It's the same thing. They want to trap women in poverty and create more desperate people will work for nothing. Why do think they are against birth control and the gheys.
Oh, woops...I didn't mean her! I meant the people who are always progressive bashing...I see now how it looked like I was directing that at Robyn...No way...Robyn is my peeps y'all!
MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, after making the foregoing statement of the facts, delivered the opinion of the court.The indictment, it will be seen, charges that the plaintiff in error violated the one hundred and tenth section of article 8, chapter 415, of the Laws of 1897, known as the labor law of the State of New York, in that he wrongfully and unlawfully required and permitted an employee working for him to work more than sixty hours in one week. There is nothing in any of the opinions delivered in this case, either in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals of the State, which construes the section, in using the word "required," as referring to any physical force being used to obtain the labor of an employee. It is assumed that the word means nothing more than the requirement arising from voluntary contract for such labor in excess of the number of hours specified in the statute.
It's the same thing. They want to trap women in poverty and create more desperate people will work for nothing. Why do think they are against birth control and the gheys.
More shivving of the working American. Fecking chiselers.
That contract would likely be unenforceable. It's not quite as bad as you state.
That was my opinion as a union member, too!
And don't forget the peasant revolt of 1381.
Would you be expecting it if I said I thought they were the modern equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition?
$2.65 for me, whippersnapper! (1978)
"Enjoy working in the great outdoors, with all your needs provided by our friendly concierge service!" https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Well NOBODY expected the Spanish Inquisition, and we sure as hell didn’t expect Assmouth’s presidency…so I’m onboard with the comparison.
I dunno, is S&M covered by Lawrence v Texas? Certainly, the existence of an a priori understanding is going to have to carry some weight.
But, there is another example. Sailboat racing, the rules of which conflicts with the COLREGS.
Oh, woops...I didn't mean her! I meant the people who are always progressive bashing...I see now how it looked like I was directing that at Robyn...No way...Robyn is my peeps y'all!
(:
Starry deist!
MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, after making the foregoing statement of the facts, delivered the opinion of the court.The indictment, it will be seen, charges that the plaintiff in error violated the one hundred and tenth section of article 8, chapter 415, of the Laws of 1897, known as the labor law of the State of New York, in that he wrongfully and unlawfully required and permitted an employee working for him to work more than sixty hours in one week. There is nothing in any of the opinions delivered in this case, either in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals of the State, which construes the section, in using the word "required," as referring to any physical force being used to obtain the labor of an employee. It is assumed that the word means nothing more than the requirement arising from voluntary contract for such labor in excess of the number of hours specified in the statute.
No worries. I'm a burnout. I get confused a lot.
Snort!
Fuckin' Cuellar. That asshat survived his primary after recounts and all, didn't he?
(: