1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on December 5 at 5 p.m.

If you are going to have a bonfire you should know the procedures for safety. I don't want the heads of those kids either, but they should have to pay for their irresponsibility, otherwise they will learn the lesson that because they are privileged they can get away with anything. If these kids were Latino having a bonfire on someone's private property, they would be in jail with headlines reading "DA Prosecutes Tea Fire Gangsters!"

They should at the very least have a long parole, with community service, maybe cleaning up the houses they burned down. People who drunk drive or use their cell phones while driving do not set out to hurt anyone either, they just do.

On District Attorney: Tea Fire Investigation Is Ongoing

Posted on July 11 at 4:16 p.m.

This argument is not "union vs. non-union." T. M. Storke did not have a union shop because everytime a union wanted to form there, he either equaled or bettered what was on offer by the union. This is the People vs. Wendy McCaw.
Ms. McCaw is the traditional reason people have had to form unions-she is unfair, irrational, narcissistic, power-hungry, will not sit down to talk with her people. She has broken many many labor laws and seems to think it is her right to do so. It is probably why she is divorced, not that I know, but if she treated her husband the way she treats her employees, it is no wonder.
FYI, before there were unions, there were no weekends, 40 hour weeks, etc. Unions are formed by a group of people who alone cannot make an unfair employer see reason. Before there were unions, there were no weekends, 40 hour weeks, etc.
McCaw has violated the public trust and thinks of a newspaper not as a source of information for the public, but as her own fiefdom and vehicle to print money. It is impossible to talk with her without a cadre of lawyers in-between.
Think again when you say this is union vs non-union. This is human and fair vs. treating people as machines and unfairly and business vs. the 1st Amendment.

On Teamsters' Latest Play