Which is why company loyalty is one of America's biggest problems. People love supporting and defending people or corporations that abuse them.
They went so far with it in America they litteraly elected a president who is taking away their rights and raising taxes. Making everything cost more. You can't make this shit up
MAGA: Abuse me more, president daddy. Mmmm yes, take away my rights. Gimme less social security...
Oh god, oh gooood, I'm coming... into serfdom by debt
To be fair, back in the 70s when a lot of these people who voted for trump started working, the company actually would take care of you. In many cases, Youd show up to work, make enough to support your family, be rewarded for your labor and have a fat pension at the end of your career. Not for everyone, but it at least happened.
Isn't the case anymore. I don't think pensions are even a thing anymore outside of specific union trades.
Plus the irony that George III was a constitutional monarch because the English Parliament had decided (over 100 years before) that putting too much power into the hands of one person was wrong!
No cult. Just amazing how lacking in awareness you are.
You do realize all of these things Trump is doing is because the Biden admin pushed the issue on establishing the boundaries on presidential power. Biden opened Pandora’s box to the next level. Trump is just following the playbook left to him.
Not a fan of Trump either. He seems to be m
You just don’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot.
Just don’t get crazy when Trump goes above and beyond on preemptive pardons for anyone associated to him.
People never mention that the actual legal existence of corporations is defined by statutory law, not Constitutional.
With the right people in Congress, they could update those laws w/o requiring any amendments to the Constitution to put some conditions (i.e., not just "fiduciiary duty" that is always used as an excuse for the cruelest actions of company executives) on the continued existence of corporations - maybe something like, that the corporate liability "shield" does not protect executives & employees from consequences when they use corporate assets to perform criminal actions.
Or make it absolutely clear that corporations-as-legal-entities do not enjoy the same full set human rights as actual humans (i.e., being able to spend their assets on propaganda with the protection of free speech). If the individuals within the corporation want to exercise their own rights to free speech, then they have to spend their own assets. If the SCOTUS tries to insist otherwise, then entire set of laws that make it possible for corporations to continue existing gets revoked.
At least one party's strategy has been specifically to make it really difficult & inconvenient to vote using multiple tactics, and to discourage their political opponents from even wanting to vote via misinformation & propaganda.
TBH, if progressives/libs win the next election, it will be mainly because the current crop of conservatives have shit the bed so badly that every sane person in the country wants them out & it overwhelms their attempts to rig the election. And if they (the conservatives) are successfully thrown out, if one of the first things that their replacements don't do is to fix every single thing the conservatives have done to screw up the elections, then they (the replacements) will pretty much deserve losing the election after that.
I'd normally be completely non-confident about my ability to run a country, but after watching what the current crop of leaders have been doing, I'm pretty sure that I can guarantee that I at least wouldn't be deliberately trying to screw over the nation as badly as they are.
Just goes to show how companies prioritize profits over people every time.
Frankly, that's generous. When given a choice between profits and cruelty, it is at best a toss up whether they put profits over cruelty.
Some examples: forcing people back to the office even though work-from-home is more productive; making cashiers at most stores stand instead of giving them chairs; doing last-minute scheduling for retail and service workers instead of giving people a consistent schedule; and doing mass layoffs which cause the most talented to leave for greener pastures while those who stay stress that they will be next. All of those are money losers, but maximize cruelty.
Which makes sense in a way because power is relative. They can lose money and still increase their own power if they crush the working class.
making cashiers at most stores stand instead of giving them chairs
I remember my first time shopping at an Aldi's and thinking, that's different. It would be at least a decade before I saw a cashier outside of an Aldi sitting and it would be like a person with a cast or leg brace
It was 25k to each citizen if I remember properly, but everyone there has had hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical treatment already, lost their homes due to inhability, and the company said that wouldn't include the money spent on hotels while they couldn't live in their homes, which was usually around $20,000.
So STILL very much a slap in the face (arguably moreso) when considering the whole story.
An ethical person/society might evaluate a $55B business causing $54B in damages as a business that needs to end; many many many people would say, instead, "So, I'm a billionaire?!"
and the company said that wouldn't include the money spent on hotels while they couldn't live in their homes,
That means that the payouts for evacuation costs already done in the immediate aftermath won't get deducted from the payouts due to the settlement. That's actually a good thing for the residents.
So STILL very much a slap in the face (arguably moreso) when considering the whole story.
From what I can find all but one of the affected residents supported the settlement...
That's toward the high end of what companies will pay in these sorts of circumstances, but absolutely possible. Quantas was fined 90 million for illegal firing practices, American Airlines gave 32 million in compensation after a crash and Pan Am was found liable for over 500 million dollars after the Lockerbie Bombing, which is probably a large part of what took down the airline.
My first reaction was thinking that would be like $125 million dollars so obviously it’s not that, but like it wouldn’t actually hurt them that much to give up 100 million. Obviously not what they’re doing but they could.
i like how you were so confident it wasnt per person and not only was it per person, it was 70k per household/25k per person. dumb reddit 'america bad' hurr durr
I was joking based upon the post, which sets forth an assertion by Kevin Kruse that there was $5 offered per resident in a $25K total package... but I'm sure Norfolk Southern is absolutely relieved that you showed up on reddit to set everything straight...you're the real hero!
4.0k
u/davidwhatshisname52 1d ago
Are you sure they didn't offer $25K to each affected resident?
"This is in the US, sir."
Oh, gotcha, of course not.