At most companies in Japan, them firing you would not eliminate your severance or pension. Those are typically mostly paid based on years worked, and not on how your employment terminates.
There tend to be extra payouts if you die on the job, at many companies, so it’s not true to say that your termination status has zero impact, but typically it’s a small adjustment.
That’s true but it’s not so simple. Let’s assume many of those women are racist and sexist and xenophobic. How do they choose which candidate to vote for?
One would hope that the answer to that question begins with becoming a less s***** human being, but if you assume that they’re not going to make improvements in their own moral character, at least not in the short run, then they have this weird choice to make.
I don’t think you have any idea who you’re describing. Of course it’s possible to find a couple dozen people who legitimately have no idea who to vote for, but you know it’s a lot easier to find millions of people who are going to stay home. As always, the real challenge is getting people to go vote.
But you think this ultra-minority, that is barely in existence, is going to decide an election. By your reasoning, it doesn’t matter what anyone else does. Everyone else in the United States is powerless between now and election day. That’s your position, right? … But I think it’s just a cop out. You just want someone to blame if your candidate loses, and you certainly don’t want to blame yourself or your candidate.
She didn’t vote yes, which means she cares, at least a little. That might not be all we hope for, but it’s far better than almost everyone around her.
Exactly! You accidentally hit the nail on the head here.
The goal of the company is to get rid of employees. But they have permanent hire, so the bosses can’t simply fire them without cause (and the bar for cause is very high in Japan). They want employees to quit, or they want employees to clearly fail to perform their duties.
What the employees want is to keep doing decent work at that company, probably until they retire at age 65. Permanent hire is highly treasured, for good reason. The reason permanent hire exists, and is so widespread as required by law, is that Japan values employee well-being more than it values the bosses’ well-being. It’s hard to get a big loan (for a house or apartment) if you don’t have permanent hire. It’s hard to get a high-paying job that doesn’t have permanent hire. Many companies will not give you good positions if you’re over the age of 35, too, which makes changing employers in your 40s-60s very challenging.
In the past, many employees have won wrongful termination lawsuits for this type of behavior. In Japan, employers have a legal duty to give their employees some kind of work.
(The authors were lazy here. This is not a secret thing.)
It all depends on how many of his speeches you watch. People have been doing analysis of his phraseology for several years now, clearly identifying an apparent decline in vocal prowess.
And they’ve made themselves mostly irrelevant at the same time. So many voters have learned that mainstream media’s coverage of the election is 99% empty. They’re never going to respect the major networks on these topics again, and they shouldn’t.
If you’re posting this right now because of recent poll data, It’s because Republican companies are creating their own polls just so that they can claim the race is closer than it is.
Of course we don’t know who’s going to win. The election hasn’t happened yet. But any speculation about changes in the last few days should be taken with a grain of salt, because this is a playbook that was trotted out two years ago and it’s back again.
Instead of asking whether the claim was actually true (and it wasn’t), you decided that Lemmy is packed full of Dems (when it’s not). That’s kind of awkward, my friend.
No, he isn’t up in all the swing state polls. Only in some of them. It took me less than five minutes to find that you were wrong, because of course you were wrong. There are many polls out there, and you tried to claim that they all showed one thing, when of course they didn’t.
(If you want to argue that your preferred polls show something, you can make that argument. And we could debate the reliability of those particular polls. At least then we could start with facts and disagree about how to interpret them.)
They claimed Trump is up in all the swing state polls, but five minutes on Google shows that’s just not true. People can read, and if you lie to them, they’ll downvote you.
Yes. Religious parents would love to save money on tuition for their private schools, and they would love even more to take money away from public schools.
And some rich parents want to send their kids to expensive private schools because they think, possibly accurately, that some of those schools provide high quality education. So if you give them money, of course they’re going to take it.
They are victims, of that drone strike if the information given is accurate, and also of a military that would recruit them and put them close to the front lines when they’re just teenagers. And it’s not only Israel who does that, but it doesn’t make it okay. Kids that age can’t make informed decisions about how to risk their lives. They didn’t have any political power in starting the war or continuing it.
But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the people who wrote that article. They obviously agree, or they would have written their headline differently.
I don’t think this is going to outrage anyone new. People who already thought the Democrats were destroying the country are probably still thinking that, and now they just don’t get any support, and their neighbors who were hoping for support are pissed off that their neighbors are assholes, because they can read what’s happening in the newspaper and they can use their eyes and ears and brains.
I generally agree, but we should remember that there are always going to be a small number of fringe elements in any large population. Even the perfect mostly peaceful transition to a two-state solution would still involve some violence from various militants, because that’s what some people (ideally not too many people) out there want, and they’re always going to want it.
Yeah, that depends what you mean by small talk. I think you know what you mean, but I’m not sure that we know what you mean.
You can find all sorts of well reasoned arguments if you just do a basic web search. And I mean that honestly. There are plenty of intelligent people who can reasonably argue that the Second Amendment ought to continue to exist, and it ought to be interpreted in a way that allows people to have their own shotguns or rifles or handguns.
I think a lot of the arguments that are made on paper look okay at a glance, but whether they stand up to statistical analysis is a different question. For example, we know that when seconds count police are minutes or hours away, you just can’t expect the police to keep you safe, so you might argue that you should have guns in your house to protect yourself from home invasion. And there’s some truth to that. At the same time, the fact that you have guns in your house makes it more likely that your kids are going to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else, or that you’re going to. So the problem you’re trying to solve by owning a weapon creates another risk, which offsets the overall value. But then that gets into a question of priorities and how much control you think you have over guns in your own home. Or you might remark that perhaps the solution is to decrease poverty, so that there is less likelihood of anyone trying to break into your house, or you could suggest that we try to fix the broken police system in the country, so that cops actually have some incentive to respond quickly to home invasion calls, and the cops won’t accidentally shoot you if they think you’re the criminal when you’re actually the resident.
And even if you can argue that people ought to be able to have weapons to protect themselves from home invasion, then there’s a lot of disagreement about what kind of weapons ought to be permissible. Perhaps shotguns or rifles should be allowed but handguns shouldn’t, because you can’t easily hide a shotgun or a rifle. And then you get into strange statistical analyses of what kind of guns tend to be used in what kind of shootings, and which ones are relatively safe, and which ones criminals would switch to if they had no other option.
So I think all of that is complicated enough that people who really want to keep their guns can get lost in the statistics and logic, and I didn’t even go into depth, but you can imagine how people who want to make the affair complicated would do so. And all of that happens so that they don’t have to answer the question about why your children got shot and Australia no longer has that problem, because they fixed it the last time their children got shot.
That sounds like a set of rules that could create, but in reality it’s actually hard for them to pull it off. If you violate some of the rules, like if you’re sitting in a room with nothing to do and then you pull out your phone and start texting, they could try to reprimand you and start the ball rolling on firing you. But then you get the union involved, and then you can gather evidence about the reasonableness of their effort to fire you. At some point it will go before a judge and the judge will ask your boss why they have to block you from having a cell phone if you were just sitting there doing nothing. When your boss can’t answer, then you will win your lawsuit.
In other words, companies that try this tactic have to be very careful about exactly how the implement it, because labor law has a surprisingly large number of protections.