▲ 138 ▼ Surging Loblaw boycott shows customer anger with grocery giant, says Mount Pearl organizer (www.cbc.ca) submitted 2 years ago by lautan@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca 43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] null@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Who said it was illegal? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kiosade@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Every time this view point is parroted, they either imply or outright state the company will be sued/break the law because they didn’t do their best to make money. Notice how they used words like “need”, “swearing an oath”, etc. I’ve seen it time and time again on here and on Reddit, it’s tiresome at this point. The companies are just greedy, and know they can pretty much get away with stuff like this, end of story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] null@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago* The shareholders will oust the CEO who doesn't meet that need. No legal action required. Maybe other people inaccurately say it is a law, but this is not an example of that. Especially since you said "FACTUALLY INCORRECT". No, no incorrect facts were stated. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kiosade@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Every time this view point is parroted, they either imply or outright state the company will be sued/break the law because they didn’t do their best to make money. Notice how they used words like “need”, “swearing an oath”, etc. I’ve seen it time and time again on here and on Reddit, it’s tiresome at this point. The companies are just greedy, and know they can pretty much get away with stuff like this, end of story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] null@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago* The shareholders will oust the CEO who doesn't meet that need. No legal action required. Maybe other people inaccurately say it is a law, but this is not an example of that. Especially since you said "FACTUALLY INCORRECT". No, no incorrect facts were stated. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] null@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago* The shareholders will oust the CEO who doesn't meet that need. No legal action required. Maybe other people inaccurately say it is a law, but this is not an example of that. Especially since you said "FACTUALLY INCORRECT". No, no incorrect facts were stated. permalink fedilink source parent