According to the recent reports that have come out of the UN and other scientific bodies, we do not have time to wait for the development and commericalization of new technology. However, there are things we can do now to help the environment.
The main thing we can do immediately is to institute telecommuting and flexible hours. Without any new R&D, our society can reduce the emissions due to people idling in gridlock traffic. Many people could shift their hours to drive after the rush hour. Also, many jobs can be done at home, or can be apportioned so that a person can work at home one or two days per week. This does not cost any money. It will save everyone money on gasoline and highway wear and tear. What is needed is a change in attitudes.

What did Obama really mean at the Iowa dinner when he spoke of the need to tell the truth about Social Security? Is he really hinting at a more Republican position? The main obstacle to the Social Security fund is age discrimination. When employers lie and say that they have to compete for "talent," rather than hiring American workers over 45 who have excellent skills and qualifications, the Social Security fund becomes depleted. People between 50 and 65 should be in their golden years, earining their highest levels in leadership positions and contributing to the retirement fund. In jobs not requiring physical labor, there are many workers who desire to continue even beyhond the age of 65. There are people going to school in their 50s and desiring to start a new career. However, age discrimination is rampant. Women with Ph.D.s in physics or architecture degrees or M.B.A.s have no choice except substitute teaching. There are many people who want to work and who would prefer to delay taking out Social Security benefits, but they do not have that choice. So I would like to know exactly what Obama has in mind. Is he implying the easy way out, asking people to accept a cut in coverage, or is he willing to fight the battle in favor of American workers and lead a restructuring of the way work is allocated to people? The age of the welfare queen is over. What we have no is a massive number of unemployed people ages 50-65 who could be productive, but instead are waiting out the years until Social Security and Medicare start.

As 1 million American workers experience an extended mass layoff event, and as the resulting mortgage crisis continues, what steps does Congress take? A slap in the face of the American worker is being proposed, an *increase,* even a doubling in 2008, of the number of permitted H1-b visas in high technology industry. So far Congress is taking the bait, hook,line and sinker and believing the false claims of employers that they can't locate "talent" within the US. Here is the text stuck onto the end of the "Border Security" bill. (Will someone please explain how taking jobs away from laid off Americans will protect border security?) You can view a video of a law firm coaching employers on how to avoid hiring American workers. The link is at the end of this post. Please write to your Congressional Representative and ask him or her to oppose this dung heap of a clause:

SEC. 1402. INCREASE IN H-1B VISA NUMBERS.

(a) Increase- Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is amended to read as follows:

`(A) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), may not exceed--

`(i) 65,000 in each fiscal year before fiscal year 1999;

`(ii) 115,000 in fiscal years 1999 and 2000;

`(iii) 195,000 in fiscal years 2001 through 2003;

`(iv) 65,000 in fiscal years 2004 through 2007; and

`(v) 130,000 in each succeeding fiscal year, except as provided in paragraph (7)(B); and'.

(b) Recapture of Unused H-1B Nonimmigrant Visas- Section 214(g)(7) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(7)) is amended--

(1) by striking `(7)' and inserting `(7)(A)'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(B) Beginning in fiscal year 2009, the number of aliens who may be issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) during any fiscal year shall be increased by the difference between 130,000 and the number of aliens who actually were provided such status during the preceding fiscal year. The preceding sentence shall not cause the number of aliens who may be issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) during any fiscal year to exceed 195,000, but any recaptured unused numbers that are not available by reason of this limitation during any fiscal year shall be available for use in future years.'.

***If this hasn't angered you enough, watch
Link
and view the video of the law firm Cohen & Grigsby.
THOMAS Home | Contact | Accessibility | Legal | USA.gov

The Oct. 21 Sacramento Bee cited a study by Sylvia Ann Hewlett, author of Off Ramps and On Ramps, which concluded that 93 percent of highly qualified, educated women want to go back to work after raising children. Of these, 75% actually find a job and only 40% return to full time work.
Our society is educating women, but not utilizing their skills. If employment discrimination against women and older workers is not stopped, we will have a generation of women going into old age in poverty in need of social services from the government. The government has two choices: stop discrimination and put women to work in the fields they are educated in or have a massive poverty problem on its hands.

If Obama did call Hillary's diplomacy approcah "Bush-Cheney Lite," I think that is a very irresponsible and unfair comment. I think it alienates me more from Obama than from Hillary. Remember that the original statement that you negotiate with opponents, not allies, came from Richardson.

If you haven't listened to the Gonzales hearing on C-Span, try to listen to the whole thing.

It is time for we the people to take ownership of our party's debates. We have got to get Gravel out of there. Hillary has to put an end to the pink and yellow suits and dress like a professional business person. (Women do not go to work as teachers, nurse practitioners, etc. every day wearing those garish pink and yellow suits, so stop it Hillary! and start presenting a professional image.) We have got to get Kucinich to stop putting down the other candidates. If Biden wants to be taken seriously as a President he has got to stop swaggering and stand up straight like a leader. Richardson needs to memirize his lines. Edwards needs to stop attacking Hillary's jacket on TV. The candidates have to start challenging the CNN announcers and stop letting them control things. The candidates need to stick to the issues and to present themselves with the best decorum. There have to be ground rules that keep some candidates from being excluded. There has to be some basic decorum or we will lose in November. The Democrats are right on the issues. The candidates are failing in the area of presentation. To win the elections, moderate Republicans and independents will have to switch sides and vote Democratic. This means attracting administrative assistants, HR managers, accountants, store owners. That means that the debates have to demonstrate at the very least the demeanor that is expected by the average working person at a school, hospital or company every day. If this doesn't happen, the Democrats will lose in 2008. Giuliani is a disaster in foreign policy but he knows how to present himself.

Today's e-mail from the Edwards campaign announced one of his initiaives against poverty: seven paid days of sick time! How can that possibly be considered a progressive position? Will employers offering more than that reduce their offers because the publicized John Edwards position is that 7 days is o.k.? If Edwards is elected and institutes 7 days minimum paid sick time, will banks then feel it's o.k. to reduce the amount of sick time they offer to bank tellers? We need a labor agenda that is in touch with reality, and let's ask unions such as the transit workers or the trash collectors in Manhattan what that reality is. I think the Democratic Party needs some labor union advice on employee benefits.

While all of the candidates are failing to address the issues that face average working people every day, especially those without college degrees, working people are standing up for themselves, even if they don't have a union. Earlier this month I learned that the women and Hispanics of Los Alamos labs in remote Los Alamos, New Mexico, are settling a class action pay inequity dispute. This week, in another company in New Mexico, the employees successfully organized mutiny against a bully CEO. The company had hired a new CEO whose management style consisted of bullying and intimidtion. He had hired a COO who was installing computers to monitor the amount of work output by each person. A new VP of sales came in and he was a sympathetic, people-oriented manager. It all came to a head when the CEO chewed out the sales manager in front of other people. There was a mutiny and the sales VP took over with all people directly reporting to him. Everyday the working people of America are experiencing deteriorating working conditions, such as bullying, computer monitoring of the output of factory workers, data processing, postal and customer service personnel, and psychological tests that generate which people to hire. This is all in addition to a body of labor law that is the result of anti-labor lobbying and that is all stacked against the average working person. I hope that the candidates will start connecting to the concerns of the average person and not follow the laissez faire politicies of Reagan. Not only do people need jobs. People need to be treated as human beings in their jobs.

Yesterday the BBC website posted a photo of Bush and Merkel. The upper arm of Bush appeared to be either leaning on her breast or very close to her breast. Bush was demonstrably not keeping a professional distance between a man and a woman and between two prime ministers. It was almost as if Bush was encouraging men to fail to recognize and respect women as leaders. This type of attitude was also demonstrated in the vicious attacks on former US Attorney Carol Lam by Gonzales and others who tried to associate her name with "performance" issues. Similarly, the Republicans have taken swipes at Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. The Republicans are encouraing white males to treat highly accomplished women as targets to take potshots at. This attitude filters down into the corporation as manifested in salary discrimination and the glass ceiling.

Source: Workplace Bullying Institute 2003 Report on Abusive Workplaces

I am forwarding it to this list to show what working Americans are concerned about in our daily lives and to alert people to the need for drastic changes in employment law to protect employees from abuse. Our current system of the Ronald Reagan "laissez faire" workplace is not working.

May 22, 2007
25 Top Workplace Bully Tactics
Workplace bullies use many methods to intimidate their targets. Based on studies of toxic workplaces, the Workplace Bullying Institute has identified 25 of the Top Workplace Bully Tactics employed by workplace bullies.
1. Falsely accused someone of "errors" not actually made (71 percent).
2. Stared, glared, was nonverbally intimidating and was clearly showing hostility (68 percent).
3. Discounted the person's thoughts or feelings ("oh, that's silly") in meetings (64 percent).
4. Used the "silent treatment" to "ice out" and separate from others (64 percent).
5. Exhibited presumably uncontrollable mood swings in front of the group (61 percent).
6. Made up own rules on the fly that even she/he did not follow (61 percent).
7. Disregarded satisfactory or exemplary quality of completed work despite evidence (58 percent).
8. Harshly and constantly criticized having a different standard for the target (57 percent).
9. Started, or failed to stop, destructive rumors or gossip about the person (56 percent).
10. Encouraged people to turn against the person being tormented (55 percent).
11. Singled out and isolated one person from coworkers, either socially or physically (54 percent).
12. Publicly displayed "gross," undignified, but not illegal, behavior (53 percent).
13. Yelled, screamed, threw tantrums in front of others to humiliate a person (53 percent).
14. Stole credit for work done by others (47 percent).
15. Abused the evaluation process by lying about the person's performance (46 percent).
16. Declared target "insubordinate" for failing to follow arbitrary commands (46 percent).
17. Used confidential information about a person to humiliate privately or publicly (45 percent).
18. Retaliated against the person after a complaint was filed (45 percent).
19. Made verbal put-downs/insults based on gender, race, accent or language, disability (44 percent).
20. Assigned undesirable work as punishment (44 percent).
21. Created unrealistic demands (workload, deadlines, duties) for person singled out (44 percent).
22. Launched a baseless campaign to oust the person; effort not stopped by the employer (43 percent).
23. Encouraged the person to quit or transfer rather than to face more mistreatment (43 percent).
24. Sabotaged the person's contribution to a team goal and reward (41 percent).
25. Ensured failure of person's project by not performing required tasks, such as sign-offs, taking calls, working with collaborators (40 percent)

Iraq is not the only issue in this campaign! We have issues at home too.
I watched the Democratic debate and the Republican debate, and it bothers me a great deal that the candidate who spoke out the most for American workers was a Republican, Mike Huckabee:
"The most important thing a president needs to do is to make it clear that we're not going to continue to see jobs shipped overseas, jobs that are lost by American workers, many in their 50s who, for 20 and 30 years, have worked to make a company rich, and then watch as a CEO takes a $100 million bonus to jettison those American jobs somewhere else. And the worker not only loses his job, but he loses his pension. That's criminal. It's wrong. And if Republicans don't stop it, we don't deserve to win in 2008."
He called jobs "the most important thing" a president needs to work on.
I know that Democratic candidates have spoken on such issues, but this statement was the most up front.
Democrats should not allow the Republicans to take the issue of jobs away from the Democrats. Heather Wilson did it to Patricia Madrid in the Albuquerque Congressional debate, and now Huckabee is doing the same thing. The Democrats need to connect to what is going on with the American work force ages 45 and older. We have to stop the increasing issuance of H1 visasa that displace Americans from our jobs and we have to stop the flow of jobs, such as R&D and manufacturing, out of the US.

In his April 19 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alberto Gonzalez communicated his view of the specific events of the US Attorney firings. But beneath the surface details there was a subtext, the way in which his comments revealed his view of the workplace and how workers should be managed.

When asked how the removal of a US Attorney would affect the prosecution of ongoing cases, Gonzalez replied that the institution is designed to support change. This indicates a view that work should be designed such that an employer does not depend on any particular person, and that people should be treated as interchangeable parts that can be replaced easily. This view is increasingly common in industry as more and more jobs are defined as temporary positions. One large company built a new office complex in which the idea of an individual office has been abolished. The employees use the tables and chairs on a daily basis, do not store belongings or decorations at work, and keep their work-related papers in a shared file area.

When asked about one of the US Attorneys, Gonzalez stated that â??We had to send someone out to mediate a personnel disputeâ?? and that the US Attorney â??was not in control of the office.â?? This comments implies the view that a manager is responsible for suppressing dissent or employee dissatisfaction and that his job is to keep complaints from rising to higher levels. This is not a picture of a workplace in which employees have access to an appeals process and in which higher level managers are willing to listen to the average workerâ??s concerns.

The US Attorney Cummings was released because the management simply wanted another individual in that job. This is an extreme view of â??at willâ?? employment in which an employer fires a worker just because he wants someone else in the job. The average working person, under this value system, could be fired because a friend of the boss wanted a job or because a younger applicant appeared at the door. The same value system shows through Gonzalezâ?? comment that one of the attorneys was no longer the right person at the right time. In other words, Gonzalez is stating that an employee does not have to be viewed as having job security. The employer can let go of a worker at whim and that oneâ??s job is defined to last only during the right time.

The constant pairing of Carol Lamâ??s name with the word â??performanceâ?? was a portrayal of the way male members of management can subvert the careers of talented professional women, particular those of ethnicity, by means of aspersions. It was as if the male management played an arrogant game with her career.

Gonzalez expressed the cavalier attitude that the process was nowhere as rigorous as it ought to have been. In other words, he doesnâ??t take seriously the idea that employees should be protected by standard personnel procedures.

We should be concerned not only about the surface details concerning the US Attorneys, but also about the management philosophies expressed by Gonzalez and how they seem to validate the most egregious violations of jobs security and respect for working people.

Will Obama puleeze stop making wife jokes?

What do we want out health care system to be? Sloganeering and hype are not enough. We need to discuss the details.

1. Copays should not be percents
In the Western part of the US, healthcare plans are being offered with copays of 15% or 20%. The employers and hospitals are creating the appearance of coverage, but this is really not coverage. This is cost-sharing, not insurance or coverage.

2. Copays need to be minimal
A $20 copay means that a working person may not be able to afford the service at all. Enormous copays, such as $75 for an outpatient X-ray or $150 for a CT-scan, will mean that even in the presence of a "plan," the person will not get the health care.

3. No "preferred" prescriptions
The fact that a lower price has been negotiated for a particular medicine, or that plan administrators have designated a medicine as "preferred" does not mean that the drug will work or be free of harmful side effects for a particular patient. A $40 copay for non-formulary drugs again means that even in the presence of a "plan," the patient will not receive the needed healthcare.

Now that the Democratic Party holds the majority in the House and can hold hearings, one of the topics requiring investigatioin is the economic status of women. As a working woman, I have written to the House Education and Labor Commitee requesting that it hold hearings on the unemployment and underemployment of women with education. Gender and age discrimination are making it impossible for many older women to work in the fields of their education. This primarily affects science and engineering, but it also affects economics, business and other occupations. The movement by conservatives to eliminate women from non-traditionally female occupations will cause older women to go into old age without having had the opportunity to save. The choice is to put a stop to age and gender discrimination or deal with people not paying what they expected into the Social Security fund, taking benefits at an earlier age and requiring other government-paid social services. Laissez-faire economics with no regulation of hiring is driving older women into poverty. Employers are making false claims that they cannot find qualified employees. They are simply refusing to consider women for responsible positions, particularly older women. This is a public policy issue and the government needs to make it possible for women to have jobs in the areas of their education. A great deal of government money has been spent on financial aid, and now that educations have been paid for, this resource should not be thrown away just because the person with the education is female and over 45. Women have become educated with the expectation of financial independence and the ability to earn a professional salary. Discrimination and the fierce opposition of conservatives have caused this to be denied. 50 percent of women over 50 are unmarried and therefore do not have a support system. Women need to have economic self-sufficiency. Discrimination and the glass ceiling must not be allowed to prevent this.

The stock market drop yesterday occurred because of a high incidence of foreclosures in the subprime mortgage market. With 25% of all jobs lasting less than 1 year (source: NY Times Business Section) and with one million people per year affected by extended mass layoff events (Bureau of Labor statistics web site), the loss of the worker's ability to make steady mortgage payments is predictable. So Corporate America is setting itself for its own stock crashes. They fail to offer long term employment with retraining and then suffer when the stock prices decline. Executives are the only ones who come out ahead. They skim the money as salary. It's the shareholders (e.g., people's pension funds, as well as the employees, who lose.

I listened to the video about the Edwards health care plan and I would appreciate it if people from his campaign could post more details. Sen. Edwards stated that his health care plan contains efficiencies. I would like to know more about what that means. Specifically, I would like to have an assurance that there is no plan for a formulary approach to prescriptions, where patients would be subjected to "preferred" medicianes for a specific illness. The fact that an organization states that a prescription is "preferred" does not mean that the particular medicine is one that will work for a specific patient without harmful side effects. It is necessary to completely get rid of institutions telling patients what medications are "preferred." Second, I have some reservations about plans with premiums based on income. People may have a certain level of income, but their expenses may vary. A government health care plan may say that a person with a particular income should have a certain amount left over to pay for premiums, but that might not be the case. The food stamp program simply excludes certain expenses from a family budget. For example, the cost of having one's belongings in a storage facility is not counted. But many people today use storage facilities rather than paying higher rent for a larger living space. The cost of day care will vary tremendously from one community to another. So I am very suspicious of any plan that still requires sending a monthly bill to people to participate. Some people will fall through the cracks on technicalities. Anyone who has specific information of the Edwards health plan, please post it. As a voter, I really need to know the details.

During the past year in the job market, employers have been posting long lists of detailed qualifications. On the surface, it conveys the impression of trying to find the perfect match for the position. But in practice, the employer has the discretion to waive some of the "requirements." Thus laundry list hiring has become a further tool for employers to continue screening out women, African Americans, Hispanics and older workers. It seems that managers at the middle levels will go to any trouble to devise strategies to avoid hiring women, minorities and older workers, particularly in specialized, high tech senior positions, rather than acknowledging the talents, skills and contributions such people bring. Yet, aggressively fighting discrimination does not seem to be on the agenda as a major issue. Too many of our leaders are white and upper class and concerned about getting contributions from management-level people. I do not understand why we insisit on enforcement of the tax laws and the immigration laws, but when it comes to discrimination, people seem to act as if non-discrimination is somehow not a law or less of a law.

Our first evidence of Gov. Jon Corzine's good judgment was his opposition to the Iraq war from the very beginning. Whereas Hillary Clinton and others voted for it, he voted against it. Another example has occurred showing Corzine's ability to recognize and say no to harebrained schemes. The Army and Dupoint proposed to process nerve gas and dump the waste into the Delaware river. His administration and Rep. Andrews put a stop to this, real fast. Dupont killed the deal when it realized there was no way the governor's office would approve this. Corzine also has the best chance and the best credibility to get the funding back into the Social Security system.