274
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by Vindoua@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 76 points 1 day ago

Wow.

An arbitrator ruled against the corporation that was paying them.

That is the last time they will get work.

[-] areakode@riskeratspizza.com 17 points 1 day ago

In a "nice guys finish last" world, it's nice to see people upholding societal rules.

[-] Drusas@fedia.io 11 points 1 day ago

I'm not sure I would go with "nice guys" anything, what with how poorly that has turned out to be as a self-appointment descriptor. I think we need a new aphorism. "Good guys get trampled" or something.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

’m not sure I would go with “nice guys” anything, what with how poorly that has turned out to be as a self-appointment descriptor.

It's probably time to reverse that term's descent into discussions about people that sound like not nice guys at all.

[-] laurelraven 2 points 1 day ago

Exactly my first thought on reading that

[-] dan1101@lemmy.world 48 points 1 day ago

I don't think I would want to work somewhere that has been forced to hire me back, but still it's a great victory.

[-] BillyClark@piefed.social 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

It depends on the circumstances, but I might return.

The biggest circumstance is my management. If my manager was awesome and the termination came from the PR department or some high up mucky muck who would never interact with me normally, then I'd go back.

If the termination came from my direct manager, I'd never go back and work for that person.

If I was illegally fired by my manager and later got my job back through arbitration, and my manager was fired instead, I would probably return to the job, if for no other reason, than just to run a victory lap before leaving again.

[-] ElDuderino@lemmus.org 6 points 23 hours ago

run a victory lap before leaving again

just make sure you are suuuuper smug about it.

[-] Waterpumpee@lemmus.org 5 points 21 hours ago

Dunno how law is there but here, you get money and PTO as if you worked all the time if you win such a case. Normally, employers hand out beautiful sign off bonus to avoid such a situation.

[-] Eldritch@piefed.world 9 points 1 day ago

I certainly wouldn't work there expecting a good work environment. I'm sure they probably have some reasonable relations with other people who work there. But working there to spite the bosses would be the goal.

Have a plan B and prepare for an exit one way or another. But do what you can to make it as costly for them as you can. That would be the goal

[-] jaybone@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

I hope she’s already been exploring plan B, as Kirk’s death was a while ago..

[-] 13igTyme@piefed.social 6 points 1 day ago

I forgot that was already a year ago. This September will mark the 25th year since 9/11 and one year since Charlie became a fountain.

[-] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 points 1 day ago

Charles opened his heart to the world.

[-] ElDuderino@lemmus.org 1 points 23 hours ago

Pretty sure he opened his neck, but whatever.

[-] Steve@startrek.website 3 points 22 hours ago

Take that back pay and bounce

[-] BassTurd@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago

I would go back for a couple of days, make them do all of the paperwork, setup my access, all of the things, and then resign. She may have also lost out of some financial benefits by being fired that she would be entitled to. If that's the case, I would think that whether or not she returned shouldn't matter, but it could make it clearer.

[-] nkat2112@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 day ago

Good news on a Monday morning. Thank you for sharing this, OP.

Also, I hope the tech oligarch who owns this news source gets what he rightfully deserves.

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 7 points 22 hours ago

Here's a post she made shortly after being fired that gives some context to the story: https://karenattiah.substack.com/p/the-washington-post-fired-me-but?r=2bz6j

[-] janewaydidnothingwrong@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago

Thank you OP! Also just fyi there is a misspelling of the Karen's last name in the title of the post, Attiah should have two t's looks like

[-] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 6 points 1 day ago

Democracy dies in darkness

[-] Eldritch@piefed.world 7 points 1 day ago

Democracy dies in the hands of billionaires

[-] chaogomu@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

Yes, they lock it away in darkness.

[-] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Democracy died under Bezos.

[-] deacon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Of course an Oligarch would see that as a simple set of instructions, as has been demonstrated.

this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2026
274 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30908 readers
1617 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS