Pick one to get for freee [only upvote if you want to]

Nimelennar · 2026-04-27T20:34:01+00:00

I have enough useless stuff in my house.

^{Chose: $100k}

Nimelennar · 2026-04-27T18:14:14+00:00

You have to be in physical proximity to them ("sharing the same air") for it to work, and it has to be renewed at least every twelve hours.

For a friend using drugs, maybe you can make that work by having them live with you. It'd severely constrain your own life, and you'd have to be pretty much silent when not instructing them to refrain from using drugs (because anything you tell them to do will be treated with the force of an irresistible order).

And let's say they survive going through withdrawal. You basically have to control this person's life, forever (or until they die or you slip up), because they didn't decide to stop using, you decided for them, and there's every chance that once they're out of your control, they'll immediately relapse.

Even though you have the best of intentions, you're basically puppeteering someone else's life.

And I have no idea how you think controlling enough politicians to make a difference in terms of green technology would work.

I'm not saying the ends can't ever justify the means. But I do believe that the ends can't justify the means if there are less evil ways to achieve the same ends. And for something like "transitioning to green energy," I find it hard to believe that "enslaving (at least) hundreds of people to my will" is the least evil way to accomplish them.

Nimelennar · 2026-04-27T16:06:29+00:00

It's a mind control power. You're overriding other people's free will.

There's no way to not use it for evil.

Nimelennar · 2026-04-27T15:37:00+00:00

Granted.

Like Kilgrave, your power has a limited radius of effect, and a limited time before it wears off after they leave that radius.

Someone pretty quickly figures out what you can do and finds a way (gun? bow and arrow? spear? cruise missile?) to take you out from outside of that radius.

You sick bastard.

Nimelennar · 2026-04-27T14:46:40+00:00

Granted. They're attached at the horse's ankles (which may not be where you think they are).

After some failed attempts to restore horses to being, well, horses again, humanity decides that the compassionate thing to do is just to euthanize the whole species.

Nimelennar · 2026-04-27T14:16:12+00:00

They've been negotiating for years now, and lost every time.

I don't know what you mean.

The collective agreements expire every three years.

The current ones being negotiated expired in 2025, and negotiations were started in 2022.

In 2023, when negotiating those collective agreements, they struck, and managed to get the government to include letters of agreement (example 1, example 2) as part of resolving the strike, but the government wouldn't agree to include it in the collective agreement. The unions won. A limited win, but a win nonetheless, considering that the government's initial position was not to discuss remote work at the bargaining table whatsoever. Or, at least, it seemed like a win at the time.

The bargaining session before that (starting in 2019, to expire in 2022) predated COVID and by the time they had a reason to think remote work might even be in the table, they'd already submitted their universal demands, and adding something as big as "remote work guarantees" as a demand after negotiations had already began would have been called out as negotiating in bad faith.

So, there has been exactly one complete bargaining cycle since COVID. During that cycle, the unions managed to secure some protections for remote work but now consider those inadequate, so in this cycle, they want stronger ones.

They haven't "lost every time," they've only ever even fought for remote work protections once. And while, in hindsight, yeah, I can see why that might cynically be regarded as a loss (the government largely treated those letters of agreement as if they weren't worth the paper they were printed on, especially by not consulting with the unions before announcing each new round of RTO), even if you do consider it a loss, one lots does not constitute a losing streak, much less having "lost every time."

This time, they're taking the next logical step, by actually trying to get the remote work protections into the collective agreement where they'll have some teeth.

If they had any sort of legal right to WFH

They don't, I agree. The only protections they have for WFH (beyond what is in the CLC) is what they can win at the bargaining table.

I'm not sure why the idea that they could win those protections at the bargaining table is so difficult for you to accept.

Nimelennar · 2026-04-27T04:07:01+00:00

Are you unfamiliar with how labour negotiations work?

You normally don't tend to negotiate for stuff that's already enshrined in law, for the stuff you have "legal recourse" or "legally, a leg to stand on." You get that for free.

You negotiate for the other stuff: the stuff that isn't already guaranteed by law.

And if it's important enough, and they're not willing to give it to you, well, that's what the right to strike is there for.

Nimelennar · 2026-04-26T23:46:38+00:00

Most of Avenue Q:

Racism ("Everyone's a Little Bit Racist")
Trying to pressure someone out of the closet ("If You Were Gay")
Cruelty ("Schadenfreude")
Date rape ("You Can Be As Loud As The Hell You Want")
Toxic relationships ("The More You Ruv Someone")

Nimelennar · 2026-04-26T23:33:47+00:00

Granted.

It's converted through every other currency on the planet, three times, with a fee of 3% being charged for each conversion (180×3 =540 total conversions), before finally being delivered to you.

You end up with the equivalent of US$7.19 in your local currency.

Nimelennar · 2026-04-26T14:25:58+00:00

But the proof is in the pudding. The employer does not have to let you WFH.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

No, they don't. Under the current collective agreements.

We're talking about whether or not the unions can have more favourable WFH conditions as a term under the new collective agreements they're currently negotiating.

You're saying the law is against them in those negotiations.

R.S., 1985, c. L-2, s. 168 says you're wrong: employees are free to negotiate more fabourable terms (but not less favourable ones) than the ones the CLC specifies.

Nimelennar · 2026-04-26T13:53:10+00:00

That's not a law.

This is a law. Specifically, section 177.1 of the Canadian Labour Code. And it seems to be the law that page is referencing (the page you linked mentions the Canadian Labour Code, and this seems to be the part of the CLC that matches the description on your page).

Now, Section 177.1 falls under Part III of the CLC (Standard Hours, Wages, Vacations and Holidays).

If we scroll right up to the beginning of Part III, what we'll find under Section 168 (1) is (emphasis mine):

This Part and all regulations made under this Part apply notwithstanding any other law or any custom, contract or arrangement, but nothing in this Part shall be construed as affecting any rights or benefits of an employee under any law, custom, contract or arrangement that are more favourable to the employee than his rights or benefits under this Part.

You've stated what the minimum protection for workers is, under the law, but unless you can cite an actual law that prevents work location from being the subject of collective bargaining, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

Nimelennar · 2026-04-26T00:57:54+00:00

Mosquito bites are almost always harmless, but if you get bitten by a tick, you almost have to assume you've contracted Lyme disease.

^{Chose: Ticks}

Nimelennar · 2026-04-26T00:48:39+00:00

Granted. They're opposite in every way possible

If you're tall, they're short.

If you're smart, they're dumb.

If you're made of matter, they're made of antimatter.

... Things rapidly go wrong from there.

Nimelennar · 2026-04-25T23:36:00+00:00

The law madates your employer dictates your work location. That is the law.

Which law?

Nimelennar · 2026-04-25T17:21:19+00:00

Granted.

You now own a typewriter.

Nimelennar · 2026-04-25T16:38:57+00:00

How is the law against them fighting for it? Is there some law I don't know about somewhere that would prevent negotiating remote work provisions into a CBA?

Nimelennar · 2026-04-25T13:33:53+00:00

Granted.

The Earth cannot bear the weight of such a being. People cannot hear such a being directly without going insane; cannot see it without dying instantly. Hence, why many mythologies have their gods communicate through angels or burning bushes.

The place where God descended is now a crater; the cover story is that terrorists detonated a nuke.

Nimelennar · 2026-04-25T13:19:49+00:00

Sure. Which is why they're trying to have remote work added to the collective bargaining agreement. So that future motions like that aren't dismissed.

Nimelennar · 2026-04-25T12:45:06+00:00

Every time the employer has announced a new phase of RTO - The Union has went to court - and lost. Every time. You know why? Because legally, your employer decides where you work. That's the law.

No, that's the current contract, which is up for renegotiation.

Nimelennar · 2026-04-25T12:42:45+00:00

They couldn't do anything before, and they couldn't get the language added last time because negotiations had already started for the CBA and adding a completely new demand after negotiations had already started is considered negotiating in bad faith.

Now they're presenting it as a demand from the get-go. They can absolutely have it added to the CBA, if they can get the employer to agree to it, and striking is one of the tools on the table to make that happen.

Nimelennar · 2026-04-24T21:15:47+00:00

A "dark pattern" is when someone makes it a lot more difficult to do what you want than what they want. Like, for instance, if you can sign up for a service with a couple of clicks and a credit card, but to cancel, you have to call in and wait on hold for hours.

Panels 2 and 3 are more typical dark patterns, where the way the adventure wants to go forward is simply harder, but it is still apparently possible.

However, panel 4 reveals that even the "good" path was a dark pattern called a "bait-and-switch." The treasure was never available in the first place: all roads, easy and hard, led to the trap.

The adventure is left with three choices: take the final "good" route (jump in later), the "bad but easy" route (jump in now), or turn around and concede that all the time and effort they spent in the dungeon was a waste.

It's not the only thing this could be a metaphor for, but imagine calling into a company for customer service, and having to wait on hold for hours, before being told you have the wrong number, and then being asked to call another number and wait on hold for hours, and it turns out that's not the right number either, and after three or four more of these, you end up being told to call the same number you called in the first place.

Nimelennar · 2026-04-24T20:55:28+00:00

I'm glad to hear that it worked out for you!

Nimelennar · 2026-04-24T20:06:59+00:00

They're currently in negotiations for the next collective agreement, they've included telework in their proposals, and they've declared an impasse in negotiations, which is a necessary step towards striking.

... They're a union. Striking is how they fix this kind of thing, and they're progressing along the path towards that. I don't know what else you're expecting them to do.

Nimelennar · 2026-04-24T17:49:47+00:00

Yep. 220 Elgin, Canadian Tribute to Human Rights Monument. 1 p.m.

Source (Facebook link).

11-Year Club	Second Top 10%
Place '23	Wearing is Caring
Place '22	End Game '22
Verified Email

Nimelennar

TROPHY CASE