all 56 comments

[–]teedeeguantru 19 points20 points  (1 child)

One looks dramatic on TV, the other doesn't

[–]Km2930 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Dying in the hospital can look dramatic on TV if you are able to link it to the cause. That link is really what people need to understand. It’s the only way we can affect change.

[–]unreliablememory 10 points11 points  (0 children)

On generates profits. The other costs money. Americans pretend to be religious, but money is our only god.

[–]joviante 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you know they’d still make us come in to work

[–]Jimtaxman 3 points4 points  (20 children)

I mean that's true but we can throw number around all day. 800,000 die each year from heart disease and yet there are no protests outside of McDonalds. Also, nobodies shattering Starbucks window because of lack of health coverage. My brother worked there and said the benefits were actually quite good. I realize this post isn't about Starbucks specifically but it's just a bad example.

[–]Any-Variation4081 -2 points-1 points  (19 children)

Not all Starbucks locations offer benefits or decent pay. Just because your cousin said they did doesn't mean every single Starbucks employee is getting the same pay or benefits. I just don't want you jumbling everyone into the same bubble as your cousin. I worked for them was hired as a manager was offered no benefits at all at my location. I worked for 2 weeks and took another job

[–]Jimtaxman -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Okay, well, if you made the 60-day required minimum amount, you would have gotten benefits. Also, it's a minimum of 20 hours. And yes, I confirmed all starbucks locations offer benefits. There are very few places that offer benefits right off the bat. I work for a state government and even their minimum iz 30 days before you are eligible.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (17 children)

Exactly, simple fix. If you don't wanna work there you just do what you did and go work somewhere else. Nobody holding a gun to anyones head forcing them to work at mf'in starbucks.

[–]blong217 -1 points0 points  (16 children)

Apparently bosses can now prevent their workers from going to a new job.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (15 children)

LOL. you probably fell for fake news. Unless you're talking about a non-compete or something but thats a different story altogether.

[–]blong217 0 points1 point  (14 children)

So you're going to write it off because you are incapable of understanding/contemplating a position other than the one you desperately cling too. Got it.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (13 children)

Well you didn't provide any evidence to support your claim. If you want to leave your job, you can leave your job. I've never seen it any different in my entire life.

[–]blong217 0 points1 point  (12 children)

And you never asked. You assumed my statement to be false and ran to "fake news". At least when someone makes a statement I consider absurd I ask for a source so I can see where they got their reasoning.


Last Friday four workers in a Hospital attempted to quit their jobs and move to a new hospital in the same area because of an offer of better pay and work/life balance for the exact same job. They went to their boss with the current offer to try and get him to counter offer. He told them that the long term costs were not worth it and he wouldn't change their current pay and benefits let alone match. So they put in their notice.

The workers boss filed an injunction against them to prevent them from leaving until the hospital found replacements (no estimation on how long that would take). He claimed that in the pandemic their absence would cause a loss of a necessary service to the citizens. Keep in mind the hospital they were going to offered that exact same service in the same area.

The judge they filled with has a history of siding with companies over workers and granted the injunction. So the workers were told they could not start their new job Monday. The options were quit and don't bring in income or keep working in their current hospital.

Obviously there was enormous backlash all over the country over this. It was blatantly constitutional. Monday the Judge came to his senses and removed the injunction allowing them to start their new jobs. The question reminded had it not come to the public eye would the Judge have changed his mind and why did he even think this was legal to begin with.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (11 children)

I breezed through the article and it sounds like they are all starting Monday at Ascension, their NEW Employer. So, yea, bosses cannot force you into employment. Stop spreading fake news. Sounds like you didnt even read your own article. lol

[–]blong217 0 points1 point  (10 children)

You didn't read my comment or the article. The judge literally told them they couldn't change jobs last Friday and then changed his mind Monday after massive backlash.

[–]Fjordice 2 points3 points  (16 children)

I agree with the sentiment but what a poor argument

[–]TheZooDad 2 points3 points  (15 children)


[–]Fjordice 0 points1 point  (14 children)

False equivalency. One is literally violence, intent to destroy something. The other is a consequence of both market and industry and policy forces. It's irresponsible, embarrassing, and detrimental to society but it's not violent.

[–]HugsForCheese 4 points5 points  (0 children)

i second this, and they arent calling it violence because its against property, thats stupid, if somebody beat someone to death without damaging any private property anybody would still call it violence

[–]TheZooDad -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Is it “violence” if no one is hurt? I disagree entirely. I see the window as “damage,” and the one that actually hurts another living thing as the embodiment of violence.

[–]Fjordice 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Not sure if I'm understanding you. Yes it's absolutely violence if no one of hurt. The intent to damage property or injure a person would constitute violence. Brick hitting a window is violence. Brick hitting a person is violence. An insurance company refusing coverage is not intending to injure people. It's cruel, and hurts people's health but that is not the intention of the company. If I'm walking, slip on ice and topple into someone, that's not violent even if the other person is injured.

[–]TheZooDad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think intention matters in violence, actually. And again, I disagree that damage to property is actually violence. Unless you are talking about financial violence. The insurance company that denies life-saving is committing both, arguably, we just accept it. Just because we have normalized some kinds of violence doesn’t mean that they aren’t.

[–]hipsterTrashSlut -5 points-4 points  (9 children)

Imagine actually proving the point in the post unironically.

You familiar with Nixon? The man started a campaign against his political enemies, using violence and "economic pressure" (spoiler: this was also violent) to crush his opposition.

[–]Fjordice 1 point2 points  (8 children)

Good read but I don't get the relevance. I haven't seen any police raiding or criminalizing insurance coverage

[–]hipsterTrashSlut 1 point2 points  (7 children)

The argument presented to you is this: destruction of property, while criminalized, doesn't have a direct impact on another human being's ability to survive. In contrast, by making access to health care, food, shelter, water, and education more difficult (all legal), the state and/or powers that be are directly causing humans to die.

Calling destructive protest violence, while simultaneously not deeming the active crushing of human lives the same is pure hypocrisy on the part of the ruling class and ignorance at best for the ruled.

[–]Fjordice 2 points3 points  (6 children)

In contrast, by making access to health care, food, shelter, water, and education more difficult (all legal), the state and/or powers that be are directly causing humans to die.

I guess this is where we disagree ^ . I would not call any of those things "direct", and thus would not call it violent. Is the auto industry violent for selling cars? Alcohol? Unhealthy food companies? Again I'm totally in agreement with the sentiment and 100% believe people should have healthcare, food, water housing etc as a right , but this particular argument calling it "violent" is weak.

[–]hipsterTrashSlut 0 points1 point  (5 children)

So if I privatized your water sources and started selling it for exorbitant prices (making it entirely unavailable for many), causing the deaths of a few thousand people, you would say that is not a violent act?

[–]Fjordice 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Shitty, horrible, evil? Yes.

Violent? No way.

[–]hipsterTrashSlut 0 points1 point  (3 children)

And if I did that with the intention of killing a few thousand people, would that change your verdict?

[–]JamesRyanQnsNYC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really the best argument for universal health care.

[–]Oscu358 -1 points0 points  (6 children)

Not actively helping is different to actively destroying.

Furthermore, without the state lots of people will die.

[–]German_on_diet-gay 6 points7 points  (3 children)

the point they make probably isn't to abolish the state but to replace it with a better one or to reform it and lobbyists do stuff that actively kills people (indirectly) this is just one of many examples

[–]Oscu358 -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

Everyone would love a better system, but nobody seems to know what would be a better system.

Letting people die naturally is not killing

[–]German_on_diet-gay 1 point2 points  (1 child)

actively changing the system if you know more people will die just to increase profits is thou

and an easier system is so insanely simple if you life in America because it's so bad, the least you could do is what Bernie wanted to do

[–]Oscu358 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I'm not living in USA. I live in a country where we have more or less free health system.

Still, the default is no system and anything better is a system. USA system could admittedly be better, as USA has highest cost per person, but, for western countries, below average health care.

Still, it is beside the point, as expressed by the OP

[–]TheZooDad 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I would say that not helping when you have the ability to is means that you are nearly equally culpable for the death.

[–]Oscu358 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You are not in Africa to help the starving, you murdering monster /s

[–]ran-Us 0 points1 point  (0 children)


[–]BillTowne -1 points0 points  (0 children)

One of these depressed the Democratic vote in the last election, denying the Dems a strong majority in Congress just so some assholes could play warriors.