It's both.

There are plenty of examples of governments (or their agencies) "compelling" speech from companies, even satisfying specific formats. For example, the SEC requires publically-traded companies to report earnings quarterly and annually using various prescribed accounting practices.

I see this new climate-related reporting law as being the same kind of thing. And for that reason, I predict Exxon's free-speech challenge will fail.

You are waaay down the hole, yet you keep digging. I hope you find your way out someday. Until then, recognize that someone cannot converse with you if you insist on changing the meaning of words.

Entitled much? You'll find out how he died when the family wants you to.

You could not be more wrong.

The political-action policies of unions are determined by their membership. Anyone can run for a union position and participate in the creation of such policies.

The political-action policies of corporations are determined by unelected C-suite bureaucrats and major influential shareholders. You have to have already eaten from the royal jelly to be in that crowd.

Which is more democratic?

Lest the company return to its old ways.

I think you're confused. Your ex-colleagues at the post office likely wouldn't even have OT multipliers if it hadn't been for their union. And they can choose to work or not work OT, don't blame the union for that.

And if they're sleeping on the job (OT or not) well that's up to management to handle. They (not the union) have the common-law right to discipline workers for their job performance.

Well ... WINE does work. Just not perfectly for every app you could name. (Does Windows work perfectly?)

I'm very impressed that WINE works as well as it does. Give the development team some credit for getting as far as they have on such an exceedingly difficult engineering problem.

WINE works well enough for several companies that make derivative products to adopt it as a base, including commercial ones.

Good to know. And there are alternatives also.

That does it. You are impossible as an interlocutor. And officially scary.

Everyone means everyone -- with no people excluded. The very idea that you can change that word to your liking illustrates the problem that your side presents to ... well, democracy.

Um ... care to define "everyone?" I do not think that word means what you think it means.

No, you didn't get that wrong. I think we do agree on these things. Thanks for the reply.

By the very definition of average, it is impossible for everyone to be above it.

No, you're missing the point. It's not about what is "average." It's about the quality of the jobs in the distribution. And that is independent of the distribution.

If an average job does not pay enough to survive, then you cannot claim jobs have quality simply because they are above average.

You misunderstand the "statistical analysis" at work here.

If you think that's a "perfect world" then I hope for your sake you're in the group you just described.