And I think I'm also interested in the case because it helped precipitate a shift in how antitrust enforcers and scholars think about labor markets. I think it started to undermine the idea that labor markets are generally competitive and lay the groundwork for today's thinking, where it's widely recognized that labor markets are often highly concentrated and that employers engage in all sorts of unfair practices, including no poach and not going to be agreed with. Hello, everyone. Thank you, Gene. Hello, everyone. I'm Leslie Overton. I'm a partner at Alston in Berg. And I'm interested in these issues because it's important for companies that want to be compliant to understand what the law is and understand that they may need to be focused on areas of compliance that historically have been an online spot. And so I also had the pleasure of working with Gene at the Justice Department, although I did not work on this particular matter. But I like this case as an example of how the law can evolve and how it can be bipartisan, too. So because I will talk a little bit later about how some of the things that the Trump administration has done that have continued with the important work that the Obama administration did in this area. So I'm Gene Kimmelman, and President of Public Knowledge. And I want to thank Congressman Saslingi, gentlemen of Saslingi, for the introduction, for coming here tonight. And you are all too kind. I didn't spear dead. I am honored to have been part of a team that led this effort. And I will talk a little bit more later about how this really wasn't remarkable, shouldn't have been remarkable. This was truly the day-to-day work of the Antrust Division when it just does its job and enforces the law and is indifferent to which companies are involved and which CDOs might have been involved. And whether it's a labor or it's a supplier or it's a purchaser or it's a consumer, the focus of the enforcement is really on straightforward understanding when people are abusing the marketplace. So I'll talk a little bit more about that experience and why I think it's important for what is coming with the great work that Chairman Saslingi is leading. Great. That's a great introduction. But I think folks need to learn a little bit more about this case. So I'm going to ask Leslie if you can give us a little summary about what this case was and what it was about. Okay, I'm going to give us a little summary about this case, but I'm also going to throw in a little bit about a couple of other cases. So the case against Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit and Pixar was the first that the Obama administration had brought and that was in September 2010. And they settled it at the same time that they filed a case, but it was significant. I think Gene makes an excellent point that it was the division doing their job, but it got a lot of attention. And because these were agreements among these, I suppose, top brand name companies that were led to be anti-competitive and were the anti-competitive agreements were led to go to the highest levels of the companies. And what were the agreements? Well, in terms of Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit and Pixar, they had a number of agreements, bilateral agreements. And so one between Apple and Google, one between Apple and Adobe, et cetera, to not cold call each other's employees. And so what do I mean by cold call? So having recruiters calling people who are not necessarily in the market and so top talent at other companies and trying to solicit them to consider another opportunity that could be better paying, could have better benefits, could just be an opportunity for those employees to be competed for. And by having these agreements that there would be no cold calling between these companies that was depriving these employees of the benefits of well functioning labor markets in terms of the education that these folks that had attained, the skill sets that they'd attained. And so when they can't get a call about an opportunity at Apple because Apple has Google on a don't call list and vice versa that is not leading to well functioning labor markets. So that's what the focus really was on for those particular cases. There were some others also. There was a case against LucasFell and where the complaint settlement there was a few months later in 2010. And there that was a little more complicated, it went beyond the no cold calling and there was an agreement, there was a three part protocol. There was an agreement that LucasFell and Pixar would notify each other when making an offer to someone at the end of the firm and there was an agreement that they would not do a counter offer above the initial offer. And so what I find interesting in terms of the LucasFell and Pixar situation is those were arrivals not just in the market for the labor but those arrivals however you cut it as animation studios. And so there it's particularly surprising that folks weren't paying more attention. And then there was another, but that case settled at the same time where the complaint was gone file. There was another case involving eBay and Intuit and that was filed in California in 2012 but it wasn't settled until 2014 so it went into litigation and eventually settled. And there you saw Whitman being involved in emails and the agreements. You saw the founder of Intuit having correspondence saying that he would get on his people to not slip up on the agreement. And just very, very clearly these agreements were going to the highest levels of the organizations and the founder of Intuit was serving on eBay's board. And so somehow he got into his mind that that meant that there should be a no-poach arrangement with eBay because of the board relationship. But that wasn't what the antitrust laws provided for. I'm happy to answer questions but I want to just keep, allow us to keep moving. That's great. Go ahead James. I want to jump in on that. So the thing I said is that it was straightforward. Straightforward in the way it went through it but just to give you a little color of how this plays out. You have a lot of very, very well-known antitrust lawyers coming into the division and this is not uncommon. Basically, without really being specific, saying, you know, this is the way business is done. This is the way things work. Nobody gets hired off of cold calls. This was just kind of the way, so you get a whole broad discussion of what is the culture, what's the way in which this marketplace works. And what you have to do in the antitrust division is dig through all of that and try to understand whether there is a legitimate basis for it. Whether that truly reflects the way everyone behaves. Are we just happening to see five companies documents by chance so you can go out and look at a lot of other documents. And you make sure you get the whole universe of that. And then what you also get is, you know, in employment arrangements there are a lot of different kinds of employment arrangements. And these are very highly technically skilled people and you have to have a lot of different kinds of ways of working with them. They deal with trade secrets, they deal with, you know, patents, a lot of intellectual property. This is really complicated and highly proprietary. We can't have people jumping around. So there's a whole variety of arguments being put out here. When you see it at the tail end and you say, well, that was pretty straightforward. They did this, they did that, they did these things and therefore they broke the law. It never looks that way at the beginning. And the division had to go through all of this. And the other thing I'll just say is in the context, and this was small, but we were well aware that we were doing something that was not entirely typical, as much as it for us was straightforward enforcement of the antitrust laws. The people didn't think that much about labor markets and didn't think that maybe these kind of practices were that big a deal. And maybe with a lot of talk, even then, about what are you going to do about Google and what are you going to do about concentration in the agricultural sector and what are you going to do about healthcare. There was a lot of other competing interests of where you put your resources and where you put your attorneys and economists to really spend their time. There was a commitment to the idea that we needed to be careful about leveraging the marketplace. It was often called monopsony power and that labor was a significant portion of what needed to be considered under the antitrust laws. So even if it was a small president, even if it was not Aligutus, the big space, the idea was to make sure that we were standing for the principles that were really at stake. And there was an understanding that when the government sues in these kind of instances, which is often not fully understood, you're not necessarily going to stop all that behavior in the marketplace. These are individual cases, individual fact patterns very specific to the case. But it was understood and you never get money for doing this. This is like an injunction to stop the behavior. But there was an understanding that this could be valuable to these employees, even if you couldn't undo what had happened, that there's private antitrust. There's state officials who can look at these things. There's the entire labor movement that could become aware that this is something that they can actually pay attention to and that they have legal tools at their hands. So it's not always just about the smallness of the case. It's also about what other opportunities we create for law enforcement down the road. And so those are important pieces of the puzzle. And for the people who work for the system attorney general at the time, there was a strong desire to put down a marker in this area, even if it was quite small. I'll just make another point. One of the issues in all of these cases was the standard. What should the standard be under antitrust law for these types of agreements? Should they be viewed as unlawful per se? So you just look at them and you don't need to get into a big debate. You don't need to get into a heavy analysis because they're really unlawful on their face. Or do they merit a balancing test of their harms and their benefits? And the position that the Department of Justice was taking was that these are naked agreements, anti-competitive agreements that are not the type that are reasonably necessary to a pro-competitive collaboration and where you would say, oh, we've got to have a robust analysis balancing the harms and the benefits. But these should be struck down as unlawful on their face. And I would say that is the position that the Justice Department has continued to take. Although, I will say with one exception, in the franchise context where you've got a provision preventing one franchisee from poaching another franchisee, the Justice Department has taken that as and said, well, that should be the rule of the reason of this balancing test. And so because that is, that should be the balancing test. But other than that, I would say when you're dealing with horizontal competitors for employees, the Justice Department has continued to take this standard position that was done when Jean and Christine Farming and others... The fact that it was a complaint that was filed that has a personally violation of the law is extremely important for what Leslie said. But to be a, and again, people said, why did you settle and why wasn't it criminal and why didn't you go push harder and further? And you know, those are good questions. At the time it was pushing as far as we thought we could to get a settlement where the end result was stopping the behavior and actual internal compliance practices in the companies that were training and follow-up to the highest level that were no less than what we thought we would actually get if we had gone to court. And we weren't sure in court whether it would be deemed per se versus rule of the reason. So there was a risk factor there. So the value of the settlement, when there was never going to be money at stake anyway, was to be able to really lock in the notion that these should be treated as per se level. Great. All right, well I think that's some really helpful framing. But I'm also interested in sort of the result for today. What are sort of the impacts that we've seen now because of this investigation and the settlements and how are workers benefiting or still facing problems today? So I think I'd like everyone to address this one. Someone feels interested to start. I'm jumping quickly. I think one big impact has been on compliance training and on how this is on companies' radar in a way that it was not before. And so that case has led to other cases has led to, again, this emphasis within compliance. So I've got to believe that there are employees who have benefited from better awareness and adherence to compliance in this area. And one thing that the Obama administration did near the end of the administration was they put out guidance that these NOPO agreements can be treated, can be pursued criminally. And that is something that got a lot of attention as well. And so I think there were people who thought that when the Trump administration came in, the Trump administration would back away from that, but they did not. And they dug down on that. They haven't brought any criminal case yet, but they have said that that can teach to be their policy that these could be criminal. Anyone else? Sure. From the enforcement side, there has been significant bark. The Obama administration in 2016 put out the guidelines that Leslie mentioned and Assistant Attorney General Delrahim has affirmed those guidelines and pledged to criminally prosecute wage-fixing among employers. But the action hasn't quite met those promises. So for instance, there was a case at the FTC, I believe it's in the process of settling, involving two therapy staffing companies that conspired with each other to hold down the wages of therapists who work with the companies. And in that case, the FTC agrees with civil settlement in which there are no voluntary penalties and the companies didn't even have to admit wrongdoing. So there's still a big disconnect between the rhetoric and official statements of the agencies and what they're actually doing in practice. Great. I don't want to derail it, but just to respond on sort of what has labor taken any lessons from this case or more organized labor, primarily working in low wage industries, and I think anything they've actually seen and I trust used against efforts to organize among workers or individuals deemed as independent contractors or independent and colluding to kind of create some paper-based pay or something like that. So I think that there is, and you've seen that happen a number of times, I think in Seattle when some drivers trying to organize lobster men in Maine. So there is sort of these two sides of how this tool can be used and I think I have something great with you. That issue can be used more in these instances where if you really look at where the power is held, who actually has most of the power to manipulate the labor market that should be part of the incident. So I actually have another question for you. What are some of the other policies that tech companies are using today? I understand no coach is not as commonly used as we've talked about, but what are some of the other tools that they use to sort of impact workers' mobility? Yeah, so data society is going to look at tech companies primarily as platforms for labor markets, but we also are fully aware of how they are enormous employers themselves. And on the second question of them as tech companies as employers, we've seen this universe of employees within tech really diversify on a number of levels. First of all, I think everyone may have seen that a recent article that showed that over half of Uber's staff are contractors. So that's one way in which that you can really restrict the earnings, the growth potential, the movement by keeping people who are doing the exact same work on the campus as well as off the campus separate and control that. I think something that someone else probably has a ton more understanding of can speak about is non-competes, prevent employees from leaving and going into another group to work for a competitor, which is something that actually is used up and down the wage scale and across all industries, including in industries where issues of proprietary knowledge or highly secretive trade secrets, trademark, whatever is not an issue. And then particularly in certain service industries they use, and this is, I think sometimes it's written, but I think it's more like a non-verbal statement that employees who want more hours have to have open availability. Meaning you have to keep your entire schedule available to one employer. So if that's the case, then you couldn't possibly schedule an evening with another employer because you have to keep all your hours open. So there are different ways that that also occur. In terms of tech companies as sort of platforms or employment, I think that those are less about actual agreements and written documents so much as algorithms which limit the ability of workers to really optimize their opportunities on a platform. So nudges and controls that say if you just drive five more hours or take eight more troops on this platform, you will reach this particular bonus or whatnot. And so it's framed in a sort of a decision that employees make, but there is an algorithm that actually is seeing everything that a call employees on the platform do and so they're able to control the decisions in the movement, which I think this is really about is sort of like our mobility. And it's not just in driving which we're all familiar with but also in cleaning, in care. There's almost an Uber for everything these days. You don't know if they'll be around for real, but right now they are sort of using those algorithmic tools in order to manipulate and move workers. Yeah, I think this is really helpful. You know, we are often looking at how the tech companies are affecting consumers, but they are also, the workers are kind of the consumers of these apps. And so those same sort of like dark patterns about trying to get the consumer to do something are also happening with workers. I think that's really interesting. So I have mentioned the non-compete clauses and I'd love to have Sandy talk a little bit about what are non-compete clauses. Why should we be concerned about them? Sure, so non-compete is often mentioned in the same breath as no-coach agreements, but they are distinct. They are an agreement between an employer and its employees. So non-compete restricts the post-employment freedom of workers and limit what they can do and where they can work after leaving a job. So for example, a non-compete may prohibit an accountant from working as an accountant, including as a solo practitioner in the United States for 18 months after leaving your current job. That's a non-compete example, a hypothetical example of a non-compete. And approximately 30 million workers today are subject to non-competes and there are a few sectors and occupations that are immune from them. So they've been documented among engineers, Jimmy John, sandwich makers, yoga instructors, home health aides, automated speech recognition technologists and Amazon warehouse workers. So they're really present up and down the socioeconomic spectrum. An employee who accepts a position in violation of a non-compete can face legal action. An employer can take the employee to court and prohibit him or her from accepting a new position or starting a business in violation of a non-compete. And I think importantly, even in the absence of legal action, research shows that workers generally comply with non-competes. A few workers consult a lawyer before acquiescing to a non-compete and most workers simply accept them without question and comply with their terms. And I think California is a really illustrative example. California is often held up as a model for how to treat non-compete causes. In general, non-competes are unenforceable in California so an employer can't go to court and enforce one of these agreements against a worker. But even in California, about one in six workers is bound by a non-compete. And so this suggests that employers recognize that the simple existence of a non-compete discourages worker mobility and serves as a method of controlling their workforce. So in other words, under a non-compete, even one that can or won't be enforced, workers are less likely to look for new work and employers are less likely to make them offers. And the empirical evidence, which has really flourished over the past few years, documents that non-competes do restrict employee mobility and that this reduced mobility contributes to lower wages, reduced formation of new businesses and can lock workers into hostile and abusive working requirements, which I think is especially salient at a time when me, too, is gaining currency and attention. So to address this issue, in mid-March, the Open Markets Institute, along with the FLCIO Public Citizen, SCIU and 16 other labor and public interest groups and more than 40 advocates and scholars petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to ban non-competes as an unfair method of competition. The FTC has a clear authority to act. Congress gave the FTC authority to interpret its anti-trust and competition powers. And interestingly and notably, this Supreme Court has validated the FTC's broad policy-making authority. As we explained in our petition, non-competes inflict real harms on workers and lack credible business specifications. So the question in front of us is whether the FTC, as presently composed, is willing to use its power to protect workers from these abusive contracts that rob them of their fundamental freedom to lead. Thank you. So one thing I want to talk about is the way that politics can influence anti-trust. And I think that's an important lesson to learn for our anti-trust lessons from the no-coach case. So Jean, I'm wondering if you can tell us a little bit about the political situation that the Obama administration was facing at the time. So this case was one of a variety that we were looking at at the beginning of the Obama administration and as probably all of you will recall, there were great expectations that the world was going to change with the Obama administration and it was everything from healthcare across to... I mean, the president in the campaign had talked about the need for stronger anti-trust enforcement and so we came in, I'll just say, loaded for bear as much as we could be and what you find is that it's not so easy, it's complicated. There are 400 plus attorneys at the antitrust division, 100 plus economists of some form or another and they smile at you and they generally say, well do what you tell us to do and we will be here when you leave. And they've been through this a lot. Things change some but there's a whole process of what is an investigation and how does it occur and how do you review a merger and so there was a lot of desire to do things and everything from the egg sector to that healthcare sector. Obviously labor was important. We wanted to try to set a standard before being able to actually bring back built gotten gains called discouragement. There were a variety and section two had not been used no monopolization cases and a terrible report from our perspective in the Bush administration. We walked away from it, the IPC joined us. There was a lot of exuberance about doing things and there were investigations started. There was a lot of effort put in, a lot of areas, agriculture across and it is sometimes hard to find the facts that really will make a case. You can find a lot of things that you don't like and that are abuses and even find things that you think are violations of antitrust law that somehow somebody figured out and corrected two years ago when you see them in documents and you're too late. And just a lot of things that really generally never go public but it makes it much harder. And what we found pretty quickly was that with everything we could do we needed a lot more tools, we needed a lot more of an arsenal. We would have wanted to have the White House like fully embrace antitrust and it's like they did the campaign like why haven't you heard that? Well, they were doing healthcare, they were doing not frank, they were doing a lot of things but somehow this had kind of like not elevated to that level. And when you're dealing with heads of other agencies they have different priorities. They have their personalities and their heat. So it just gets really complicated to get a lot of things done. But I'll just say in general there was a desire, there was an enthusiasm, there was enormous efforts put into things that never saw the light of day because we couldn't get a case out of it or we couldn't get the kind of cross agency collaboration to do something. And if I talk about industries like airlines you'll understand the kind of problems we have. Or I talk about concentration and abuses and among agribusiness you might know something about that too. All I can say is that it was never out of a lack of desire to do something but there was often a difficulty of getting to a meaningful finish line. So I'm just going to ask some more questions because I want to give the audience time to ask their questions so start thinking about your questions now. So what's one lesson that you think we should take from this case? We're going to watch the documentary and that'll teach us some lessons but what are some lessons that you think we should take from this? I'll give this one. That folks in organizations need antitrust counseling. They need compliance training because again you see people at the top of these organizations you see jobs and equipment you see these folks who are writing emails or talking about what they did in books it doesn't make... It's surprising on the one hand but it's just important to remember that everybody in an organization needs to know that they're not above the antitrust laws. The lesson I think is the flip side of that which is you're never going to change the marketplace completely in one case with one company or one set of companies this is a long term fight whether it's antitrust or it's other policies or a combination of the two a few companies might get the signal in the message but it will not permeate across the market it takes a lot of effort both within antitrust and then truly across the government to change a lot of these behaviors. So I'm going to start a somewhat critical and maybe provocative note but I think the DOJ was absolutely right to plead the note poaching cases of per se violation what was done by the companies and the executives in that case has been per se legal for decades and arguably since the very early days of the antitrust laws in the 19th century but if you look at the remedies the DOJ accepted a civil settlement in which none of the front doors were even publicly identified and I think this case along with the DOJ's and stated that criminal investigations and prosecutions are the correct response and the Supreme Court has described the illusion of the supreme evil of antitrust and at least against many small-time price fixers the DOJ has been ready and eager to use its full legal arsenal but when Steve Jobs, Eric Schmidt and other leading lights of Silicon Valley engaged in a horizontal conspiracy against workers they did not face these usual sanctions instead they were left off with a warning and not even named and chained by the government and it took a private class action about four years later to reveal these titans were actually at the center of this conspiracy this wasn't something between little managers but involved the highest ranks of Silicon Valley so I think going forward the DOJ in particular has to commit to using its criminal enforcement powers against all polluters against workers and not simply those that are not powerful or not visible otherwise I think this perception will grow that just like in so many other areas of law we have a two-tier justice system being in favor of the elite proponent punishments for the rest of us Okay, well I have no other people's suggestions I think maybe what I'm here to do is sort of provoke your thinking that maybe in this case there was a lot of documentation evidence that this was happening but maybe we should also think about the ways in which it's less visible whether it's through an algorithm whether it's asking employees to have open availability whether it's the fact that we're talking about tech companies and a lot of them are moving towards it the very goal is monopoly and part of how they get that is through their network of apps so Uber wants all of the drivers they want all of the consumers and that has to do with both controlling both sides and to Charlotte's case if you look at most platform companies and tech companies and read the documents they treat everyone as a user of their technology everybody as a consumer there are no workers in those relationships and so maybe that works in this case but I think that there is an importance to also think at the point of this panel to thinking about how we project the labor market and then I guess the last part would be how do we look at the overall effect not just can we follow the trail but is there a way for us to think about the project what does the effect of all of that look like and I say that because maybe no poach is no longer or is less of an issue now but how does and not compete combined with forced arbitration how do these two policies work together to lead to a desired effect even though it may not be clear that that's where it is okay so the last question we're here in the Congressional Visitor Centering Congress so I want to think about what are some priorities that Congress should be looking at some areas for change that we want to encourage Congress to pay attention to so I'm going to just start by saying where's the labor department we're trying to get labor we're trying to get anti-trip where's the labor department we've had an expert agency that's supposed to be taking care of the rights of workers in the marketplace I mean so again this to me is let's use all the tools that we have to really weigh in on these issues and make sure the marketplace is functioning so I think that it's just critical that and Congress has oversight over all of this and it's Congress it can be the White House I mean we were hoping it would be the Obama White House it wasn't they were always there to focus on this but you can use the White House as a bully public to coordinate across government Congress can use that power as well to really push on multiple actions at once because I can't I don't think one thing one thing will do it I'll just say one thing I mean they said these criticism they are totally valid I think it's important two-tier justice is a horrible problem I'll just say in this case one thing that is important to know about criminal case versus civil case is the level of the intent you have to prove it's a much higher burden and again it might have been winnable in that regard I mean we did what we thought was right but I'll just say there was a danger that would have lost those cases completely and that it would never the information about whoever was involved in it would have never come out so that's just a risk factor you have to take into account I'm not trying to defend it as if it's the right answer but could be two answers it's just it complicates the litigation so I certainly agree with Jean that addressing the radical disempowerment of workers is going to be the responsibility of many agencies obviously not limited to the DOJ and FTC by any means but I think both agencies could be doing a lot more and I think Congress has to use its oversight and appropriations power to really compel them to do everything they can and I think Congress through these functions can pressure them to do at least three things first is, as I mentioned earlier bring criminal prosecutions against all employer partels the second is pressure the FTC to ban the price of employment terms such as non-compete clauses and I think the third is the agencies have to start reviewing mergers for their labor market effects not just product market effects so I think before giving the agencies new authority Congress has to get them used to exhaust their present authority great and just one comment I don't really work on federal level so this is not my portrait I come from California which has a very strong local state labor department who has taken up the slack on the federal level they've expanded their role they're willing to prosecute wage theft cases and really go after and not just win but also collect which is a big part of it so I think double the enforcement on the federal level though I think the pro-act which has been introduced is one instance in which workers are trying to build to build some power for things that so that they can make these structural shifts in the fact that the DO department of labor has actually been reversing a lot of the decisions of the Obama administration and the NLRB has been basically denying almost all of the the complaints that have been brought there by workers so it hasn't at least in this administration not been an LI of workers those two agencies have been LI of workers and so the effort is like the other presenters have said have been to appeal to the legislative body in order to get the power is needed in order to shift those dynamics Just like a quick point others have talked about the roles of Congress and the White House and the like and so I'll just make the point that as we saw in these early no-coach cases particularly in the eBay case even with an antitrust you have the federal but you also have state so the state of California had a case and then there were there was private litigation too and so all of those together can create more of a deterrent effect as well rather than just an injunction by itself Okay who is interested to ask a question I have a mic Yes, okay, Congress got the mic back there Don't all jump up There's one Thanks Hi virtually policy council with committee on education and labor and speaking from a congressional level I don't know if you guys have been paying attention but we know the DOL has some oversight in this space but getting the agency to at least even cooperate has been incredibly difficult but I would say this from a broader perspective as we look toward the future of work specifically with the lubrication of the labor market with non-compete misclassification and forced arbitration clauses we can only do both so much as a single as one half of the legislative body of the United States but what are some of the things that you all think we could shed light on looking forward that would be more useful while we may not be able to do the most effective needs right now not having kind of the executive branch what are some of the things you think we could shed light on to kind of put things forward for maybe future administration I just think hearings hearings, hearings, hearings calling people about hearing issues I mean open availability how many people know about open availability I mean that doesn't sound like the kind of thing that everybody out there in the world would think is like the greatest deal for them in terms of jobs right now and you know there's going to be a lot of discussion about different nudges and misuse of algorithms across a whole variety of of realms in the digital marketplace but to have it's always great to have someone give you an incentive to work a little harder or do your job better but how far should you go how far to spare where is it pushing people to actually endanger themselves or work in a way that truly is harmful these are things I think that need discussing and airing and I even wonder if from the employer side maybe if they heard it in the worst light in a congressional hearing they would re-bring some of these policies maybe there are other ways in which they can profit maximize without having to do some of these things I just think that's the way to really try to push the process but you can't fully let us I think maybe what I would say to that is that for a very long time the conversation about labor has revolved around wages and benefits and I think what we're seeing is it's also revolving around more now so than in a long time opportunity like real opportunity mobility time like do you you know in open availability in retail but as a journalist actually you have to have open availability as a journalist as well and I'm sure there's plenty of other occupations through the boundaries of when you work have been stretched so maybe that's part of this discussion of future work is moving it beyond this very small space of how we think about what can be legislated yes absolutely the minimum wage is incredibly important I'm not saying it's not but there are other ways in which you don't get enough hours and no wage really doesn't matter I sleep on with the interest of the committee hard to follow Bergeron which you don't think you are the that is real smooth so a couple things one is I wanted to circle back on your interpretation wrong because Leslie has been a real leader in this area she was the new brief in the Italian colors case and that's you know people are not familiar with that but there are ways involved being a small business where there's clear and effective effects and the news for Reddit just came it has a really great dissent where it basically explains that the company was able to contract around the antitrust laws so to the point that we want private and fortunate to complement public and fortunate that's not possible in the world for employment contracts or the consumer contracts at arbitration clauses so to this point and to the point of public pressure and hearings and the first one was hearing with the CEO of Google and he got the congressman and heard from congressman during the hearing in a very forceful way saying it's not just about transparency it's about access to justice it's not something that it's really important to echo and clarify and say it's not just the issue of blocking people from saying their stories it's blocking people from going to the courts to mitigate the risk altogether and antitrust generally obviously has a huge component with employment so chairman Scott, chairman Nather both introduced legislation to ban forced arbitration in employment contracts following the epic systems case and to clarify in the LRA that it affects the certain activity the other thing I thought would be kind of useful to touch base on is one of the concerns people make about the PQ agreements is oh these are helpful to protect workplace innovations and if I'm training the line please to make hamburgers how dare they go across the street one of the congressmen of course is a California's ban on PQ agreements and it's pretty innovative state so I hope they can talk about this issue too sort of the interplay between robust competition in labor markets and innovation as well and again restoring our justice system so I'll speak quickly to the arbitration point thank you for mentioning that that was the justice department had quit in an amicus brief in the Italian colors case and unfortunately the Supreme Court did not agree with our position I ended up testifying before the senate judiciary committee on that and I was testifying not on the proposed legislation but I was testifying on the brief I was testifying on the four corners of the brief but I think that and I think it the what I like that brief because I think it really teed up the challenges that are created when you have a forced arbitration and in a case like an antitrust case and you've got to get an economist and you can't pool with other people and share those costs who is going to bring that case nobody's going to do that but you've got to arbitrate it and you've got to arbitrate it by yourself and so you're not going to be able to vindicate your rights and I think that was teed up well in that brief and I speaking only for myself I hope that that's an issue that doesn't get just lost and forgotten because I think it's a real loss of antitrust rights for a lot of people I'll wait briefly so in the United States unlike most other developed countries, private enforcement is a key part of the legal enforcement regime especially in antitrust Congress wanted injured consumers, workers and businesses to play a lead role in enforcing the antitrust laws and gave injured parties extraordinary remedy the treble damages action but through arbitration big corporations have effectively immunized themselves from private antitrust suits they can block class actions and then shuttle everything over to arbitration where individuals or individual businesses have to arbitrate on bilateral basis and as Slade mentioned that's rarely going to happen because these cases are extraordinarily expensive and litigated so this term judicial activism is often mandate about and this is really an area where there's been great judicial activism the Supreme Court has taken this very modest statute the Federal Arbitration Act and reinterpreted to give corporations carte blanche to escape private law suits and as I understood your description of the Silicon Valley no-poach case it's sort of like senior executives made these agreements and then the human resource officers were charged with implementing them do you think there's sufficient incentive for the HR officers to come forward as whistleblowers should other incentives be considered like in the false claims act context you have key tam actions with relators who get a bounty is that something that should be considered here it wouldn't hurt to have a whistleblower protection that's for sure I mean I don't know how many people would have been able to identify what's really an antitrust claim as opposed to something else but if people see something that they think is unfair that is inappropriate that their boss is asking them to do I think having broad federal rights to protect people that come forward and present that information yeah I agree with what I was just going to say it's a good point now yeah I agree with what Jean said I think stronger whistleblower protections would be massively valuable but obviously so long as we live in a world of that will employment it's going to be hard for HR people to blow the whistle on the superiors especially people in the C Street level any other question well we're getting pretty close to what I want to start with so I'm not going to ask a final question thank you so much to this wonderful panel I really appreciate you being here and we had a great conversation


Before we get into the video people, I am giving away 11,500 Apex coins every month to being with a chance of winning them, make sure you are subscribed to this channel and have that bell notification button ticked, drop a like on the video and leave a comment down below. More details are in the video description. What is going on guys, welcome back to the channel and I do appreciate you being here. Today I bring you another Apex Legends video and today guys I want to quickly cover the latest animated short for Apex Legends. If you aint seen it check it out on screen now. By the way I added my own audio due to the fact I have not known if the music here was copyrighted just in case you were wondering. So as per usual with all these animated shorts this one was also amazing but the main thing I want to talk about due to the fact I believe I have covered everything else we see within this short in my previous season 2 trailer breakdown is the fact of the person who causes the destruction to the map namely Crypto. Now Crypto is a legend we have seen datamined for many many months and people do believe he will eventually be coming to the game as a playable character. This animated short confirms him and his role. He is responsible for setting up the EMP which destroys the map and causes destruction everywhere and basically causes all the fliers as well as Leviathans to lead on to the map. Now it causes this EMP using a laptop which has been reported to be found all over the current map in Apex Legends respawn our great internet clues of the future to the game. Now Crypto we first saw within the Pathfinder concept art which was released before the game came out and you can see this on screen now you can see this legend in the background. So in season 2 will he be playable that's the question. While his abilities in the past have been datamined we know he exists as a legend but saying that before season 1 landed we had all the details for Watson who she was, her background and her abilities and she is only coming now in season 2. So going off of that logic we might see Crypto in season 3. That makes sense if you ask me. But maybe people respawn my treat us this season that shall introduce 2 new legends to season 2 that would be cool but we will just have to wait and see guys I won't get my hopes up but yeah I just thought I'd do this quick video pointing out a possible future legend in Crypto and our very first actual glimpse of him within an official trailer. But on that note guys we have come to the end of the video if you guys enjoyed it leave a like really does help out and if you are new around to here and this is what you want to see more of be sure to subscribe but thanks as always for stopping by people hopefully you enjoyed the video and hopefully I will see you on that next one.


Hi, my name's Lynette Reese. I'm here at Bowser Electronics, and I'm also here to do an unboxing of the STM32 Nucleo. So it's a pretty simple box here. It's a rather simple package with a single card and a location to go to to get your information about the Nucleo. The STM32 Nucleo is Arduino compatible, and it has some features that are rather thoughtful with regard to the typical annoyances that you might see in real life hardware debugging. When you get one of these boards, you find that you'll need a mini USB cable. That's the B-side that has the larger, but not the largest end to it. And that does not come in the box, so you'll have to get that. So let's do a quick rundown of some of the features. This STM32 Nucleo is really open-source hardware, so stuff like example software and free software libraries, GCC tools are all available, and the STM32 Nucleo is compatible with the same shields as the Arduino Uno Rev3. The STM32 Nucleo can be powered by USB or by external pins that give you 7 to 12 volts DC, and it can go up to 800 milliamps max on that power supply. So all the I-O of the MCU is brought out to these male pins that project from either side of the board, and that is all of the I-O. It comes with a free in-circuit debugger and programmer for the STM32 MCUs, and that's not just those that populate the Nucleo board. So you could buy this board just for the debugger. There's no separate probe then to purchase for these STM32 Nucleos, and you can also use the USB port for debugging. And application-wise, this supports USB mass storage, drag-and-drop programming, and virtual serial communication through the USB port via emulation. There are six analog inputs and 16 digital I-O that go out to the Arduino headers. There's a user-defined, a couple of user-defined LEDs, and a user button, and there's a reset button, and also there's an external reset pin. So let's talk some more about the MCU. The boards include a series of ARM Cortex-M-based MCUs on, like I said, nearly identical platforms. Obviously their Arduino portion is identical, and these other pins on the outside that protrude from both sides, those are also, again, nearly identical. At least the I-O is identical. So that makes these boards quite scalable as you go up the line of Cortex-M ARM-based MCUs. So at the time of release here, with these four different boards running different MCUs, all 32-bit wide-risk cores at clock speeds of 32 MHz, 48 MHz, 72 MHz, and 84 MHz. And in this particular board, the STM-32 F-103 Nucleo is a particular board that I have in my hand right now. That runs at 72 MHz. This is a low-power MCU with sleep-stop and standby modes that can support up to nine communication interfaces. Of course we've got USB, but there's also USART, I-squared-C, SPI, and it can even support CAN. So props to ST Microelectronics for launching a very practical, scalable, accessorizable, and accessible dollar-wise family of boards. The STM-32 Nucleo encourages off-the-beaten-path experimentation. Kudos, ST.


Mr. President, it's a great pleasure to meet you here, sir. My pleasure. We're Mr. President Powell. So nice to know you, indeed. Father Ellis of New York. How do you do, Mr. President? Brother Petler from New Jersey. Brother Blasmire from Maine. How do you do? Very nice to see you. Brother Abrigham from Ohio. How do you do? Press who says hang in there. Brother Gondel from Virginia. Brother Brewer from the District. Nice to see you, sir. Well, I'm going to quit. I know we only have a few days.  Well, thank you very much. I'm very pleased to have that. And I'm sorry that I can't get to your conference in Virginia next week. Well, here, let me sit down. Here we go. A couple of schools that wanted to hear them. I hope they wanted to hear it. But this is, I wonder, is an incident where they have more in common than that. I know, of course, as almost everyone does, about a great volunteer work. In fact, back in my days, as a sports announcer, it was the first time I'd ever learned about the experience of the men who play in the East West game. Oh, yeah. San Francisco, now they visit the children in the hospital the day before the game. I was directed to ask you a question. Were you ever a D. Malay? No. Somebody talked that in California, they were even too poor for me to belong to the boys' country. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. But then the development to the point that they took it over voluntarily and they never had contacted the mothers. Heavenly, these are poor children, but in the vicinity of this church, and Heavenly, the church has certainly a rather upper middle class membership, and not only did they continue, but for the first time they contacted the mothers of these young people they were helping, and got them involved, and the finale, the final curtain of the scenario he wrote, is that this probably is now the most integrated church in America, because as the mothers began working in this, they became interested in the church, and he, as he pointed out, he said integrated in every way, not only racially, but young and old, economically, those with the fur pieces, and those in the house dresses, and so forth, and all gathered together in this church, and it was a very heartwarming thing to read, so maybe with a point of view. Well, wait a minute, there's only five days in February, so I guess next week, I understand a lot of strings here, but it looks like the ceasefire is going to be reaffirmed, the importance of the passage of ceasefire, secondly, I think that Lebanon continues to be the sick ban, at least, I think we've got to, first of all, discover what it is we can. I think the Secretary's asking is to pick a new fresh reading of what the situation is, what's behind the scenes, who's doing what, the preservation of the integrity of the city, but it's still, of course, between the beginning, the objective which we continue to see.


The Sustainable Energy Fund, we actually are a private non-profit organization that actually operates out of Pennsylvania, and we provide financing for any sustainable renewable energy projects in the state of Pennsylvania. And part of our mission, since we're a non-profit, is also to educate the public that she has a sustainable energy future, and that's what EnergyPAP is. We hope the mid-Atlantic region is the biggest sustainable energy conference, and it's actually happening next week. So all renewable energy starts off with hands-on installation training. It's in a nutshell what the Sustainable Energy Fund is. We have a lot of SOAR projects, but one thing that we've actually gotten into recently is the methane gas that energy produced in a biodigester, and that was one of the first in our state that actually was put into existence. It was a test case, so we're a special crowd being the first financier for that. There are, I could say, something as simple as continuing education credits for teachers. It's something that's actually been dropped in the state of Pennsylvania. So we really wanted to actually educate teachers through Act 129, getting their credits. That could actually really help EnergyPAP and students, our next generation. If you're within the mid-Atlantic region, if you want your business, you actually want to have a renewable energy project, and it's about ten million dollars more of the place to actually come, structure it right.  And it has that word.


together. Great to see all this back on social media, Facebook Live and YouTube folks. Let's hop right into it, not just because of my impending tech issues, but Wendy does say good volume. That's great to hear. I did get a new headset a couple days ago. So that eliminated one of my audio, one of my tech issues at least, but fingers crossed, we're good to go here. The VIRU trade at least is up over 11% heading into the market open right now. It was dropping off after eight o'clock. We had this on our pre-market list, one of four stocks on the pre-market watch list that we had. And hey, it was actually a pretty decent one for that matter. It took VIRU at least a little while to get going, but between the USEA trade, the FFIE stock, I know Tide popped and then dropped. But VIRU here ended up making a pretty nice slingshot. I thought it was going to make the slingshot actually before it ended up crashing down to 14. So we ended up seeing some big volume on the bid on this trade just a moment ago prior to 8.30. And that was at 14.23, 14.25, 14.20, like a stack. And it broke through it. But at first, before it really broke lower, it had a tough time and I was calling out right there like, hmm, if it's not going to break any lower there, like, well, maybe it slings back above it and runs. Well, it did break lower, but then we got the pushback up. So Norman had called it out saying, oh, it popped without me. Listen, this thing ended up making a really nice move off of 14. But we know how fast this stock can move just based off of, and not just yesterday, but look at the daily chart. We've been all over the stock over the last year, year and a half. So, not every day are we trading this, but off of specific news or earnings or whatnot. We have great experience with this trade. Myself, Norman, Wendy, a lot of our longtime members here, at least members that have been with us over the last year, year and a half. So with that in mind, VIRU will definitely put back on our watch list to begin. You know, hey, if anyone's in on this trade right now, I would definitely be a little wary of a pullback going into the open or at least just consolidation, lack of momentum at least. But, you know, perhaps afterwards we could see it. Just you want to reset yourself at the opening bell. We never really looked to carry trades into the market open. Never really the smartest idea because there's too much chaos and unpredictability. Like, what if you're up 50 cents on a trade, which might be a lot for you. And right at the opening bell, the thing freaking tanks.  That's what I'm alluding to there. So you could always get back in. It gives you the chance to, like, take the edge off, gives yourself a chance to breathe, relax, and see what happens after the market opens. So right now, definitely, I like this VIRU stock either way. You know, going into the open here. Now, the USCA stock otherwise. Geez. Not every day. There's like a new IPO, any stock let alone, you know, just make this type of run up in pre-market here. You know, we'll see stocks up 50, 70, 100 percent at times. And sometimes we'll make like most of that run here in pre-market. But from head to toe, this thing ended up going from four or three 80 ish all the way up towards near nine. Just now this ended up just shaking upwards to nine or close to then it just pulled back down a small amount.  I was expecting for it to tank then. So it kept going up a little bit more, but even more on this stock than on VIRU.  So, you know, you should definitely look to get out here. The stock is breaking all-time highs, obviously, with it being an IPO from yesterday. So no historical data to work with. Doesn't guarantee it's going to make a move up to 20 by the afternoon folks. So, you know, just watch your levels on this trade. But the U.S.C.G. stock year two I'll definitely just put on our list. I said U.S.C.G. U.S.E.A. My dyslexia. There's a stock U.S.C.G. that we've traded in the past. There we go. Caught myself early on that. Mike says here in the chat board, GameStop, GME to split stock four for one. Yeah, I saw that announcement from a post-market yesterday, right? We'll get to that at the end, actually. Let me write that down just on the side. I don't know if we'll trade it, but just interesting. We'll check it out. So let's go from top to bottom here, folks, just to kind of make do with time here for right now. There's still a few cheapies here on the top of the Gainers list. We'll skip over. Hey, familiar name, IINN. Ended up making a big move yesterday. We had this on our pre-market list. It's like deja vu all over again, right? This thing was like more of a dud after the market opened up, to be honest.   So you know what? I said I was going to expedite time here. Just got Benzinga up right now. And I don't know if I'll do this in the afternoon, but I'll bring my Benzinga up in the afternoon for all of us. So I'll just kind of like recite what happened here. There had to have been a pop or there had to have been news, you know, that came out that led to this pop. Let's take a look. All right. So IINN shares, you know, moving higher after company signs an agreement with GLOMED networks to potentially provide $59 million for deployment of almost 4,000 HYLA blood sensors. So that was like similar news that came out yesterday. There was something to do with these like blood sensors that came out yesterday on the IINN trade. And it looks like they already signed a pretty big agreement, $59 million contract. So nice pop, good reaction afterwards.  I think, let me just take a look. I want to just double check here. $265. $265 is the high of the day across the regular hours yesterday. So that should be a technical level to follow. Pretty interesting that the VWAP is pretty much right there right now in pre-market. So a little food for thought there. IINN, definitely I'll put on our list here too. Looks good. I'm going to keep it moving. Tied. Look at the daily chart here. This thing is like a joke. Like what the hell happened here? Ended up getting halted or something had to have happened to work out halted back on May 19th. Didn't reopen until May 31st. And then just, I don't know what the heck happened here. But you know, this is obviously a day trade type of stock. We ended up calling this out back from the end of last week or even from Friday of last week. And with that, it only dropped off since. But could make for a nice squeeze here this morning. It's up over 20% so far. But it doesn't really look like a great chart here in pre-market. So I'm much more particular about the others so far. I'm actually just going to pass on this for right now. I'm sure it can make a move after 9.30. And if anyone of us calls it out afterwards, I'm sure I'll be interested to a slight level and hopefully a good level. But let's see if there's anything looking a lot better. The ANVS trade here, I mean pop and drop. This thing had a really thin order book in pre-market right alongside. And I was going to click to it right here anyway. The 10 trade. 10 trade had some pretty thin volume, at least in the initial run up, but contrary to the ANVS, this thing holding really well going into the open. My only concern on this is that it's holding so well. Is this a buyout? Oh no, even worse. Even worse folks. Let me just double check. I got to make sure. Might be a good friend, Jim Kramer, giving some thoughts on this stock. All right, so Jim Kramer this morning said, he said he would be careful with 10. He added, I don't have a great call on what will happen with 10. You've got to be kidding me. So pretty much what happened to your folks is that probably the second after Kramer gave those remarks on his show, and if that was from last night, then I could be wrong on the timing, but the news came out or the blurb came out this morning at 8.30. So if he said that much earlier this morning, that means that day traders ended up pumping it up just to spite him because he's always wrong.  I mean, hey, that's the only headline that I have out on the stock this morning at least. That's all I got. So very interesting that Kramer flapped his gums and then ended up getting destroyed on that, right? It's up over 11% so far. That's the only news out on it. It's not a buyout. Looks like flat enough here afterwards to be a buyout, but I like it. Going into the open, we'll see what this could do. We'll see if we can pump this up even more shove it in Kramer's face. All right, let's see what else we got here, folks. The viewer stock, Carol said just crashed, pulled back down unfortunately, but pulled back into the liquidity here.   It actually happened a lot sooner than later. I wasn't expecting this sharp of a drop, but yeah, I mean, we'll see what happens here after the open. You would love to see this really begin to push back up over 1450, hold higher lows from there and make the eventual retest of 15 there. All right, so GameStop, there we go, four for one stock split ended up making a nice pop at least in the after hours last night. For right now, spotty pre-market chart. We're not really going to trade GameStop as much unless if the order book is really liquid, which it never really is. I'm going to pass on GameStop, but maybe, and just maybe AMC could be a sympathy play. I'm not going to put this on our watch list either, but I'm just expressing a thought there, like, hey, if GameStop pops, then maybe I'll be interested in following AMC should that happen. But that's a quick thought. So if I'm going to do that, and if I don't see AMC really correlate with GameStop right away, I'm not going to get stuck holding on to that thought. You got to move on to that pretty quickly because they're not always going to move together. We've seen them move together in the meme days and all of that. The Wall Street bet meme stock days, a little move up on space here, a familiar name just over the years we've traded the stock. I mean, maybe even off its IPO. If I'm not mistaken, back in like 18 or 17, but right now, ended up making a nice push from the after hours last night just to check the news out on this one. Looks like a Virgin Galactic share surge on a partnership with Boeing subsidiary company to build new mother ships or mother ships. Very interesting word to use there. All right. So with that, nice little pop up in the after hours. I like the activity, right? I'll put this on our list. I'll give it a shake. I'll give it a shake here. What else we got here from the gainers side? That might just about do it. I don't really see too many other familiar names. I got Alcoa familiar name, but a little, a little thin probably FCX. Actually, this is a familiar name right now. Check out Freeport McRorean, I believe they're known as. Yeah, nice little move up this morning in pre-market here. I'm not going to keep checking the news, folks. I want to make due with time, but for right now, FCX also looks pretty nice. I'll put this on our watch list as well. Huge, huge end of day print from yesterday. And then from there, I mean, a bit of a gap up early in pre and then from there it ran up afterwards. So nice move. Then BedBet Beyond. That's right. I forgot about BBBY, Bobby J, right? Ended up making a nice pop in after hours yesterday and then ended up flattening out, I mean, this morning in pre-market. Okay, tell you folks a secret. I don't know why Fausta calls it Bobby J. Kind of just say that to Jerkah's leg a little bit there. I don't know why. One day I came back from vacation and it was just Bobby J and just ever since. So that's my joke of the day right there with you guys. But BBBY, we always like to have these little nicknames for stocks. That's a true story there. But BBBY, BedBet, Beyond, nonetheless, a little flat in pre-market, it's up that 5 plus percent. For right now, I'm not going to give this as much of a look. We want to focus on a trend here. Although it popped in the after hours, there's nothing else to it so far. So we'll put this on our side list at least. All right, let's hop on over to loser's list for right now. I don't really see much that's down really big or shortable. This one is ICPT. Ooh, nice little drop-off recently actually from like 15 or even more from like a little gap up early from 18 all the way down to 1350 now. I'll put this on our watch list, pretty thin volume on the order books. So I would wait for that to fill in a lot more. But just in terms of a potential short that you could follow, I'm sure some news came out on this that led to the drop over 11 percent near 12 percent right now in pre-market. Oh, Norman right there. Just wrote that probably a few minutes early, about four or five minutes ago. He wrote that in the chat board. Just checking the chat board again right now, Norman. Appreciate that. All right folks, that's all I got from me. Let me know if you have anything else that's up or down that like five percent or more that you would want to follow going into the market open here. From Patrick K, the IINN trade. I think one of our members from Cyber Group. Yeah, we had some issue with her website early this morning. Patrick, if you want to try re-logging in, you should be good to go now though. This one's ready on our watch list. Looks good. Then the A-R-E-B trade. Oh, this one's pretty nice. Nice squeeze up afterwards. You know, I was going from top to bottom. This thing was breaking out at the time moving on up. So yeah, it looks pretty interesting. All right, so in total we got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight stocks to work with heading into the market open. That's fine by me. That's pretty decent folks. Nice variety here too. We got a couple of more like level one or level twos. FCX won't be like too crazy. The space trade won't be too crazy. It seems going into the open. But then of course we got some of the more volatile ones. Obviously the USEA trade, the VIRU we know is pretty volatile and we'll see what the ICPT short could do. All right, folks, for all of us on social media, Facebook, live, YouTube, I appreciate you sticking with me each and every day, each and every morning. I've got to remind myself you're not doing the afternoon meeting. If you have any questions, feel more than free to send it over to josh at ctutrading.com. If you wanted to join us inside our live trading room, feel more than free to do so by going right down to the link on the blue banner below for Nina and Michael and Carol, Norman, Bobby, Bobby, not Bobby J, but Bobby O, right? We got Bobby, we got Robert, we got Wendy and all of us just live inside the cyber group room. I look forward to talking to you folks coming up at the opening bell. Take care. Come a cyber group member today. Just click the link below and receive all these amazing products and a world of knowledge for just $9. Do it today.


To go veggie is one thing, but to go full on veg tart is just madness. Oh, excuse me, full on vegan. Sorry. All right, guys, welcome back to the channel. If you're new, my name is Bobby. Guys, today I have another newsflash episode for you. It is somewhat of a good news, bad news scenario. The headline is parents furious after nursery announced it was introducing a 100% vegan menu. So the bad news, obviously the nursery is introducing a 100% vegan menu without even asking. Just decided this is the right move for the children, for the environment and for the animals without asking the parents. The good news is, of course, that the parents won't have it. They are furious. They're protesting against it. Let's have a closer look. Parents have blasted the children's nursery after it announced it was introducing a 100% vegan menu without consulting them. Jigsaw Day Nursery in Chester will become one of the first centers in the UK to switch to a totally vegan diet, removing all meat, eggs, fish and dairy products from January next year. So why would we consult the parents? Right? It's not as if the parents are responsible for proper nutrition. No, give the kids away to the nursery. They will be in good hands. They will be taken care of. Let's feed them vegan. Great idea. How about the B12 deficiencies? How about vitamin D? How about vitamin A? How about DHA? EPA? Calcium? How about it? Doesn't matter. So it proceeds. However, moms and dads have hit out at staff at the nursery for making the plant-based swap, claiming the nursery is imposing a lifestyle choice, which discriminates against carnivorous kids. It is mind-blowing to me that we are still living in a world where people do not understand the basic anatomy of the human species. If you look at the human species, the only way to find out what a natural food source is, is to understand where people came from. Once you understand that, you will realize that all the fruits and vegetables, nuts and grains and seeds that vegans want to eat nowadays, wouldn't be available in a wild, natural environment. So the vegans are source science, right? Pro-science. Yes. Okay. If you are so scientifically minded, then you will understand that in an environment where a species evolves, if that is your belief system, there must be a natural food source. So as I said, all the plants that we are eating nowadays are cultivated by us. What would we eat in a natural environment? Hmm, let me think. Of course, it is meat. So by that definition, we are already carnivorous animals. We come from nature. In nature, we have our natural food source, which is meat. So there is no such thing as vegan kids and carnivorous kids. Of course, that is a lifestyle choice nowadays, but that doesn't magically change your anatomy. One mom who has a three-year-old daughter at Jigsaw Curson House Nursery said she was not happy about the decision to remove meat from the menu. Obviously, wishing to remain anonymous, she said, just to enforce it on us without any say, isn't right. They shouldn't be making these decisions on my behalf. Obviously, and it's very, very sad that this woman stays anonymous because probably she's scared of the backlash. We are living in a world where people justify their choices in front of vegans. Who cares?   Don't play into their cards and don't amuse their ideas. If my daughter wants to be a vegan when she's older, then that's fine. No, it's not. But I'll have that conversation with her myself. You should. There's obviously no cheese, which my daughter loves and no meat or the goodness from fish or the goodness of all of those foods. It's such a huge drastic change and I'm not happy about it. Of course, you're not happy about it because your kid will get digestive issues. Even if you nourish your kid at home, it still faces the danger of getting IBS, SIBO or Celiac disease. Those plans are not for human consumption. She was backed up by another parent who also preferred not to be named. Of course not. They said to impose a lifestyle choice on these children before they can make their own mind up is plain wrong. Yes, it is. If anything, it discriminates against those kids who enjoy a diet of meat and fish. Guess what all kids do to ban them from eating meat is outrageous. Yes, it's simply not their decision to make. I like to think I cook healthy and nutritious meals for my children, which include meat and vegetables. You can see Miss Taylor has defended her decision. So this is Miss Taylor. You can already see the outbreaks in her face. Probably a vegan herself. My son has a big appetite as well. I think he'll come home starving. Yes, he will. To go veggie is one thing. But to go full on veg tart is just madness. I excuse me, full on vegan. Sorry, but not everyone is against the move. Others have praised staff for taking a forward thinking approach to childcare. Yeah, of course, just as we see in other nursing homes, right, where the kids can choose if they want to be a boy or a girl, everything goes nowadays. Doesn't matter. Your identification will determine your physiology.  Doesn't matter. Just eat the process gunk. Writing on Facebook, one parent said, it's like saying you don't want your children to be educated in what will save our planet again, more vegan propaganda.  Vegan or not, this is an incredibly healthy sounding menu and I'm thrilling, our son will be eating this kind of food. Healthy sounding. That's all we need. We do not even know what healthy is. That sounds healthy. If anything, it takes the pressure of having to feed him Uber healthy foods at home, because I know he'll have had a wholesome and nutritious meal at the nursery. This is just sad. Those parents nowadays do not understand what proper nutrition is. Guys, I have to tell you, if you found the keto diet, the carnivore diet, the primal paleo diet, you are truly blessed. You have a toolbox that will allow you to feed your kids, your future kids, your families with proper nutrition. This is so valuable in this day and age. People don't understand what nutrition is any longer. And they do believe that this menu is nutritious. Let's have a look. It starts with Hungarian goulash. Hungarian goulash contains meat as far as I know. The last time I checked, chickpeas, butter beans, potatoes, peppers in a rich paprika, tomato stew served with green beans. Hungry, not hungry, hungry, hungry.  Imagine a whole nursery filled with vegan kids that just fart all day long. Good for the CO2 emissions. Dessert, plant-based yogurt and honey sprinkled with flax. At least honey. Honey is not vegan, but at least a little bit of nutrition. Sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds and goji berries. All of that stuff is bird food. Then they continue wraps filled with sweet corn, more beans, rice, satomas, whatever that is, dried fruit and flax seed bread sticks.  Just bread and legumes on top. All of those things are super toxic. All of those things have copious amounts of anti-nutrients. Dish number two is red lentils, banana squash, chickpeas, sweet potato and a mild madras, tomato curry, sauce served with boiled rice. India. Yeah, I give it to them. At least this is an Indian dish. However, obviously not the most nutritious thing that you can eat. Red lentils may contain a little bit of iron. However, that iron is very, very hard to absorb. And on top of that, yet again, lectin containing food, full of anti-nutrients. Dessert, pineapple cake served with plant-based custard. But why? Why don't you just give them pineapple? I'm not anti-fruit. I'm not anti-plants, but eat wholesome.  Then they have sweet potato wedges, which is basically fries with spiced plant-based yogurt dip. Again, yogurt is dairy. Dairy comes with all kinds of nutrition, but of course not the plant-based yogurt. Most of the time, plant-based yogurts are just concoction of xanthan gum and all kinds of fortified vitamins. Super bad. Seasonal fruit selection, which is good. Pepper sticks, whatever that is. And rich tea biscuits. Do I need to say anything about that? Dish number three, American squash casserole. Black bean, banana squash, root vegetables too. I do not know how this is a typical American recipe. Americans in the comment section, let me know. Maybe it's my mistake. Dessert, Sultana and Golgi berry flapjacks. So pancakes filled with sugar. No nutrition. Peter bread strips with chickpea, roasted pepper dip, cucumber and red pepper sticks, thick and orange cake. So now, dear parents, in case you are watching, all of this sounds healthy because you've been brainwashed into believing you need all those fruits and vegetables. This couldn't be further from the truth. All of those vegetables do not contain vitamin A, B12, D3, K2, DHA, EPA and all the bioavailable amino acids. Of course, creatin, carnitin, carnitin, sawn and so forth. People really have to investigate nowadays. Those plant foods do not contain proper nutrition. In order for your kid to maintain such a diet, it needs to be heavily supplemented. I want the parents to get up and protest against this as those two brave parents already did. You cannot let this vegan agenda sweep over the country in the name of false environmentalism. It is a scam. It is a lie and it costs human lives. All right, guys, that's it for this newsflash episode. If you enjoyed it, leave it a thumbs up. If you haven't subscribed already, guys, please do so. And if you want to support the channel, all the links are in the description box below. We have Amazon links for you. You can head over there, buy whatever you might want to buy and it doesn't cost you anything extra. We get a small share that is a fantastic way to support Bobby's perspective. If you want grass-fed beef delivered to your doorstep, butcher boxes for you. And we have CBD links as well. On top of that, guys, consider supporting Bobby's perspective through Subscribestar or Patreon. We have a VIP community there where we have Skype group calls every single week where we can discuss any topic, no matter if it is health, lifestyle or nutrition related. On top of that, by joining you straight away, we receive your comprehensive nutrition guide. It is an e-book that teaches you the basics of nutrition but goes beyond as well and is catering to your personal goals, no matter if you're keto, primal, paleo or even raw. All right, but this is it for today. Thank you very much for your support, guys. And as always, much love and peace.


Hello, I'm Kristin Joy, and this is Your Writes at Work. And our guest today is Mohamed Abderaman, and he's a program manager at Partners in Employment, or PAI. And before he became a program manager, Mohamed was a baggage handler at SeaTech Airport. Welcome, Mohamed. Thank you. Thank you, Kristin, for having me today. Appreciate it. Yeah, no problem. Thank you for meeting with me to talk about workers' rights in Washington state. Can you start by telling us a little bit about your job now at PAI? Yeah, thank you again. I have been with PAI for non-employment since 2017. And I started working as an employment case manager, working with newly arrived refugees and migrant populations by providing tailored assistance in language acquisition, workforce entry, job training in higher wage industries for them to rebuild their lives and also realize their dreams of becoming to America. Our topic today is working conditions. The good or the positive or the bad and the negative. And so before getting your current job, this dream job at Partners in Employment, you were a baggage handler at SeaTech Airport. Can you describe that job a little bit? And what were the conditions like at your old workplace? To be honest with you, the job wasn't easy to say the least. Yeah, it wasn't easy. Basically, we were loading and unloading bags from the plane and making sure our customers received their bags, saved, and on a timely manner. And if I talk about the working condition, first of all, I loved my job and it was the only source of income I had by then. Unfortunately, the conditions was very trouble, was really, really bad. The pay was very low. The job was physically demanding job. Sometimes we might work eight hours without having any break. Also, I can remember the break room was really, really dirty and sometimes I could not even feel like it's inside the break room because it was really dirty. And other unsafe practices, I can remember seeing it during that time was that I used to see Muslim workers, Muslim workers could not have a safe space to pray on their daily prayers, which was to practice their faith, which was their constitutional rights. Because of all these problems with the conditions at your job, you did something that many workers don't do. You took action to improve the working conditions at SeaTec Airport. Can you tell us a little bit about your efforts to create change in your workplace? In ideal condition, everybody wants change. Everybody wants to work in a safe place. But the question was, who's going to speak about it? Who's going to talk about it? When we started the conversation, that was the whole thing. But no one wanted to lose his or her job. Everybody wants to keep his job, her job, pay the bill and support their family. So I personally took the risk. I can remember taking the risk. I started mobilizing my coworkers. I started the conversation. I talked about the challenges we were facing in the workplace. And I can remember also taking pictures of the break room secretly. I can remember also taking pictures of Muslim workers praying in unsafe places, wearing the company's t-shirts.  Because I got connection with BG SoundSage and I sent those pictures to them. And then the word went out, spread it out, and things became... The conversation now became big. And we started talking about the conditions. We started talking about our plight, our problems at workplace. Because the conversation became big and until we joined the union. And we started joining the fight for 15 minimum wage, which was very, very historical, which again eventually passed. Yeah. Amazing story. After participating in the CETEC Airport Workers Campaign, you got a job at PAI helping other immigrant and refugee community members doing jobs with good conditions. How are your working conditions at PAI now? And how are they different from your old job as a bag of handler? Oh, yeah. Completely different. Completely different, to be honest. In all aspects, I feel respected. Right now at my work, I feel valued. I feel listened. And I'm also promoted, you know, based on my performance, whereas my old job, promotions, raise, recognition, wasn't based on any merits. Yeah, to be honest. And I can remember also on my employer, as I said, my old employer retaliated on me, against me. And I was unable to speak about anything.  I can speak about the problems. And then we talk, and then things will get improved. So I have benefits. I have traditions. Last year I was in Kenya, seeing my mom who was sick, you see, and I had one month, full month paid. I just want to say thank you, Mohammed Abderaman, from Partners in Employment for sharing such amazing parts of your own experience in the workplace. What you did to spark or create change for so many workers and the beautiful job that you have now. So thank you so much. You're welcome. Thank you so much. Yeah, and this is the end of our first episode of Your Rights at Work. I hope you tune in next time.


Hi everyone, Sean with jaspyscasebrakes.com here doing 2021 tops museum collection baseball six box half case break pick your team number eight We're all card ship. This is the second half of a case. We started with pick your team number seven Uh, no frame in the first half. So hopefully we see one here Here is our list of customers and respective teams from charles wolf kill in the diamond backs down to alex Wellesakos and the nationals Jonathan Arnaudio last bottom mojo rays marlins Astros Indians Here is our boxes You can see we all have the eight written on them to show that this is going to be for pick your team eight And here is that list In person printed out Good luck everybody. We've been doing these in groups of three boxes at a time Seems to have worked out pretty well Space and time wise. I haven't seen a uh, what's it called booklet yet? I want to see one of those booklets with like the full team or full uh stadium on it I think that thing that's really cool He pulled a Mets one earlier That's cool Who was it?  It was unreal Good luck everybody first three boxes for the break Sammy Sosa for the Cubs and Jonathan Arnaldi and will Myers to 50 for the Padres And josh x-line Jackie Robinson Dodgers david mullell You get a reggie jackson sketch reproduction for the Yankees And josh x-line and dustin may dual relic and auto for the Dodgers david mullell That is 89 out of 271 Mike trout to 99 for the angels josh x-line And tenor hulk rookie auto for the boston redsox 109 out of 280 Red Sox is jason siebert And randy johnson to 150 for the diamond backs charles wolfkill And quad relic for the cubbies chris brian hobby bias wilson conchers and anthony rizzo that is 29 out of 99 Cubs and jonathan arnaldi louise robert to 99 for the white socks joe christian And brice harper two-color relic four out of ten for the fillies And harry steinmetz ted williams for the red socks jason siebert And kyle tucker dual relic and auto that is 19 out of 50 For the houston astros and jonathan arnaldi with last spot mojo alex braggman for the astros jonathan arnaldi And our auto Framed autograph black frame is that a one-on-one cardboard or group cardboard? They'll have it I have a feeling black is a one-of-one black frame Black frame is out of five out of five So not a one-of-one It's out of five alex bomb nice Rookie black frame autograph for the fillies. I don't know what happened at this card. It feels like stamped and Pressed on what's going on there? tops, what are you doing? It's weird but alex bomb black frame autograph for the fillies And harry steinmetz very nice Rookie auto out of five It's a good one jake kronenworth for the padres josh x-line You got a roger maris yankees reproduction sketch For josh x-line and for the dodgers cody bellinger jaclayton pershaugh cory seager and mookie betz to 99 david mullell and the dodgers cory seager for the dodgers david mullell jake kronenworth for the padres josh x-line And kyle seager to 50 for the mariners and dimitri shohei otani for the angels josh x-line christian pashay for the braves randy lou And for the redsox reproduction sketch zander bogarts redsox jason sebert and sisto sanchez rookie auto 88 out of 300 for the marlins jonathan urnaldi last spot mojo bobby doll back to 50 for the redsox jason sebert And michael conforto dual relic and auto for the matt's ryan krespi That is 262 out of 349 And louise robert white socks joe christian And quad relic of dj lamehue to 99 49 out of 99 for the new york yankees And josh x-line We got three boxes left So we pulled the frame. It was a redemption. It's a very nice one. I just wish it was live Uh, let's see if maybe we get another one in here cubby booklet That'd be pretty cool I'd like to see that I pulled kim ryan haze like a base or something in one of like the last case I feel like I pulled an auto of his Earlier oh Maybe I'm just thinking I did We got a booklet the rest of the cards in this pack are all jacked up Not sure if it's because of the booklet You can see the corner Of those two cards or is that one card? I think that's one card The side of that card there See that This whole thing up here Yeah This pack is all types of jacked up There's a booklet that's exciting. This pack's really thick too We get two booklets in one box. Uh, we did not we just got an extra loaded pack Each pack supposed to have How many cards how many cards are in a pack? One two three four and then one five of a thick pack Five of a fifth card is a thick card. This has one two three four five six seven eight nine ten Eleven plus the thick one So we'll start with that one Clayton Kershaw for the Dodgers David Malell Is it just a bunch of base cards? Joey Bart giants we got a rookie David Harrell and mariano Rivera sketch reproduction for the Yankees Josh X-Line and John Carlos Tanton the 35 dual relic Or uh, sorry two-color relic interesting If it was all autos that had been really cool. It was not that I kind of had a feeling it was just going to be all these cards And it was alec bomb for the Phillies harry stein mitz Wow Two out of five ronald a cunha jr bat barrel autograph for the braves and randy lu Randy remember who you were asking how many times i've pulled big rant ronald a cunha jr autographs Yeah, there's one of them. Awesome.  That is really cool. There you go. Well, let's go over here Glaiburd at 150 for the Yankees Josh X-Line And quad relic christian yellich keston here lorenzo kane and devin williams to 25 for the brewers Absolutely, man. Thank you Mike krasinski Shohio tani to 99 Uh, this is remember this is in the pack with the With the booklet so some of these cards are pretty brutal guys Uh, this is tani. You can see the edge right there. You can see the top right there as well It's like pinched So Just heads up When you receive these Unfortunately You don't have to trust me You not not necessary. Obviously this bob gibson. You don't really have to point that one out too too hard bottom corner top corner just but I think this I don't know what this is So this is called the 2021 atelier autographs autograph book card And I think is this the uh, is this the the stadium one? it is That's a good one too Gold ink auto fernando tatis jr That is 18 out of 25 That is super cool looking Gold ink tatis That's a beauty Padres josh x-line Yeah it's a That's a hell of a card right there Listen, I was upset with the way those cards were in that box but If that box is going to produce that akunya bat barrel Auto out of five and this tatis I think you're good Um, obviously there's some weird shit back here. I don't know what the hell's going on with that But hopefully that can just you know come off with a little rub or whatever Overall that looks really nice though beautiful card obviously Don't need to say much more than that. Cool. Let's see what's in the other two boxes I'm glad we did this tonight Christian Yeltsch to 150 for the brewers Mike Krasinski You got an akunya reproduction sketch also going to Randy Lew and the Braves and quad relic Chris Bryant to 25 for the cubbies and Jonathan Arnaldi Mike Schmidt for the Phillies Harry Steinbets Alec Baum. Yeah, we had that Alec Baum in this half case too. Oh damn uh, Harry Steinbeth in the Phillies And Willie Castro dual relic and auto rookie for the tigers Jeffrey Mason That is 322 out of 349 David Ortiz to 50 for the red socks Jason Siebert And hey, Sean Kim rookie auto 141 out of 200 for the Padres Wait non rookie auto. I thought he was rookie this year Why do they not have him tagged as a rookie? Padres Josh X line Tatis for the Padres again, Josh X line And Paul Goldschmidt to 35 two color relic Cardinals Josh X line This is box number six last box guys Anthony Rizzo for the Cubs Jonathan Arnaldi You got Hank For the Braves Randy Lou I saw his wife in Colorado And Shane Bieber auto 6 out of 25 for the Indians Jonathan Arnaldi last spot mojo Nice si young winner there Barry Larkin out of 150 for the Reds Justin Humphrey And Xander Bogarts to 50 for the Red Sox Jason Siebert Hey Sean Kim's last year rookie Why did I thought it was this year Rex? I could have sworn I've been I've been pulling rookie cards of his this year I just don't pay attention I guess Robin yeah for the Brewers Mike Krasinski and Joe Adele for the Angels Josh X line And another Tatis quad relic this time 33 out of 99 Padres Josh X line Randy Arrena for the Rays Jonathan Arnaldi and Joey Gallo Dual relic and Otto for the Rangers that is numbered out of 249 116 out of 249 Rangers and Sean Evans to finish it off There you go guys definitely a nice second half of the case Like I said, I loaded up a new fresh case in Picker teams nine and ten both from the same case And there you go. You can see the black frame Alec bomb redemption that we pulled That is numbered out of five there And that does it that's 2021 tops museum collection baseball six box half case break picker team number eight from jasby's case breaks.com I'm Sean jasby's case breaks.com. Thanks for hanging out. I'll see you next time


The health benefits of Brazil nuts. All right, if you're on a weight loss journey, but love to snack, I have the perfect food that is both energy dense and highly nutritious. It's Brazil nuts, a tree nut native to the Amazon rainforest. So Brazil nuts contain high concentrations of potassium, magnesium, copper and zinc, which are all vital for a long, healthy life. But they are the richest source of selenium. They're loaded with selenium. Now what the heck is selenium? Well, selenium is actually a trace element that's vital for the proper functioning of your body. It's essential for your thyroid and also influences your immune system and cell growth. One little nut contains about 100 micrograms of selenium. You can actually get your daily average of selenium, which is 55 micrograms by eating half of Brazil nut. But most of us for proper functioning of our thyroid recommend 300 micrograms of selenium. So that means three Brazil nuts. Now, the important thing to realize is even though selenium is essential, you actually can get selenium toxicity from too much selenium. Be cautious and don't get carried away with Brazil nuts. Buy yourself some Brazil nuts, they're easy to find and just have yourself three Brazil nuts a day. It's easy to do.  Interestingly enough, most nuts have only about one microgram of selenium. So Brazil nuts are really unique. Now, why worry about your thyroid health and selenium? First of all, most of you know the thyroid is that cute little butterfly-shaped organ in your neck and it secretes thyroid hormones. And it turns out that this gland has the highest selenium content of any organ in our body. So by consuming Brazil nuts, you're actually gonna make sure that your thyroid has enough selenium. But there's other reasons to consume Brazil nuts. Brazil nuts are actually rich in antioxidants. They contain vitamin E, they contain phenols like gallic acid and egalic acid. Egalic acid, you may have heard of before, it's the fatty acid that's present in raspberries and blackberries, raspberries in particular. It's also present somewhat in strawberries, but believe it or not, you can get the same really important polyphenol, egalic acid, in a Brazil nut. Now, the high antioxidant content of these nuts can actually protect the body from oxidative stress. Now, what's oxidative stress? Most of you have heard of it, but oxidative stress is when free radicals and antioxidants that control them are out of balance. And sadly, the oxidative stress theory of aging has a lot of credence in that most of us have far more oxidative stress from unfortunately our Western lifestyles than we have in antioxidants to quell that oxidative stress. So adding a three Brazil nuts to your diet every day will compensate for all the oxidative stress that you're going through. Brazil nuts may actually aid weight loss. How so? What turns out, selenium is also very important for potentiating the effects of insulin being able to sell sugar to your cells. And a little bit of selenium goes a long way to help insulin sell the things you eat. It's also quite a good fat. 36% of the fats in Brazil nuts are polyunsaturated fats that may actually aid in weight loss. They actually keep you full after eating them because they're loaded in fiber. In fact, Brazil nuts have some of the highest fiber content of any of the nuts. That fiber not only gives you a feeling of fullness but as you know that fiber is essential to feed good bacteria.  That study was done in China where they took volunteers and put them on either a seven day or a 14 day water fast. Half the group were given 100 calories a day of non-absorbable prebiotic fiber. In other words, they didn't get 100 calories to eat. The bacteria were given what they wanted to eat. The other group wasn't given the fiber. Lo and behold, the group 14 day water fast who were given 100 calories of prebiotic fiber had absolutely no hunger for 14 days. Why? Well, there's a theory called the gut-centric theory of hunger and that is giving our bacteria what they want to eat is actually what causes or prevents hunger pains.  And many of us realize that's actually the case. You can keep eating and keep eating and never seem satisfied because you've never given your bacteria what they want to eat. They want to eat some Brazil nuts. Three a day, you'll be okay. I think you're going to love this next one. First of all, marbles. If you're passing marbles instead of big giant snakes, you have a problem.


We have strewned across our world as giants until we finally faced our David.  There are those among us that are not cowed by the terrors of this new world ones that are immune to the skirt and are ready to raise arms and take back what is ours. Spare us the poetry, fucknuts. How do we kill it? Leave ammo here! We need to take this opportunity to press our advantage. You know how I feel about Phillips, but he's right about one thing. This is a war. This town and I'll be damned if I let you destroy it. Gotta do something. And you're that somebody? Didn't say I wanted to do it alone, did I?