Page 4
www.dailycampus.com
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The Daily Campus Editorial Board
John Kennedy, Editor-in-Chief Taylor Trudon, Commentary Editor Cindy Luo, Associate Commentary Editor Michelle Anjirbag, Weekly Columnist Arragon Perrone, Weekly Columnist
» EDITORIAL
Facebook, Twitter must be treated as résumés
W
ith less than three months until graduation, many seniors have been applying for jobs and going on interviews with hopes of getting hired. It is not news to say that social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter have become as much of our daily routines as brushing our teeth. But in becoming so comfortable with these networks, it is easy to forget how accessible they are to others as well – particularly potential employers. Regardless of whether they are preparing to graduate or just finishing up their freshman year at UConn, students should keep in mind that technology can allow social networking sites to place them at a disadvantage in terms of the job market if not used appropriately. According to a 2009 CareerBuilder.com article, 45 percent of employers used social networking sites to screen potential job candidates. In a study that questioned 2,667 managers and human resource workers, it was revealed that 35 percent of employers chose not to hire someone as a result of their social network content. With sites like Facebook no longer serving as networks for students to just chat with their friends and post pictures of last weekend’s party, they can be compared to public resumes as employers are using them increasingly to screen potential employees. But tagged pictures of you participating in certain activities are not the only ways to lose a job opportunity before you even get it. Employers are also on the prowl for those tasteful Lil’ Wayne lyrics that you might update your Facebook status with or when you send tweets talking about how you skipped class in favor of the beach. Though these may seem harmless, they are revealing to employers. Nevertheless, students can take preventative measures by ensuring that their privacy settings are set accordingly. Furthermore, take a look at your “information” and consider removing any listed interests that may seem unprofessional and can be interpreted the wrong way (such as “drinking” or “partying”). It is equally important to monitor what others post on your walls or tweets they send your way, as what others write is a reflection of you as well. Social networking sites are no doubt fun ways for college students to procrastinate and keep tabs on friends, but they can also work to your disadvantage in the professional world (or even before you become part of it). Although it may take some extra effort to keep your pages clean, it’s better to be safe than sorry so The Daily Campus editorial is the official opinion of the newspaper and its editorial board. Commentary columns express opinions held solely by the author and do not in any way reflect the official opinion of The Daily Campus.
Exams are like ants: Once you find one, you know there are more around. Does anyone here actually major in puppetry, or does it exist just so we can brag about being unique? Things I’ve seen in the melting snow today: Beer cans, old socks, a pack of cigarettes and a Daily Campus from Jan. 27. The box of mac and cheese says three servings, but I know that it is secretly only one. Why would there be so little honors housing available? It’s almost as if UConn expects nerds to be released into the general public. Though, admittedly, it may be untraditional, if you ever tried the buffalo chicken sushi you would know that it tastes good. You can tell it’s going to be a successful day when it’s 9 a.m. and you’re already taking a nap. InstantDaily, you’re such a silly head. Did anyone ever notice that the three agricultural buildings are “Young,” “White” and “Hicks?” I did so poorly on an exam that my professor asked me if I filled in the wrong version on the Scantron. Ouch. Tomorrow is my 21st birthday. Finally, Captain Morgan and I can bring our relationship out into the open.
Send us your thoughts on anything and everything by sending an instant message to InstantDaily, Sunday through Thursday evenings. Follow us on Twitter (@ InstantDaily) and become fans on Facebook.
Wis. bargaining bill is misunderstood
T
he recent political conflict between Wisconsin Republicans and the state’s public sector unions has revealed a growing rift in the nation’s workforce between unions in the public and private economic sectors. Supported by Gov. Scott Walker, Republicans in Wisconsin’s House chamber recently approved a bill that would deny public sector employee unions the option of collective bargaining. This has touched off a political firestorm, with over 70,000 By Arragon Perrone protestors demWeekly Columnist onstrating at the capitol building in Madison. Democrats complain that the bill is trying to destroy unions, while Republicans argue that the bill is just trying to cut the deficit. The bill is neither aimed at destroying unions, nor is it just about cutting the deficit. The legislation is an attempt to eliminate collective bargaining among public sector unions in total. However, it is not an attack on private sector unions, a distinction opponents of the bill do not acknowledge. The bill would only strip public sector employees of their ability to collectively bargain. Collective bargaining among private sector employees, which is an internationally-accepted right, would remain. Collective bargaining among public sector unions is an irrational privilege that has been incorrectly understood as an unalienable right. Though collective bargaining and labor unions themselves play an important role in the private sector, they are nontransferable into the public sector. One U.S. president understood this well enough to write that “the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.” That president was not Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
the father of the New Deal. Public sector unionization is nonsensical because unions should not be able to negotiate with officials who citizens elect democratically. Unlike private businesses that represent their own interests, elected officials represent the interests of all voters – including the members of labor unions. If workers do not like the policies of a given politician, they can respond by joining a political party to vote against that individual in the next election. Private-sector employees, however, do not have the ability to vote down the CEO or managers of their corporation, so a right to form labor unions can be rationalized. Private sector unions give employees the ability to mobilize support in order to protect their interests from possible abuse by the employer. The right to private sector unionization is protected by international conventions and declarations, such as the Convention Concerning the Promotion of Collective Bargaining and the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, which the U.S. ratified in 1997. Both the U.S. federal government and state governments must respect these international rights. However, the issue of public sector unionization can be left up to the national and state governments, which can either grant or deny such a privilege. But in neither case is the right to public sector unionization a right. Those who are protesting the current legislation, though obviously within their Constitutional ability to exercise their freedom of speech, are misconstruing the debate. They are demonizing businesses and elected representatives, such as Gov. Walker. If Republicans attempted to eliminate collective bargaining among unions in the private sector, protestors would be completely justified in swarming the capitol. But that is not what is happening, though it is certainly being painted as such.
The Wisconsin bill should not be seen as the first step in a continuing war to eliminate all unions. Those who support the bill, like Gov. Walker, are simply acknowledging that in these tough economic times, public employees must accept greater cutbacks that their union leaders, through collective bargaining, are refusing to make.
“Public sector unionization is nonsensical because unions should not be able to negotiate with officials who citizens elect.” While many private employees have lost their jobs during this recession, most public workers have enjoyed comparatively greater job security. Now, many states like Wisconsin, New Jersey and Connecticut are facing two options: maintain the current size of state government, which means keeping public sector employment at an identical level, or prevent state income and property taxes from going up, which would cripple the middle class. Public sector unions have not made acceptable concessions, at least in the eyes of elected officials. Therefore, elected officials have the legal ability to eliminate collective bargaining among public employees. However, collective bargaining in the private sector is and must be maintained.
Weekly columnist Arragon Perrone is a 6th-semester political science and English double major. He can be reached at Arragon.Perrone@UConn.edu.
Mainstream movies of recent years lack quality
W
hen you think of the best movies you’ve ever seen, what comes to mind? Many would probably list “Forrest Gump,” “The Shawshank Redemption,” “The Godfather,” “Titanic,” “Fight Club” and “Schindler’s List” as some of their favorites. There is a trend among all these movies besides the fact that they are phenomenal films and that none of them are recent – all of them were made By Grace Malloy before 2000. Now, can Staff Columnist you think of any recent movies made since 2000 that can be reasonably compared to any of these movies or other older classics? Perhaps “The Dark Knight,” “Inception” or “Slumdog Millionaire” could be compared. But, at least to me, nothing really jumps out. Considering that most of the movies on IMDb’s Top 250 movies are older, it is probably the common consensus that few recent movies can be considered “masterpieces.” Movies made in the past decade are just not of the same caliber as those made two, three and four decades ago. What a shame that is. You know when you’ve watched a truly outstanding, well-done movie. It makes you think about the message that was conveyed
QW uick
it
and affects you emotionally. These movies are usually thick with character development, intricate relationships between characters and strong themes like love, forgiveness, coming-of-age, redemption and jealousy.
“The public needs to...stop paying to see movies that aren’t well-made... We should create a demand for films that require us to think...” Many recent movies don’t have those qualities. There is often little character development, superficial relationships between characters and shallow themes. It seems that in many cases, directors rely on special effects, shoot-outs and car chases in order to gain an audience, instead of substance. But because people pay to see these types of movies, Hollywood can get away with not putting in as much effort, time and money in an attempt to make a good quality movie. In addition to using special effects and excessive action, Hollywood often uses A-list actors or actresses to gain an audience
“Sarah Palin
for movies that are lacking. About a month ago, I saw “How Do You Know.” It had Reese Witherspoon, Owen Wilson, Paul Rudd and Jack Nicholson, so I thought it must be good. Well, it was awful. It received a rating of 5.3 out of 10 on IMDb, so I am not alone in my reaction. But people nonetheless paid to see it, probably because of the cast. Hollywood also relies on turning good movies into a series and creating remakes of them. People pay to go see them, but they rarely turn out to be good. “Spiderman” and “Transformers” were both highlyrated movies. But “Spiderman 3” and “Transformers 2” received below-average reviews by critics. The original “Wicker Man,” made in 1973, won Best Horror Film at the Oscars and was nominated for five other awards. But the remake of this movie, made in 2006, received a 3.6 out of 10 by critics on IMDb. What the public needs to do is to stop paying to see movies that aren’t well-made. If people continue to do that, then Hollywood will continue to make movies that lack depth. We shouldn’t settle for that. We should create a demand for films that require us to think, react and analyze. We can do that by instead watching movies that aren’t mainstream – in other words, movies that don’t rely on special effects, or action scenes, or
A-list actors and actresses. A good example is the movie “Mother and Child,” which was made in 2009. It made a little over $1 million in the box office, but it got great reviews. Personally, I thought it was a powerful movie. It is the story of three women. One woman gave up her baby for adoption as a teen and struggles with regret. Another woman, who is successful but incapable of connecting emotionally with others, becomes pregnant. The third woman looks to adopt a child while dealing with her husband’s bitterness over not being able to have a biological child of their own. Throughout the movie, we see how the lives of the three women become intertwined. This is just one of hundreds of spectacular movies made recently. The trick is to find and watch those movies, instead of wasting our money on movies that will ultimately be a bust. Look for movies that seem to contain interesting characters, a meaningful plot and deep themes. It’s usually not the ones that everyone is paying to go see. After all, Woody Allen said, “If my films don’t show a profit, I know I’m doing something right.”
Staff Columnist Grace Malloy is a 6th-semester journalism and political science major. She can be reached at Grace.Malloy@UConn.
is going to India to make a speech. She’s hoping to visit some of those Indian casinos she’s heard so much about.” – Jay Leno