fuzzyresearchbunny
FuzzyResearchBunny
fuzzyresearchbunny

My manager came to work with pinkeye, and my coworkers spread around norovirus a couple of years ago when they feared taking off of work. Thankfully the manager finally went home after we yelled at him, as his pink, pus-filled eye was grossing everyone out, and he was insisting on working in the kitchen that day.

As a former restaurant worker, combative tones (although you might be intending for it to come across less combative than it sounds to me) don't go over well with restaurant managers, but emphasizing that you are willing to take your money elsewhere if they don't institute paid sick days is more likely to get their

Yes, the workers have to come together and push restaurants to give paid sick days. You can do your part by supporting them by asking managers if they provide paid sick days to their front and back of house staff. Tell them it's important for you as a consumer to eat at establishments where employees can take time off

I think this was a planned push. I wouldn't be surprised if she was funded by an anti-choice group ready to back her with legal representation.

This needs to be shouted from the rooftops. People don't understand that minimum wages (and bringing the tipped minimum wage to the existing min wage level) can be raised to livable wages, and that people will still tip.

Hopefully those same summer jobs teach one empathy for those who work minimum wage or close to minimum wage and never get an increase in pay. Seeing my coworker agonize over choosing between paying the electric bill versus buying her kid his backpack for school made me think, "this is not right" rather than "sucks for

Nah, it's well directed at them. If someone says 'I am religiously opposed to devices that inhibit implantation of fertilized eggs." People can believe that statement. The Court doesn't have to question the truthfulness of that statement. That's not up for debate. What *is* up for debate is if those devices actually

—> The Court made very clear that it was not up to them to determine the veracity of the defendants' religious beliefs, just their sincerity. So, as long as you sincerely believe bad science, that's all that matters.

If they didn't have the science so completely wrong, I'd have less concerns about the gender of the 5 justices. Seeing as how they don't even get how IUD function fundamentally, then yes, I am concerned that 5 men have made this ruling.

That's not standardized across the country in the US. Paid paternity and maternity leave enshrined by federal law would make a *huge* difference.

Maybe Matt shouldn't be so shrill and emotional about it. /sarcasm

This is a metaphor for America somehow.

Someone's got to clean and make the sammiches, amirite? #brofive

I'm not sure what causes the higher exposure to hormones in utero nor am I a science person, but with a link between autoimmune disease and/or autoimmune antibodies present in the mother, I'm betting if we can find out what causes autoimmunity in the mother, then we can try to halt not only autoimmune disease but also