Is income inequality unjust, and if so, where is the injustice?

Tell the drivers to form a guild then. Aren't those still legal in the UK?
Yes, but I don't see the advantages for the drivers. Guilds don't have collective bargaining rights like unions to demand things like mandatory holiday pay, mandatory sickness pay, hourly pay at or above the minimum wage - all things deliveroo drivers don't currently have, but which would be massively illegal not to offer if they were legally classified as employees.

Guilds work by controlling the ability to enter a profession, either limiting it through control of the necessary accreditation or easing it through apprenticeships. A Deliveroo Drivers Guild wouldn't be able to control this because the only qualification is the ability to drive a car or ride a bike.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
View attachment 47042

From this thread: Should I blow my head off or work the next 45 years?
(the OP immediately states they are not suicidal, they just want to know whether the current system is "worth it")

--Patrick
Why isn't the top comment "Contact a lawyer immediately, sue for wrongful termination." IANAL, but if you've got positive performance reviews and are being let go right after returning from work due to a medical emergency, you absolutely have a case for wrongful termination.
 
Why isn't the top comment "Contact a lawyer immediately, sue for wrongful termination." IANAL, but if you've got positive performance reviews and are being let go right after returning from work due to a medical emergency, you absolutely have a case for wrongful termination.
This varies a lot depending on the state because let me tell you, some states really suck.

Edit: turns out *most* states suck.


dc4ptck08.jpg


If you are in the blue, you are SoL
 
This varies a lot depending on the state because let me tell you, some states really suck.
If they had fired him "just because", that might be true for at-will states, but firing him for "poor performance" (if indeed that's what they put on paper) sounds like he's either not in one of those states, or HR is really bad at their jobs.

Hell, i remember reading on reddit about a guy that won his suit after his boss admitted to giving him too much work and then firing him for not doing it all in time.
 
That’s not what right to work means.
Yeah, that's about unions.

It's "at-will" that about being able to fire someone (or quit) for no reason.

And even then, if they can prove you actually had a reason, and that reason broke state or federal laws, or even company policy, you would still win.
 

Dave

Staff member
At will states are better off not giving a reason for firing you. If they give any reason then they open themselves up to potential liability.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
So you think that doesn’t happen in non right to work states?
From what we're told, nobody in a "forced unionization" state can ever be fired for any reason whatsoever, and in fact rather than be fired they will be sent to a room to do nothing but sit around drinking coffee and surfing on their phone while still on the clock.
 
Right to work is corpo speak for businesses have all the power and can fire you at any time (most of the time)
Nah, as we've said before, right to work is the anti-union stuff.

At-will is the one that's about firing you at any time.

At will states are better off not giving a reason for firing you. If they give any reason then they open themselves up to potential liability.
Yup, it's the don't ask, don't tell of firing people... local authority don't ask, employers don't tell, and everyone pretends it has nothing to do with something that's actually protected...
 
Nah, as we've said before, right to work is the anti-union stuff.

At-will is the one that's about firing you at any time.



Yup, it's the don't ask, don't tell of firing people... local authority don't ask, employers don't tell, and everyone pretends it has nothing to do with something that's actually protected...
You're right, I swapped the two, though the states listed still suck for similar reasons.
 
So you just dont know the difference between right to work and at-will employment.
Wikipedia said:
In the context of labor law in the United States, the term "right-to-work laws" refers to state laws that prohibit union security agreements between employers and labor unions which require employees who are not union members to contribute to the costs of union representation
Wikipedia said:
Unlike the right to work definition as a human right in international law, U.S. right-to-work laws do not aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work but rather guarantee an employee's right to refrain from paying or being a member of a labor union.
--Patrick
 
Well now we know why Zuckerberg wanted his own private compound in Hawaii:
...Zuckerburgers!
Zuckerberg bought the prime acreage for his ranch by "pressuring Native Hawaiians into selling their ancestral land through litigation," reports NBC News.
Eh, it's ok. He's rich.

--Patrick
 
The biggest factor is believed to be managers/CEOs using RTOs to reassert control over employees. This can make superiors feel more secure about their own jobs and careers – some may feel threatened when there are no workers to order about.
I'm shocked.

--Patrick
 
I believe it was something @figmentPez posted earlier in the Christianity thread, that a pastor was being tried for having homeless people sleep in the in the church, on a deeply Christian website and I made the lovely choice of reading some comments. MOST were appalled, but there was one that was so fucking twisted in the way it othered homeless people and tried to argue that loving your neighbor should include making sure the not homeless (human beings) were protected from those mentally ill drug users.

Yeah, this.

1705432752860.png


'neighbors' in the biblical sense obviously referring to home owners only.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Yes, all those children playing in a commercial business area. Dumbass didn't even read the article to learn that the church is in trouble for people living in a zone that's not supposed to have anyone living in it. I'm guessing there is no possible "appropriate zone" to such a vile commenter, because they don't want to actually help, they just want political theater.
 
I believe it was something @figmentPez posted earlier in the Christianity thread, that a pastor was being tried for having homeless people sleep in the in the church, on a deeply Christian website and I made the lovely choice of reading some comments. MOST were appalled, but there was one that was so fucking twisted in the way it othered homeless people and tried to argue that loving your neighbor should include making sure the not homeless (human beings) were protected from those mentally ill drug users.

Yeah, this.

View attachment 47142

'neighbors' in the biblical sense obviously referring to home owners only.
Why would a supposed Christian ever want to play devil's advocate?
 
how many communities in NA built after WW2 have churches in residential areas? I get communities predating this, my town was founded in the 1860s and has churches right in the neighborhood, but those churches are also not set up in anyway to house anyone. (since I assume they figured everyone would take care of each other?) there is no vitrol meant, I am just asking to see if anyone has any input.
 
Yes, all those children playing in a commercial business area. Dumbass didn't even read the article to learn that the church is in trouble for people living in a zone that's not supposed to have anyone living in it. I'm guessing there is no possible "appropriate zone" to such a vile commenter, because they don't want to actually help, they just want political theater.
Some of the commenters on the article mentioned the church was next to the homeless shelter, and... Yep. It's literally right next door (Google Maps), so this makes zero sense. If the actual homeless shelter is just feet away, why does this church sheltering people even matter to whatever asshole reported them? "Oh noes, the church next door is letting people sleep inside rather than on the sidewalk!"

Also, the zoning law is that people are not allowed to "eat, wash clothes, or sleep" on the property, yet it shares a building with Taco's Nachos. Does Taco's Nachos tell you to "buy your tacos and GTFO, it's against the law to eat in here!"?
 

figmentPez

Staff member
how many communities in NA built after WW2 have churches in residential areas? I get communities predating this, my town was founded in the 1860s and has churches right in the neighborhood, but those churches are also not set up in anyway to house anyone. (since I assume they figured everyone would take care of each other?) there is no vitrol meant, I am just asking to see if anyone has any input.
From my experience most suburban housing developments in the US place churches right next to housing.
 
how many communities in NA built after WW2 have churches in residential areas? I get communities predating this, my town was founded in the 1860s and has churches right in the neighborhood, but those churches are also not set up in anyway to house anyone. (since I assume they figured everyone would take care of each other?) there is no vitrol meant, I am just asking to see if anyone has any input.
The neighborhoods around me were built in the 60s and there are churches inside the residential areas. They're surrounded by single-family homes.
Post automatically merged:

"'Well I'm sure they will NOW. Thanks a lot, Sata_2814!' says disgruntled Taco's Nachos customer."

--Patrick
:hide:
 
Top