Tag Archives: health care

We’re no better than Ferguson; maybe worse


Seattle Times staff columnist

Mayor Ed Murray says “Seattle is not Ferguson.” In countless ways I’m sure he’s right, except for this very important one: It’s just as unlikely for cops to get charged for bad deeds here as it is in supposedly backward Missouri.

In fact we’re arguably worse than Ferguson.

No offense to the thousands of protesters marching on behalf of Michael Brown. But what has stood out to me is how the Ferguson case isn’t nearly as flagrant as recent police-brutality cases here in progressive Puget Sound.

In Ferguson, the police officer, Darren Wilson, had a good case to make that he was under some level of assault. If it’s true that Brown slugged the officer through the squad-car door and tried to wrestle away his gun — as the officer and some witnesses attest — then getting even a low-level manslaughter charge to stick against the officer would be next to impossible.

The Ferguson case is supercharged by that region’s racial history. But still — compare the facts of it to what happened in Seattle to John T. Williams in 2010. Ferguson isn’t on the same radar screen of outrageousness.

Unlike Brown, Williams didn’t assault anyone or do anything hostile, beyond toting his carving knife with a wood block and maybe looking menacingly in a police officer’s direction. The officer, Ian Birk, told him to drop the knife. When Williams didn’t — perhaps because he couldn’t hear — Birk shot five times and killed him.

Even the police department called that “egregious.” Yet no charges were filed. Our outgoing U.S. attorney, Jenny Durkan, this week compared that case to Ferguson in an article she wrote for The Washington Post, headlined: “As a federal prosecutor I know how hard it is to charge officers like Darren Wilson.”

An officer has to have malice or willfully bad intent to be convicted, she wrote. It’s an incredibly high bar. “Accident, mistake, fear, negligence or bad judgment is not sufficient,” Durkan wrote when declining to charge Birk.

You can see why the chances of Darren Wilson getting convicted by the state or the feds in Ferguson would be near zero.

We’ve had other baffling cases, such as Christopher Harris, a completely innocent man who mistakenly ran from police in Belltown in 2009 and then was shoved into a wall so hard it paralyzed him for life. The officer who did that not only wasn’t charged, but remained on the force.

But one case here was so extreme that prosecutors took the rare step of charging the officer. Troy Meade, of the Everett police, had shot an aggressive drunken driver, Niles Meservey, seven times from behind, killing him. The officer’s conduct was so questionable that a fellow officer did something unheard of: He crossed the blue line to testify against his mate, claiming the force Meade used was both excessive and vindictive.

Yet Meade was acquitted of second-degree murder by a jury in 2011. The officer argued the car was about to back up and hit him, and because the law puts such a premium on this state of mind defense, he walked.

My point isn’t to bash our local cops. These were isolated cases and don’t reflect on other officers.

But the narrative that’s developed out of Ferguson is that the officer there wasn’t charged because the system is inherently racist. Parts of it may be, but more so it’s just incredibly pro-cop. It lets them walk pretty much no matter what.

Durkan writes it’s this way for a legitimate reason: “We want police to be able to make split second decisions necessary to protect us.” That is crucial.

But in the Williams shooting in particular, it tilted too far. If there was nothing wrong legally with what happened to him, then it’s hard to imagine anything with the police ever being legally wrong.

Ferguson is bringing up an important debate about racial inequality.

But the case is too murky to support a national movement on police accountability.

We’ve had much starker ones right here. Seattle may be more Ferguson than Ferguson.

Danny Westneat’s column appears Wednesday and Sunday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or dwestneat@seattletimes.com

Paid Sick Time Ballot Initiative​s Win Big in Tuesday’s Election


A Better Balance the work and family legal center.
Paid Sick Time Ballot Initiatives Win Big in Tuesday’s Election
On Tuesday, paid sick time was on the ballot in 4 elections, and we won all of them! Massachusetts is now the 3rd state to guarantee paid sick time statewide, which is wonderful news for the nearly 1 million workers in the state who currently lack paid sick time. Two cities in NJ, Montclair and Trenton, passed paid sick time laws, bringing the total number of cities in NJ with such laws to 8 (all passed in the last year!). And in California, voters in Oakland passed an expansive paid sick time ballot measure. We’re especially thrilled with the huge margins of support for each ballot initiative: approximately 60% of the vote in Massachusetts, 85% in Montclair, 75% in Trenton, and 81% in Oakland.
A Better Balance has provided legal research, bill drafting, and other technical support to all of these campaigns and can’t wait to build on the incredible momentum from these wins. But we couldn’t do it without such incredible supporters and campaign partners! For background and to learn more about these 4 paid sick time ballot initiatives, check out our recent blog post.
The Pregnancy Penalty: How Motherhood Drives Inequality & Poverty in New York City
In Case You Missed It
October was also an exciting and busy month for ABB’s efforts on behalf of pregnant workers.   The New York Times’ Rachel Swarns featured our client, Angelica Valencia, in “The Working Life Column,” which garnered over 800 reader comments and an offer from Angelica’s employer to reinstate her.  Our latest report—The Pregnancy Penalty: How Motherhood Drives Inequality and Poverty in New York City—was featured, along with ABB Co-President Dina Bakst and ABB Community Advocate Award recipient, Armanda Legros, on the Melissa Harris-Perry Show on MSNBC.  And our new website resource for pregnant and parenting workers was highlighted in the New York Times and Washington Post.  We’re thrilled to see the media focusing on this issue and expect the coverage to continue next month as the Supreme Court hears arguments in the case of Peggy Young v. UPS. Stay tuned!

a list of some bills Republicans filibustered to try and make Obama look bad


Here is a partial list of the bills
that the Republicans filibustered to try and make Obama look bad while hurting
Americans and the economic recovery of our country:

Correct me if this list is wrong

H.R. 12 – Paycheck Fairness Act

H.R. 448 — Elder Abuse Victims Act

H.R. 466 – Wounded Veteran Job Security Act

H.R. 515 – Radioactive Import Deterrence Act

H.R. 549 — National Bombing Prevention Act

H.R. 577 – Vision Care for Kids Act

H.R. 626 – Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act

H.R. 1029 – Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act

H.R. 1168 — Veterans Retraining Act

H.R. 1171 – Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization

H.R. 1293 — Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant
Increase Act

H.R. 1429 — Stop AIDS in Prison Act

H.R.5281 — DREAM Act

S.3985 — Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act

S.3816 — Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act

S.3369 — A bill to provide for additional disclosure requirements for
corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other entities

S.2237 — Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act

S.2343 — Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act

S.1660 — American Jobs Act of 2011

S.3457 — Veterans Jobs Corps Act

S. 2569 — Bring Jobs Home
Act

 

Source:  CB_In_Colorado … comment board

Pregnant and pink-slipp​ed?


NWLCHands-Circle-180Emily J. Martin, National Women’s Law CenterWe get calls all the time.

 
Calls from pregnant workers whose employers have given them an impossible choice: They can either lose their jobs or endanger their pregnancies.
Why is this still happening? Well, when it comes to pregnant workers, employers and courts are misunderstanding the law.
Enough is enough. Tell the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to issue strong and clear guidance on reasonable job accommodations for the pregnant workers who need them.
Without clear guidance, pregnant workers who need a temporary change on the job are often treated worse than employees with similar limitations arising out of disability or injury. For example, many workplaces give a worker with a back injury a temporary reprieve from having to lift heavy objects — but if a pregnant worker asks for the same accommodation, she could be fired.
The consequences for pregnant workers can be devastating. Here are just three examples of women featured in a new report issued today by NWLC and A Better Balance:

  • A pregnant fast-food worker in Washington, D.C., was fired after her employer refused to let her drink water on the job.
  • A pregnant cashier at a Dollar Tree store wasn’t allowed to sit on a stool, even though workers in other Dollar Tree stores did. Instead, she was required to stand for 8 to 10 hours at a stretch — which landed her in the emergency room.
  • When a pregnant truck driver in Maryland asked for help with occasional heavy lifting, she was forced onto unpaid leave — and she lost her health insurance.

These stories didn’t have to have a bad ending. These women just needed temporary adjustments to their jobs to continue working — the same sorts of adjustments their employers routinely provided to co-workers with disabilities or injuries.
Pregnant workers can’t wait. It’s time for the EEOC to issue strong and clear guidance on employers’ legal obligation to accommodate pregnant workers.
Send your message now.
Thanks again for all of your support.
Sincerely,

Emily J. Martin Emily J. Martin Vice President and General Counsel National Women’s Law Center    

P.S. Want to read more? Check out NWLC and A Better Balance’s new report featuring personal accounts of women who lost their jobs, health insurance and more — and women who had no choice but to keep working and risk their health.

at least 12 Emoji you’re probably using wrong = fun


12 Emoji That You're Probably Using Wrong

12 Emoji That You’re Probably Using Wrong

New York‘s cover story this week proclaims, “Smile, You’re Speaking Emoji.” But are you? Do you understand the difference between the tongue-out emoji and the winking tongue-out emoji? Today’s children communicate almost exclusively in these little smileys, and soon the weak emoji-illiterates in our society will be left behind.

As Adam Sternbergh writes in New York, the “elasticity of meaning is a large part of the appeal and, perhaps, the genius of emoji. … These seemingly infantile cartoons are instantly recognizable, which makes them understandable even across linguistic barriers. Yet the implications of emoji—their secret meanings—are constantly in flux.”

Good news: We know the secret meanings of emoji. Before you find that you’re unable to express your feelings to anyone, familiarize yourself with the true meanings of the 12 most confusing emoji faces.

The Grimace

12 Emoji That You're Probably Using Wrong

Emojipedia classifies this one as a “grinning face with smiling eyes,” but it’s a grimace. There are shades of anxiety in there as well, as in I get my LSAT scores in 2 days :grimace emoji:

The Whistle

12 Emoji That You're Probably Using Wrong

While this is technically a “kissing face,” it is never used that way. The whistle emoji is appropriate to use when someone asks you if you ate the last of the Skittles, and you have no good answer because you did. Not me :whistle emoji:

Flirty Blush vs. Pillsbury Dough Boy

12 Emoji That You're Probably Using Wrong

Two blushing emojis, two different meanings. First is the flirty blush emoji, which is appropriate to use when you are flirting. (?? I’ve heard.)

12 Emoji That You're Probably Using Wrong

Next is the creepier cousin of the flirty blush, the Pillsbury dough boy emoji. It tickles! :Pillsbury dough boy emoji: Don’t use this.

The Shrug

12 Emoji That You're Probably Using Wrong

This is the closest emoji to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, but it’s imbued with slightly more sadness. It’s Jim Halpert looking at the camera. Your friend: Did you hear The Newsroom got a third season? You: :shrug emoji:

Neutral

12 Emoji That You're Probably Using Wrong

This signifies an inability to relate to the subject at hand.

The Overexertion

12 Emoji That You're Probably Using Wrong

Technically, this emoji is classified as “triumph,” which couldn’t be more wrong. You could reasonably interpret it to mean “mad” or “steaming mad,” but its true meaning is “I’m struggling on a treadmill rn.”

Panting vs. Silly Wink vs. Poison Control

12 Emoji That You're Probably Using Wrong

The three tongue-out emojis are easy to get confused. First is the simple tongue-out face, which signifies panting. It comes off as creepy in most situations and should be avoided.

12 Emoji That You're Probably Using Wrong

Next is the silly wink emoji, which means “hey I just made a slightly off-color joke, don’t be mad” or “I’m on poppers!”

12 Emoji That You're Probably Using Wrong

Last is the poison control emoji, which signifies extreme distaste with the subject at hand. Your friend: Fucking DEREK booty called me last night. You: :poison control emoji:

The Sweaty Smile

12 Emoji That You're Probably Using Wrong

This is not Singin’ In the Rain. This is the nervous, sweaty smile—the *tugs collar* emoji. Off to dinner with my girlfriend’s parents! :sweaty smile emoji:

The Man Baby

12 Emoji That You're Probably Using Wrong

The official classification of this emoji is “tired face,” but it actually signifies someone throwing a tantrum.

Get it now? If you’re still confused, don’t worry, you’ll probably die soon.

Art by Sam Woolley