Political Discussion

Some companies continue to be more resistant than ever on working from home.

Many of these companies are saying "Working from home is not part of our business model nor will it ever be. We are not a work from home company and we are not changing our business model". The issue is top executives do not believe in work from home. Despite seeing it work during stay at home orders they are firmly against it and believe it's a recipe for failure and loss of productivity.

I just heard about a company that has been saying the above is now requiring all reasonable accommodation request to work from home if an employee is high risk being forwarded to the CEO. Including all documentation and forms and the CEO must approve the request.

That CEO does not reside in a USA based office and is overseas. Employees believe this new requirement to request accommodations to work form home is meant to scare people into giving up trying to ask.

Meanwhile I hear at least 50% of said employees in the local office are looking for a new job. And a lot of HR have quit.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Some companies continue to be more resistant than ever on working from home.

Many of these companies are saying "Working from home is not part of our business model nor will it ever be. We are not a work from home company and we are not changing our business model". The issue is top executives do not believe in work from home. Despite seeing it work during stay at home orders they are firmly against it and believe it's a recipe for failure and loss of productivity.

I just heard about a company that has been saying the above is now requiring all reasonable accommodation request to work from home if an employee is high risk being forwarded to the CEO. Including all documentation and forms and the CEO must approve the request.

That CEO does not reside in a USA based office and is overseas. Employees believe this new requirement to request accommodations to work form home is meant to scare people into giving up trying to ask.

Meanwhile I hear at least 50% of said employees in the local office are looking for a new job. And a lot of HR have quit.
Click to expand...
All I know is, if my company wants to retain me, they better switch to a WFH model. Been working from home for 4 months already, and I can't see myself ever going back to an office.
 
wingclipper said:
The Barr and Trump connections to Epstein and Maxwell should be blasting from every corner of this country. What they are doing to the SDNY and EDNY is fucking scary
Click to expand...
Links? first I've heard of Trump connections. All I know is some chick with an Italian sounding name went down.
 
When I saw this tweet I thought “let me click on this video and find out which Stones song the big guy is misappropriating now.”

I gotta admit...I did not see this one coming. I legit LOL’d.
 
Space Wanderer said:
When I saw this tweet I thought “let me click on this video and find out which Stones song the big guy is misappropriating now.”

I gotta admit...I did not see this one coming. I legit LOL’d.
Click to expand...

Has his campaign team started trolling him?
" i don't feel like Satan, but iam to them"
 
Todays Supreme Court ruling further protects the GOP's balance of power.

States have the power to bind pledged votes and punish Electoral College members who break the pledged vote to place their vote towards the popular vote winner.

For example, the democrat candidate wins the popular vote in the state, but the republican candidate wins the electoral college vote. Generally, all the votes in the presidential election would then be pledged to the republican candidate (depending on the state). A rouge electoral college voter could in the past place a vote for the popular vote winner instead of the electoral college winner. According to todays ruling, that 's no longer possible. A state can bind that vote and the vote can only be for the electoral college winner.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Todays Supreme Court ruling further protects the GOP's balance of power.

States have the power to bind pledged votes and punish Electoral College members who break the pledged vote to place their vote towards the popular vote winner.

For example, the democrat candidate wins the popular vote in the state, but the republican candidate wins the electoral college vote. Generally, all the votes in the presidential election would then be pledged to the republican candidate (depending on the state). A rouge electoral college voter could in the past place a vote for the popular vote winner instead of the electoral college winner. According to todays ruling, that 's no longer possible. A state can bind that vote and the vote can only be for the electoral college winner.
Click to expand...

I mean, I understand the ruling and I think it's the correct one for the flawed electoral college system. We should be focusing on creating state laws to make the popular vote winner in the state get all of the electoral college representation so rogue electoral college voters aren't necessary.

Ideally, the electoral college would be abolished altogether, but one step at a time.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
For example, the democrat candidate wins the popular vote in the state, but the republican candidate wins the electoral college vote. Generally, all the votes in the presidential election would then be pledged to the republican candidate (depending on the state). A rouge electoral college voter could in the past place a vote for the popular vote winner instead of the electoral college winner.
Click to expand...
First, I don't think this example makes sense.

But second, if the whole Electoral College is a bad idea for modern America anyway, then this step just makes it even more irrelevant by removing the electors' independence, so ultimately it could further the cause of abolishing it altogether.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
First, I don't think this example makes sense.

But second, if the whole Electoral College is a bad idea for modern America anyway, then this step just makes it even more irrelevant by removing the electors' independence, so ultimately it could further the cause of abolishing it altogether.
Click to expand...


How does that example not make sense? That is how you would end up with an electoral college member placing their vote with the popular vote winner, and not the pledged vote which can be different than the popular vote winner.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
How does that example not make sense?
Click to expand...
Here:
RenegadeMonster said:
For example, the democrat candidate wins the popular vote in the state, but the republican candidate wins the electoral college vote.
Click to expand...
The decision here is what allows a state to guarantee that the state's electors vote for the winner of that state's popular vote.
RenegadeMonster said:
A rouge electoral college voter could in the past place a vote for the popular vote winner instead of the electoral college winner.
Click to expand...
An EC elector *chooses* the EC winner. Electors can now be bound to vote for the winner of the popular vote in that state instead of being a 'faithless' elector (i.e., voting against the will of the people).

Edit: I do agree that in the short term it shores up the over-representation of smaller states, but faithless electors are so uncommon anyway that it's not like counting on them is some sort of viable election strategy in the first place.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Here:

The decision here is what allows a state to guarantee that the state's electors vote for the winner of that state's popular vote.

An EC elector *chooses* the EC winner. Electors can now be bound to vote for the winner of the popular vote in that state instead of being a 'faithless' elector (i.e., voting against the will of the people).
Click to expand...

I thought it worked like this.

The popular vote doesn't matter, voting distracts do. So each distracts delegate votes for the winner of the distract. This can lead to more delegate votes for a party other than the state wide popular vote winner. This can happen because of gerrymandering.

I suppose the faithless votes could happen in the distracts it self.

I was thinking about when the electoral college has more delegates for republicans, but democrats won the state popular vote. In many states during the presidential election, the candidate with the most delegate votes then get's all the delegates for that state. (Yes, a couple of states split their delegates). My example was someone at this point not voting for the pledged candidate, the republican who won the most delegates. This has happened before.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
I thought it worked like this.

The popular vote doesn't matter, voting distracts do. So each distracts delegate votes for the winner of the distract. This can lead to more delegate votes for a party other than the state wide popular vote winner. This can happen because of gerrymandering.

I suppose the faithless votes could happen in the distracts it self.

I was thinking about when the electoral college has more delegates for republicans, but democrats won the state popular vote. In many states during the presidential election, the candidate with the most delegate votes then get's all the delegates for that state. (Yes, a couple of states split their delegates). My example was someone at this point not voting for the pledged candidate, the republican who won the most delegates. This has happened before.
Click to expand...
Congressional district maps are irrelevant to the selection awarding of electors. Popular vote at state level selects which party's electors will represent that state in the EC, winner take all (with exception of Maine & Nebraska).
 
Last edited:
Indymisanthrope said:
Congressional district maps are irrelevant to the selection of electors. Popular vote at state level selects which party's electors will represent that state in the EC, winner take all (with exception of Maine & Nebraska).
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound right. You keep saying the popular vote at state level selects which party's electors will represent. And that's where I'm getting hung up.

I don't think that's right, at least not for all states. I was able to find this:

Each state has a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress — two votes for the Senate, and a number based on the state’s House seats. For all but two states, the winner of the popular vote in the state also wins all the electoral votes.
Click to expand...

Those other two states due to Gerrymandering, can have the winner be someone other than than the states popular vote winner.

21 States bind their delegates to the popular vote winner. 29 states allow their delegates to vote freely which isn't always the popular vote winner.

So, yes, it is possible for a state to pledge it's delegates for someone other than the states popular vote winner.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
That doesn't sound right. You keep saying the popular vote at state level selects which party's electors will represent. And that's where I'm getting hung up.

I don't think that's right, at least not for all states. I was able to find this:



Those other two states due to Gerrymandering, can have the winner be someone other than than the states popular vote winner.

21 States bind their delegates to the popular vote winner. 29 states allow their delegates to vote freely which isn't always the popular vote winner.

So, yes, it is possible for a state to pledge it's delegates for someone other than the states popular vote winner.
Click to expand...

Gerrymandering is about how voting districts are drawn on the map. The number of congressional representatives is based on the census. The # of electoral votes is based as you describe on the # of representatives in the house and the senate. The only two states that divide-up electoral votes by districts is Maine and Nebraska.

Electoral College Information :: California Secretary of State

Find information about the Electoral College here.
www.sos.ca.gov www.sos.ca.gov
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top