u/Thedudeistjedi

I gotta ask, sometimes it seems like yall are a bot farm always parroting the same three talking points. Is that cause we just got the bottom of the maga barrel over here, or are yall trolling them from the get-go, or what's going on? Like, we got three users you'd swear they get paid to lose the maga movement any good faith it had left with the obtuse arguments they make, so... what's really going on here?

We all saw the clips from the white-tie state dinner a few weeks ago, where King Charles handed the President the brass conning tower bell from the World War II submarine HMS Trump. The King smiled and told him to just give them a ring if he ever needs to get hold of the UK. While the internet had a massive field day with the blatant British slang double entendre, essentially calling the leader of the free world a bellend to his face, it highlights a terrifying geopolitical reality. The United States is burning through its international political capital at a staggering pace, and our closest allies are resorting to dark, public mockery because they are horrified by what is happening inside our borders.

As citizens, we need to step back from the daily partisan shouting matches on the news and look at the cold, structural reality. How is history going to judge the first year of this massive domestic camp expansion? Whenever people bring up historical parallels to mass internment, opponents immediately scream that it is just hyperbole or panic. But if you look strictly at the technical data, the logistics, and the first-year velocity of the modern ICE detention system, the reality is actually worse than the historical examples people are afraid of.

People always think of authoritarian camp systems as the industrialized death camps of the 1940s, but that is a massive historical error. Every system of mass confinement starts as an administrative solution to a political mandate. When the early concentration camp network was established in Germany in 1933 to contain political dissidents, union leaders, and communists, the system was brutal but relatively small. In its entire first year of operation, the official death toll at Dachau was documented at around twenty to thirty people, and across the entire disorganized network of early German camps in those first twelve months, the total deaths remained in the dozens. Contrast that with our modern data. Since the mass deportation and interior enforcement campaign kicked off last year, the modern ICE detention system has already logged 48 deaths in custody. The American system is seeing more bodies pile up in its opening phase than the early 1933 German network did during its initial rollout.

This terrifying mortality rate is not happening because the government built industrialized execution centers, it is happening because the administration prioritized the political velocity of roundups over the basic physics of human infrastructure. It is a pure failure of logistics. The government is currently trying to hold close to 100,000 people simultaneously, and to achieve that scale, they have rapidly funneled human beings into retrofitted industrial warehouses, soft-sided mega-tents, and logistics hubs. These buildings were never engineered for long-term human habitation. When you scale a detention apparatus at this speed while simultaneously cutting off standard medical provider reimbursements, the internal infrastructure completely collapses. Ventilation fails, sanitation lines break down, and basic medical screening vanishes. People are not dying from high-profile violence, they are dying from infections, untreated injuries, and unmanaged chronic conditions like diabetes. Neglect at this scale is proving just as lethal as direct authoritarian terror, and it is happening at an average pace of one death every six days.

The most common defense of these facilities is that they are operating under entirely legal federal mandates to secure the nation, but history tells us that legal absolutism is a trap. The British camps during the Boer War, which killed tens of thousands through logistical incompetence and typhus, were entirely legal under British military authority at the time. The internment of Japanese-Americans in the 1940s was explicitly validated by the Supreme Court under national security emergency powers. History never judges a system of mass confinement by whether its paperwork was filled out correctly under the current administration, it judges the human outcome. Fifty years from now, when the political dust has completely settled, how will Americans look back on this first year? Will these facilities be remembered as an unavoidable logistical hurdle of border management, or will they be viewed as the moment we built an apparatus so fast and so reckless that we outpaced the initial rollouts of the darkest regimes in human history?

Looking back at everyone who has attempted mass population containment at this velocity, will the world remember this chapter of our history fondly?

Did y'all know there was a PA plant that made Pyrex for over a hundred years? Anchor Hocking bought the brand from Instant and then just shut the whole thing down. They put three hundred people out of work and moved the actual machines to the Corning and Elmira locations. It looks like they just wanted to harvest the equipment and didn't care about the legacy or the people in Pennsylvania.

Now their focus is on Corning and Elmira, but the Corning plant is having things repo'd from what I have heard. It is anyone's guess how long Pyrex will even be made in Corning if they can't keep their own equipment. They are dealing with a nine point six million dollar lawsuit and an unusually high number of walk outs(firing as in walk them out) lately. When a company takes a seventy million dollar investment but still has machines taken by creditors, the money is clearly going to debt instead of the factory floor.

the more you know i guess

https://preview.redd.it/08yd0as6flzg1.jpg?width=1536&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=29aa4b485ccabd8e1fec7a3c89d971a3446b7050

Hey y’all, I’m looking for a pulse check on American labor ethics and how people view the "Just Cause" standard in 2026. I’ve been tracking a situation at a large manufacturing plant in New York, and the logic management is using to fire a long term worker feels like a glitch in the social contract.

A union worker with a clean record calls the designated security desk at 6:27 AM to call off for a 7:00 AM shift. The security guard, who is a third party contractor, handles the input. On the digital log, the guard clicks a dropdown box that says "Tardy" for the reason. However, in the manual text box for "Return Date," the guard literally types "NSD," which stands for Next Scheduled Day.

Management is ignoring the manual "NSD" note that proves the company had actual notice the worker wasn't coming in. Instead, they are using the guard's misclick of the "Tardy" box to claim the worker intended to show up late but then never arrived. Because of this, they are classifying the absence as a "Conduct Violation" for an improper call off.

By calling it a "Conduct" issue instead of an "Attendance" issue, they are bypassing the entire negotiated union point system to go straight to termination. To top it off, the official termination papers they signed even list the wrong shift and the wrong supervisor, suggesting they didn’t even audit the employee file before walking the worker out.

So, I have to ask the sub, who is in the right here? In 2026, when we have visual receipts of a manual note, should a contractor’s clerical error be enough to void a union contract and fire an experienced American worker? Does a misclicked box override the written evidence of a worker's intent?

I know this sub is usually for showing off vintage finds, but I wanted to share what’s happening at the actual plant in Corning right now. My wife is a long-term union worker there, part of the team making the dishes we all use.

Today, the new HR Director walked her out over a "conduct violation" that is honestly hard to believe. She called off for a shift, and the security guard typed "NSD" (Next Scheduled Day) in the return box. Despite having written proof she wasn't coming in, HR is calling it a "no-show" because the guard accidentally clicked a "Tardy" box on a dropdown menu.

They are bypassing the entire union attendance system to fire people over contractor typos and petty synonyms (like saying "PTO" instead of "Personal"). They even messed up the termination papers so bad they have the wrong shift and supervisor listed.

The new owners are spending millions on commercials about "investing in the American worker," but on the shop floor, they are firing experienced glassworkers over clerical errors. It’s heartbreaking to see a brand with this much history being run like this. Just thought this community should know what’s going on behind the scenes of the products we love.

edit:I want to clarify a few things that have come up in the comments elsewhere. A union representative was physically present during the termination meeting and has reportedly filed a grievance over this firing. However, the meeting itself revealed a massive procedural failure. Management and the rep spent a significant amount of time arguing over a previous grievance from January which involved a dispute over whether my wife said "PTO" or "Personal" during a call-off. When she asked for a definitive answer on whether that January case was actually settled or closed, neither side could provide one. It appears the company is using an unresolved ghost grievance as the foundation for this termination. Because of the confusion and the sloppy paperwork, we are calling the union hall tomorrow

My wife was walked out of her union job today. She still has two attendance points (tardies) left in her bank, so she could not be fired under the standard attendance policy. To get around this, the new HR Director bypassed the point system and classified a call-off as a "conduct violation" for an improper call-off.

I have been reviewing the documentation and the collective bargaining agreement, and I am looking for a legal perspective on the procedural errors management made.

1. Contradictory Evidence in Security Logs Last week, my wife called the third-party security desk to call off. The guard selected "Tardy" from a dropdown menu, but in the "Return Date" field, the guard manually typed "NSD" (Next Scheduled Day). In labor law, doesn't the specific written entry (NSD) override a general category (Tardy)? We are arguing that the company had constructive notice that she would be absent for the full shift, making the "no-show" charge factually incorrect.

2. Failure of Due Process and Investigation Management is required to perform a fair and objective investigation under the "Just Cause" standard. However, the supervisor waited 48 hours after the call-off to pull time punches to "build a case" rather than addressing the absence immediately. Furthermore, the official termination paperwork they signed today contains the wrong shift and the wrong supervisor. Does the fact that they signed off on factually incorrect disciplinary papers prove a failure of the investigation process?

3. Foundation on an Unresolved Grievance To justify termination, they cited a prior write-up from January. That January incident involved a dispute over whether she said "PTO" or "Personal" during a call-off. That write-up was grieved by the union and remains open and unsettled. During the firing meeting today, management couldn't even prove the status of that grievance. Can a company legally use an active, unresolved grievance as the foundation for progressive discipline to reach a termination?

4. Spoliation of Evidence We are issuing an Information Request for the audio of the January call. If the company claims the audio was deleted while a grievance was active, does that constitute spoliation of evidence, and would that automatically void the January warning?

We are meeting with the Union President tomorrow. I am curious if this sounds like a standard "Just Cause" victory or if we should be preparing for a broader issue.

https://preview.redd.it/v65ktddeklzg1.jpg?width=1536&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=62c5cc7b3143b7ad8abd9b68e0c3ca5ffa259a15

Here is the actual security log from the morning of 5/3. My wife called at 6:27 AM, which is nearly a half hour before her 7:00 AM shift began. Look at the "Return" line. The security officer manually typed "NSD", which stands for Next Scheduled Day. This is the smoking gun because it proves the company had actual notice that she would not be coming in for the full shift.

Management is trying to bypass the union attendance point system by claiming this was an "improper call-off" or "no-show" conduct violation. They are basing that entire charge on the fact that the guard selected "Tardy" from a dropdown menu for the reason. But look at the logic here. You cannot be "Tardy" for a shift you have already confirmed you aren't returning for until tomorrow.

edit:I want to clarify a few things that have come up in the comments. A union representative was physically present during the termination meeting and has reportedly filed a grievance over this firing. However, the meeting itself revealed a massive procedural failure. Management and the rep spent a significant amount of time arguing over a previous grievance from January which involved a dispute over whether my wife said "PTO" or "Personal" during a call-off. When she asked for a definitive answer on whether that January case was actually settled or closed, neither side could provide one. It appears the company is using an unresolved ghost grievance as the foundation for this termination. Because of the confusion and the sloppy paperwork, we are calling the union hall tomorrow

Corning New York

Long time lurker here. My wife works at a unionized manufacturing plant and got walked out yesterday. The new HR director has been looking for excuses to trim the roster, but he couldn't fire her legally for attendance because she still has two tardies left in her bank.

So instead, they bypassed the point system and hit her with a conduct violation for an improper call-off. I have been up all night digging through her paperwork and the union contract, and I am pretty sure I caught HR and her supervisor completely screwing themselves. I just wanted to get a second opinion on the logic here before we go to the union.

Here is the breakdown of how management handled this.

Last week, she called the security desk at 6 AM to call off. The guard clicked Tardy on the drop-down menu, but right next to it in the return date box, the guard actually typed NSD, which stands for Next Scheduled Day. You cannot be tardy for a shift you literally said you are not returning for until tomorrow. HR just ignored the NSD part so they could fire her for being a no-show after allegedly saying she would be tardy.

Her supervisor went into the system two days later hunting for her time punches to prove she did not show up. He waited two days to build a paper trail for a conduct charge instead of just reading the security log that already said she was not coming in. It looks like they were looking for a reason to fire her rather than just following the attendance policy.

They rushed the paperwork so fast to get her out the door that the official termination form has the wrong shift and the wrong supervisor listed on it. They did not even look at her file before they signed the papers.

To make it a fireable offense, they had to prove she was a repeat offender. They cited a write-up from January. Her crime in January was calling off and saying PTO instead of Personal. The best part is the union filed a grievance on that January write-up and it was never actually settled. During the firing meeting yesterday, the supervisor and the steward were literally arguing because neither of them knew if that January issue was still open. HR fired her based on a past warning they cannot even prove is legally active.

I think tardy is a state of being, not a reason for an absence. If the security log says her return was NSD, that means the company knew she was not coming in.

Does she have a case to get her job back with back pay? It feels like they bypassed the entire union attendance system just to fire her over a contractor typo and an unsettled grievance from four months ago.

edit:I want to clarify a few things that have come up in the comments. A union representative was physically present during the termination meeting and has reportedly filed a grievance over this firing. However, the meeting itself revealed a massive procedural failure. Management and the rep spent a significant amount of time arguing over a previous grievance from January which involved a dispute over whether my wife said "PTO" or "Personal" during a call-off. When she asked for a definitive answer on whether that January case was actually settled or closed, neither side could provide one. It appears the company is using an unresolved ghost grievance as the foundation for this termination. Because of the confusion and the sloppy paperwork, we are calling the union hall tomorrow

https://preview.redd.it/omhjodqtjlzg1.jpg?width=1536&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a1d4b5eab3ea0f550d1ec5ec99ddc215a96622a5

Here is the actual security log from the morning of 5/3. My wife called at 6:27 AM, which is nearly a half hour before her 7:00 AM shift began. Look at the "Return" line. The security officer manually typed "NSD", which stands for Next Scheduled Day. This is the smoking gun because it proves the company had actual notice that she would not be coming in for the full shift.

Management is trying to bypass the union attendance point system by claiming this was an "improper call-off" or "no-show" conduct violation. They are basing that entire charge on the fact that the guard selected "Tardy" from a dropdown menu for the reason. But look at the logic here. You cannot be "Tardy" for a shift you have already confirmed you aren't returning for until tomorrow.

edit:I want to clarify a few things that have come up in the comments elsewhere . A union representative was physically present during the termination meeting and has reportedly filed a grievance over this firing. However, the meeting itself revealed a massive procedural failure. Management and the rep spent a significant amount of time arguing over a previous grievance from January which involved a dispute over whether my wife said "PTO" or "Personal" during a call-off. When she asked for a definitive answer on whether that January case was actually settled or closed, neither side could provide one. It appears the company is using an unresolved ghost grievance as the foundation for this termination. Because of the confusion and the sloppy paperwork, we are calling the union hall tomorrow

edit: The part that makes this really fishy to me as I am sitting here is 5/3, the day in question where she called off, her brother had already been out for two days by my memory. He went to the doctors, was there for hours, got a CT scan, and got a medical excuse for his absence because his stomach bug was exacerbated by pancreatitis, I think it was. The day I got the Facebook message from her father was the day he went to the doctors, as her dad was keeping us updated if it was something dangerous and contagious, because we probably would have gone to the doctors too.

For context, my wife was a PLI and her brother was a warehandler. My wife was a warehandler too until a few months ago when she signed off on the bid, but she would upgrade to warehandler to fill the role as needed to help out. Since she has been on days, specifically the same shift as her mother and brother, she had not been calling off a lot at all. I think May was only the second time since January.

The two days he was out before her were upgrade days where she filled his role, then the boss only had a shortage because that third day she was not there. When she came back, if my memory serves, she was asked if she could upgrade that day, but she had turned it down. She had gone back to work but still was not feeling one hundred percent, and the day after that they went hunting for punches.

The day the boss sent out the email asking if she has any punches was two days after the doctors. This makes it feel like they did not care about attendance or disruption to the floor, it seems like they cared about winning a power struggle against a family of workers while we were dealing with a medical crisis. They waited two days to see that the brother was protected by a CT scan and medical documentation, then it looks like they performed a vulnerability scan on the household and targeted my wife because they thought she was timid. They ignored her 6:27 AM notification and the manual NSD security entry just to manufacture a technicality for a hit. The fact that they got her shift and supervisor wrong on the final papers makes it seem like they were not investigating, they were just rushing to execute a vendetta.

Long time lurker here. My wife works at a unionized manufacturing plant and got walked out yesterday. The new HR director has been looking for excuses to trim the roster, but he couldn't fire her legally for attendance because she still has two tardies left in her bank.

So instead, they bypassed the point system and hit her with a conduct violation for an improper call-off. I have been up all night digging through her paperwork and the union contract, and I am pretty sure I caught HR and her supervisor completely screwing themselves. I just wanted to get a second opinion on the logic here before we go to the union.

Here is the breakdown of how management handled this.

Last week, she called the security desk at 6 AM to call off. The guard clicked Tardy on the drop-down menu, but right next to it in the return date box, the guard actually typed NSD, which stands for Next Scheduled Day. You cannot be tardy for a shift you literally said you are not returning for until tomorrow. HR just ignored the NSD part so they could fire her for being a no-show after allegedly saying she would be tardy.

Her supervisor went into the system two days later hunting for her time punches to prove she did not show up. He waited two days to build a paper trail for a conduct charge instead of just reading the security log that already said she was not coming in. It looks like they were looking for a reason to fire her rather than just following the attendance policy.

They rushed the paperwork so fast to get her out the door that the official termination form has the wrong shift and the wrong supervisor listed on it. They did not even look at her file before they signed the papers.

To make it a fireable offense, they had to prove she was a repeat offender. They cited a write-up from January. Her crime in January was calling off and saying PTO instead of Personal. The best part is the union filed a grievance on that January write-up and it was never actually settled. During the firing meeting yesterday, the supervisor and the steward were literally arguing because neither of them knew if that January issue was still open. HR fired her based on a past warning they cannot even prove is legally active.

I think tardy is a state of being, not a reason for an absence. If the security log says her return was NSD, that means the company knew she was not coming in.

Does she have a case to get her job back with back pay? It feels like they bypassed the entire union attendance system just to fire her over a contractor typo and an unsettled grievance from four months ago.

https://preview.redd.it/z9jawxgp9lzg1.jpg?width=1536&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=70fc4e9d41aaf6ebdd3816400991c4f5fa81466f

Here is the actual security log from the morning of 5/3. My wife called at 6:27 AM, which is nearly a half hour before her 7:00 AM shift began. Look at the "Return" line. The security officer manually typed "NSD", which stands for Next Scheduled Day. This is the smoking gun because it proves the company had actual notice that she would not be coming in for the full shift.

Management is trying to bypass the union attendance point system by claiming this was an "improper call-off" or "no-show" conduct violation. They are basing that entire charge on the fact that the guard selected "Tardy" from a dropdown menu for the reason. But look at the logic here. You cannot be "Tardy" for a shift you have already confirmed you aren't returning for until tomorrow.

edit:I want to clarify a few things that have come up in the comments. A union representative was physically present during the termination meeting and has reportedly filed a grievance over this firing. However, the meeting itself revealed a massive procedural failure. Management and the rep spent a significant amount of time arguing over a previous grievance from January which involved a dispute over whether my wife said "PTO" or "Personal" during a call-off. When she asked for a definitive answer on whether that January case was actually settled or closed, neither side could provide one. It appears the company is using an unresolved ghost grievance as the foundation for this termination. Because of the confusion and the sloppy paperwork, we are calling the union hall tomorrow

edit 2:I appreciate the concern from everyone telling me to delete this, but the post stays up. A lot of folks are giving advice based on standard at-will employment, but my wife is a dues-paying union member protected by a Just Cause contract. We aren't hiding from management because management is the one who screwed up the paperwork. If the company tries to retaliate against a union worker because her husband posted their own contradictory security logs on the internet, they are opening themselves up to an Unfair Labor Practice charge and a massive retaliation suit. Deleting this now only serves to protect the HR director who botched the termination, and I am not giving them that cover. The documents speak for themselves, and the union is handling the rest.

Think about the absolute bottleneck of the American machine for a second. Most people walking into a gas station in 2026 have no idea that the entire facility is legally held together by a single invisible person. Under federal law and EPA regulations, specifically the Energy Policy Act, every retail fuel facility must have a certified Class C operator on-site. These are the cashiers, the daily staff who are trained to handle emergency shut-offs, equipment failures, and environmental spills. They are the legal and physical guardians of the hazardous waste sites we call convenience stores.

What happens if these 160,000 attendants, people the system usually treats as totally replaceable, finally realize they hold the master key to the entire global economy? Say they coordinate through the same digital channels where they normally discuss gaming or hardware, form a decentralized union, and announce a nationwide general strike. They don’t pick up guns, and they don’t even march. These pump operators just stay home.

The fallout would be nearly instantaneous. Because a certified clerk is a non-negotiable legal requirement, the moment those service station employees walk off the job, the insurance for every gas station in the country becomes void. No corporation, whether it is a local family business or a global giant, is going to risk a billion dollar environmental lawsuit by pumping fuel without a legal guardian on the clock. Within the first six hours, the Out of Service bags start appearing over the pump handles. This isn't just a minor inconvenience, it is a regulatory guillotine that drops on the neck of the logistics industry. The feds can't just order the National Guard to take over, because they don't have 160,000 soldiers with the specific EPA certifications to manage high-pressure, underground fuel systems safely. If they try to force it, they risk massive explosions or groundwater contamination that would turn the local population against them even faster.

This is where the technical analytics of the disaster get truly dark. A refinery is a continuous-flow chemical engine, not a storage warehouse. It is designed to run 24 hours a day, and it has very little ullage, which is the industry term for the empty space in storage tanks for finished product. When the fuel stops moving at the stations, the regional distribution terminals fill up in less than 24 hours. Once those terminals are full, the pipelines have nowhere to dump their product, so they have to stop the pumps. This creates a hydraulic hammer effect that travels all the way back to the refinery reactors. A refinery cannot just be turned off like a car. It involves a massive, coordinated cooling of reactors and purging of volatile gases. If the backflow from the strike forces an emergency hard shutdown, the residual carbon in the pipes can coke up. You essentially turn a billion dollar facility into a collection of very expensive, silent bricks. It wouldn't take three days to start back up, it would take weeks or even months of manual cleaning to get the blood of the empire flowing again.

The timing of this strike would be lethal because of the current situation in the Strait of Hormuz. With the Strait restricted and missile exchanges happening in the Gulf, the global oil supply is already in a state of cardiac arrest. The United States has zero margin for error. Even the Strategic Petroleum Reserve becomes a useless pile of crude in a hole in the ground. Crude oil is just mud until a refinery turns it into gas, and gasoline is just liquid until a certified attendant allows it to be pumped into a truck. If the refineries are choked out by backflow and the clerks are on strike, the reserve is effectively deleted from the tactical equation.

What do you guys think this would actually mean if it played out? How would the government respond, and could they even do it in time? By the time they figure out the legal loophole or try to waive the EPA regs, the refineries are already backing up. If they try to nationalize the stations by force, who’s actually going to turn the valves? Do the local police and sheriffs stay loyal to a federal government that can’t even guarantee fuel for their cruisers, or do they realize the cashiers were the only ones actually keeping the community alive? Is this the actual kill switch for the modern empire?

Not to give anyone any ideas or anything