Finding Lessons

Life is a series of lessons. There have been a great many over the years. The truly eloquent have far better described the challenge of making mistakes and learning. Someone said that "you must learn from the mistakes of others—you will never live long enough to make them all yourself.” The folks that strive for clarity in such matters document that this has been variously attributed over the years. But, it looks like it was first stated in a 1932 publication. 

Without getting bogged down in the source, the lesson is critical. There are human mistakes. We are hearing about potentials this week. Some are questioning why the state's emergency siren system was not engaged in the midst of the horrific firestorm recently. As National Public Radio (NPR) discusses, there is disagreement as to whether they would have or could have made a difference. That is an interesting discussion. The end of which might be: how could trying them have hurt?

There is discussion of why the text-alert system was deployed as late in the process as it was. CNN reports that one resident reported being already in his vehicle and evacuating by the time his cell phone  alerted.  

"'There wasn't really an evacuation notice for us,' Millington said. The real warning, he said, came from the 'huge plume of black smoke' in the sky over Lahaina."

That man (and his dog) are survivors because of their opportunity to be aware (visual) and the personal decision to evacuate. There is a lesson there. You have to look out for you. 

The New York Times has noted that Hawaiians are troubled by the speed of the response. It explains that FEMA "is not meant to be the first on the scene." There is truth in that. Government is ponderous, assessment is challenging, and mobilization takes time. And, there are virtually always complaints about reactions to disasters. This event is no different. If you have never been in a disaster zone, bless you. If you have been, you can identify with the feelings of those in Hawaii who are facing loss this week. 

We have a saying in Florida, "The first 72 is on you." I think it is catchy and very informative. We are not alone in using it. Arizona and Kentucky reference it, I am sure there are others. The bottom line of which we are repeatedly reminded is that we cannot look to government for sustenance in the first 72 hours after any disaster. We have to be able to fend for ourselves. There is a lesson there. 

Despite that, there are outcomes that are total devastation in which no amount of personal preparedness may ever be enough. But, when people lose everything, there is power in the fact that neighbors often do not. When you are blessed to find yourself ok after a disaster, donate those preparedness supplies of sustenance to your neighbors that are less fortunate. Until government does arrive, there is much we can do for each other. 

Tourists. There is a great variety of fantastic things to see in this country. There are interesting places, intriguing people, and more. Travel is a great pass time. But, the scene of a disaster is not a place for gawkers and hawkers. When disaster strikes, there is much to do for those who are in its wake. There is property destruction and worse there is loss of life. No one needs you to rubberneck at their car accident and they do not need you driving or walking through the destruction from a storm or similar. 

Tourists in the wake of a disaster are a distraction. Stay home. If you happen to be a tourist visiting when the disaster strikes, you become a potential victim just like the residents. In that instance, you are just as likely to need assistance, less likely to be prepared for the disaster, and absolutely welcome to the shelters, services, and other responses. But, if you are not present when the disaster strikes, stay home (the exception is disaster response, see below). 

For one, you may be increasing the load on local resources. You may be congesting roads that are needed for emergency response. You may be making the victims more uneasy and troubled as they strive to find some degree of peace and quiet in which to assess and accept their circumstances. They do not need you gawking.

"But I want to help." That is a fine sentiment. There are lots of ways to help. That does not require a disaster. A multitude of organizations prepare for and deploy to such disasters. They are always seeking help. They are trained and will train you as well. Get involved in your community and find such organizations. Volunteer. In the wake of a storm or disaster, you can be part of their response. They know how to get in, deliver, and yet stay out of the way. They are numerous and amazing. Find one and be involved. 

What are the lessons of Lahaina? Know that the lessons will take time to assimilate. There will be a great many questions asked. That will come in time. But, for now, there is recovery to be organized, resources to be marshaled, and literally lives to be saved. There is research supporting that post-disaster stress can contribute to an ongoing risk to health, and perhaps to an increased rate of death. There is stress today in Hawaii. It will remain for weeks to come. For some it will last a lifetime. The last thing Hawaiians need today is more stress. 

The lessons? Be prepared. You know your environment. Whether earthquake, hurricane, tornado or otherwise, there are risks. Know them. Prepare yourself for the first 72 (canned goods, bottled water, medications, phone charger, etc.). Have your important papers centralized/organized and ready for an evacuation. Be vigilant. That is easier with most hurricanes, it is a blessing to have a warning. Know that you may not get a warning (tornados, firestorms, earthquake). 

Look out for you. When there is a threat, begin your reaction. You may not get the warning or specific instructions you want from official sources. Your phone alert, television announcement, or siren may not come. Pay attention and be alert. When there is a threat, if you can do so without personal harm or great risk, reach out to those around you in such circumstances. Encourage neighbors and others to heed the dangers. 

In the midst of Lahaina coverage, we are entering the height of the Atlantic hurricane season. Each spring I write here to remind us all to prepare. The next several weeks are a time of angst and stress for all of us in the potential pathways, from Brownsville, Texas up the coast to Manhattan, there are potentials for landfall. Sure, it is more likely in some areas than others. But if you are in Florida, it is well past time for you to pay attention. 

Make your plan. Discuss your potential reactions. Watch the news and NOAA. If you get the order to evacuate, go. If you are blessed to avoid any impacts, reach out in an appropriate manner to those who were affected. There are lessons from Lahaina. The most important is that surprises happen, tragedies occur, and in the end, we need to be conscious of threats, our preparedness, and each other. 

Lest we Forget

I recently penned Do You Care about Reputation (June 2023). I was celebrating the presentation of the Harry Lee Anstead award to Judge Robert Deitz (posthumously). The Bar has this to say

The Justice Harry Lee Anstead Award, presented annually to a Florida Board Certified lawyer or judge, recognizes exemplary professionalism, excellence, character and commitment to The Florida Bar’s certification program and to the practice of law.

That explains the honor, but not the person so much. I have struggled similarly with the Workers' Compensation Section's annual presentation of the Frierson-Colling Award at the Forum each spring. I knew each of those lawyers back in the day. I still correspond periodically with Mr. Frierson. He is a legend in our community and a fixture in our history. I lament that he is no longer able to engage as he once did. I miss his kind countenance and patient demeanor.

I am critical of these awards in only one respect. The name is an honor, but today's generation needs to hear a few bars of the song. The title evokes some modicum of recognition perhaps, but tell us who this person is, what she/he did, how there was impact, exemplification, and contribution. I am not alone. Peter Prieto recently wrote a letter to the Florida Bar News (August 1, 2023). It was exactly in line with what I have been advocating. I link to it and share a few quotes.

Mr. Prieto's topic is Robert Orsek. He laments that we are too often confronted with names on buildings, not dissimilar to my thoughts on awards and recognitions. His focus, however, is on the "Robert Orseck Memorial Moot Court Competition." He is conscious of the fact that we may be superficial in our recollection and remiss in our reflection.

I pause here to note that I do not know Mr. Prieto. I never knew Mr. Orsek. I cannot find any connection between either and my little corner of the world in workers' compensation (my critics often remind me this blog is about workers' compensation, and they are sometimes right). That all said, I am grateful to Mr. Prieto for caring enough to bring us all some edification.

The Bar News article is replete with specific references to the practice of law, and Mr. Orseck's contributions to the practice and the evolution of law. It informs that Mr. Orseck passed away in 1978, at age 43. And it tells us that he was attempting to "save the lives of children who were being swept out to sea" when he passed. That presents a noble picture of self-sacrifice. The story notes that "All of the children survived."

When that end is intertwined so carefully, by Mr. Prieto, with the litany of professional achievements, we come to know the man. Without a doubt, he was human like us all and there were bound to be failings. But what is remembered? Those around him saw professional and personal achievement. And some cared enough to name a public event in his honor. One cared enough to tell us the story of who he was. 

There is much to unpack here. First and foremost however is that remembering people is more important than remembering a name. How will you be known? Will you be remembered as someone who impacted a community? Will anyone remember that you made a life better, a profession better, a society better?

I recently encountered another soul while researching my latest book. His name is not important, but after a long and apparently fruitful life, all I know for sure is that this person passed away with lots of money. What a great tribute that is (sarcasm again, sorry).

Mr. Orsek, on the other hand, evokes a spirit in this Bar News letter. Mr. Prieto notes that the Robert Orseck Memorial Moot Court Competition, hosted by the Young Lawyers Division, celebrated its 50th anniversary this year. He notes that Mr. Orseck "served as an example that the law is still a noble profession and not simply a business." What a lesson that might be for the lawyers entering this profession. He notes that Mr. Orseck's example reminded that "even a young lawyer — relying mostly on his or her intelligence and the love of their craft — can make a significant impact."

Words to live by. I never knew the back story for the name on that Moot Court Competition. I lament that. I encourage again that any organization that memorializes someone with such a naming should include something akin to Mr. Prieto's note on the web, readily available and patent. There is power and strength in knowing more than a name. There is value in the lessons, learning, and experience that justified memorializing a name.

I am grateful for the effort in that article/letter. I am hopeful we might all be a bit more vociferous in our demand to know, as Paul Harvey reminded us, "the rest of the story." And thus, "good day."

Lessons in the Law

The world of Florida workers' compensation seemed a bit unsteady this week. An opinion was published Wednesday, August 9, 2023, in North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District v. John Harlem, Case No. 1D21-17. This appeal was filed January 4, 2021 (947 days ago). It is a dispute about the causation of, the compensability of, an aneurysm. Such cardiovascular claims are particularly difficult to prove in Florida. They are referred to as "internal failure" claims. But in this instance and some others like it, the point is more about disproving the injury and its causation. 

The Harlem opinion is about the "statutory presumption available to firefighters under section 112.18." This is colloquially referred to as the "heart/lung bill," and entitles some classes of Florida workers to a presumption of causation. They are referred to collectively as "first responders," including firefighters, police, and others. Because of the presumption, it is up to the employer in such claims to either acquiesce in the claim or to disprove (overcome) the presumption. 

This opinion from the court is interesting on several levels and is recommended reading. There is education here on that specific presumption, statutory interpretation, stare decisis, appellate process, and the role of appellate courts in Florida. There is a significant volume to unpack in both the majority opinion and the lengthy dissent. 

The majority opinion is focused on the plain meaning of words. The diagnosis was of "a thoracic aortic aneurysm" for which surgery and some work absence were required. The majority noted that there was no medical evidence to support that this was work-related. The worker "leaned exclusively on the occupational-causation presumption." 

That is how presumptions work. They are a method for assigning responsibility or "burden." In a criminal case, the defendant is "presumed innocent." If the state overcomes that, then it proves guilt. In workers' compensation, it is generally the worker that must prove entitlement to benefits. The presumption merely reverses that, and the worker prevails unless the employer disproves causation and compensability.

The trial judge concluded that this was a "heart disease" and on that foundation concluded the worker was entitled to that presumption. That was a legal conclusion, an interpretation of the statute. On that basis, the judge concluded the injury compensable in the absence of sufficient rebuttal evidence from the employer. 

The majority focused on the word heart and differentiated it from the rest of the vascular system (peripheral). The "issue is whether the legal definition of heart disease in section 112.18 includes a thoracic or ascending aortic aneurysm.” In that, the judge "relied almost entirely on (the) court’s decision in City of Venice v. Van Dyke, 46 So. 3d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)." In that, the court noted, it had concluded the aorta to be part of the heart based on a diagram in a medical dictionary. 

That is an interesting point. The evidence in a previous case had been perceived as sufficient to establish a diagnosis was in fact "heart disease." The evidence in this case was not seemingly centered on such proof, but on the legal interpretation of those words. The dissent is critical of "heart disease" being a judicial determination rather than medical, but seemingly contends that the judge's interpretation in Harlem should be affirmed despite the absence of medical evidence in this case on characterizing the aorta and definition. 

The majority laments the degree of "factual detail" in that precedent. But, the court there did find “thoracic aortic disease” entitled to the presumption. This was based on a medical dictionary. The majority in Harlem, however, was not persuaded. The majority was critical of the Van Dyke court's foray into the illustrations included in the dictionary, which it labeled as "not an effective interpretative approach." The majority explained that "a dictionary’s usefulness in gleaning what a word or term means stems from the definitions (rather than any illustrations) that it provides."

The court explained illustrations are "imprecise by nature," and it suggested that interpreting diagrams or pictures "will be quite subjective." Significant explanation is provided regarding the diagrams in this instance. One might suggest that the diagrams are essentially dissected in a legal post-mortem. 

The majority explained the precedent of Van Dyke, and noted that its holding was intended to be "narrow and limited." It quoted the opinion and that court's careful limitation to particular facts. whether a decision is limited to its facts or is a broad interpretation can be of critical importance to the community as regards predictability and stare decisis. The majority in Harlem concluded that the aorta is not "a structure of the heart," and thus a disease of the aorta is not definitively "heart disease." 

It is critical that two distinct processes are illustrated. In Van Dyke, a factual conclusion of "heart disease" founded on medical evidence, including opinion. In Harlem, a legal conclusion of "heart disease" essentially on the foundation that the court so concluded on the medical evidence in Van Dyke. Thus, Harlem could be viewed as requiring a first responder to prove "heart disease," a burden beyond labeling a diagnosis, in order to be afforded the presumption. 

The opinion is detailed and interesting. It includes citations to Mr. Justice Scalia and Oliver Wendell Holmes and references an Egyptian princess that lived centuries before Christ. There is a variety of citations to both legal and medical works. There is something here to interest nearly anyone.

The opinion was not unanimous. The dissent took issue with the majority's departure from Van Dyke. It noted that the Florida Supreme Court had engaged a similar analysis. It harkens back to the days of my youth, and the court's disagreement with my analysis in City of Mary Esther v. McArtor, 902 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). And it dives similarly into definitions and words with some reliance on a different dictionary. 

The dissent stresses that Van Dyke was a unanimous panel of three judges. The dissent notes that the court has "expressly rejected the attempt to limit 'heart disease' to what the E/C there described as the 'actual heart.'” On this point, the dissent stresses, there should be medical evidence and not legal analysis. Whether a structure or a malady is of the "heart" or ""heart disease" is an issue for the experts in medicine according to the dissent. That is interesting and worthy of contemplation. 

If there is to be a detour from, or around, the precedent in Van Dyke, the dissent argues that such a detour must be better explained. It alleges that the majority disregards that precedent here "without acknowledgment or justification." 

The dissent notes that Van Dyke has been followed. And there are citations to appellate opinions in support of that contention. Tiburcio v. Hillsborough County. Sheriff's Office/Comm. Risk Mgt., 347 So. 3d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022); McDonald v. City of Jacksonville, 286 So. 3d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019); and Talpesh v. Village of Royal Palm Beach, 994 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). That a court has followed precedent in other instances may be of import. 

The dissent notes that various trial judges have followed Van Dyke (which the court has reminded is the trial judge's role). Those decisions, the dissent notes, were based upon medical opinions, which are less prevalent in Harlem. The case is made that each time the trial judge followed Van Dyke that decision was appropriate and correct as "these cases were not appealed." 

That trial judges followed a court interpretation is not very revealing. That is what trial judges are told to do. The Florida Supreme Court has been clear that an appellate decision without written opinion, a "per curium" affirmation is of no precedential value. Dep't of Legal Affs. v. Dist. Ct. of Appeal, 5th Dist., 434 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1983). It is difficult to find precedential value conversely in cases that were not even per curiam affirmed, that were not even reviewed by the appellate court. 

The dissent also delves into the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the internal operating procedures of the court. There is discussion of the need for consistency, the value of predictability, and importance of precedent (stare decisis). There is discussion of the exclusive jurisdiction of the First District regarding workers' compensation, the purpose and procedure for en banc review, and the standard of "exceptional importance." 

The dissent suggests that en banc can be a "time-consuming and possibly contentious group decision-making process."  Though not cited by the majority or dissent, there is more edification on the en banc process in Childers v. State, 936 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). That one is also quite an intriguing read with multiple concurring and dissenting opinions. 

There are different perspectives displayed in these two opinions (majority and dissent). There is much to be learned from review, analysis, and discussion of the court's two opinions. As the community of workers' compensation ventures back to Orlando for WCI 2023 on August 20, there is a probability Harlem will be on tongues. Not perhaps because of the limited topic of "heart disease," which impacts primarily municipalities and other government employers, but because of the detail it provides as regards appellate process, en banc proceedings, and legal analysis writ large. 

Some will perhaps see Harlem as a shift in the law, and will refer to Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams, 271 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). Some may instead reminisce of City of Pensacola Firefighters v. Oswald, 710 So.2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Still others may think of Waffle House v. Hutchinson, 673 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), or maybe even Vigliotti v. K-mart Corp., 680 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). There is perhaps much to unpack indeed, and there are many questions to ask, perceptions to test, and destinations to discuss.

New Jersey Stands Alone

One has to wonder about the state of New Jersey. It is an oft-forgotten adjunct to its neighbors. Many strive to visit the Big Apple or the City of Brotherly Love. Each is across a river from New Jersey. Some jokingly say the two biggest cities in New Jersey are New York and Philadelphia. They continue that the third largest city is Wilmington, Delaware. But, New Jersey has a significant airport in Newark, and for that reason, I have visited as a way-point on journeys to destinations in the northeast. That said, I have never made it a destination in a true sense.

New Jersey has an intriguing distinction. I first learned it about a decade ago when returning a rental car to that airport and needing to top off the fuel tank to avoid a penalty. I pulled in, got out, and could not pump fuel. The gas station was something called "full service." For the next generation, that used to be common a thing in America. A detour down that path is worthwhile.

Back in the day, you would pull into a station and drive over a hose secured to the ground. That would change the air pressure in the hose and cause a bell to ring in the station. An attendant (some say they witnessed times when more than one attendant) would come to your car, pump fuel, clean your windscreen with a squeegee, and more. Sometimes they would ask if they could check your oil. Sometimes they might check your tire's air pressure, your wiper blades, and your washer fluid. 

Those facilities were called "service stations." They had someone there who could work on your car. No, you did not need an appointment. The mechanic would examine your challenges and could replace a belt, change a fuse or bulb, change your oil, and more. Unlike today's convenience stores with an endless selection of accouterments and treats, the service stations then generally had a pop machine with 3-7 choices of sugary soda and maybe a candy machine with Zagnuts, Clark bars, and Hershey. But they all had wiper blades, batteries, and more to fit most every car.

In 1947, as legend has it, such a station in Los Angeles began offering a discount on gasoline if you would forego all of that "service" and pump your own fuel. The age of "self-service" dawned, and the station was successful. The model spread. The great state of New Jersey looked west and saw trouble. Its forward-thinking legislature outlawed such democratization. No self-service fueling in New Jersey (but you can across the river in Delaware, Pennsylvania, or New York).

Some might see that legislation as short-sighted. Certainly, it protected a certain volume of jobs. There was some discussion of misogyny. More on those below. But it is undoubtedly a minority view on the topic of vehicle fueling. In fact, it is now a minority of one.

Until recently, the view was shared by the great state of Oregon, about 3,000 miles to the west, an approximately 41-hour drive west. The trip might be a vivid reminder of America, out across Interstates 90, 80, and 84 seeing Cheyenne, Omaha, Cleveland, Chicago, and more. But you would likely have to know how to pump your own fuel a few times if you were to make the trip between these two. 

Oregon made the news recently for the repeal of its 72-year-old ban on self-service fuel (1951). The change, the abandonment of the minority view, was not without controversy as noted by Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB). Some Oregon residents praised the repeal. One noted that she had been to California, knows how to pump fuel, and concluded "Everybody should know how to pump their own gas.” Others disagreed noting that the ban gave "people jobs and opportunity.” As an aside, so did making buggy whips, but all those companies are out of business now. Those people lost their jobs because people like us quit buying buggy whips. We voted with our wallets.

The OPB says that the self-serve ban originated from "safety concerns." Legislators saw worry in "slick surfaces at filling stations subject to Oregon's notoriously rainy weather." Thank goodness it never rains here in Paradise (Oregon's average rainfall of 27 inches is half that of Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and more). Perhaps the rain has become less of an issue.

There is some degree of labor issues involved in the repeal of the ban also. As noted, some see value in creating jobs. But apparently, gas stations in Oregon have struggled recently to find workers and there are challenges with their workers being outside in the summer heat. Oregon's average summer temperature is a searing 64 degrees. 

Organized labor was critical of repealing the ban. A union noted that allowing people to pump their own fuel would lead to "job losses and called the law a 'blatant cash grab for large corporations.'” I remember when the newspaper folks said similar things in arguing to ban that new-fangled internet thingy years ago. The OPB cites an argument that the repeal of this ban will eliminate many jobs and save "giant corporations" "millions of dollars a year . . . . in wages, benefits and public payroll taxes.”

Some might suggest that the repeal instead could save drivers a few cents from time to time on the fuel for their cars. I remember that I first went to self-serve as an option specifically to save a few cents per gallon. Of course, the entire impact may be short-lived as internal combustion is on its last legs. The EVs are taking over. I wonder if New Jersey will allow people to plug in their own cars or whether an attendant will be legally required to insert the charge cord? 

The final argument for banning self-service is that "older adults and people with disabilities" may be deprived of having their fuel pumped. For now, the Oregon repeal mandates that urban stations have a balance that includes at least half of their pumps being full service. The repeal thus seems unlikely to result in deprivation. Perhaps delay at times, but not deprivation. I have seen handicapped accommodation signs in many states that are predominantly self-service. There seems to be widespread accommodation. I am curious if anyone has ever been refused such full service when requested? 

There was a nice lady in the news who successfully sued over denial of full service, in Oregon of all places. There was a story on an internet bulletin board of stations refusing full service because of a particular vehicle, in Oregon actually. A man sued when he could not get gas pumped for his lawn mower. You guessed it, Oregon again. There have been lawsuits elsewhere regarding disability, in Kentucky, California, and the American's with Disability Act addresses this topic specifically. 

There are those who see this as a safety issue. They cite a variety of bad behavior. People smoke while pumping, forget to take the hose from the car before departing, and use unsafe containers for fuel. Some see it as a convenience issue in the "rain, cold, and snow" of Oregon. But, at least for now, consumers in Oregon have a new choice.

That leaves only New Jersey as the state of no choice. It's bumper stickers, mentioned in the OPB article are dated, misogynistic, and inappropriate. Some might see humor in “Jersey Girls Don’t Pump Gas,” but what does being a girl have to do with this? Yahoo recently ran a story about men being more likely to buy electrics than women. That seems to be a bit conclusory and misogynistic also. Perhaps someone will email and explain why gender or sex matter in the context of having a choice to pump fuel.  

The New Jersey Legislature strove to repeal its self-service ban in 2015. As it becomes a minority of one in 2023, perhaps the folks in Philadelphia (the New Jersey Capitol) will take another run at their self-service ban. Kidding, we all know it is Trenton (remember the Delaware River, George Washington, etc.?). 

I have poked some fun at New Jersey here. Appologies. New Jersey offers a great assortment of finery and splendor. It is, in fact, "the Garden State," and well worth a visit. Many great Americans live there, like Joe Piscopo who made the state famous long before the Sopranos did. My apologies to any New Jersians offended by my references herein. But forgive me if I top off my tank myself in Pennsylvania. 

They are Ours

There have been some great orators over the millenia. I am not one.

Billy Shakespeare perceived Marc Antony in that category:

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.

I have come to bury Caesar, not to praise him."

Without a doubt, Ronald Reagan was in that category

"Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

There are calls to arms, and there are calls to arms. Hannibal told his troops "you must conquer or die." Napolean Bonaparte's entreaty was "March, then, to meet him. Tear from his brows the laurels he has won." Abraham Lincoln said "The nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel." John Kennedy brought "Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”

I am no rival for any of these. I cannot measure up to any such orator.

But their words are inspiring and they ring true today. We stand in 2023 on the verge of a great torch-passing. The age of the Boomers is fading. We shall "diminish, and go into the west, and remain" boomers. (Galadriel, The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien, 1954).

But who will follow? Walt Kelly, a cartoonist of note coined "We have met the enemy and they are us." That was famous and oft-quoted. But it was an adaptation of "Oliver Hazard Perry's words after a naval battle: 'We have met the enemy, and they are ours.'” That is the more pertinent in today's context. Who will follow? "they are ours." Who will follow is reasonably known. They are all around us striving to be lawyers and to adapt to our odd and challenging world. How they will follow is largely up to us.

I have been critical of those who would discount today's youth. See These Kids Today (July 2023); Positioning Comp (April 2023). We are in need of leadership and participation in the path of preparing today's rising stars for the challenges of their tomorrows. See, when you get to be old like me your own tomorrows are not so important anymore, nor so likely perhaps. Someone once said "when you are young you hope to wake up in the morning rested; when you are old, you just hope to wake up."

In recognition of those rising stars, various organizations are identifying and supporting the leaders of tomorrow. The Florida Bar News in July noted two excellent examples. The first is recognition of the 2023-2034 (sic) Leadership Class. The Florida Bar is finding aspiring leaders, nurturing them, educating them, and recognizing them. That is a great effort, worthy of praise.

The second is more important, however. The Florida Bar has deployed a mentorship program. It is called "Counsel-to-Counsel" and seeks to build bridges between the chronologically overachieved (us old folks) and those rising stars that embody our hopes for tomorrow and beyond. More important? That may seem impertinent. But at the end of the day, that Leadership Academy Class offers a tremendous opportunity to a very select few. The mentorship program offers one-on-one to a far larger population. In fact, if enough of the yesterdays sign up, each tomorrow could have a mentor.

Let's put it another way. How can you personally impact the success of future bar leaders engaged in the William Smith Reece, Jr. Leadership Class? Well, I doubt you can. How can you personally impact the success of rising star lawyers? That is easy, just sign up and participate in the Counsel-to-Counsel. Without a doubt, you have something worth sharing.

Maybe you have technical knowledge. There is a good chance you have practical knowledge. Perhaps you are skilled in the challenges of practice, conflict, and resolution? Have you ever had to work through a difficult ethical situation? Once upon a time, did you have a difficult client, obsequious judge, or frustrating opponent?

Whatever your experience and path, in some way you each possess some of the "been there, done that." A great many of you even got the T-shirt. If nothing else, you would bring value in a simple willingness to listen to some rising star lawyer explain her/his dilemma, challenge, or predicament. In the course of your career, did you ever wish you could just open up to someone and be listened to?

I am not suggesting that you can change the world. You cannot. You are too old, too weary, and too jaded (maybe). But, you can without a doubt be there for the next generation. You can be that ear, be that anchor, be that resource for those who will take the torch and lead tomorrow. What greater opportunity might you ask for? Read about Counsel-to-Counsel. 

You need not be Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, or Marc Antony. You need not be a great orator or leader. You need only be you. I had a chance recently to assuage a rising star by reminding that I make many mistakes each day. I saw relief in the star's eyes upon hearing that perfection is not only unachievable but unbelievable. In my commiseration and empathy, the star perhaps found solace? 

Consider being more than you are, and making tomorrow bright through mentoring the fine folks following in your path. I have met them, and they are literally ours. The details on registering are in the article. Do something good today. Don't wait for the call. Don't question your skill or worth. Sign up and contribute to a better tomorrow for us all. 

WCI 2023

Each year, August rolls around and I cannot believe it. No, I believe in August; I am not delusional. It is just that it cannot be August already. I have yet to have a chance to get away on vacation this year. Last week was seemingly January, with the promise of a new year. And, denial ain't just a river, if you get that.

August is a time for transition. Across the galaxy, young people are returning to school, football returns to the fore, and everyone's thoughts turn to the annual workers' compensation conference. Well, that may be a bit of a stretch. Many thoughts turn to the conference, and all that it implies. Well, at least my mind turns to the conference.

What are the highlights? I often discuss the opportunities with folks. The real gems are many, and the opportunities for growth abound. In truth, it is hard to go wrong in terms of gaining knowledge. But, that said, there are some extremely valuable exceptions in the mix. Here, I have listed what I see as the "can't miss" opportunities for 2023:

Saturday, August 19, 2023

07:00- 12:00 - Give Kids the World Village work day. Busses leave from the Convention Level of the Marriott World Center. You have to register in advance: GKTW Service Day Registration | WCI Annual Conference (wci360.com) https://www.wci360.com/service-day-registration/. I congratulate the many in our community that find so many ways to give back with their energy, talent, and time to events and efforts like this throughout the country and this workers' compensation world. 

Sunday, August 20, 2023

8:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. - Kids Chance Golf Tournament (Hawk's Landing golf course). This is a favorite event for me to see so many in the workers' compensation community. I'm not a golfer and do not even play one on television. But it is great to see everyone enjoying the community, and I enjoy volunteering. 

1:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. - E. Earle Zehmer National Moot Court Competition Quarterfinal and Semifinal rounds (Grand Ballrooms 11-14).

All day - The Professional Mediation Institute (Grand 8A). If you are a mediator, it is a must. If you participate in mediation, it is a must. Iconic mediators giving you the inside scoop on challenges, success, and compromise. If you get a chance, heckle Stuart Suskin (tell him Dave sent you). 

5:15 - 6:15 Meet the FLJCC Mediators and Judges (San Antonio room, Hall of Cities). No program, no speeches, and no agenda. Just mingle and meet in person. You see them in little boxes on Zoom, meet them face-to-face. We want to meet you!

Monday, August 21, 2023

9:25 – 9:50 a.m. Scholarship And Award Presentations (Palms Ballroom – Canary). Come enjoy this uplifting interaction with the community and meet some very promising young people who are striving to change their world.

1:00 – 2:00 p.m. - E. Earle Zehmer National Moot Court Competition Final Arguments (Palms Ballroom – Canary). More young people. They are inspiring and excellent examples of the next generation that will rise to support this community and profession.

2:30 - 4:30 National Regulator's Roundtable (Crystal Ballroom G1). Want the latest and the greatest? This is the spot to hear what is new, challenging, and confounding. 

3:30 - 4:30 Late Night with Workers' Compensation featuring pundit Bob Wilson and the winners of the National Underwriter Risk Management Award (Grand 8A).

 

Tuesday, August 22, 2023

8:45 - 9:45 - Live rotator cuff repair (Palms Ballroom - Canary). You just don't see this every day. 

10:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. - Investigation: Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Phone? The world is getting disconnected. Is it time to re-enage this time-tested tool? (Palms Ballroom - Canary). In-person is best, but the phone beats a text message or email every time.

11:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. - The Compounding Effect of Social Media on Claims. Crystal Chancey. Steve Figliuollo, and Vincent Vossell explore the impacts of social media on investigation, communication, and advocacy. (Grand Ballroom 7A). 

1:00 – 2:00 p.m. - Live Oral Argument of two appellate cases. (Palms Ballroom Canary). See Public Viewing Opportunity (July 2023). 

Wednesday, August 23, 2023

8:45-10:15 - Banishing Burnout. This is about stress, burnout, and toxic work cultures. Everyone in the workers' compensation community would benefit from a better appreciation of stress and its effects. (Crystal Ballroom H).

I am looking forward to seeing so many there. The events above are noted but are a small sample of all that may be of interest. I spend my time largely around the National Association of Workers' Compensation Judiciary at the base of the escalator from the hotel lobby. I welcome your company, commentary, complaints, or suggestions. Please stop me in the halls for any conversation or questions you wish. Travel safely.

Hip to Be Square?

Self-deprecation can be in our nature. And there is always the draw of a good title. The use of words can bring emotion and reaction. A good tagline can be worth a thousand words sometimes. 

Huey Lewis and the News brought us a mantra about maturity in 1986 with Hip to Be Square, Fore, EMI. The title is such a tagline. The lyrics provide a litany of changes including "I couldn't take the punishment and had to settle down." The expose provides a tale of transitioning from the wild child of the 1960s and 1970s to the reality of the real world. It was an anthem of eschewing one lifestyle and joining the mainstream. They intoned:

But don't you try to fight it, An idea whose time has come

Don't tell me that I'm crazy, Don't tell me I'm nowhere

Take it from me, It's hip to be square

The song also provides support for such radical ideas as eating right and exercising, support for taking care of yourself. Huey and the gang went through my head when I heard of the new "lazy girl" trend in the world of work. It is being promoted on the new harbinger of good and beneficial, Tik Tok. The influencers that brought you Nyquil Chicken, the "pee your pants challenge," the "blackout challenge," and worse, according to the New York Post. That publication, in reflecting on Tik Tok, concludes "Humanity has hit Tok bottom."

The "lazy girl job" was proposed in May 2023. And it is perhaps merely a tagline. For whatever reason, it has resonated and drawn attention. It is seen by some as essentially an extension of Quiet Quitting (September 2022). The point proposed is that everyone should be able to have a great salary, benefits, and not have to work too hard for them. This proposed outcome is not viewed as an anomaly or a fortunate occurrence. It is proposed as achievable and believable for anyone, an everyday opportunity. The Tik Tok trend has evolved from that first video to various folks chiming in with descriptions of their work.

One contributor claims "All she does is 'copy and paste the same emails, take 3-4 calls a day, take my extra long break, take more breaks AND get a nice salary.'" Another poster disagrees with the "lazy" characterization, claiming "I am really over the whole lazy girl job thing because it is not lazy to expect a job like this … There’s nothing wrong with expecting to have a job that pays you well, gives you good work-life balance, and doesn’t overwork you.”

In that, there seems a distinction and perhaps a contradiction. There is a beauty and value in a work-life balance. There is certainly benefit in boundaries that keep the two in a yin and yang with some degree of divided exclusivity and structure. But, there may be bad news ahead for those who are "copy(ing) and past(ing) the same emails" and who list as a work accomplishment tak(ing) 3-4 calls a day." That may be a bridge too far. And having crossed the Rubicon, it is possible that some employees will struggle to find their way back home. 

The original poster (OP) is not necessarily "lazy." The description she provides is that she is no longer "racking up 50-to-60-hour weeks" at work. She asserts that this pace was untenable for her, and that it "eroded both her mental and physical health." That is not generally an appropriate posture to place yourself in long term. Some thrive on those hours, but we are not the rule. The fact is that some jobs will require such commitment. Deciding whether to make it is no different than any other commitment.

The OP focuses instead on what work should be. She stresses a belief that it should be "a positive experience" and that this view is shared by the "Gen Z" and the "millennials." She believes that these balanced (not "lazy") positions should exhibit four characteristics:

1. a sense of safety (no long shifts, arduous commutes, or dangerous working conditions);
2. remote- or hybrid-friendly;
3. a “comfortable” salary; and
4. a healthy work-life balance. 

And within these parameters, she wishes to live her life. She notes that "Everything I’m talking about is considered lazy if you compare it to traditional workplace expectations." And nonetheless, she sees this not only as a potential existence but one that is accepted as normal and productive. This is a far cry from the "type-a" of the 1980s, but perhaps some would not view it as "lazy." That said, the "lazy" tagline is eye-catching and draws us in.

One interesting point is that there is no self-actualization expressed in this list. There is no desire for the work to be engaging, rewarding, or meaningful. There is no expression of a desire to convey value, contribute, or collaborate. There is no expression of community or commitment, goals, objectives, or accomplishment. It is perhaps a worthy goal - taking care of yourself. But these proposed four points perhaps need some augmentation or supplementation?

Eugene Delacroix is credited with saying "We work not only to produce, but to give value to time." Value. It might come in a monetary sense. It might come from accomplishment. It might come from the comfort or benefit it brings to others. Different people may find value in a spectrum of things. But, in the end, there is benefit in finding value. That is not in avoiding effort and eschewing the community.

An attorney, Randall Porcher, recently said similarly that people "need to solve problems, it is what we do." That encompasses invention, organization, management, entrepreneurialism, and so much more. We are perhaps hardwired to take on challenges. Without a doubt, life is full of them, personal and professional.

A career coach quoted in the article is perhaps better at articulating the "lazy" view. She says "The trend . . . reflects . . . the changing desires of professional women specifically." She contends they "want jobs that make them happy, provide a decent income, and allow space for their priorities beyond work." Her perspective does not support the "lazy" label any more than the OP description. Her characterization is not about "lazy," but about balance. 

Despite the "savvy" use of "branding" with "an attention-catching name," the real trend expressed is both balance and "start(ing) a necessary discourse." There is a perception that discussion and perspectives on the demands of the working world are worthy of re-examination and contemplation. One conclusion of the article is that "what a ‘lazy girl job’ actually means is showing up for your work doing it to the best of your ability – because that is literally what you’re being paid for." 

This is a perspective on balance and in that is likely healthy and worthy of conversation. However, it is perhaps worthwhile to also discuss the potentials for achieving goals, finding outcome satisfaction, and reaching self-actualization as Maslow envisioned and described.  

In a broad perspective, is your work role meeting the potentials promised? Is your involvement, activity, and intellect being valued by yourself and others? Are you "doing the job" that you are paid for, and yet finding the time to have a non-work life? Are you finding fulfillment in either or both of the work and non-work lives in which you are engaged? If not, how does one identify, pursue, and achieve such balance? 

I am admittedly not a "girl," "lazy," or an internet influencer. However, in the "Lazy Girl" analysis I find interest. The topics raised are worthy of consideration and conversation. Do I have balance? Is the life I have structured working for me? Those are the two critical questions. If the answers are no, then the third question is seemingly "Why not?" followed by critical analysis of "How do I change it? And, perhaps, how do I do it without Tik Tok (I don't understand social media and perhaps never will).

Maybe this is not all that different from Huey's suggestions? Perhaps there comes a time in life to stop "be(ing) a renegade," and to instead "to settle down." His advice to not "try to fight it" is perhaps sound. Maybe there comes a time in life when you have to look out for your best interest? Perhaps, instead, it is always that time and you must simply reach a point when you realize it?

Pay Attention

There are a great many cameras in this country. They seem to be everywhere you look. See Assume Everyone is Watching (September 2015); Evolving Issue of Body Cameras (July 2018); Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020); and Orwellian Store Security (August 2022). The bottom line from all of these examples is you just have to assume you are on camera, all day, every day.

Okay, perhaps there remain a few places in which we might expect our privacy. But people have allegedly found hidden cameras in rental cabins, toilets, public spaces, and even our own homes. The technology is becoming cheaper and easier, and the implications are increasingly intrusive. The best advice? Remember that old Rockwell song "Somebody's Watching Me."

The subject of cameras and immense responsibility coincided with the challenge of being a judge in an Oklahoma story recently. This concerns a lawyer elected to the bench in November 2022. The judge took the bench and has been presiding for months. It is no small feat to be elected to anything in most examples. Graduating law school is also not easy, nor is even getting into law school in the first instance. This judge has "been a lawyer since 2003" according to the Associated Press.

This judge is in Lincoln County, a rural area in central Oklahoma. About 34,000 people lived there when the last census concluded. The county has some reasonable-sized municipalities and is intersected by Interstate 44, running east to west. It is likely a pretty quiet place at times. But, like anywhere else, there is some measure of violent crime. Recently that led to this new judge presiding over a murder trial as reported by the Associated Press.

The judge's performance has made headlines and is being investigated by an "Ethics Panel" after one of those surveillance cameras recorded her activity during trial. She was perhaps not aware that there were cameras in the courtroom. The Insider reports that the judge allegedly was "scrolling through her phone throughout a seven-day murder trial." There are accusations that the judge "used her phone throughout jury selection, opening statements, and witness testimony."

It is possible that this is simply boredom. Perhaps it is hard to remain interested through a seven-day murder trial in which someone stands accused of "beating a two-year-old to death." Perhaps the "tearful testimony" was not compelling or interesting? Perhaps the proceedings are so mundane that the judge's attention is not really necessary?

In fairness, judges in jury trials are frequently left without much to do. The trier of fact there is the jury. It will decide what did or did not happen. It will decide whether guilt has been proven. The judge in a jury trial is primarily responsible for gatekeeper roles, deciding what the jury does or does not hear.

There can be many long periods without any evidentiary objections. There can be moments that are perhaps tedious. In a jury trial I participated in as second-chair years ago, the judge fell asleep on the bench. That was bad enough, but this judge had a snoring habit and his narcolepsy was noticed by everyone in the courtroom eventually. The lawyers were afraid to awaken him.

Oddly, the Oklahoma judge recognizes the potential for electronic distraction. The news says that the judge "began the trial by instructing the jury members to turn off all electronic devices." They were told that this was to allow them to "concentrate on the evidence without interruption." Apparently, there is some value in hearing the evidence? Sarcasm.

After using the "phone throughout jury selection, opening statements, and witness testimony," apparently the judge became aware that Candid Camera was watching. That is a reference to a television show that ran in several iterations beginning in 1948. We have all had a great deal of exposure to the fact that cameras might be watching us. Nonetheless, after becoming aware of the survellance camera, instead of changing behavior, "the judge . . . (allegedly) moved the position of the ceiling security camera."

Instead of paying attention to the trial, instead of foregoing Facebook, instead of abstaining from texting, the solution seemed to be to move the camera. Changing the behavior might have brought the attention of the judge to the trial. The interest of justice and due process might have been enhanced by paying attention to the trial. But the solution, it seems, may have been simply to move the camera.

The local news reporting has to be uncomfortable. The national coverage can only be more so. And, these are merely allegations. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Despite a picture sometimes being worth a thousand words, there is also the potential for cameras and video to lie and mislead.

That said, this judge has some explaining to do. The behavior alleged implicates competency, complacency, and the public faith in the judiciary. The news coverage, true or not, will cast doubt on judges everywhere. The public perception of judges and courts will not be enhanced these news stories. If the video is eventually published (too late, it is on social media now), people are bound to watch.

What is the point of having a judge in the courtroom? The judge is there to keep the proceedings on track, to rule on objections, and to assure that the justice system works. I have never presided over a jury trial, nor a murder trial. But, all trials are important. As I have said many times, the most important case in the world is the one happening today. That is, it is the most important to the people in this case, today, now.

The judge owes all the parties to any case the full attention and respect for the most important case. The parties deserve to be taken seriously, to be paid attention to, to be respected. That said, there are distractions on the bench. There are often dates and details to verify in the docket. Here, there is recording software to monitor and check. There a multitude of good reasons to use that computer on the bench.

Facebook is simply not one of them. Text messaging is not one of them (unless you are texting for assistance with the case - "bring me the arrest file," etc.). The bottom line is that the parties to the case deserve the judge's full attention. The job of judging deserves the judge's full attention. The community that puts a judge on the bench deserves the judge's full attention.

To me, the choice is binary and simple. A judge should either be willing to pay attention and do the job or they should simply move on to a less critical occupation and let the good people find someone else to earn the approximately $165,000 salary. Being a judge is intellectually challenging, interesting, and engaging. It is a tremendous calling with immense responsibility. It is an honor and burden and is immensely rewarding.

All that said, if it is not something that can hold your attention and respect, move on and let someone more suitable do the job. If you are caught disrespecting the job, leave the cameras where they are, and move yourself somewhere else.

The Oklahoma ethics panel investigation will be interesting to watch. One always wonders how stories will play out beyond what the press reports. There are always two sides to a story and hearing both is imperative before there is any judgment. Will the panel listen to the judge’s side or just play on their phones throughout? Regardless, the press reports here are certainly troubling, concerning, and upsetting.

The world is watching persistently. There are cameras everywhere. Critics abound. Your role as a judge puts you at center stage. Put away the social media. Defer the text messages. Pay attention. Someone's life or livelihood may depend upon it. 

Inflationary Cycle

During the pandemic, there was a significant shift in American work. A population of employees enjoyed telecommuting, gasoline savings and decreased expenses generally. See Economy Intelligence. Forbes notes that employee spending was decreased even in regard to necessities such as health care. So, essentially consumption slowed. There were rumors that restaurants and retail actually closed or altered hours of operation. I cannot attest to that firsthand, as it did not happen here in Paradise, but rumors persist.

There was generalized angst that without consumers the producers would lose money. Without diners, a restaurant might not profit from food preparation. That was not calculus, but simple math. The government solution was to use piles of federal debt to provide ongoing support to those businesses. The purpose was to allow them to maintain payroll and support those workers, whether their efforts were necessary or not.

Eleven and one-half million "loans" were issued. That is a euphemism. Loans are typically a "grant of temporary use." They are used and then paid back. It is a simple concept that is becoming alien to Americans. All kinds of people now think that "loan" is a synonym for "gift." The implications are beginning with those 11.5 borrowers. ProPublica says that $790 billion was "loaned" and the government "forgave" $757 billion. It was never paid back. It never will be. You can see who got the money by searching on that ProPublica page. 

The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank has analyzed whether this was sound and made some interesting observations. First, "the PPP was not well targeted. Only about one-quarter of PPP funds supported jobs that otherwise would have disappeared." Thus, government money paid workers that businesses could or would have paid. As concerning "The PPP’s benefits flowed disproportionately to wealthier households rather than to the rank-and-file workers that its funds were intended to reach." Whether the plan was successful or not is left to the reader.

But, in the end, the supply of money in the market increased. It was largely conserved (saved) by workers because of the rumored lack of opportunity for spending. The San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank notes that "U.S. households built up savings at unprecedented rates following the strong fiscal response and lower consumer spending related to the pandemic." The result was referred to as a "savings glut."

In multiple instances, I heard from people who claimed that money literally "appeared" in their bank accounts. They had not asked for the money. They frankly admitted that they did not "need" the money. To a person, however, they certainly kept the money. And they waited. 

When the pandemic ended, some portion of the population did not rush to return to work. They had enjoyed the deferral of expenses through mortgage forbearance, eviction moratoriums, and load deferrals. There were help-wanted signs everywhere as businesses strove to meet the demands of customers venturing back into the world at large, out there beyond Paradise. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce noted a noticeable labor shortage. 

When there is a shortage, in instances in which demand outstrips supply, the price of goods and services increases. That is a natural consequence of "scarcity," and a common economic issue. Post Covid-19, there were people with money to spend, and businesses wanted to serve them. Thus, pay increased for the labor that did exist. That led to more money in the marketplace, thus resulting higher demand for goods and services. This, coupled with the already constrained supply, may have edged prices higher still.

After the pandemic, people were upset that rents increased. Some could not understand that landlords had been unable to enforce leases for months. Some tenants had stopped paying rent, but remained in the apartment/home. The landlord's payments (mortgage, maintenance, etc.) continued, but their income dried up. When normalcy returned, who did not expect those landlords to strive to recoup their losses? Nonetheless, many complained.

Retail faced product shortages. The lack of workers in world markets beyond little spots like Paradise meant that products were not being produced, shipped, unloaded, and delivered timely either. Thus, a decrease in supply of goods and a resulting change in the price equation. Prices rise when demand remains constant and the supply decreases. PBS reported on this extensively. 

More recently, there is news of increases in fast food prices. The internet is alive (apparently) recently with people upset that a sandwich is now selling for $5.00. Some say it is "outrageous." The author of the article found one cheaper than $5.00, but assured nonetheless the sandwich "isn't nearly as affordable as it used to be." Well, what is as affordable as it used to be? 

That there is outrage is interesting. When the price of a product doubles, there may be reason. First, when you double the price of labor from $7.50 per hour to $15.00 per hour, you might think there is a possibility that the price of the output (sandwich) might also double. And you have to remember that the price of the shop's labor is not alone in rising. The people that sweep up at the chicken packing plant, the people that pack the boxes, load the trucks, and more all rose with the mandated increase in our average weekly wage. Inflation hurts. 

The price of inputs increases, and the price increases. The supply of money increases, and there is greater demand, and the price increases. A lunatic invades a country halfway around the world and destroys or isolates crops, food supply diminishes and prices increase. The astounding aspect of the news stories is that consumers are genuinely surprised that prices are increasing. Forgive student loan debt, and it is the same as the government printing millions of dollars and dumping them into the economy. 

The lenders are getting paid, your government is printing or borrowing the money to pay loans. I always assumed that my car would never depreciate. I always thought I would get pay raises year after year after year. I was wrong. The car turned into rust and quit working. I still owe money on it. Should the government step in and pay off my car loan because I (1) overbought, (2) miscalculated, (3) succumbed to slick marketing by charlatans, (4) was wrong? Whether it should or not, it backed loans that were bad investments and now it is printing money to pay those loans. Thus, inflation. 

The general public, it seems, simply does not grasp supply, demand, and inflation. The results are unfortunate and frustrating. That is a given. But surprising? Not so much. What is the solution? More debt? More government cash payments to consumers? Incurring more government debt for canceling personal debts and obligations? Maybe not so much. 

That people are upset is clear. Reuters reports that people hate inflation and that "runs deep."  The Wall Street Journal says that it is hitting them on groceries, utilities, rent (the essentials). All that government debt ($32 Trillion this morning and rising fast) will consume ever-increasing portions of the national budget. Tomorrow is mortgaged (deeply). Will anyone forgive the government's debt? Or will taxes increase to cover the largesse of unsolicited checks and bailouts? Or will services decrease to cover the largesse, e.g. less police protection, crumbling infrastructure, etc. (sorry, that is already happening). 

With all of this on the scope, the big story is that a particular sandwich is now more expensive. Go figure. There are some who believe it can be difficult to see the forest for the trees. The result will be disaffected workers. There will be those working two jobs to make ends meet. They are the ones that won't qualify for the government largesse, the ones that pay their student loans (and other commitments), the ones we used to refer to as our middle class. They used to make a good living here, for instance building cars, before the consumers switched to foreign labor, Toyotas, Hyundais, BMWs, and more. 

There will be staff instability. People will be shifting jobs, searching for better pay. That is a natural trend but enhanced in this economic setting. Business will struggle, labor shortages will persist, and those in the workforce may become frustrated. That could lead to more job changing as well. 

In short, there are implications in the workplace that could well mean more fatigue, persistent presence of inexperienced workers, and thus management distracted from production by training. In short, it is a prime time for businesses and employees to focus on safety, accident avoidance, and worker well-being. While the economic woes wrought by the government will be harmful to the working people, there is no excuse for being complacent in the occurrence of accidents and injuries that will only make matters worse (for business, fewer workers and less-experienced workers; for the worker - well obviously). 

No one can stop the reckless flow of money. No one can personally impede the inflation juggernaut. At best, we can affect our own environment. A great focus in that regard is workplace safety. That would be a better focus for us all than a $5.00 sandwich that was as inevitable and predictable as the sunrise. Get over inflation you cannot change and focus on what you can control. Safety is a great place to start. Or, you could join the next movement and strive to double the minimum wage to $30. That has to be good for everyone right? Sure, but don't complain when your chicken sandwich price doubles again. 

Freedom of Speech

I was intrigued by a college professor who had personal difficulties and was Triggered and Violent (June 2023). That story was about violence and untoward behavior of a pedagogue who struggled with anyone having a different view of things. She was so troubled that students were distributing anti-abortion materials that she labeled them as "triggering" and engaged in violence. It cost her a job in academia. But whether it will impact a career remains to be seen.

The idea of free speech on American college campuses is not novel or unique. There are periodic discussions of professorial censorship. A tenured professor in California was recently terminated by Bakersfield College. The school alleges a history of behavior, the professor contends the school is merely punishing his speech and association freedoms.

An academic advocacy group contends that "targeting" of speech in academia is becoming more prevalent. While that is seemingly supported by their statistics, it is possible that reporting of such targeting perceptions is becoming more ready. Perhaps people are speaking up more than they used to? This group notes that "Targeting incidents occurred most often in the disciplines of law, English, political science, and medicine," and "Scholars were most often targeted for comments made in the classroom."

I spend a great deal of time in classrooms, lecture halls, and programs. I am nearing my 2,000th professional lecture. I am fundamentally certain that I have made references and contentions somewhere that someone found uncomfortable, troubling, or even offensive. That is going to happen when the environment is one in which we would like to challenge minds. That said, classrooms are not a place for violence and vitriol.

And more recently there were opportunities to consider whether they are a place for humor. Funny or Offensive (October 2022). Some believe that making fun of others is ok for some people, but not for others. In a world in which some will discuss inclusion, do we each persistently question our personal attitudes toward it? Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (October 2022). When it is discussed, is it about treating people equally, or is it about treating me (the speaker in any setting) better than others? Speech. What does it mean, and is it truly free?

A professor is suing Pennsylvania State Univerisity (you remember the home of Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky), an educational institution venerated by some. The professor contends the school "pressured him to ensure consistent grades for students across 'color line[s]." He alleges that the school concluded that if persons of the same race received different class grades reflecting their individual performance, that "would demonstrate racism and he would be condemned as a racist." The Philadelphia Enquirer reported on this July 5, 2023. The professor claims "he and other white professors were targeted as racist simply by virtue of teaching while ‘white.’”

Meanwhile, in Colorado, a professor is suing a law school alleging pay discrimination based on race. Reuters reports that one of the allegations there involves retaliation in terms of a teaching assignment. The school has apparently responded and alleged that action was taken because the professor "used 'racially offensive and gender biased' comments in class the previous year." Speech, on a college campus, causing concerns and offense? Is the view of speech consistent regardless of the speaker? Should it be?

Also in July, a "pro-abortion" professor filed a lawsuit against a student publication at Notre Dame in Indiana. She alleges that her free speech has been constrained and that this newspaper has published stories that included “defamatory and false statements.” The National Review reported that the newspaper intends to seek protection from an "anti-SLAPP" lawsuit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) against the professor. Only in America would the response to a lawsuit be another lawsuit. Intriguing indeed. 

This professor was apparently engaged in activities regarding abortion and might be viewed as advocating for the procedure. Some might even perceive her as offering medical advice, though she is not apparently a physician. See Is there a Doctor in the House (June 2022), or I'm a Doctor Too? (April 2023). Regardless of academic credentials or licensure, the reporting is silent as to any potential recent temporary residency at a Holiday Inn Express. 

The National Review article supports that since the press coverage of her activities she "changed her Twitter display name," "updated her bio," "removed signs from her office door," and "deleted tweets."  Notably, the professor is at a private, catholic university. It is likely that her described views run counter to those of her employer. She complains she “has been harassed, threatened, and experienced damage to her residential property" since she spoke her mind and publicly advocated a position. Did she make her comments as a private person or as (even purportedly) an employee of that university?

As regards the allegation of defamation, The National Review reports that original recordings of the Notre Dame professor may substantiate that she actually said things that support the student publication's reporting. Truth, if proven, is a strong defense to defamation claims. When we say things, there may be repercussions. That we believe things is not necessarily wrong. It is possible that we are merely different in our beliefs or perspectives. 

Do we want college environments in which teachers and students fear? Do we want professors to self-censor? Close to half say they do so. One survey found 83% of college students self-censor. That may be normal angst about public speaking (many a shy student hates speaking in class). But 83%? Is cancel culture a must or even a desire in education? Who benefits from students who are afraid to speak?

As a side note, there is suggestion here that "triggering" maybe goes in more than one direction? That said, there is never room for threatening or physical violence. The Hunter College professor with the machete cannot be condoned, and that is an extreme example. But likewise, no physical violence or property damage can be condoned regardless of "triggering" ("I was triggered" is nothing but an excuse, and a bad one). Similarly, there are those who perceive the news as labeling with editorial aplomb using "peaceful" regarding violence or "riot" regarding dissension. Those labels perhaps influence public perceptions, feelings, and credibility. 

Is this all new? Are dissent and disagreement in educational settings a "new normal?" Or, has there been persistent discord and discussion in classrooms and lecture halls? A Google search for "professor sues college" or "professor sues university" might yield results that would surprise. Possibly, there is a fair volume of dissent and disagreement regarding speech. Do institutions threaten their own credibility when they label speech whether to condone or suppress it? 

Should all speech be protected? The Supreme Court long ago dispelled that. Should all speech be welcomed? That is a different question. Should speech be answered with violence or threats? That is an easy "no." Should we all be conscious of the potential that speech has to reflect upon us? Absolutely. Will the world be fair in its judgment of us? Really? Will social media, the press, and the public provide us each unerring and faithful coverage? Well, "no." 

Bill Watterson, a comic artist and commentator included an exchange between the strip's protagonist Calvin and his father:

Father "the world is not fair Calvin."

Calving "I know, Dad, but why isn't it ever unfair in my favor"

The world is not fair. As TayTay mentioned once, "Don't say I didn't, say I didn't warn ya." Blank Space, Republic (2014). Are we seeking it to be fair in some objective sense, or are we each looking for it to be in our own favor?

Freedom of speech is important. Speech should not result in threats, violence, or property damage. But speech may have consequences. You may be criticized, ridiculed, or even sued. There may be repercussions. You may be "Cancelled" for speaking your mind. Think about the patriots who signed the Declaration of Independence. That was speech. Many suffered greatly for their decision to speak out. They did so knowing the potential for detriment. 

In its broadest context, as noted by Ronald Reagan, "Freedom is not free." That also applies to Freedom of speech. If you hear things with which you disagree then you may voice your disagreement. If you wish not to speak, then remain silent, that is your right. If you choose to speak, don't expect universal acclaim or acceptance. It is beyond belief that everyone, everywhere, will agree with one another and live in harmony. That is a fool's errand. But, it is imperative that we find room to speak with one another. 

For my critics (there are many) who are sometimes quick to remind me that this "is a workers' compensation blog," this space is about workers' compensation, the law, education, community, and more. That does not mean you cannot criticize. I welcome your thoughts and responses.