Mom donates kidney to son...Gets Fired.

[ScreamingMeemie]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2036755/Claudia-Rendon-fired-taking-time-donate-kidney-son-Alex.html

snip-

A Pennsylvania mother who donated her kidney to save her son's life has been left without a job, after her employer fired her for taking a leave of absence.

Claudia Rendon received some of the worst news a mother could get when doctors delivered the news her son Alex was in desperate need of a life-saving transplant.

She had used up her holiday earlier that year, following her mother and her uncle's deaths - and her father's diagnosis with leukaemia.


-snip

snip-
A supervisor at the Aviation Institute Of Maintenance refused to speak to a reporter and ordered a news crew to leave the premises
-snip


Edited to correct spelling

[catbyte]

1. Ain't America great?

:puke:

[rhett o rick]

96. If Perry had mentioned at a debate that he did the firing, he would have gotten great applause from

the wacko authoritarians.

[LadyInAZ]

116. yes

[teddy51]

2. This is such a wonderful society that we live in *NOT*.... WTF is wrong

with some of these people?

[LaydeeBug]

3. Isn't this illegal under FAMLA? nt

[ScreamingMeemie]

5. No, FMLA applies to companies with more than 50 employees.

[Occulus]

88. My single biggest disappointment with that law.

It lets small employers gleefully fuck over sick employees. Yes, gleefully.

FMLA should be universal, like minimum wage laws.

[Xithras]

8. Only applies to larger companies.

FMLA only applies to companies with more than 50 employees. Her employer is apparently under that limit.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberal_in_LA]

7. "something's suspicious about her story" "Why didn't he use another donor"

[Horse with no Name]

34. I donated to my son and went back to work the next day

If they weren't able to do this...then they must be trying to get unnecessary time off. Fucking scammers everywhere...next thing you know, they'll be trying to steal chips from Walgreens feigning a diabetic coma or something.

[Ignis]

44. Oh, they didn't have a Drive Thru Donation kiosk at your hospital?

[Posteritatis]

56. Who needs a kiosk? Real Americans(tm) have a well-stocked toolbox in their home! (nt)

[Control-Z]

100. You are joking, right? n/t

[Posteritatis]

55. Aaaaagh the first of those two pisses me off

The second does too, of course, but I do wish people saying the first would at least be honest enough to come out and say "I think this person's a lying liar who lies" instead of the vague affected skepticism every time someone gets in trouble in a wildly unfair way.

[rhett o rick]

91. Yeah, or just do without. nm

[geardaddy]

10. +1

[smokey nj]

25. "We only have one side of the story!"

[Occulus]

26. "we have to wait for all the facts"

forgot that one

[smokey nj]

29. Which will be followed, of course, by baseless speculation about

chronic absenteeism.

[Occulus]

79. Close!

It was speculation about what she'd expect after signing something she really didn't have much choice BUT to sign.

I think we all know who my post #4 was talking about. Thankfully, it showed up on this thread and removed all doubt!

I love being right- most of the time. This time, it makes me want to weep.

[smokey nj]

102. I've been following the subthread and I admire your work.

I opted to stay away from this one, I still have a headache from the diabetes thread.

[undeterred]

you forgot "she should have put her job first and let her kid die"

[David Sky]

28. kidney, shmidney, who needs one? No excuse for not reporting to work!

She should have scheduled the operation for a Saturday morning and could have been back at work on Monday!

What's wrong with her sense of responsibility to her employer?

:sarcasm:

[dionysus]

32. who on DU is saying these things?

[HughBeaumont]

38. Likely half of my ignore list.

I mean, there are "moderates" and there are "people who stretch the 'Big Tent' to ridiculous lengths". As in playing 'Devil's Advocate' WAAAAAAAAAAAAY too often for their own good and not having the most progressive positions on things.

[rhett o rick]

93. I was just going to say, "see my ignore list". nm

[Claudia Jones]

71. well....

Maybe it is the same people who are busy unreccing the article on the Tacoma strike by teachers?

[rhett o rick]

92. Nice try, but to give you the list would be asking for a TS. nm

[Hassin Bin Sober]

113. Well, it used to be your pally wally, for one. But he got tombstoned.

Why dionysus, what EVER will you do without your Dude troll buddy?

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[distantearlywarning]

69. +10000

And you forgot "She signed an agreement promising to put absolutely everything in her personal life, including her health and the health of her family members, behind the interests of this corporation, so therefore I have no sympathy for her."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1931381&mesg_id=1931825

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. What a bunch of sick fucks!

Unbelievable.

K&R

[rhett o rick]

94. Hey, it's just good capitalism. Certainly not Christian. nm

[deutsey]

9. What an asshole.

After everything this person has been through, the supervisor fires her?

You remember that famous line when this person testifying before Joe McCarthy asks: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency?"

I have a feeling if you were to ask this fuckwad that question he would have no idea what you were asking.

[MilesColtrane]

11. Bastards

[ThomCat]

12. Companies will use any sick excuse to fire people.

With so many people out of work, we're all expendable. Compassion isn't allowed in the corporate world, except in their public relations, where it's all fake.

[deutsey]

16. +1

[geardaddy]

13. Similar thing happened to me.

I was working as an employee for a very small company and had a kidney transplant. When I had some complications and had to go back into the hospital, they switched my status from FTE to contractor (i.e., without health benefits). Fuckers.

[glinda]

15. Yikes. Sorry.

[geardaddy]

33. I managed to find other work.

But the boss was a real bitch.

[Occulus]

80. Oh, but I bet you signed something saying they could do that

so that's okay then.

:sarcasm:, until you read downthread.

[geardaddy]

109. Probably.

I saw that post downthread. :puke:

[Trailrider1951]

14. Here is a link to the school's website with contact info

http://www.aviationmaintenance.edu/aviation-philadelphia.asp

Here is the contact info:

Aviation Institute of Maintenance
Philadelphia
3001 Grant Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19114
P: 215.676.7700
Fax: [phone]

Perhaps we could be of service in letting these people know what we think of their actions regarding Ms. Rendon's situation.

[The Second Stone]

22. I just called them

and told the receptionist it was despicable. They had no further comment and hung up the telephone.

[Ilsa]

24. Who is their CEO, Satan? nt

[Horse with no Name]

35. I'd like to know if they have any type of federal contracts. n/t

[Turbineguy]

17. Companies are proud

of their earned status like "Best 100 Companies to work for".

I wonder if there is a credible "Worst 100 Companies to work for" list.

[Kalidurga]

23. The problem with finding the worst 100 companies to work for

is there are so many more candidates for worst than there are best...

[awoke_in_2003]

18. this is why we need to start...

strengthening labor- yet unions get almost as bad a rap here as they do at FR. Of course, the party doesn't stand with labor, so why would the average dem anymore?

[RegieRocker]

19. Welcome to the new and improved Amerika!

[DFab420]

20. There's never an Anon around when you need one..

These schmucks should feel the wraith ..

[FarCenter]

21. It's surprising that they have < 50 employees; they have 8 schools

http://www.aviationmaintenance.edu/index.asp

The online reviews indicate that they suck as schools too.

They seem to be part of Centura. http://www.centura.edu/Your%20Rights/default.aspx

[B Calm]

27. This should make all the news channels, but it won't!

[DaveJ]

30. Nah this story is all over, going 'viral'. nt

[pipi_k]

31. If anyone read the story...

it does say that she signed an agreement:

"Executives at the company, which teaches would-be mechanics how to fix airplanes, asked Ms Rendon to sign an agreement indicating her job may not be secured for her should she take medical leave."


Which is not to be taken as "evidence" that I'm sticking up for the bad guys. I'm not.

But people are acting like it's this huge shock or something.


The sentence doesn't indicate whether she was required to sign it...only that she was asked to.


If she was required, then that was wrong.

If she was only asked (not required), and signed it knowing she could lose her job... I guess I don't understand why somebody would do that.

[demodonkey]

36. Oh yeah, lots of employers "ask" employees to do things "voluntarily"...

So try opting out and see how far you get in the company, how long you last there, or even whether you are hired at all (assuming the "ask" is during the hiring process.)

This is one of the huge reason why we don't have receipts for voting that show how you voted... boss could "ask" you to show your receipt...

[truedelphi]

43. You got that right.

In each point you made.

[pipi_k]

49. But does that mean ALL companies

force their employees to "agree" to things?

[Horse with no Name]

37. Those "agreements" are NEVER optional. n/t

[Claudia Jones]

39. my my

Cautioning everyone once again about taking the side of a worker, I see.

Why don't you quit with the speculations about people's emotional states and motivation every time someone sticks up for a worker? - "people are acting like it's this huge shock." what do you care how people are "acting?" You have no evidence of any action, in any case, you are merely speculating about the messengers without evidence and are diverting attention from the message.

The way workers are treated in this country is shocking, and whether or not anyone is or is not personally surprised by this particular story is completely irrelevant.

[pipi_k]

45. So...

I'm not supposed to speculate about people's emotions, but there always seems to be all sorts of speculation (and outright accusations) about my motives when I post opinions that don't go along with the mob.


Right.

Thanks for the input, though.

[Claudia Jones]

52. I am wondering...

I am wondering if you are an expert on kidney transplants as well as on diabetes.

I am not speculating about your motives at all. I do not know why you consistently take the side of management against workers. I don't care why, either. But you most certainly have done that, and that is what people are responding to.

See the difference?

[pipi_k]

53. Where do you get the idea

that I'm trying to make myself an expert on kidney transplants?

I don't know shit about kidney transplants. Never said a word about kidney transplants.


My question was, how can someone who signs an agreement come back later and appear to be surprised that what she knew might happen, DID happen?

[Claudia Jones]

57. yes, yes, you have "questions"

And they may be innocent. The effect is to drive threads about abuse of workers off topic. You either know that and are intentionally doing it, or you don't know it, and as I said I have no idea what your motives are for doing that and don't care.

You must know why I made the remark about being an expert on kidney transplants. Perhaps you are hoping that others on this thread did not see the previous thread and that by playing innocent you can discredit me. For those who did not see the other thread, you drove that one off topic by talking as an expert on diabetes.

[pipi_k]

61. I'll tell you the same thing I told someone else

who tried to blame me for making that topic a "train wreck".

I am not responsible for anyone else's reaction to what I think or write.

I don't control anyone else's emotions. I bear no responsibility for anyone else's inability to control the way they respond to things they don't agree with.

And threads don't get "driven off topic" by ONE person. What was I doing...arguing with myself in there? Are you going to suggest that I have 20 or 30 sockpuppets I drag out to argue with? I didn't hold a gun to anyone's head and MAKE them insult me.


In a thinly veiled diatribe, someone actually suggested that I was to blame for the verbal smackdown I received.

That makes about as much sense as a man blaming his wife for making him so mad he just HAD TO hit her.

And you know, I'm really really sorry I don't see things in the same cookie cutter way everyone else here does.

People don't have to like what I think or say or write. Fine by me. But there should be no reason for people to be nasty just because they don't like what I've written. Or to judge my character based on what they THINK I wrote. Or to accuse me of being a RW troll or corporate shill or any of a dozen other epithets people like to throw around here at people they don't like.

So please...don't make me responsible for your feelings. I don't have that much power.

[Claudia Jones]

63. feelings?

I don't have any feelings about this or you one way or the other.

I disagree with what you have said. I have posted my rebuttals to your various ideas. That is what happens on a discussion board.

So you write something, someone disagrees, you don't like it that they disagreed, so then you are not responsible for what you wrote?

[pipi_k]

65. I don't mind when people disagree

I just don't like it when people lower themselves to personal attacks.

Take a look above. I know to whom they're referring. It wasn't bad enough I got attacked by the mob in the other thread? No, they have to drag the shit over here, too? What is the point of that?


Disagree with me all you like. Just don't question my character or motives or intelligence.


PS...the "you" above doesn't refer specifically to YOU. It refers to anyone who disagrees with me.

[Claudia Jones]

67. I made no personal attacks

I haven't questioned your character or motives or intelligence. To the contrary I objected when you did that very thing to others.

[pipi_k]

70. Actually I edited

my post above to reflect the collective "you".

In any case, I'm not the one who called other people vile names. I never have, ever.

I've never accused anyone of being a RW troll, or a corporate shill or any of the other names people like to hurl at others here.

Never.

You say you objected when I "attacked" others.

Did you also object when others attacked me?

If you did, I never saw it.


You know I'm the one being referred to up above. No reason for that. Will you stand up for me against the juvenile behavior?

I kind of doubt it, actually. It's OK, though. Really..it doesn't matter.

anyway, it's been nice chatting. I'm sure if this little interchange goes on much longer I'll be accused of another train wreck.

[Claudia Jones]

72. ok, thanks

I appreciate it.

[LanternWaste]

42. I imagine that were I in her place, it would yet still be rather a shock.

I imagine that were I in her place, it would yet still be rather a huge shock.

And, realizing that I am naive and place the health and well-being of people above that of mere policy and protocol of small to mid-size businesses, I am indeed shocked-- regardless of whether anyone believes that shock is warranted or not... :shrug:

Getting stuck between the rock and the hard place of family's health v. keeping a job is quite the academic rather than empathic exercise for many people.

[pipi_k]

48. Why would it be a shock?

Corporations are known for being heartless weasels.

Do people actually think that signing an agreement...willingly or not...means the company won't do what it says it might do?

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jeff47]

54. I fail to see whatever point it is you are trying to make.

They fired her for saving her child's life.

Doesn't matter that they warned her in advance that they might do so.

[pipi_k]

62. No, actually they didn't

"fire her for saving her child's life".

She lost her job after signing an agreement wherein she knew she could lose her job.

And then she seems surprised that she lost her job.

And that's an attitude I don't understand. I wanted to know WHY someone would be surprised by something happening they had a clue might happen.

What would have been nice...for someone to say, "You know, Pipi, I wondered the same thing, and I don't have a clue why someone would be surprised".

How simple. Just to know that one other person thinks it's illogical to be surprised by something one knows could happen.

[Pithlet]

68. I guess it would be nice for you

if a lot of DUers would come around to your way of thinking and opinions on this site. But, you could take your own word of advice. Don't be surprised when it doesn't happen.

[pipi_k]

74. I don't need other people to think like me.

I actually like a little debate every now and then. You can't debate when everybody agrees with you. And it's incredibly boring. Mind numbingly boring, in fact.


So, to repeat. I don't mind when people disagree. But there's no reason for people to be disagreeable.

And let me tell you something...there are some up above who started being disagreeable before I even saw this thread. Not happy to have piled on somewhere else, they brought it here. Not cool.

People can disagree with me all they like. Just don't call me RW troll or corporate shill or (fill in the blank) apologist, etc. I've never called anybody those things, and I appreciate the same respect from others.

[jeff47]

89. No, you are deliberately misinterpreting the situation.

And I'm wondering just how broken you must be to be to have to pretend her level of surprise is the issue.

Here's what's happened:
Woman: I need to take a leave of absence to save my child.
Company: Well, sign this that says we warned you that we might fire you for it.

Later the company fires her for taking the leave of absence.


Her level of surprise is completely irrelevant. They fired her for saving her child's life, whether or not she knew they would do so in advance.

You can argue about all the angels dancing on pinheads all you'd like. Doesn't change the fact that they fired her for saving her child's life.

[pipi_k]

105. Um, yeah. OK

I never said it was THE issue.

It's an issue I see.

But thanks anyway for your opinion.

[jeff47]

115. You can't backpedal like that when all your other posts are still up there.

If it was such an irrelevant side-issue, how come you've got a ton of posts here talking about that issue over and over again?

[pipi_k]

119. So I have a ton of posts on that issue...

At least it's something that's actually IN the OP.

In direct contrast to the many posts having nothing whatsoever to do with anything in the OP, but only meant to vilify me and/or start a fight. I'm sure you saw them.

Did anyone step in to say it wasn't right?

Especially since the "justification" for them happened in a whole other thread and didn't belong here. And the attacks themselves were in violation of rule #1 here.


No. Nobody said a damned word. Not ONE person.

I guess what's right depends on whether the person being attacked holds the "right" opinion.


Now, unless you have something further to say on any subject that is in the OP, our conversation here is done, thanks.

[ScreamingMeemie]

59. Many of us have read it. It still does not make what happened right.

Never would I have imagined that my company would fire me because I was donating an organ.

[pipi_k]

64. Never said it was right

I didn't read your story. Did your company fire you "because you donated an organ"?

Or because you signed an agreement wherein you knew you could lose your job after a certain length of time?

[ScreamingMeemie]

73. I don't have a "story".

My comment is to if I were in that position. :eyes:

[pipi_k]

75. Oh

the way it was worded it sounded like it had happened to you as well.

[Gormy Cuss]

60. I've worked in companies where we were "asked" to sign documents

but not required, although it was pretty much like submitting a resignation letter if you didn't sign. Since the employees were at will, the company could fire them or lay them off whenever they felt like it by using a generic excuse like "changes in the marketplace."

Savvy employees understand that "asking" is requiring in some instances.

[pipi_k]

66. OK fine...

that's still not my point.

However it happened, she signed the paper. She knew what might happen. She goes back to work and is apparently shocked that her job is no longer there.

Did she actually think a weaselly corporation would NOT follow through on their words?

[Gormy Cuss]

117. The weaselly company used the term "may" which leaves room for either outcome.

That's how it's done. Keeps it legal, allows for verbal assertions or other cues to suggest to the employee that it's just pro forma and not an indication that they fully intend to terminate her/his employment.

[pipi_k]

118. Yes, I know that

I take it two ways...

May as in "might"..."there's a chance"

and may as in "we have the right"


I'm not sure which way they meant it, but I'm sure they covered all the bases...

[Cerridwen]

76. "They said, 'If you don't sign this letter, you are abandoning your job and quitting,'"

"They said, 'If you don't sign this letter, you are abandoning your job and quitting,'" Rendon told ABCNews.com. "I said, 'I am not abandoning my job. I am saving my son's life.'"

Rendon said she signed the letter after a superior at the company told her she was a "good employee" and would most likely have her job when she returned. Rendon said she'd taken holiday leave earlier this year related to the illnesses of family members, which included one week to bury her mother in Colombia in February.

More information at this link: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/philadelphia-woman-fired-time-donate-kidney-son/story?id=14508627

[pipi_k]

78. So a superior

gave her false hope by saying she would "likely" have her job when she returned.


OK...that explains part of it.


But "likely" still isn't "will".

I realize there was probably nothing she could have done either way. People shouldn't have to choose between helping a loved one and losing their jobs.

I'm just sort of surprised that she would think her employer would be compassionate and then be shocked when they screwed her over.

[ScreamingMeemie]

82. Can we just all agree that this was a shitty thing for her employer to

do and be done with it? I still don't get your point.

[pipi_k]

83. Of course

It was shitty.

I'm sorry you don't get my point, but I'll try to explain a different way.

There's a lion in a cage, behind a barrier. On the barrier is a sign which says, "Do not climb this barrier. Doing so may result in injury from the lion".

One guy decides to climb the barrier and gets too close to the lion cage and gets his arm ripped off.

He's surprised...SHOCKED!!! "OMG!!! The sign said something could happen, but you know, I really didn't believe it!!!"

I don't know if that better explains my point, and you know at this stage I'm not even sure it matters anymore. Sorry. I guess I just see things other people don't.

:shrug:

[ScreamingMeemie]

85. I agree, only in that her employers were viciously uncaring.

Have a good night pipi_k...I don't think I really wanted to see your point after all.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

101. Just put her on ignore already

Like you said you were going to in the Walgreens thread. It's not worth it to get so worked up about someone like that.

[pipi_k]

106. Smartest thing anybody has said so far...

People who don't like me or my opinions are welcome...no...encouraged to put me on ignore.

I'm really not sure why my opinions are so important to that bunch anyway.

I hope they follow your suggestion.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rhett o rick]

97. With respect, that's a bunch of bull.

The company doesnt have a heart. Doesnt matter if they "asked" or told her to sign it. But companies dont have to have a heart. This is capitalism and the successful companies dont have hearts.

In any event, it was a shitty thing to do. Maybe legal, maybe profitable, but not moral.

[pipi_k]

104. What's a bunch of bull?

That when someone knows something might happen and it does, that I don't have a right to wonder why the person would then be surprised?

OK, let me explain it another way.


Company is a bunch of weasels. They tell her she might not have a job when she returns. She agrees. She comes back to claim her job and is told it's not there. She is then aghast that weasels acted like weasels.

[rhett o rick]

111. You say no one should be shocked. You are right, but no one was surprised.

People are disgusted.

[pipi_k]

112. OK, shocked and surprised, not so much, but I can agree with disgusted.

That makes sense to me. I think it's disgusting too.

I mean, it's not like someone from HR couldn't have given her a call every now and then (assuming they probably didn't) to see how her recovery was coming along and, if she was doing well, assume that she would return in a reasonable length of time (reasonable being the average length of time a doctor would say recovery would take).

Disgusted?

Yes.

[ck4829]

41. Doing the right thing, and doing the corporate thing. There is a difference.

[arikara]

46. A disproportionate number of CEO's are psychopaths

with no empathy for their fellow humans, other living beings or the planet. I think the power gives them an acceptable outlet for their evilness without having to resort to mass murders. Politicians can be included in that group too I think. Which is precisely why we are in the shape we are today.

[laundry_queen]

110. It's a common misconception

that all psychopaths are driven to murder to express their evilness. 2-4% of the population are psychopaths. Only a very small percentage of those have ever killed someone else. I'd say it is their perceived (superficial thought it may be) charm, their tendency to exude confidence and their ability to deceive on a large scale that enables them to populate a lot of the CEO ranks. Most psychopaths are just looking for a way to make life easy for them and have people do things for them. And yea, I agree, that today's corporate culture actually cultivates this type of personality in the corporate world. Besides, psychopaths are likely to fuck anyone over that doesn't admire/help/promote them so some reach the top because they shit on everyone on their climb to the top. One good thing - a psychopath almost always either reveals their hand or destroys the company they are in charge of.

[area51]

47. Damn.

That's disgusting. And because this country stupidly insists that access to health care be linked to one job, she's not only out of a job in a bad economy, she has no access to health care.

[mrmpa]

51. Just called the Phillie school....

their statement to me was that "Mrs. Rendon is on a paid leave of absence and will be reinstated when a position is open." They further added they hoped that the reports of this had not caused me any undue stress. lol.

Number is 1-888-349-5387.

[ladywnch]

58. well, republicans have a solution for this: they should both die - him for

being sick and her for being unemployed now. They should both just die and decrease the surplus population.

[rhett o rick]

95. Republicans dont want us to die, they just dont care if we do. nm

[ladywnch]

108. see, I disagree. They want all those dirty little people to disappear

leaving only the shiny, bright, 'pretty' people - you know, like them. People who tell them how awesome they are, how smart and clever they are. They don't realize that once we've been conquered by the Koch bros machine, that the Koch bros will have no further use for them and they will be in the boat with the rest of us unwashed masses.

Yes, I believe their vision is that short sighted.

[Cerridwen]

77. More info "'If you don't sign this letter, you are abandoning your job"

"They said, 'If you don't sign this letter, you are abandoning your job and quitting,'" Rendon told ABCNews.com. "I said, 'I am not abandoning my job. I am saving my son's life.'"

Rendon said she signed the letter after a superior at the company told her she was a "good employee" and would most likely have her job when she returned. Rendon said she'd taken holiday leave earlier this year related to the illnesses of family members, which included one week to bury her mother in Colombia in February.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/philadelphia-woman-fired-time-donate-kidney-son/story?id=14508627

[Capitalocracy]

99. I guess that answers the question of whether she was "asked" or not. nt

[pipi_k]

107. It certainly does n/t

[pacalo]

81. There's that freedom & justice that our servicemen & women have always fought for.

Woman takes time off from work for a noble, humanitarian reason; woman gets fired for being away from the job; a supervisor refuses to speak to a reporter asking about it; reporter ordered to leave.

And we're reading about this from another country's newspaper.

[scentopine]

90. We need to start chopping out the kidneys of CEOs and put them on a pike as a warning...

CEOs have their jobs because of skilled workers, not the other way around. We haven't been pushed right up to the edge just yet. But we are getting close.

[william12]

103. is it right

We don't know the whole story, there is something that is hidden from us until now.

[Blue Owl]

114. Vote GOP and LET HER DIE! USA! USA! USA!

:sarcasm: