAL INSTRUMENTATION
                     15378 Avenue of Science
                      San Diego, CA  92128

			     or email to
			     kjh@loral.cts.com
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
From: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net (Orville R. Weyrich)
Subject: Re: Why do Americans get so little vacation time?
Reply-To: uunet.uu.net!weyrich!orville
Organization: Weyrich Computer Consulting
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 13:50:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.190530.3112@csi.uottawa.ca> duwors@csi.uottawa.ca (Robert J. Du Wors) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.134128.10837@weyrich.UUCP> uunet.uu.net!weyrich!orville writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.105339.20769@cnplss5.cnps.philips.nl> arjay@cnplss5.cnps.philips.nl (R.J. Kimmel) writes:
>>>orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net (Orville R. Weyrich) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <1992Oct2.102544.24569@cnplss5.cnps.philips.nl> arjay@cnplss5.cnps.philips.nl (R.J. Kimmel) writes:
>>>>>cshaver@informix.com (Craig Shaver) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <BvFBAK.FB1@world.std.com> ttraub@world.std.com (Terry Traub) writes:
>>>>>>>[lots of stuff deleted]
>>choose. And anyway, we can't afford it given our present budget and trade
>>deficits, without eliminating something else. Exactly what other employer-
>>provided fringe-benefit or government-provided social program do you think is
>>less important than paid "psychological" leave?
>>
>
>Payoffs for the politically connected, rapacious bank fraud artists, their
>sons and friends...how can this go so unquestioned?  Add in an obsolete

OK -- do you propose replacing all the Democrats and Republicans with Angels
and Saints? Where do you propose to get these folks with motives  as pure as
snow? I agree that when exposed such individuals shoud be run out of office,
but I see no reason to think that the polititians are any worse in this
country than in others. And  BTW, a lot of them WON'T be returning next year.
[But too bad soem of the worst Senators aren't up for re-election this year.]



>military-industrial complex, universal payment to rich people just because

You mean the armed-forces that is being down-sized so fast that it is causing
massive job dislocations?

>of age...good start on a couple hundred billion of tax payer stolen (sometimes

Yeah. Cut back on Social Security. The Grey Panthers will git ya. But seriously,
I agree that SS is too generous, and that the money would be better invested
in the young. Got any politically viable proposals about how to reallocate  
the funds?

>literally) dollars.  (Well, you asked!)

So I did.  But lets get more specific. :-)



orville

--------------------------------------   **************************************
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.                        Weyrich Computer Consulting
Certified Data Processor                     POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261
Certified Systems Professional                   Voice: (602) 391-0821
Certified Computer Programmer            Internet: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net
--------------------------------------   **************************************
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
From: jka@windshear.larc.nasa.gov (J. Keith Alston)
Subject: Re: Why do Americans get so little vacation time?
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:55:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.135553.10915@weyrich.UUCP>, orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net (Orville R. Weyrich) writes:
|> In article <BvnqGo.6yL@news.larc.nasa.gov> jka@windshear.larc.nasa.gov (J. Keith Alston) writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct2.151211.18487@weyrich.UUCP>, orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net (Orville R. Weyrich) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> Why do you think that only Union workers can negotiate? Everyone has the right
|> >|> to "walk". The interesting thing is that companies that are most hurt by key 
|> >|> people "walking" are also those that are most hurt by key people taking 
|> >|> "family leave" at irregular and unpredictable intervals.
|> >|> 
|> >
|> > Are you equating "walking" with negotiation? Walking out the door isn't
|> > negotiating anything, its giving up. What do non-union employees have to
|> > negotiate with?
|> 
|> What is different between a disgruntled employee walking out the door with
|> valuable training, experience, and expertise and a union strike?
|> 
  As someone else has already stated, there's an order of magnitude difference
  between the two. If I decide to walk, even though I may be seen as an
  important part of whats goes on, it doesn't have anywhere near the
  effect of everyone in my department deciding to walk at the same time.
|> 
|> So, to turn your question around, what do union workers have to negotiate 
|> with, in the long run? Doesn't their short-term success mean failure in the
|> long-term?
|> 

 See above, union workers, all going on stike at once can shut down a company
 or even a whole industry. Yes, non union workers do have the option  to
 walk, but I must ask again, what kind of negotiating tool is that?
-- 
************************      Don't just do it!     ***********************
Lockheed Eng. and Sci. Co./Nasa Larc|J. Keith Alston jka@windshear.larc.nasa.gov
From: mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
Subject: Re: Hiring Freeze
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:33:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario

mtw8527@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Mike Wallach) writes:
> Has anyone had an experience where a prospective employer was prepared
> to offer he/she a job and a hiring freeze was put into effect?
> If so, when the freeze was lifted was the position still offered?

I certainly wouldn't count on it.  The direction of a company, the needs 
of a group within it, their available requisitions, others who have come
along in the meantime, and their available dollars all work to change the
situation.  

Basically, if/when the freeze comes off, it's a whole new ball game.

(Yes, we're in the middle of a freeze too. :-( )
--
              Mike Sellers      User Interface Team Leader
           mike@isgtec.com      ISG Technologies, Toronto, Canada
              "Actum ne agas" -- Do not do what has been done.
                         Furare tantum ab Optimis
From: drodrigu@irscscm.UUCP (Dianne Rodriguez)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
Subject: Re: Advice Please
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:42:07 GMT
Organization: Internal Revenue Service


  Weaknesses...you want to state strengths as if they were a weakness.
  Like; "I am a workaholic" "I hate to sit and do nothing" 
  "I never can leave a project half finished, I have to complete it, no
  matter how long it takes" "I'm a perfectionist" 
  You get the idea??

  DKR
  Don't ask me to help you with your taxes.
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: FANTASY JOB...
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:22:22 GMT


1. A job you don't need connections to get

2. A job that pays me enough to support myself.

3. If the job doesn't insult my intelligence, well, that's the icing
   on the cake!

Even farther into fantasy-land...

I'd love to work somewhere where marketing takes a back seat to production.
And office politics doesn't exist.
And you can choose a technical (as opposed to marketing or managerial) path
w/o getting screwed royally.

People say I'm a dreamer...


Walter Lee    wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us

Keep the Aspidistra Flying!
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc,misc.jobs.offered
From: chipg@access.digex.com (Chip Gallo)
Subject: BANYAN Experts Needed
Followup-To: chipg@inet.com
Summary: BANYAN Opportunity Now
Keywords: job, work, employment, BANYAN, network
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:11:18 GMT

BANYAN EXPERTS NEEDED

I-NET, a nationwide premier communications and information systems
integrator, is seeking technical professionals to provide BANYAN
Network Administration and End User Support. Qualified candidates
will have in-depth knowledge of the following:

o BANYAN Vines
o WINDOWS
o TCP/IP
o Standard PC Applications

We have numerous opportunities in various locations. I-NET offers
a fast-paced environment, competitive salaries and an excellent
benefits package including a 401(k) plan and tuition assistance.
Send your resume to I-NET, Inc., Dept. WP-37, 6430 Rockledge Drive,
Bethesda, MD 20817. 

Resumes in plain text form may also be sent via internet to
chipg@inet.com (38.145.226.227), CompuServe at 76376,3147 or
uploaded to the resume area of the I-NET BBS at 301-564-6749.
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
From: arichmon@nyx.cs.du.edu (Snr SW Engineer)
Subject: Re: International Software Jobs
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 10:23:21 GMT

A couple of weeks or so ago, somebody asked if any netters who had joined
ICPA could say how useful they found it. I didn't notice any responses.
Were there any? I currently subscribe to their newsletter, which costs
much less than full membership, but I'm wondering if I should go ahead
and join. I'd be grateful for any info..
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: Bargaining for vacation time?
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:48:16 GMT

In <1992Oct15.100815.1277@weyrich.UUCP> orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net (Orville R. Weyrich) writes:

>In article <greg.719076211@saltydog> greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:

>How about people that enjoy their work?

>How about people that would like to improve their lot in life and are willing
>to work a bit harder to do so?

No problem with any of this.  It may not be apparent from my postings, but
even I enjoy my work, such as it is, and I'm willing to work long and
hard hours.  I consider myself very fortunate in my current employment
situation, at least relative to most of the people I see who're constantly
making excuses as to why they need to work harder for less concrete goals.

But what does it mean to "improve ones lot?"  Does it mean, exclusively,
to gain more capital?  Or does it mean to gain less tangible things like
discretionary time, time with one's family, time to broaden one's general
knowledge, time to travel, time to live?

In this country, at least, the term "work" generally means that time during
which you do things for your boss.  It does not mean time you spend working
on the car, fixing up the house, attending to hobbies, etc. even though
these things may be quite difficult and time-consuming.  It is this concept
of work, the stuff you wouldn't do if you didn't get paid for it, against
which I'm arguing.  And it's unfortunate that we, as an aggregate, spend more
time at "work" now than we have ever done before.

It's a big world out there; it's difficult for me to imagine the person
who wakes up every day and thinks only of what they might do at "work."

In that spirit, I think it is completely healthy and a sign of a balanced
and rational individual to desire less work, no?

What would you do with your time if your current salary were taken care of
regardless of your performance at "work?"  Would you still go to "work?"
If so, do you think your attitude or performance would be, in any way,
affected?  If you had a pressing personal issue that required you to leave
early some day, or take a few days off, would that cause you any anxiety
about leaving "work?"

greg
--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)
From: gbm@jmp.com (Gary B. McKenney - Interface Solutions Inc.)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
Subject: Re: FANTASY JOB...
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:58:33 GMT
Organization: JMP & Associates, Ltd. - Atlanta, Ga.

In article <1992Oct7.185730.2609@CERIS.Purdue.EDU> tfisher@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Tom Fisher) writes:
>From article <1992Oct7.113819.1@wizard.colorado.edu>, by smith_m@wizard.colorado.edu:
>> 
>> 	What would your fantasy job be?  
>> 
>> 	Mine would involve several things...
>> 	Speaking, training, motivational talks,
>> 	It would include racewalking and travel, 
>> 	Lots of people, kids, talking, laughing.  
>> 
>> 	So, with all those thoughts, what is the job I am seeking?  
>>
>Tour Guide at Disney World

I don't know.  I hear people down there say they work for the RAT.
> 	
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
From: dewolfe@ug.cs.dal.ca (Anarchy for Peace)
Subject: Re: Family Leave Act
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:59:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.230142.10953@cs.tulane.edu> coimay@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu writes:
>In article <jyc.718300647@Leland>, jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes...
>> 
>
[description of job hunting deleted fro sake of bandwidth]

>Another poster asked what we gave up to get maternity leave.  We gave
>up giving 2-6 week old babies to child care centers.  We gave up the
>increased health costs that go along with sicker babies.  We gave up
>exhausted working mothers who weren't able to function at full
>efficiency for much longer than 6 months.  We gave up believing that
>women only work to supplement their husband's salary and not to support
>their families.  And yes, we gave up some tax money.  I think most 
>Canadians believe it was well spent.  I know I do.
>
And I know I do.  For the benefit of the Americans here, I will explain
where the "maternity leave" (as the government calls it) comes from.
It is not payed for by the employer (excpet for training of temp.)
Every 2 weeks in Canada, the Government takes a slice out of your 
paycheque under the heading of "Unemployment Insurance."  Unlike the
U.S. where the employer pays for this, you the employee do, taking
a burden off the the employer (except for calculating this deduction :)).
Now, let's suppose you get pregnant.  What happens is that you go to your
local Canada Employment Centre/Insurance Office and fill out an application
for UI.  If you qualify (varies from region to region), your pay is given
to you by the government (actually comes from your paying into the "pot", so
to speak).  The employer only has to pay for the temporary while you are gone.

Everybody is happy, nobody starves, companies don't lose money, nobody loses
their job, and we have more well adjusted children.

Colin DeWolfe
dewolfe@ug.cs.dal.ca

P.S. 	I am not a spokes person for CEIC/UI, but I worked there for
	two summers as an intern (Insurance Claims Clerk)


Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
From: jka@windshear.larc.nasa.gov (J. Keith Alston)
Subject: Re: layoffs, hiring freeze...
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:07:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.143655.11527@Princeton.EDU>, subbarao@tex.Princeton.EDU (Kartik Subbarao) writes:
|> 
|> GEEZ. This is precisely the kind of rumors that the press loves to
|> perpetuate. NO, HP DID NOT LAY OFF ANY PEOPLE, and DOESN'T PLAN TO. What
|> was announced was that HP plans to offer VSI (Voluntary Severance
|> Incentive) to reduce its workforce. The plan that was announced is that

 VSI = layoff with slick name
-- 
************************      Don't just do it!     ***********************
Lockheed Eng. and Sci. Co./Nasa Larc|J. Keith Alston jka@windshear.larc.nasa.gov
From: west@mgmt3.ncsl.nist.gov (Jim West)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
Subject: Re: Bargaining for vacation time?
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:28:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Syetem and Network Architecture Division, CSL, National Institute of Standards and Technology

In article <1992Oct14.172454.23231@microsoft.com> philco@microsoft.com (Phillip Cooper) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.204630.18529@informix.com> cshaver@informix.com (Craig Shaver) writes:
>>In article <1419@pacsoft.com> mike@pacsoft.com (Mike Stefanik) writes:
>>
>>The situation refered to was the Government and its runaway spending.  I am
>>afraid of slipping into a banana republic SITUATION.  I want the government
>>to quit doing things period.  We are spending almost 50% more than we take
>>in; money is being diverted from production to pay welfare (includes 
>>social security and defense WELFARE! ).
>>
>>>-- 
>
>In the fiscal year just ended, the federal deficit was 290 billion.  
>This, in a budget of about 1.5 trillion dollars.  Your statement above
>that we are spending "almost 50% more than we take in" is not even
>close to being accurate.  The correct answer is about 20%.
>
>Phil Cooper


Where are you getting your numbers?  290 billion is probably the number quoted
by the feds.  When I calculated the "real" deficit for 1991, I came up with
430 billion.  I found a copy of the "Economic Report of the President" for 1991.
In the back there are several tables.  One list the amount of public dept outstanding
(or something like that).  I looked at the levels for 1991 and 1990.  The growth
in the public dept between these two years was about 430 billion dollars. 

Why the difference?  The Savings and Loan bailout is "off budget" and the gov't
does not count the dept held by the Social Security Administration.  This would
be all well and good if we didn't have to pay off that "off budget" dept, but
that would mean we'd have to stop making Social Security payments when the
baby boomers start to retire.

I think that the "real" data bears out Craig's statement about spending almost
50% more than we take in.

I'm planning to make the same calculation for 1992.  I'm guessing that the "real"
deficit will be well over 500 billion.

Jim
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim West
National Institute of Standards and Technology
west@mgmt3.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc