NativeMasshole

NativeMasshole t1_j2q1j90 wrote

Just because it's a fair argument doesn't necessarily mean I have to agree. I think it would put an undue burden on too many businesses who operate 24 hours, or ones which do the most business on weekends explicitly because that's when others aren't working, or small businesses. Which is why we ended up with so many weird exemptions. You aren't going to legislate Walmart into being a good employe. I'm all for worker protections and would love to see more unionization, so then employees could petition their employer directly if they think these provisions are necessary. That's the only way to break up our shitty labor culture.

−1

NativeMasshole t1_j2pyv2g wrote

That's fair. I disagree that it should pay more, but that's why we got democracy. I guess my bigger hangup is that uneven enforcement. There's 55 exemptions! I've worked in a few different industries, and the only one I can ever remember paying overtime for Sundays was retail. Not food service, which has the same problems. Not logistics, despite also being notoriously underpaid and often with odd hours. If it were updated and clarified with a more direct vision of what it's for, I would at least find that acceptable.

−1

NativeMasshole t1_j2nn5x9 wrote

Why should you need more incentive to work Sunday over any other day of the week? I wouldn't expect overtime if I worked a Wednesday to Sunday schedule.

What's more, there were already a ton of exemptions for a majority of job sectors. I just don't see any value or fairness in a law with such uneven enforcement.

Its primary purpose was to encourage people to go to church, and it has outlived that function. We shouldn't be clinging to nonsensical laws to alleviate issues that should be tackled more directly with laws actually based on modern standards. That's regressive thinking.

−14

NativeMasshole t1_j2nkz8l wrote

Reply to comment by Hoosac_Love in Moving Advice Please! by mymoon03

Depending on where exactly they're working, the commute can be pretty horrendous. Also depending on where in Worcester County, the prices may not be all that much better, especially when you take the extra commute into account.

10

NativeMasshole t1_j2i3u4v wrote

Depending on how long you had been staying with your ex, you may have tenancy rights and he would need to formally evict you. Not an attractive option, but better than being on the streets.

12

NativeMasshole t1_j1r8zq2 wrote

Seems more likely that they don't want to have to pay for any of the infrastructure to support transmission. We really should be investing heavily in the next generation power grid to support all the renewables, but that's kind of tough when they're all owned by some of the most hated private interests in the country. They don't want to invest on their own, we can't make them, and nobody trusts them with subsidies.

27

NativeMasshole t1_j1jsjkj wrote

Downtown is going to be a disaster once all these new apartments are built. The roads can barely handle the traffic load now. Plus, the lack of parking you mentioned. The city is going to have to make some massive infrastructure investments if they really want this revitalization effort to work.

6

NativeMasshole t1_j1huo7c wrote

You move away from Boston, that's how. Which is why the lower middle class is being pushed out of central Mass. You would need to be making about $60k on a single income just to comfortably afford base housing around here. Nevermind getting into any of the nicer areas. I've got a decent job, I've got money saved, yet I'm stuck in a shithole apartment with my only options being to pay more for another shithole. I couldn't even imagine trying to raise a family here without both parents having a great career trajectory.

9