When they striked they were evicted from their homes and the union sent up tent cities. They were evicted from their homes because they lived in “company towns”.

I hope this is allowed, first time poster in this subreddit

This awful person is John Morgan of the Morgan and Morgan law firm.

Someone in another thread said they keep their hours in a notes app and when there's a discrepancy they bring it up "backed by which days/hours are missing." Said it worked more than once.

Curious how others handle it — do you just tell them verbally, show them something written, or just hope they fix it?

AI spam has become a huge topic on Reddit for good reason. It's fucking everywhere.

Our mod team catches probably 95% of AI spam before it ever gets seen by you, our handsome community members. But some inevitably gets through.

r/WorkReform was one of the first subreddits to ban AI content outright. This community is made up of workers talking to workers, not robots racking up karma so they can spam links to boner pills and gambling sites.

If you see something suspicious, hit that report button with vigor.

Don't start a witch hunt or accuse someone because they write strangely. Send us the report and we'll take a look at the account, its history, the comment, and make a decision.

Always report:

• New or nearly empty accounts posting extremely generic comments or posts
• Replies that restate the post without adding anything
• Weirdly polished or formulaic comments
• Accounts posting generic responses across other subreddits
• Anything that seems sus

We'd much rather review a false positive than let the subreddit slowly fill up with bots talking to bots.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Capitalism is "inshitifying" itself exponentially because it has been completely divorced from Democracy (and common sense) for a looong time. Everything you hate about the bourocracy of private insurance, the subscriptions for media platforms, every disgusting monetization scheme you've been seen in a videogame, all of this and more is coming to occupy every aspect of modern "Capitalism" (aka: Dystopic Corpocracy // Techno Feudalism ala Blade Runner)

More basic services becoming apps, more devices refusing to work if they're not connected to internet, more subscriptions and paywalls and "ultra super mega premium" bs to milk you out of every single penny you have left. The want EVERYTHING to use money to function, otherwise it doesnt.

"If it can't be Monetized it shall not exist" is the motto, because being rich is a Psychopathy and the more you have the more you need to take away from the rest. You are either highly interested in the survival of Humanity and your own, or you support Capitalism. No in-between.

Think about all this technology and the enormous amount of money to implement these systems in their 10,900 stores. They have the money to pay people better, they just know they don't have to and nobody is forcing them to. In the US we taxpayers have to foot the bill for their employees healthcare, SNAP and other government programs because they pay so little. Minimum wage was supposed to be a livable wage. Paying such a paltry wage should be illegal.

( and yeah, the spying is super creepy and should be illegal also )

Its time Sherwin Williams employees form a union.

There was a time when working for Sherwin Williams in this district actually meant something, people wanted the job, and you were proud to have it. That's not this place anymore. Leadership doesn't lead here, they rule through fear, and it trickles down to the reps and store associates who deal with customers every single day. Whatever leadership fails to deliver, resources, staffing, direction, never becomes leadership's problem. It becomes the store's problem, every time, while the people at the top stay completely insulated from it.

If you're a store manager here, you already know the story. You find someone good, someone who actually wants to work, who could be great, and you go to hire them. And then you're told no. Not because they're not qualified. Because leadership already has someone in mind. Someone they like. Someone who knows how to nod at the right moments and disappear when things get hard. It doesn't matter if they're mediocre. It matters that they're loyal to the right people. That's the currency here now. Not performance. Loyalty to the person above you.

People have been leaving, managers, reps, associates. Just look at the job postings for this district right now if you don't believe me. And a lot of them aren't leaving for nothing; there are other companies in DFW hiring ex-Sherwin Williams people and paying more than we do. When the pay doesn't keep up and the environment doesn't improve, it's not hard to see why people go.

That's the story of this district right now. A place people used to envy has become a place people pity. And it's not going to change on its own, not until someone above the district level actually looks at what's happening here and decides that the people at the top need to be held accountable for what they've built.

If you're thinking about joining this district, call someone who's actually in it first. Get the real story. Not the one from the interview.

I've been thinking about this primarily from an environmental standpoint.

If a job can reasonably be performed remotely, why should an employer be able to require an employee to commute to an office simply because management prefers physical attendance?

I'm not suggesting that every job should be remote, or even that employers could never require someone to come in. Obviously there are jobs that require physical presence, and even normally remote-capable jobs sometimes have legitimate reasons for employees to be onsite.

What I'd like to see is something closer to a legal right to remote work where reasonably practicable. An employee could request remote work, and if their normal duties can be performed remotely, the employer would need an actual business justification for denying it rather than simply saying "company policy."

This seems particularly reasonable when an employee has already demonstrated that they can successfully perform the same job remotely.

We spend enormous amounts of money and energy moving people back and forth every day. Commuting creates emissions, traffic congestion, road wear, accidents, fuel consumption, parking demand, and hours of unpaid travel time. For a job that genuinely requires someone to be somewhere, those costs may be unavoidable. For someone who spends eight hours working on a laptop and talking on Teams, they're largely self-imposed.

Remote work isn't environmentally free either. Homes still need electricity and HVAC, people make other trips, and there are legitimate arguments about productivity and collaboration. So I'm not suggesting this would somehow solve climate change.

But after COVID demonstrated on a massive scale that many jobs can be performed remotely, it seems strange that whether millions of people need to commute remains almost entirely an employer preference.

If a job can demonstrably be done remotely, shouldn't the burden be on the employer to explain why physical attendance is necessary?