MAC Nasty Gal Collection (Dec 4, 2014)

[OctoberViolet]

I wish we could see what the lippies look like and how they swatch already. My impatience is killing me.

 

[MACina]

I wish we could see what the lippies look like and how they swatch already. My impatience is killing me.

....same here!

 

[Mizani]

I just want to see a swatch of the burgundy now.

 

[NaniLovesMAC]

Skipping but I will be on the look out to see all your pretty faces and swatches.

 

[erine1881]

Plus backups! Lol

Yyyyyup!

 

[birgit84]

Do we know when the collection will be online? Tomorrow? Or next thursday?

 

[NaomiH]

Do we know when the collection will be online? Tomorrow? Or next thursday?

The 16th

 

[thefbomb]

[COLOR=6633FF]I wish we could see what the lippies look like and how they swatch already. My impatience is killing me.[/COLOR]

Right?! *tumbleweed passes*

 

[nikkideevah]

let the stalking begin... well next week lol

 

[NaomiH]

Looks like this now:

I'll post the site swatches as soon as they're up.

As of today, it still looks exactly like this.

 

[Mizani]

Well, it is more than a week out. Is that normal?

And what does the Kinky page look like? The link I got yesterday was blank.

 

[Vineetha]

As of today, it still looks exactly like this.

 

[Vineetha]

Well, it is more than a week out. Is that normal?

And what does the Kinky page look like? The link I got yesterday was blank.

The link page is still blank although the e site has the swatch pics I believe!

 

[Mizani]

The link page is still blank although the e site has the swatch pics I believe!

Okay, THAT'S the page I was looking for/wondering about. The e site.

 

[NaomiH]

The link page is still blank although the  e site has the swatch pics I believe!

Yeppers!

 

[NaomiH]

Well, it is more than a week out.  Is that normal? And what does the Kinky page look like?  The link I got yesterday was blank.

It'll probably stay blank on the site until they add it to the site map on the non e-site which if it does launch on time will probably be later tonight or tomorrow morning. Then it should update there and show the swatches with "coming soon".

 

[lilinah]

Are we going to boycott UPS? No more black boxes? And UPS isn't hurting for money...

Not sure where you're going with this question. Are you implying that because people don't boycott UPS, they shouldn't boycott Nasty Girl if they choose? This is even assuming that everyone knew this information to start with. I don't see the point of your question.

My point was people are upset about Nasty Gal laying off a pregnant employee when they are having financial trouble, and she lost her health insurance.

UPS is not having financial trouble and they refused to accommodate a pregnant employee who was willing to work, laid her off, and she lost her health insurance.

I am only adding information. People get to pick and chose who and what they are upset about and/or willing to boycott.

 

[DarylandCarole]

 us Brits should consider ourselves lucky over the amount of maternity leave we're entitled.

Exceedingly lucky, its very difficult to be a woman in a position without power. A lot of the examples you mentioned are essentially what goes through a company's mind when they even think of hiring a woman. The assumption she'll become a money and benefits suck (for companies already making millions) so why bother giving her a lucrative position, why bother promoting her, why bother making her a public face for the company?  Its very sad. Women basically have to deny their own desires for a child and pretend to be unfeeling robots so that they can get the same opportunities and positions freely given to men.  I wish those ladies luck, I don't know if they have any kind of lawsuit against NastyGal but it wouldn't be the first time a company head grinned and pretended everything was awesome while the lowly employees suffered. 

I used to work for a law firm in California that specialized in labor and employment law. My firm only represented management, which is the norm for larger law firms. Individuals tend to only get representation from very small firms or single lawyers. Sadly most of the time they don't gave the resources to match the larger firms, so the employee is at a disadvantage. The one thing in their favor is that most companies don't want the bad publicity, so they settle out of court. In this case, California is an "at will" employment state, which means you can quit a job at any time, just like an employer can fire you at any time, for (almost) any reason. The women that were pregnant would have to prove that they were "wrongfully terminated", that they were discriminated against. Most companies know how to find a legit reason to fire someone, even if their true reason isn't legit. In other words, the companies usually win.

 

[itskathleeeen]

This collection isn't appealing me :/

 

[Spectacular]

In this case, California is an "at will" employment state, which means you can quit a job at any time, just like an employer can fire you at any time, for (almost) any reason. The women that were pregnant would have to prove that they were "wrongfully terminated", that they were discriminated against. Most companies know how to find a legit reason to fire someone, even if their true reason isn't legit. In other words, the companies usually win.

Thanks for the information, you're right that companies usually just want the bad press to disappear so they pay people off. But if Walmart is any indication some companies don't give a hootenanny about the bad press so long as money is still flowing at the top. I'd like to hope the employees are doing a little better off than some minimum wage employees.