No one was physically harmed, but there was financial harm. I wonder how many people lost their job due to the fire and now can’t pay their bills. The town only has 3k people, so I wonder how much of that population worked there.
Funny how people barely scraping by with peanut wages is “Well we all have to just suck it up for the sake of the economy.” (Thatcher/Reagan types love to use this ‘take your medicine’ analogy.)
…but burning down a corporate warehouse is also “Oh no. Now those workers can’t work for peanuts. :(”
Almost like the power dynamic here is ridiculously askew and the company never feels the hurt.
At least one direction here has a chance of actually shifting the balance, and that direction surely isn’t
“Clock in day after day, say ‘yes, boss’, and hope for the best.”
they were barely paid enough anyways, it isnt a lost to the workers. and warehouse job isnt exactly a career for people, not even long term or part time. they f’ around enough witht the hours to prevent that, and injuries are quite frequent in these jobs.
The warehouse was burned down because they weren’t paid enough on the first place.
Either someone with some foresight gets ahead of the problem and starts paying people enough to live, cancelling debts, etc., or there’s now ~1-200 more people with little left to lose and the fires will spread.
I know solidarity is unheard of in the US, but this is something that often builds it out of necessity if nothing else.
Ah, the type of harm that’s the easiest to manage. Can’t really blame this dude for the harm capitalism causes after the fact via suppression of basic social safety nets.
No one was physically harmed, but there was financial harm. I wonder how many people lost their job due to the fire and now can’t pay their bills. The town only has 3k people, so I wonder how much of that population worked there.
Funny how people barely scraping by with peanut wages is “Well we all have to just suck it up for the sake of the economy.” (Thatcher/Reagan types love to use this ‘take your medicine’ analogy.)
…but burning down a corporate warehouse is also “Oh no. Now those workers can’t work for peanuts. :(”
Almost like the power dynamic here is ridiculously askew and the company never feels the hurt.
At least one direction here has a chance of actually shifting the balance, and that direction surely isn’t
“Clock in day after day, say ‘yes, boss’, and hope for the best.”
Oh no, think of the poor capitalists. They might get mad and stop giving us their crumbs!
Get their meals, eat the rich!
Are you an agent
they were barely paid enough anyways, it isnt a lost to the workers. and warehouse job isnt exactly a career for people, not even long term or part time. they f’ around enough witht the hours to prevent that, and injuries are quite frequent in these jobs.
The warehouse was burned down because they weren’t paid enough on the first place.
Either someone with some foresight gets ahead of the problem and starts paying people enough to live, cancelling debts, etc., or there’s now ~1-200 more people with little left to lose and the fires will spread.
I know solidarity is unheard of in the US, but this is something that often builds it out of necessity if nothing else.
Ah, the type of harm that’s the easiest to manage. Can’t really blame this dude for the harm capitalism causes after the fact via suppression of basic social safety nets.
The hard working warehouse employees will be receiving unemployment. They just got several weeks of PTO.
The demolition and reconstruction is new work that will be going on for the next few years.
Corporate fire-insurance will cover their paycheck so what are you on about?
Insurance will cover most of it. And there will be more jobs as things are cleaned up and rebuilt.