Mean Old Government Trying To Stifle Corporations' Sacred Right To Screw Consumers
This will not be your arbitration judge. Sorry.
First, Elizabeth Warren decided to persecute fraudulent banksters by naming names of corporate bad actors who were the opposite of persecuted. Senator Warren, have you no
shame support of a Justice Department that merely equates fines to justice? Yep, pretty much.
Here are some other government actors who think they can take to task beloved corporate people who are only trying to feed their families and shareholders. Outrageous.
Smartass senators talking about 'level playing field' like it's an actual thing
We sign a lot of contracts designed to discourage us from reading them. I mean, who do we bill for the three hours it takes to read an itunes contract? There’s only so much time in a day and can’t we just download some Prince already? No.
Tucked into virtually every consumer contract, an increasing amount of employment contracts, and probably some back alley blood oaths, are clauses that bind us to pursuing any legal claim through arbitration. Beyond the mere inconvenience that makes many arbitrations unrealistic, our Corporate Persons' success rate in these proceedings is so high that one might say the customer is always right about 5 percent of the time. Why is that?
Welp. In effect, the Corporate Person usually gets to pick the arbitrator. The poor plebe who's standing up on general principle usually has to pick up the tab on all associated costs. The judgments are virtually unappealable, not to mention unappealing. Some provisions even kick disputes to hearings governed by religious law. But it's the non-Sharia brand so that's totally cool and not fucked up at all. See you in Jesus Court, suckers. And definitely no reason for Americans' mere elected representatives to start meddling.
The bill, introduced by Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and co-sponsored by Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, would prevent civil rights cases, employment disputes and other crucial lawsuits from being forced into arbitration, where judges and juries have been replaced by arbitrators who commonly consider the companies their clients.
[contextly_sidebar id="5O81rlBmpXsBtLnpYpTXfoevLAKCQOgf"]As binding arbitration became more popular over the last 15 years, most contracts use these arbitration provisions in concert with contractual limitations on class actions (as if the Chamber of Commerce-sponsored SCOTUS really even allow those anymore…). So let's just say supporters of this bill will be moving upstream without a paddle in a canoe covered by a shitty arbitration clause.
Yahoo! sued! for kicking! fired! employees! while they’re down!
[contextly_sidebar id="Of9kjQu3EOVwbC0A4QYa4WYeph2gbCgC"]Fresh off a 12 minute maternity leave, Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer received no grace period upon her return to the office. A former employee is suing the company, claiming, among other things, that the internet company improperly laid off hundreds of employees in violation of California law.
Do you corporate sector Wonkers get annual reviews where you’re graded 1 to 5 on how well you play with others and whether you clean out the microwave after you spill oatmeal all over it? Yeah, those are great and never arbitrary or manipulated to benefit the Corporate Person. Since Mayer came to Yahoo! in 2012, one of her “signature policies” has been to give these performance reviews on a QUARTERLY! basis. And these reviews have been used as the basis to fire a LOT of Yahoovians (or whatever they’re called).
Under California law, a Corporate Person who lays off over 50 people at a specific location has to give the employees 60 days notice, most of which is used to muster up the courage to let parents know that their adult children might have to stay in their basement for a bit. There’s a similar federal law for groups of 500 or more laid off employees. Yahoo! never sent these notices. But don’t worry, Yahoo! fans!, if you don’t call a “layoff” a “layoff,” then maybe it’s not a layoff.
Ms. Mayer has steadfastly refused to use the word “layoff” to describe the thousands of jobs eliminated since she joined the company. She even forbade her managers from uttering what she called “the L-word,” instructing them to use the term “remix” instead
"Oh you misunderstood. I wasn't laid off. I was remixed - just like Beyoncé!"
Despite the hip downsizing lingo, the suit continues. If it’s found that Yahoo! violated either law, the company could be “forced to pay each affected employee $500 a day plus back pay and benefits for each day of advance notice it failed to provide.” Furthermore, the Yahoo! Employees who haven’t been canned continue to suffer an extreme decline in morale, or “EDM” as it’s probably known around the office.
As this guy is teaching us, adding an exclamation point to your name doesn’t necessarily make anyone less miserable.
ALERT! Obama tangentially associated with gun stocks! Hypocrite or greatest hypocrite?!
[contextly_sidebar id="3tysy3CoGGtDVkT1xqViIhSRkBrUsQXg"]Barack Obama gets elected. Gun lobbyists start whispering that he’s coming for the gun under your pillow AND the one hidden in your kid’s hollowed out teddy bear. People buy a lot of guns. Manufacturers give lobbyists more money. “More Money?” Wall Street asks. Because they like the monies. Gun stocks hit record highs.
Since Obama was elected in 2009, mutual funds have raised their stakes to about $510 million from $30 million in the nation’s two largest gun manufacturers with publicly traded shares, Smith & Wesson Corp and Sturm, Ruger & Co. That means such stocks are now common in retirement and college savings plans.
According to Business Insider, even gun-hating Obama has part of a pension plan that holds a tiny stake in one of these 2A-friendly corporations. And you might too. Because keeping track of this stuff and divesting from shitty corporate people is exhausting. If it’s not Smith & Wesson, it’s Walmart. And if it’s not Walmart it’s Exxon. And if it’s not Exxon it’s probably all of the above. In the end, all a lot of us want is a little bit of coin so that we don’t have to move in with our son-in-laws when we retire at age 79.
Car reviewers would do sex all over this new Mercedes wagon if it wasn’t for the price
Finally, lets check in on our friendly automakers. Here are some words two Bloomberg writers used to describe the new Mercedes G65 Wagon:
- "undeniably sexy, utilitarian, and powerful"
- "inarguable cool"
- "undeniable swag"
- "a 5,000-plus pound rig that worked initially as military transport for the Shah of Iran—and, later, as the preferred vehicle for the Pope."
Well, if it’s good enough for an oil state’s autocratic puppet and the infallible head of a pedophile mill it should be good enough for all of us. But alas it’s like $200,000 and even these guys who regularly party in Montauk think that’s a pretty steep price.
Also, do you know who else owned a G-Series Wagon?