Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[McTraveller]

I don't really envy any of the people trying to make those kinds of policy decisions, especially for "critical" jobs.

For example, how do you know where the line is between treating employees adequately well and making promises you can't keep?  I've never worked in collective bargaining contracts, so I don't know how they set up profit sharing versus "fixed" compensation.  I mean everyone wants a share of profits in good times, but nobody wants to take collective cuts in lean times.

I should say my opinion is based on personal experience: I still give kudos to one of my former employers because during some lean times they did opt to keep everyone as an employee but we all (and I do mean everyone, even the CEO) took a pay cut.  I would like to see way more companies (and employees) willing to have a more variable salary instead of just laying people off during lean times.  You could even couple it with more flexibility to update terms for things like mortgages and rents.

[None]

Shareholders usually aren't wondering whether they can pay for their $800 car repair immediately, which they can't afford, or to put it on credit, which they can't afford either. Wealth goes up in good times and stays up in lean time, and the poor bloke doing grunt work at the bottom can't afford a lawyer to make their case better.

If critical jobs were valuated correctly we wouldn't be seeing the kind of exodus we are from healthcare workers and EMTs wouldn't be earning ten bucks an hour.

[MrRoboto75]

If critical jobs were valuated correctly we wouldn't be seeing the kind of exodus we are from education

[hector13]

If critical jobs were valued correctly there’s be no profit!

[bloop_bleep]

If critical jobs were valued correctly there’s be no profit!

This is, as the kids say, based unfathomably.

[Great Order]

Won't somebody think of the shareholders?!

[martinuzz]

Some good news, the Respect For Marriage act has passed the Senate, with all Democrats, and 12 Republicans voting in favour.

[Rolan7]

Oh, that is nice!  I was worried by some of the SC's noises about marriage, so this is very reassuring.  Yeah it doesn't stop the SC but this indicates to me that the Republicans won't direct their SC to attack marriage for at least a couple elections.

[scriver]

If that name follows the usual name shenanigans I'd assume it would be a bas thing, but from the reactions I conclude that it's not

If I was to hazard a guess, maybe a law about lawfully respecting peoples' marriages outside of the licensee state? That would be a nice thing.

[Great Order]

Apparently it's a repeal of the Defense of Marriage act, and makes it a federal requirement to acknowledge interracial and homosexual marriages.

[scriver]

Even better then!

[Dostoevsky]

Note that it hasn't passed quite yet, it passed the key cloture vote last night (i.e. the 60-threshold end of debate motion), though it is expected to have its final Senate vote before the end of the week (hopefully; there's a chance some R senators could try to drag it out until after Thanksgiving). House would then pass it relatively quickly and send to Biden.

Also note that this is the bipartisan compromise version (text here), which has some key differences from the House version, mainly the (kind of broad) religious exemption bit in section 6. Still a lot better than current law, and as mentioned by others should be good insurance against the current S.Ct. (although they could always pull an Originalism and rule that our deific founding fathers intended a full ban and overturn the new law).

[Starver]

I quickly had to look it up, to be sure, not being current with the names. It had, of course, to be given a 'nice'-sounding name for the conservative right, rather than what people who liked DOMA would have seen as beyond the pale, hence why it sounds worse than it is (by the standards of those more Respecters than the adamant Defenders).

[Lord Shonus]

Note that it hasn't passed quite yet, it passed the key cloture vote last night (i.e. the 60-threshold end of debate motion), though it is expected to have its final Senate vote before the end of the week (hopefully; there's a chance some R senators could try to drag it out until after Thanksgiving). House would then pass it relatively quickly and send to Biden.

Also note that this is the bipartisan compromise version (text here), which has some key differences from the House version, mainly the (kind of broad) religious exemption bit in section 6. Still a lot better than current law, and as mentioned by others should be good insurance against the current S.Ct. (although they could always pull an Originalism and rule that our deific founding fathers intended a full ban and overturn the new law).

One big thing a lot of analysts "miss" is that Congress has to craft this sort of thing very carefully, because the only time it will do anything at all is if SCOTUS decides to overturn Loving or Obergefell.  Which means they have to make absolutely sure that they have a fundamental different grounding because an overturn of those cases would require SCOTUS to decide that the 14th Amendment does not apply in this case. Such a decision would instantly and immediately remove Congress's ability to legislate the matter under the 14th. When you hear people complaining about the bill not being "good enough", it is because you don't make a backstop that's going to be be punctured by the very gun you're trying to protect against.

[EuchreJack]

I think it's actually quite well crafted. I can see TWO Supreme Court Justices swinging into the Liberal camp to rule it Constitutional, if SCOTUS doesn't just punt on it.