This does seem like a lot of the reason, no?
February 1, 2024 at 8:46 PM
This does seem like a lot of the reason, no?
if an employer insisted on calling a cis employee by the wrong pronouns we’d immediately and correctly recognize it as sexual harassment
Colorado Democrats cannot force employers to use someone’s pronouns. That’s compelling speech and it’s illegal (Opinion)
Colorado Democrats cannot force employers to use someone’s pronouns. That’s compelling speech and it’s illegal (Opinion)
www.denverpost.com
May 14, 2026 at 4:57 PM
if an employer insisted on calling a cis employee by the wrong pronouns we’d immediately and correctly recognize it as sexual harassment
The fact a *single* Amazon full-time employee requires SNAP benefits should be a crime. The fact Amazon is the largest employer of SNAP recipients is a disgrace. Jeff Bezos shouldnt be that rich; he should be in jail.
November 3, 2025 at 4:01 PM
The fact a *single* Amazon full-time employee requires SNAP benefits should be a crime. The fact Amazon is the largest employer of SNAP recipients is a disgrace. Jeff Bezos shouldnt be that rich; he should be in jail.
Chiefly we should be trying to put the burden of training costs back on the employer, not the employee
I think sending kids that aren't prepared to go to college, to college, is less helpful to them than creating high-quality jobs that don't require going to college. Especially because the financial burden of not completing a degree is just terrible.
June 13, 2026 at 7:11 PM
Chiefly we should be trying to put the burden of training costs back on the employer, not the employee
really hope that the message people take away from all the EA sex parties stuff is "don't import inherently coercive real life employer/employee or mentor/mentee dynamics into your edgeplay kink spaces" and not "THEY DO THE IMMORAL KIND OF SEX DISGUSTING"
September 27, 2026 at 7:08 PM
really hope that the message people take away from all the EA sex parties stuff is "don't import inherently coercive real life employer/employee or mentor/mentee dynamics into your edgeplay kink spaces" and not "THEY DO THE IMMORAL KIND OF SEX DISGUSTING"
Nothing to do with them? He is their employee. They are his employer. Beyond pathetic.
June 8, 2026 at 9:42 PM
Nothing to do with them? He is their employee. They are his employer. Beyond pathetic.
Post-scarcity society where the employer/employee relationship still exists, but it's explicitly a kink thing.
July 19, 2025 at 8:27 PM
Post-scarcity society where the employer/employee relationship still exists, but it's explicitly a kink thing.
It's official. It's binding.
March 20, 2026 at 4:07 PM
It's official. It's binding.
Imagine you’re an employer and a prospective employee had sexual assault allegations, and you had an email from his mother calling him an “abuser of women.”
What would you do?
Apparently, many Senate Republicans would make him Secretary of Defense.
What would you do?
Apparently, many Senate Republicans would make him Secretary of Defense.
December 1, 2024 at 10:15 PM
Imagine you’re an employer and a prospective employee had sexual assault allegations, and you had an email from his mother calling him an “abuser of women.”
What would you do?
Apparently, many Senate Republicans would make him Secretary of Defense.
What would you do?
Apparently, many Senate Republicans would make him Secretary of Defense.
Employer: Why did you choose our company?
Me: Because you are recruiting.
Employer: What can you bring to the company?
Me: A new employee.
Me: Because you are recruiting.
Employer: What can you bring to the company?
Me: A new employee.
November 24, 2024 at 5:18 AM
Employer: Why did you choose our company?
Me: Because you are recruiting.
Employer: What can you bring to the company?
Me: A new employee.
Me: Because you are recruiting.
Employer: What can you bring to the company?
Me: A new employee.
would that more employer-employee relationships functioned in this manner
December 21, 2024 at 7:02 PM
would that more employer-employee relationships functioned in this manner
This is go to prison forever malfeasance. A guy who is currently a SpaceX employee also serves as an FAA official who cancels a big contract to award instead no-bid to his own employer and starts installing hardware without statutorily required tests and assurances
Of course, Ted Malaska has a whopping conflict of interest here.
He is both:
- a SpaceX employee (identifying himself as a "SpaceXer" on his Twitter/X profile),
&
- federal employee -- and important one at that --"leading an engineering unit inside the FAA."
...
He is both:
- a SpaceX employee (identifying himself as a "SpaceXer" on his Twitter/X profile),
&
- federal employee -- and important one at that --"leading an engineering unit inside the FAA."
...
March 9, 2025 at 9:06 PM
This is go to prison forever malfeasance. A guy who is currently a SpaceX employee also serves as an FAA official who cancels a big contract to award instead no-bid to his own employer and starts installing hardware without statutorily required tests and assurances
“Hey Mr Employer, we just thought you should know your employee is out here using his constitutionally guaranteed rights.”
January 27, 2026 at 6:30 PM
“Hey Mr Employer, we just thought you should know your employee is out here using his constitutionally guaranteed rights.”
3d Cir. holds that it did not violate the CFAA for employee to continue accessing her employer's email account after she resigned because employer had not affirmatively rescinded a prior grant of permission.
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/233...
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/233...
![Absent more, an employee’s resignation does not cancel her employer’s authorization. The reason: an employee’s resignation is not her employer’s action. It is her own. An employee cannot rescind the permission her employer gave her any more than an employee can provide permission her employer has not given. Only her employer can do that. After all, whether an employee is authorized to access her employer’s computer “depends on actions taken by the employer.” Id. Thus, absent prior agreement, an employee’s resignation does not revoke her employer’s authorization. Her employer must perform some affirmative act to revoke it.1 Accord Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., 844 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A] defendant can run afoul of the](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:24vva42nxim6zbcmnozegoef/bafkreicdrzlpp2xvbcbtu4wbq6lrhmtvcbhieztj7etldlvyidzbawrk5y)
December 9, 2025 at 5:44 PM
3d Cir. holds that it did not violate the CFAA for employee to continue accessing her employer's email account after she resigned because employer had not affirmatively rescinded a prior grant of permission.
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/233...
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/233...
No employer just ‘suspends’ a full time employee without pay
Nor for simply supporting a political party
Dare one suggest that she is clearly full of you know what?
Nor for simply supporting a political party
Dare one suggest that she is clearly full of you know what?
September 25, 2026 at 6:58 PM
No employer just ‘suspends’ a full time employee without pay
Nor for simply supporting a political party
Dare one suggest that she is clearly full of you know what?
Nor for simply supporting a political party
Dare one suggest that she is clearly full of you know what?
A woman with Long Covid won almost one million dollars in a lawsuit against her employer who refused to allow her work from home accommodations.
May this set a precedent.
Remote work should be accessible to all who need it.
It’s a game changer for people with disabilities.
May this set a precedent.
Remote work should be accessible to all who need it.
It’s a game changer for people with disabilities.
Long-COVID Sufferer Awarded Nearly $1M After Employer Refused to Let Her Work From Home | Law.com
A jury in Nassau County awarded $954,000 to a longtime employee of Stony Brook University Hospital Blood Bank.
www.law.com
March 4, 2026 at 8:37 AM
A woman with Long Covid won almost one million dollars in a lawsuit against her employer who refused to allow her work from home accommodations.
May this set a precedent.
Remote work should be accessible to all who need it.
It’s a game changer for people with disabilities.
May this set a precedent.
Remote work should be accessible to all who need it.
It’s a game changer for people with disabilities.
oh my god I meant employer instead of employee too. my brain is not fucking working
September 18, 2026 at 9:54 PM
oh my god I meant employer instead of employee too. my brain is not fucking working
They want to have employer/employee control but with "independent contractor" flexibility to deny work. I feel like that's gig work all over now.
July 31, 2026 at 7:36 PM
They want to have employer/employee control but with "independent contractor" flexibility to deny work. I feel like that's gig work all over now.
3. A "buyout" is when an employer agrees to pay an employee a lump sum, often equivalent to the employee's salary for a particular length of time, in exchange for their voluntary resignation. After agreeing to the buyout offer, the employee receives the money, & their obligations to the employer end
January 30, 2025 at 1:20 PM
3. A "buyout" is when an employer agrees to pay an employee a lump sum, often equivalent to the employee's salary for a particular length of time, in exchange for their voluntary resignation. After agreeing to the buyout offer, the employee receives the money, & their obligations to the employer end
For example, a white employer discriminates against a white employee because of their race? Actionable. A cis gay employer discriminates against a trans employee? Actionable. A heterosexual employee is told, no we’re going to hire someone because they aren’t straight instead of you? Actionable.
June 5, 2025 at 3:12 PM
For example, a white employer discriminates against a white employee because of their race? Actionable. A cis gay employer discriminates against a trans employee? Actionable. A heterosexual employee is told, no we’re going to hire someone because they aren’t straight instead of you? Actionable.
So every employee that did the job required by their employer, was screwed by the petulant child of a tyrant.
March 26, 2026 at 11:34 PM
So every employee that did the job required by their employer, was screwed by the petulant child of a tyrant.
And the portion that an employer pays usually isn't made known to the employee until the employee goes to apply for COBRA coverage.
December 21, 2025 at 4:24 PM
And the portion that an employer pays usually isn't made known to the employee until the employee goes to apply for COBRA coverage.
Comer is a dumbass.
Not all companies offer health insurance. One, expensive both the employer and employee. Most company offered health benefits are a percentage split between employer and employee which brings me to my second point. The employee’s portion may still be to cost prohibitive.
Not all companies offer health insurance. One, expensive both the employer and employee. Most company offered health benefits are a percentage split between employer and employee which brings me to my second point. The employee’s portion may still be to cost prohibitive.
October 4, 2025 at 1:57 AM
Comer is a dumbass.
Not all companies offer health insurance. One, expensive both the employer and employee. Most company offered health benefits are a percentage split between employer and employee which brings me to my second point. The employee’s portion may still be to cost prohibitive.
Not all companies offer health insurance. One, expensive both the employer and employee. Most company offered health benefits are a percentage split between employer and employee which brings me to my second point. The employee’s portion may still be to cost prohibitive.
Remember that this country once had employer-funded pensions and annuities. The so-called 401k revolution of employee-funded and (sometimes) employer-matched funds instead of secure pensions is one of the biggest legal grifts in America.
March 4, 2025 at 11:48 PM
Remember that this country once had employer-funded pensions and annuities. The so-called 401k revolution of employee-funded and (sometimes) employer-matched funds instead of secure pensions is one of the biggest legal grifts in America.