Nuppera-bō Joshi ga Satoshite Kureru - Vol. 1 Ch. 2 - A Nuppera-bō Girl Giving Advice

[MangaDex]

 

[Hitspark]

In what way? Please, explain how I as a customer either visiting normally and leaving or refusing to visit and having no contact with them, constitute "power harassment" and "Black Company Culture"


Sass aside, this feels like an unfinished thought if not an outright leap in logic.

 

[EchoGirl]

Cute (monster) girl slice of life/advice/therapy? 8D LOL well hopefully there'll be lots of cute designs

In what way? Please, explain how I as a customer either visiting normally and leaving or refusing to visit and having no contact with them, constitute "power harassment" and "Black Company Culture"


Sass aside, this feels like an unfinished thought if not an outright leap in logic.

How hilarious would it be if it's like "i saw a manga on twitter that convinced me to quit my job"

 

[Hitspark]

Cute (monster) girl slice of life/advice/therapy? 8D LOL well hopefully there'll be lots of cute designs


How hilarious would it be if it's like "i saw a manga on twitter that convinced me to quit my job"

I would break down, my every breath would be a chortled wheeze.

 

[Oured]

In what way? Please, explain how I as a customer either visiting normally and leaving or refusing to visit and having no contact with them, constitute "power harassment" and "Black Company Culture"


Sass aside, this feels like an unfinished thought if not an outright leap in logic.

She's likely referring to rude customers who treat supermarket staff like slaves or just inconvenience them for the hell of it.

 

[Hitspark]

She's likely referring to rude customers who treat supermarket staff like slaves or just inconvenience them for the hell of it.

Black Company culture typically refers to an office environment where the company has the power to fight for the higher ranking members against the lower ones. Supermarkets don't normally have the ability to withhold such a structure since Supermarket jobs are dime a dozen, that isn't to say you can't have a bad boss and job but that the reference "Black Company" is often very specific. So it's unlikely they're talking about Supermarket staff. I think potentially you could refer this to customer service, but it needs to specify because not all customer service jobs suck.

 

[That-Guy]

I feel no guilt since I treat them like proper human beings with emotions and feelings. I'm assuming she speaks of those who are harassing the staff there.

 

[LSpark]

No no no lol, what a dumb "eheh I'm so smart" shower thought
Companies will gladly put lead in your toothpaste if it was profitable and could get away with it, "black" or not

 

[NARESH4444]

Black Company culture typically refers to an office environment where the company has the power to fight for the higher ranking members against the lower ones. Supermarkets don't normally have the ability to withhold such a structure since Supermarket jobs are dime a dozen, that isn't to say you can't have a bad boss and job but that the reference "Black Company" is often very specific. So it's unlikely they're talking about Supermarket staff. I think potentially you could refer this to customer service, but it needs to specify because not all customer service jobs suck.

I have no idea how you got to that definition.

Black Company culture is very simply put crappy work environments.

In specific terms you can find all the time,crappy work enviornments in offices where the higher ups don't actually give a damn if the grunts keel over and die doing extra unpaid overtime that exceeds the legal limit with back to back all nighters for work they forced upon said grunts using excessive rudeness,berating,and/or any other form of harsh techniques just to hit the deadline.

Combine that with the,now thankfully but slowly being fixed,Japanese work culture where quitting is hardly an option since it's even harder to get a new job and they expect nonsensical loyalty from you,and you can get office workers who show up mad to a Lawson and give Hell to the part timer at the cash register.

Also,thank you for telling us that you have not worked with customers at all without explicitly mentioning that you've never worked with customers at all,more so if you live in the US,the UK,or Canada.

 

[Aiea-]

In what way? Please, explain how I as a customer either visiting normally and leaving or refusing to visit and having no contact with them, constitute "power harassment" and "Black Company Culture"


Sass aside, this feels like an unfinished thought if not an outright leap in logic.

I think there are various ways the normal, average modern person are contributing to the exploitative culture :

1. Ordering same day delivery so that Amazon workers had to work throughout the night packaging boxes
2. Contacting customer support at night or on weekends
3. Using public transportation at night or on weekends
4. Buying modern electronics designed by an overworked Korean/Japanese salarymen, manufactured by underpaid Chinese workers, using resources mined by exploiting malnourished Congo children.
5. Consuming any form of entertainment. Sports (Middle Eastern slave labor), Animated stories (super overworked artists), Music (K-Pop exploitation, J-Idols exploitation), Beauty and Fashion (child models), etc

All that aside from the obvious Karens and other non-normal occurrences that are unfortunately becoming more and more common.

 

[Hitspark]

I have no idea how you got to that definition.

Literally Wikipedia

This was a 5 second google search, my dude. Took 5 seconds to find validity in my statement. 5 seconds I guess you decided not to partake in. So yes, you certainly COULD classify any bad environment as a "Black Company" but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of it's use is related to office work.



While I'm at it, here's this other website

And another

And honestly I could keep going but I think I've proven my point. Saying it's mostly related to office culture isn't heretical. But the ability to search for information is something your capable of too, so enjoy your day, bud.

 

[Hitspark]

I think there are various ways the normal, average modern person are contributing to the exploitative culture :

1. Ordering same day delivery so that Amazon workers had to work throughout the night packaging boxes
2. Contacting customer support at night or on weekends
3. Using public transportation at night or on weekends
4. Buying modern electronics designed by an overworked Korean/Japanese salarymen, manufactured by underpaid Chinese workers, using resources mined by exploiting malnourished Congo children.
5. Consuming any form of entertainment. Sports (Middle Eastern slave labor), Animated stories (super overworked artists), Music (K-Pop exploitation, J-Idols exploitation), Beauty and Fashion (child models), etc

All that aside from the obvious Karens and other non-normal occurrences that are unfortunately becoming more and more common.

These are very true but I don't think you could that constitute power harassment or such since the customer isn't actively aware of most these things. Power Harassment and Black Company culture are usually pretty intentional by the perpetrators. There's no way for me to know immediately if the Bike I purchased came from a sweatshop or a typical factory, even if I did know there really isn't much I can do as a lone person. Though I guess you could make the argument that if you found out and continued, then you could be considered partaking in it. So maybe?

 

[NARESH4444]

Literally Wikipedia

This was a 5 second google search, my dude. Took 5 seconds to find validity in my statement. 5 seconds I guess you decided not to partake in. So yes, you certainly COULD classify any bad environment as a "Black Company" but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of it's use is related to office work.



While I'm at it, here's this other website

And another

And honestly I could keep going but I think I've proven my point. Saying it's mostly related to office culture isn't heretical. But the ability to search for information is something your capable of too, so enjoy your day, bud.

You literally typed "Black Company culture typically refers to an office environment where the company has the power to fight for the higher ranking members against the lower ones."

Yes,the office part is spot on,but NONE of the examples you've shown mention "the power to fight for the higher ranking members against the lower ones".

What the bloody Hell is that vague definition even supposed to mean?

That sounds like the company is either an entity that supports upper management positions in their life and death struggle Mortal Kombat against the regular employees or a law firm that that sues grunts on the behalf of upper management in any company.

All that and not a single mention if the workplace was crappy or not,your own three examples state clearly that the work environments are crappy whilst yours doesn't,and you're calling me out for not researching?

You didn't even use your own research!

Even your part afterwards makes no sense,"Supermarkets don't normally have the ability to withhold such a structure since Supermarket jobs are dime a dozen",you make it sound like supermarkets don't have the ability stop black companies because they're common jobs,instead of saying that supermarkets can't be black companies due to them being common jobs...which is also still wrong since any job can be for a black company and how common that job is doesn't prevent that at all.

But since the vast majority of these happen in white collar jobs,that's where it gets depicted the most.

The ability to read your own sentences should be normal for you,but you're not the first moron who didn't read what they typed.

 

[Hitspark]

You literally typed "Black Company culture typically refers to an office environment where the company has the power to fight for the higher ranking members against the lower ones."

Yes,the office part is spot on,but NONE of the examples you've shown mention "the power to fight for the higher ranking members against the lower ones".

Literally. Wikipedia.(...Again.)

Honestly I could stop there because this basically outright shows you never did basic research, even after being told to research, and don't honestly know WHAT a Black Company is or how it works. But I'm bored so I'm gonna go through your post and make some jokes at your expense.

What the bloody Hell is that vague definition even supposed to mean?

It's called "Power Harassment"? It's not vague at all, actually. It's also right there in the article you didn't bother to read. I mean, even if you never read it, the idea of Power Harassment should be obvious to anyone who has ever worked a corporate job. Has that phrase never crossed your ears while you're here trying to tell me what a Black Company is?

That sounds like the company is either an entity that supports upper management positions in their life and death struggle Mortal Kombat against the regular employees or a law firm that that sues grunts on the behalf of upper management in any company.

Sounds like you don't know what a Black Company is, to be honest...Maybe research it a bit? I know this guy, right? He can really help you out. His name is Google, really knowledgeable on this stuff. Ask him anything and it only takes him a few seconds to get some answers! He works wonders, I tell ya!

All that and not a single mention if the workplace was crappy or not,your own three examples state clearly that the work environments are crappy whilst yours doesn't,and you're calling me out for not researching?

Ah, black mail, power harassment, forced overtime without pay, career threats and such don't constitute crappy work environments? Dang, man. What was I thinking?

Edit: I also sincerely hope that you don't mean "You didn't describe every negative facet in your post and thus your work doesn't apply" because that would be incredibly childish thinking and I sincerely, dearly, hope you're not implying that at all.

You didn't even use your own research!

Listen bro, I aint ya mirror.

Even your part afterwards makes no sense,"Supermarkets don't normally have the ability to withhold such a structure since Supermarket jobs are dime a dozen",you make it sound like supermarkets don't have the ability stop black companies because they're common jobs,instead of saying that supermarkets can't be black companies due to them being common jobs...which is also still wrong since any job can be for a black company and how common that job is doesn't prevent that at all.

I said they typically don't have that power because Supermarket jobs don't give a crap who they hire lol. Supermarket jobs in Japan are some of the easiest jobs to get. Just don't be late, don't scream at the customers, don't steal from the store and be timely and that's it. Corporations on the other hand have the power to ruin your total industry reputation and get you black listed from your career. Which one sounds like a bigger problem?

But since the vast majority of these happen in white collar jobs,that's where it gets depicted the most.

The ability to read your own sentences should be normal for you,but you're not the first moron who didn't read what they typed.

Dang man. You really got me, I'm so wounded. Boohoo..boohoohooo!


Anyway, yeah you're only digging yourself deeper. Nothing in my statements of the descriptions is off point. You can continue your ego fueled rant, but that's only going to make you look worse. Take your lumps and be done with it.

 

[NARESH4444]

Literally. Wikipedia.(...Again.)

Honestly I could stop there because this basically outright shows you never did basic research, even after being told to research, and don't honestly know WHAT a Black Company is or how it works. But I'm bored so I'm gonna go through your post and make some jokes at your expense.

It's called "Power Harassment"? It's not vague at all, actually. It's also right there in the article you didn't bother to read. I mean, even if you never read it, the idea of Power Harassment should be obvious to anyone who has ever worked a corporate job. Has that phrase never crossed your ears while you're here trying to tell me what a Black Company is?


Sounds like you don't know what a Black Company is, to be honest...Maybe research it a bit? I know this guy, right? He can really help you out. His name is Google, really knowledgeable on this stuff. Ask him anything and it only takes him a few seconds to get some answers! He works wonders, I tell ya!


Ah, black mail, power harassment, forced overtime without pay, career threats and such don't constitute crappy work environments? Dang, man. What was I thinking?

Edit: I also sincerely hope that you don't mean "You didn't describe every negative facet in your post and thus your work doesn't apply" because that would be incredibly childish thinking and I sincerely, dearly, hope you're not implying that at all.




Listen bro, I aint ya mirror.

I said they typically don't have that power because Supermarket jobs don't give a crap who they hire lol. Supermarket jobs in Japan are some of the easiest jobs to get. Just don't be late, don't scream at the customers, don't steal from the store and be timely and that's it. Corporations on the other hand have the power to ruin your total industry reputation and get you black listed from your career. Which one sounds like a bigger problem?



Dang man. You really got me, I'm so wounded. Boohoo..boohoohooo!


Anyway, yeah you're only digging yourself deeper. Nothing in my statements of the descriptions is off point. You can continue your ego fueled rant, but that's only going to make you look worse. Take your lumps and be done with it.

Again,where the Hell does the exact sentence "Black Company culture typically refers to an office environment where the company has the power to fight for the higher ranking members against the lower ones." come from?,because that is clearly not in the image you're providing.

Power harrasment is the abuse of power that the higher ups have to harrass the lower ranking employees,your sentence does not convey that meaning at all.

Your sentence conveys that the culture of a black company is to provide the fighting power needed by higher ups to go against their lower counterparts,like it's providing mercernaries to these upper management staff to wage open field warfare on their behalf against their mortal enemy,the average employee.

If you still don't get it,"X has the power to fight for Y against Z" means that X has the means,whatever they may be,to fight against the forces of Z on behalf of Y.

The actual proper way to convey power harrasment is "Black Company culture typically refers to a working environment where the higher ranking members abuse their authority over the lower ones".

Do you even understand sentence structure?

Turns out you bloody can't,you are straight up illiterate.

As established,no,your original sentence not once conveyed an even remotely accurate description of a Black Company,and as I literally typed,your three images said as much but not your original sentence.

No,you don't have to list every wrong aspect,but you didn't even type out the correct meaning in the first place despite showing it off so proudly and claiming I needed to do the research you didn't even use.

"Supermarkets don't normally have the ability to withhold such a structure since Supermarket jobs are dime a dozen" and "I said they typically don't have that power because Supermarket jobs don't give a crap who they hire lol." are not the same.

I think this stems from you not even knowing the meaning of "withhold",which is to refuse or hold back.

Your original sentence implies that supermarkets do not have the ability to refuse the structure of Black Companies because there are too many supermarkets.

This new sentence of yours is what you shoud've said first,not that it's correct since again,any job can be for a black company,even if they don't care who you are when they hire you,because by end of the day,a Black Company is simply a crappy work environment.

You being a good worker is also irrelevant to a job environment being that of a Black Company,they treat you all badly and might even treat you worse since you're more wiling.

Your black list example is putting the cart before the horse,because all Japanese companies can use that system even if they're good places to work at,that by itself is not an inherrent issue of Black Companies.

In short,the hole being dug is your own since your can't even read your own sentences as you type them out to even see if they match with the meaning you wish to convey clearly that is shown in the images you provide.

You are wildly off point with your two original sentences,and your follow ups show just how you could've done it so much better.

Yet you still think we're talking about how I don't understand the very obvious nature of Black Companies which is depicted so many times in so much media and claim I never did research...which wouldn't matter since you clearly didn't use them yourself.

But at least you look happy as your pile yourself under your own crap.

 

[Hitspark]

Again,where the Hell does the exact sentence "Black Company culture typically refers to an office environment where the company has the power to fight for the higher ranking members against the lower ones." come from?,because that is clearly not in the image you're providing.

Yeah it kinda is.

Power harrasment is the abuse of power that the higher ups have to harrass the lower ranking employees,your sentence does not convey that meaning at all.

Yeah...it does.

Your sentence conveys that the culture of a black company is to provide the fighting power needed by higher ups to go against their lower counterparts,like it's providing mercernaries to these upper management staff to wage open field warfare on their behalf against their mortal enemy,the average employee.

No, it really doesn't. You are the only person who would take the basic activities of Power Harassment and think of some kind of war machine.

If you still don't get it,"X has the power to fight for Y against Z" means that X has the means,whatever they may be,to fight against the forces of Z on behalf of Y.

Again, this just comes down to you not understanding what abuse of power looks like. That description is fine.

The actual proper way to convey power harrasment is "Black Company culture typically refers to a working environment where the higher ranking members abuse their authority over the lower ones".

That's one way you could say it, sure. But you're the only one who came out of a description of a clearly antagonistic relationship and thought something else. That's your reading comprehension at work there, bud.

Do you even understand sentence structure?

Turns out you bloody can't,you are straight up illiterate.

You're really grasping at straws for this ego win, huh?

As established,no,your original sentence not once conveyed an even remotely accurate description of a Black Company,and as I literally typed,your three images said as much but not your original sentence.

It's a completely accurate. You're probably a kid who hasn't worked a proper corporate job so it just comes off that way to you.

No,you don't have to list every wrong aspect,but you didn't even type out the correct meaning in the first place despite showing it off so proudly and claiming I needed to do the research you didn't even use.

Again, this is your reading comprehension being problematic. I'm sorry that you have problems understanding things like this.

"Supermarkets don't normally have the ability to withhold such a structure since Supermarket jobs are dime a dozen" and "I said they typically don't have that power because Supermarket jobs don't give a crap who they hire lol." are not the same.

They are exactly the same? You're here talking about reading comprehension but here you are trying to act like a sentence and the paraphrase aren't conveying the same information? Again, that's your reading comprehension.

I think this stems from you not even knowing the meaning of "withhold",which is to refuse or hold back.

I know the meaning well and I think it works fine.

Your original sentence implies that supermarkets do not have the ability to refuse the structure of Black Companies because there are too many supermarkets.

No it implies that the supermarket's are abundant so black company structures don't work well with them.

This new sentence of yours is what you shoud've said first,not that it's correct since again,any job can be for a black company,even if they don't care who you are when they hire you,because by end of the day,a Black Company is simply a crappy work environment.

You being a good worker is also irrelevant to a job environment being that of a Black Company,they treat you all badly and might even treat you worse since you're more wiling.

Your black list example is putting the cart before the horse,because all Japanese companies can use that system even if they're good places to work at,that by itself is not an inherrent issue of Black Companies.

In short,the hole being dug is your own since your can't even read your own sentences as you type them out to even see if they match with the meaning you wish to convey clearly that is shown in the images you provide.

You are wildly off point with your two original sentences,and your follow ups show just how you could've done it so much better.

Yet you still think we're talking about how I don't understand the very obvious nature of Black Companies which is depicted so many times in so much media and claim I never did research...which wouldn't matter since you clearly didn't use them yourself.

But at least you look happy as your pile yourself under your own crap.

This all essentially boils down to the same thing so I'll just reply to it as a whole. Your attempt at pedantry doesn't work on me, pedantry has never worked on me and so I'm just gonna give you an "Anti-pedantry" shpeal and go listen to "Starlight" by Supermen Lovers (it's quite a good song, you should listen to it. Seriously). ahem

I, and most functioning adults, understand that sentence context is a thing. I believe my usage was fine. Technically correct? Maybe not, but it got the point across and that was the intent. I'm fortunate enough to know English is a very malleable language (much to your chagrin I'm sure) and can have fun with it like that, unashamed. In fact, "Chaired" and "Tabled" weren't words until Shakespeare started adding verbs to things. That man single-handedly invented over a thousand words and usages currently used in english every day. For example "Elbow" as a description of an action was his doing. Why? Because the point of english is to convey information. The words used aren't as relevant as you might like to think and we have several hundred years of language development to prove that as well as some modern day examples. "Five items or less" and "Five items or fewer" technically don't mean the same thing and "Five items or less" is technically incorrect but no one can say they don't understand their meaning from the context of their usage. I'm also certain they don't send you into a fizzy tizzy when you see them.

You trying to act like a english teacher and say "NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND YOU!" when that clearly isn't the case...is cope plain and simple. Even if someone disagrees with my usage, their ability to understand basic sentence context would be enough to make them understand what's being said. Your pedantry and nitpicking is quite honestly the most shallow form of critique or rebuttal you can give and quite honestly it just looks like you're trying to argue your way out of looking silly for picking a fight on a topic you seem know little about.

 

[NARESH4444]

Yeah it kinda is.


Yeah...it does.


No, it really doesn't. You are the only person who would take the basic activities of Power Harassment and think of some kind of war machine.


Again, this just comes down to you not understanding what abuse of power looks like. That description is fine.



That's one way you could say it, sure. But you're the only one who came out of a description of a clearly antagonistic relationship and thought something else. That's your reading comprehension at work there, bud.

You're really grasping at straws for this ego win, huh?


It's a completely accurate. You're probably a kid who hasn't worked a proper corporate job so it just comes off that way to you.




Again, this is your reading comprehension being problematic. I'm sorry that you have problems understanding things like this.


They are exactly the same? You're here talking about reading comprehension but here you are trying to act like a sentence and the paraphrase aren't conveying the same information? Again, that's your reading comprehension.



I know the meaning well and I think it works fine.


No it implies that the supermarket's are abundant so black company structures don't work well with them.


This all essentially boils down to the same thing so I'll just reply to it as a whole. Your attempt at pedantry doesn't work on me, pedantry has never worked on me and so I'm just gonna give you an "Anti-pedantry" shpeal and go listen to "Starlight" by Supermen Lovers (it's quite a good song, you should listen to it. Seriously). ahem

I, and most functioning adults, understand that sentence context is a thing. I believe my usage was fine. Technically correct? Maybe not, but it got the point across and that was the intent. I'm fortunate enough to know English is a very malleable language (much to your chagrin I'm sure) and can have fun with it like that, unashamed. In fact, "Chaired" and "Tabled" weren't words until Shakespeare started adding verbs to things. That man single-handedly invented over a thousand words and usages currently used in english every day. For example "Elbow" as a description of an action was his doing. Why? Because the point of english is to convey information. The words used aren't as relevant as you might like to think and we have several hundred years of language development to prove that as well as some modern day examples. "Five items or less" and "Five items or fewer" technically don't mean the same thing and "Five items or less" is technically incorrect but no one can say they don't understand their meaning from the context of their usage. I'm also certain they don't send you into a fizzy tizzy when you see them.

You trying to act like a english teacher and say "NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND YOU!" when that clearly isn't the case...is cope plain and simple. Even if someone disagrees with my usage, their ability to understand basic sentence context would be enough to make them understand what's being said. Your pedantry and nitpicking is quite honestly the most shallow form of critique or rebuttal you can give and quite honestly it just looks like you're trying to argue your way out of looking silly for picking a fight on a topic you seem know little about.

Your usage was terrible,I have no idea what marlarky you're trying to pull,but "Black Company culture typically refers to an office environment where the company has the power to fight for the higher ranking members against the lower ones" does not convey power harassment.

I already gave you the simple example and already told you why you're wrong.

"X has the power to fight for Y against Z",as already explained,does not convey power harassment.

"X is where Y abuses their power against Z" is how you should convey power harassment.

In your sentence,you turned what should be an environment into entity that fights on behalf of others.

"The Guild has the power to fight for the King against the Peasants" is literally what you're saying when you should be saying "the Guild is where the King abuses their power against the Peasants".

How many more examples is it doing to take before you realise that you're wrong?

No,you have no justification for your original sentence,no,you can't complicate the matter by claiming you're better because of research you didn't even use,try and try again,you are plainly wrong with your own words as proof.

You provided an innacurate sentence that does not align with your own image data and yet claim it is still valid when anyone can see how far off it is.

Even the usage of "fight" doesn't make sense,the higher ups aren't fighting the lower ones,they're using their authority to chatise,abuse,and verbally attack the lower ones,but that is not a fight.

The lower ones aren't fighting the upper ones,since that would mean the employees actually have the ability to stand up against the injustice,which wouldn't make it a black company if that was the regular case,it would be a functional working environment.

The black company isn't fighting on behalf of anyone,because as you yourself said,it's the culture,that culture is between the uppers and lowers,where the abuse of the lowers by the uppers is what's called a "black company",a crappy work environment.

Fight and abuse are two distinct and seperate things.

A husband who fights his wife is different from a husband who abuses his wife.

You can see that the former is a two way affair whilst the latter is a one sided affair,and since you love talking about how Google,the increasingly innaccurate search engine + browser that has been caught several times giving false information,you can find the many,many online topics where the difference between a verbal marital fight and a verbal marital abuse.

And it gets worse since you used "fight FOR",which only has two clear cut uses,one is to engage in a fight for an object,place,or person,the other is to start said fight on behalf of another.

The phrase "the power to fight for" is what a lawyera,a mercernary,or even a boxer has,among other professions,on behalf of someone else,they possess the means to engage in a fight.

How the living Hell does that convey abuse?

As you can see,I assume your brain has finally started to function at this point,that an antagonist relationship isn't a one size fits all,there's clear differences between a relationship where both sides are duking it out and where one side attacks the other with no retaliation.

"No it implies that the supermarket's are abundant so black company structures don't work well with them."
Here's another example of you clearly not understand how words work.

"Supermarkets don't normally have the ability to WITHHOLD such a structure since Supermarket jobs are dime a dozen".

I suggest you print this out and apply it directly to your forehead.

THAT WORD DOES NOT MEAN SUPERMARKETS CAN'T BE BLACK COMPANIES BECAUSE THEY ARE COMMON.
You usage quite literally means they can't hold back/stop/retain/suppress/fight back/curb black companies because there are too many of them,or so we should say,black company culture because there are too many of them.
THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU MEANT.

You are wildly innaccurate,your don't use your own examples,and you can barely read your own sentences as you attempt to sound smarter when you've prooven wrong.

You're not getting away with this by thinking I'm the one loosing out on a topic you can't even get correct with your own sentences.

A topic so bloody common in so much media,be it entertainment or informational,that anyone mature enough knows what a crappy work environment is,and that black companies are not special things with limited scope,they're general as Hell.

 

[Hitspark]

Your usage was terrible,I have no idea what marlarky you're trying to pull,but "Black Company culture typically refers to an office environment where the company has the power to fight for the higher ranking members against the lower ones" does not convey power harassment.

I already gave you the simple example and already told you why you're wrong.

"X has the power to fight for Y against Z",as already explained,does not convey power harassment.

"X is where Y abuses their power against Z" is how you should convey power harassment.

In your sentence,you turned what should be an environment into entity that fights on behalf of others.

"The Guild has the power to fight for the King against the Peasants" is literally what you're saying when you should be saying "the Guild is where the King abuses their power against the Peasants".

How many more examples is it doing to take before you realise that you're wrong?

No,you have no justification for your original sentence,no,you can't complicate the matter by claiming you're better because of research you didn't even use,try and try again,you are plainly wrong with your own words as proof.

You provided an innacurate sentence that does not align with your own image data and yet claim it is still valid when anyone can see how far off it is.

Even the usage of "fight" doesn't make sense,the higher ups aren't fighting the lower ones,they're using their authority to chatise,abuse,and verbally attack the lower ones,but that is not a fight.

The lower ones aren't fighting the upper ones,since that would mean the employees actually have the ability to stand up against the injustice,which wouldn't make it a black company if that was the regular case,it would be a functional working environment.

The black company isn't fighting on behalf of anyone,because as you yourself said,it's the culture,that culture is between the uppers and lowers,where the abuse of the lowers by the uppers is what's called a "black company",a crappy work environment.

Fight and abuse are two distinct and seperate things.

A husband who fights his wife is different from a husband who abuses his wife.

You can see that the former is a two way affair whilst the latter is a one sided affair,and since you love talking about how Google,the increasingly innaccurate search engine + browser that has been caught several times giving false information,you can find the many,many online topics where the difference between a verbal marital fight and a verbal marital abuse.

And it gets worse since you used "fight FOR",which only has two clear cut uses,one is to engage in a fight for an object,place,or person,the other is to start said fight on behalf of another.

The phrase "the power to fight for" is what a lawyera,a mercernary,or even a boxer has,among other professions,on behalf of someone else,they possess the means to engage in a fight.

How the living Hell does that convey abuse?

As you can see,I assume your brain has finally started to function at this point,that an antagonist relationship isn't a one size fits all,there's clear differences between a relationship where both sides are duking it out and where one side attacks the other with no retaliation.

"No it implies that the supermarket's are abundant so black company structures don't work well with them."
Here's another example of you clearly not understand how words work.

"Supermarkets don't normally have the ability to WITHHOLD such a structure since Supermarket jobs are dime a dozen".

I suggest you print this out and apply it directly to your forehead.

THAT WORD DOES NOT MEAN SUPERMARKETS CAN'T BE BLACK COMPANIES BECAUSE THEY ARE COMMON.
You usage quite literally means they can't hold back/stop/retain/suppress/fight back/curb black companies because there are too many of them,or so we should say,black company culture because there are too many of them.
THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU MEANT.

You are wildly innaccurate,your don't use your own examples,and you can barely read your own sentences as you attempt to sound smarter when you've prooven wrong.

You're not getting away with this by thinking I'm the one loosing out on a topic you can't even get correct with your own sentences.

A topic so bloody common in so much media,be it entertainment or informational,that anyone mature enough knows what a crappy work environment is,and that black companies are not special things with limited scope,they're general as Hell.

The funny thing is that my last reply literally goes over all this in the last paragraph, but it seems you didn't read it (I mean word for word, jimmy, not skimming). If you did, you ignored it. Which is sad because it kinda negates this entire post you're making. I'm guessing you're the type the feels the need to have the last say so. Right? "I will not lose this internet argument!" Your inner mind screams. "I'M RIGHT, HE JUST DOESN'T KNOW IT!" You clamor to yourself. "I WILL WIIIIIIIIIIN" You explode! Unable to cope with the fact that I've thoroughly trounced you at every turn in this "debate" so harshly that you've filled your own post with copious and obvious misspellings that show you probably wrote in a fizzy, trying to withhold your reign over grammatica.

 

[NARESH4444]

The funny thing is that my last reply literally goes over all this in the last paragraph, but it seems you didn't read it (I mean word for word, jimmy, not skimming). If you did, you ignored it. Which is sad because it kinda negates this entire post you're making. I'm guessing you're the type the feels the need to have the last say so. Right? "I will not lose this internet argument!" Your inner mind screams. "I'M RIGHT, HE JUST DOESN'T KNOW IT!" You clamor to yourself. "I WILL WIIIIIIIIIIN" You explode! Unable to cope with the fact that I've thoroughly trounced you at every turn in this "debate" so harshly that you've filled your own post with copious and obvious misspellings that show you probably wrote in a fizzy, trying to withhold your reign over grammatica.

Trounced?,I've proven several times why you're wrong.

Not once have you proven yourself right in your original sentences.

I literally pointed out where your word usage was the exact opposite of your intent.

Why can't you seem to understand your own failures and claim that I am the one failing?

This debate will go on and on since you clearly can't see the image put in front of you,the exact same technique you yourself attempted to use,and I don't even have to do any more then just point it out again and again and again.

So good luck trying to think you've won,I'll be here to point out why you never did.

 

[Hitspark]

Trounced?,I've proven several times why you're wrong.

Nota once~

Not once have you proven yourself right in your original sentences.

Every comment~

I literally pointed out where your word usage was the exact opposite of your intent.

Nota once~

Why can't you seem to understand your own failures and claim that I am the one failing?

Because you're wrong, been wrong and continue to be wrong

This debate will go on and on since you clearly can't see the image put in front of you,the exact same technique you yourself attempted to use,and I don't even have to do any more then just point it out again and again and again.

"Technique" it's called sourcing bro.

So good luck trying to think you've won,I'll be here to point out why you never did.

"You're so delusional I can't get through to you! HA! But I'll point out forever you're wrong!"

Ego on full display.