125 karma · joined November 24, 2021
If you're caught in a situation like this you should not be in jail on death row for twenty years waiting for your execution while your lawyers try to find some narrow legal loophole to postpone your execution.
E.g. Iryna Zarutska's killer (Decarlos Dejuan Brown). He should be dead already.
We have a justice system which makes those determinations, its not about perfection, it never has been.
Do you have compassion, love, or have you given a thought to the next victim of these criminals?
Yes.
> What if they get the wrong person?
Don't kill those.
He is. He is guilty of doing something his employer didn't like and they fired him for it.
If you read the original article it specifically says he sought out the protestors.
> he went to the lounge on the 10th floor of Google’s New York City office around lunchtime to check out the protest.
Is a single google cafeteria/lounge employee being terminated for happening to be in the lounge when the protest happened? Of course not because that would be nonsense.
By his own admission he sought to join the protestors (he went to the lounge on the 10th floor of Google’s New York City office around lunchtime to check out the protest) and spent an indeterminate amount of time talking with protestors the first time around (I talked to folks who were standing up, passing out flyers, doing other roles)
Anyway it doesn't matter if he spent 40 minutes talking to them, four hours talking to them or 4 minutes talking to them
They have video and email and message history and badge access times and maybe audio recording and maybe more, who knows.
So far we only have this one person's recollection of the events, where he has a huge bias towards trying to minimize his involvement.
Anyway I have no objection to them taking things to the NLRB, I just don't think they will win. I suspect google will settle by paying some or most of the terminated employees some severance or some other token gesture and will consider themselves lucky to be rid of activist employees.
Maybe that's true, maybe it's not, but there is deep information asymmetry here and google has all the advantage and must have anticipated that this would end up in discovery and litigation and that the records of the terminated people's employment would be subject to it. That means their chat history, their email history and office surveillance footage.
I have a hard time believing that google would have fired people where the sum of their recorded actions couldn't be reasonably construed to be disruptive.
> Google “retaliated against approximately 50 employees and interfered with their Section 7 rights by terminating and/or placing them on administrative leave in response to their protected concerted activity, namely, participation (or perceived participation) in a peaceful, non-disruptive protest that was directly and explicitly connected to their terms and conditions of work,” the complaint reads.
Seems very thin to call on the NLRA here. The "protesters" stated goals were to disrupt work even for people not a member of the non-union (therefore not a strike) which is not a protected activity. Moreover, were any of these employees or any members of the minority union actually working on the Israeli contracts they objected to? While you can protest against your job duties under the NLRA (or job duties of your collective union members) I don't see that you can protest against company functions which aren't job duties you or your class aren't a part of.
If the workers had just walked off the job and peacefully and non-disruptively protested in front of the building and refused to go back to their job until they (or other members of the minority union) had their job duties modified so they were not working on those projects and google had fired them, that seems like it would violate the NLRA.
Anyway this seems like some fun FAFO. I wonder how many of the people who got fired were even members of the non-union before the "protest".
I'm saying I don't think they are by any objective measure and the constant fixation with accusing Israel of war crimes and genocide, combined with the disgusting amount of antisemitism I've seen after 10/7 has led me to the conclusion that accusing them of imagined crimes is deeply rooted in antisemitism.
> Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people in whole or in part..
Wikipedia
The government already decides that for you.
You can only (and only somewhat) decide to not sell things the government says you can to people the government says you can.
Aside from that? Jail.
Seriously, I have a hard time caring about this.
his ability to pay my made up number is about on par with his ability to pay the courts made up number, at this point it's just political theatre and schadenfreude.
Of course not, it does mean that we don't have the ability to know if it is useless or nefarious or not.
When you give someone a gun, especially someone powerful, especially the federal government, you can not predict who will be holding it in the future and where they will aim it.
Most recently, look at the white house trying to pressure twitter to ban journalists: https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-white-house-privatel...
You won't pay now for that 10k/year required meal plan for cafeteria food and 20k/year for hostel-level accommodation but you're sure going to pay for it later.
This isn't universal though. If you go to places where gig workers discuss these issues (say /r/UberDrivers) every post complaining about pay has people saying "if you don't like the fare, don't accept it!" and to be fair there are also lots who are not complaining about it.
In any event, I don't mean to defend uber. I don't favor their model. I would just say that it is NOT universal.
These are effects of the fact that costs of living are dramatically out of control, you can't just infinitely raise the minimum wage to compensate as this is only making the problem worse.
I reject the "academic consensus" of people who are not a part of the real world.
I think this is a good point of view, but, it's important to remember that what the business can pay differs from what it's willing to pay and that larger employers are more able to drive rates lower. Not all businesses are equal and we should favor the ones which bring the most benefit to the most people.
> Arguably a low paid apprenticeship is more beneficial than mounds of college debt.
100%. Remove "arguably" from your comment. Factor in the value of starting earlier and negative value of the debt you accumulate and very few professions truly benefit from a college education and most of the remaining ones only do so due to regulatory capture effects of requiring them and we would do well with reducing those in favor of far more trade-focused education (tl;dr more trade schools, less liberal arts colleges).
Yes. Abolish the minimum wage. Higher minimum wage forces more people out of the workforce entirely and skews the labor market in favor of large corporations vs small businesses. Amazon can absorb any minimum wage hike you can conceive, they don't want to and they will fight tooth and nail against it, but they can afford it. Your neighborhood pizza shop will go out of business (and be replaced by a Pizza Hut -- paying twice as much but employing 25% as many people and working them 400% as hard) if they have to pay their drivers 15 or 20 or 25 (or more) dollars an hour. Both of these effects, lower labor participation rate and consolidation of the employment market in fewer large corporations, are much worse for society overall.