5 ms·
The amended board decision, beginning on page 6 under the heading “II. BOARD LAW”, which I linked you to and you didn’t read, is two pages of the specifics of t
by bugglebeetle 3y ago
The amended board decision, beginning on page 6 under the heading “II. BOARD LAW”, which I linked you to and you didn’t read, is two pages of the specifics of the ruling, analyzed point-by-point by the NLRB, which were preceded by the evidence presented in the case, that according to you, doesn’t exist.
I get that you’ll tirelessly do anything to have the last word, but since you’re now doing the same thing as Mr. Imaginary Janitors, saying things don’t exist that I’ve quoted and linked you to, and, in fact, do exist, I think we can call it a day.
- Dylan16807 3y agoI misunderstood what that link was the first time. I have gone through it now. My bad. However, while that link lays out an excellent case for Google being in control, I don't see anywhere it mentions direct employees doing the same jobs during the same period. The evidence is not there. You would have quoted it ten posts ago if it was. Your evidence is for SOMETHING ELSE THAN WHAT WAS ASKED. Seeya.