Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[
Yeah, no need to let the facts get in the way of your argument. Like the fact that he cited the union exemption when he dismissed the case. Keep lying about what happened. Maybe someone down the line will believe you.
Yes.
Dismissed the case.
No Merit.
No stalking of children was even alleged in this case, this case was completely about the incident in the resturant, where he states, "If you are going to walk into a resturant of union guys, they are going to say nasty stuff to you."
Honestly, her (unreported) claims about harrassing her spawn, it kind of sounds to me like she was trying to provoke an incident.
"Hey, let's send Sarina down to the grill where the union guys are hanging out. Maybe around happy hour. Then when they call her bad names, we can claim a harrassment case."
You are just lying. The article stated clearly that the judge cited the union exemption when he dismissed the case. Because you don't like them does not make the actual facts go away.
[
At least that is what you think. However, there are plenty who have made millions and created businesses that provide employment for many people. Like I said, your views are colored by your own projections. A supply sgt complaining about theft? Pot, meet kettle.
Except nobody threatened anyone's kids and the judge threw the case out for lack of merit.
But don't let that stop you.
No, no, the 1%ers just can't stand ANYONE judging their bad behavior.
Would you like to cite where the judge said the lack of merit was why he threw the case out???
Because it looks like you lied or cannot read.
Well, first and foremost, as much as you guys go on and on about how her "children" were stalked, this was never reported to the police and never prosecuted. So we only have her word for it, and we all know how incredibly honest managers and executives are.
.
[
At least that is what you think. However, there are plenty who have made millions and created businesses that provide employment for many people. Like I said, your views are colored by your own projections. A supply sgt complaining about theft? Pot, meet kettle.
I think you've seen too many movies.
Again, the wealthy don't create jobs, consumer demand does.
Yes.
Dismissed the case.
No Merit.
No stalking of children was even alleged in this case, this case was completely about the incident in the resturant, where he states, "If you are going to walk into a resturant of union guys, they are going to say nasty stuff to you."
Honestly, her (unreported) claims about harrassing her spawn, it kind of sounds to me like she was trying to provoke an incident.
"Hey, let's send Sarina down to the grill where the union guys are hanging out. Maybe around happy hour. Then when they call her bad names, we can claim a harrassment case."
You are just lying. The article stated clearly that the judge cited the union exemption when he dismissed the case. Because you don't like them does not make the actual facts go away.
So are you saying that if there wasn't an exemption, she should have expected to walk into a room full of union guys and not hear stuff?
Because, honestly, that's not what I'm hearing the judge saying.
When you walk in, as a vice president of a company, to a restaurant full of union workers," Municipal Judge Charles Hayden told Rose in court last November, "you're going to hear some things that you should have expected to hear."
Sounds reasonable to me.
Would you like to cite where the judge said the lack of merit was why he threw the case out???
Because it looks like you lied or cannot read.
Well, first and foremost, as much as you guys go on and on about how her "children" were stalked, this was never reported to the police and never prosecuted. So we only have her word for it, and we all know how incredibly honest managers and executives are.
.
Really? Are you sure it was never reported? Because if that is what you are saying, you are pretty much admitting you either did not read the article or that you cannot read.
[
You really are an idiot. But let's go with what you say. Let's pretend that there is a consumer demand for this new widget.
Now, how does that demand create jobs??? Do the workers just decide to show up and hope that there are materials, a building, plans, insurance, and all the other things?? How does the demand create jobs???
Oh yeah, some person starts a business!! But I guess only poor people start businesses??
So I got to ask the obvious question you haters of working folks won't ask.
She didn't call the cops when they were following her kids, but she did call them when they disturbed her lunch?
Hey nimrod, why not tell us all whether she was there when they took the pics? Or whether or not she did call the cops?
Since you don't know the answer to either of those questions, you just look like a bigger fool.
No, we have to take her word on a lot of things in this story.
The days of me taking managers at their word ended years ago for me.
[
This is who you are defending:
"Federal prosecutors now say the kind of harassment Rose described was the least of Sweeney's tactics against contractors.
The racketeering case filed against him and nine other ironworkers last week links him to dozens of incidents, including the 2012 arson of a Quaker meetinghouse construction site in Chestnut Hill. Sweeney has pleaded not guilty to the charges."
You defend a man who would burn down a Quaker meetinghouse. Tell me, are the Quakers part of the 1% too??
Well, first and foremost, as much as you guys go on and on about how her "children" were stalked, this was never reported to the police and never prosecuted. So we only have her word for it, and we all know how incredibly honest managers and executives are.
.
Really? Are you sure it was never reported? Because if that is what you are saying, you are pretty much admitting you either did not read the article or that you cannot read.
I did read the article. She CLAIMS this happens, but there's no police report of it.
And it wasn't even an issue in this case.
The issue was that she went in to a union bar and they were mean to her... bunch of meanyheads.
[
This is who you are defending:
"Federal prosecutors now say the kind of harassment Rose described was the least of Sweeney's tactics against contractors.
The racketeering case filed against him and nine other ironworkers last week links him to dozens of incidents, including the 2012 arson of a Quaker meetinghouse construction site in Chestnut Hill. Sweeney has pleaded not guilty to the charges."
You defend a man who would burn down a Quaker meetinghouse. Tell me, are the Quakers part of the 1% too??
Now you are bringing in an unrelated case, since you can't prove children were stalked and the "They were big meanyheads at a resturant" didn't fly.
That said, you are definitely talking to the wrong guy when you play the religion card. Did you miss all the posts where I refer to God as an "Invisible Sky Pixie"?
look, I would love it if we could sit down with the 1%ers and have an honest airing of issues and work stuff out.
Reality. The 1%ers didn't get 43% of the wealth by being reasonable or fair.
It's only class warfare when they fight back!
[
You really are an idiot. But let's go with what you say. Let's pretend that there is a consumer demand for this new widget.
Now, how does that demand create jobs??? Do the workers just decide to show up and hope that there are materials, a building, plans, insurance, and all the other things?? How does the demand create jobs???
Oh yeah, some person starts a business!! But I guess only poor people start businesses??
No, Poor people do the actual work.
Rich people take the credit.
[
No, not unrelated. It is the same union guy showing his stripes as a violent extortionist.
And you claimed it was ok in the other case because the 1% deserved it. (she isn't a 1%, but you have shown you don't let facts interfere with your argument) Now you think its ok for them to do $500,000 worth of damages to a construction project being done by the Quakers. Not some televangelists looking to make money, but one of the oldest religious groups in the country. I don't care if you believe in God or not. The record of the Quakers is one of peace and of social activism for the poor. But you think its ok for their buildings to be torched in the name of union protests.
No, Poor people do the actual work.
Rich people take the credit.
Rich people put their money up and risk it in the hopes of profits. Workers get paid for their work. Owners only get paid if there is a profit.
Your knowledge of business is minimal.
[
No, not unrelated. It is the same union guy showing his stripes as a violent extortionist.
And you claimed it was ok in the other case because the 1% deserved it. (she isn't a 1%, but you have shown you don't let facts interfere with your argument) Now you think its ok for them to do $500,000 worth of damages to a construction project being done by the Quakers. Not some televangelists looking to make money, but one of the oldest religious groups in the country. I don't care if you believe in God or not. The record of the Quakers is one of peace and of social activism for the poor. But you think its ok for their buildings to be torched in the name of union protests.
Actually, all religions are scams.
The Televangelists are just more obvious about it. God got disproven a long time ago, and there are still folks carrying out the scam, the LEAST they can do is pay a fair wage for work.
Seriously, man, you can try all day, I'm just not going to work up oodles of sympathy for these people.
No, Poor people do the actual work.
Rich people take the credit.
Rich people put their money up and risk it in the hopes of profits. Workers get paid for their work. Owners only get paid if there is a profit.
Your knowledge of business is minimal.
The poor Rich folks, so misunderstood.
Seriously, fuck them.
[
No, not unrelated. It is the same union guy showing his stripes as a violent extortionist.
And you claimed it was ok in the other case because the 1% deserved it. (she isn't a 1%, but you have shown you don't let facts interfere with your argument) Now you think its ok for them to do $500,000 worth of damages to a construction project being done by the Quakers. Not some televangelists looking to make money, but one of the oldest religious groups in the country. I don't care if you believe in God or not. The record of the Quakers is one of peace and of social activism for the poor. But you think its ok for their buildings to be torched in the name of union protests.
Actually, all religions are scams.
The Televangelists are just more obvious about it. God got disproven a long time ago, and there are still folks carrying out the scam, the LEAST they can do is pay a fair wage for work.
Seriously, man, you can try all day, I'm just not going to work up oodles of sympathy for these people.
Maybe she should carry a gun and when some burly ass hole cocks his finger she should blow his ass away. That would put a stop to it.
Yeah, because they couldn't stalk her while she's prison.
It's bullshit that they can do this though. It's a crap law that needs to be changed. If I was a business owner in the middle of that though, I would tell PA to fucking off and I'm taking my business elsewhere.
Debates of this nature are pointless and unproductive because we know nothing specific about the conflict between Sarina Rose and the union. While I am strongly pro-union I understand that some unions overstep their boundaries and that some union employees do not deserve to be protected.Post Bros. executive Sarina Rose had grown used to troubles at work literally following her home.
During the day, she dodged taunts from union protesters outside the 12th and Wood Streets work site in Philadelphia, where her company was building apartments last year.
After hours, tradesmen snapped photos of her children, 8 and 11, at their bus stop in Abington. They trailed her at weekend sporting events. One union leader loudly cursed at her in front of a packed restaurant and mimicked shooting her.
And under Pennsylvania law, none of it was a crime.
"When you walk in, as a vice president of a company, to a restaurant full of union workers," Municipal Judge Charles Hayden told Rose in court last November, "you're going to hear some things that you should have expected to hear."
Thanks to a little-known provision protecting parties in labor disputes from prosecution for stalking, harassment, and terroristic threats, Rose said, she was left powerless to stop the nearly constant baiting. The men who dogged her at all hours walked free.
Union exemption from harassment claims raises questions - Philly.com
Idiot liberals thinks she deserves it, takes special kind of tough guy to scare women and children......
