The idea of unionizing when you work for a national coffee shop has always seemed silly. As some other comments point out, local shops usually treat employees better, and the way the labor market is right now means that employees are valuable and have the ability to work somewhere else if they aren't paid or treated correctly. Introducing the bureaucratic nightmare that comes from archaic institutions like unions, which are only necessary or valuable anymore for certain limited sectors of the economy, is like putting a band-aid on an amputation. If you don't like your job, quit and find another one. If workers actually did this, corporate businesses will actually feel it where it hurts.

This post is a good example of the divide in what issues people choose to give a shit about between Chittenden County residents and everyone else in the rest of the State.

There are better independent coffee places out there, but people who viscerally hate Starbucks coffee tend to have shit taste. By chance do you go to Dunkin Donuts and use an assload of cream and sugar in any coffee-based drink you consume

My guess is that the lawyers helped with the campaign's response. It was carefully worded and much better than just radio silence from the Balint team.

Nothing stinks here at all from the perspective of the Balint campaign, regardless of your thoughts on her. Campaigns not only are under no obligation to investigate the motives or sources of random contributions from individuals, it can be potentially illegal for them to do so. The $26K donated via these personal contributions is a drop in the bucket compared to the funds donated to the Balint campaign by individual donors, let alone the very high number of people within and outside of Vermont who did so. Individual donors could have donated via PayPal to Balint's campaign through her website, using an unnamed PayPal account, as long as donations are below the threshold limit for campaign financing. This could have happened to Sanders or any other progressive candidate receiving many small donations from individuals through grassroot campaign fundraising. This is how campaign finance works, and the statements by her campaign manager were direct and sensible. There is a good argument that Balint isn't responsible for returning any of the FTX funds, legally speaking. But politically, they don't want to hold onto money if the DOJ concludes that the donor procured it through fraudulent means.

There is simply a (reasonable) bias that all politicians are inherently "crooked," so when applying that bias, it's easy to assume the worst despite no evidence to that effect.

Because it's tough to make government efficient by nature when it comes to new telecom infrastructure, even if well-funded. It's an example of the many huge technological leaps throughout American history that were typically made by inventors, engineers, etc. on behalf of a given industry, rather than by state projects. (Of course, there are exceptions.) Telecommunications is no different, going all the way back to the first phone and telegraph lines. VT (and reddit's demographic generally) just often lean left, so the idea of private actors being inherently more effective at making these improvements doesn't ideologically sit well with many.

Looking online, he seems to only be a part-time deputy. It's odd that's a thing for cops outside of small local departments. Tbh, I don't really get why county sheriff departments are a thing when VT doesn't have county governments. Officers for courts and government buildings outside of Montpelier can just be a branch of VSP.

It's wild how easy it is to spot from a single comment Burlington residents, usually UVM students, who recently left their parents' house. I get that many are on this subreddit (hence the voting trends here), so I'm actually curious: is ACAB absolutism just an attempt to troll Blue Lives Matter types? Or genuine projection due to having only interacted with cops when speeding or having a party broken up?

>The right to use the easement. And drive in and out with loud music blaring or the engine revving at any time day or night is what I was referring to.

You could be right if this is a very strange easement that includes a proscribed right to place signage, in addition to a right-of-way. I highly doubt it. That said, easements do not give you a right to cause a nuisance with noise or litter. Putting aside common law nuisance, most Vermont municipalities have noise ordinances. If the neighbor retaliated in that way, they would be the only asshole in the situation, and could open themselves up to a civil stalking order.

All OP needs to do is return the sign and be friendly.

Their sign is more likely than not illegally placed. What rights are you referring to, because I doubt that the recorded easement has a permitted use involving signage. It's not neighborly or Vermonty to put your political litter on other people's yards. Good on OP for asking before removing it

OP isn't trying to start a political fight, did you not read this post or comments? Or are you just projecting because OP is from out-of-state, and you clearly have a negative bias about that fact? Political signs are just a hideous eyesore, party or politician aside.