If you saw someone stealing food, no you didn’t.
Why limit it to just food?
Depends on where. Food, diapers, other necessities? I ain’t see shit. Luxuries? Only if it’s a local joint. Luxuries at a chain? I still ain’t see shit. You could steal a 200 inch TV, a PS5, and jewelry from a department store and I didn’t see anything at all.
Please don’t steal from local joints. Those folks are just trying to make a living. But if you do, please keep it to what you need.
We don’t get to choose the laws we follow without consequence, and the laws are clear here.
You really, really do.
Where I come from, there are only a handful of crimes people are obligated to report.
Someone stealing food? Ain’t my business.
Someone getting beaten up? Yea, I’m doing something about it.
In the Netherlands, a judge forbade bus drivers from striking like this. It is very effective.
Why should the bus drivers care about the judges ruling?
Because then they can “legally” get thrown in prison for long enough to turn their family homeless who don’t have savings, which if they are striking for fair wages, is the case for many.
Legally that might be possible, but surely the solidarity between the bus drivers and the general population would be able to overcome that, wouldnt it?
No, that only works if the entire population overthrows the police force. Otherwise they will just rot in jail being abused by the class traitor psychos that are police.
I don’t think you know how the Dutch legal system works.
Because pigs categorize people into two categories:
Law abiding (does what they’re told) and Enemy (has no rights)
You’re thinking about the US. In my country, cops are usually well aware of people’s rights.
Lol
Ignore all those speculating, this is not the US.
A striking bus driver might not care, though it could be considered stealing and land him in legal trouble or be fired.
But it’s mainly the unions that coordinate these strikes. They cannot on a large scale organise illegal strikes without large repercussions.
In general, striking is well protected in the Netherlands. For example, companies are not allowed to hire strikebreakers or to fire people for striking. When a judge decides that free bus rides isn’t an allowed method of striking, these protections don’t apply either.
So its more the unions that need to be careful and since there (currently) is not really an alternative for bus drivers to organize themselves and start collective action, the bus drivers are restricted by what the union can legally do. Pretty similar situation in Germany.
I think strikes should break laws if the ones striling think it might help them.
And this is why Food Not Bombs refuses to ask for permits before feeding the hungry or holding demonstrations. If the government authorizes you to protest, the government holds authority over your protests.
This was absolutely delightful to read
deleted by creator
I don’t think quitting should be quiet. I also don’t believe in this bullshit about food costing money. We pay too much in taxes that pretty much all farms rely on for that shit. If farmers truly do need more so everyone can have free food, for fuck’s sake, give them more. Why the hell are we paying so much to kill people instead of feed people? I’d so much rather pay a farmer than the military industrial complex, and frankly, I think most people would. We have to rise up. The corporations and the errant worker actually aren’t even the biggest problem with this story. The main problem is the government is not doing their fucking job, which is to properly distribute.
The term ‘Quiet quitting’ in this context is not about quitting your job without complaining.
Quiet quitting refers to doing the minimum requirements of one’s job and putting in no more time, effort, or enthusiasm than absolutely necessary.
Oh. Hmm. That’s how I’ve always approached my work for corporations. I don’t think it’s fair of them to ask for any more than that when they’re literally destroying our planet. Fuck 'em. Also, I mean, it’s not really quitting if they’re still working, is it? Odd terminology.
Addendum: Just ran into a good “old” quote about this: “How in the hell could a man enjoy being awakened at 6:30 by an alarm clock, leap out of bed, dress, force-feed, shit, piss, brush their teeth, brush their hair, and then fight traffic to get to a place where essentially you made lots of money for somebody else and were asked to be grateful for the opportunity to do so?” - Charles Bukowski, Factotum, 1975. We live in slavery. We are forced to work to our deaths just to attempt staying alive. If you must work most if not all of your life just to feed and shelter yourself when those resources are abundant, that is slavery, more so when you - have - to support quite literally fatal industries to do so, and pay taxes. It is not a system of consent. It is not a system of acceptability. It is not a system where I’m gonna fucking smile and pretend everything is okay while people suffer terribly for truly no actual reason but imaginary fucking numbers that some assholes decided is more important than human lives.
I can’t remember what State it was but wasn’t there a change to the laws about striking that included damages to the company (monetary too)?
I think that was a Supreme Court case, Glacier Northwest, Inc v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (learned this on the December 5th 2023 ep of 5-4)
This ruling was complete bullshit. Disgusting that Clarence is able to enjoy his RV without it being rocked by throngs of protesters.
Yeah, agreed. I love that podcast but listening to it makes me too upset so I need to take breaks lol
Unlawful good MF’ers thinking they’re agents of chaos… =u
They can call themselves Agents of SHIELD for all that matters. Let them do their thing.
I didn’t say their actions were bad. I said they’re silly for thinking that’s chaos. Why do you assume what I specifically did not say?
In this context ‘chaotic’ means ‘willing to break the rules’. It’s from the D&D alignment chart.
