Vienna Waited

I was drawn to Vienna by an impression, reputation, and perceived ambiance. The locale was drilled into my consciousness early in life when Billy Joel released Vienna (Columbia, 1977). In those days, I lacked FM radio, but procured many eight-track tapes through a "club" subscription. 

Vienna was a "b-side," back in the day when music was initially released on 45 RPM discs and each had a "hit" and a "b-side." Vienna was b-side to Just the Way You Are, and understandably received little airtime. That has changed. What hasn't changed since 1977?

The song beckons:

"But you know that when the truth is told 

That you can get what you want or you can just get old 

You're gonna kick off before you even get halfway through, ooh

When will you realize Vienna waits for you?"

It waited a long time, but I found my way there in 2024. It was worth the wait. I walked Vienna alone one morning in the growing light. A beautiful venue cascading along the famed blue Danube. Footfalls were few that morning, and solitude was near pure as the city awakened.

This city is famous for its sophistication, music, and class. There are many orchestras across Europe, but Vienna is perhaps the world's capital for such sound. People attend in evening wear. There is class, sophistication, and reputation at every turn. Vienna is an embodiment of culture. She is an aristocrat of implacable sophistication. I reflect as I walk.

I am drawn from my solitude by a cacophony from a shirtless man on the sidewalk. He is recounting the ills and woes of his existence. A city maintenance crew, distracted from their morning attempt at collecting the avalanche of discarded, broken, and unwanted, paused and rendered aid to the man. I walked on. 

In time, as I made my way back, I saw the man interviewed by the police, examined in place, and eventually transferred to an ambulance. Certainly, the potential exists of some simple societal disconnect. As likely, there was an involvement there of man-made chemicals, too easily available, too simply misused, and too commonly fatal in our mortal world.

Here, in the epitome of class on the Danube, there are challenged people and those who strive to assist them. That was sobering. 

As I wander, I am increasingly mortified by the disrespect and vandalism of this elegant lady, Vienna, draped along the scenic river. There is a preponderance of tattoos and scars. Some would see these as decorations, consciously adopted as affectation or edifice. However, I have a lingering suspicion that these assaults were committed upon a slumbering soul, an unsuspecting or distracted socialite. They are not decorations, but scars.

As light chases the darkness, the volume of insult becomes more apparent, frankly unmistakable. The contrast between the city's tuxedo-clad symphony attendees, its historic charm and poise, and its wretched street vandalism, tattoos, and refuse are beyond striking.

I wander past a sidewalk cafe that has begun to stir. The outside chairs are chained together. Little would preclude theft of them all, but one may not readily steal only one. I ponder for a brief moment - "Who would steal a chair?" I gaze around the quaint square and marvel that any crime could coexist with this picturesque environment. And yet, there is the chain and lock. 

My wandering stroll reveals dichotomy, contradiction, and ensuing confusion. The vandalism, evidence of crime, troubled people, and garbage are neither endemic nor unique. Among the fair and beautiful, it is both dark and unexpected. Of all places to deface and defile with tattoos and trash, why here? Choosing a venue for expression and exposition, why the degradation and defacement of this noble lady on the Danube?

Who finds solace, inspiration, or validation in scrolling obscenities on the public edifice? Who finds art or comfort in this tagging, the vulgarity, the less-than-subtle innuendo and insult? Where does this destructive spirit and intent come from? In my bias, I admit that this scene in Detroit would neither surprise or disappoint. Reflecting, similar destruction in Frankfurt, observed only days before, barely registered. Perhaps naively, there is some acceptance of such debauchery and disrespect in some locations that is anathema in others?

I struggle to comprehend the effort that would be required to remove these horrific tattoos. As I reflected, I observed a cadre of workers struggling to merely collect the casually discarded cups, bottles, cans, and packages as I strolled a park. This detritus is scattered about the ground, mere feet from convenient and accessible refuse containers. It is not that they can't easily dispose of trash, but seemingly that they consciously chose the ground over the refuse bin. From where does indifference come?

My attention was returned then to the mental health outreach with the shirtless man. As I strolled homeward, the medical professionals were attending and the original street crew had returned to cleaning. I reflected: there is much that screams for attention. How is it prioritized, managed, and made?

What drives this vandalism? Is it dissonance? Disassociation? Disregard? Or simply defeat? How does society reach a moment of accepting such a reality? A vibrant, historic, beautiful city certainly deserves better. But to whom does that mission fall? At what cost, in money or in deprioritizing some other challenge?

For decades, Vienna waited for me. Despite the sad assault of years, the beauty, class, and ambiance are overpowering. The history oozes from it, surrounds and envelops. There is serenity, calm, and composure. Yet, I persist. What would it take to erase these stains of distaste and abuse? What would motivate the denizens to deposit waste in the receptacles provided, to care at the most simple, basic level?

Though I penned this months ago when Vienna was a fresh memory, I was reminded of it recently. The news noted mention of distasteful and rampant graffiti in my own Capitol, Washington D.C. That city of my youth I perceived as clean, crisp, and regal. Yet, in reflection, there were certainly parts of it that were less presentable, kept, and cared for even then. Everyone knew them and avoided them. 

Also, recently, there was the story of a clean-up to erase the graffiti committed on a cemetery in Florida. For some reason, some find joy, solace, or relief in disrespecting or degrading. Admitting that we might disregard these spray paint tattoos in some venues, who defaces graves and monuments? What message, intended or not, do they send?

The realization is that our history and homes are being vandalized and disrespected with increasing frequency. We are likely all guilty of overlooking it here and saving our disdain for when it is there. Perhaps if it is not in my neighborhood it is ok, or at least not worth my concern among competing priorities. And yet, there is no place for vandalism, vulgarity, and destruction. 

Why is it tolerated, excused, and allowed to remain? Is the metaphor lost? I suggest that our professions, the workers' compensation community, the interrelated worlds of medical care, risk, therapy, and more receive some measure of similar disregard or disrespect. Perhaps it is limited now to some neighborhoods we chose to ignore, but it will diminish us all as the ugly tattoos creep toward the beautiful, the parks, and the river. 

Why does deterioration spread? It is because it is tolerated little by little as the bigger challenges of life present and at times overwhelm. In time, perhaps we begin to simply accept or ignore? 

Are you Hiding?

People are hiding. This is not another post about virtual work, although that might apply also See Heigh Ho (January 2025). There are many workers who are hiding in plain sight, at work, according to a Randstad report described by Fortune. Perhaos not surprisingly, the "most likely to be secretive" is the Generation Z (1997-2012). The youngest workers are exhibiting introversion. There is some suggestion that group is inherently tech-focused and somewhat socially distant due to their preferred "digital environment." Nonetheless, they are not alone. 

The report supports that "About 62% of workers globally say they hide aspects of themselves at work." That was only 55% last year. The prevalence is higher in America, 70%. Some suggest that this is a trust issue, with the report noting "Only 49% of workers trust their employer to build a working culture where everyone can thrive." Ouch. Well, there may be cause and effect to unpack there.

I have witnessed this in the classroom over the last decade. Some students are reticent about contributing or sharing. When a debate does begin, some avoid joining a side or sharing a perspective, and instead divert their eyes or turn to devices for distraction. The nation's educators have done a poor job of encouraging engagement, freedom of speech, and participation. Too often the academic's mantra of classroom inclusion has merely promoted exclusion. It has not been a free speech or respectful equality mission but a cancel process of predictable and lamentable results. 

Fortune notes that contributing factors in the workplace may include a variety of perceptions about the world around us. Whether different generations have differing perceptions of trust specifically or work generally, there are notable differences illustrated in the study responses. In the Gen Z population about 68% "hide parts of themselves on the job," while "of baby boomers," it is only 52%. 

Too many of the younger generation have been convinced that the world will be a safe place in which they may cocoon. Those who taught these expectations are to blame. The world is not always a nice place. There are disagreements. That you hold a different one should engender respect, but not necessarily agreement or complacency. Allowing people to pontificate authoritatively on "flat earth" may not benefit them or their adversaries. 

Are boomers more secure generally? Or are boomers less concerned about the workplace as their working years dwindle? Are boomers more open generally? Or are they simply more acclimated and habitual in the workplace? Like the Tootsie Pop, the world may never know. See Tootsie Pops Make You Think (August 2021). 

The Fortune authors suggest that there are perceptions of heightened workplace tensions generally. They mention employees "fear being judged or discriminated against," but do not invoke the now-familiar "cancel culture" that has been increasingly discussed in recent years. Pew Research noted in 2021 that "the internet - particularly social media - has changed how, when and where" people "challenge each other's views." It conceded that challenging views is not new, but suggested the time, place, and manner have changed. 

With that comes the enhanced chances of keyboard courage and the poor outcomes it is associated with. See Keyboard Attacks (October 2024), and the posts cited there. 

The Pew report in 2020 illuminated "cancel" when Gen Z (1997-2012) members were eight to 23 years old. Now, this group is 13 to 28, and gaining prevalence in the workplace. It is axiomatic that these workers will tend to be in entry-level positions, or will have recently progressed from them. They are in their formative work years, perhaps evolving into formative management years. They have evolved into their career years with cancel culture prevalent, pervasive, and accepted. The majority may rule in that culture through bullying, crowd mentality, and worse.

Verywell Mind notes an evolution of the use of "Cancel," from a mysoginsitic origin through a broader "disapproval of another person's actions," to a broad exercise of expose, argument, or accountability for those who express different views. Some perceive "positive impacts," but Verywell suggests "cancelling often turns into bullying." Those who are "Cancelled" may "feel ostracized, socially isolated, and lonely. These emotions may be "associated with higher anxiety, depression, and suicide rates." In short, bullying is bad.

Is it any wonder that people are reluctant to be open and revealing at work? The Fortune article concedes that the fear of being open is long-standing. And it points its finger at companies that have elected to treat all workers equally and without discrimination. The equal workplace is derided as unfocused on employee "belonging." The fact is that people have struggled with belonging for eons. People have been different forever. And there has been pressure to conform and fit in as long as my memory stretches. 

It is possible that the overall, "global" increase in hiding at work may be attributable in part to the acceptance and encouragement of "cancel culture" and the keyboard bullying that has accompanied it. Those who would point at this or that person, culture, etc. might re-read above that this increase is a global finding, not local. 

And, Fortune returns to the generational aspect, highlighting a belief that Gen Z is more "acutely aware of what can happen if they expose too much of their lives at the office." The expressed (endorsed?) belief is that Gen Z has acclimated to cancel, bullying, and backlash. Nonetheless, the fear and impact of these are not generational. I speak to many employees, managers, professionals, and more. There is a near-universal aversion to bullying. The difference may exist in what one would be bullied about, but the aversion remains.

Heigh Ho?

For most of my life (until I wrote this post), I thought the seven diminutive laborers sang "Off to work we go." This was all in that eclectic and entertaining Grimm classic focused on parental (guardian) abuse, treachery, breaking and entering, poisoning, and worse. What a great kid's story, huh?

In fact, though, they do not sing "off to work," but only "It's home from work, we go." There is conjecture on the internet that the "off to" trope comes from a line earlier in the story about heading "off to work." It is amazing that one can become so convinced of falsity.

Nonetheless, the song conveys the challenge of the big commute. Perhaps it is better if we can sing along in route, or perhaps it is the camaraderie of commuting in a group activity, a common experience, a touchstone of commiserative experience? No, nobody really "likes" to commute, though some deal with it better than others.

The main point is that the time seems to have come for "off to work." The age of virtual employment dawned earlier this century and blossomed in the Great Panic. Remember when anyone suggesting that the virus was man-made was derided and insulted by the keyboard cowboys? The CIA now concludes a lab leak is a "more likely" cause than some transmission from animals as so long insisted by the experts. 

Previous posts about virtual work are listed at the end of this post, and Virtual had quite a following. The thought of its diminishment came to me recently when a colleague expressed disdain and disappointment that a family member was being ordered back to the office.

The sentiments there were about

1. Wasted time
2. Unnecessary commuting expense
3. Unwanted wardrobe expense
4. Illogic and unpopularity
5. Maturity and productivity

The bottom line is that every virtual employee believes she/he is more productive, more economical, and thus more useful than if she/he had to commute. Most managers I have spoken with feel that employees are more productive, more engaged, and more useful if they are in the office. This argument has as much chance of an amiable conclusion as one about the relative merits of SEC football between fans of any of those teams and any from the Big Ten, Big 12, or ACC (You could more readily get Gutfeld and Whoopi to agree on something).

But, the "Great Comeback" (c) is on. In 2024 such businesses as Amazon, the Washington Post, UPS, and AT&T abandoned remote work or curtailed it, according to Inc. Magazine, The experts consulted for that story are adamant in their remote-work fandom. Nonetheless, there are some concessions that hybrid work is the majority category of virtual work, and true-blue virtual work is diminishing. There appear to be few truly, fully remote workers out there, but they do exist. True virtual seem to share characteristics - highly educated, very motivated, and self-actualizing.

Then came January and a change of administrations in Washington. The news noted that federal workers will return to the office in significant numbers in 2025. The Independent reported that one of the first executive decisions in the new administration was the end of most virtual work in the federal government. Some agencies have reportedly already begun recalling workers. The pejorative and negative comments about government workers are too frequent and too stereotypical.

Reports on AT&T's return to office in December included various employee complaints. A primary gripe was that "there wouldn't be 'one-for-one' seating" for the workers. This means employees do not have a desk or office assigned to them. There are so many desks and they go to the first who arrive. Those who arrive later may have to use a conference table seat, the breakroom, or other unexpected accommodation. 

Some are arriving very early for the perks; but, do they eschew that next cup of coffee to keep from losing their seat? One report suggested that workers were also therefore banned from putting up pictures or leaving belongings in those workstations.

Some also complained about limited elevator access, vehicle parking, and other accouterments. There is a theme to the reporting, suggestive of some employee dissatisfaction with the return to office policy. The press reporting this seems sympathetic to the workers and the post-Great Panic "Great Inconvenience" (C) of 2025.

The complaints and criticisms may be driving the worker dissatisfaction or may be ancillary to the main issue - money. Some report that the return to the office costs the employee the equivalent of a month's groceries ($504.00). After the last few years of historic inflation, a month's groceries can be quite an investment. My old friend claims persistently that "it's all about the Benjamins." I always thought that was a boy band, but now I get it. (by the way, if you decide to name your band that - (c). If you decide to name yourselves The Great Panic or The Great Inconvenience, or The Great Comeback, same - (c)). 

Some see a drive to collegiality and team interaction. Others see heavy-handed management bent on control over contribution. There are many voices presently in the marketplace of ideas. That said, at the end of the day, there is no mandate on either side. The employer may certainly define the scope and process of the work. The employee is free to engage in that model or to choose other paths. Each side is free to choose.

Some will decry that perspective. They will insist that the employer has a disproportionate influence on the rules of any particular employment. That is simply supply and demand, which fluctuates. During the Panic, many did not work, and wages and accommodations like remote work increased. Labor was clearly in a positive negotiating position.

However, critics will stress that the working person now has little leverage or influence over the terms, space, or pace of work. Certainly, that might be a worthy observation within any workplace, and yet the employee could find other opportunities within an industry or profession, seek a different niche, or change employment entirely. Further, the more skilled the worker, the more accommodating the employer may have to be. Again, supply and demand. 

What is the right answer? What is the real truth? As we so often conclude, the correct answer is "it depends." It will depend on the employer, the employee, and the circumstances. There will unlikely be any commonality or consistency. Some will be virtual, some hybrid, and some on-premises. Some will thrive in this mode or that. Others will struggle in the mode they choose or must adopt. Some will flourish and stay, others languish and merely subsist. The outcomes will be individual, imperfect, and perhaps at times incendiary.

The bottom line is that the trend is turning from virtual work and for now, many workers will have to adapt to the challenges of in-person work. From all of us who persevered through the Great Panic at our office desks, doing the daily business, with our daily commute, Welcome Back! Oh, and Heigh Ho!

Previous posts on virtual or hybrid work:

Loss and Change (May 2020)
Presenteeism and the Coming Divide (June 2021)

Evolving Work Challenges (January 2022)

Remediating (February 2022)

Been Robbed (June 2022)

Too Sick to Commute? (July 2022)

Quiet Quitting (September 2022)

Productivity is Down (December 2022)

Generation Z Osmosis (April 2023)

Quitting Remote? (May 2023)
Virtual Productivity (August 2023)

Hip to Be Square? (August 2023)
Shifting Virtual (August 2024)
The Virtual Reality (October 2024)

Ring or Not?

The world of workplace safety saw an odd occurrence in Indonesia. A lady was apparently entertaining herself by "sticking her nose through (an office) chair’s mesh frame." She either did not consider the implications for her nose ring or had a momentary lapse of caution. Either way, she found herself with a captured nose ring and was unable to break free.

Her coworkers eventually summoned the fire department. However, first, they tried to extricate her themselves. According to the New York Post by

"wheeling the chair across the room and yanking on her head as she cried(d) in pain."

You ever hear that aphorism "with friends like that . . . ."

So, the fire department showed up and failed in a "myriad (of) attempts." These rescuers decided the best course was to transport the woman, her nose ring, and the chair in a van "to the local fire station with a colleague in tow." One wonders if this coworker was one of those who was "yanking on her head" earlier.

Trying to be humorous, the "fire brigade" attempted "to ease her tensions at the station by busting out a chainsaw, axe, and other heavy-duty tools and pretending to cut her free." I suspect that was about as reassuring as being "wheel(ed) across the room and yanking on her hair." Who wants a rescuer who is more interested in comic relief than the actual relief?

Is anyone else wondering why they didn't just cut the mesh on the chair?

Well, "after an excruciating 10 minutes," the firefighters managed to free this hapless chair surfer with a pair of pliers. Pliers. There is an obvious answer for such a conundrum. Is it plausible that the fire crew had no surgical pliers or forceps in their kit? Did they have no scalpel or knife for the mesh? Or did it take some driving time to the station to envision using pliers?

Safety experts have noted for years that employees:

"can reduce the chance of such an injury by controlling long hair, not wearing loose clothing and being aware of the hazards of wearing jewelry at work"

I can recall several safety meetings where the warnings to contain hair were similarly discussed. And I remember an unnerving injury that involved momentarily disobeying that instruction. She was horribly injured when a machine began ingesting hair and pulling her into its depths. She was fortunate a coworker had the composure to hit the emergency stop,k which saved her life and much of her hair. The injury was nonetheless significant and eye-opening for the coworkers.

As to jewelry, the best advice is that it "can cause serious injuries at work." It gets "caught on moving machinery," leading to "an amputation, deep cut, laceration or even strangulation." Or, you might get it caught in the mesh of a workplace chair. Many recommend that tape should cover piercings in the workplace for this reason. In short, piercings can be dangerous and that is easily managed.

We have been very successful with workplace safety in America. The "frequency" of work accidents has continued to decrease over recent decades. There have been some exceptional periods, but the overall trend has been down. This comes from safety equipment, professionals, and awareness. Too often, injury comes from momentary lapses in judgement that are worthy of review and reflection. 

Resources are Scarce

Resources are always scarce. There is never enough time, enough wealth, enough friends, enough peace, enough thoughtfulness, enough introspection, or enough intellect. The fact is that this rock is replete with scarcity. This is fundamental economics. There is scarcity and therefore, we perceive value. If the streets were strewn with diamonds, no one would drop thousands of dollars buying one.

Financial advice gurus The Motley Fool recently reported on the 2025 shift in Social Security, which paved the way for many who paid into Social Security to now receive benefits. That is an equitable posture. Those who pay should be able to enjoy the return. The new law eliminates what was labeled the "Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset."

That provision impacted "public-sector workers such as firefighters, police officers, and teachers that (who) also held private-sector jobs." They earned pensions on their public jobs, and the Social Security they paid was generally in those concurrent "private-sector jobs." The inference is that those private jobs were essentially side gigs or part-time. Nonetheless, the workers earned income, paid Social Security, and then did not receive retirement benefits for that work.

In fairness, Social Security is fundamentally the socialization of retirement, with an element for disability. There are minimum payment amounts that benefit some and maximum payments that detriment others and enhance the liquidity of the program. But, it is not thorough socialism in that only those who pay its tax for ten years (40 quarters) are eligible for retirement benefits, less for disability. 

The inequity of some workers paying the requisite quarters but being ineligible due to their full-time pensions led to the "bipartisan Social Security Fairness Act" being passed in 2024 and signed into law in January 2025. The equity and fairness are seemingly patent. The Motley Fools, however, suggest that this decision has broader implications than mere fairness for this relatively small group of wage earners.

They point out that there is a fictional "trust fund" (The Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund)(OASI). This is a fund in name, but it does not contain dollars. It contains primarily debt (the American Government borrowed the money and the Fund is holding Treasure Securities that say the Federal Government owes Social Security about $3 trillion in debt (among the $36 trillion the government owes a variety of creditors). 

So, it is a "fund," but its assets are basically paper. And, each minute, more tax revenue arrives from current workers to pay the current recipients. There are those who consider the whole concept a "Ponzi scheme," and others who disagree. Regardless of labels or pejoratives, the system largely lives up to yesterday's commitments with today's taxes, while planning explicitly on living up to tomorrow's commitments with next year's taxes. 

The problem is scarcity. That $3 trillion is the foundation for most people's retirement. Many Americans (69%) are "reliant" on those benefits and a significant number (47%) will be "very reliant," according to CNN. It turns out that some people save nothing for retirement and others save very well. In between is a great population that comprises a spectrum of savers. 

So, the "bipartisan Social Security Fairness Act," according to Motley, increases the pool of people that may draw those benefits. The Trust Fund was predicted to be insolvent by 2033. That is not new. One of my earliest blog posts was The First Social Program Bankruptcy is upon us (June 2014). Back then, Congres stepped in and found a way to enhance solvency. 

More recently, before the Social Security Fairness Act, financial experts predicted that by 2033, there would have been only enough to pay "79% of scheduled benefits." That would mean that in 2033 Congress would have to find the dollars to pay the other 21% (despite the $36 trillion and growing debt load).

The increase in people drawing benefits due to the Social Security Fairness Act" means that the insolvency will come sooner than 2033, and the "other" percentage when the fund is insolvent will be 26% instead of 21%, according to Motley. In other, more patent, words, the fund was on a collision course before, and the iceberg is now closer and larger. 

That is not a contradiction to the "fairness." Those people paid their withholding and the "fairness" is easy to see. Newsweek predicts that "insolvency" will occur in 2038. Despite the "fairness," some quoted there are critical of the new law. Regardless of opinions on equity, fairness, and finance, the fact is that a day of reckoning is on the horizon and it is closer today than it was in 2024.

This scarcity is part of the larger concept of scarcity and the reality that the U.S. borrows money in large amounts. The interest on that $36 trillion debt was $658 billion in 2023, and is growing. We approach a point when interest will be $1 trillion annually. That prediction is a reality in 2025 or 2026. This is fueling inflation, a decreasing purchasing power of the dollar caused by an oversupply of dollars chasing goods and services in the economy. 

Another example of scarcity and price is in the delivery of medical care. There are about 18 million people in America who are eligible for subsidized health insurance. Subsidized means that the taxpayer is funding some portion of their health insurance premium, or that the government is incurring additional debt to subsidize that insurance.

The advertisements from HealthCare.gov suggest that some are obtaining health coverage for as little as $4.00 per month. There is no health insurance in the wildest imagination that can be economically feasible at $4.00 per month. The Kaiser Foundation says that the lowest monthly premium is more like $716 ($8,591/12). No, no one has figured out how to compress that to $4. The government has simply figured out a way to allow customers to pay $4 while the government expends additional debt to subsidize the other $712 per month for those beneficiaries. And the government pays to advertise to attract more people to this program:

The process of subsidy is similar here. Until the "Fairness Act," a group of workers were paying Social Security taxes at side jobs and yet not eligible for payments. Those workers were subsidizing payments to other retirees. Similarly, workers today are subsidizing health care for other workers. It is a large system of transfer payments in which some pay more than they will ever collect and others pay less than they will consume. 

There are questions of equity, morality, legality, and more. The point, however, is that scarcity exists. The policymakers make various decisions in balancing their perceptions of the involved equities. There is compromise and periodic change. What does not change is that scarcity persists, and policy adjustments will not likely change scarcity but only change the legal adjustments or equities as to distribution and entitlement. 

The same conundrum of scarcity is elemental in workers' compensation as legislatures struggle with the reality of benefit volume, medical reimbursement, and premium rates. In a less flexible system (workers' compensation has to balance the books each year and cannot use paper debt in fictional balance), there have to be trade-offs for the sake of perceived equity. 

Perhaps we see in workers' compensation a microcosm of the reality of scarcity, balance, and legislative management intertwined with various challenges of liquidity, equity, and socialized risk. The inevitability of inflation continues to influence workers' compensation and workplace safety. The divergence between the consumer price index (inflation) and medical inflation continues to cause medical to consume an ever-increasing portion of the workers' compensation dollar. The available benefit is scarce through statutory and market constraints. 

And, as illustrated by the Motley article, any action ("Fairness Act") will have actions both intended and unintended. Every action will be fundamentally Newtonian, and the reality thereafter will bring reactions, ripples upon the pond or waves. Scarcity is too often ignored.

The implications are intriguing and worthy of thought.  

Candor, Quarts, and Consistency

Periodically, we receive a pleading that befuddles me. That is rare, but it happens. Those require a step back, pause, and ponder. We strive to comprehend and respond. 

More often, we receive pleadings sprinkled with mistakes and diversions that, while distracting are easily overlooked. The best examples are misspellings and grammar errors (seriously, who does not have spell check in 2025?). One of the persistent distractions noticed is references to "this Quart." The Florida OJCC is an administrative agency. It is not empowered or even mentioned in Article V. of the Florida Constitution (titled "Judiciary").

Sorry for the misstatement above, I mean "this Court," not "Quart." Some will scoff that "Quart" is ridiculous, and they would be correct. But "Court" is just as absurd.

Practice hint: employing the adjective "honorable" before either Court or Quart does nothing to remedy the fallacious foundation or justify the misstatement.

So, one might candidly ask: "What do we call you?" The OJCC is an agency, and thus "this Agency" would be accurate. The "O" in OJCC stands for "Office," and thus "this Office" is also accurate. If you keep calling me Superman in front of your client, she/he/they might come to assume I can leap tall buildings. By calling me a Quart, you may likewise create expectations of my authority that exceed reality. You might even convince yourself of some mistaken premises. The application of rules is one example.

The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings in the state courts (Article V.). They are made by the Court and govern the processes within court authority or jurisdiction. The first of them, Rule 1.010 explains how/when they are used: "in the circuit courts and county courts."

Practice hint: the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply in workers' compensation proceedings unless the Chapter 60Q-6 Rules of Procedure for Workers' Compensation Adjudications specifically adopt or incorporate those rules. It is a short list.

Let's be specific. The only Chapter 60Q-6 Rules of Procedure for Workers' Compensation Adjudications rules that incorporate or adopt the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are:

• 60Q6.114(2)(a) "as provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure"
• 60Q6.114(3) "as provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure"
• 60Q6.114(4) "as provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure"
• 60Q6.114(5) "as provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure"

A lawyer who files a pleading alleging generally that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are globally incorporated in the "Rules of Procedure for Workers' Compensation Adjudications" or the "Q-rules" is making a misstatement of the law. To be clear, that statement is not true.

For the sake of the few readers who need to catch up at this point, let's all remember that "misstatement" means "the act of expressing a fact that is not correct." Interesting that the expression of a "not correct" fact is a "misstatement." Section 440.105(4)(b) similarly addresses any knowing "false" (that is "not correct") or even "misleading" "statement for the purpose of obtaining or denying any benefit." This applies, it seems, to "any person." 

That is an "any person" caution worthy of consideration by all. Nonetheless, for lawyers, who are not just "any person," but persons of great sophistication and education, there are also the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-3.3. This rule precludes lawyers from

• mak(ing) a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal
• fail(ing) to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal

No, there is no potential that anyone will ever get in any trouble for calling this Office/Agency a "Quart" or a "court." But making a representation that The Rules of Procedure for Workers' Compensation Adjudications has in some manner globally incorporated the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure is false, misleading, and inappropriate. Such a misstatement that those rules globally apply in these proceedings is troublesome. 

For clarity, the following rules of court also do not apply in workers' compensation proceedings unless specifically incorporated in The Rules of Procedure for Workers' Compensation Adjudications:

• Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
• Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration. 
• Probate Rules.
• Rules of Traffic Court.
• Small Claim Rules.
• Rules of Juvenile Procedure.
• Family Law Rules of Procedure.

Each of these is a set of rules adopted by the Florida Courts. Of all of them, only the discovery rules of the Civil Rules are adopted in The Rules of Procedure for Workers' Compensation Adjudications, and only the disqualification rule from the Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration is. These are specific and clear adoptions.

W. Edwards Deming, eons ago, uttered the now famous “In God we trust; all others must bring data.” Litigants and litigators would be well advised to follow a similar "bring authority" in their pleadings and arguments. Nonetheless, that should be tempered with the caution of bringing relevant and applicable authority.

Practice hint: The California Rules of Civil Procedure also do not apply in Florida workers' compensation disputes. Nonetheless, there may be some nuggets in those rules that support the outcome you seek. If so, cite those rules, argue the policy, and, of course, acknowledge that "while these rules do not control, the policy is persuasive because ...." But don't argue that the California Rules are globally incorporated in the Rules of Procedure for Workers' Compensation Adjudications.

I can hear the little old men in the balcony screaming right now. They are likely saying "THIS IS PICAYUNISH AND IRRELEVANT." They may be right and probably are. But one might consider that the path to big misrepresentations and mistakes begins and grows in the greenhouse of small ones repeated without consideration or reflection.

File this thought away: The process in Florida workers' compensation is defined and delimited in the administrative rules: Rules of Procedure for Workers' Compensation Adjudications. Only where those incorporate others (see above) are those others controlling. There is plenty of room in any dispute for good lawyering and sound arguments. But there is danger in statements of fact that are not true.

Accommodation and Frustration

Recently, there was a feel-good story about an airline. A traveler was striving to reach a tertiary airport to connect with a family member suffering a probable fatal health episode. Having boarded, she learned of delays in departure and lamented the impact that would have on a very short turnaround at the connecting airport. Her reaction led to emotions.

No, this is not one of those stories where emotions led to an arrest, though those seem to be proliferating. Instead, this story relates the anxious and tearful reaction of the traveler and the airline's extraordinary accommodation. The pilot somehow convinced the airline to hold the connecting aircraft and await this traveler, undoubtedly inconveniencing an array of other travelers. She was so inspired that she posted her grateful reaction on "Tic Toc."

The story indicates that flight schedules can be adjusted, complex processes can be managed, and the importance of service can be highlighted. It is a touching story and worth the very few minutes to read.

I recently attended a planning meeting for an educational effort I am involved with. The discussions were amazingly complex and educational. I likely learned as much from the planning as anyone might hope to learn by attending the seminar. More on that in a future post. But one relaxing lull led to discussions of the perils of air travel, stemming from some who faced challenges in travel to the meeting.

Every attendee contributed a tale of travel woe. Each had been on the difficult end of a delayed or diverted flight, lost luggage, failure of accommodation, or downright disrespect. There was some feeling of community in the shared experience of airline frustration and disappointment. There were also some humorous components and laughing about frustrations always helps with acceptance and recovery.

I relayed my experience of the six hours that became 18. I found myself late boarding a flight one afternoon with a scheduled one-hour turnaround in another city. The path was back to Paradise at the end of a long couple of days. 

The airline had access to all the pertinent information, knowing which passengers had connecting flights and the timing each of us faced in the connecting city. The airline knew how late it was departing, and the math involved with the impact of that was anything but calculus. 

The flight duration was enhanced by some degree of ground delay after boarding and finally taking off. Late turned into later, and still, everything was known to the airline. 

The door opened at the connecting airport leaving me 15 minutes to traverse two terminals to the departing gate for Paradise. Once clear of the multitude of other travelers striving to deplane with equal frustration, I ran through the airport at my best, and yet lamentable, speed. I arrived to find the door shut at the Paradise gate. I was literally 6 minutes past departure time.

As I walked away, I began searching for alternatives on my phone. I found a flight departing in less than one hour to Emerals Coast, a destination only 40 miles from Paradise and I broke into a run again. As I approached that alternative gate, boarding had begun, but I was pleased to hear there were empty seats. The gate agent, however, could (would?) not put me on the flight.

She explained that her capabilities at the gate only allowed her to accommodate passengers "with status." That was an apparent reference to the loyalty programs and the benefits of accumulating a volume of miles on some airline. Despite being a "frequent flyer," I lacked "status." Some might naively believe that being a customer conveys some "status," but not in this situation. It is humbling when someone tells you they can help people, but can't (won't) help you.

I was therefore directed to a long line at "customer service," less than 40 yards away. There, I plodded along as the deluged staff strove to accommodate or assuage "status-less" passenger after passenger. When it was eventually my turn, the gate door for the Emerald Coast had closed. My lack of "status" had resulted in another disappointment.

The original ticket had me check in, clear security, leave a town, connect, and arrive in Paradise in just over 6 hours. The alternative would have been about an 8.5-hour drive home.

At the connecting airport, having missed my flight and the only rational alternative flight, I found myself about seven hours into my return trip and being offered a flight the following morning, about 15 hours later. The airline offered no apology, hotel accommodation, or even acknowledgment of the situation. 

Having invested seven hours in reaching this connecting airport, I was ironically still about an 8.5-hour drive from Paradise. The entire seven-hour investment had accomplished no progress, and the prospect was another 15-hour delay plus two-hour flight. And that was assuming the next flight would proceed as scheduled, even for those of us who lacked "status."

The kind people at the rental car counter found me a vehicle and I departed at about 9:00 p.m. and drove to Paradise in the middle of the night. I arrived with time for a shower before heading off to work. I beat the arrival time of that alternative next-day flight the airline had proposed by about 8 hours.

My written complaint to the airline was responded to promptly. They cheerfully informed me that they had refunded the unused portion of my ticket (connecting to Paradise, I still paid for the useless trip to the connecting city). They reminded me that travel can be uncertain and hoped to see me again soon on another flight.

The airline did not address my suggestion that gate personnel at their company might be empowered to help passengers who were delayed or displaced by the airline's failure (even those lowly "no-status" passengers).

The cheerful message did not address my suggestion that if they had told me before departure, I could have driven home in about the time it took to reach the rental car counter in the connecting city.

There was no mention of the failure to offer a hotel, a meal, or even an apology for the failure.

The lesson, at the time, was that there will be frustrations anytime we are at the mercy of someone else's schedule, rules, and processes. It was a long, dark drive back to Paradise. The lesson is that in any service industry, there may be perceptions of less-than-adequate service. 

Having read the inspiring story that instigated this post, I am hopeful that my flight delay that day that precipitated my missed connection somehow accommodated or helped someone in need. Without me knowing, perhaps somehow that airline was taking care of someone whose needs were greater than my own. If so, so be it. Doing good for others is important. 

My need to believe that people are fundamentally good drives me to conclude that what I experienced was merely the downside of someone else's upside. I hope someone was accommodated and afforded their "Tic Toc"-worthy moment. It is easier to suffer the downside believing that it was for someone in need to have an upside, rather than mere incompetence or ambivalence.

Or, perhaps the team there was merely ambivalent or incapable of proacting to prevent inconvenience. Possibly, no one there cared about the customer in any manner. But that is a cynical conclusion. And having listened to the amazing stories of my fellow travelers at that recent meeting, I got off easy. Perhaps one day I will recount their far more challenging travel travails. 

If you have a bad experience with an airline, there is an automated complaint process on the internet. Contact the Federal Aviation Administration for details. And, before you think the challenges are specific to this or that airline, have a read through Reddit and perhaps you will conclude that someone, somewhere, has had a complaint at some point about virtually all the available flying alternatives.

Travel is simply difficult. There are many moving parts, competing schedule demands, uncertainties, and challenges. Moving people from place to place, on schedule, is daunting. The news more recently announced that the government would sue one airline over late flights. The soon-former Secretary of Transportation said 

“Airlines have a legal obligation to ensure that their flight schedules provide travelers with realistic departure and arrival times." 

Another airline was fined recently for its flight delays. The government is seemingly interested in flight delays and challenges in the world of travel. That story includes allegations that the air traffic control system, rather than the airlines, is responsible for much of the delay challenge. 

What is seemingly missing is any conversation about the leadership that would bring collaboration and progress. The anecdotal indicators are of a system in need of adjustment(s), a system capable of reacting and proacting when it chooses, and yet a dearth of leadership focused on bringing change, improvement, and efficiency. In short, it sounds a lot like the Florida workers' compensation system of the 1990s. 

If this system disappoints and frustrates you similarly or in any regard, email me directly and lets discuss it - david.langham@doah.state.fl.us. You have "status" here.  

Should we Pause?

A fair number of “experts” have announced their opposition to artificial intelligence. They are sincerely convinced that the perils of this technology are simple and terrible. It is their contention that we should pull back from this technology before it destroys us all. They believe we should pause, take a time-out, and consider the implications. Some even think that we need to put up some guardrails. See The Eeeeyew AI Says What? (December 2024).

Sky News reported in 2023 on a letter published by "the non-profit Future of Life Institute and signed by more than 1,000 people." Signers included Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, Emad Mostaque, Tristan Harris, and Yoshua Bengio. The signatories might be characterized as accomplished and bright, but that would be a gross understatement. None of them has ever sought my advice, but nonetheless a reasonably brilliant bunch.

The challenge with the ideology that "we" should pause is that there is no “we.“ This rock is inhabited by some 8.2 billion people divided along a variety of faults, including culture, continent, country, allegiance, government ideology, and more. The supposition that "we" might collectively and cooperatively do any one thing is borderline preposterous. 

Time and again, "we” have agreed to step back from technology. A prime example was the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty in 1968. Britanica says that at the moment it was signed perhaps 6 countries had such weapons. There was consensus on stopping the evolution and spread. Today the list nonetheless continues to grow, and more countries still aspire to it. This is not because everyone subscribes to what "we" want; some instead are driven by what "they" want.

An interesting article was published recently regarding a gun perfected by the Chinese People's Amy. It is called the "Metal Storm." The story has a catchy MSN headline "China’s ‘metal storm’ gun fires 450,000 rounds per minute, claim scientists." That volume of projectiles is for each barrel of the gun and the gun may have five or more barrels. The bottom line is an amazing flow of bullets. 

For comparison, the very accomplished and astonishing phalanx ship defense system deployed on U.S. Navy ships can fire 4,500 rounds per minute. That system has been effective in defending a variety of US naval vessels around the planet from a multitude of risks and attacks. The new Chinese system is 100 times more prolific.

In 2020 barges destroyed the bridge here in Paradise. See The Bridge that Isn't (January 2021) and If You Were Half the Bridge I am (June 2021). After that event and the incredible disruptions, some in this Navy town advocated the installation of a Phalanx system to similarly protect the Paradise Bridge from miscreant barges. Though these were facetious and humorous, they were nonetheless complimentary of the Phalanx capability.

But that capability (4,500 rounds per minute) pales in comparison to the new Chinese tool capable of firing millions of rounds per minute from a single vehicle, equipped with multiple barrels. The name "storm" is both apropos and intimidating. How did someone get so far ahead in the gun business?

The MSN article explains that the weapon was "initially proposed by Australian inventor Mike O’Dwyer in the 1990s." The original had "a 36-barrel test system capable of firing at an astonishing rate of 1 million rounds per minute." The "US Department of Defense . . . partnered with him," but eventually abandoned the project. One might suspect or suggest that we "paused." 

Nonetheless, "Beijing has sustained its investment in this technology." Beijing has elected not to "pause" and is now producing weapons that are immensely dangerous, threatening, and capable. This advancement threatens the world's balance of power, as there is discussion of how the new gun might destroy missiles and other armaments. 

The fact is that there are advancements in technology and its applications (good and not-so-good) every day. Some progress, some pause, and there is competitive evolution and revolution in our world. This is persistent in various technologies and endeavors and our world evolves. 

There is no "we." If this country or that country elects not to pursue any evolution or revolution in technology or science, that will not preclude or even deter other countries. Is the right solution to pause AI in the United States, the European Union, Great Britain, or elsewhere? The only effect of such a pause may be to enable and embolden others who may have less-than-benevolent intentions for their achievements and advances. 

And some believe that AI will chart its own course despite our intentions or plans. There is an element of AI that reflects the ability of computers to achieve sentience and to learn. From this moment, it is perhaps imperative that "we" remember that "we" who make decisions about its future may not all be biological beings.  

There might be some hope that there could be a "we." Perhaps the world in its entirety might one day learn "to sing in perfect harmony," like an aspirational soft drink commercial. But, is that realistic? Is there any real potential to stuff the "AI genie" back into the bottle with a "pause?" The answer is simply "no."

That said, might there be room for caution, contemplation, and even regulation (territorial or broader through treaty)? Certainly. Is there time to discuss best practices, challenges, and complications? Certainly. Is there anything regarding AI to be worried about? Certainly. None of that is benefitted by wishing, hoping, or pausing.

I would suggest that there is little potential for a "pause." The competitive and complex interrelationships among the 8.2 billion inhabitants and all their various schisms, categories, and conglomerations do not lend themselves to "we" accomplishing anything. No, "we" should not pause.

Instead, yet again, we find ourselves in an arms race no different from the nuclear age. We will strive to build better, faster, and more proficient AI tools. In parallel, there will be a race for better, faster, and more efficient chips and circuitry. Others will also, while we all also strive to build better tools to detect, control, and militate the potential harms or shortcomings. We will act, react, invest, and perhaps lament. 

Those who act in their own best interests will strive to maximize AI benefits and avoid detriments. Some will build programs that make fake pictures and others programs that will detect or preclude them. Some will build programs that write term papers and others that detect them. There will be investment, aspiration, and progress. The arms race is on, and the sooner "we" see that the better.






Prior posts on AI and Robotics
Will the Postal Service be our Model for Reform? (August 2014)
Attorneys Obsolete (December 2014)
How Will Attorneys (or any of us Adapt? (April 2015)
Salim Ismail and a Life-Changing Seminar (May 2015)
The Running Man from Pensacola, Florida (July 2015)
Will Revolution be Violent (October 2015)
Ross, AI, and the new Paradigm Coming (March 2016)
Chatbot Wins (June 2016)
Robotics and Innovation Back in the News (September 2016)
Universal Income - A Reality Coming? (November 2016)
Artificial Intelligence in Our World (January 2017)
Another AI Invasion, Meritocracy? (January 2017)
Strong Back Days are History (February 2017)
Nero May be Fiddling (April 2017)
The Coming Automation (November 2017)
Tech is Changing Work (November 2018)
Hallucinating Technology (January 2019)
Inadvertently Creating Delay and Making Work (May 2019)
Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020)
Robot in the News (October 2021)
Safety is Coming (March 2022)
Metadata and Makeup (May 2022)
Long Term Solutions (June 2022)
Intelligence (November 2022)
You're Only Human (May 2023).
AI and the Latest (June 2023)
Mamma Always Said (June 2023)
AI and the Coming Regulation (September 2023)
AI Incognito (December 2023)
The Grinch (January 2024)
AI in Your Hand (April 2024)
AI and DAN (July 2024)
AI is a Tool (October 2024)
Rights for the Toaster (October 2024)
Everybody Wake Up! (October 2024)
First What is it? (November 2024)
X-Files or Poltergeist? (November 2024)
Is Gartner Helpful on AI? (December 2024)
The Eeeeyew AI Says What? (December 2024)
Is AI bad or just Scary? (December 2024)
Layers and Layers of What? (January 2025)
Wayback Machine (January 2025)

Risk Tolerance and Cybersecurity

This morning, Aerosmith's Make it (Columbia Records, 1973) plays and replays in my mind. The lyrics of note are

"You know that history repeats itself

What you just done, so has somebody else"

Most everyone involved with computers and a glancing acquaintance with cyber security remembers the Target attack a decade ago, As reported by Red River, it was one of the largest security breaches as of that time. The retailer's system was breached and "cybercriminals were able to steal 40 million credit and debit records and 70 million customer records." For those unfamiliar with numbers, that is what we refer to in the computing world as "a lot."

The miscreants in that attack did not mount a brute force attack on the retailer itself. They focused instead on "a third-party vendor." Red River notes that

"Third parties are most commonly compromised because they typically aren’t as well-secured."

There are a great many potential third-party vendors out there. The old proverb holds that "the chain is only as strong as the weakest link." That reminds me of a time we used a truck to pull a tractor trying to free a bulldozer, but that is a different story altogether. 

A 2023 recap highlighted the 7 most infamous instances of cloud breaches. The article includes names like Facebook, Alibaba, LinkedIn, and Toyota. These are relatively large companies with significant sophistication. The breaches are said to have affected billions of records. 

The threats of cloud storage and third-party vendors are old news (ye olde denial "it can't happen to me" nonetheless soothes and assures a great many who have nowhere near the sophistication or experience). 

That is not to say that IT professionals don't think about these breach issues. There are a multitude of issues facing the IT world for 2025. Anyone with data is implicated. One site provides several concrete concerns for the IT professional but summarizes

"From the advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) to outdated hardware, poor strategic planning and spending, cloud confusion, and new cyber threats, the numbers of IT issues are multiplying."

Gartner notes that risks include "surface expansion," or the breadth of places that can be attacked; there is mention of "clouds" (other people's computers), social media, and more. It notes more of the organization needs to be involved in IT security decisions. Security efforts must be holistic, as traditional threat training is "ineffective." Human error remains a major threat. Decreasing the number of vendors is also mentioned. The advice is relatively simple. Too simple? Unfortunately, none of this is new.

It would be naïve at best to believe the cyber world is a safe place. The Workers' Compensation Institute produced cybersecurity programs twice in the last ten years. As a result, I did much research and writing, see It Can Happen to Everyone (July 2021) for the topic and links to various posts I authored on cybersecurity. 

The topics were compelling, the speakers were outstanding, and the attendance was disappointing. At the peak, these sessions attracted about 100 attendees. And many I questioned about their absence expressed that they had no concerns about hackers, extortionists, and worse. Those who accept blissful ignorance as a plan will likely find impacts and headaches in their future. 

The inattentive learned another hard lesson in December 2024. The federal government would be expected to be a leader in safeguarding data. In fairness, it is also likely an attractive target. However, Reuters News recently noted that the U.S. Treasury Department had suffered an attack from miscreants. The officials there are blaming China for the attack, and characterizing it as "major."

True to the lessons not learned from the history of vendor hits, the Treasury says that one of its vendors was compromised. Did anyone else ever hear the old Girl Scout camping song: "Second verse, same as the first, a little bit louder and a little bit worse." Apparently, the good folks at Treasury never did. Ya know what they say about those who fail to learn from history?

The breach at Treasury led to the disclosure of internal documents. That is similar to Target. However, the concern is larger at Treasury. The vendor breached, which led to the Treasury, was a supposed cybersecurity expert: "The hackers compromised third-party cybersecurity service provider BeyondTrust." The guard hired to protect the castle got breached? The expert hired to prevent harm led to harm? 

The bad actors, Chinese or otherwise, were "able to override ... security, remotely access certain Treasury DO (Departmental Offices) user workstations." That is not news. Cloudflare and others note that there are security risks with such Remote Desktop Protocol

(RDP) paradigms. They and others voice enthusiasm for the convenience from "employees access their office desktop computers from another device."

By allowing all of its employees to have RDP, an organization roughly doubles the "surface" of potential attacks. Transmitting across the Internet may compromise data and security as the "man in the middle" has the potential to access information in transit, despite efforts at encryption. Double the transmissions with remote work, and the chances of intercept only increase. 

What the incident at the U.S. Treasury immediately teaches are some reasonably simple lessons.

First, the most sophisticated cybersecurity experts are not able to unequivocally prevent breaches of RDP.

Second, those who place their reputations and clients at risk with such tools as RDP are taking a significant risk.

Third, the risk remains no matter how sophisticated the entities are with whom you take this risk. 

Fourth, increasing surface area and transmission frequency with data is fraught with increased risk of breach.

One of the key points of the WCI Cybersecurity program that I moderated is that "costs" come in many forms. The speakers there were unanimous on this point. They suggested that a cyber-breach might result in:

• Loss of access to your network (ransom).
• Loss of control of your data (theft, potential ransom demand to clients).
• Financial loss due to ancillary impacts on your clients.
• Detriment to customers or partners.
• Loss of reputation as hackers communicate with clients or public.

Risk, risk, risk. There are a multitude of ways that hackers can damage the business and even ruin the names of those who run it. Every lawyer, doctor, nurse case manager, and employer should be wary of hackers. Though a less likely target (businesses have data about many reachable in a single breach), there are those who attack individuals also. Every worker should be aware of cybersecurity, the protection of devices, and the vulnerabilities.

The potential for breach impacts every element and component of the workers' compensation community. Every employer, every worker, and everyone that any of them touches. 

Potentially, there will be fallout from the bureaucratic inadequacy that afforded vendor-based remote access at the Department of Treasury. There is some chance that jobs will be lost because of the "major" event there last month. Undoubtedly, there will be responses. I suspect these might include:

• We hired the experts, and "they" messed up.
• This was unprecedented and could not have been foreseen.
• No one can completely forestall a state actor like China.

Nonetheless, some may struggle to accept that such a breach could occur. They may ask why an entity would even need RDP? Is the purpose to facilitate "remote" or "hybrid" work? Is there a compelling reason for such remote work? Or, is the worker convenience a nicety that simultaneously creates convenience for both the employee and the hacker?

The bottom line is that risk spreads over computers. The very wonder of computers is that they can operate rapidly, repetitively, and efficiently. Those very strengths for productivity are equal and opposite weaknesses for security. There are risks, benefits, and perhaps a necessity of balance. The chore of every professional and manager will be to assess the first two carefully and adopt a workable balance that fits the organization, professional, or situation.

I recall when the AIDS crisis broke upon American shores in the 1980s. There was fear, but also some degree of cavalier disregard for risk. It was common for lectures to refer to the infection risk with a reference to “partners.“ Their hypothesis, frequently proven, correct, was that engaging with any amorous partner was the equivalent of engaging in such relations with everyone that that person had previously had such amorous contact with.

If you must connect a computer, then the benefit is 100%. Perhaps a corresponding 100% risk of infection is a risk that has to be taken. If the risk of infection is 0% (fictional but as illustration), then perhaps a benefit of near 0% justifies hooking your computer to every other machine you can find. But, neither of these is realistic. Realistically, the analysis for each of us will fall between these two. 

The challenge is both broad and deep. There are people in this world who are bent on destruction, theft, and mischief. They have been a threat for many years, and just as the internet, email, artificial intelligence, and now quantum chips will bring great efficiency and benefit to us all, they bring power and enablement to the hackers as well. The world is in a constant state of flux as the miscreants and the protectors/rescuers persistently strive to outdo each other.

And we, one and all, are at their mercy. The only tools at our disposal are knowledge, common sense, and careful attention to our own lives and business(es). There is no absolute safety nor hopeless doom. There is only balance, and you can decide your own perceptions of risks and benefits that suit you, your needs, preferences, and frivolities.

But, no matter what, don't forget Aerosmith: 

"You know that history repeats itself

What you just done, so has somebody else"

Whose Job is Safety?

There is a tandem concern in the workplace, safety and workers' compensation. In my career, I spent many hours defending workers' compensation claims and witnessed a variety of comprehension for the interrelationship between these two business concerns. Without exception, the extent to which the two silos interrelated or even communicated within an entity was largely dependent on leadership.

If leadership recognized that better safety meant less probability of accident and injury, then the management team likewise acknowledged this and there was collaboration and engagement in the two functions.

Similarly, if company leadership did not acknowledge the potential for interaction and interrelationship, there was a tendency in some businesses to view these two silos as utterly free-standing. In those entities, there was periodically a challenge with incompatible goals or approaches in the two silos resulting in conflict and frustration.

Leadership. There is a necessity in any business for both leadership and a clear understanding of goals, responsibilities, and interaction expectations. 

This is true in the broadest sense. Conflicts persist between silos. I knew a salesman long ago who frequently lamented that "legal" frustrated his deals. Unfortunately, the company precluded him from interacting with the lawyers as deals were conjured, sculpted, and prepared. That review could only come after the deal was tentatively struck, by then, there had been much effort and even the most minor "legal" suggestions periodically killed the deal.

Leadership. There is a necessity for leaders to be aware of such issues of communication, interaction, and potential frustration. It is the leader who must ensure that goals are understood, coordinated, and appreciated. These thoughts occurred to me reading the news coverage of the terrorist attack in New Orleans, on a street I have often enjoyed. 

If you missed it, the news broke early New Year's Day of a vehicular attack on Rue Bourbon. The British Broadcasting Corporation reports on the 14 that died in this attack. Other reports suggest that dozens more were injured. The world has many famous streets, but this one is as iconic as any I know. The alleged driver/attacker is said to be Shamsud-Din Jabbar, and police say he perished in a gunfight with the police after wrecking the vehicle he allegedly used.

About a week before, Taleb Al Abdulmohsen was accused of driving a truck through a Christmas market in Magdenburg, Germany. CNN reports that he allegedly drove a truck into a crowd and killed 5 while "injuring more than 200 others." It is possible that a leader awakening on December 23, 2024, might have asked a question or two about whether such an event could happen on or at their premises.

Or, perhaps not.

But, ABC News reports "New Orleans city leaders were warned in a 2019 confidential physical security assessment." The report said: "Bourbon Street was vulnerable to a vehicle ramming." It noted that there were inoperable "existing blockade mechanisms." No, while the Magdenburg attack might have been a wake-up call, there was a specific, direct, written warning about safety and potential five years ago (perhaps longer, see below).

NBC News reports that the Police Superintendent knew of the threat and that the installed barriers, "bollards," had been removed. She noted that her team therefore strove to "harden those target areas" with "patrol cars and other measures." Nonetheless, those measures were ineffective. It apparently came as a complete surprise to city officials that the terrorist could drive on the sidewalk to avoid those precautions.

NBC News also reports that the bollards were being fixed in 2024 because the city would soon host the Super Bowl. The Mayor of New Orleans is reported to have explained that "the Super Bowl gave the city 'an opportunity to go further and deeper with infrastructure improvements' including replacing the bollards."

Some estimate that "about 1,000,000 people . . . attend Mardi Gras New Orleans." Those annual events since 2019 (or 2017) somehow apparently did not "give the city an opportunity."

The Sugar Bowl is played annually in New Orleans. The stadium is the same that will host the Super Bowl. A website provides the "Ultimate Guide to" this game, and it seems to suggest that more people come to New Orleans for the Sugar Bowl than will fit in the stadium. However, those annual events since 2019 (or 2017) also somehow apparently did not "give the city an opportunity."

The city promotes Rue Bourbon as a place of "constant celebrations." It mentions "bachelorette and bachelor parties," "the Southern Decadence Festival," and more. However, those constant events since 2019 (or 2017) also somehow apparently did not "give the city an opportunity."

Each year, the city celebrates the new year with free concerts, fireworks, and more. There are advertisements to draw people to the French Quarter, Rue Bourbon, and more. Somehow, these annual events since 2019 (or 2017) also apparently did not "give the city an opportunity." 

No, it was apparently only the Super Bowl that afforded the city the opportunity to safeguard a known and notified threat. 

In an effort to inform the public, the City of New Orleans published on its website that the Rue Bourbon bollards would be under construction. The vulnerability of missing barricades was advertised intentionally. 

Anyone with an internet connection could quickly learn that  "Construction began in November 2024 and is scheduled to continue through February 2025." There is a handy, color-coded map included to illustrate "sequencing details" for the work. The vulnerability was literally detailed and advertised. Some perceive that as facilitating terrorists. Nonetheless, the website also assures that "Safety is our top priority."

Leadership. Safety.

Today, according to InvestigateTV, there are "temporary barricades" in use in the New Orleans French Quarter. This story claims that there was a "2017 traffic study" (note the various "or 2017" herein) that highlighted the need to "upgrade infrastructure" and "make the street 'less accessible to those intending harm.'" This story claims that one temporary protection, the "wedge-style" was "intentionally left down on New Year's."

NBC News reported that "New Orleans (also) failed to deploy anti-vehicle barriers that the city had owned for years ahead of the attack." The Louisiana Lt. Governor noted that these "Archer" barriers ("700-pound, steel anti-vehicle barriers") were available. He said the attack illustrates 

“a complete failure of responsibility to keep the city safe, from the top down, by not having those barriers in place or even having knowledge of them.”

Not having knowledge? NBC News Chicago reports that the New Orleans Police Chief was asked about the Archers that appeared after the terrorist attack. She responded:

"Actually, we have them. I did not know about them, but we have them, so we have been able to put them out."

The team leader in charge of security and protection did not know what assets or tools were available to protect the public. According to the NBC Chicago story, New Orleans had 48 of these 700-pound steel "Archer" barriers. They deployed them the day after 15 were killed and dozens injured in a preventable terrorist attack.

NBC News further reports that there is a "sense of betrayal." Those who work in the Rue Bourbon area lament the absence of Archer barriers until after the attack. Some were critical of the scheduling of the bollard replacement and noted "it seems worse than poor planning."

The role of leadership includes responding to threats and events. In a broader sense, planning is always management's role. A good leader takes any event or accident as an opportunity to discuss how to prevent a recurrence. This happens every day in America as people are injured at work and claim workers' compensation. Good managers examine how such an accident might be prevented or militated (better safety devices, etc.).

Workplace safety demands it, and the persistently decreasing frequency of workplace injury (aside from the spike in illness during the Great Panic) is a testament to the benefits of focused analysis of workplace safety in this country. That is not to say all managers are so focused and engaged. It is not to say silos do not exist. It is to say that everyone can strive to do better. 

Leaders facilitate communication. Leaders recognize the potential for threats or risks. Leaders plan and prepare for the protection of both workers and the public. And when leaders fail, questions may be asked. It is hoped, in all instances of injury or death, that those questions are pointed, focused, and lead to efforts that could prevent recurrence.

Every leader should consider the start of 2025 a potential for a fresh look. What are the safety risks in your environment? What tools are you using to increase safety and decrease the frequency and severity of injury (do you have proverbial "archers" sitting unused or unknown in a closet)? Have you received warnings? What could or should be different?

Every organization can learn from the New Orleans terrorist attack. No competent manager wants their Lt. Governor to characterize them “a complete failure of responsibility." After all, as the City of New Orleans stresses on its website, "Safety is our top priority." It should be, but slogans are easy. Safety is challenging. Management is downright hard. Take a lesson, take a look, and let's make 2025 as safe as practical for all.