Quitting Remote?

In an indictment of remote work, the CEO of a business with 800 employees concluded that "'only the rarest of full-time caregivers' can be productive employees." That story broke in mid-April and offers some perspective on the challenges of remote work. Recently, the impact of virtuality on the Generation Z worker in particular was noted. See Generation Z Osmosis (April 2023).

According to its website, this business "create(s) best-in-class content to help consumers make informed decisions." And it is a business focused on "video, paid media, email, websites, display, social media, and more." This sounds like a business inextricably intertwined with computers and technology. The CEO claims, however, that "many remote workers didn't open their laptops for a month." He quantifies this as "dozens" at one point, and then is more definite with "30" in one month. One of those was apparently a manager.

The CEO likened this to Quiet Quitting (September 2022). That is a work mode in which one does only what is necessity and essentially disengages from the enthusiasm, progress, and achievement track. The quiet quitter does just enough to get by. We have all worked with a few of these over the years. The post in September included references that claim about 50% of workers now fall into this description.

What is quiet about a tech worker that does not access tech? That seems antithetical to quiet. The CEO has concluded that a return to the office will be better for the company. The current paradigm has had the workers telecommuting and will revert to an in-person paradigm "four days a week."

The CEO then reportedly ventured into the challenges of balancing work and home responsibilities. He addressed those who were balancing child care with work responsibility, noting some have perhaps "even mastered this art." However, he said, "Generally, this path is neither fair to your employer nor fair to those children." He concluded, "that only the rarest of full-time caregivers can also be productive and full-time employees at the same time."

That I do not know about. I have spent many days home with a sick child over several decades. I have been highly productive in that setting. However, the periodic interruption of the workflow can be distracting, and therefore the days are long. There can be frustrations with technology, and information access (I always forget some tool, paper, or detail at the office).

For this company, its foray into virtuality is not completely ended. It notes that some employees will remain in the virtual paradigm. However, the majority of workers will seemingly be returning to the "sticks and bricks" of a corporate environment. That this is in the news three years after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic struck so many with COVID-19 is intriguing. Certainly, many elected the remote work paradigm in March 2020, but it seems a great many have returned to the office since.

And yet, at the recent Workers' Compensation Forum, a presenter noted "most of you are working remotely," and a great many heads nodded in agreement. In the workers' compensation world, it seems, there remains a fair quantity of remote participants. I admit surprise at that. It had seemed to me that virtual had largely ended. I followed up with a couple of folks later in the conference. One asserted a persistent virtual work mode even before COVID. Another admitted to exaggerating and an actual practice that is more "hybrid" and includes both office and home work in what sounded like a reasonably accommodating and flexible manner.

In April 2023, the New York Times reported on statistics from the "The Labor Department." These statistics are interesting in terms of "recovery." It concludes that

"72.5 percent of businesses said their employees rarely or never teleworked last year, up from 60.1 percent in 2021 and quite close to the 76.7 percent that had no such work before the pandemic."

If you are really into the numbers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has a reasonably simple equation that it has used to divine the telework component of American work. If you understand it, please write to me and explain.

This is indicative that the pandemic has not changed the world as we knew it. I am proud that the pandemic never changed the Florida OJCC even at its peak. This Office never closed, never stumbled, and never faltered. The judges, mediators, and staff of this organization were at work daily. I often heard questions about how we were adapting. We really did not adapt for the most part. We just persevered. That required resolve, but was mostly a result of tremendous people. 

And now, it seems to some that we have returned to a pre-pandemic, or close to it. Those who are studying the reactions, adaptations, and responses will no doubt find much to digest in the three years of data now at their disposal. We will undoubtedly see more from the academic realm in terms of quantifying and delineating what they discern. Papers will be written, trends studied, and hypotheses tested. 

But, it appears we know that telework boomed and has now subsided. The leaders of organizations have largely tired of the accommodation. They are satisfied that their ability to monitor remote work has been adequate, and that many prefer the workers return to a more traditional setting and more ready supervision. 

There will be debate and discussion as to which is best. And, I will likely take my own straw poll on this topic to see if there are contrary perceptions. 

Sharing a Drink Called Loneliness

In his 1973 hit The Piano Man, Billy Joel penned an intriguing lyric that has resonated with many:

“They're sharing a drink called loneliness, but at least its better than drinking alone.”

The song is about a variety of patrons in a bar. They are perhaps engaged, or not. There is a collectivity in the characterization. As detached or disengaged as they may be, they are together somewhere. There is a strength in connectivity. In The Great Good Place (August 2021), I strove to suggest that there is a decrease in our socialization. We are struggling as a society to be social.

This is not new. I note in that post the Bowling Alone (2000) critique of our increasingly insular society. Before the pandemic, before technology, we were drifting apart. Life, as they say sometimes, is hard. We face challenges, work frantically, and strive too hard. We are bombarded by the challenges of the day-to-day, our world, work, and commitments. We are way too prone thereafter to sitting in our little houses, tuned in to the television, social media, or the internet.  Home is a sanctuary, quiet, and largely within our control. It is peace. 

Is it so surprising that we turn inward? In an earlier age, there were local joints and hangouts. I remember as a kid heading to a particular roadhouse periodically. It was in the middle of nowhere, but everyone you saw was a local. Literally, it was a spot where everyone knew your name. And there was community. I remember the adults in those days belonged to country clubs, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) posts, the Elk's Lodge, and more. They gathered, conversed, lamented, complained, and vented. In the community, there was interaction and engagement.

Long before streaming video, we began to rent discs and watch at home. Long before the scourge of social media, we began to isolate. Long before the recent SARS-CoV-2, there was a trend away from interaction. This is perhaps because society has become polarized by our differences and has come to fail utterly at recognizing our similarities. We are polarized, insular, and isolating. And we are passing it on to our kids. 

I have lamented our seclusion. We may relish it and crave it at times. But, I crave ice cream as well. Let's face it, a steady diet of either is likely not so smart (I will hear from the dairy folks on this).

Well, at least according to the Surgeon General, I am vindicated.

In Constant or Persistent non-Trauma (January 2016), I noted the contention that "sitting is the new smoking." Sitting all day, every day, is not good for you. I have often advocated getting up and getting out. Let me say it again, go walking. Now. 100 steps. Do 101 tomorrow. Make that daily outing and daily increase a habit. Pretty soon you will be walking a mile, then two, then (well, you get the point). You did not get sedentary overnight, let's not get our expectations up to end it overnight.

But, the Surgeon General (SG) now says that Loneliness poses risks as deadly as smoking, according to the Associated Press. It reports that a voluminous report (81 pages) has recently been delivered by the SG, concluding that "loneliness in the U.S. poses health risks as deadly as smoking up to 15 cigarettes daily." This is associated with societal and financial costs.

This is serious, impacting a huge portion of society. The conclusion is that human interaction is important in a variety of ways. The SG says that social engagement is "something we need for survival." He claims that "millions" of people in this country are struggling with disconnect, isolation, and loneliness. Unfortunately, there is a good chance that some are turning to substances, and social media, and streaming in reaction. Maybe there is room for each in a balanced life, but each poses serious threats with too much volume.

Where are we failing? It appears everywhere. We are less engaged in "worship houses, community organizations and even (with our) own family members in recent decades"). Intriguingly, "The number of single households has also doubled over the last 60 years." We are eating, breathing, and living alone. We are perhaps happy in our little abodes. But our isolation is dangerous to our health. Not because alone is bad, but because too much alone is bad (you wouldn't eat ice cream for breakfast, or would you?)

The AP acknowledges this is not a new problem, but places some blame on COVID-19 nonetheless. It blames employers and schools for sending folks home, and it blames us for going along. The great panic around COVID-19 was a huge detriment on mental health. It seems we volitionally dropped our contacts, withdrew, and shielded. A little too much perhaps. But, certainly too much now that the pandemic has passed. We must emerge from our self (or government)-imposed isolation. 

It seems that we are spending about a third of the time we used to with friends. The report says that in 2020 we "spent about 20 minutes a day in person with friends." But around the turn of the century, that was 60 minutes. That is likely due in large part to the lure of social media and its vacuous and false promise of satiation. Those "friend" and "connections" and "followers are not your friends. They are fine adjuncts, but not substitutes for real social interaction, real friends. And some are apparently bots. 

Social media (beware, you are technically consuming it now) is a diet of candy, soda, donuts, and alcohol. There is no substance for the most part. There is little nutrient (this blog is the exception). There is nothing but that which harms us: cholesterol, fat, sugar, and worse. As we consume social media, we are not nurturing ourselves. When is the last time you read a book? How about the last time you went to a book club meeting? When did you last attend a community function or stand in your front yard chatting with a neighbor?

That is not to say that we cannot crave things. I crave chocolate also, but that does not mean my body is being honest with me. We may crave alone time, the ease or relative anonymity of social media, the comfort of our chair, and a favorite movie. We can enjoy those things, but we have to recognize the threat of a constant diet of nutritionless pablum. This is inextricably intertwined with some of our greatest challenges.

How can we get back together? What will it take to draw us back to the service club, the bowling league, or the local hangout? My view may seem obvious, but I am not convinced it is a "metaverse," the "next" social media, or a "virtual" anything. I am convinced we need to be in the room, in the moment, and in the mix. How do we get there? How do we get others there? Most importantly, how do we get the young, the next generation, there? 

Perhaps our isolation is also driven by the failure of honest disagreement. A recent social media exchange I witnessed brought forth some fair criticism of the failures of civility. I have seen people roasted on social media for having divergent points of view. I have pitied many a small mind and insular mindset there. There is lots of "its not me, it's them." I have lamented various swells of groupthink and complacency. I have waited for some change, and worried over the prophecy of Idiocracy (20th Century 2006). 

If I don't agree with you, that does not make me wrong. If my beliefs are upsetting to you, consider that yours may likewise upset me. Does that mean we cannot discuss? For many, it unfortunately does. I repeatedly see on social media "I don't think I can have a conversation with you." People withdraw from differences and distinctions and seek the comfort of an echo chamber somewhere. That is unrealistic. Get out and interact with people in the real world. Listen to their opinions or lunacy. You need not endorse it, but experience it. 

Get out. Engage. Interact. Experience. Advocate. Disagree. Be respectful, social, and present. It is time for society to regain the social. 

The time has come to get back together. This loneliness pandemic is dangerous and threatening. And worse, it is more likely to affect the young ("ages 15 to 24") more perniciously than the rest of us. Let's face it, there is a natural gregariousness with youth. Us old folks tend to be a bit more naturally isolated. We expect to become less engaged as we age, but the youth are spending less and less time with friends. They are not out and about as we were in the day, and that needs to change. Many of them have no room to decrease their social interaction as they age because their current interaction is near zero already. 

I cannot pass up the chance to say "let's do it for the children." How that has been overused in our history.

Before loneliness begins to kill us, it is time to change. Before loneliness drives us to a "greater risk of stroke and heart disease," we need to act. Before the threats of "depression, anxiety and dementia" come home to roost, we must re-engage. The SG notes these are real risks. 

There is room for discussion of the how. Certainly, there are potential for social organizations to engage. What service clubs are looking for members? What opportunities are there in your current sphere? Are you a club or organization member? Have you invited your friends to join? Have you reached out to co-workers?

The report of the SG suggests that there are opportunities here for the traditional social engines to engage us. It looks to "workplaces, schools, . . . community organizations" and more. But let's not wait for the organizations to come to us. Let us each engage with some such opportunities and strive to encourage others to do the same.

Let's put down those devices. Let's eschew the Nomophobia (November 2014). Let's get together and talk, laugh, and contradict (respectfully). Let's put away political correctness and groupthink and engage people who don't share our views. Let's hear them out. Let's build interaction, community, and our health. 

You're only human

I have been playing recently with artificial intelligence. I mentioned that at a conference recently and a cohort replied "Haven't you always been?" I laughed along with everyone but later concluded that may not have been a compliment. The age of AI is upon us. I hope the topic is not new to you. I have been writing about it since 2016, and there are links to various articles in Intelligence (November 2022). The topic is absolutely fascinating.

Most recently, my experiences have been with ChatGPT, and it is amusing and fun. It is also often inaccurate. I asked the program who the "most famous workers' compensation judge in America" is. I got different answers on different days. Would we expect consistency in results? It misidentified various individuals, noting once that "Judge David B. Torrey in California" would be among its choices. Another day, I got "Frank McKay, who served in New York." These are each prominent contributors in this community, but Judge Torrey is from Pennsylvania while Judge McKay is from Georgia (or at least they told me they are).

The AI bot accurately and completely responded to when workers' compensation came to Florida (1935), and even volunteered that the Division of Workers' Compensation has regulatory authority over the system. I asked the bot who the most prominent workers' compensation lawyers in Florida are. The responses to that were intriguing and included lawyers I have never heard from/of. It concluded:

"There are many skilled and experienced workers' compensation lawyers in Florida, and the best one for you will depend on your specific needs and circumstances."

Artificial intelligence has mastered doublespeak?

I asked it what the best electric car is. The results were predictable and all well-known. Having done some reading in this area, I was admittedly surprised not to see the names of some of the smaller manufacturers and models in that list. The query concluded:

"It is important to research and compare different electric car models to find the one that best fits your needs."

I asked it "what Florida workers' compensation case concluded misrepresentation in a job application was a bar to benefits?" I asked the same question to 5 lawyers of imminent credentials at the recent Workers' Compensation Forum. Four out of five of them said Martin v. Carpenter. The fifth said "I don't know, what time is lunch?" Everyone needs priorities.

The ChatGPT responded with "a notable case" that involved misrepresentation was Wendy's International v. KM. This, it said, was a "Florida First District Court of Appeal" case in 2009. I was not able to find that case. I did find KMS Rest. Corp. v. Wendy's Int'l, Inc., No. 95-08546-CIV, 2009 WL 10667054 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 2, 2009). The names and the year were correct. 

I asked the AI for the citation for this KM case. It provided 10 S. 3d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). I checked that citation with a search in Westlaw and found that volume and page is within Am. States Ins. Co. v. Rogillio, 10 So. 3d 463, 469 (Miss. 2009). Sure, Mississippi is close to Florida, and both cases are in courts, and yes the Mississippi Supreme Court does mention "misrepresentation" in its opinion. But, it is a worthless citation for the question asked. Close is just not close enough in this context.

I clarified with ChatGPT, asking "what was the first Florida appellate decision that said misrepresentation in a job application could bar workers' compensation benefits." It replied that "the first" was O'Neal Steel v. Gutierrez in 2001. This, it said, involved "failing to disclose a prior back injury."

Unfortunately, with name searches, I was unable to find that case on either Westlaw or Google. I switched to Bing, but it could not locate the Gutierrez case either. I asked the ChatGPT for a case cite and it provided 776 So.2d 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). I put that citation in Westlaw. This returned a page within Maher v. Maher, 776 So. 2d 28, 30 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/28/00). Now, Louisiana is a little farther from Florida than Mississippi. The Maher case does not mention misrepresentation.

On Westlaw, I ran an advanced search for "Gutierrez" between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2001. I got 26 responsive returns. None of them was the case cited by ChatGPT. None of them was patently a workers' compensation case. Only one was decided by the Florida First District Court, and it read "The petition for writ of certiorari is Denied." Guiterrez v. F.D.R. Cleaning Servs. Inc., 804 So. 2d 368 (Fla.1st DCA 2001).

I tried running the search in Westlaw for "O'Neal Steel" in the same date range. The return was one case: Knowles v. State, 800 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2001). Not the First District. Not a workers' compensation case. Not helpful.

In short, I cannot seem to find this interesting case of misrepresentation. Though it is reportedly a "notable case," it is very elusive, like a snipe, bigfoot, or other-worldly alien. Most of the cases Chat sent me to are non-existent, or hiding really well. I am not saying that this case is not out there, nor that it is not "notable." I am merely saying that the chat is better than I am at finding cases.

I tried to limit the field a bit. I asked Chat "what is Florida's leading constitutional decision on irrebuttable presumption." it replied

"The leading constitutional decision on irrebuttable presumption in Florida is the case of Vacco v. Quill, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1997. It assured that "Although this case did not arise in Florida, it is considered the leading case on irrebuttable presumptions under the United States Constitution, which applies to all states including Florida."

This one is an actual case (found it on Google), and it was actually decided in 1997. Vacco v. Quill, 521 US 793 (1997). This is a unanimous decision of the Rehnquist court, written by the Chief Justice, William Rhenquist. The Court's opinion mentions "presumption" twice. The term "irrebuttable" is not included.

That said, as we prepare legal documents and submit them as evidence, argument, and authority, perhaps you may want to use something other than artificial intelligence for your citations. If I cannot find the case you cite, I cannot read the case (unless you actually looked at it when you cited it, in which case attach a copy to your memorandum and save me the looking). In my recent conversations at the Forum in Orlando, several lawyers suggested that their peers are not looking at those cases, merely parroting citations from the web. I trust that is untrue. Have we really sunk to that depth?

In closing, I asked GPT "can I rely on you for accurate and complete information?" Chat assured 

"I strive to provide accurate and complete information to the best of my abilities based on the data available to me. However, please note that my responses may not always be perfect or complete, and should be taken as informational guidance only. It is always a good idea to verify any important information with additional sources before making important decisions." 

Well, that made me think of William Joel, bard and lyricist of great repute, and his Second Wind (1985). ChatGPT was able to find that song for me with a single lyric search. Its response was quick, accurate, and helpful. 

You're having a hard time and lately you don't feel so good
You're getting a bad reputation in your neighborhood
Sometimes that's what it takes
You're only human
You're allowed to make your share of mistakes

In the end, it seems, that artificial intelligence is "only human" and is bound to make its "share of mistakes." Perhaps that is what the commenter meant when she/he said "haven't you always been" playing with artificial intelligence?

It's that Time Again

May is perhaps the best month in Paradise. We have shaken the cold from our limbs and begun to settle in for another long, humid, and hot summer. But the humidity and high temperatures are momentarily at bay in May. The Spring Breakers have returned to their frigid homes in order to complete yet another academic year. The beach, restaurants, and amenities are left to us in this brief Respite. Summer will arrive soon enough and the tourism that drives our economy will again clog our transportation arteries and more.

More important, May marks the end of the best Florida season, the Respite Season ©2023. Each year, we enjoy the Respite (Respite begins December 1 and runs through May 31. It is a glorious six months in which we celebrate all that is good in the world. That is not to claim that we never have troubling weather during Respite, we do. It is not to claim we never have a hurricane in Respite, we do. But, they are exceedingly uncommon, typically inconsequential, and quickly forgotten.

Wikipedia, or someone claiming to be Wikipedia, says that 97 such storms have occurred in the "off-season." That is a backhanded reference to the opposite of hurricane season, June 1 through November 30. Someone at Wikipedia will likely lift my term, "Respite," eventually. Unfortunately, I will likely never know who. So, an admission at the start that hurricanes are less than predictable. Who knew?

Yes, who knew. That reminded me of P!nk and her hit by the same name (LaFace 2006). In it, she advises

"When someone said count your blessings now

'Fore they're long gone

I guess I just didn't know how

I was all wrong"

Yes, count your blessings now. It is glorious May and Respite 2022-23 draws to a close. We stride confidently towards the tough six months in Florida when there is a persistent potential for wind, rain, and damage that are endemic to hurricane season. We are often hopeful, blessed, and relieved. But we are sometimes hit. And those hits are incredibly disruptive, destructive, and depressing. I have lived through my share and watched for news from Waffle House. 

Hurricane season is nothing to ignore. No, it will not go away. No, you cannot will it away. No, it will not hurt you to acknowledge its ugly presence and prepare. The Weather Channel recently published 2023 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook: A Developing El Niño Vs. Warm Atlantic Ocean. It is a deep dive into water temperatures, currents, and other science. It is an intriguing read.

But in essence, it describes how predictors of hurricanes are less confident than usual this year. They are troubled by climate issues that are in flux as we see El Nino on the horizon and perhaps it is a harbinger of good news. The El Nino is seen as a hindrance to major storms. This is juxtaposed with the unexpected warmth of the Atlantic, and to some extent, the prognosticators have slipped into Jeff Spicoli territory ("I don't know," Fast Times (Universal 1982).

That said, the Weather Company's prediction this year is for

"15 named storms, seven of which will become hurricanes and three of which will reach Category 3 status or stronger."

The folks at Colorado State University

"forecast 13 named storms, six hurricanes and two major hurricanes."

It seems odd that Colorado State is predicting. That seems about as logical as letting Vincent LaGuardia Gambini judge the grit-cooking contest in Beechum County, Alabama ("Sure, I've heard of grits. I just never actually seen a grit before,” My Cousin Vinny, 20th Century, 1992). I tried to find the last time a hurricane struck Colorado, but Google failed me like a ChatBot.

That said, I admit to liking the Colorado State numbers better.

So, it ain't a pleasant outlook necessarily, but we have seen worse. Perhaps this will be a calm season for the U.S. and Florida specifically. Goodness knows we could use a bit of quiet. While some characterize the 2022 season as "relatively mild," it will be remembered for Fiona and Ian. Don't try to tell Floridians any tall tales of "mild" 2022. 

That Ian worried far more than it hurt, and it hurt plenty. Ian was amazingly strong and devastated many lives. Some in southwest Florida continue to recover even still. Ian was the third costliest hurricane in history.

Speaking of continuing impact, Michael hit Panama City in 2018. I am astounded to reflect back on its impact five years ago. Panama City has thrived in some respects since then. However, evidence remains of Michael's anger and temper. Michael was petulant, persistent, and destructive. While he did not make the list of the most costly, he was horrible. Amazingly, Michael was still destructive when he was 65 miles inland and stormed into Georgia. That is pretty rare, and terrible to watch. 

And those two storms are reminders of the only really important points in this post. First, as noted in the Weather Channel article:

• "A season with fewer storms or hurricanes can still deliver the one storm that makes a season destructive or devastating."
• "it doesn't take a hurricane to be impactful, especially regarding rainfall flooding."
• "the time to be ready for hurricanes is now."

It takes one. Sure, preparation may be time you could spend elsewhere. Certainly, no one likes to focus on the negative. And no one hates the thought of hurricanes worse than I do. But, you heard it here first, you either be prepared or need repaired (you pick). 

The end of Respite 2022-23 draws near. I look forward to welcoming the next season with you on November 30, 2023. In the meantime, check your plans (personal and business), get your supplies, and be ready in the event some misanthropic menace may be coming soon to a neighborhood near you. Get prepared, stay alert, and we'll see you on the other side.

 

A New Plan

Each conference, I attend is an educational opportunity. Rarely, if ever, do I gain from the classroom experience. This is not to deride that opportunity but an admission of my own preferences. I gain more in individual conversations and find various nuggets to carry away.

The 2023 Worker’s Compensation forum at ChampionsGate in Orlando is no exception. At one point, I was frustrated by the absence of beverages (having consumed one too many chocolates). As I wandered in search of a store or restaurant for a soda, I coincidently ran into a longtime co-attendee of such events. He was accompanied by his two daughters, who had traveled and significant distance to the conference in order to take him for a birthday dinner. I incidentally found it endearing that the next generation would go to such lengths. 

As we stood and chatted, this gentleman noted the significant investment required to obtain a college education, a subject with which I am not unfamiliar. In addition to personal experience, I have spent the last, several years working with Kids' Chance of Florida. This has been illuminating in several ways. The following are related observations:

1. There is a significant volume of motivated, talented, and incredible students wishing to go to college. 
2. College is an expensive, and therefore, often overwhelming endeavor. 
3. Those challenges, financially, emotionally, and practically are aggravated by the significant injury, or death of a parent. 

This gentleman posited a simple question, that drove our conversation: why does Worker’s Compensation not provide education benefits for the children of injured workers? The instant reaction to any benefit expansion is likely "expense." It is a ready and easy answer. Certainly, education is significantly expensive (see above). 

That said, perhaps we could bring focus to a small subset and make a difference? In section 440.16(1)(c), there is a provision recognizing the potential developmental needs of a surviving spouse, when workplace death occurs. The statute has long existed, and provided for this potential education component:

"To the surviving spouse, payment of postsecondary student fees for instruction at any career center established under s. 1001.44 for up to 1,800 classroom hours or payment of student fees at any community college established under part III of chapter 1004 for up to 80 semester hours."

At the outset, there are no community colleges in Florida. That changed in 2009 when the "Florida Community College System" became the "Florida College System." This recognized the need for broader opportunities and the fact that these schools had begun conferring bachelor's degrees. They had evolved and changed. The name change was logical, but no one thought to amend Chapter 440 to conform.

Thus, workers' compensation will not afford a surviving spouse a Ph.D., a master's degree, or even bachelor's. But with diligence, the surviving spouse can achieve an associate's degree. Is this a “be all, end all?“ Absolutely not. It is a recognition of the benefits of higher education. It is a stimulus toward a better future. It is a beginning in the wake of tragedy. That tragedy will pass, but it will leave scars and impact in its wake.

In this regard, can we say that dependent children are in any way less burdened by the death of a parent? Can we find a similar path for this population? The first question is always about magnitude. How many children are we talking about? In the abstract, that may be difficult to quantify.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are just over 300 workplace deaths in Florida each year. It fluctuates. Some of those are self-employed (not "four or more," and thus perhaps not workers' compensation). Similarly, we know that death benefits under section 440.16, are limited to those who are dependent upon the deceased employee. Anecdotally, we’re comfortable admitting that some who pass simply have no qualifying dependents.

Statistics are both illuminating and confounding. While we are comfortable that 2.4 children is an average, according to Pew. We should be equally comfortable, recognizing that there will be deviations from that average, and a particular worker may have no children or far more than average. That said, statistical averages help us quantify probability. If all 300 deaths are compensable, and each death has 2.4 dependent children, then 720 children are impacted each year. Some might not elect college, but that 720 is likely a maximum number, an overstatement.

The statute already limits death benefits to dependent children. And their entitlement under the law terminates by operation of law:

440.16(2) The dependence of a child, except a child physically or mentally incapacitated from earning a livelihood, shall terminate with the attainment of 18 years of age, with the attainment of 22 years of age if a full-time student in an accredited educational institution, or upon marriage.

Thus, not all deaths will be compensable (less than for employees), incidents involving drug impairment, incidents involving fraud in the employment contract, and various other compensability defenses. Not all employee death will involve dependent children. And dependency will be of limited duration by law. 

We could acknowledge that young people are impacted by the work death of a parent. Those impacts will be emotional and impactful. They will be far-reaching, and, long-lasting. I’ve been privileged to meet a handful of exceptional children, who are confident, proficient, and focused. The Kids' Chance scholarship recipients are nothing short of inspiring. This is perhaps due in part to the great responsibility thrust on them by a parent's work place injury. Or perhaps they can thank parents, teachers, and other mentors? 

All that said, would it be reasonable to offer the equivalent boost to the children of workers killed in compensable accidents? The right place for this might seem to be 440.16(1)(c). Some would advocate adding "and dependent children" to that section. But there is a statute of repose in that paragraph that terminates the entitlement 7 years after the death. That would not be appropriate for the dependent children in many instances. Instead, perhaps a new 440.16(1)(d)

"To the dependent child, dependency determined as of the date of accident, payment of postsecondary student fees for instruction at any career center established under s. 1001.44 for up to 1,800 classroom hours or payment of student fees at any state college established under part III of chapter 1004 for up to 80 semester hours. Eligibility terminates for the purpose of this section no later than the dependent child's attainment of 22 years of age."

This would provide those impacted in this profound manner with a boost. It would make college or vocational training an attainable goal that every such child would know of and could work towards. Their academic efforts would be encouraged and invested knowing that those first two years, that associate's degree, would be attainable without debt. Or that their vocational goals would otherwise be attainable. 

There should likely be recognition of this broader impact on family, that is beyond the ultimate sacrifice, broader impact potential from a work injury. Therefore, effort should be encouraged to inform injured workers that scholarship opportunities exist. There is a broad requirement for information to be provided in section 440.185(3). That section dictates the distribution of an "informational brochure" to each injured worker. That brochure should inform all workers of the potential for any financial assistance that a worker or family might engage for educational opportunities: 

(3) Within 3 business days after the employer or the employee informs the carrier of an injury, the carrier shall send by regular mail or e-mail to the injured worker an informational brochure approved by the department which sets forth in clear and understandable language an explanation of the rights, benefits, procedures for obtaining benefits and assistance, criminal penalties, and obligations of injured workers and their employers under the Florida Workers’ Compensation Law.

What if this were amended to include some edification of educational benefits from private sources. What if the following were added to that paragraph 

This shall inform of any potential private educational assistance available to the children of an injured worker. 

Would the injured benefit from their children being able to locate scholarship information or connections? Would individual's potential for college be improved by a scholarship or two? Would the addition of this language significantly impact costs? Doubtful. This notification would likely benefit many and cost nothing. 

These are inspired ideas. I wish I could take credit for these. Thanks to that co-attendee for being mindful, and for asking questions. This could be a benefit adjustment that is of significant benefit to those severely impacted by death of a family member. 

Which is Preferred?

A recent post led me to deeper consideration of the issues surrounding the apportionment of fault. Yes, this has seemingly nothing to do with workers' compensation. And this blog is largely about workers' compensation. But it is also about the law. The recent missive is Comparative Redux (March 2023), which focused on the recent Florida change to Modified Comparative Negligence. I followed that with a post that perhaps suggests some workers' compensation relevance, The 440.39 Lien and Limitation (April 2023). That one 

The posts led me to run a survey on LinkedIn, something I had not tried before. I thought that the results might be skewed in one direction or the other. In fact, I was expecting a skew toward pure comparative. I was somewhat surprised when the three options received reasonably similar votes (this is a non-scientific poll on social media). The option with the most respondents was Pure Comparative. And, that is perhaps driven by familiarity? I have spoken to several people since Redux who told me that they did not know of Modified until reading that post.

For clarity, the title of this post is "Which is Preferred?" But the poll is "Which is best." Not the same thing at all, but I suspect that we each prefer what we perceive as "best?" This may be a perspective issue. 

One participant noted "I'm a big fan of contributory." The critical element there is seemingly simplicity. "There's not a lot of room for ambiguity." There is merit to simple systems. Another commenter said that the change may lead to unexpected decreases in the fault apportioned to plaintiffs: "when a jury hears 51% liability on plaintiff will bar recovery they may be more reluctant to allocate 70-90% to plaintiff." Thus, there is perhaps potential for greater recoveries by plaintiffs due to the structure of the law.

For example, if damages are $100,000 and the jury is asked to apportion fault in Pure Comparative, they might conclude that 90% is the plaintiff's fault and still award $10,000. But, the commenter suggests that if the jury knows the plaintiff will get nothing with such a finding it may instead be drawn by sympathy to ignore the 90% and instead conclude assigning the plaintiff 49% and the verdict will be $51,000 instead of the $10,000 suggested in Pure.

It is intriguing that only four states (8%), Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia are "Pure Contributory" negligence states. See Bloomberg comparison chart and map. And despite that clear minority position, thirty percent of respondents in my unscientific poll favored that system. 

The same surprise might be expressed regarding the opposite, the "Pure Comparative."  Only 9 states (18%) still subscribe to this: Alaska, Arizona, California, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington. And yet, 39% percent of the respondents in my poll favored that. 

The vast majority of the states are using Modified Comparative Negligence, thirty-seven states (74%). Despite that overwhelming majority, Modified Comparative garnered only 30% in the poll. These outcomes caused me to wonder how many people are in the various category states. 

According to WorldPopulation.com, the U.S. population in 2023 is 333,868,745. The four Contributory states include 30,795,390, or about 9% of the population. So roughly nine percent of Americans live under that paradigm. The 9 Pure Comparative states (18%) include 84,591,729, roughly 25% of the population. The 37 Pure Comparative states (74%) include 218,481,626, roughly 65% of the population. 

Perhaps the lack of congruity is surprising. The three theories or paradigms are reasonably similar in the preference poll (strictly unscientific). And yet there is a very clear prevalence of Modified Comparative both by volume of states (74%) and population (65%).  Similarly, the very small presence of Pure Contributory states (8%) and population (9%), garnered a notable response in the poll. 

In the end, this perhaps only suggests the flaw in a poll. However, the state and population figures are clearly demonstrative of a significant preference for the Modified Comparative standard. There is the suggestion that its application could lead to unintended outcomes, noted by one commenter. But, overall, it is expected by many to impact case filings and litigation outcomes in Florida. 

Generation Z Osmosis

The pandemic sent many into remote work settings. Some more readily than others. I have heard envy expressed for that person that already had a desk at home and transitioned a workspace somewhat seamlessly to more steady use. I have also talked with some that spread their work live over their home environment, losing non-work access to a dining room or other former "living" space. I have heard praise and criticisms regarding the challenge of the change.

Virtuality has had challenges. See Evolving Work Challenges (January 2022), Remediating (February 2022); The Next Thing (July 2022); Productivity is Down (December 2022).   

A recent article on the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) noted that some of the next generation, Generation Z, are starting work life at a great disadvantage as a result of virtuality. Some of Generation Z, have purportedly "only known virtual work settings." This generation is born between 1996-2009 and entered the workforce beginning in 2014 and will continue to join through about 2031. See Bring Value (February 2022). So, the BBC's "only" is a generality, as the earliest Gen Z had been in the workforce for perhaps several years when the 2020 shake-up occurred.

But, particularly with those who elected four-year colleges, that workforce introduction might have been in 2018 at the earliest. Certainly, in that college cohort, more have joined the workforce since COVID ('20-23) than before (2018-20). There is merit in seeing impact in a broad perspective with this group. There may also be merit in the potential that flexibility of youth generally and acceptance of technology may have predisposed this group to success in the remote transition. 

The BBC notes that many have thrived. They are happy with the flexibility, and with relying on the technology that is such a natural and normal part of their world. Keep in mind these folks never really had to adapt to technology and its impacts. They were born into the midst of it all and never knew a world without the internet, smartphones, and social media.

That said, the absence of office presence is impacting some workers. There are lamentations of the "workplace intangibles." The BBC author cites examples such as "casual conversations and informal observations that traditionally teach young employees how to act." There is a remoteness that borders on isolation. And the claimed result is that the young are "missing out on picking up vital cues that guide behavior, collaboration, and networking."

This is not new. See Presenteeism and the Coming Divide (June 2021); A Modern Dilemma (February 2018). The idea of not being seen around the workplace may have implications. But, this most recent perspective is more on development than being noticed and engaged. The experts cited by the BBC note the following potential isolation impacts:

• communication
• norms
• values
• etiquette

There is lamentation here about the challenges of "being noticed" and "falling off the radar." These are not new concerns. However, they are persistent. I question whether this is all very temporary. The comfort of these workers in virtual settings is admirable. If they are productive, efficient, and contributing, perhaps there is little to be concerned with. As we old folks age out of the workforce, the conflict between their paradigm and our own will likely become less important by natural evolution. Possibly the challenge is merely with our old-school perspective colliding with their new world?

One expert cited by the BBC seems to see this as a larger and more long-term issue, however. He perceives that the lack of in-person interaction will impair the development of leadership in this next generation. He is convinced that they will master the work or task performance, and their particular skill or contribution, but will lack the development of "cross-functional skillsets" and the "strategic view" to evolve into tomorrow's leaders.

For today, it is not that communication, etiquette, and leadership cannot be mastered in the remote work environment, but that they will have to be addressed more directly. Gone are the days of casual water cooler conversations, impromptu "desk drop-by," and similar opportunities for subtle adjustment regarding skills, behavior, or interaction. Not mentioned is the opportunity for the young to observe others and learn from their prowess or errors. One can learn a great deal from an example, even a bad one. The deficit, it seems is they are missing the chance for "osmosis" (absorbing what is around them). 

The article sources lament miscommunication that is possible in digital communication. I have lamented the challenges that come with email and texting. You lose the tone and timber of conversation. Often in recent years, I have encouraged lawyers to speak to one another more frequently. The phone is not yet antiquated and conversation is so powerful. See The Great Good Place (August 2021). Unfortunately, most lawyers seem averse to simple conversations about conflicts and litigation. Some have withdrawn behind the keyboard and perhaps become a bit snarky, or misperceived as such.  

How will employers handle the management of the remote and virtual? Beyond the communication challenges, there are questions about the evaluation of employee performance. Are teams remaining engaged and committed to outcomes? Are more formalized management tools necessary (meetings) or are those merely excuses and distractions? And in the midst, there are concerns about productivity working back into the conversation. 

No Hugs for Judges

The Florida Supreme Court granted a petition for prohibition regarding a constitutional (Circuit) judge presiding over the proceedings regarding a criminal defendant. This is nothing to do with workers' compensation directly, but the implications are as pertinent to any judge governed by a Code of Judicial Conduct as Florida judges of compensation claims are. 

This April 13, 2023 decision in Tundidor v. State, SC2022-1732 is an interesting read as regards judicial compassion and the appearance of impropriety. Essentially, Mr. Tundidor finds himself convicted and under "sentence of death." He has some "postconviction proceedings" pending and coincidentally his case is assigned to the same judge that presided over the sentencing of the young man that massacred many students at a Parkland high school on Valentine's Day 2018. 

 

Mr. Tundidor sought disqualification of the trial judge on the basis of "the appearance of impropriety and actual bias.” His foundation was the judge's interaction associated with persons involved in the Parkland case. He contends that the judge has been "accused of conduct . . . viewed as exhibiting bias against the defense." He cites reporting of such perceptions "in local, national, and international press, and streamed live on social media." 

The specifics include allegedly "heated exchanges with (the) defense team" in the Parkland matter. Further, that 

"immediately after sentencing" the shooter, the judge "left the bench and, while still in her judicial robe, exchanged hugs with the victims’ families and  members of the prosecution team."

Mr. Tundidor noted that one of the hug recipients "was Assistant State Attorney Steven Klinger." He notes this is pertinent because this particular hug recipient "is also the prosecutor in Tundidor’s case." Further, he alleges that "while off the record at a status hearing" in Mr. Tundidor's case days later, the judge "'sympathetically' asked ASA Klinger how he was doing." That allegedly devolved into a discussion of the emotional state of Mr. Klinger which Tundidor associated with Parkland, though that case was not mentioned. 

Mr. Tundidor concluded that he, therefore, had an "objectively reasonable fear . . . that he would not receive a fair hearing before" the judge. He alleges the behavior (hugging) and comments "raises the appearance of impropriety" and perhaps also demonstrates "actual bias in favor of the State." The hugging and recounted conversation, he claims, shows the judge "shares a special relationship with the prosecutor and bias in favor of the State."

The trial judge denied the motion to disqualify, finding the allegations "legally insufficient." Mr. Tundidor sought review by the Florida Supreme Court by writ of prohibition (one of the original jurisdiction writs for immediate review). See Writ Protection as Opposed to Appeal, (July 2017). 

The Court reminded that Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.330 sets forth the grounds for a motion to disqualify. By incorporation, that same rule applies to judges of compensation claims, see Rule 60Q6.126. It explained that 

“The standard for determining the legal sufficiency of a motion to disqualify is whether the facts alleged, which must be assumed to be true, ‘would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.’ ” (citation omitted).

And, it reminded that under the Code, “Actual bias or prejudice need not be shown, rather it is the appearance of bias or prejudice which requires disqualification.” While subjective conclusions or premonition may form some foundation, they are not alone sufficient to justify disqualification. In order to reach that standard, "the fear must be objectively reasonable.” 

The Supreme Court concluded that "the combination of certain circumstances" and the allegation of demonstrating "a sympathy with the State that was linked to the outcome of another capital case" were sufficient to "create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial proceeding." In support of this conclusion, the Court specifically noted the hugging of ASA Klinger in the courtroom while in robes, and the commiserating two days later in the off-the-record conversation in a hearing related to Mr. Tundidor. 

The Court found the petition legally sufficient and it was granted. 

There are important reminders for all judges in this outcome. First, being "off the record" presents challenges. What Mr. Tundidor heard is what he heard, but there are times in which perception, hearing, and recollection do not necessarily match the record. But here, there is no record to which his allegations and recollections can be compared. I persistently counsel judges to be on the record in such interactions. 

Second, the sympathy or commiseration is not the key to the Court's decision here. Rather, "the appearance of impropriety" alone may be sufficient. In the role of adjudicator, it is seldom appropriate to interact socially with any party. That said, in the emotion of a tragedy such as Parkland, there is perhaps an irresistible urge to comfort the victims and survivors. That said, exhibiting those human emotions in a public setting, particularly while enrobed, might certainly appear to some as a bias in favor of those victims and thus the state that is prosecuting them.

Third, in any adjudicatory process, there is some probability that judges and various lawyers will see each other on a repetitive basis. It is not appropriate to discuss a case with one party (or her/his/its) counsel unless all parties to that case are present (ex parte), or were at least provided notice of the proceeding. Many times, a party or judge may refer to some other proceeding during a hearing that involves some coincidence of counsel. This is ill-advised. 

When a party or attorney in case "A" perceives that the judge and opposing counsel are discussing another case inappropriately, case "B," that attorney or party may validly wonder if the judge and counsel discuss case "A" similarly, and without them when proceedings occur in case "B." Discussing cases in such an informal and ex parte manner is troubling. The practice leads to speculation, and speculation to doubt, distrust, and "appearances."

The Court's opinion is brief, but informative in its reminders of the challenges of avoiding the appearance of impropriety. At the end of the day, it is best to refrain from hugs, social interaction, and frankly small talk in general. While that is troublesome in its own right, it is likely the best advice for avoiding misunderstanding and misconception. An injured worker once complained to me that the assigned JCC and both attorneys were obviously familiar with each other. He was troubled that the judge praised and complimented both attorneys. 

One should be able to praise and compliment. But, in the eyes of some that is upsetting and troubling. Thus, the subjectivity of "appearance" is revealed, as is the challenge of its avoidance. Would disqualification be in order in the instance of complimenting all counsel in a case? I think the "objective standard" described by the Court says no in most instances. That said, it nonetheless is a case-by-case analysis of exactly what was said, to whom, and when. As nice as it is to be complimentary, a complaint may still arise. 

Dr. James McCluskey

Yet another example of what has recently been too frequent. In January 2022, I lamented the passing of Judge Robert Dietz. Robert seemed to me to be in the prime of life. That post noted that death comes to call more often as we age. We are frequently blessed in our youth with little or no contemplation of passing. Certainly, the potential surrounds us throughout life, but it is often easy to ignore or to attribute as some concern of "the old." Then, contemporaries begin to pass and the reality hits home. We eventually become the old. 

I received a disturbing email on April 17, 2023, to advise me of the passing of Dr. James McCluskey. Jim was on the Program Committee of the Workers' Compensation Institute, and I have served with him in that capacity for more years than I can remember. He and his wife, Diana, led the Give Kids the World outreach that began at WCI about a decade ago. Before that, I was familiar with Dr. McCluskey through work on various presentations.

The McCluskeys were rabid supporters of Give Kids the World. For the uninitiated, WCI attendees have been visiting the Give Kids the World Village on Saturday before the annual workers' compensation conference to donate time. I am sure that Diana McCluskey remains as devoted to that outreach, but it is difficult to picture her without Jim. I have enjoyed that outreach because of the opportunity to see this community in action. I have tried to attend regularly, until 2020. See Not the Same and YetNot the Same and Yet (August 2020). 

It is strange to sit in 2023 and reflect on a worldwide pandemic that was just three years ago. We were confronted and challenged. Some were confounded and frustrated. The world changed, and we struggled with self-protection and maintaining professional obligations. We all knew someone that passed from COVID-19 or at least knew someone that knew someone that passed. The scourge touched us all. A great many people I know lived in fear and some still do today. 

But for most of us, COVID has been long over. At least a year ago, the vestiges had largely disappeared. Long COVID Seminar (April 2022). More recently, I noticed the Post Office had removed its plexiglass sneeze guards from the counter. They had apparently been waiting for the President to declare COVID over. But most of us had long ago been over COVID whether it was over or not (it seems it was). There was relief when it ended, and I am more grateful than I can express that I was blessed to live in Florida throughout. 

But, in Dr. McCluskey's passing, I am reminded that there are many causes of death. Outside the immediacy of a pandemic, the passing of my contemporaries has become too frequent. Dr. McCluskey was significantly younger than I am, and it turns out he had been ill for several years. I had not noticed him suffering, but in retrospect, it strikes me odd that I did not see him and his wife at WCI last August. I had become accustomed to their presence, and having missed them in 2022 did not strike me until the email. 

The McCluskeys have been fixtures in the outreach effort of WCI. In the years I have known Dr. McCluskey, I have never seen him more animated or engaged than when he was discussing the community outreach that WCI enables and facilitates. His face would literally light up when discussing those who are in need of assistance in the world, and he was an avid advocate of the workers' compensation community being, remaining, engaged and involved. He was a cheerleader and advocate.  

There were many conversations over the years. But I will remember Dr. McCluskey primarily because of his passion for serving his community, this community, the world of workers' compensation. He advocated strenuously for our engagement and participation. He encouraged, cajoled, and coaxed us to be more than we are. Dr. McCluskey believed in us, our capacity, our energy, and our commitment. He reminded us we could make a difference. He was an exemplar and inspiration. 

He is survived by his wife Diana. She too has long served on the WCI Programming Committee. They were listed as "co-chair" of the outreach effort, and their enthusiasm was collective. They were persistently immersed in this community and inspired by it. They led, they worked, and they accomplished. Our community is less today because Jim has passed. He will be missed. His smile and enthusiasm will be missed. His leadership and commitment will be missed. 

Too often. I find myself writing posts like this too often. As we age, perhaps this is a natural progression. I find it troubling each time. Godspeed Dr. McCluskey and peace to yours. 

 

Positioning Comp

There is a recurrent cry, building to a crescendo. The workers' compensation community is greying and in some instances maturing. We are seeing the exit of the last of the Silent Generation as we see the continuation of the Boomer exodus. The time draws nigh that this space will be left to the GenXers and Millenials, as they struggle to pass their wisdom and experience to a Generation Z that is no more like them than they were like us.

I have written about this before. The generational change was one of my talking points at the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Educational Conference in 2018 (seems like yesterday). I focused on it previously as Kentucky Celebrates a Centennial (May 2016). I mentioned it more recently when we focused on A New Beginning (August 2022) at the WCI. I have striven to integrate this into various discussions and presentations over the years. The generations are changing, comp is changing, and the future has come to our doorstep.

The Point webinar, starring the unflappable Bob Wilson, will present again on May 10, 2023 at 1:00 Eastern Time. Registration is open. This will focus on a challenge that we see as tripartite: recruiting, retaining, and training. There are lamentations across the workers' compensation community, in various fields, specialties, and professions. The young are not flocking to this space. I focused on this most recently in Let's Make a Change (April 2023). We are going to have to build a bridge to the young.

The next generation don't seem to think like us, work like us, or value us. What "next generation" ever did?

The guests for this program are amazingly diverse, In no particular order (respecting our elders however), I begin with Les Kertay, PhD. Dr. Kertay is a [psychologist up in Tennessee. He is as involved in trying to improve the workers' compensation community as any, and has been striving for many years. His blog is a great spot to search for insight about mental health and how our workplaces and experiences are influencing us. It is my third favorite blog. Really. I am allowed to like my own best, right? No one puts a birth date on LinkedIn, but Dr. Kertay is actually older than I am (and that is an achievement in itself). That said, I guess him to be part of the Boomer generation.

We will be joined by Brittany Parr, MBA, who is an "Organizational Development and Change Management Coach. She is part of a multinational conglomerate that likely has its share of change and evolution to endure, overcome, and build upon. She appears to me to belong to the Millenial Generation (1981 to 1996; the largest portion of the American workforce, according to Pew.

Jamie Bourg, CPCU, AIDA, AIC, AIC-M, & ARM, will also drive this conversation. She is a Vice President of People Operations with LWCC out in the land of the LSU Tigers. And, again judging by the potentially wildly inaccurate college graduation dates, she is likely a Gen X member (1965 to 1980).

And, of course, the conversation will be driven by the inimitable Bob Wilson, EIEIO. We have given up guessing his age, but we are all but certain he is not Generation Z (1997-2012). He will characteristically drive an animated conversation in which we will raise many issues, paint with a broad brush, and strive nonetheless to drill down to some focal take-homes that can help the community with this challenge of generational transition. 

Questions I would like to see discussed include:

1. How do we effectively deal with people that do not think like us?
2. How do we accommodate the vast spectrum of perspectives?
3. How can we better understand each other in forging forward?
4. Is all this focus on "generations" just stereotyping?
5. Is there a genuine distinction in our focus between recruiting and retaining?
6. How do we build a bridge to the next generation?
7. How do we get them to cross that bridge?
8. How many licks would it really take to reach the center of a Tootsie-Pop?

So many questions, and so little time. We spend about an hour on each of these spontaneous conversations. We strive to get through the circumstance and noise and actually get to The Point. I am hopeful that you will join us on May 10, 2023. 

Register at https://workcompcollege.com/the-point-webinar-positioning-comp-for-the-next-generation/