561–570 of 632 posts
How is Amazon allowed to say "A union cannot deliver greater job security or better wages and benefits"? It's presented as a factual statement, but, at best, it's the company's opinion, and at worst it's a blatant lie.
What law does that violate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To add to that, fines can and do bankrupt small businesses. I cannot remember the last time a big company went bankrupt by fines. Breaking the law poses existential threat to small businesses, not large enterprises.
Fines should be proportional to income. They're supposed to be a deterrent, not a revenue source.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could use to read some history books.
I wonder why multiple people read his comment as pro Pinkertons (pro AMZN etc.) I read it as "Yep and Amazon are not the only large company that use them, so watch out! If Facebook employees ever want to unionize, Pinkertons might/will be sent after them too".
Because "this is common practice" is often used as an argument that "this is reasonable."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Right to work" is American euphemism for your employer being able to fire you at will for no cause
This has nothing to do with "right to work". "Right to work" is literally the right to work for any employer who will have you regardless of whether you're in a union or not in a union. You should question where you got the misleading definition of "right to work" and cui bono? by feeding you that misinformation.
The definition of US gun laws isn't "you can have most semi-auto rifles unless you've gone to jail, you live in California and the rifle looks scary, or the barrel is too short", but it's probably how someone would explain the practical outcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies play a lot of games to minimize income for tax reasons. Allowing them do do the same with fines is unreasonable. It’s actually fairly difficult to get an objective measurement of a companies size. Go by total sales and industries with high profit margins look much smaller. Go by number of employees and retail looks vastly larger than tech companies etc.
Go by market cap (for public companies). The markets are pretty effective at valuing companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I felt this was about Uber being told they had to treat drivers like employees in California too, and look how that turned out: A dystopian rule that lawmakers can't overturn to enable worker exploitation.
Elected officials not being able to turn over laws passed by popular vote is dystopian? It's kind of the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These kinds of takes are always weird to me. Shouldn't it matter, at least a little, that the rule was what a 17-point majority of voters wanted? You don't have to personally agree with every democratic outcome, but it almost sounds like you're saying the results of a vote aren't legitimate if they go the wrong way.
This is just an anecdote, but perhaps other people can comment, since the plural of anecdote is data... I personally know several people who voted for the proposition under the impression that it was a pro-worker proposition that would guarantee benefits for drivers. There were 3 other people for whom I explained the context around it (including the fact that it was preempting a flawed bill from the legislature) befo…
Advertising works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you considered that you simply aren't understanding the reasons, which are quite clear and unambiguous to a relatively large population? That is, maybe the issue here is your difficulty understanding, rather than anybody else's ability to explain.
Yeah, I did, that's why I asked the follow-up questions that zeroed in on what my confusion is. No one's resolved it. They gave different reasons it would be bad for Amazon to do this, but none that made any sense of OP's remark. At this point, much as I try to be charitable, I feel like I'm the only one making a serious effort to understand so no, I can't conclude the problem is on my end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speaking as an American living in Europe, I love GDPR.
Speaking as an American living in America, I love GDPR. Where I work [big-co], it is mandated that all of our services are GDPR-compliant, regardless of worldwide location. The only people who hate GDPR are ad-industry parasites. To that I say: good riddance, and don't let starvation hurt too much on the way down.
On a committee recently we had a large argument if we could email some professors to nominate their PhD students for a price. We had one person very strongly arguing that we can't "because gdpr". Because of people like that many people think that they personally can't do things anymore that they were used to.