←back to thread

Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

(www.fly.faa.gov)
202 points akersten | 1 comments | 31 Oct 25 01:48 UTC | HN request time: 0.227s | source
Show context
yndoendo ◴[31 Oct 25 02:50 UTC] No.45767812[source]▶
Who knew electing shitty representation leads to a shitty environment and economy? I wish those effected by the shitty government the best

Forcing people to work and not pay them is slavery!

replies(4): >>45767866 #>>45767914 #>>45768170 #>>45775123 #
tombert ◴[31 Oct 25 03:00 UTC] No.45767866[source]▶
I got in trouble at a BigCo because I said "we all do this for the money", and they claimed that I had a "bad attitude".

But I don't think I was wrong. Work is fundamentally a business transaction; I sell my time and expertise and they give me money and benefits. Ultimately for any job I've had, even jobs that I really loved, if they stopped paying me I'd stop showing up [1]. It's nothing personal, that's just the transaction that I agreed to.

If I had some bloviating wannabe-demagogue telling me that I should keep working and to not expect backpay, I am quite confident that I would quit, or at least keep calling in sick. I am not going to blame anyone who would do the same. I have no fucking idea why half the country voted for this.

[1] This has actually been tested for one job.

replies(8): >>45767940 #>>45767943 #>>45767958 #>>45767977 #>>45768057 #>>45768133 #>>45770847 #>>45772686 #
deepsun ◴[31 Oct 25 03:16 UTC] No.45767977[source]▶
It's not just wrong, if a company is registered as "commercial" (as opposed to non-profit or public-benefit), then "for the money" is a legal obligation.

Shareholders can literally sue the management if they don't pursue the obligation.

replies(2): >>45768076 #>>45768566 #
jaredklewis ◴[31 Oct 25 04:55 UTC] No.45768566[source]▶
> Shareholders can literally sue the management if they don't pursue the obligation.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. It’s not remarkable.

Now cite even a single case where shareholders sued and won. In reality, the “obligation” you are referencing has basically only ever been relevant in situations where the board or management is taking bribes. I’m not aware of any cases where shareholders won because the company was too nice to customers, the environment, or whatever.

For whatever reason, “shareholders” live rent free in the heads of Internet commentators, but it’s hard to understate their actual influence.

replies(2): >>45768942 #>>45778652 #
UzPPw337CtTbKQd ◴[31 Oct 25 06:18 UTC] No.45768942[source]▶
The Dodge v. Ford case is known for just that.
replies(3): >>45771401 #>>45772171 #>>45776366 #
1. xethos ◴[31 Oct 25 14:10 UTC] No.45772171[source]▶
Some of the law professor quotes in Wikipedia's "Significance" section may be of interest as far as "Known For" vs "Means":

> Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.

Or

> Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate.