@chipmonk - Journalism has changed significantly with the growth of the WWW and the ability for people to provide analysis and opinions. Major news networks regularly quote "bloggers" as reputable sources for information, with no establishment of their credentials as a journalist. I think it's the responsibility of the reader of the information to judge relevancy or bias. I know many experienced "responsible journalist" that are so biased to one side or another that impartiality is no longer present in their reporting. So lumping people into "groups" and implying that all people in the group are the same is certainly not providing an unbiased, responsible opinion.
The real sad statement is that anyone felt the need to send 1,500 workers home to ensure the security of our president. That's an incredibly sad statement about our society and politics these days - that we have so little trust in ourselves that it's better to send people home than allow them to be around when the president visits.
Sure I and a lot of people don't agree with some or all of what he's done. But that's part of what we're about. We elect someone and we're supposed to understand that if our guy doesn't get elected, well that's part of the process and we should still do our best to get good stuff done, not spend all the time and energy bad mouthing and threatening.
A major founding tenet of this country is lack of trust in the government. That's why we have three branches. That's why we have elections. But another founding tenet is to respect the system and work with the system to get stuff done and to work to improve the system, not to tear it down if we don't get our way.
A lot of the feedback here centers around the fact that these were not Intel workers. Does that make them less important? They're building Intel. They're contributing to our economy.
Whether I voted for him or not, I'd still like an opportunity to see the president speak in person and I'd still like an opportunity to get some spotlight on my work. If I were a construction worker, I too would like an opportunity to get some spotlight on my work. They may not have worked directly for Intel directly, but Intel would not be building fabs in this country without third party construction workers.
I still think this story is overblown...
a. Ktar story mentioned "some workers". I assume that there are more than two. How many are they? 3, 10, 20? If it is big in number, other media should have pick up the story. EE Times show a picture of many workers. Are they the "construction workers"?
b. Notice that this is about "overtime" pay. These workers have been working more than 40 hours that week.
c. "Intel did send them home". I'm trying to figure out the communication here. Did Intel and Hoffman Construction know about the visit at least a week in advance? when did the raffle happen? Did Hoffman schedule the workers to work that day and in the last minute change its mind? There are so many holes in the story.
d. I do not think Intel should compensate them if it is just a schedule work. It would not be fair to Intel own employee, and to other construction workers (that probably did not get a shift that day), or for other workers in that city.
Fair enough. But Intel did send them home. And they don't get to choose the day they have to work to make up for it. And since it was Intel sending them home... Intel could have compensated them in my opinion. Even if they are contract workers.
Because Intel didn't bother to say they weren't Intel workers when we spoke to them and asked why they sent workers home with no pay? I could see from Ktar that they were construction workers, but when I spoke to Intel and asked, I was told they had been sent home for security reasons and would make the day up another time. Intel could have said "they're not our workers", but didn't. Fair enough though...
Well, I did link the Ktar story, but, yes, absolutely I should have been more specific about them being contract workers for Hoffman. I think I was a little confused too the first time I read it... and when I called Intel, they didn't exactly put me straight. They just said, "yes, we sent them home for security reasons, no big deal, it's the same as a weather day... they'll make up the time on another day" - so, that's why I was a little confused too. They didn't exactly jump to tell me it wasn't Intel workers!
The article should have clearly spelled out that the crowd was Hoffman Construction workers, not Intel workers. That would have stopped a lot of confusion, at least on my part. And the original article at Ktar.com should have been referenced so the reader could get all the info then published.
However, in fairness to Sylvie, the Ktar.com article is mushy about keeping the facts straight. It starts out referencing construction workers, as in "some construction workers said he is costing them a day's pay. More than 1,500 workers were asked to stay home for security reasons as the president toured the future site of a $5-billion Intel manufacturing facility in Chandler. The workers will not be paid for the forced day off."
Then the quote from the Intel spokesman makes it seem as it is mostly Intel workers being referred to.
Exactly. The construction workers are employees of Hoffman Construction Company, not Intel. The article I read yesterday also quoted an Intel spokesperson saying the workers would simply work a different day to make up for having missed work due to the presidential visit -- like Sylvie's article said, just as they would do if they missed a day due to bad weather.
It's irresponsible for an EE Times reporter to chastise Intel for reporting record profits last quarter and asking "is it really too much trouble for the tech giant to give its blue collar employees a paid day off?" They are NOT Intel employees.