… according to emails shared with NPR by an official who was not allowed to speak publicly.
This is not the first time in recent days that NPR has reported on information from anonymous sources who are not authorized to speak publicly.
Kudos to NPR, and kudos to those sources.
More context, based on this article:
The mayor refused to leave an ICE facility because the facility (Delaney Hall) is ignoring city requirements for inspections. Newark demands these safety inspections in part because the building is rated to house 1000 people, and ICE won’t or can’t say how many detainees are housed there. ICE is leasing this building from GEO, a private prison group.
So this isn’t just about adherence to fire codes. It’s about protecting the most vulnerable people from potentially deadly abuse by the US federal government.
Edit: Mayor was leading protests outside the facility. https://youtu.be/T9vbVKnNr6Q
So that’s at the very least an open and shut civil rights suit, right?
Is this the Late stage capitalism version of the Turing test?
Nailed it.
Could be people who own through mutual funds. Could be people who bought a share in the wake of The Incident with the intention of filing such a suit.
The group, which is seeking unspecified damages, argued that the public backlash prevented the company from pursuing “the aggressive, anti-consumer tactics that it would need to achieve” its earnings goals.
I’m willing to bet that the group who filed this suit has done so in order to point out UHC’s “aggressive anti-consumer tactics.”
Oh yeah, yeah - from a financial/reporting perspective, such a fund wouldn’t be considered “profit” in the strictest capitalist sense.
If you consider that kind of fund to be for the benefit of customers and employees, it might be considered “socialist profit.” Capitalist profit serves the ownership class. Socialist profit serves labor and consumers.
Profit would be appropriate if it were earmarked to offset difficult future fiscal periods, so that the business could continue to operate in lean times without having to punish employees through layoffs or failure to keep up with cost of living or cutting back on other benefits.
But we all know that’s not what happens. Owners never have to experience consequences; customers and employees always do, for things that they have no control over.
Oh right, I forgot about that. Then it’s just wrong.
Preface: This does not belong in a courtroom. These were not his words. These were words that someone else wrote, and then put into the mouth of a very realistic puppet of him.
This was a victim impact statement, which I think comes after sentencing. In that case, it wouldn’t have had an impact on sentencing, but I still feel quite strongly that this kind of misrepresentation has no place in a court.
Because Eric Adams is owned by fascists?
Well … cities are heavy.
Oh, I’m sure they expect payments. Doesn’t mean they’re going to receive payments.
It’s not needless pedantry. Revenue is the income acquired before costs, and those costs include employee compensation. Reducing the number of employees has zero immediate effect on revenue. A company with US$10B in revenue can still be losing money if their expenses are higher than revenue.
This is important to point out, because reporting very often uses the wrong metric to describe a company in comparison to its behavior. Revenue is rarely the correct metric, and mentioning it as a comparator in this article makes the issue less clear.
Note that I am not defending CrowdStrike here. Hell, they’re the ones saying that layoffs are going to magically increase revenue:
According to CrowdStrike, the layoff plan is part of a bigger plan to improve different operations and processes and achieve the final goal of $10 billion in revenue by the end of the year.
“[Layoffs represent] a strategic plan (the ‘Plan’) to evolve its operations to yield greater efficiencies as the Company continues to scale its business with focus and discipline to meet its goal of $10 billion in ending [Annual Recurring Revenue].”, the CrowdStrike company mentioned in their 8-K filing.
I’m no paragon of business, but I fail to comprehend how having fewer employees is going to make your sales go up. Maybe they’re laying off salespeople, which puts the fear of god in those who are left as a “motivator”? Laying off people who perform the services they sell seems counterproductive in relation to revenue.
They’re being intentionally misleading about this, and pointing that out is not pedantry.
I hear what you’re saying, but revenue isn’t profit.
These countries who are willing to accept prisoners from the US illegally, do they actually think the US is going to pay them?
Solidarity aside, whenever you are arraigned, any lawyer worth their salt will advise you to plead not guilty, because entering a guilty plea means it’s over, move on to sentencing, where you have no leverage at all.
You can always change a not guilty plea to a guilty plea later, if a plea deal offered by the prosecution is acceptable to you. This is especially relevant in a case where the death penalty is on the table, but also applies to the possibility of reduced charges or penalties in any case.
I’ll also add that this case could well end up with an Alford plea. In short, where the defendant asserts innocence, does not admit to the criminal act, but accepts the sentence because they believe that a jury would find them guilty based on the evidence. Again, this is definitely related to a case where the death penalty is on the table.
Is an earthquake weather? Is mayonnaise an instrument?