Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)ME
Posts
3
Comments
1,562
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • And this is how you get a completely sociopathic system held up by seemingly "moral" or "good" people.

    In a general sense it's hard to argue against unnecessary care. After all it's right in the name. It's unnecessary. And it's hard to argue against managing personnel based on performance. Trying to audit every decision could be time consuming and expensive. Just put in a KPI (Key Performance Indicator) with respect to cost to company. If you approve $X amount of claims and your coworker approved $Y, when they need to downsize or trim the fat, you just look at X and Y and let go the one that approved more claims.

    Each step can be kinda argued and supported in a vacuum. And that's where these CEOs wilfully sit. They don't explicit tell employees to deny more claims. They just make it more lucrative at every step to do so.

  • In all honesty it could help loosen regulations on workers rights. Flipping burgers and the boss is on some shady shit trying to schedule you a ton of hours? Fuck it. You can quit and still survive, and possibly thrive.

    Not that I'd advocate loosening those regulations. Just that UBI itself could alleviate some current issues.

  • Jury nullification isn't some secret third option. The jurors individually can only choose guilty or not guilty. If they are unanimous, that is the decision. If they are not unanimous, it's a hung jury effectively voiding the entire court process up to that point. The government then needs to decide if they want to re-file and try again.

    Jury nullification is when evidence is presented establishing clear guilt and the jury still renders a not guilty verdict. 5th amendment prohibits double jeopardy so they cannot be retried.

  • Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • This is worded funny, implying there are some who said less hours did not improve work life balance. I can't really figure that.

    That's not what that's implying. It explicitly states "most employees said...". This implies others either said something else or just did not say something specifically with regard to work life balance.

  • Sounds like what they mean is that they don't want the topic of jury nullification to factor into a decision to commit a crime. If the crime is already committed, the topic can not affect that decision since it was already made. Before a crime, they take the discussion to be an incentive to commit a crime. Essentially, "don't be too worried about being prosecuted, the jury can just find you effectively innocent." It can come off as encouraging crime.

  • Yes. If you click the link the 4 results are yay, nay, present, not voting. I think I recall this happening during Mccarthy's run for speaker. I think present adds to the total voting affecting what qualifies as majority.

    I could also be wildly fucking wrong.