Looking at it, the Stand up strike is a smart move. By the companies inevitably having to lay off workers or lockout plants, adds to the number of people striking for the UAW, who will be able to keep people on strike pay longer from their fund.
Look. I have enjoyed the last season. But the show has never escaped its fatal flaw of being in its own way. The finale of season 4 was great Trek, and this season has been good.
But it took how many months of retooling to give us the last season? And I appreciate finding a stride and having the show cancelled (as someone who will defend ENT constantly for this I’ll hear it all) but this isn’t the same case. They tried so many ways to make DIS work and it has hit and missed in different ways, but tying it to one story over the course of a whole season and making that the glue, and not allowing for other characters to be established, is still there. I still have no idea who the majority of the bridge crew are, and I feel there are characters that are overused and others that are criminally underused (can we just get a Reno spinoff please?)
This is a swan song, but personally I’m glad it gets to end on a high note. But let’s see it for what it has been.
But it took how many months of retooling to give us the last season?
Less than one, as far as I'm aware. They got permission to write and film an additional three days' worth of footage, which became the epilogue to the episode. Everything else is exactly as they orginally shot it, from what they've said.
Everyone always talks about govt/buisnesses taking bribes from the rich, but never about the rich taking bribes from foreign companies/govts.
Pretty interesting alternative “political system” we’ve installed with our current economic system. Surely not a backdoor to ruin any current govt systems or hold them hostage
like they care. If you die of unsanitary food it is god that wanted youto die and not the corporation that cut on cleaningtheur equipment apropriately.
This Supreme Court ruling will de facto gut the fda, if I remember right. Basically ruling that the courts get to override the fda.
Remember all the chaos of early covid and conservatives railing against the vaccines because they weren’t FDA approved? Lol guess it was never about it being approved, was it?
People should be paid for the work they perform. If someone is hired for a 40hr a week job but it takes 80 hrs a week to do the job the company needs to hire someone else or pay the one employee more. Companies are stealing time.
Our supreme court is packed with corporate lackeys. As much as I love this, it'll be overturned. It is a move in the right direction - you should not be allowed to take away someone's right to move jobs.
It's been issued by the FTC. I'm not sure if the courts are the mechanism to challenge this. Maybe in implementation. But not so much in overturning the policy.
A challenge to the FTC rule would ultimately lead to a potential Supreme Court case. The court is currently deciding on a case that could render render this decision moot before it ever gets that far.
Yes. It's an appeal. However it's still on the company to provide just cause for it to be removed. The way I am reading the mechanism it still favors the workers unless the company can provide just cause. It seems a NDA is more fitting in almost all cases.
It looks like they are suing them. Let's hope they take as long as they take with Trump. I am also not sure if suing them makes them financially liable or removes the stature? The article doesn't say much other than lobbyists (fuckin waste of space) are suing the FTC.
And SCOTUS is going to kill chevron deference later this year, which will largely destroy the administrative state and ability for federal agencies to promulgate and enforce regulations
Summary
Chevron and Skidmore deference are foundational concepts in administrative law, guiding how courts interact with administrative agency decisions.
Chevron Deference is based on the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This doctrine holds that courts must defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute it administers if the interpretation is reasonable. This two-step process asks first whether the statute is ambiguous and, if so, whether the agency's interpretation is reasonable.
Skidmore Deference derived from the 1944 Supreme Court case Skidmore v. Swift & Co., offers a more flexible approach. It suggests that the weight given to an agency's judgment depends on factors such as the thoroughness of the agency's investigation, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and other persuasive factors.
Comparing Deference Types
The key difference between the two is the degree of deference accorded. Chevron provides a more robust deference when statutory language is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable. Skidmore deference, on the other hand, is less prescriptive and more suggestive, relying heavily on the persuasiveness of the agency's rationale.
Practical Effects of Abolishing Chevron Deference
If the Supreme Court were to abolish Chevron deference, the immediate effect would be a shift in how courts review agency interpretations of law:
Increased Judicial Scrutiny: Courts would likely increase scrutiny of agency decisions, possibly leading to less predictable and more variable interpretations of laws across different jurisdictions.
Impact on Agencies: Agencies might experience a decrease in their ability to effectively implement and enforce regulations, as their expertise and interpretations would carry less weight in legal disputes.
Legislative Clarity: Congress might face pressure to draft more precise legislation to avoid ambiguities that agencies currently resolve.
Legal Uncertainty: Initially, the abolition of Chevron could lead to increased litigation as parties challenge agency interpretations that would have previously been upheld under Chevron deference.
The false notion that undocumented immigrants are affecting federal elections has been floating around for over 100 years.
The fact that we haven’t dispelled a myth for a hundred years does not give me a lot of hope of convincing people they may be wrong.
Moreover, how it is at all possible for figure heads like Trump and Musk continue to get away with these lies and convince people the lies are facts, is just… I just don’t even know. I can’t wrap my head around it. It’s got a very “flat earth” vibe to it.
Great article. Lots of good points I’m sure no one who actually has a concern over this will bother to read.
Tump and Musk know exactly what they’re doing. The capitalist class uses racism and immigrant fearmongering to sow working class division and keep its focus away from its real enemy: the capitalist class.
Edit to add: Capitalists, often illegally, exploit immigrants for cheap labor, so you know their rhetoric is bullshit. How Capitalism Perpetuates Immigration
The fact that we haven’t dispelled a myth for a hundred years does not give me a lot of hope of convincing people they may be wrong
The people pushing it are probably aware it’s not true and definitely don’t care either way. They want cult members to threaten and intimidate anyone brown because the numbers say they’re more likely to vote Democrat.
Money. Because they were striking in December right before the holidays, and people get mad about shipments and economic problems right before the holidays. Also, he’s Biden, not Bernie Sanders. From Reuters:
A rail strike could have frozen almost 30% of U.S. cargo shipments by weight, stoked already surging inflation, cost the American economy as much as $2 billion a day, and stranded millions of rail passengers.
He wasn’t so entirely against them as people might have made it seem.
Biden deserves a lot of the credit for achieving this goal for us,” Russo said. “He and his team continued to work behind the scenes to get all of rail labor a fair agreement for paid sick leave
I feel people are way too quick to jump down Biden’s throat for the rail union.
First off, it’s worth noting he continued to work with the railroad to get the employees the sick pay they wanted on the back end.
But in the midst of the situation… I’m not going to pretend this hypothetical is completely correct. But I don’t think it’s crazy.
Imagine you’re Biden and you hear about this railroad strike. Your advisors are telling you if the strike goes through how many rail passengers are stranded in the middle of nowhere, how much food is just going to go to waste and not make it to various towns, which factories manufacturing hospital equipment will be without material and unable to continue production. On top of a gigantic economic impact there could be deaths associated with the strike.
Imagine you’re that guy and have to make the call to say nope, I don’t care, the strike continues.
I’m super pro labor and anti corporation and even I would struggle to make that call. Especially if someone proposes the idea that on the backside of forcing the railroad workers to work we could pressure the railroad to give into the demands.
I’m not saying he’s perfect and I’m not saying there wasn’t a better way. But I think that hypothetical is plausible. And I think people are too quick to forget that often times these decisions are which tragic situation would you rather allow to happen, and it’s not as clear cut as it sounds.
Edit: Oh yeah, the comparison. This time, cars don’t get built and these corporations will see problems to their bottom line. The impact to human life isn’t there. The economic impact still may be, but it’s not as devastating across the board like shutting down the railroad would be. Much easier decision to make.
Imagine you’re Biden and you hear about this railroad strike. Your advisors are telling you if the strike goes through how many rail passengers are stranded in the middle of nowhere, how much food is just going to go to waste and not make it to various towns, which factories manufacturing hospital equipment will be without material and unable to continue production.
Strikes are supposed to be inconvenient. A strike that is not inconvenient garners workers no leverage. Interfering with a strike because it is inconvenient is union busting.
On top of a gigantic economic impact there could be deaths associated with the strike.
There are deaths associated with a lot of things that the administration is not acting on. Why was this one special?
Imagine you’re that guy and have to make the call to say nope, I don’t care, the strike continues.
Imagine you're that guy, and your call isn't to tell the rail companies to negotiate in good faith and get the strike dealt with.
He sided with the companies, not the workers. He did so publicly, and with the weight of the state.
There's no nuance here. He interfered with workers' rights to strike and to negotiate, favouring business over workers.
Good point as to why Biden is siding with the auto strikers so quickly, thanks.
If we’re putting ourselves in these situations, I wouldn’t have a problem maintaining the rail strike either.
I’d rather demonstrate the necessity of treating workers right than making sure anything gets done. I want people to remember the only reason we have all of our necessities and luxuries is because real people are making it happen. If the economy is going to crash because certain workers can’t afford to live themselves, or work in unsafe environments, then the workers needs must be addressed or the economy has to crash and yes, people will get hurt because of the course correction that needs to take place.
I was in a fragile mental state when Sandy Hook occurred and I actually bought into his BS. Luckily it didn't take long for me to wise up, but I feel immense guilt to this day that I ever doubted the tragedy. Glad to see this monster finally get his just desserts.
npr.org
Top