Federal court requires Amazon to stop firing employees for protected activities

An injunction essentially says: the court has good reason to presume they match in this way, ergo don't do X, Y, and Z while the case proceeds.

If you then do X, Y, or Z, you have directly defied a court order, which is itself illegal.

So the difference is between being able to construct a defense around "We didn't think what we were doing was illegal" (the original case) vs "We did that thing you told us was illegal while the case proceeds" (violating an injunction). Obviously, it's a lot harder to win a case on the latter.

Then we get all the suburbs dumping their druggies in Pioneer Square and Chinatown. It's a neverending pipeline of addicts the Eastside and south end is dumping on us.

We need to start tracking all non-city LEOs entering Seattle and turn them around if they are giving courtesy rides. Called 911 on one from Bothell yesterday and started filming the occupant and cop. They raced off right quick but I still filed a complaint with Bothell PD.

Rehab isn't magic - it requires you to really, really, really not want to use drugs anymore.

How is it otherwise? Or do we just forget other people's freedom when they do things you don't like?

> Tweakers are deemed to be victims of society, and therefore the 'correct' solution is to have more tolerance for tweakers. More tweakers out on the street is evidence that the tweakers feel tolerated, which must mean that it's working.

Instead of strawpeople and rants, how about trying to find solutions that help everyone?

You should strongly consider that these suppositions are fundamentally wrong. I suggest you read Sanfransicko, written by a longtime progressive democrat activist who had the vanishingly rare intellectual honesty to examine in hindsight the results of the drug and homeless policies he himself fought for. He found that they were disastrous!

IIRC their grants and ability to tax local businesses came through under Jenny Durkan's reign, same for the Uptown Alliance covering Queen Anne and Belltown. Jenny Durkan's reign of rainbow colored tear gas was truly awful, but this (and further roads investments) were bright spots.

It is really hard to get public support for a union busting narrative when things are in bad shape.

And the deal the unions were forced to accept was one brokered by the White House after the unions and rail companies couldn't come to agreement. So presumably more than the rail companies would have been willing to settle on, on their own.

So in terms of voters pissed off vs voters pleased, he probably comes out ahead on this one.

If their service is so essential, they should be granted some sick days.

So when Joe Senator votes against (and, to a much lesser degree, for) something you can't ever really be sure they really do oppose/support it. The TPP was one of the most exceptionally visible examples of this with overt bipartisan strategizing against the voter. By contrast when Joe President signs a bill (or vetoes) it you have 100% certainty that it's his "real" agenda, because that is the ultimate and deciding "vote" excepting the increasingly rare scenario of a congressional veto override.

Put more succinctly, in our original hypothetical changing out those 50 senators who voted for the unpopular bill would have literally 0 impact on its passage. Yet changing the 1 president would. Even if congress might have the ability to override his veto of it, they would be unlikely to do so for an unpopular bill. In reality the bill would never be voted on unless the congress knew the president was on board.

Quite frankly, imprisoning the company is the next step - no access to, control or operation of funds, assets or company systems for the duration of imprisonment. It should be as much of a threat to a company's wellbeing as it is to the average man.