The bill, submitted by Raskin, specifically calls for a commission NOT led by Vance.
The 25th Amendment originally called for the formation of an independent council of both politicians and medical professionals to assess the President's competence in the case of emergency, yet, when the Amendment was passed, the Council was never formed. Several attempts to form the council have been made, but have failed. Another is being made now.
In the place of this Council, the Presidential Cabinet serves its role, led by the Vice President. The biggest problem with this is, unlike the 25th Amendment Council, there is no Congressional oversight.
It can be a few different things. Sometimes it’s just a final “fuck you” from your boss, but sometimes it could be an opportunity for the company to deny your bonus, or even to lay on some legal liabilities. It can depend on a few things in your employment contract, if you have one, or even the laws in state in which you happen to be employed.
ok, so, the headline directly addresses the pay rate, the workers, and a direct affect, but the article focuses almost entirely on the corporations and consumerist element of the story, only mentioning the workers as a statistic until the end, where a worker experience is only passingly mentioned for those who may have actually bothered to stick around to the end of the article, with no commentary or context offered afterward.
it's from Reuters, which is a well-reputed news source from Germany. I don't dispute the facts in the article. But it feels very... sterile and clinical? Maybe that's a cultural thing. I'm American and I expect a bit more humanism in my reporting. But for a story that's supposed to be about how people are being affected by some new service, the article surprisingly avoids much of any reporting on those very pekoe and how they're being affected by this new service that they are, themselves, now running. Instead, it focuses on (generally) the companies that run the services and the users of those services.
But, beyond simply the coldness of the reporting (which, again, maybe that just a cultural thing), I find it kind of disturbing how much it seems to ignore the workers involved, an entire class of people, and the people who should really be the focus of the whole story.
It’s particularly amusing because this is a very rare example of when either spelling (two different words) could be correct in this context without changing the overall meaning of the sentence at all.
yes, there's some context, but I think it would be helpful if there was a bit finer context than just an annual income statement-- if they were more granular.
These kind of articles feel sort of... dehumanizing? I mean, the whole thing is supposed to be about how these gig jobs are possibly changing these peoples' lives, but it talks mostly about the companies themselves and how they work, and the people who use the services, hardly mentioning the actual workers, referring to them mostly as statistics.
this guy has turned passive-aggressiveness into an art form. also:
"Lacking this foundation, (democracy) risks becoming either a majoritarian tyranny or a mask for the dominance of economic and technological elites," said Leo in the letter.
who got 5 members of the fuckbag express to stand still for long enough to photograph them?
like, congratulations, but, still, how did this happen?
why?
and what did it cost?