You're on Beehaw right now. Let's not sling around any accusations. Let's just assume good faith. Even I didn't catch that when I responded.
While BLM is certainly within their right to ask for this, I think it'd be pointless to do it. It's done. Kamala Harris is the nominee.
To me, this is once again, the left fighting the left. And yes, the Democratic Party in this country, is considered part of the left, even if it's not as left as some of you you'd like. Maybe BLM and other groups who feel the same, should focus that energy on fighting MAGA and Trump. Only one of the two major parties has at least some interest in racial justice and equality. And it sure as hell ain't the Republicans. Especially not these days.
I'm not saying Democrats are perfect. I'm not saying Kamala Harris is perfect. But I'd much, much, much, much rather have her and Walz and Democrats across the land in control. And trying to fight fights within the big tent that have already been settled isn't the way to do it.
Jim Withers, who coined the term “street medicine” decades ago and cares for homeless people in Pittsburgh, welcomed the entry of more providers given the enormous need. But he cautioned against a model with financial motives.
“I do worry about the corporatization of street medicine and capitalism invading what we’ve been building, largely as a social justice mission outside of the traditional health care system,” he said. “But nobody owns the streets, and we have to figure out how to play nice together.”
While I don't hate anything that helps people, and I'm not as anti-capitalist as some in this community, I wondered about this too. While it's great that a business was able to see a market here and can profit while doing good, I too would be a little wary. So much (ie seemingly almost all of it) of US healthcare is already driven by for-profit motives. We all know that even having health insurance, private or otherwise, can still be insanely expensive.
I don't know how Medicaid, Medicare, or California's funding and regulations work. But I'd want to make sure that the unhoused receive good care and continue to receive good care. And that profits are kept to a reasonable level. Healthcare obviously has costs; it's not cheap to provide. But I'd hate to see even more money gobbled-up and services to the unhoused decrease in quality/quantity because the profit-seeking side of the company demands more profit.
Late to the party. FWIW, I'm fine with the title for this post as well. I think @[email protected] has the right of it.
If you have issues in the future, please just report it. You can message us directly if for someone reason reports aren't working. We have fairly active and attentive moderation here.
It is. Additionally, my co-worker who made the comment is like 33-34. I'm 37. Another person on the committee is 40. HR is like 64. So it's not like we're a bunch of young guns ourselves lol. We should want experience, and with experience tends to come age.
But yeah, I getcha on the management thing. I'm technically a manager, but I don't have any subordinates. Because I told them, they're going to have pay me way more to become an actual manager with direct reports, especially since I'd lose my non-exempt status. To make me exempt, they'd need to make it worth my while. We're a non-profit, so we already get paid crap (though benefits are excellent).
My work is in the process of hiring someone to replace me since I'm headed to a new job. After a recent interview, a co-worker on the hiring committee made a comment on Teams, "His age seems OK."
Uhhh, maybe we shouldn't be talking about age in hiring decisions. Especially on a written medium. Pretty sure that in the US, age discrimination laws starts at like 40yo, including hiring and firing. That interviewee seemed to be over 40yo, which is probably what prompted that comment.
Not that I think the candidate will sue us if we don't hire him, but it's just unnecessary risk. And I don't even work in HR or legal; rather I'm in IT. Surprised HR didn't say anything about that comment.
I finished reviewing the whole thing about an hour ago. Looks good; went ahead and signed it! Of course, when I go on to the resident portal to pay the first month rent and such, it has the wrong amount -.-
I text messaged the specialist -- because no joke, that's their preferred method -- and told him that once he fixes it tomorrow, I'm ready to pay. Let's see if that gets done in a timely manner.
Welcome to Beehaw!
So I finally got this stupid apartment complex that I'm trying to move to respond to me. Had a couple questions on the lease, but the most important was that I was supposed to get like 2wks free rent, but the lease didn't show that. They sent me the lease last Wednesday, expecting me to sign within 24-48hrs, while promising to "answer my questions promptly" but then it took them 4-5 biz days to get back to me. I emailed, called, and texted every day. I told them that I'm not signing anything until I get my questions answered. I was getting worried as I already put down a small deposit.
When they called today, I was half expecting to have to argue with them, but luckily the leasing specialist said "Sorry about that; I've sent you a new lease with the concession." And it was there. Still need to review this new lease in its entirety, in case they added anything that wasn't in the first lease. Which has happened to me before elsewhere; I had the apt managers redo a lease twice, because they kept messing it up. Only signed it on the third try. Don't know if they were incompetent or trying to pull as fast on me; honestly, probably the first given how that place was run. Anyway, always read over your entire lease, even if they just corrected one little thing.
Hopefully get this signed by Friday. Once this is finished, I'll be able to book a truck and fly some of my family out to help me.
OK, but what's the neutral news?
I suspect Flash Mob is saying that as DOT Secy, Pete could do more. I'll leave it at that; I'm not making any calls on Pete as DOT head.
But Flash also isn't wrong that Pete has got the chops. Personally, I say just make him the spokesperson for everything. Anytime the GOP wants to say something stupid, let Pete respond and rebuke them.
I thought alcoholism would be it. And someone would be at least making money off it (sans bootlegging).
We're being flippant, but god, what a waste of human potential. Absolutely pointless war.