No that would be slavery.oppressive would mean not paying them
Not this time there are no rules against what they were doing.1st Amendment rights are limited in a private work environment.
What if they instituted the rules in their rule book?Not this time there are no rules against what they were doing.
That's an agreement between the two parties that has nothing to do with limiting their free speech.
NFL's not like FedEx everything has to be agreed upon with the union and I don't think that's going to happen.What if they instituted the rules in their rule book?
Property is owned, people should not be.They are property and should do what they are told while in the employ of a particular team.
Except that Saudi Arabia has granted citizenship to a piece of property .Property is owned, people should not be.
Except we don't live in Saudi Arabia.Except that Saudi Arabia has granted citizenship to a piece of property .
Lifelike 'Sophia' Robot Granted Citizenship to Saudi Arabia
Employees are property?They are property and should do what they are told while in the employ of a particular team.
Employees are property?
Really Dan?
SMH.
Not stupid, just not worded quite right. It is oppressive especially when you hear comments like the Texans owner.
No, you GTFO!oppressive??? millionaires being oppressed.... GTFO
That's being fairly generous to the owner. Any way you cut it, he was being far less than complimentary.His "the inmates are running the asylum" comment was clearly taken out of context.
but once given , it becomes a human right .Except we don't live in Saudi Arabia.