In Thursday’s decision, Anzalone recommended that Starbucks offer the benefits and higher pay to excluded employees, starting from the date when they went into effect for non-union workers, among other remedies.
Starbucks should also post a notice in its cafes telling workers that the NLRB found Starbucks had violated federal labor law, and detailing employee rights, she said.
This is the part that pisses me off the most - the only punishment is that Starbucks has to pay the unionized employees what they are owed and post a piece of paper correcting their earlier lies. There’s no fine, so they risked nothing by breaking the law.
This isn’t even enough to be considered a slap on the wrist. Other companies will take note and try any creatively dishonest policy they can come up with to prevent unionization.
While I do agree that there should be more of a fine, the judge has torn Starbucks' anti trust efforts wide open by having them admit to their lies in writing to their employees. The implications for Starbucks can easily be severe here as employees start to doubt the bullshit they got indoctrinated with by anti trust wankers.
My old job had quite a few of these legally mandated “whoopsie we crossed the line a bit and got our hands slapped by the NLRB” posters around. The print was tiny and it covered the whole corkboard, basically just quoting the exact text of labor laws all written in impenetrable legalize. They weren’t exactly causing a wave of class consciousness among the workers.
Tbh, I'm betting more on the news than on the posters. Starbucks workers will see this shared via social media and such. Or so I hope. This is not at all certain, yet I think it might damage Starbucks more than some fine that will not change anything for the workers either.
Surely concrete, actual monetary damage is more discouraging than some kind of class solidarity revelation that has yet to spark from a news article being shared. It’s not like doing this precludes them also getting a fine. Being unable to do this without serious repercussions would harm them a great deal more, in my opinion.
Why do they even bother announcing so much money when we all know taxes are like 40%… what even is the point of announcing such a high figure? Like the government is just paying themselves at this point so why bother taxing it. To provide further dilution you have to accept an annuity to even approach getting all the money.
That’s why apparently the execution squads are told that at least one of them has blank bullets. And why two doctors do the lethal injection procedure simultaneously, but one of them is injecting saline. This way everyone can legitimately think “maybe it wasn’t me who killed them”. I think I read in in “Behave” by Robert M. Sapolsky.
Yeah but I think my answer was not about “I wouldn’t want anyone to know I killed someone” but more about “I couldn’t live with myself knowing that I killed someone”.
I’ve watched the Legal Eagle on YouTube, and what seems to usually happen is that the damages, regardless of whatever the jury says, oftentimes have maximums that they have to be knocked down to. The point of aiming that high seems to be for the jury to send a message. After that, IIRC, even though they’ll never be able to pay it all back, their wages will be garnished effectively for the rest of their life. Given that most Americans, who haven’t been convicted of a felony, have trouble living paycheck to paycheck? Not to mention the fact that your average felon is never going to get a job worth a damn again, if at all?
Basically if this guy ever gets out of jail (what she won’t with all those life sentences) he won’t really have any prospects in life whatsoever. I’m not really a fan of that second part. But our “justice” system is all about punishment, not reform, no matter what they may tell you on TV.
You can’t garnish wages in Texas state cases unless it’s for child support. The US Code allows for it in federal cases, but it’s mostly in case this guy gets money on a book deal or something insane like that.
applying rules without thinking why those rules exist makes you an idiot. And in this case it leads to confusion and US-Defaultism.
you could have done it like r/convenientcop and put in a [USA] title goes here for example. And that’s just an Idea that i came up with in less than a Second. I am sure there are other elegant ways to solve it.
Well I didn’t make the post, so no, I couldn’t have. Also, if you have a problem with the rules, take it up with the mods instead of harassing the posters about it. Thirdly, nothing about the post suggested “us-defaultism”. Nobody assumed anything, they just posted the article. That you can’t be bothered to read the article or even look at the source before lashing out suggests you need to look into a mirror before calling others idiots.
You as in the french “on” or the german “man”, not tu/du
Hilarious you’re calling me an idiot when you don’t even know “you” can have multiple meanings
And again: I don’t have a Problem with rules, as long as you think while applying them and aren’t just blindly following the literal words like an idiot
This indeed raises an important issue with our current rules. I will be discussing a potential change to those rules with other mods to make it more clear that, if the article isn’t very clear, you are allowed to alter the title (within reason).
If you could edit the title to make clear this is about the US, that would be great (:
The rule should probably be that it’s required to be as descriptive or more as the title of the article. If you want to edit out click-bait, that should be allowed. As long as it’s still just as descriptive it should be fine. (I understand this would be hard to enforce though.)
Can you put something in the sidebar to clarify whether this community is primarily for US news? We do have the worldnews community explicitly for non-US news.
Just a 45 day stopgap and it’s not over, but hopefully Republicans begin to realize, “We can’t function with these people,” and start trying to move away from their hardliners. Doubtful it’ll happen, but one can always dream. That they didn’t actually let it go to a shutdown suggests that there’s Republicans who wanted to avoid a shutdown as much as Democrats and may be willing to compromise and reach a longer term deal, they’re not just trying to burn the whole place down.
I don’t think I’ll ever understand that either. An arrest looked inevitable and when the DOJ announced they weren’t going to arrest him I was dumbstruck.
The automakers’ last known wage offers were around 20% over the life of a four-year contract, a little more than half of what the union has demanded. Other contract improvements, such as cost of living increases, restoration of defined-benefit pensions for newly hired workers and an end to wage tiers within the union are also on the table.
What happened to the 32 hour work day? Disappointment in AP for not mentioning this.
Hurry up chucklefucks, get out there and pay your stupid tax! Bonus points for holding up the line, during the afternoon rush, at an already busy gas station.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.