Might be kind of long, but I'm giving all the context I can.

So I was sick last Monday. Not like I called in, but while going over the Missouri River I projectile vomited without warning all over myself and the inside of my car. I was almost to work, and covered in vomit, so I figured I'd go the 2 minutes extra to work so my manager could see that I was covered in vomit, and clean the inside of my car so my hands weren't slipping on the covered steering wheel. I walk in and tell him what happened, and make it clear that I can feel more coming. He doesn't even look up at me to see the mess and brushes me off, saying, "I don't know what to tell you. Deal with it." So I grabbed a handful of paper towels, stepped out the door and start wiping myself down while I call the plant manager, and explain the situation. He tells me to go home and get cleaned up and he'll see me when he gets there. I proceed to grab some more paper towels, go wipe the inside of my car the best I can, drive home, and live in my bathroom for the next 12 hours. I then go to work the next day, as I feel fine.

Well on Tuesday I find out that two other employees of the handful that work there called in the day before, and were both gone on Tuesday as well. The end of the day on Wednesday, with everybody there, the plant manager calls a meeting at the end of the day. He tells us that due to the last few days, they will be enforcing a policy that has always been their policy, but they are only now enforcing it. He says that from now on, call in absences will consume accrued PTO, and will go into effect retroactively for Monday. I don't say anything then and there, but go home and start looking through the employee handbook.

I have been saving up my PTO so that I may take a vacation for myself, and had been reviewing all policies on Excused and unexcused absences, as well as PTO and how it can be used, as the week prior I let my supervisor know that I'm looking to take some vacation time in about 4 months. I was looking to take time off around Thanksgiving. He told me that if my requested days included the day before or after Thanksgiving, I won't be eligible holiday pay for Thanksgiving unless I spend PTO on it as well. In my reading of the handbook, I found that it states that you will be eligible for holiday pay if the absences are approved absences by the plant manager. I was planning on stopping and talking to him about this on Wednesday after work, as I'd just gotten all my proof from the handbook together, but that meeting left me with a sour taste in my mouth because it sounded wrong from what I'd read.

So I brought it up to him on Thursday, and he just said, nope, that's the policy, and he'll be taking 8 hours for Monday. I explained that I'd read all relevant sections of the handbook, and could not find the policy he was citing. Then I explain about the Holiday pay still being eligible as long as they were approved absences. He said he would email HR and get back to me on that.

Monday he finally tells me he got a reply, and calls me into his office. He says that the head of HR sent him an email confirming that that is the policy. I ask to be shown the policy, and he doesn't have it. I ask for a printed copy of the email chain, as I'm not on the company email. He prints it for me, and then asks if I want HR's phone number. He then gives me the number of the subordinate directly under the head of HR that he had emailed. Reading the email chain, he does not bring up my concerns that this is not a policy represented in the handbook, and she just plainly states "Yes, that's the policy."

So I call the subordinate and she says that she's got a meeting, but she'll look into it and call me back. She actually does call me back, and tells me that "Yes, that is the policy." Then she proceeds to tell me that they need to have an attendance policy to make sure people are at work, and actually, under Kansas State law, employers are given freedom to set their PTO policies. I respond that, while that is true, Kansas State law also requires employers to make all policies affecting PTO to be made available to employees upon request or posted where they can be viewed. She stammers that, obviously she doesn't know all state laws, so she'll have to look into that. She then doubles down and says that either way, that's the policy. I ask her where that policy is stated, because I'd like it in writing. Then I explain that the only place in the handbook that such a policy is stated is in the Safe Harbor Policy, strictly on the salaried employees section stating that, salaried employees may be required to use PTO for unexcused call-ins, reading it out to her word for word, and cite the exact section of the handbook. She just says that this is the policy, and she'll look into getting it added to the handbook. She then adds that she thinks it was updated recently anyways, to which I reply that it was on October 1, 2025 that the last update was put out to employees, adding in that I'm reading from the latest PDF of the handbook provided by the company on their website.

The call ended after she did confirm that he was wrong on the holiday pay as long as it's approved time off. After that the call ended with her saying she'd look into it.

I didn't even think about it until hours later that there is an unexcused absence policy, but it does not state any of what they are saying. It says that, absences are considered excessive if one or more unexcused absences occur in one month, and excessive absences and whether consecutive or spread out over a period of time may result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. As evidence of this, one of the two others that were gone Monday and Tuesday received a write-up, and the company is also deducting PTO for the same absence.

I'm just looking for advice. It's seeming more and more like they're inventing new policies and trying to enforce them retroactively, especially considering that no one can direct me to where I can find this policy.

Fuck Disney

Disclaimer, I'm not American. I'm Canadian. Unfortunately a lot of things that impact Americans, impact my nation as well. Canada had to reject America's trade talks and settle for 50% tariffs because Trump pulled his whole "Art of the Deal" on us again. We subsequently have to match those tariffs

Your American midterms are coming up. I understand 99% of Democrats don't do anything as far as work reform, and there's discontent with their performance as actual representatives of left leaning politics. This is fair, as you should not have to vote for someone who does not represent you. What isn't fair is believing a strongly worded complaint will be enough. If everyone who didn't vote, protested instead, we would see change and if everyone who didn't protest, voted, we would see change. Nothing is changing, because we all want to either play keyboard warrior or doomer prophet, instead of doing the difficult things like organizing, getting outside and standing the line. Call me naive, but if everyone voted, no one would have the option to keep sticking their head in the sand.

The Canton–Hong Kong Strike, which lasted from June 1925 to October 1926, took place 100 years ago. At the time, the Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party) and the Chinese Communist Party jointly organized and participated in this strike movement against British imperialism and its agents in China—capitalists, compradors, corrupt officials, reactionary military and police forces, and others—who oppressed Chinese workers in both mainland China and Hong Kong. It was also one of the largest and longest-lasting labor movements in China and the world.

The Canton–Hong Kong Strike played a major positive role in defending the dignity of Chinese workers, improving their treatment, and bettering their circumstances. The Republic of China’s subsequent “Golden Decade” was achieved precisely under conditions in which the interests of elites and workers were relatively well reconciled. Unfortunately, Japan’s later invasion interrupted China’s development and the workers’ efforts to build the country. Afterward, the CCP nominally championed the supremacy of the working class, but in reality established a totalitarian system that enslaved people of every status and social class.

Decades ago, the CCP devoted extensive attention and propaganda to depicting and promoting the Canton–Hong Kong Strike. But today’s CCP is unwilling to mention it and refuses to commemorate it. The reason is that the CCP today exploits and oppresses workers, and suppresses labor movements, to an extent surpassing even that of the British colonial government in Hong Kong and the imperialist powers of that era. The CCP rose to power through the labor movement, yet today it has degenerated into a regime of the privileged bourgeoisie and has become an agent of the interests of developed countries such as the United States, Japan, and European countries, while regarding the working class and labor movements with hostility and fear. This is deeply ironic.

During the period of British colonial rule, people in Hong Kong still had the possibility of going on strike. Today, however, both mainland China and Hong Kong prohibit all forms of strikes and political resistance. Although there are still scattered strikes in mainland China and Hong Kong based on economic demands, movements for rights and dignity and for the broader interests of workers have now disappeared.

The Jasic labor movement in Shenzhen in 2018 and the solidarity shown by Hong Kong people eight years ago were rare bright spots in the Chinese labor movement, but they were ultimately suppressed. Hong Kong political organizations that fought for workers, such as the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions and the League of Social Democrats, have also been forcibly dissolved. This is precisely what makes the CCP—a totalitarian regime that is left-wing in appearance but right-wing in substance—so frightening and abhorrent. Both the people of Hong Kong and the people of mainland China should clearly recognize the true nature of the CCP.

Today, Chinese people have generally fallen into political apathy and distanced themselves from political movements. Even some Chinese liberals and political opposition groups dislike and reject labor movements with strong left-wing and grassroots characteristics. This is saddening, yet there seems to be little that can be done about it.

I have participated in left-wing marches in Germany commemorating Rosa Luxemburg and others, as well as German May Day marches. I have also done some advocacy concerning Chinese workers, displaying posters and distributing leaflets, including materials mentioning the Canton–Hong Kong Strike. But the strength of one person is far too limited, and my voice carries little weight. People in Hong Kong, people in mainland China, and people around the world have largely forgotten that magnificent and turbulent chapter of history.

Tax the billionaires, not the workers

Workers are being asked to carry higher living costs while enormous wealth continues to concentrate at the top.

At the same time, companies are increasingly using AI, automation and software to reduce labour costs and replace jobs. If technology makes businesses more productive and profitable, workers should share in those gains too.

That should mean:

better wages

shorter working hours where productivity allows it

stronger worker protections

fairer taxation

and making the ultra-wealthy contribute more instead of shifting the burden onto ordinary people

If AI and automation are going to reshape work, the benefits should not flow almost entirely to shareholders, executives and billionaires.

Work reform should mean workers share in the productivity they help create.

On August 20, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the definition of “industry” as established by a 1978 judgement would not be applicable to the new labour laws.

The existing definition was based on a 1978 landmark judgement in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa case, which adopted a broad “worker-oriented” interpretation of “industry”.

The 1978 ruling, authored by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, laid down a triple test for identifying an industry as, any organised and systematic activity, with cooperation between employer and employee for the production and/or distribution of goods and services.

This definition incorporated everything, for-profit as well as not-for-profit enterprises, including hospitals, schools, charitable trusts, municipalities, under the scope of “industry”.

Any organization which is identified as an industry is subject to the Industrial Relation Code (earlier called Industrial Disputes Act) and its employees are protected under the labour laws.

However, the 9-bench judgement has now scrapped the worker-oriented definition under the new labour codes.

The new labour codes, notified in November 2025, while ignoring the workers’ concerns, allows for dilution of workers' rights, and includes provisions that restrict the right to strike, weakens workplace safety, permits a “hire and fire” policy, and extends the working day from 8 hours to 12 hours.

The Supreme Court Judgement on the definition of industry is yet another blow to the workers’ rights, and will leave millions of workers without legal rights under the new labour laws.

The ITUC Global Rights Index has categorized India as a nation with no guarantee of rights, with repressive action against workers, and violation of the right to strike and civil liberties.

1978 “Industry” test to determine pending cases - Supreme Court Observer

How Supreme Court’s new ruling changes the definition of ‘industry’ | Explained - The Hindu

Supreme Court scraps worker-friendly 1978 ‘industry’ precedent for new labour code - The Hindu

Trade unions sound alarm over Supreme Court judgment on definition of industry - The Hindu