Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Anti Union Dana Loesch Sues Breitbart for Hostile Working Conditions
Dana Loesch, who claims to be the “Editor-in-Chief of Big Journalism” (this explains a lot), is suing the parent company of Breitbart.com. Apparently she was unaware that working for a crazy conservative media outlet would naturally involve “indentured servitude in limbo.” Hey, Dana, where you been, girl?
Dana claims her relationship with Breitbart LLC went “tragically awry” after they refused to let her work for the company or any other company, forcing her into “indentured servitude in limbo.”
Yes. This is what we expect from the authoritarians. That’s kinda what they stand for, Dana. That’s what all the fuss is about, re the war on women, unions, etc. Just a tip for the future.
The rabidly anti-union Dana wants at least $75,000 in damages and to be set free! Doesn’t she realize that as a conservative, she stands for “tort reform” which means making it harder for anyone to sue big companies? She is, after all, mere labor. Is Dana waging a class war against the job creators at Breitbart? Oh, she doesn’t like the job, they don’t treat her well? She isn’t trying hard enough. She feels entitled. Pfft.
Here’s her lawsuit, via the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which first reported the story:
She claims in her suit, “It was supposed to be a relationship of mutual trust, benefit, and success.” Mutual benefit, Dana? Those are union words.
Workers these days! Dana is particularly miffed at the “increasingly hostile” work relationship, and the fact that when she tried to quit, Breitbart just extended her contract while still refusing to publish her and she claims they “sabatoge” her attempt to get work elsewhere. I might suggest this is the free market at play and perhaps her “offerings,” such as they are, are unwanted.
In the free market, editors generally expect their writers and editors to be college educated for obvious reasons, but I hear dropping out of college is actually a plus in conservative punditry — after all, the less you know about the topic the better equipped you are to mislead the public, and there’s a smaller chance that you’ll be bothered by your conscience since you don’t know any better.
Also, Dana should be so happy because this kind of working relationship with your employer is called RIGHT TO WORK. You have the right to work, and your employer has the right to screw you over at will. They can terminate you at will, put you in unsafe working conditions, or just treat you poorly and you have no recourse except to pay a lawyer. But even then, if you are in a “right to work” state, the law is not on your side. Unfair? Too bad! Why are you picking on the 1%, mean Dana?
Dana better get the lead out on her lawsuit, because Missouri Republicans say they are going to debate right-to-work laws in the next session, even though it has a slim chance of passing. Of course, Dana knows this because she discussed it with frothing rage directed at unions on her Fox News radio show on December 13.
Dana was hired by CNN to represent the “Tea Party” point of view for the 2012 elections. As the rest of the world is aware, the Tea Party is persona non grata these days. Dana better rebrand herself with the next wave of conservative hatred before she becomes irrelephant. She should have taken a few lessons from Sarah Palin on making the most of a ridiculous situation. I fear it may be too late now.
No matter, in assuming that she has any rights at all as a worker, Dana has become a “union thug”. Who’s going to tell her? As she so brilliantly suggested in one of her anti-union rants, “Maybe big labor should ‘spread the wealth.’” Indeed, Dana. That is what Breitbart is asking you to do. Spread the wealth = you give all, they give nothing; also known in her circles as “shared sacrifices.”
Lastly, since when does Dana object to hostile working conditions? Scattershot, fact-free hostility is a badge of honor among conservatives. It was Dana who called liberals “fascists” and said women who advocate for choice were “ageist bigots”. She gleefully supported Marines urinating on the dead bodies of alleged Taliban, crowing, “I’d drop trou and do it too. That’s me though. I want a million cool points for these guys.”
If you’re not sneering, you’re not winning. So I say, buck up, Dana. Put on your big girl pants and take what Breitbart dishes out. Stop whining about hostile working conditions and start producing something! Trickle down, girl. Trickle down.
Here’s a hint for Dana: Before unions, “indentured servitude in limbo” was the rule of the day. Let this resonate in the area you call your brain. Is anything connecting yet? Do we have lift off? History matters.