they used that word robust
Labor/Economics
-
- Posts: 1792
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:46 pm
Re: Labor/Economics
-
- Posts: 1792
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:46 pm
Re: Labor/Economics
Kellogg Co. union workers reject contract as strike enters third month
The strike has centered on the Battle Creek-based company's use of a two-tiered compensation structure agreed upon in 2015 under which employees are divided between "legacy" and "transitional" workers, the latter group made up of newer employees who receive lower wages and fewer benefits than their veteran colleagues.
Under the rejected five-year agreement, transitional workers with four or more years experience would automatically move into the legacy tier. All workers would have received a 3% pay raise and enhanced benefits.
what a word saladan accelerated, defined path to legacy wages and benefits for transitional employees
- carmenjonze
- Posts: 9614
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am
Re: Labor/Economics
Indeed they did.
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
Re: Labor/Economics
New jobless claims totaled 184,000 last week, reaching lowest since 1969
New initial jobless claims improved much more than expected last week to reach the lowest level in more than five decades, further pointing to the tightness of the present labor market as many employers seek to retain workers.
The Labor Department released its weekly jobless claims report on Thursday. Here were the main metrics from the print, compared to consensus estimates compiled by Bloomberg:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/weekly-u ... 34644.html
New initial jobless claims improved much more than expected last week to reach the lowest level in more than five decades, further pointing to the tightness of the present labor market as many employers seek to retain workers.
The Labor Department released its weekly jobless claims report on Thursday. Here were the main metrics from the print, compared to consensus estimates compiled by Bloomberg:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/weekly-u ... 34644.html
- carmenjonze
- Posts: 9614
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am
Re: Labor/Economics
Kim Mangone
@KimMangone
BREAKING NEWS: A federal court has ruled against Trump in his effort to block his White House records from being released to the January 6th select committee.
https://twitter.com/KimMangone/status/1 ... 8327186446
__________
Good.
@KimMangone
BREAKING NEWS: A federal court has ruled against Trump in his effort to block his White House records from being released to the January 6th select committee.
https://twitter.com/KimMangone/status/1 ... 8327186446
__________
Good.
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
Re: Labor/Economics
The next step will be the SC. But they really have no business looking at it.carmenjonze wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 4:25 pm Kim Mangone
@KimMangone
BREAKING NEWS: A federal court has ruled against Trump in his effort to block his White House records from being released to the January 6th select committee.
https://twitter.com/KimMangone/status/1 ... 8327186446
__________
Good.
"Some of those that work forces,
Are the same that burn crosses"
- Rage Against the Machine
Are the same that burn crosses"
- Rage Against the Machine
- carmenjonze
- Posts: 9614
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am
Re: Labor/Economics
Yeah there's definitely going to be an appeal (if they haven't filed one, already.) I could use some good news today, though!
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
Re: Labor/Economics
I think the chances of Trump winning in the Supreme Court are tiny. Those three justices he appointed are trying to wipe the Trump stench off of themselves. Of course, they can't, but they sure aren't going to do him any favors.carmenjonze wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 4:45 pm Yeah there's definitely going to be an appeal (if they haven't filed one, already.) I could use some good news today, though!
Re: Labor/Economics
In a first, Starbucks workers agree to union in Buffalo, NY
BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) — Starbucks workers at a store in Buffalo, New York, voted to unionize on Thursday, a first for the 50-year-old coffee retailer in the U.S. and the latest sign that the labor movement is stirring after decades of decline.
The National Labor Relations Board said Thursday that workers voted 19-8 in favor of a union at the Elmwood Avenue location, one of three stores in Buffalo where elections were being held. A second store rejected the union in a vote of 12-8, but the union said it might challenge that result because it wasn’t confident all of the eligible votes had been counted. The results of a third store could not be determined because both sides challenged seven separate votes.
https://apnews.com/article/starbucks-un ... 1f54fc9035
BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) — Starbucks workers at a store in Buffalo, New York, voted to unionize on Thursday, a first for the 50-year-old coffee retailer in the U.S. and the latest sign that the labor movement is stirring after decades of decline.
The National Labor Relations Board said Thursday that workers voted 19-8 in favor of a union at the Elmwood Avenue location, one of three stores in Buffalo where elections were being held. A second store rejected the union in a vote of 12-8, but the union said it might challenge that result because it wasn’t confident all of the eligible votes had been counted. The results of a third store could not be determined because both sides challenged seven separate votes.
https://apnews.com/article/starbucks-un ... 1f54fc9035
Re: Labor/Economics
I don't think the SC should even touch this. The Executive and the SC are supposed to be co branches of government. Those records are under the jurisdiction of the Executive, who is Joe Biden. If the SC decided to hear the case and side with Trump, then they are placing themselves above the President and they are complicit in a serious crime.
"Some of those that work forces,
Are the same that burn crosses"
- Rage Against the Machine
Are the same that burn crosses"
- Rage Against the Machine
Re: Labor/Economics
Wouldn’t a dispute between the executive branch and the legislative branch have to be decided in court. I think Watergate might be a precedent.Drak wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:17 am I don't think the SC should even touch this. The Executive and the SC are supposed to be co branches of government. Those records are under the jurisdiction of the Executive, who is Joe Biden. If the SC decided to hear the case and side with Trump, then they are placing themselves above the President and they are complicit in a serious crime.
Re: Labor/Economics
It HAS been decided in court. I guess you don't understand our system.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:40 am Wouldn’t a dispute between the executive branch and the legislative branch have to be decided in court. I think Watergate might be a precedent.
The Supreme Court should simply refuse to hear the case, then the Appeals Court decision stands. The Supreme Court has mostly refused to intervene for Trump, and should continue that. I think they will, the three Trump-appointed judges want to attempt to wash the Trump stench off themselves.
Re: Labor/Economics
I do understand that cases do go through an appeals process. Whether or not the SC decides to hear the case is up to them. The point Drak seemed to put forward is that the court should not intervene in such a dispute because it was a separate branch of government. My point is that under our system, that’s the courts job. Perhaps you need to brush up on how things work in our system?gounion wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:51 am It HAS been decided in court. I guess you don't understand our system.
The Supreme Court should simply refuse to hear the case, then the Appeals Court decision stands. The Supreme Court has mostly refused to intervene for Trump, and should continue that. I think they will, the three Trump-appointed judges want to attempt to wash the Trump stench off themselves.
Re: Labor/Economics
I know exactly how they work - or don't work. The GOP is destroying the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Trump told the country that he was appointing judges that would knock down Roe v. Wade, and now they're going to do it. It's now a corrupt institution.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:05 am I do understand that cases do go through an appeals process. Whether or not the SC decides to hear the case is up to them. The point Drak seemed to put forward is that the court should not intervene in such a dispute because it was a separate branch of government. My point is that under our system, that’s the courts job. Perhaps you need to brush up on how things work in our system?
Re: Labor/Economics
Every single one of Trump's picks lied during their hearings when they said they wouldn't touch established law.
"Some of those that work forces,
Are the same that burn crosses"
- Rage Against the Machine
Are the same that burn crosses"
- Rage Against the Machine
Re: Labor/Economics
Of course, they lied. Anyone that would accept a court appointment from the most corrupt President in history automatically disqualifies themselves from the court.
Re: Labor/Economics
++++
"Some of those that work forces,
Are the same that burn crosses"
- Rage Against the Machine
Are the same that burn crosses"
- Rage Against the Machine
Re: Labor/Economics
The Supreme Court must indeed sometimes settle disputes between the judicial and executive branches.
That said, only in Drumpf's imagination is he still in or part of the executive branch. As a private citizen, whose only official title is Wedding Singer of Mar-a-Lago, he is no more entitled to "executive privilege" than I am.
That is why his case in nonsense, and should not be heard by SCOTUS.
That said, only in Drumpf's imagination is he still in or part of the executive branch. As a private citizen, whose only official title is Wedding Singer of Mar-a-Lago, he is no more entitled to "executive privilege" than I am.
That is why his case in nonsense, and should not be heard by SCOTUS.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln
Re: Labor/Economics
SC has said that a past president can invoke executive privilege but the reasons and likelihood of prevailing are limited. Nixon was unsuccessful. I doubt January 6th would come near qualifying. I expect the SC to reject the appeal.
Re: Labor/Economics
Trump was quite sure that the Court would take out Biden and install him as President. They sure must have told him whatever he wanted to hear to get his nomination.
Re: Labor/Economics
Well, ACB and Thomas and probably Kavanaugh are down with anything, legal or not, precedent or not, decent or not, christian-like or not, etc...if it helps the fascist killer, they will support it, is my guess.
I include christian like only because some of these justices believe they are xtian, they are not, and that their religion absolutely DOES have a place in their decisions. Too bad the last thing they are is krist like.
I sigh in your general direction.
Re: Labor/Economics
No, Former Presidents Cannot Assert Executive Privilege. At Least Not Meaningfully.
https://www.justsecurity.org/78904/no-f ... ningfully/
Good read, on why Nixon vs. GSA is a misunderstood precedent.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln
Re: Labor/Economics
Why is it con prez need to try and do this...sighProfX wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:32 pm No, Former Presidents Cannot Assert Executive Privilege. At Least Not Meaningfully.
https://www.justsecurity.org/78904/no-f ... ningfully/
Good read, on why Nixon vs. GSA is a misunderstood precedent.
I sigh in your general direction.
Re: Labor/Economics
Already read it. Well aware of Nixon v gsa and the limits. As I said very limited.ProfX wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:32 pm No, Former Presidents Cannot Assert Executive Privilege. At Least Not Meaningfully.
https://www.justsecurity.org/78904/no-f ... ningfully/
Good read, on why Nixon vs. GSA is a misunderstood precedent.
- carmenjonze
- Posts: 9614
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am
Re: Labor/Economics
Oh they’re definitely Christian. They’re just conservative and supremacist a-holes. If it helps, these people are really a drop in the bucket of worldwide Christianity. They’re just loud and obnoxious as hell.Libertas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:24 pm Well, ACB and Thomas and probably Kavanaugh are down with anything, legal or not, precedent or not, decent or not, christian-like or not, etc...if it helps the fascist killer, they will support it, is my guess.
I include christian like only because some of these justices believe they are xtian, they are not, and that their religion absolutely DOES have a place in their decisions. Too bad the last thing they are is krist like.
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.
~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________