Day: August 27, 2008

Employment-At-Will vs Right-To-Work

The phrases “employment-at-will” and “right to work” are often heard in conversations regarding employment and/or dismissal. But what do these phrases mean? These two phrases are sometimes mistaken as having the same or similar meanings, but they are entirely different.

Employment-at-will means that an employer or an employee can end the working relationship at any time for basically any reason. If you quit, or are fired, no notice or reason is required. Most states are employment-at-will states, and there are a few exceptions to employment-at-will law.

For example, employers are forbidden from firing anyone for any reason protected by federal legislation: age, sex, religion, etc. If a company’s employee manual states that certain procedures be followed before firing an employee, and those procedures aren’t followed, that can be an exception to the employment-at-will laws. Additionally, an agreement with a union or intentional infliction of emotional distress may prove to be exceptions.

Right to work laws do not cover quitting or being dismissed from a job. Roughly half of the states in the United States are right to work states, meaning that job seekers have the right to work for a company without being required to join and/or financially support a labor union. In these states, it may still be required that a union represents an employee in grievances and negotiations. Railway or airline employees are sometimes not protected by right to work laws, even if they reside in a right to work state. Federal enclaves may also be exempt.

Conversely, those who do not live in a right to work state could be required to join or financially support a union as part of employment. “Unionized” jobs in these states often include railway or airline employees, for example.

In a nutshell, employment-at-will laws refer to whether reason or notice must be given if an employee is fired or quits. Right to work laws make residents of certain states exempt from being required to join a union in order to work.

A New Woman’s Movement?

The Boston Globe is reporting there is the beginnings of a new movement.

Clinton’s presidential bid galvanized women as no other campaign in recent history has. While many younger women supported Barack Obama, among Clinton’s most passionate supporters were older women who saw the former first lady as their best chance of having a woman in the White House in their lifetimes – and who saw the demise of her campaign as evidence of lingering sexism in America. In Denver this week, many of these women have been talking about the emergence of a new movement that would unite women across the generational divide to combat discrimination, unequal pay, and other concerns.

Several dozen of Clinton’s strongest female supporters met three weeks ago in New York to organize The New Agenda, a nonpartisan group focused on women’s issues and electing women candidates. Amy Siskind, a major Democratic donor and activist from New York who helped start it, said in a phone interview yesterday that she has received e-mails and calls of support from around the country.

But it is not at all clear a new movement would benefit the organizations that have long been at the forefront, such as EMILY’s List and NARAL. Now, they are calling for unity, saying that some of the most important women’s issues, especially abortion rights, are at stake in November and that Clinton supporters have a duty to stand up for them.Many Clinton loyalists, though, are angry with the leaders of the party and women’s groups, saying they did too little to confront rampant sexism and allowed an unfair primary process. They are divided over whether to support Obama or Republican John McCain – a troubling turn for the Democratic Party and for the feminist establishment, whose credibility depends on keeping Clinton supporters in the fold.

Media Circus Called A Convention

The more than 4,000 Democratic delegates—covered by an army of some 15,000 members of the press—are convening in what amounts to a political bubble surrounded by security measures consistent with those of a police state. The convention itself, not to mention the lavish parties being thrown for the delegates—many of them elected officials—is being paid for largely by major corporations looking to buy political influence.

The media has focused the bulk of its attention on the convention’s first day on speculating as to whether lingering “bitterness” on the part of Obama’s principal rival for the nomination, Senator Hillary Clinton, and her supporters will detract from the unity message that is meant to predominate. Most of this coverage is cast entirely in terms of personal frictions and identity politics, without a hint of any substantive political issues involved.

This is in keeping with the general tenor of the convention itself, which is packaged as a $60 million, four-day infomercial, with no question of a debate over policy breaking out on the floor of Denver’s Pepsi Center, where the delegates are assembled. The media, with very few exceptions, functions as an uncritical conduit for this process, accepting its narrow parameters as given.

US Condemns Russia Over Georgia

Western leaders have condemned strongly Russia’s decision to recognise the independence of the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

US President George Bush warned his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, that his “irresponsible decision” was exacerbating tensions in the region.

President Bush said Russia should “reconsider this irresponsible decision” and “live up to its international commitments”.

“This decision is inconsistent with numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions that Russia has voted for in the past, and is also inconsistent with the French-brokered six-point ceasefire agreement which President Medvedev signed,” he said in a statement.

“Russia’s action only exacerbates tensions and complicates diplomatic negotiations,” he added.

But wait!

When the West recognized Kosovo’s independence half a year ago, Russia’s leaders warned the move would open ‘Pandora’s Box’ in the Caucasus.

The threat that Kosovo could stand as a secessionist precedent in the Caucasus had formed the Kremlin’s most vivid protest to the province’s break from its ally Serbia.

But while Moscow is still confronted by the problems that the Kosovo precedent raises, paradoxically, the comparison has now been turned into a justification of South Ossetia and Abkhazia’s right to self-determination.

Western leaders have labelled Russia’s move to recognize Georgia’s regions as hypocrisy, while Russian leaders hit back with the accusation that a double standard has been applied in the case of Kosovo.

I do not understand how one can condemn another for doing the same thing as the original one.  Kinda like condemning another country for an invasion after you had just invaded another country.

Wind Power Does Have Its Downside

Bats are at risk from wind turbines, researchers have found, because the rotating blades produce a change in air pressure that can kill the mammals.

Bats use echo-location to avoid hitting the blades but cannot detect the sharp pressure changes around the turbine.

The scientists say wind farms are more of an issue for bats than for birds.

“An atmospheric pressure drop at wind turbine blades is an undetectable – and potentially unforseeable – hazard for bats, thus partially explaining the large number of bat fatalities at these specific structures,” said Erin Baerwald, who led the research team at the University of Calgary

The idea is that the pressure around a rotating turbine blade is lower than in the surrounding air. A bat flying into the low-pressure zone finds its lungs suddenly expanding, bursting capillaries in the surrounding tissue which then becomes flooded with blood.

Birds, which have more rigid and robust lungs, do not undergo the same trauma from a sudden drop in pressure.

Some research groups are investigating ways to keep bats away from wind farms, and a University of Aberdeen group recently suggested radar emissions might act as a “bat-scarer”.

Damned If They Do, Damned If They Don’t

For months I have been hearing the media hammering Obama and his wife that the American people do not know who they are and that explains why the polls are not better. They have said that he needs to identify himself to the blue collar worker. And that he, Obama, is not viewed well by these and other voters.

And that is just what Michelle Obama set about doing just that at the convention. She told the public about her life and her life with Barack; she showed that her story was a “typical” American story. That they both were brought up in modest means and worked hard and long to get where they are today.

Now the media vultures are slamming them for being too mild mannered in the speech; that McCain was not attacked and that the speech was too mild mannered. The media is saying that McCain is getting a free ride at the convention and that 25% of the time was wasted on a life story instead of hitting McCain hard and fast.

Enough! At what point does the media stop driving the conversation and direction of the convention and election? At what point does the media stop looking and creating drama and start reporting on the issues that are facing the voter?

Dems In Denver–Day 2

Hillary’s speech.

There had been much anticipation on how and what Hillary would say in your highlight speech.  As anyone who reads my stuff knows I have been a very verbal critic of Hillary and will always be a critic.  But I give props where props are due.  Hiilary came to the plate and swung for the fence.  She hit a rocket out of the park.

She talk to her people and basically worded her speech to say that if they do not vote for Obama then they will be offending her personally.  She used her usual technique of talking about the people she had met on the campaign trail and used them to press her stands on the issues.  She challenged Dems take a stand to make a strong country and to vote for all Americans.

Hillary did her part to unify the party, even if some in the MSM thinks she was too mild manner and did not attack McCain enough.  Her speech was effective and to the point.  She also made it clear that she was giving her full support to the Obama-Biden ticket and that she would work tirelessly to get them elected.

She deserves here props.