Poll of the Day > Barstool Sports will FIRE any EMPLOYEE who starts to form a UNION!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Barstool Sports Founder and Pig, Dave Portnoy is under investigation by Labour Officials after he threatened to FIRE employees who attempted to form a UNION!!

The charging papers were filed with the National Labour Relations Board Group by a group known as "Committee to Preserve the Religous Right to Organize"

They called upon the sports bar chain executive a "crazed president" and demanded he publicize and tweet a "severe and sincere" apology for his remarks

He wrote "So they are suing for a heart felt apology? Is that really what i just read? How about this. Go f*** yourself. Case dismissed"

He first threatened to fire his workers after writer, Rafi Letzer extended an open invitation to Barstool employees to contact him to learn about unions and that's when he replied "BAHAHA! I hope and pray that Barstool employees try to unionize. I can't tell you how much i want them to unionize. Just so i can smash their little union to smithereens"

Letzler fired back writing "If you want to work for Barstool and want to have a private chat about the unionization process, how little power your boss has to stop you, and how you can leverage that power to make your life better: my DMs are open"

He made it clear what would happen if they form a union and wrote "If you work for @barstoolsports and DM this man i will fire you on the sport"

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez caught wind of this and took to twitter that he may have violated federal labour laws and said "If you're a boss tweeting firing threats to employees trying to unionize, you are likely breaking the law and can beused, in your words, on the spot. All workers in the US have the protected freedom to organize for better conditions"

That's when Portnoy said "Hey @AOC, welcome to thunder dome. Debate me"

They are affiliated with the Chernin Group as dailymail made a freedom of information request to obtain the charging papers as federal labour officials acknowledged they will gather evidence from this and decide if he broke labour laws..

Enough evidence will first trigger settlement talks to avoid a formal complaint

Portnoy said "I didn't take a vacation for 10 years. That earned me the right to decide when my property/employees get their weekends" and he went on to issue THREATS and said "Anybody who hires a lawyer will be fired immediately and i will personally sue you for damages and back wages"

Portnoy is not shy about his politics as he was a strong supporter of Trump and has blasted Unions in the past

Did this pig violate the law?

Portnoy - Going Down









AOC -




---

Full Throttle posted...

Dave Portnoy

The drummer... who's in a music union?
---

I have a feeling that his inability to shut the fuck up is about to cost him his job.

Seems like someone that would get along great with Randy Pitchford

---

It's ridiculous how little recourse employers have against unions.

Cacciato posted...

I have a feeling that his inability to shut the fuck up is about to cost him his job.

Which would close down the company and end this union business.
---

Zeus posted...

Which would close down the company and end this union business.

Ok?

Full Throttle posted...

Portnoy said "I didn't take a vacation for 10 years. That earned me the right to decide when my property/employees get their weekends"

I made a decision and I'm miserable so it gives me the right to make others miserable.

That's what I got from that statement.

Full Throttle posted...

"Anybody who hires a lawyer will be fired immediately and i will personally sue you for damages and back wages"

Is it bad I'm morbidly curious how this would go? Not that I want anyone to go through it, just like... I'm really curious if he'd win or not honestly. I'm not really sure, people have won some pretty weird/dumb ones and lost some pretty solid ones before. But not always, so...

It is weird how anti-union America is, since unions are the cornerstone of avoiding capitalistic exploitation.
---

There are some things about unions that I do not like, but when you see how employers take advantage of their workers when theyre able to, theres no question that people need collective bargaining to protect their rights.

---

Lokarin posted...

It is weird how anti-union America is, since unions are the cornerstone of avoiding capitalistic exploitation.

How does any of that make sense? You're basically arguing that it's weird for a capitalist nation to dislike anti-capitalist institutions. More importantly, the biggest unions tend to be public sector which has nothing to do with capitalism.
---

Zeus posted...

You're basically arguing that it's weird for a capitalist nation to dislike anti-capitalist institutions

Not really what I meant. Capitalism is good, but exploitation is bad. You can have capitalism without exploitation and unions help with that
---

Lokarin posted...

Zeus posted...

You're basically arguing that it's weird for a capitalist nation to dislike anti-capitalist institutions

Not really what I meant. Capitalism is good, but exploitation is bad. You can have capitalism without exploitation and unions help with that

So basically you're for capitalism without capitalism? -_- And there's already a remedy against exploitation: the freedom to work somewhere else.

Zangulus posted...

Zeus posted...

Lokarin posted...

It is weird how anti-union America is, since unions are the cornerstone of avoiding capitalistic exploitation.

How does any of that make sense? You're basically arguing that it's weird for a capitalist nation to dislike anti-capitalist institutions. More importantly, the biggest unions tend to be public sector which has nothing to do with capitalism.

Are you seriously arguing that workers being able to stand up for their own rights is a bad thing? Good god, you will argue anything to try to get a response won't you?

Are you seriously misrepresenting my arguments again? As for workers' rights, they have the right to work elsewhere. Employment is and should be a voluntary agreement between the employer and the employed. If the employed doesn't like the terms, they're free to leave so they can go find an employer who might be willing to meet their demands. As it should be.
---

A buddy of mine worked at Walmart in highschool and said one of their mandatory training videos was like 20 minutes of Walmart saying how horrible unions are and how no one in their right mind would ever be apart of one.

Personally I think more industries should have them.
---

So a couple things are true at once here.

This guy is easily the most obnoxious, arrogant dreck Ive ever seen. If you have ever seen his one bite videos, hes such a dudebro d-bag that it makes my skin crawl.

With that said, I find it disturbing that a company owner is not free to prevent their business from unionizing. Unions are a literal gaggle of thugs. I can see why any business wouldnt want anything to do with them. I guess he said the quiet part out loud and so thats why hes in trouble? I had never heard of this law before, but I am disappointed to learn it exists. Whether youre pro union or not, if you believe a business owner should be FORCED by government to run THEIR business a certain way, then you have no principle.

he's about to get fucked so hardcore.
---

Zangulus posted...

See, you can do things to prevent a union, but you can't prevent it from attempting to happen.

Yeah I think you should be able to fire anyone for any reason. This violates freedom of association.

Zeus posted...

So basically you're for capitalism without capitalism? -_- And there's already a remedy against exploitation: the freedom to work somewhere else.

Unions are no different than forcing a customer to buy a bundle instead of individual items
---

Zangulus posted...

This is really one of the least intelligent things you've ever said. And you've defended a rapist that admitted he was a rapist.

Employees are a product, and unionizing lets them join up into a bigger package.

Also I didn't defend a rapist that admitted he was a rapist, I defended an alleged rapist that I didn't know admitted it... I mean DER, if I knew he did it I wouldn't have defended..

also, why you still bringing that up?
---

Zangulus posted...

Lokarin posted...

Zangulus posted...

This is really one of the least intelligent things you've ever said. And you've defended a rapist that admitted he was a rapist.

Employees are a product, and unionizing lets them join up into a bigger package.

Also I didn't defend a rapist that admitted he was a rapist, I defended an alleged rapist that I didn't know admitted it... I mean DER, if I knew he did it I wouldn't have defended..

also, why you still bringing that up?

Because it's relevant to how bad your argument is.

In what way, I'm interested in how you tie unions to the other subject
---

zang just rent an airbnb with lok already and get it on
---

Zangulus posted...

No wonder

If you don't explain your reasoning then I won't learn thingies

I explained my reasoning, which you can reject (or accept) as applicable
---

Zangulus posted...

Bulbasaur posted...

zang just rent an airbnb with lok already and get it on

He's not my type. But you are bby.

o-oh my~
---

Zangulus posted...

You have no reasoning.

I literally gave my reasoning in THIS very topic...

Now I know you're just gaslighting.
---

Zangulus posted...

BeerOnTap posted...

Zangulus posted...

See, you can do things to prevent a union, but you can't prevent it from attempting to happen.

Yeah I think you should be able to fire anyone for any reason. This violates freedom of
association.

YTou can fire someone for any reason at any time.

You just can't say what the real reason is. Like, seriously. You can fire someone for being a black homosexual toga dancer, but you just have to say their performance has slipped in the past 2 and a half hours.

Like seriously, it's not hard.

Unless they have a union. Then it becomes way harder.

If it is a right to work state he can do damn near whatever the hell he wants.
---

Lokarin posted...

Full Throttle posted...

Dave Portnoy

The drummer... who's in a music union?

Mike Portnoy is the drummer, not this guy lol
---

Zeus posted...

Are you seriously misrepresenting my arguments again? As for workers' rights, they have the right to work elsewhere. Employment is and should be a voluntary agreement between the employer and the employed. If the employed doesn't like the terms, they're free to leave so they can go find an employer who might be willing to meet their demands. As it should be.

Do you really think that an employee losing their job and an employer losing an employee impact both of them equally?
---

Zeus posted...

As for workers' rights, they have the right to work elsewhere. Employment is and should be a voluntary agreement between the employer and the employed. If the employed doesn't like the terms, they're free to leave so they can go find an employer who might be willing to meet their demands. As it should be.

Companies are more powerful than individuals, employees or not, that will also be the case. (Read, many companies have the pressure to financially/legally abuse individuals and get away with it)

Both the government making laws protecting those individuals and those individuals banding together, somewhat shifts that balance in a more agreeable direction.
---

Isn't this the guy that eats pizza on youtube?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Z65Ssb8g0" data-time="
---

unions are fucking stupid, but the dude also seems like a total dbag so really there are no winners here
---

adjl posted...

Zeus posted...

Are you seriously misrepresenting my arguments again? As for workers' rights, they have the right to work elsewhere. Employment is and should be a voluntary agreement between the employer and the employed. If the employed doesn't like the terms, they're free to leave so they can go find an employer who might be willing to meet their demands. As it should be.

Do you really think that an employee losing their job and an employer losing an employee impact both of them equally?

he also thinks both sides of the aisle are equally bad, so of course he thinks this is equal, ok?
---

So he is in trouble but Walmart isn't? Because this is how Walmart is too. They tell you you aren't allowed to even talk about unions during the orientation.

BlackScythe0 posted...

They tell you you aren't allowed to even talk about unions during the orientation.

Basic human rights are of the table when working for Walmart?
---

Lokarin posted...

Zeus posted...

So basically you're for capitalism without capitalism? -_- And there's already a remedy against exploitation: the freedom to work somewhere else.

Unions are no different than forcing a customer to buy a bundle instead of individual items

...what? Do you... know what unions are? You aren't selling people? And the impacts are more employer-side than customer-side.

Zangulus posted...

YTou can fire someone for any reason at any time.

That's no longer true once a union is in place. Nor is it true if a contract is in place.

adjl posted...

Zeus posted...

Are you seriously misrepresenting my arguments again? As for workers' rights, they have the right to work elsewhere. Employment is and should be a voluntary agreement between the employer and the employed. If the employed doesn't like the terms, they're free to leave so they can go find an employer who might be willing to meet their demands. As it should be.

Do you really think that an employee losing their job and an employer losing an employee impact both of them equally?

Do you really think that they should be impacted equally? More importantly, the employer has a greater stake in his business than the employee. If a company fails, all that happens to the employees is that they lose their job. A company failing has far more dire prospects for the employer. Given the imbalance, the employer needs to be able to protect his business.

And an employee's personal circumstance isn't the business's concern. If a company is losing money because an employee is underperforming as a result of having to care for a sick relative, it's not the company's responsibility to look after that employee or their relative.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Companies are more powerful than individuals, employees or not, that will also be the case. (Read, many companies have the pressure to financially/legally abuse individuals and get away with it)

...which is irrelevant when you can just work somewhere else. Those employees are working relatively low-end service jobs and there's plenty of opportunity for those roles elsewhere. However, even if the employer was the only one who offered that kind of a job in 50 miles, it's not still the employer's responsibility to keep that employee employed.
---

Zeus posted...

...what? Do you... know what unions are? You aren't selling people? And the impacts are more employer-side than customer-side.

An employer is buying employees, that's how employment works.
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

So he is in trouble but Walmart isn't? Because this is how Walmart is too. They tell you you aren't allowed to even talk about unions during the orientation.

No they don't. They just show you a video that tells you that joining a union will ruin your life. Also they've been known to shut down stores under the guise of plumbing problems if they get close to unionizing.
---

Zeus posted...

Do you really think that they should be impacted equally?

You're the one who equivocated them.

Zeus posted...

More importantly, the employer has a greater stake in his business than the employee. If a company fails, all that happens to the employees is that they lose their job. A company failing has far more dire prospects for the employer. Given the imbalance, the employer needs to be able to protect his business.

Nobody's saying a company shouldn't be able to fire somebody who's driving the company into the ground (like anything, there are examples of unions pushing too far and doing just that, but you can't use extreme examples to invalidate an entire concept). The far more common situation is that employers overwork their employees to unhealthy degrees and/or treat them poorly because the threat of being unemployed (and potentially unemployable, depending on the industry and how easily the employer can badmouth them to other employers in the area) keeps them from objecting. Taking away that threat is the only way to improve those conditions, and that's what unionizing does.

Zeus posted...

And an employee's personal circumstance isn't the business's concern.

Which is why unions and regulations are needed to force businesses to consider such things. Otherwise you just get a workforce full of people being treated like garbage, which is bad for everyone except for the handful of people at the top living off of the money they didn't have to give their employees.
---

Im surprised that a left leaning centrist would be so anti-union

---