Just following on from this: https://lemmy.nz/post/1134134

Ex-Tesla employee reveals shocking details on worker conditions: ‘You get fired on the spot.’

I’m curious about how far this goes.

You can’t get fired on the spot in NZ, unless you like, shot someone or set the building on fire or something really bad.

But it seems that in the US, there’s little to no protections for employees when their bosses are dickheads?

Also, any personal stories of getting fired on the spot?

  • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    133
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not that there aren’t any, it’s that the protections for workers are abysmal compared to protections for businesses.

    For example, if I stole money from my employer, they could have me arrested and press charges for theft.

    On the other hand, if I am able to prove that my employer hasn’t been paying me fairly and has been shorting my paychecks, I can spend a lot of money to take them to court, and in most cases, all that will happen is the business will have to… pay you back exactly what they already owed you. They won’t pay fines, no one will go to jail, and it’s an “oops” and then slap on the wrist kind of deal.

    Worker protections exist, but the deck is stacked against us.

  • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Basically the case, yes. It varies state by state and there are some federal laws but, the enforcement is lacking to say the least and funding tends to be gutted to make it worse. Effectively, since Reagan, there’s been an unending attack on labor rights and regulations. Currently, multiple states are passing laws to bring back child labor and workers who try to unionize are getting axed with no real repercussions.

  • Treczoks@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Firing on the spot” is just one item on a long list. No maternity leave, health insurance bound to the job, reliance on tips to pay workers, lack of whistleblower protection, laughable PTO, limited paid time off for health reasons. All of that has been solved in civilized countries, except for the US.

    • SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m surprised that they manage to find people who are willing to work for tips. Surely wouldn’t the unreliability be off putting?

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In my experience, most chain restaurants back of house line cooks get paid fairly low. So let’s say the highest paid linecook gets 18 an hour. They work 8 hours and make $144 that day before taxes and it is added to their check. Most of the servers in the front of house would make around $150 as well but they worked less hours. (Usually 5-6 hours). They also walk with the tip money at the end of the night. Then they claim what they wish to because the government can’t prove how much you made in tips. Many claim they made far less, others claim what they made for other reasons.

        It is common to see servers make twice what cooks do. Which creates an atmosphere where front/back of house don’t get along all the time either.

      • Kes@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ironically, jobs that rely on tips are some of the most inflation resistant besides CEOs, since tips are usually a percentage of the price. It’s unreliable, but very well paying. Employers are also required by law to make up the difference in pay if the tipped worker does not make minimum wage with tips, though many times the employees won’t do this since its incredibly common for tipped workers to not declare tips for taxes

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It depends on the restaurant to the degree, but tipped positions are almost always the highest paid position.

    • xapr [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago
      • Health insurance bound to the job*
      • Laughable PTO*
      • Limited paid time of for health reasons*

      *If the employer is nice enough to provide any of these things in the first place. Many don’t! For anyone outside the United States, I am not kidding. You can be a full-time worker in the US, working 40+ hours a week, and not get any health insurance, vacation, or paid sick leave. Any!

    • Terevos@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      FWIW, I haven’t had a job that didn’t have all those things since I was 16. I am in the US.

      It’s not hard to find jobs that have all those things. But you have to be choosey.

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are also jobs where you work 12 weeks a year and get paid $40 Million, but we’re talking about protections for everyone.

  • kaitco@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    In many US states have what’s referred to as “at-will” employment. When you accept the terms of your employment, there’s a small disclaimer that states that you can be fired for anything at anytime for any reason and without notice.

    This is also why we have so many lawsuits here.

    So, while there’s no full protection, there are laws available that say you can’t be fired for certain things, and if you can prove that you were fired due to simply being of a “protected class” or in retaliation for reporting a workplace violation, you can sue and can likely win through settlement or decision.

    The thing is, few employers will maintain records that indicate that they fired Anita because she was black or Howard because he was gay. It’s usually “Anita had 4 errors in the last year” if pressed for detail. That’s why if you feel any sense of discrimination or other unfairness on the job here, it’s a good idea to keep records of the incidents and dates in a CYA file (Cover Your Ass), just in case.

        • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nzOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s fucked. There’s a lot I can complain about being in NZ, but dam I can’t imagine not being able to afford healthcare and not having paid sick leave and no accident coverage.

          • Drusas@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I started adulthood in poverty because I was hit by a negligent driver when I was in college. It takes 7 years for negative reports to fall off of your credit report here, so I spent the first 7 years of my independent adult life in poverty because somebody else was a bad driver and our healthcare is too expensive.

            Edit: For those who aren’t familiar with the American system of credit, if you have bad credit, most apartments will not accept you regardless of your income and many jobs will turn you down. It also makes it more expensive to do things like rent or lease anything (or buy a car, which is required in the US) because you will have a higher interest rate. It’s a cycle designed to keep you spiraling downward.

            • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nzOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s fucking obscene. It’s no wonder things are falling apart. It’s comparable to China in some ways. They just call it ‘social credit score’ instead.

              • maynarkh@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yep, but the social credit score thing AFAIK is not really implemented that thoroughly or at all. This thing is pervasive in the US and people keep defending it for some reason.

  • Fafner@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    1 year ago

    Constitutionally, after a little scuffle in the mid 1800’s, a person or business can’t own an employee. Other than that not really, we usually got to strike and revolt if we want anything, but they keep us so poor that it makes it an untenable option.

    • maynarkh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      But they can still be rented from the government which can still own people as long as they had some drugs planted on them, right? I mean you just went into Slavery-as-a-Service instead of a proper ownership model.

      • kool_newt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        you just went into Slavery-as-a-Service instead of a proper ownership model.

        Fuck, you’re spot on.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is true. And in true capitalist nature, the overhead of owning people (paying for room and board etc) can be socialized, while the fruit of their Labor is privatized and made available to well-connected corporations.

      • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Private prisons and the loophole created in the amendment allow for the new (horrible) Saas model you’ve been waiting for!

    • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nzOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly that’s legal grounds to mail them human feces in a package carefully designed to leak once it gets into their mail pile.

      • SoloboiNanook [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was under a guy who managed the warehouse by himself for like 15 years and he could not conceptualize someone who didnt understand it as well as he did. The wrench was the final thing, but the guy had some weirdo problems with people.

        I was also fired after i toom a 3 week long vacation in Vegas in feb 2020. Covid had not quite hit yet but it was clearly building. I returned and my job called me the day before i was to come back to work and simply told me not to bother. I was never given a reason.

        At will states are pretty fucked up. Employers can turn your shit upside down on a whim.

  • You guys get employee protections? What are those like?

    I work because I need medical insurance to live. I cannot afford medical insurance on my own without a job. I make 6 figures and live paycheck to paycheck. If I lose my job, I will probably be homeless.

    I would love to live in a world with employee protections. I’m not sure what those protections would be but anything better than what we’ve got seems good.

    • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nzOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dam dude.

      I mean, for us it’s normal so hard to describe. I guess no one has a constant fear of being laid off out of the blue? And even when a business goes under, they have to pay severance, or in some cases redundancy pay.

      Businesses get in real big shit and it’s front page news if they are found to not be paying their employees properly. Like massive fines on top of having to cover the missing pay, and potentially even jail time.

      There’s a certain amount of annual leave time that is accrued which can only either be taken as leave days or paid out. Apparently in the US they can just reset your annual leave.

      Medical insurance isn’t very common here because we have public healthcare. We also get 10 paid sick days per year (it was 5 before covid).

      With all of these burdens on businesses, they still seem to be doing just fine.

      • Yes, sure but… let’s take a look at CEO pay. Are your CEOs paid 100x more than the highest paid (underling) employee at that company? If not, that’s not the american way! Your businesses are still in business likely because CEOs there consider workers to be a valuable asset. In america, CEOs consider themselves to be the most valuable asset. We would need to decrease their pay to something more reasonable like 10x the highest paid (underling) employee at the company. Until then, we’re all easily replacable.

        Severence is nice but in most cases you have to sign an NDA saying that you won’t discuss your severence or your time at the company, and that you won’t paint them in a bad light.

  • dingus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The vast majority of the US has “at will employment”. It means you can be fired any time for whatever reason…or even for no reason.

    However, there are a few reasons you cannot be fired. You can’t be fired because of your race, gender, sexuality, age, whether or not you are pregnant.

    HOWEVER, because an employer does not have to give a reason for firing you, they could theoretically do something like fire you for something like being gay and pretend it was for some other reason. If you can prove that they fired you for being gay, you can go to court, but that’s exceptionally difficult to impossible to do. So really they can fire you for anything.

    Some jobs are unionized, making it harder for employers to fire you willy nilly though. Most jobs are not unionized in the US.

  • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Others have covered the details of labor laws in the US, so I won’t touch on that, but your question does make me think about why those kinds of labor protection laws are even seen as a necessity. And I think the answer to that is we (most people, not just Americans) view jobs as equal to livelihood.

    But it makes you wonder what the world could be like if we had a universal basic income, where getting fired wasn’t actually the worst thing that could happen to you. It might still suck, but you’d still be able to have a roof over your head and food on your table while you searched for new work. This, critically, would give you more negotiating power when finding new jobs, as you’d likely be less desperate for a job, meaning you could credibly insist upon better pay and better conditions.

    But we could take this one step further. In economics, there’s this concept called an externality, which is when you do something that affects someone else as a side effect. When you do something that harms someone else as a side effect (e.g., pollution), that’s called a negative externality. Negative externalities are actually a major problem in completely unregulated economies, because they cause the “invisible hand” of the free market to fail to achieve optimal distribution of goods, i.e., a market failure. The classic example of this is carbon emissions – the true cost to society of carbon emissions (from climate change) is not reflected in the cost of providing carbon-intensive goods, thus we have a tendency to over-produce and over-consume carbon-intensive goods and services. That is, the economy would be better off in the long-run if we emitted less carbon than we currently are, despite the short-term profits of polluting. Anyhoo, this mismatch between sticker price and true cost to society is why carbon tax is almost universally regarded to be the single best climate policy: by accounting for the costs of the negative externality, you can fix the market failure, and the invisible hand can once again work as it’s supposed to.

    But where this relates to where I was going is there are also positive externalities, where you have a positive impact on someone else as a side effect of your activities. An example might be doing regenerative agriculture or rewilding a patch of land – the pollinator habitat you provide or the carbon you sequester has positive impacts on other people. And like how negative externalities tend to lead to overconsumption, positive externalities tend to lead to underconsumption. I.e., the economy would be net better off of more people did rewilding and regenerative agriculture, despite the short-term immediate costs they incur. And much like taxing negative externalities (e.g., carbon emissions) is a good way to correct those issues, subsidizing positive externalities is a good way to fix the issues of insufficient good activities.

    So imagine if we not only had a UBI, but if the government also would pay you to plant trees or develop/maintain open-source software or any number of other activities that produce positive externalities. If we had these alternative means of maintaining a basic level of livelihood, then maybe we could decouple existing from jobs, and we wouldn’t feel a strong need to coerce businesses into holding onto people, nor would we need to coerce them into paying people enough or giving good enough working conditions – companies would have to pay well and offer good conditions and not fire for unfair reasons, else they’d struggle to fill vacancies.

    We all saw how companies begrudgingly had to pay more during the “great resignation”. Or look how the professional class (e.g., doctors, engineers) get good pay and good conditions, precisely because they’re hard to replace. Give workers more options, make them less desperate, and they’ll be empowered to negotiate better pay and better conditions for themselves. Sure, some regulations would still be necessary, but I think there’s a lot of elegance in a bottom-up approach to labor relations.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      You are making this too complicated. The “classic example” of a negative externality isn’t carbon emissions, it’s the “tragedy of the commons”. People would overuse public land to graze their animals. Nobody took care of the public land or refrained from grazing to allow the grass to grow back, so it sucked.

      A better example of a positive externality is a nice cafe that provides a nice environment for a town. The cafe doesn’t just provide sandwiches and coffee. It improves the area around it and nearby businesses benefit.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        the “tragedy of the commons”. People would overuse public land to graze their animals. Nobody took care of the public land or refrained from grazing to allow the grass to grow back, so it sucked.

        this is a capitalist myth. the british peasantry maintained the commons until capitalist interests enclosed them.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, it’s a well studied phenomenon.

          The commons dilemma is a specific class of social dilemma in which people’s short-term selfish interests are at odds with long-term group interests and the common good.[80] In academia, a range of related terminology has also been used as shorthand for the theory or aspects of it, including resource dilemma, take-some dilemma, and common pool resource.[81]

          Commons dilemma researchers have studied conditions under which groups and communities are likely to under- or over-harvest common resources in both the laboratory and field. Research programs have concentrated on a number of motivational, strategic, and structural factors that might be conducive to management of commons.[82]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

    • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nzOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks for your essay! I hadn’t looked at carbon taxes like that before, it makes sense now.

      Carbon credits though still sounds like meth credits in a rehab facility.

      I’m an atheist when it comes to ‘the invisible hand.’ I think regulation is absolutely necessary.

      Best argument for a UBI I’ve heard so far.

  • take_five_seconds [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    At-Will Employment yeah you can get fired pretty much on the spot for no reason

    edit: like yea there’s labor protections if you’re a protected class but if they fire you for a bunk reason it’s up to you to sue the business and prove that in the first place which most of us can’t do for obvious reasons

  • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    “At will” employment laws are load-bearers for all sorts of horrid ruling class abuses. They allow “at will” employees to be fired under any false pretenses and make it nearly impossible to prove those pretenses were false.

    • Morcyphr@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not what “at-will employment” means. It’s an agreement between employer and employer that they agree to employment, and they both have the right to terminate for any or no reason. I have fired employees and been fired myself by employers based on this. Why use “false pretenses " when you don’t have to. “You’re fired.” 'Why?” “Because you are.” End of story.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What it looks like on paper and how it actually plays out because workers don’t have the money or connections to legally fight wrongful terminations (from bigotry and the like, masked under “at will” pretenses) are very different things.

        I have fired employees

        End of story.

        You wish your little inheriting-dad’s-business crown made that decree a divine command, don’t you?

        • Morcyphr@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What? My dad was in law enforcement, kinda. I work in facilities maintenance, not remotely inherited. But whatever you want to tell yourself.

          Did you read the part where I was also fired from jobs and it was no big deal? Why wouldn’t I need to fight it? Not everything and everyone is evil bigot sexist racist corporate. Sometimes employees need to be terminated for reasons beyond what exists in your preprogrammed little mind. Protected class terminations is not what we’re discussing here. Take your soap box elsewhere. And have a nice day.

          • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Your daddy was a fucking cop and you’re expecting that to be the checkmate to stop leftists from dunking on you?

            I work in facilities maintenance, not remotely inherited.

            Suuuuuuuuuure. No connections or assistance whatsoever. Rags to riches. A small loan of thousands of dollars and a floor beneath you to help you back up when you fell.

            I already think you’re a liar but even if you aren’t you’re not painting a very pretty picture of anything but living in a bubble world of privilege and being unaware of it.

            I was also fired from jobs and it was no big deal?

            Yes, because you had a floor beneath you when you fell, you spoiled failchild. Lots of people are literally homeless when they lose their jobs, or just die because they can no longer get medical treatment for what afflicts them.

            Not everything and everyone is evil bigot sexist racist corporate.

            You tried to be hyperbolic there but so far you’re just accurately describing yourself, if only you had any awareness of what your “I just fire people when I feel like it, I am very cool, calm, and collected” self-congratulatory statements sound like to the rest of us.

            Take your soap box elsewhere.

            Cram yours nice and tight so your smug nepo baby bullshit stops pouring out.

            And have a nice day.

            You just derailed your own tough guy attempt by ending with a passive-aggressive sneer. congratulations

            • Morcyphr@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Wow. I hope you feel better about yourself. Clearly you need it. I have no interest in continu ing this. You are wrong about me on almost every count but I’m not interested in justifying myself to you. Go back to reddit/Twitter, please.

              • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Wow. I hope you feel better about yourself.

                Your concern trolling is noted and will be given all the consideration it deserves.

                I have no interest in continu ing this.

                But you probably will, because you want that validation in front of an audience you claim you don’t care about so very, very badly. That’s the plight of small business tyrants and other nepo babies: it isn’t enough to be greedy and cruel; you want to be respected instead of mocked. Poor baby.

      • Sinonatrix [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem is you legally don’t have the right to “terminate for any reason” when it comes to a number of protected classes, but these laws make it so we have to rely on you being stupid enough to create a massive trail of evidence (easy part with small business tyrants), but also litigate it for potentially years on end - harder

        • Morcyphr@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re wrong. Employers do have the right to terminate members of a protected class as long as it’s not because they are a protected class.

          • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Employers do have the right to terminate members of a protected class as long as it’s not because they are a protected class.

            And they enjoy the unwritten privilege of pretending there wasn’t a reason that was because of prejudice against the protected class. But you’re so far up your own ass that you either can’t see that or you refuse to see it because it benefits you.

            • Morcyphr@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I fired someone in a protected class maybe a year ago. They were, by their own admission incompetent. They were also falsifying their time card. All documented. I’ve done the same with a straight white guy. Is that my prejudice?

              Look, I know it happens wrongfully. But don’t accuse me of shit that you have no basis for. It detracts from your whole argument.

              • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                They were, by their own admission incompetent. They were also falsifying their time card. All documented.

                Can you at least try to write out your self-congratulatory autobiographical post without it reading like it could be narrated by Patrick Bateman? bateman-ontological

      • flan [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        and they both have the right to terminate for any or no reason

        except there’s a bit of a power dynamic here isn’t there

        • Morcyphr@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There doesn’t have to be. I don’t see or treat it that way. Yes, my employer has power over me (I’m not a business owner). As do I over them, to an extent. But it doesn’t have to be an adversarial relationship.

          • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            But it doesn’t have to be an adversarial relationship.

            With you and your smug “I can fire them whenever I please whenever I feel like it and it’s totally not because of personal biases or prejudice, pinkie promise” statements, it is inherently an adversarial relationship.

            EDIT: Better yet, just read the room. Look at this thread. Look at everyone here who isn’t a small business tyrant like yourself. Look at how adversarial it is to all of them. If you’re invalidating their experiences, that itself is an adversarial take.

            But that’d take leaving the bubble your cop daddy placed around you since birth.

            • Morcyphr@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re delusional. Your quote is not remotely what I said. That’s disingenuous, at best. Idgaf what the rest of the thread says. Many people can group together and be wrong; it’s fairly common. Again, I do not own a small business or any other form of business. You are utterly clueless in this conversation. You seem like a troll and will be treated as such.

              • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Idgaf what the rest of the thread says.

                Of course you’d say that. Because, as I said, you live in a privileged bubble world.

                But I think you’re lying about that. You care enough to keep replying here, begging for someone to respect you and your very brave small business tyrant story. pathetic

  • Coolkidbozzy [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If you aren’t part of a union in the US, you’re probably working without a contract in an agreement called ‘at will’ employment where this is 100% legal. This is how the vast majority of jobs operate

    • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nzOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a single benefit there, and that’s not having to read through contracts which are boring as all hell, but totally necessary for a modern society.

  • AOCapitulator [they/them, she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Theoretically yes, but they’re set up in such a way so that there’s always a work around or technicality or means testing that, in reality, means that poor, marginalized, disabled/ neurodivergent people, or non-English speakers are basically totally fucked