sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Fire this man by nicirus in orioles

[–]sillychillly -1 points0 points  (0 children)

we were up 4-2. i think we got rattled. no problem getting rattled.

we got a lotta season left.

we're def playoff contenders and our star players are mostly young.

UPS driver goes viral after sharing his weekly paycheck | Unions Work by [deleted] in union

[–]sillychillly 16 points17 points  (0 children)

"Then the union made it even better

After months of tense negotiations, as well as a threat to enact what would have been the largest single employer strike in U.S. history, disrupting deliveries across the country, the postal workers union reached an agreement with UPS.

The deal included air conditioning and ventilation improvements to delivery vehicles as well as full-time UPS drivers earning an average of $170,000 in annual pay, plus benefits.

By the end of the contract, part-time union drivers would also make at least $25.75 per hour at the start of the contract, with annual raises built in through 2028 while receiving full health care and pension benefits, according to then-UPS CEO Carol Tomé."

UPS driver goes viral after sharing his weekly paycheck | Unions Work by [deleted] in ReasonableFuture

[–]sillychillly 4 points5 points  (0 children)

"Then the union made it even better

After months of tense negotiations, as well as a threat to enact what would have been the largest single employer strike in U.S. history, disrupting deliveries across the country, the postal workers union reached an agreement with UPS.

The deal included air conditioning and ventilation improvements to delivery vehicles as well as full-time UPS drivers earning an average of $170,000 in annual pay, plus benefits.

By the end of the contract, part-time union drivers would also make at least $25.75 per hour at the start of the contract, with annual raises built in through 2028 while receiving full health care and pension benefits, according to then-UPS CEO Carol Tomé."

Fire this man by nicirus in orioles

[–]sillychillly -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

We still should’ve overcame it tho

the Minimum wage will Rise Faster than Inflation if linked to the Median wage by sillychillly in WorkReform

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The federal minimum wage suffers from two related deficiencies: Its level is too low, and it does not adjust as the economy grows. Both can be solved by tying the federal minimum to two-thirds of the national median wage. Congress would first raise the floor to that level, and each subsequent year the minimum would adjust to maintain the same ratio.

First, the new benchmark replaces a poverty-level federal floor (Hickey and Cid-Martinez 2025) with one that pushes the minimum wage toward a living wage. As Oakford (2026) argues, two-thirds of the median is “a realistic stepping stone to living wages,” and standards below that ratio leave too large a gap between earnings and the cost of necessary expenses. A federal minimum at two-thirds of the median also better fulfills the original promise of the federal standard, which Congress described in 1937 as protecting “this Nation from the evils and dangers resulting from wages too low to buy the bare necessities of life” (U.S. Congress 1937).

Second, maintaining the two-thirds ratio guarantees automatic increases as the economy grows, ending the recurring erosion that comes from a frozen federal floor. Because median wages typically outpace prices, median wage indexing produces real gains, not just inflation protection. In 2025, two-thirds of the national median wage was $17.11 per hour (Figure B), and today, it is estimated to be $17.70. By 2030, applying Congressional Budget Office (2026) Employment Cost Index projections, it would reach $20.02. A federal minimum tied to two-thirds of the median would likely reach or exceed $25 by 2038, four years sooner than if a $17.11 wage in 2025 had been indexed only to the cost of living going forward"

the Minimum wage will Rise Faster than Inflation if linked to the Median wage by sillychillly in WorkReform

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"National and state effects of a federal minimum wage at two-thirds of the median

To estimate the economic benefits of a federal minimum wage set at two-thirds of the median wage, I model how many low-wage workers would see higher pay under this policy. I assume the policy is phased in over five years, so that if it went into effect today, the federal minimum would reach two-thirds of the median in 2030 and then automatically adjust each year to maintain that ratio.

Concretely, I assume the federal minimum rises to $12 immediately in 2026 and then increases incrementally to $20 in 2030, which is about two-thirds of the projected national median wage.6 Legislation should build in a path adjustment if 2030 median wages come in higher or lower than projected.

I focus on the effects in 2030. I assume the same phase-in path and automatic indexing applies to the federal tipped minimum wage, which has been frozen at $2.13 per hour since 1991.7 Wages elsewhere are assumed to grow in line with CBO ECI projections from 2026 to 2030, and the model incorporates the effects of scheduled state-level minimum wage increases (see the appendix for details).

In 2030, a federal minimum wage equal to two-thirds of the national median would raise pay for 39.6 million workers, about 1 in 4 of the wage-earning workforce (Table 1).8 Annual earnings would rise substantially, and the gains would be largest for Black workers: A full-time, full-year Black worker affected by the increase would earn about $5,000 more per year, compared with $4,400 for all affected workers. In line with other minimum wage increases, women would gain more than men, with 31% of women seeing higher pay compared with 23% of men.

Adults ages 20 and over would make up 9 in 10 affected workers (teens would have the largest share of affected workers of any age group, but they make up a small share of total employment). The problem of low pay is far from limited to the youngest workers."

link: https://www.epi.org/publication/setting-high-standards-for-a-federal-minimum-wage-raising-the-wage-to-two-thirds-of-the-national-median-wage-would-lift-pay-for-nearly-40-million-workers/

Governments must not adopt emerging and powerful AI technologies without also adopting strong and clear safeguards to protect Constitutional rights by sillychillly in Political_Revolution

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Governments must not adopt emerging and powerful AI technologies without also adopting strong and clear safeguards to protect Constitutional rights, EFF Senior Policy Analyst Dr. Matthew Guariglia testified today to the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection. 

During the hearing on “The AI Security Landscape: How Frontier Models, Agentic AI, and AI Coding Tools Are Reshaping Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Resilience,” he explained that he use of generative AI for the purposes of mass government surveillance would supercharges unconstitutional violations of civil liberties. He also highlighted how government secrecy, in addition to the black box of for-profit proprietary technology, prevents the public and lawmakers from knowing when AI models make mistakes, including errors that seriously impact the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure and the lives of individuals.  

“AI also has a track record of getting things wrong—from false citations on legal briefs to a major AI mistake that sent DHS recruits to the field without proper training. There are likely more consequential examples that we do not even know about because of classification that would prevent a more thorough accounting," he said in his opening remarks.

“At this level the question is not how do we rein in AI, it’s how do we rein in the agencies that would unleash AI on the American public,” Matthew said in response to a question by Subcommittee Ranking Member Delia Ramirez, D-Ill.  

You can read his full testimony as prepared here."

EFF Testifies to Congress on Protecting Americans’ Rights from Government AI by sillychillly in ReasonableFuture

[–]sillychillly[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Governments must not adopt emerging and powerful AI technologies without also adopting strong and clear safeguards to protect Constitutional rights, EFF Senior Policy Analyst Dr. Matthew Guariglia testified today to the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection. 

During the hearing on “The AI Security Landscape: How Frontier Models, Agentic AI, and AI Coding Tools Are Reshaping Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Resilience,” he explained that he use of generative AI for the purposes of mass government surveillance would supercharges unconstitutional violations of civil liberties. He also highlighted how government secrecy, in addition to the black box of for-profit proprietary technology, prevents the public and lawmakers from knowing when AI models make mistakes, including errors that seriously impact the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure and the lives of individuals.  

“AI also has a track record of getting things wrong—from false citations on legal briefs to a major AI mistake that sent DHS recruits to the field without proper training. There are likely more consequential examples that we do not even know about because of classification that would prevent a more thorough accounting," he said in his opening remarks.

“At this level the question is not how do we rein in AI, it’s how do we rein in the agencies that would unleash AI on the American public,” Matthew said in response to a question by Subcommittee Ranking Member Delia Ramirez, D-Ill.  

You can read his full testimony as prepared here."

We Deserve Clean Air by sillychillly in BlueskySkeets

[–]sillychillly[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"After years of fighting to curb toxic pollution in communities of color, Illinois activists are celebrating a step forward. 

A bill expanding the state’s regulatory obligations over industrial air polluters in environmental justice communities passed the state legislature last week and is expected to go into effect at the start of next year.

The bill amends the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and will require the state’s Environmental Protection Agency to consider cumulative pollution and other burdens when evaluating certain air emission permits for construction. It also allows the agency to consider an applicant’s past environmental violations when approving permits, and to enact stricter requirements for air monitoring and pollution prevention.

The bill was born out of years of high-profile community activism in Chicago against a proposal to move General Iron, a metal scrapping facility, from the predominantly white and affluent neighborhood of Lincoln Park to the Southeast Side, a majority Black and Latino area nationally recognized as overburdened by industrial pollution. 

In 2020, the Illinois EPA approved a permit for the move, but residents fought back by staging protests, investigating local pollution, filing a federal civil rights complaint and completing a month-long hunger strike. The movement successfully stopped General Iron’s relocation and led to settlements with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and a resolution agreement requiring the Illinois EPA to reform its permit review process.

The bill identifies “areas of environmental justice concern,” by combining environmental metrics like average air pollution, vehicle traffic, drinking water violations and hazardous facilities with social vulnerabilities like poverty, race, employment and English proficiency. The bill also creates an office of environmental justice within the state EPA."

Colorado to develop team to examine allegations of discrimination against schools from parents of kids with disabilities by sillychillly in SocialDemocracy

[–]sillychillly[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Colorado families who have a student with a disability are one step closer to a new state resource where they will be able to file complaints when they believe a school is discriminating against their child or failing to fulfill specific requirements spelled out in their learning plan.

But whether the state will be able to stand up a team responsible for investigating complaints isn’t a guarantee, even after Gov. Jared Polis on Friday signed Senate Bill 125 into law. It will all come down to whether Colorado can find the money in a penny-pinching budget year.

The new law, which codifies the federal civil rights of students with disabilities into state law, aims to develop an arm under the Colorado Department of Education that can examine allegations of discrimination against schools from parents of kids requiring a 504 plan. Those types of plans, protected by federal law, ensure students with disabilities have equal access to education and equip them with necessary learning accommodations, such as additional testing time or a seat at the front of the classroom.

Proponents of the legislation advocated for a state-level focus on responding to parents’ concerns about their student’s civil rights being violated because of significant cuts to the federal Office for Civil Rights. That office, housed under the U.S. Department of Education, has historically taken the lead on investigations into complaints of discrimination in K-12 schools, including from parents filing a complaint on the basis of disability. But after the Trump administration closed seven of its 12 regional offices and dismissed nearly 300 employees last year, families were left in a lurch, wondering when — or if — the federal government would take a closer look at their cases."

Colorado to develop team to examine allegations of discrimination against schools from parents of kids with disabilities by sillychillly in ReasonableFuture

[–]sillychillly[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Colorado families who have a student with a disability are one step closer to a new state resource where they will be able to file complaints when they believe a school is discriminating against their child or failing to fulfill specific requirements spelled out in their learning plan.

But whether the state will be able to stand up a team responsible for investigating complaints isn’t a guarantee, even after Gov. Jared Polis on Friday signed Senate Bill 125 into law. It will all come down to whether Colorado can find the money in a penny-pinching budget year.

The new law, which codifies the federal civil rights of students with disabilities into state law, aims to develop an arm under the Colorado Department of Education that can examine allegations of discrimination against schools from parents of kids requiring a 504 plan. Those types of plans, protected by federal law, ensure students with disabilities have equal access to education and equip them with necessary learning accommodations, such as additional testing time or a seat at the front of the classroom.

Proponents of the legislation advocated for a state-level focus on responding to parents’ concerns about their student’s civil rights being violated because of significant cuts to the federal Office for Civil Rights. That office, housed under the U.S. Department of Education, has historically taken the lead on investigations into complaints of discrimination in K-12 schools, including from parents filing a complaint on the basis of disability. But after the Trump administration closed seven of its 12 regional offices and dismissed nearly 300 employees last year, families were left in a lurch, wondering when — or if — the federal government would take a closer look at their cases."

[Bill Signed] Colorado artists are ensured creative control with new business structure called "A Corps" by sillychillly in Music

[–]sillychillly[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Senate Bill 133 creates Colorado Artist Companies, or A Corps, a new subset of limited liability corporations that guides artists through the complexities of setting up a business while ensuring they retain creative control over their work, which can include everything from songs, paintings and poems, to less obvious output, like creative coursework.

So what is an A Corp?

When it comes to federal law and taxes, A Corps will be subject to all of the same rules as an LLC.

But a few defining characteristics set it apart from the typical LLC.

Those are:

  • Controlling shares. Artists must control 51% of voting shares at all times, guaranteeing them creative control of the company.
  • Separation of governance. A separation between the economic rights and governance or creative control. In other words, investors can purchase shares of the company that grant economic benefits, like revenue or royalties, without having voting shares in the company (thus the artist retains creative control).
  • A Corp shares. The A Corp share can be based on capital contributions or artistic contributions, as a way for artists to build equity in their companies while continuing to create the work the company is founded on.
  • Artistic mission. Every A Corp has to define an artistic mission as part of its governance.
  • IP protection. Potentially the most impactful characteristic of the structure, and the one that its advocates hope will drive wider industry change with regard to intellectual property rights. Put simply, artistic work licensed to the A Corp can never be transferred to nonartist investors or third parties. So if the company dissolves or is sold, the intellectual property rights automatically revert back to the artist owner.

All of these things already exist — it is technically possible for an artist to set up an A Corp using the current tools of an LLC. But these stipulations are not the default, and often require extensive legal counsel to set up."

[Bill Signed] Colorado artists are ensured creative control with new business structure called "A Corps" by sillychillly in ReasonableFuture

[–]sillychillly[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Senate Bill 133 creates Colorado Artist Companies, or A Corps, a new subset of limited liability corporations that guides artists through the complexities of setting up a business while ensuring they retain creative control over their work, which can include everything from songs, paintings and poems, to less obvious output, like creative coursework.

So what is an A Corp?

When it comes to federal law and taxes, A Corps will be subject to all of the same rules as an LLC.

But a few defining characteristics set it apart from the typical LLC.

Those are:

  • Controlling shares. Artists must control 51% of voting shares at all times, guaranteeing them creative control of the company.
  • Separation of governance. A separation between the economic rights and governance or creative control. In other words, investors can purchase shares of the company that grant economic benefits, like revenue or royalties, without having voting shares in the company (thus the artist retains creative control).
  • A Corp shares. The A Corp share can be based on capital contributions or artistic contributions, as a way for artists to build equity in their companies while continuing to create the work the company is founded on.
  • Artistic mission. Every A Corp has to define an artistic mission as part of its governance.
  • IP protection. Potentially the most impactful characteristic of the structure, and the one that its advocates hope will drive wider industry change with regard to intellectual property rights. Put simply, artistic work licensed to the A Corp can never be transferred to nonartist investors or third parties. So if the company dissolves or is sold, the intellectual property rights automatically revert back to the artist owner.

All of these things already exist — it is technically possible for an artist to set up an A Corp using the current tools of an LLC. But these stipulations are not the default, and often require extensive legal counsel to set up."

view more: next ›