Changetheview

It’s pathetic that these are needed, but corporate leaders have treated the workforce like shit for far too long. The entirely lackluster wage growth in the face of skyrocketing profits and corporate success must come to an end, and collective bargaining with strikes is by far the strongest tool workers have.

As the numbers in this localized strike grow across industries, so does their chance of success. It’s still a fraction of the pushback we should be showing, but it’s an incredibly commendable action from those involved.

Lower and middle class workers need to unite for their fair share. We must set aside our differences and fight the one battle that is more impactful than all the others: class war.

The healthcare industry has had horrendous work conditions for a very long time. It’s deeply ingrained into the US system. That’s a bad starting point.

Then adding in all the emboldened anti-science and anti-healthcare mentality must be beyond frustrating to deal with as a professional. I can’t stand seeing the comments on social media that minimize the literal millions of COVID deaths, the supposed effectiveness of bullshit treatments, and the utter lack of respect for the people who have dedicated their lives to advancing medicine.

Getting that shit thrown in your face as you’re literally trying to help them has to feel like a giant punch in the gut.

And that’s all on top of the abundant societal issues that these workers have to deal with. From insurance fuckery to the growing numbers of people without homes and those battling addiction.

Living that day in and day out would make anyone miserable.

For sure. The US was once a leader with its public infrastructure and programs, from education to the highway system. Paying BIG money to provide these incredible public services.

Now it seems like a lot of people in the US want to live in a place with zero public projects, crumbling roads, and unregulated utilities. Even wealthy people who waste money on the dumbest stuff don’t want to pay for top-notch public services. I truly don’t understand how you’d want to be so wealthy but live in a place that’s not well cared for. Drive your insanely expensive car on a road filled with potholes. But selfishness and greed are definitely part of the picture.

Creating new public infrastructure in the US can be extremely expensive, but it’s definitely still worth pursuing.

Nearly every in-depth study shows that for every $1 invested, the economic return is somewhere around $4-$5. And on top of that, failing to have adequate public infrastructure can cause serious economic consequences, which are compounded in areas with a lack of affordable housing.

Even though this article is a little old and sponsored by a party with a vested interest on the topic, I think it’s worth a read:

https://www.politico.com/sponsor-content/2018/06/when-public-transit

In my opinion, the problem for the US is convincing people/businesses that it’s worth it. Shifting away from cars and increasing investments in public infrastructure are two fairly unpopular measures right now, despite the actual economic evidence being overwhelming positive.

To me, it’s a solid example of where great leaders are needed to do something temporarily unpopular for the long term benefit of the constituents.

Just writing from the heart. I take that as a major compliment though! Thanks! Might help you to know that I write for a living.

Doesn’t pay enough!

Just kidding. I appreciate the supportive feedback. Perhaps someday.

So far, yes. They’re allowing things to continue as they did before this case was brought.

But much more importantly, they’ve agreed to rule on the merits of the case. While this order might make you think they’re in favor of the administration, they could easily flip against when the issue the actual ruling. Then it’s a more permanent action.

I see this as a very important issue of our time. Social media platforms have speed up the exchange of opinions and information tremendously. But they’re terrible at preventing the spread of misinformation. That’s shouldn’t always result in government intervention, but sometimes it should. There are many restrictions on the first amendment that are justified.

During a global emergency about a serious health hazard, it seems entirely justified to place more restrictions on first amendment rights and allow government intervention when the private companies fail to act.

Of course. I’ll just speak generally instead of specific stories.

Judging people based on their charisma alone is a terrible approach. Many likable people are great, but others just say what they know other people want to hear. People pleasers that will always choose the popular option, not the “right” one… And some people can be very talented at using manipulative tactics to gain support even though they spread a lot of pain. The classic popular bully.

The reverse can also be true. Some extremely uncharismatic/unpopular people are amazing at heart. And can be trusted to do what’s right even if it’s unpopular.

That’s why it’s best to not make knee-jerk or immediate judgements. Listen to your gut, pay attention to details, and try not to let the opinion of others influence your opinions or decisions too much.

Absolutely. And this problem applies to many government agencies/careers. It also allows these exact problems to happen more than they should. From police seizing assets to federal politicians selling out for fairly small sums. The underpaid jobs attract a certain type of person, and some are willing to turn to malicious acts to get a financial bump up.

Better pay for public roles would prevent a lot of these issues. It’s normal for a wage gap between private and public positions, but it’s usually not as bad as it is now. Teacher pay is a another great example of a completely stalled system that is now having countless issues because of it. I’d also argue that many federal politicians would be more willing to separate from their corporate donors if they were paid somewhat closer to an executive compensation.

Absolutely. Legally speaking, the warnings/labeling are crucial. And they depend heavily on context. Using a common name like lemonade in a unique way puts the threshold even higher.

Also legally speaking, people blaming the heart condition fail to understand US tort law. The responsibility falls to the provider, not the victim, even if they are unusually fragile (have a heart condition). This is the eggshell skull aka eggshell plaintiff doctrine, very well established in US law.

And if you dive deep into the train of thought of what happens without it (companies blame everything on too fragile/frail of people), most people find it to be reasonable.

The provider must make it safe for everyone OR place adequate protections/warnings that make it very clear who it’s not safe for. Seems like Panera failed on both accounts.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eggshell_skull_rule

It’s rare for criminal action of corporate leaders to be charged, period.

I think a better starting place would be to change this. Be much more willing to hold malicious corporate leaders accountable for their crimes. They far too often fall behind the security of a corporate veil, which if investigated, usually ends up with a fine, a slap on the wrist.

Prosecutors are allowed to pierce the corporate veil for criminal actions, but they rarely do so.