Elections Sanders White House Campaign Hit with Federal Labor Complaint

AlexDB9 said:
A hit job huh? Your comrade just got exposed bad man, he’s the epitome of do as I say not as I do. It’s cool with me cause I already knew he was a communist hack, but I’m glad the public, his own staff (hahahaha), and the bros are learning this

Accept “on the lips” biden buddy, he’s your nominee
Click to expand...

His staff learned a valuable lesson in economics.
 
Anung Un Rama said:
Only because the Union rejected the campaigns offer to increase their salaries.
So if you leave out the facts, then its not factually correct.
Click to expand...
yes, I'm getting that now. I just think that a low wage worker shouldnt be on salary, that in itself *seems* like a con job.
 
chardog said:
yes, I'm getting that now. I just think that a low wage worker shouldnt be on salary, that in itself *seems* like a con job.
Click to expand...
While I tend to agree that salary employees tend to get abused, those jobs exist all over the place, not just politics, and Sanders didn't invent it.
 
chardog said:
interesting, I cant believe that such low wage workers would be on salary..... why not just go per hour?

While on face, it still seems like fake news, however the fact that you overwork low level workers and put them on salary, doesnt seem right either. It's honestly the first time I've heard of such low level pay on salary, almost like it was a con job from the start.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the video? Bernie tried to just pay them strictly hourly ($15) and the union said no. So then they said ok will cut the hours down to 40 so it's equals $15 an hour.
 
tenor.gif
 
method115 said:
Did you watch the video? Bernie tried to just pay them strictly hourly ($15) and the union said no. So then they said ok will cut the hours down to 40 so it's equals $15 an hour.
Click to expand...
Yes I did, I'm saying that the inherent nature of a salary position with a low paying job is ripe for underpay.

it's a *gaffe* by Bernie and it's not going to help him. Union said no to the increase in pay, sure, you can blame them for it, but the public certainly wont be blaming the union, rather Bernie for inexperience as an employer and his own policy. This doesnt look good for the Union or Bernie..... As far as I can tell, it sounds like a temp job, why is a union involved other than political posturing? It's like he sort of dug his own grave.
 
chardog said:
Yes I did, I'm saying that the inherent nature of a salary position with a low paying job is ripe for underpay.

it's a *gaffe* by Bernie and it's not going to help him. Union said no to the increase in pay, sure, you can blame them for it, but the public certainly wont be blaming the union, rather Bernie for inexperience as an employer and his own policy. This doesnt look good for the Union or Bernie..... As far as I can tell, it sounds like a temp job, why is a union involved other than political posturing? It's like he sort of dug his own grave.
Click to expand...

I agree it does look bad to people who are looking for bad things to put on Bernie. Low info voters will also think this looks bad for Bernie. With that said every single other candidate going against Bernie has way way worse stuff on their record so I think he'll be ok.

Bernie and Warren are tied for second right now. Kamala is dropping, I assume from people finding out more about her after the debates. IMO Warren is Bernie's main threat. She's working her ass off to overtake Bernie and I think she has a very good chance of doing it.
 
Viva, I asked you a question hours ago. Where you at? What did Donald Trump obstruct? I'll post the whole thing. Yeah, didn't think so, you fucking coward.

 
Last edited:
Sano said:
The field organizers, not the average workers.

What do you think about the rest of the story?
Click to expand...
I think Sanders campaign leaders agreed to the union deal then hired a number of employees that wouldn't be reasonable for a 40 hour work week.
 
Headkicktoleg said:
imagine a college student who writes about cow farts knows anything about anything.
Click to expand...
Keep telling yourself cold war era economic policy that's been thoroughly rebuked is still valid in 2019. It's funny you would talk shit when you're literally unable to ever cite evidence for ANYTHING you say or believe
 
chardog said:
interesting, I cant believe that such low wage workers would be on salary..... why not just go per hour?

While on face, it still seems like fake news, however the fact that you overwork low level workers and put them on salary, doesnt seem right either. It's honestly the first time I've heard of such low level pay on salary, almost like it was a con job from the start.
Click to expand...


This is bullshit. The lowest workers in the campaign get 36,000 a year salary. They ended up working more than 40 hours per week. As soon as the campaign realized this they offered to pay more to make it up. Union refused and so Bernie cut hours to 42 to make the minimum wage. There is no scandal here.
 
nostradumbass said:
Viva, I asked you a question hours ago. Where you at? What did Donald Trump obstruct? I'll post the whole thing. Yeah, didn't think so, you fucking coward.

Click to expand...



The Most Revealing Exchange of the Mueller Hearing


A Democrat asked the former special counsel whether the president had met each of the three elements necessary to prove obstruction of justice. Mueller’s answers spoke volumes.

DAVID A. GRAHAMJUL 24, 2019


lead_720_405.jpg

JONATHAN ERNST / REUTERS

Updated on July 24 at 1:41 p.m. ET

There’s a logical disconnect in volume 2 of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report that is unmissable to any careful reader.

As Mueller explains in the report, a charge of obstruction of justice requires three elements: an obstructive act, a nexus with an official proceeding, and corrupt intent. And in the report, Mueller’s team laid out several cases where President Donald Trump committed an obstructive act, in connection with an official proceeding, with what Mueller’s team concluded could be a corrupt intent.


But because Mueller had decided at the outset of his report that he could not and would not charge the president with crimes, thanks to Justice Department guidance and in the interest of fairness, Mueller did not make the otherwise obvious jump from laying out the ways that Trump’s behavior met the three-prong test to actually stating that Trump obstructed justice.

During today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, Democratic Representative Hakeem Jeffries sought to demonstrate the disconnect by walking Mueller through the three-prong test.

“Let me refer you to page 87 and 88 of volume 2 where you conclude the attempt to remove the special counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand-jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry. Correct?” Jeffries asked.


“Yes,” Mueller said, confirming the obstructive act.

“Your report found on page 89, volume 2, that substantial evidence indicates that by June 17, the president knew his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who would present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury. True?” Jeffries asked.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/594634/
 
VivaRevolution said:
The Most Revealing Exchange of the Mueller Hearing


A Democrat asked the former special counsel whether the president had met each of the three elements necessary to prove obstruction of justice. Mueller’s answers spoke volumes.

DAVID A. GRAHAMJUL 24, 2019


lead_720_405.jpg

JONATHAN ERNST / REUTERS

Updated on July 24 at 1:41 p.m. ET

There’s a logical disconnect in volume 2 of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report that is unmissable to any careful reader.

As Mueller explains in the report, a charge of obstruction of justice requires three elements: an obstructive act, a nexus with an official proceeding, and corrupt intent. And in the report, Mueller’s team laid out several cases where President Donald Trump committed an obstructive act, in connection with an official proceeding, with what Mueller’s team concluded could be a corrupt intent.


But because Mueller had decided at the outset of his report that he could not and would not charge the president with crimes, thanks to Justice Department guidance and in the interest of fairness, Mueller did not make the otherwise obvious jump from laying out the ways that Trump’s behavior met the three-prong test to actually stating that Trump obstructed justice.

During today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, Democratic Representative Hakeem Jeffries sought to demonstrate the disconnect by walking Mueller through the three-prong test.

“Let me refer you to page 87 and 88 of volume 2 where you conclude the attempt to remove the special counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand-jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry. Correct?” Jeffries asked.


“Yes,” Mueller said, confirming the obstructive act.

“Your report found on page 89, volume 2, that substantial evidence indicates that by June 17, the president knew his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who would present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury. True?” Jeffries asked.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/594634/
Click to expand...
{<jordan}

Just stop, man. You're making yourself look like a complete idiot. Lol at "the most revealing exchange of the Mueller hearing", according to some cuckold at the Atlantic grasping desperately for anything he can try to spin into a win. The entire hearing was a confused old man who doesn't seem to have read the report he's supposed to have written and saying "that's not within my purview" over 100 times. Lol at trying to turn an investigation accusing someone of "colluding with Russia to steal an election" suddenly becoming "he told someone he wanted to fire me, didn't do it, but he said he wanted to, which he was within his rights to do, and still didn't do it.". Thank God Hakeem Jeffries was there to rip the lid of this story.
 
nostradumbass said:
{<jordan}

Just stop, man. You're making yourself look like a complete idiot. Lol at "the most revealing exchange of the Mueller hearing", according to some cuckold at the Atlantic grasping desperately for anything he can try to spin into a win. The entire hearing was a confused old man who doesn't seem to have read the report he's supposed to have written and saying "that's not within my purview" over 100 times. Lol at trying to turn an investigation accusing someone of "colluding with Russia to steal an election" suddenly becoming "he told someone he wanted to fire me, didn't do it, but he said he wanted to, which he was within his rights to do, and still didn't do it.". Thank God Hakeem Jeffries was there to rip the lid of this story.
Click to expand...

None of what you said addressed any point of the legal definition of obstruction.
 
VivaRevolution said:
The investigation is what was obstructed.
Click to expand...
<6>

Yeesh. The investigation is kind of over and had unlimited time and unlimited funding. Not sure if you're aware, but there's kind of a 448 page report and the dude just testified in front of congress. Do you not remember when people were writing christmas carols about the guy and Richard Maddow cried on air when it finished and he/she had to swallow the bitter pill of finding out that her president wasn't a traitor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,089
Messages
55,467,043
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top