a worldbuilding question about house justman. What would you name their fortress/seat, its corresponsing city(if the castle has one) and where would you place it/them? around the place where the trident forks or where harrenhall was build seems like the two best possible places.

Good question! 

As discussed here, I would guess based on the story that the Justman seat and lands would be on the Red Fork between Stone Hedge and Raventree Hall, both because Benedict Justman’s support was initially from the houses of his mother and father, and because putting himself physically in between the Brackens and Blackwoods is probably the only way to keep them from fighting. 

image

So I would imagine that the castle proper is on an island in the middle of the river overlooking a major ford over the Red Fork, but also controls lands on both banks. As for the name, I kind of like Scales – it follows from House Justman’s sigil, but it also works to allude to the fishes in the Red Fork and that general Trident vibe. 

elanabrooklyn:

millennialsargueback:

poutine-existentielle:

nightworldlove:

guiltyfandoms:

thattallnerdybean:

dvadad:

cashier: sorry for your wait. we’re short-staffed today

millennial: oh that’s ok no worries 🙂

 baby boomer:

But listen that’s the thing. 

We are short staffed almost 97% of the time at my retail job. Because corporate has figured out you can overwork 4 people at minimum wage instead of paying for the 8 people you should probably have to be on the clock.  

Baby boomers grew up with stores that were adequately staffed, with workers who most likely had weeks of training for their jobs as opposed to the 1-2 shadow shift training we get now. Also those workers most likely were able to be full time if they wanted. Now retail, except for management positions, is mostly made up of part time workers, because you don’t have to give them benefits. So you have a workforce of perpetually underpaid, overwhelmed, undertrained people trying to do their best all while dealing with an entire generation of people who refuse to acknowledge that the system has changed and the average retail worker has NO control over that change and is being taken advantage of.

Like we got our customer surveys back, and almost every single one mentioned that they couldn’t find someone to help them or we needed more people on register because it was TOO SLOW, but what did management tell us instead of scheduling more people? We need to be quicker on register and call for backup if necessary. Which makes no sense because we can’t call for backup THAT ISN’T THERE.

Y’all my parents haven’t worked retail since the 70s and they absolutely never believe me about the things that happen at work. I explain the schedule for next week gets hung up on the Friday before and they scoff and go “well when i worked at X they had it a month up your manager is just lazy.” No mom, its company policy to only do “two weeks” in advance. They won’t give you a full month’s scheduling in advance cause it let’s you plan for a world outside of work.

Or about the hours, workload or anything. They just assume its an individual’s failing instead of corporate mandate. Or, if they do believe me (that its company policy) they call it ridiculous and point out some survey that argues its Good Business to do (insert decent thing here).As if they think the higher ups don’t know this and are simply ignorant of Good Business Practices. They don’t understand that retail has completely shifted from caring about its employees to squeezing out every penny now instead of investing it for later.

Cause that isn’t how it was when they worked and they just can’t seem to see otherwise.

   I think there should be a ‘bring-your-parent-to-work-day’ instead of ‘bring-your-kid-to-work-day’, it would shock so many parents and would probably make them finally realize how much retail indeed has changed in the US.

when i first got hired as a cashier, my manager who had been doing that since she was like 17 in 1975 told me that back in The Days, when you were hired as a cashier in a grocery store it was a) a well paid job & you could get full time work easily b) a respected career choice c) the store closed at 6pm and was closed on Sundays so the hours were a lot more pleasant d) they made you go to cashier school for 2 weeks, which was basically a fake grocery store and you just learned the trade completely before even meeting a customer
now its like : you get like 20 hours a week, bullshit shifts like 3:45 to 10:15, a 20 minutes training before being thrown to the wolves, customers tell you you deserve your shitty lowlife job as soon as you don’t thoroughly kiss their ass

The millennial experience is tied to growing income inequality and the indentured servitude of student loan debt

And retail jobs at larger stores and chains used to be union jobs which meant fair schedules, raises, ways to address abusive bosses and nepotism, fair staffing levels. There are a few places that still are union like Brooks Brothers in Manhattan, Macy’s in NYC, Bloomingdales in NYC, many Food Emporiums, Stop and Shops, Key Foods etc in NY state, Giant Food in DC and MD, Duane Reade and Wallgreens Drug stores.

Plus some newer places where the workers have more recently come together to fight for a union and win like @toysinbabeland, Zara’s (in NYC at least as well as in other countries of course), Guitar Center.

When retail jobs are union people are able to make careers out of them. In Europe and much of Latin America retail work is union and people have better jobs for it. Just like they used to.

The union focused on retail workers is @ufcw.

Also, as someone who’s spent time out on the West Coast, one of the really amazing differences between East Coast and West is that in California, most of the grocery and drugstores throughout the state are unionized through UFCW, and it’s really astonishing the difference it makes in terms of the level of economic security that those workers experience. 

That being said, it was very instructive to watch how people reacted to the perennial threat of a strike when UFCW was going through its regional/statewide contract negotiations. Not a small amount of the generational cleavages as discussed upthread. 

Supposing we didn’t had the Tullys as lords of the Riverlands at the start of ASOIAF, which house do you think would be more interesting to have interacting with our favorite Starks, Lannisters, Tyrells, et all? Mudds/Justmans/Teagues?

If they hadn’t been extinguished, I would be fascinated to see how the Justmans would have fit into the Targaryen system, given their focus on even-handed justice between the squabbling Houses of the Riverlands. 

would you say the teagues were an impressive or unipressive dynasty, given how long they lasted, but never managed to establish themselves as the true kings of the rivers and hills?

Given how little info we have, it’s hard to tell. 

However, I will venture a guess that the Teagues were the least stable of the Riverlander dynasties. Elio describes them as “Torrence Teague and his heirs succeeded for a few generations, then lost it.” Most Riverlander dynasties ruled for periods of hundreds of years, the Teagues seem to have problems going longer than 60 years at a clip.