Layoffs are for old tech companies like IBM and Oracle.
Not for IBM, at least until a few decades ago. You could get fired for cause, but layoffs were unheard of. Things did change in the 90s though.
If the rule was created in order to stop the petitioner from doing business, then it's blocking. I don't think that's the case here. It's just that the petitioner has a business model that was not anticipated when the rule was created.
I predict the rule can and will be changed. But for now
climate change isn't a campaign issue. it's reality.
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.
And let's not forget that India is currently run by a Socialist.
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?
Behind every union is a company that gave it a reason to exist by exploiting the workers.
Yet even after the reason is no longer there, the union continues existing.
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.
[Linux on the desktop will happen when]...WINE actually works.
Well
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.
Everyone = enough in a democracy to change policy, eg a majority.
The rest are just whining bitches in the shadows.
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
Yes, they [MAGA] absolutely do. (Except for the wee bit about getting everyone to agree with them and change things, which I think even dipshits like you would agree they did in the last election.)
Um
As far as I can tell, we have the technical resources to create a thriving environment for the vast majority of people (and life in general), but have failed to due so because our social systems are predicated on greed. I had the impression that we might agree on that in principle - did I get that wrong?
No, you didn't get that wrong. I think we do agree on these things. Thanks for the reply.
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -- William E. Davidsen
