Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Bread up, Bro (sickburnbro@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 08-Aug-2026 11:47:24 JST Bread up, Bro
   He's wrong, if unions worked to protect mediocrity they would be acceptable.
   
   By law they must now protect the absolute worst member they allow in.
   • Embed this notice
     Bread up, Bro (sickburnbro@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 08-Aug-2026 11:47:21 JST Bread up, Bro

     in reply to

     • M. Night Charlemayne
     • Atomic_Samson
     @Atomic_Samson @DEERBLOOD I can't find the exact case right now, but there was a case that established this. it might be tied into the "duty of fair representation" but the stupid AI wants to lie tonight
   • Embed this notice
     Bread up, Bro (sickburnbro@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 08-Aug-2026 11:47:23 JST Bread up, Bro

     in reply to

     • M. Night Charlemayne
     @DEERBLOOD it's because over the decades the courts have ruled that they *MUST* fight for those worst members, so they've learned to rationalize it.
   • Embed this notice
     Atomic_Samson (atomic_samson@shitpost.cloud)'s status on Saturday, 08-Aug-2026 11:47:23 JST Atomic_Samson

     in reply to

     • M. Night Charlemayne
     Dang, I didn't know they were *required* to protect those jack-wagons, I just thought it was something they did.
   • Embed this notice
     M. Night Charlemayne (deerblood@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 08-Aug-2026 11:47:24 JST M. Night Charlemayne

     in reply to
     @sickburnbro I manage union workers and they'll bitch and complain about how their least productive members make life much more difficult and yet they still go to the mat to ensure they never face consequences