"Unions create a lords and peasants sort of thing". No Elon, that's Capitalism. Unions don't create this "sort of thing". They fight to dismantle it.
I see your point, and I agree that it would be nicer to just have to follow one community instead of a million smaller ones. There's always cross-posting. When you make a post and there are several communities for the same thing, post on the smallest one and then cross post it on the other ones.
Each community has a reason to exist, maybe different rules and different moderators. It's up to them to arrange a merge or the admins to archive inactive communities.
I guess I don't understand what he is fighting for no. Twitter users are free to say whatever they want. Equally, companies are free to spend their dollars in any way they want. If Twitter and its users really want free and uncontrolled speech, they should move to a completely user-subsidised model with no ads. "Uncontrolled" or unmodderated speech isn't always brand safe content, so it seems valid advertisers wouldn't be keen to sponsor that. Maybe I'm missing something but that's how I see it.
RTO is only "better" for the owning class.
RTO makes it harder to micromanage > employees realise they can self-organise > employees form unions and demand "better" employment contracts
Also the money saved by not commuting has allowed (some) office workers to save up for emergency funds, which comes in handy when it is time for a strike.
RTO = preventative union busting
Right - thanks for the clarification
Wait till SpaceX IPO tanks next month. "Don't buy the stock. Go f*** yourself".
Someone needs a nap. Tantrum much?
From the article:
Conclusion In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court answer as follows the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the tribunal du travail de Liège (Labour Court, Liège, Belgium):
(1) Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted to mean that a provision of a public body’s terms of employment which prohibits employees from wearing any visible sign of political, philosophical or religious belief in the workplace, with the aim of putting in place an entirely neutral administrative environment, does not constitute, with regard to employees who intend to exercise their freedom of religion and conscience through the visible wearing of a sign or an item of clothing with religious connotations, direct discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, for the purposes of that directive, provided that that provision is applied
(2) Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted to mean that a difference of treatment indirectly based on religion or belief arising from a provision of a public body’s terms of employment which prohibits employees from wearing any visible sign of political, philosophical or religious belief in the workplace may be justified by that body’s desire to put in place an entirely neutral administrative environment, provided, first, that that desire responds to a genuine need on the part of that body, which it is for that body to demonstrate; second, that that difference of treatment is appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that that desire is properly realised; and, third, that that prohibition is limited to what is strictly necessary.
Why is he calling the act of people not using his shitty product a boycot?
