Anonymous #1 29w

All employees had moved outside or were leaving when he allegedly lit the fire. The company services thousands of clients and have jobs available to place them. No one was injured. No intention to injure either. He did nothing wrong.

11

Anonymous #2 29w

Pay US enough to live. He did it for us just as much as for himself.

18

Anonymous OP 29w

“Nobody was injured” doesn’t mean lives weren’t in danger, there were reportedly 20 people inside when the building was set on fire. The company has said they are “working to place employees impacted by the fire at other company operations in the area” but they haven’t said if 100% of employees have been transplanted yet. Or even if they have plans for everyone No intention to injure doesn’t mean anything

-1

Anonymous #1 29w

No one was injured. They were all already outside our juat about to be before the building was even close to on fire. No violence. He did nothing wrong.

3

Anonymous OP 29w

It was luck that nobody was injured

-1

Anonymous #1 29w

Incorrect.

6

Anonymous OP 29w

The plant has an insurance policy so they likely wont be out much if anything at all. And the new warehouse will absolutely have more automation, therefore less jobs

-7

Anonymous OP 29w

Okay

0

Anonymous #1 29w

Automation is happening anyway. If you’re so concerned about it then push for a solution. No human was hurt. They have open jobs

15

Anonymous #1 29w

Also the warehouse already has robots. Get your head outta your ass.

14

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous OP 29w

Yeah it is, because now they have a completely clean slate to implement it. The solution would be to not give them a huge check and a clean slate

-1

Anonymous OP 29w

It had some robots? Ah nvm yeah might as well take away the rest of them then

2

Anonymous #1 29w

The solution is to end the current corporate model.

9

Comment Deleted

0

It’s insane that you actually believe them too

-1

Anonymous OP 29w

Im sure this will do that, surely it wont go back to how it was right?

-1

Anonymous #1 29w

This wasn’t meant to be a solution. It was meant to be a message.

1

Do you disagree that the warehouse has insurance? Or that people are currently without a job? I fail to see where you disagree

0

Anonymous OP 29w

The guy is very likely going to prison, and the companies involved are getting a fat check. What’s the message?

-1

Anonymous #1 29w

The message is treat American workers like human beings

7

Anonymous #1 29w

The message is stop licking the boot 🥾

11

Anonymous #2 29w

He literally recorded himself doing it, which makes it easier for the company to get their payout. He only succeeded in speeding up their refund

-2

Comment Deleted

0

If it becomes such a normal occurrence you will see the costs of everything go up. Careful what you wish for

-1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

I’m against the oppression of capitalism I’m also for common sense

1

If the costs are going up, imagine how much more they’d go up with burning down warehouses becoming normal. Remember what happened when the kulaks burned the grain?

1

Comment Deleted

0

Burning down warehouses isn’t the same of redistributing wealth. Also if you want to talk about capitalism, you should read Marx. He did not say socialism is when workers burn down the factories, he said it’s when they own the factories

0

Comment Deleted

0

Yeah DOTP doesn’t mean burn down warehouses. In fact according to Marxist theory that actually stalls the transition to DOTP since it destroys the centralized and socialized labor that these massive warehouses created

0

Comment Deleted

0

I’m not defending capitalists, I’m supporting centralized production, which is is a requirement for socialism. Also my social views are pretty moderate so

-1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

I’m not a right wing communist. I consider myself left wing. Also how I want to live my life doesn’t mean everyone should be forced to live that way too. But that doesn’t tie to socialism, since socialism is about workers ownership of the means of production

-1

Comment Deleted

0

You’re right and what I’m saying is that since socialism is defined by worker ownership of the means of production, socialism, then a socialist isn’t defined by anything other than supporting socialism

0

Anonymous landtrust 28w

Th costs are already going up. Your argument is invalid.

2

Anonymous OP 28w

Costs are going up despite no shortage. Now imagine how much more they’d go up with shortages

0

Anonymous landtrust 28w

They go up bc they want to make more money. At some point it doesn’t matter how much it costs you won’t be able to afford it anyway.

3

Anonymous OP 28w

And they go up more if kulaks are burning all the grain

0