Right, because when a corporation acts in a sociopathic manner to maximize shareholder profits, that's perfectly fine, but if a union does it, no that's awful and we need to get rid of them.

Right, because when a corporation acts in a sociopathic manner to maximize shareholder profits, that's perfectly fine, but if a union does it, no that's awful and we need to get rid of them.

Xeq,

seriously? Their sign is one step away from Libel. They are bringing harm upon the hotel, and this is okay with you because it IS a union doing it?

Someone tell me why the argument "But they do it..." is at all acceptable to a thinking being.

Libel? Really? There's a disclaimer right on the thing. Proclaiming something misleading then having a fine-print disclaimer is pretty much Advertising 101. Everyone does this.

Libel? Really? There's a disclaimer right on the thing. Proclaiming something misleading then having a fine-print disclaimer is pretty much Advertising 101. Everyone does this.e.

There were no customer complaints about sleeping with bedbugs.

Libel? Really? There's a disclaimer right on the thing. Proclaiming something misleading then having a fine-print disclaimer is pretty much Advertising 101. Everyone does this.

There's a gas station near here. Their convenience store sells a particular cup of coffee always for ten cents less than the price of gas. Then on the sign outside they have the price of this coffee displayed on the sign in giant digital letters with the fact that it's actually the price of a coffee, not gas, written under it in extremely tiny type that's a similar shade of green as the background of the sign. Given the current price of gas, I imagine virtually no one ever buys this coffee, nor do they expect anyone to. They do this so people will pull into their gas station instead of any of the others, then not want to go to a different gas station to save ten cents when they figure it out. I suppose the other gas stations should demand that all their competitors who use this tactic should be shut down? Maybe sue for false advertising? Please.

Hey, I'm not the one being the hypocrite here. I completely expect corporations to act like sociopaths. It never fails to amuse me how conservatives give corporate America a free pass on this while expecting unions to hold to the highest ethical standards, while liberals tend to do the exact opposite.

Except, the disclaimer is about the *pictures* of the bedbugs.

Therefore it is not simply "Advertising" and much closer to actual libel.

You'll have to do better than these mythical conservatives and liberals you always use for examples.

There are regulations specifically targeting corporations that "act like sociopaths", there are laws specifically protecting unions even when they "act like sociopaths".

Why is it always you who brings up something less than admirable "the other side" does as if it makes it ok for another entity to act similarly? What purpose does it serve? Weren't you ever taught that "two wrongs don't make a right"? Why do you think we haven't taken that to heart, even if you haven't?

Why is it always you who brings up something less than admirable "the other side" does as if it makes it ok for another entity to act similarly? What purpose does it serve? Weren't you ever taught that "two wrongs don't make a right"? Why do you think we haven't taken that to heart, even if you haven't?

Where are those shareholder profits held? Who owns them?

a.
defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b.
the act or crime of publishing it.
c.
a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
2.
anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[1]
In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false,[2][not specific enough to verify] and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.[3] Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[4][not verified in body]
False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[5] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.[5]
In most civil law jurisdictions, defamation is dealt with as a crime rather than a tort.[6]
A person who destroys another's reputation may be referred to as a famacide, defamer, or slanderer. The Latin phrase famosus libellus means a libelous writing.

Sorry, I'm not going to sit through 25+ minutes of an Evangelist searching for your point. Care to give it to us?

Why is it always you who brings up something less than admirable "the other side" does as if it makes it ok for another entity to act similarly? What purpose does it serve? Weren't you ever taught that "two wrongs don't make a right"? Why do you think we haven't taken that to heart, even if you haven't?

Right, because when a corporation acts in a sociopathic manner to maximize shareholder profits, that's perfectly fine, but if a union does it, no that's awful and we need to get rid of them.

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[1]
In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false,[2][not specific enough to verify] and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.[3] Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[4][not verified in body]
False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[5] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.[5]
In most civil law jurisdictions, defamation is dealt with as a crime rather than a tort.[6]
A person who destroys another's reputation may be referred to as a famacide, defamer, or slanderer. The Latin phrase famosus libellus means a libelous writing.

Where are those shareholder profits held? Who owns them?I ask again.

Uh, the shareholders get the profits, usually in the form of dividends. I'm not sure what your point is.

Some shares pay dividends, not all. Most investment portfolios don't generate current income.

But more importantly, who are these mythical shareholders you speak of?

You're going to have to tell me what your point is. The people who own shares of the company expect the company to make as much profit as possible by any means necessary, because they enrich themselves when the company does so.