• ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I mean this would only have applied to salaried employees earning $20/hr or less which I can’t even imagine what type of field that covers since most hourly jobs earn more than that these days.

      This is akin to the “pardoning marijuana possession convictions” thing where it didn’t apply to a single person in federal custody and only benefitted 3,000 people (with past convictions) in the entire nation.

      This is basically virtue signaling and/or table scraps for us peasants.

      • capital@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 hours ago

        And a judge even blocked that. What do we think would happen to more substantial changes?

            • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 minutes ago

              I’d much rather they fight some Texas federal judge over something meaningful than squander the political capital on something that benefits a tiny niche of the country and gets blocked anyway.

              Just about the only meaningful thing we’ve seen over the last three Democratic presidential terms was the ACA and they decided to model that after a Republican healthcare plan rather than giving us the logical choice of single-payer in order to appease Republicans who voted against it anyway.

      • enbyecho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        But you don’t actually know how many people this would have applied to… you just assume, right?

        Edit: It’s right in the article: “The rule would have extended to approximately four million American workers, guaranteeing them overtime pay.”

      • RedSeries@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        If only this logic actually applied. Maybe they wouldn’t make anti-trans laws in that shithole state?

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Not sure why you would expect the federal government to be able to do anything with state charges.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          I never said I did? I said that it’s virtue signaling and performative at best rather than something that’s actually impactful on the average person’s life.

          Democrats love to talk about how much they care for the working class, but their actual actions rarely reflect that.

          • Nougat@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            6 hours ago

            So … they shouldn’t have pardoned federal cannabis possession convictions?

              • Nougat@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                6 hours ago

                This is akin to the “pardoning marijuana possession convictions” thing where it didn’t apply to a single person in federal custody and only benefitted 3,000 people (with past convictions) in the entire nation.

                This is basically virtue signaling and/or table scraps for us peasants.

                The only thing the federal government can do is pardon federal crimes. That is what they did. You’ve called that action “virtue signalling and/or table scraps.”

                It’s unclear whether you A) think that federal cannabis possession convictions shouldn’t have been pardoned (considering your displeasure with the fact that they were), or B) think that such convictions should have been pardoned (as they were), but also don’t like that.

                Since B) is not internally consistent - you would need to not like something you think should happen - it’s not unreasonable to ask if you think that such convictions shouldn’t be pardoned. Frankly, neither position is easy to logically square, and you’ve done nothing to assist in that endeavor.

                • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  How about you learn about context and read the rest of what I wrote? My complaint with both of these actions is that they’re essentially meaningless for the majority of people and they don’t go far enough. I refer to them as table scraps and virtue signaling because they only give the appearance of taking action without actually fixing anything or improving the lives of nearly anyone. The politicians get to parade around acting like they’re working for our benefit when they’re actually doing very little to help.

                  • Nougat@fedia.io
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    5 hours ago

                    So whether or not federal cannabis convictions were pardoned, or millions of people would have guarantees to overtime pay, you would have complained either way, probably about Democrats, because the actions taken weren’t perfect solutions, or if they weren’t taken, then “Democrats have done nothing!”

                    Got it.