It’s not even implicit.
Trump’s Schedule F promises; Vivek’s pleas to dismantle Dept of Ed, FBI, EPA, NRC; McConnell giggling about how they prevented the Obama admin from making any judicial appointments, etc etc
It’s not bad faith at all, they just think a handicapped federal government is better.
The thrust of GP’s claim is: you elect people who wish to dismantle government and you get a dysfunctional government.
Remember that Democrats controlled the Senate for all but the last two years of the Obama presidency. Republicans weren’t in much of a position to block his judicial appointments.
There is of course Garland, a rare show of GOP competence. But even for the Supreme Court judicial appointments are contentious. Kennedy was Reagan’s third pick for that seat. He went on to be a liberal squish that voted to uphold Roe, etc.
Anyway, McConnell successfully blocked pretty much all Obama lower court judge appointments, causing huge huge backlogs in the justice system nationwide and allowing GOP to later install people who are e.g. trying to make the abortion pill illegal.
Our government HAS been changing pretty radically deep down in the bureaucracy. The justice system and election boards are extremely ripe for non-filibuster-able overhaul.
The GOP did succeed in overturning Roe. Overturning a precedent that was baseless to begin with and which by the end Democrats wouldn’t even defend on the merits isn’t exactly what I’d call a major victory.
Lack of success (and, frankly, probably authentic desire) in one dimension is not evidence of lack of success or desire in another dimension. Government power is not as simple as “more dollar = more powerful,” and you know it.
It’s like blaming crime waves on “defund the police.” There are discrete measures you can point to that were adopted, like bail reform, that has had some effect. But in general, it was more rhetoric than something which actually happened.
But they have been unable to do so. So what’s your theory of causation for why is agencies are ineffective?
I never said agencies are ineffective, I said that the lack of reduced budgets is not evidence of much of anything.
You did say agencies were ineffective, because republicans had made them ineffective. I’m asking you to offer a theory of how that could be the case. Their budgets are undiminished, and they’re run by democrats who believe in the agencies’ missions.
I did not say agencies are ineffective. I said GOP tries to dismantle federal agencies and insofar as they succeed, it yields dysfunction, which is of course the purpose of dismantling them (so it’s not bad faith). But this has almost nothing to do with saving money, as evidenced by the fact that GOP does not actually reduce budgets when they have the ability to.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/the-supreme-court...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/us/politics/trump-asylum-...
Also, entitlements like Social Security are an entirely separate category of spending, subject to different rules. That’s not what we’re talking about here.
One more lane argument level
The "or any other issues" is extremely broad, and seems reckless. When an employee then tried to _internally_ escalate a concern, that employee was suspended and fired. A minimal slap on the wrist means that Tesla is likely to continue to suppress discussions of wages or workplace conditions, which sucks for workers -- but if the message coming out of this is that escalating _any_ concern above local management is likely to get you fired, I wonder what other kinds of issues will go unaddressed? Workplace safety issues? _Product_ safety issues? Would some of the quality control issues that were in the press some time ago have been more quickly addressed if internal communication didn't put people at risk of being fired?
An organization in which people cannot honestly escalate concerns _internally_ is dysfunctional, and has the potential to create harms for customers and shareholders in addition to employees.
HR should probably be more on the ball too. And implemented policies/procedures.
There's never just one person who messes up. Kinda like how it's never just the Junior Dev's fault when they delete the production database.
Almost 100% of the comments in this thread seem to gloss over the fact that this lawsuit was due to the actions of one manager in an autobody store. And his actions were counter to Tesla's official policy which clearly states that it is acceptable to discuss salary. Based on the comments alone you'd think the article was about a class action suit.
Why extrapolate the actions of one person to those of the entire organization?
Go look at the job board on the Tesla website. Their salaries and benefits look great to me.
If managers are not following the policy, and leadership doesn't enforce the policy on the managers, the policy may as well not exist.
> Why extrapolate the actions of one person to those of the entire organization?
An employee was suspended and fired for talking about their salary, and for attempting to talk to the manager's manager. This kind of activity doesn't generally happen without the leadership chain being aware. It's a part of their job description to be aware. They, and/or HR, should have shut that shit down.
They didn't. Tesla should be held accountable, not given a softly spoken warning. Especially since it's not the first time the NLRB has had to point out to Tesla that they're breaking the law.
> Go look at the job board on the Tesla website. Their salaries and benefits look great to me.
Completely unrelated.
There are two named people who violated labor law, according to to the judge. They are Andre Ayala (manager) and Cedric Leith (associate manager). Quoting from "Legal Analysis", "The Section 8(A)(1) Violations" on p 14:
] During an all-hands shop meeting around mid-December, Ayala violated Section 8(a)(1) by instructing employees not to discuss their pay rates or the newly hired employees.
] After picking up his tools and turning to leave, Leith told him, "If I were you, I wouldn't talk to anybody." In the circumstances, Leith’s statement also violated Section 8(a)(1).
The facility has "approximately 25 employees, including 22 collision technicians", so it's not like there's much other local management.
Further, Tesla's organizational response was judged to be inadequate:
] Its attempted repudiation of Ayala’s statement regarding pay was timely since it was disseminated on June 13 - a little over a month after it first learned of the Region’s investigation regarding the statement and four days after the amended charge issued on June 9. However, the notice was deficient it all other respects.
followed by three points where it was deficient.
Jesus. Can someone explain how worker’s rights laws became so toothless?