Fwiw there has been some history of B&H workers being treated fairly not-well. I encourage reading past the first few paragraphs of this article as it's not all "union stuff"--there are lawsuits, DOL complaints, and OSHA fines as well:
Thank you for pointing this out. I live in the area and showed up for the pickets when they fired all of their warehouse employees for complaining about unsafe working conditions.
Here (in the UK at least) you can buy little jars of paste, often made from some kind of meat or seafood. It seems the intended use case is to spread it on bread. I personally have never tried it nor plan to but see for yourself via James May: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVdodVA3qTk
Liverpaste is popular in Scandinavia. It's great on dark rye pumpernickel. It's really quite tasty especially topped with some sliced cucumber and fried onions.
True true but we also have things similar to these pastes but they come in tubes and often have mayonnaise. Don't you think that's kind of the same idea?
No, I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole. But I do remember my grandparents eating such things in the early 1960s. And British cuisine (?) has a long (centuries) history of potted meats and shrimps, which I guess these are trying to emulate. A bit like the French and pate.
Paste is basically pate, long life, in little jars, with the exception of (confusingly) "sandwich spread" which many would say would be a paste but it's more like chopped pickle salad.
It definitely isn't a term for 'spread'. It specifically refers to meat or fish paste sandwiches. The paste comes in little tins. Meat is most common, but when I was a kid I loved crab paste.
Not a lawyer but I think this would be constitutional in the same way that international sanctions are constitutional. The regulation of interstate and foreign commerce is an enumerated power given to congress and usually interpreted pretty broadly.
That's right, but a company in a state selling to a state gov isn't engaging in interstate commerce. Maybe SCOTUS will use the cockamamie "but the market is nationwide so it still affects it" excuse but normally...
Wickard v. Filburn pretty much ended the idea of any real limitations in regards to calling something interstate commerce:
"An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone 'interstate" commerce'..."
> That's right, but a company in a state selling to a state gov isn't engaging in interstate commerce.
A company commercially gathering data that is not exclusively limited to data on in-state activities of in-state residents from (transitively) exclusively in-state sources, and selling it, is engaging in interstate commerce.
I think people pissing in bottles probably does happen in Amazon's vast network, but as a very, very rare exception. It makes for good public propaganda, but it's not the issue most salient to warehouse workers.
There's a constant grind that Amazon puts on your body and brain. The work is monotonous. Your joints slowly break down from RSI. You get aches that you learn to compensate for or ignore. You learn to manage the pressure of the little screen at your work station that shows you the rate you've been packing at over the past ten minutes. You learn to manage the pressure of your co-workers at the next step in the process, who have their own little screens, and need you to work faster so they can work faster.
The pay is better than most shit jobs, the benefits are good, the work rules are clear and the managers largely aren't abusive. The trade-off you make is that the physical and psychological demand is intense. There's a reason that the average Amazon FC worker lasts six months—I reckon Amazon's done the math and decided that high turnover is worth the extra productivity they can squeeze out of workers while they're there.
In that sense, it's a bit of a shame that reporters and politicians focus so much on pee in bottles, because working at Amazon is still pretty ghoulish without it. I'm rooting for the workers at Bessemer. It will be very hard to build up the union density needed to really have negotiating leverage over Amazon, but you have to start somewhere!
The peeing in bottles (and defecating in bags) was described entirely in the context of drivers, not warehouse workers, and was said to be very common.
> Warehouse workers are going to have to form a union and threaten to really shut down amazon's profits, in order to defeat these profit-motivated outrages. It's always been like this. People have to self-emancipate.
I agree with this! However, it would be very nice if Amazon engineers were organized as well. I know CWA has an ongoing effort to organize tech workers. They're a pretty good union--still what I'd call a "business union," but one of the better ones that understands their power comes from being organized enough to shove the boss around a little.
Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
Iirc only people who would be eligible for the presidency can be elected as VP, which would disqualify Obama. This is the same reason Bernie couldn't have chosen AOC as his running mate
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 discusses who "shall be eligible to the Office of President". AOC doesn't meet the requirement of being 35 years old, which means she's not eligible in the first place.
But the 22nd Amendment refers to who "shall be elected to the office of the President". That's not the same thing.
Sorry to follow up with a second comment; it's too late to edit my original.
There is no such restriction. Article II never specified any limit on how long someone could serve.
The 22nd Amendment limits only who can be elected to the office of President. Since a VP becomes President through devolution, not election, it doesn't limit who may serve as VP.
Not exactly. The 22nd Amendment would prohibit the second election of someone who had served for more than two years without having been elected.
For example, if Gerald Ford had been elected president after he finished Nixon's term, he would be ineligible to be elected a second time, since he initially served for a little over two years and five months.
That doesn't change the fact that the 22nd Amendment only restricts the election of a president. If someone has already served in the office for ten years, they could still be the VP who upon whom the presidency devolves, because there is no constitutional restriction on such eligibility.
> The 22nd Amendment limits only who can be elected to the office of President. Since a VP becomes President through devolution, not election, it doesn't limit who may serve as VP.
So it would be constitutional to give Obama a third term through a Putin-esque sham where Biden runs at the top of the ticket then immediately resigns after taking office?
There are things everyone agrees about, but for everything else, constitutionality isn't really established until it's been enacted and then ruled on by the Supreme Court.
Would the Supreme Court allow such a move to stand? It's possible, especially without clear evidence that the campaign and resignation was planned and executed specifically to circumvent the 22nd Amendment.
Another thing I haven't seen mentioned here is that bosses will often try to slow down, stymie, or break up organizing drives by dragging out legal arguments at the labor board. This means arguing that the bargaining unit should be broken up, that certain employees are actually supervisors and shouldn't be included, that certain supervisors actually aren't and therefore _should_ be included in the vote, that the proposed bargaining unit is too small and should include more employees, etc. Typically you'll need a lawyer to navigate this process, lawyers are very expensive, and national/international unions have money.
Organizing a union is also fairly hard, and staff of established unions are more likely to have the skill set to teach you how to have convincing conversations with your co-workers, make sure they stick together, keep everybody from freaking out when the boss starts threatening to fire people, etc. It's also good to have them around to provide financial/legal support if the boss follows through on those threats.
I think part of the problem is that unemployment is so low, that corporations aren't mistreating employees - so the demand for unions is relatively low, compared to historical trends.
https://gothamist.com/news/bh-photo-workers-strike-on-may-da...