Social Media Evolution

2024 was unique in congressional action regarding a social media platform. There was concern that the TikTok platform could be used to manipulate content and that the Chinese government might "gain access to sensitive user data," according to the NY Times. A law was passed to constrain the platform. It allowed ample time for the ByteDance company to "divest from TikTok." That time ran out in January, and in the meantime, TikTok failed to gain judicial reprieve.

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) noted that the platform "went dark" momentarily this year, but was given a reprieve by executive order, extending its deadline by 75 days. The app operates today, having lost its bid for intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court, and is waiting for that time to run. About 30 days have passed, and only a short time remains.

There is significant speculation over who could, or would, purchase the platform. Various billionaires have been mentioned.

Some of the controversy is certainly the harvesting of data. The BBC reiterates that the "ban was 'designed to prevent China - a designated foreign adversary - from leveraging its control over ByteDance to capture the personal data of US TikTok users.'" That is troublesome. There have been similar allegations about other apps focused on news, shopping, and more. Sarcasm here might be used to illustrate that all social media likely harvests data and others have been accused of missing it. 

However, there are seemingly larger issues with TikTok.

CNBC recently reported that this particular app is "bad news for the mental health of millions of kids and teens." It claims that the "company is causing harm to children, adolescents, and young adults at an industrial scale.”

A psychologist quoted by CNBC claims that the platform

• "encourages 'addictive, compulsive, and problematic use' among its younger users,"
• "exposes them to sexual and violent content, and increases levels of anxiety, depression"
• "and other mental health issues."

While that seems initially like an isolated allegation, the article proceeds to note similar potential for damage from other social media applications. Children exposed to "other social media platforms, like Instagram, Snapchat or RedNote" may similarly "experience higher rates of anxiety and depression." That was the conclusion of the U.S. Surgeon General.

That is where credibility could come into the equation. Remember when the Surgeon General assured us not to use masks during the Great Panic? See Breakthrough, Vacillation, and Consensus (August 2021). Later, we were told we should mask. Then we were told we must mask. To this day, one must wonder which conclusion(s) were scientifically correct. Why do some people distrust the science or the scientists today?

That said, too much of anything can be inappropriate or damaging. The CNBC article notes that TikTok use is extensive:

"63% of Americans between ages 13 and 17 used TikTok, with 16% saying they were on the app “almost constantly,”

The application is apparently compelling. Some Attorneys General have sued the company claiming that it "knowingly used addictive features that were harmful to young users’ mental health."

Some have noted a dichotomy. CNN reported that ByteDance operates two platforms, TikTok in the U.S. and Douyin in China. The distinction is that in China the company places strict constraints on children, limits access in both time and scope, and seemingly acknowledges the potential for addiction. In short, it seems possible that they care more for Chinese youth?

For some reason, the gloves are off in America. CNN acknowledges that "TikTok took some similar steps" to limit the scope. Nonetheless, the Chinese are more restrictive at home with Douyin than in the world with TikTok.

There is growing evidence that social media has a "negative impact" on teens. Sources like Yale Medicine note the risk of "negative mental health outcomes, including depression and anxiety symptoms." Parents are seemingly powerless to limit or supervise their children.

As the clock ticks toward the end of TikTok's reprieve, there is little potential that America's social media addictions or predilections will be solved with the banning of any one platform. But, there is perhaps good reason for us all to reconsider how much time is devoted to such pursuits, and how much time teens and children are exposed to the algorithms, stresses, and threats.

Will the platforms be safer at some point? Can we count on the owners to render them safe(r) for kids? Can companies be expected to protect different populations similarly? Or, is the future of America's youth in the hands of their parents?

Mental Health Emphasis

In 2024, less than a year ago, a professional "golfer died by suicide, as reported by CNN. He was a tour player, in the midst of a Texas tournament from which he withdrew, "citing illness." The next day, the "30-year-old" was dead by his own hand at his Florida home.

The news report of his death stressed that 988 is available for those who need assistance with suicidal thoughts or crises. See September is Awareness Month (September 2022). There has been some public emphasis on the topic of self-harm and suicide in recent years. Enough emphasis? That is your call. 

CNN reported recently that mental health concerns have reached a new intensity in one workplace following the 2024 tour death. In the desert, players recently competed in Dubai where the course included "sleep pods, mindfulness exercises, a virtual reality otherworld escape through a headset and trained psychologists." Golfers were also provided crayons and coloring books.

The use of virtual reality is intriguing. Players leaving the course can step off the course and immediately experience "a lush, mountainous woodland under an aurora borealis." As they ponder the view, they can hear "a calming female voice encouraged (them) to declutter (their) mind." They are provided relaxation and decompression from their game.

A psychologist described the efforts as "a brilliant development" that is expected to spread and expand in the world of professional golf. He describes golfers as suffering from loneliness, isolation, and pressure, driven by "scrutiny of the media and large crowds watching."

The story reports that the suicide in 2024 was surprising to that community, but that other golfers have "shared their experiences of anxiety of other associated afflictions."

The theme of the CNN article is one of acknowledgment. The psychologist commenting there sees mental health issues as a "taboo." He believes that today's "young generation" is more acclimated to mental health. He stresses that life, and golf, have "ups and downs that are somehow unexplainable, sometimes through no fault of your own." He explains that in those moments, "we just need to vent a little."

Perhaps that is coloring books. That seems unlikely in most workplaces. In one of my classes, years ago, I had a student who never took notes, and seemed to be in their own world persistently coloring. The student did well in the class, despite my worries. They had likely found what worked for them; for processing information, relieving stress, and persisting. 

But, perhaps. The more important point is that a single suicide seems to be bringing awareness and change to one workplace. In the latest year for which data was published, "There were 267 workplace suicides in 2022," according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In the vast quantity of 6.1 million employers, this is an incredibly small number (0.004%). Even in the population of 2.8 million workplace injuries, this is a tiny part (0.010%). It is even a small percentage of the 5,486 workplace fatalities that year (5%). The worst outcomes are a small part of the workplace and the work injuries population. A profound part, obviously, but small. 

Thus, death and suicide are issues that are likely not confronted or acknowledged often, but which persist nonetheless. One wonders if a single event on the pro golfing tour can so profoundly affect a workplace, whether the other 267 workplace suicides might have a similar effect on examination and understanding of stresses, pressures, and positive remedial efforts in broader contexts? 

Sure, September is awareness month. But, it seems, all workplaces might work on these challenges and their implications more frequently than the annual awareness month?

Not Today

Early in 2025 (Today in mid-February, it may seem early, but at light speed, things move fast), I noted the return to office trend. See Heigh Ho (January 2025). In recent weeks, there is a seeming escalation in various employment issues: return to office and DEI programs. Each is interesting, but today's focus is the return to office.

Fortune reported recently that management has various reasons for being finished with work-from-home scenarios that proliferated during the Great Panic. As a result, it concludes "The golden age of remote work seems to be ending." Some of this is perhaps driven by the views expressed by the President, and the resulting "Return to In-Person Work" issued to all federal employees in January.

The President was blunt in his perception that many who are being paid to work from home are not working so much. Fortune notes the recent return to office examples, most of which are noted in Heigh Ho (January 2025). Some pundits claim that remote work is simply "done, kaput, fini." (Grand Canyon, 1991, 20th Century Fox).

Despite that view, I know people who remain remote for various companies. Maybe "over" is a bit premature. I have long said that the opportunities for this kind of work may come down to expertise, ability, education, and drive. Some will continue to make it work. I cite for example the President who works most days where he lives.

Though the pundit cited in Fortune says "done," he equivocates and joins me in the "some" category. His meaning is not over, as in "was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor" (Animal House, 1978, Universal). His meaning is more “There was remote work before the pandemic, and there will be a little more after the pandemic.” For the reader, his use of "pandemic" refers to the Great Panic of 2020.

The Fortune article points that are offered as evidence that there will be no great revolutionary shift to virtual work as a way of life for vast working populations are:

"No. 1: Remote work is bad for new hires and junior employees

No. 2: Workers admit that remote work (sometimes) causes more problems than in-person work

No. 3: Remote workers put in 3.5 hours less per day of work compared to in-person workers

No. 4: Productivity plummets on days when everyone is working remotely (anecdotally)"

Each of these is a problem. For the sake of clarity, the Florida OJCC did not send anyone "remote" during the Great Panic. All offices remained open and staffed. A few employees telecommuted in a team process on a periodic basis due to various concerns. According to Barrons, "60% of Americans went to work everyday during Covid."

Nonetheless, I ran into another state official during the Great Panic who was struggling with remote management in December 2021. They related how hard it was to manage their team, and were unable to grasp how they could improve. I suggested bringing the workers to the office. See Little Black Boxes (December 2021). That solution seemed so simple then; it still does.

New hires? The CEO of JP Morgan says that young people are being damaged by the remote work model. He says "We see these other kids slowly being left behind." He sees a disconnect, a tech-driven isolation, and loneliness. 

Productivity? Are at-home workers capable of producing effectively? The answer is absolutely. This is undeniable. I know people who work virtually and they are among the most prolific, effective, and efficient people I have ever known. But, the JP Morgan CEO notes that many great companies did not persist ("GE. Sears, Kmart, ...Nokia, BlackBerry").

Productivity? The JP Morgan CEO is quoted in the Barron's article that "head count has gone up by 50,000 people in four, five years." The company is not apparently growing by such leaps and bounds, but the volume of employees is. The impression left is that per-worker productivity is down and the solution has been to hire more staff, increase payroll cost, to cover the work.

But, there is evidence that productivity drops. Fortune cites some examples. What are remote workers doing with the extra time? I have talked to some who admit they do household chores during the workday. One told me he runs errands while talking to customers and coworkers on his cell phone. Some are at home in the town they used to commute in. Others are a world away. 

A recent survey reported by Resume Builder says most remote workers are working two jobs. An astounding "37% of remote workers have a second full-time job." There are 168 hours in a week, and most people spend 56 (8x7) sleeping. That leaves you 112, and a full-time job is at least 40; two full-time jobs would be at least 80, leaving you 32 (4.6 per day) hours for living your life. This is all on a 7-day schedule. If you worked the two 8-hour shifts per day in a five-day workweek, you would essentially work and sleep 100% of the 24-hour day. Something has to give.

The Resume Builder survey also says that 32% of the full-time virtual workers have a part-time job. Speaking of all of those with multiple jobs, 75% of the second employment positions are those "running their own business on the side." When faced with time conflicts and challenges, will the virtual work or the employee's "own business on the side" get the employee's priority treatment?

None of this is news. Forbes reported in October 2024 that remote work in 2025 was endangered. The conclusion then was "70% of employers (planned) to crack down ... in 2025." The workers responded in a Pew survey in January and said they would "likely leave ... if they could no longer work from home."

And thus, the immovable object meets the irresistible force. The employers are demanding a return to office. States are requiring a return to office. Private employers are requiring it. The Federal Government is requiring it. The end of remote work has not come, but it is shrinking to pre-Panic levels and will soon be only a dream for most of us. 

The writing is on the wall. There was a period when business was forced to accommodate remote work to attract talent. That era is closing as the volume of jobs that provide that accommodation is diminishing. This means less supply, and demand will be fierce. The better educated, abled, motivated, and exceptional will take those plum positions. The majority will return to the office and all that entails.

This does not mean that remote work was a bad idea. It means that remote workers are hard to manage, and disengaged from coworkers, and now we see:

"Tempted by the fruit of another
Tempted but the truth is discovered"

Squeeze, 1981, A&M. The distractions and temptations were too much for many. The productivity dropped, the costs for business increased. Those businesses are competing for consumers. The free market calls upon them to move their product or service efficiently and if they do not, their competitors may. Uncompetitive companies may find extinction, downsizing, or demise. 

Will a day come when remote work is the standard? Will our mental health, productivity, maturity, and more ever accommodate it as the rule? Doubtful. To paraphrase, "What do we say to the god of remote? not today," (Game of Thrones, 2011, HBO).

My First EV

I got stuck with my first electric vehicle (EV) on the west coast of the country. I use the term "stuck" because I was given no choice.  I reserved a standard automobile from a company I regularly use. 

The benefits of that customer loyalty include skipping the counter lines and proceeding directly to an assigned vehicle. My wheels touch down at the local airport, and my phone usually alerts me to the assignment. I walk in and drive through a checkpoint for identity verification only. 

Having found myself sitting in an EV that day, I could have retreated. I could, of course, have chosen to stand in the incredibly long lines at the rental desk or the equally long lines at the “convenience“ facility in the garage. Both of which would have been expenditures of time that I was reluctant to accept. I was also unconvinced they would accommodate my request for a non-electric. 

After watching the instruction video, accessed from the QR code taped to the dashboard, I was soon underway. I apologize for that sarcasm. The rental car company provided no instruction sheet, no video, no assistance, and no customer service. The EV is not rocket science, but it is different from other cars. So, I strove to intuitively work through starting and driving the vehicle.  Granted this was not a major inconvenience, but it was nonetheless alien.

In fairness, I have rented internal combustion engine (ICE) automobiles that had different features and took some getting used to. The rental experience across many companies in many cities is consistent - no guidance or instruction is ever provided about the vehicles. How hard would it be to put a QR code in the car leading to a manual?

I drove the vehicle a few miles, parked, and attempted to lock the car. This particular EV did not allow locking of the doors until the car had been turned off twice. Turning the vehicle off once put it in an accessory mode, reminiscent of turning the key backward in a 1970s Chevrolet. After multiple attempts to lock the vehicle, I resorted to a YouTube search for vehicle lessons.

The folks of the rental agency had been kind enough to assure the vehicle was not charged when I picked it up. Unlike the common experience of each ICE automobile being fully fueled on pickup, the EV was not (however, the "fuel out" on the contract said it was 8/8, meaning full). I worried about how I would return it fully charged, and lamented the expense of that. I wondered, perhaps they are not charged to not deprive me of the chance to use a charger?

Some may hypothesize that this is instead due to the challenge of finding chargers. I soon learned just how valid that is. There are some entertaining threads on Reddit about individuals who were provided with rental vehicles that were not fully charged. Reading those later that day merely caused more anxiety.

I soon found a charging opportunity with two charging stations and three adjacent parking places. Those parking spots were each conspicuously labeled "EV charging only." I pulled into the empty slot but was unable to start charging as the other two vehicles were already using all of the two chargers. I struggle to see the need for the third space unless it is to wait your turn. 

I was almost immediately accosted by a security guard who explained to me I could only park there if I was charging my vehicle. I explained to him that there were three parking places and only two chargers. He seemed to grasp this incongruity easily. I then explained to him that the two chargers were already engaged with other automobiles. This was beyond his comprehension. 

I told him I was going to charge when the capability was available. He said I had to move the EV until then. He explained again that I could only park there if I was charging my car. When I asked him how I might charge it when the two chargers were already plugged into other vehicles, he replied “that’s why we have the rule.” I’ve pondered one that at length, and still do not understand what he meant.

I moved the car and returned periodically to check in the chargers. Each time, I found the two fully-charged cars still plugged in. I pondered the etiquette of automobile charging. Was it appropriate for me to unplug the fully charged vehicle next to me, and to use that charge port? I was in the process of signing up for the required phone app, on my third trip down to check, when one owner arrived and removed a car. 

Having signed up for the application, I managed to connect the cord to the vehicle. This was reasonably intuitive and required only a few minutes. The display screen indicated “charging,” and said my charge was $0.00. Eventually, that changed to $0.01. The charging speed was surprisingly slow.

According to the dashboard meter, the vehicle began with a 136-mile range and was 42% charged. A mere 12 hours later, and $15.27, the car was fully charged. Despite the app's instructions, I received no text, email, or other notification when it concluded. I found it had concluded by checking the vehicle every few hours through the night. I immediately moved the car in case the security guard showed up at 04:00 and penalized me for parking while no longer charging. 

As I drove around in the ensuing days, I found that charging is not universal. With an ICE, you may purchase fuel anywhere anytime. You can buy XYZ gas without an XYZ card. With the EV, each charging station was operated by a different company, and each required download, installation, and registration with a different phone application. I am not sure how many vendors I am willing to do business with, but for this EV rental experiment, my answer was one. 

Why not use the same company for each charge? There were search functions to find chargers on the handy app. That helped locate but did not pre-verify availability. I drove to one and found it occupied. I drove to another, which was also occupied. It was frustrating. I drove to one address that the app provided and could never find a charger there. 

Eventually, the trip concluded and I prepared to fly home. I was unable to charge the EV before returning to the airport. The chargers at my hotel were occupied the night before departure. I mapped to a charger on the way to the airport and upon arrival, it was occupied. I returned the car with much more charge than when I rented it, but far less than full. 

I apologized to the nice attendant checking in vehicles and she replied "it does not matter, we don't check that." The mystery of the uncharged vehicle at pick-up was solved. I did not receive a fully-charged car and did not return a fully-charged car. With the tech available, I am unsure how you would charge it back to a similar level (42%). However, doing so pumping gas into an ICE is challenging at times also. 

In all, the EV was a frustrating and disappointing encounter. Due to my age and complacency, I remain firmly in the ICE family. The ICE offers familiarity and convenience. I am simply not yet willing or ready to transition. 

Is that a fear of change? Is that merely a devotion to habits? Are the challenges and inconveniences really a deterrent or just a difference? In the end, I suspect that ownership of these cars is more comfortable than rental. Over time, I believe I would become used to the experience, the tricks, and the nuance. Nonetheless, the tribulation of this change is not in my foreseeable future. 

Interestingly, on a later rental in a much smaller city, the same company made me visit the rental desk. The clerk there started to hand me keys and spontaneously said "Can't give you that, it's an EV." My curiosity must have been apparent as he then said "Your contract says no EVs." As I drove the ICE vehicle from that airport, I merely wondered more about my recent West Coast EV adventure. 

Amendments and Change

There are those who either fail to read the rules, comprehend the rules, or even know that there are procedural rules. The parade of assorted daily filings offers suggestions on how one might learn from other's mistakes.

The appearance of counsel is perhaps as basic as any rule might be. It is mentioned in How to Transition Cases upon the Death of Counsel (December 2014) and is a long-standing rule. The main point is that either a petition or a notice of appearance makes an attorney "of record" in that proceeding. Rule 60Q6.104(1). The information that must be included, and the responsibility to maintain the attorney's current information, are all clear in this rule.

Once the notice is filed, the "attorney of record remains the attorney of record until" one of two things happens. Rule 60Q6.104(2):

• (a) A stipulation for substitution has been filed with the judge and served on all other parties or, if represented, their attorneys of record; or
• (b) A motion to substitute or to withdraw, which reflects that it has been served on the client and all other parties or, if represented, their attorneys of record, is granted.

These are the two only choices. There is not a multitude of choices. The "of record" attorney remains counsel in that case until there is a "stipulation for substitution" or until the has been approval of a "motion to substitute."

But, one might ask, what if an attorney files a new Notice of Appearance that is different than the first, naming different parties and explaining that she/he made an error appearing for some party in the first notice? Great question. But, read the rule. Where in Rule 60Q6.104 does it say filing a new, explanatory, amended, notice erases or obviates representations in an earlier notice?

The same is true of a petition for benefits. In that process, a party or an attorney provides a volume of information that is required by section 440.192, Fla. Stat. If the incorrect worker name, date of accident, county of accident, etc. is added to this form, that cannot be changed by simply filing a second petition. 

No, the Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow you to fix fundamental errors by a second "amended" petition.

For the sake of clarity, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure only apply as specifically referenced in the Chapter 60Q-6 Rules of Procedure for Workers' Compensation Adjudications. See Candor, Quarts, and Consistency (January 2025). If you find yourself citing rules other than those in Chapter 60Q, and the issue is not Discovery under Rule 60Q6.114, you might pause and reconsider carefully. You might phone a friend to discuss. 

But, if one cannot change the fundamentals of a petition, of a case, by filing a new petition, then how might one proceed? The answer is in Rule 60Q6.107, patently titled "Amendment." Despite that clear title and rule, this is periodically overlooked. The Rule is literally focused on amendments. Rule 60Q6.107 provide

(2) A petition or request for assignment of case number may only be amended by written stipulation of the parties or by order of the judge. Changes of addresses, e-mail addresses, or phone numbers of parties can be accomplished by filing a notice of change in a particular case or changing registration information pursuant to 60Q-6.108(11). Changes of address, e-mail address, or phone numbers of attorneys shall be made by the attorney in their individual OJCC efiling profile.
(3) An amendment only modifying a company name may be accomplished by a stipulation or motion. An amendment as to party identity must be by motion and order.

Thus, there are issues for which a "notice of change" can accomplish the task. There are issues for which a stipulation could make the change. And there is a process for any change that is not within those specifics: "by order of the judge." When a party seeks an order from the judge, the rules analysis likely leads to 60Q6.115(1):

"Any request for an order or for other relief shall be by motion and shall have a title describing the relief requested." Emphasis added.

Much like the appearance of counsel, there are potentials to handle changes by stipulation. And, when that is not practical, there is a defined process for accomplishing goals or desires, for gaining relief, by filing a motion.

 

There is the potential that some process, instance, or situation in a particular case may be elusive, convoluted, or obscure. There is a real possibility that the procedural rules will not provide a specific foundation or solution to a particular problem. Nonetheless, there is the broad and inclusive solution to seek relief from the judge under 60Q6.115. 

This merely requires a conversation with opposing parties or counsel, a motion, and some argument and citation of authority. The challenge that a party faces can almost always be addressed by motion. That is not to say the motion will be granted. That is not to say all situations will be remedied, but only that any situation can be addressed to the judge by a motion. 

The end of the topic is, in summary:

•   Read the right rules (60Q)
•   Follow the rules' paths and processes
•   When in doubt try a stipulation to correct errors
•   File a motion when necessary
• Make the motion clear, and descriptive, and include rules, statutes, and other authority
  

Subtle Sabotage?

Fortune magazine has lately been focused on the challenges of the workplace. A recent post focused on a Fortune story about employees who claim to be afraid to speak their minds at work. See Are You Hiding (January 2025). Another noted what its author says is "employer bullying," a more direct action as compared to those who feel their employers are not doing enough to protect them from their coworkers.

This story is focused on the legal departments "at major companies," among general counsel staff, and the author "compare(s) (it) to domestic abuse." That is a significant allegation. The potential that an employer is beyond ambivalent or facilitative, and is actively engaged in abuse is serious. The fact is that such behavior is unquestionably possible. Bullying can occur. See Workplace Bullying (February 2020). 

In fact, if you can look yourself in the mirror and say "I have never had a supervisor that was a bully," you are fortunate. Some estimate that as many as 33% of workers have experienced supervisor bullying. And there may be those who are unwilling to admit it. 

The foundation study featured by Fortune was done by "a network of senior female lawyers and C-suite execs." They concluded that there was evidence "of shouting, throwing items, or sending aggressive emails and WhatsApp messages." These were the overt alleged misbehaviors. 

I will forever recall my first days on the bench when I was approached by a long-serving staff member. They related an error, its impact on a dispute, and even had a proposed solution. I agreed with their proposed solution and turned to my work. They said, "Can we go ahead and get the yelling part over with?" 

The ensuing discussion revealed that the staff was all accustomed to yelling, temper tantrums, and 4-year-old reactions. It took years of management and persistence to convince them we would solve problems and move forward without such histrionics. They had apparently lived in terror and undue stress for years. 

The more frequent bullying noted in the Fortune article was labeled “subtle sabotage,” which the author calls "essentially microaggressions." These were instances or circumstances felt to be undermining, and the "The slipperiest form of bullying." 

That is a bit more challenging. The whole realm of microagressions is subject to interpretation. It is possible for an someone to intentionally engage "verbal, behavioural, and environmental indignities." As likely, perhaps, it is possible to unintentionally do so, unconscious of the feelings or disposition of the listener or observer. I have seen both in my human resource and management history. 

Yes, there are people who commit verbal minor verbal abuses against people. Yes, there are very sensitive people who may find offense in literally anything that is said. In the middle is a large population of people who neither commit such offenses nor regularly see them in others.  

Nonetheless, in the Fortune explanation and interpretation, these microaggressive "subtle sabotages" included

1. "Micromanagement  . . . coercion, with bosses erratically calling their employees to check in and ensure they always feel like they’re being watched."
2. "Isolation . . . with employees (feel) left out of 'boys club' WhatsApp groups or were kept out of specific email chains."
3. "Gaslighting, with employers playing down their actions to their employees to convince them it wasn’t problematic."
4. Threatening dismissal "unless (employees) obey their commands"
5. "Setting an employee up to fail by calling them out in meetings." 
6. "Engaging in lying and deceit to other co-workers"

The complaint is that these behaviors "destabilize the target and can delay or preclude them from seeking help.” And there is some sense of uncertainty among employees about "whether to call behaviors bullying or not." This is not attributed to uncertainty by the authors,  but is labeled a "pervasive effect of gaslighting still affecting them.”

The examples are all potentially troubling. However, is (1) the result of a malicious supervisor or a reaction by employees whose failure to perform has demonstrated a need for closer supervision and follow-up? Or, am I engaging (3) here and "downplaying?"

Is calling someone out in a meeting (5) a "set up to fail" or an opportunity to shine? I have been called out in a few meetings and been ridiculed for insufficient preparedness or reaction. I never liked it, but I definitely got better at preparing for contingencies. 

Nonetheless, having considered that some of the microaggressions might be subject to discussion, there is no room in the workplace for (2), (3), (4), or (6). Some may question (3), in terms of whether it is, in fact, an intentional Gaslighting or an attempt to provide guidance and growth through discussion and introspection. It is possible for an employee's reaction to be honest and sincere, yet utterly off-base or unsupported. 

And, the fact is that many managers have never had an inkling of training on the topic of management. I have known many excellent doctors, lawyers, and other professionals at the top of their profession yet utterly incapable of managing people's contributions and complications. I have known a few literal geniuses who could not balance their checkbook. There is intellect and there is skill set. 

Note for all - people are complex, evolving, reactive, variable, and so much more. People are the greatest asset of any organization while also being the undeniably most fragile, inconsistent, and challenging. Management of people requires time, patience, skill, and practice. Anyone who claims it is easy is a savant or fool. 

The Fortune-cited report noted instances of lawyers being bullied for giving "advice that was contrary to the goals of the company." This might be viewed as the authors portray - "gaslighting" - or maybe giving such advice is a challenge for any lawyer? I have heard it periodically from many different lawyers and have lived the consequences myself. There may or may not be relevance in this example. 

And, there was an expressed feeling that certain types of employees were tasked with "housework” at the workplace "like taking notes in meetings, making tea and coffee, unwrapping sandwiches, and buying gifts or cards for colleagues’ birthdays or retirement parties." The essential, yet unstated, implication is that "white men" are less likely to be assigned such duties. 

Fortunately, this last one is the easiest of all to address. Never assign such duties. When there is to be an office lunch, the manager should periodically and pointedly be the one to retrieve or organize refreshments, e.g. "It is my turn." The manager should be the first one to set up before and clean the room after. The leader should be an example, regardless of the gender, age, or other distinctions possible in the group. No one will be reluctant or disappointed to participate if the leader is personally engaged. 

The report Fortune cites contends that the various actions described lead to psychological challenges among those who perceive themselves as bullied and those who perceive actions or words as bullying their coworkers. Some quoted in the article describe symptoms and signs that had personal and workplace impacts and effects. 

The critical word in that last paragraph is "perceive." The fact is that regardless of how a manager or coworker intends behavior, words, or dynamics, the perception of the worker individually is the critical point. Each worker is "complex, evolving, reactive, variable, and so much more," see above. The best path forward is constant recollection of that followed by careful attempts to view circumstances, words, and actions from the employee's perspective. 

That said, every employee feels minimized at times. Every job involves tasks that are distasteful, diminishing, and unwanted. Through my career path of about 25 jobs, I have experienced this personally. I have worked with for some horribly abusive, incompetent, inconsiderate, inconsistent, and habitual bullies. I have experienced each of the complaints quoted above. No, I am not (3)ing you.  

Any employee should be wary of those leaders, managers, and supervisors. Every employee has to face the facts of dealing with such personalities, their insecurities, fears, and other causes of bullying behavior. We are all encouraged to be diplomatic. We must each remember our role and our personal best interest. Some will choose to stand and fight, others will strive to maneuver and survive, and some will simply move on to a greener pasture across some hyperbolic fence. 

That said, there are some critical points. 

1. You are not alone.
2. The way miscreants treat you is usually on them, not on you.
3. Some discriminate and target, and some are just jerks.
4. Most bullies are damaged beyond our capacity to fix.
5. Being with/around a bully is exhausting and demoralizing.
6. There are laws against discrimination, if you choose to fight.
7. There are greener pastures, if you choose to flee.
8. If you choose to freeze, it is likely the bullying will continue and may increase.  

Regardless of your chosen path, there are tools at your disposal. There are resources you can engage. I believe the best primary tool is a mentor. Within your company, industry, or community, there are people who have experienced what you are experiencing. They will understand where you are, and will graciously listen. They will likely even dispense advice. See Did You Ever Get Old (January 2025), regarding advice.

 

In many companies, largely dependent on size, there are Human Resource professionals. That is not new. These positions have existed for many decades, and that is because human interaction is challenging. The dynamics require care, planning, and management. You can converse with these people if you choose the "fight" course mentioned above. Certainly, beware of the potential for missed opportunities, but still consider these managers. 

Social media is an interesting outlet. There is some potential for being judged on what you post, and there is the chance of increased bullying or worse. But, there is also community in the realization from other's posts that you are not alone. Thus, merely reading the thoughts of others may help you. 

Don't want to comment on someone's post? Try messaging them instead. Connect, commiserate, unload, and refresh through common experiences. Here's an old-school thought, after connecting through media, pick up the phone and have a real conversation with someone who understands where and how you are. Personal connection is powerful.

Critically, do not believe yourself isolated or pioneering. Others have sailed this course and have thrived on the other side. Remember that no outcome will be easy, but the fact is that nothing in life is. That is a hard stop. Easy is a hallucination, a dream, and a setup for disappointment. Work, life, and family, all have the potential for difficulty and challenge. That is not new. It is not you, or at least is not likely all you. 

This is the advice I would give my students. I am sure there is more advice out there, and perhaps if there are comments on this post I will do a follow-up one day featuring them. 

Plagiarism Now?

There has been plenty to concern us about Artificial Intelligence. The greatest challenge seems to remain identity. See First - What is it? (November 2024). Many people I speak with still are uncomfortable with what AI is and what it is not. That is challenging. Much of what will occur in coming years will not be AI, but will be powered by it.

Computers are not good or evil, but they empower and enable both. AI essentially makes computers faster and more efficient - people using them can do good or evil more rapidly than ever before. The choice between the two will remain with the people.

Everyone is now familiar with the hapless attorneys using AI ignorantly and lazily. They ask a large language model (LLM) to prepare a brief or memo, count on its candor and care, sign that creation, and file it with some court. They have done so ignorantly and trustingly, mistakenly and recklessly, regrettably and repeatedly. The many news stories of discipline mean no attorney can credibly express ignorance any longer.

Too often (once is "too often"), those filings turn out to be riddled with false citations and other hallucinations. To be clear AI makes up facts to suit itself. Worse, it relies primarily on the internet for its information and often cites as authoritative the font of collective conjecture called Wikipedia. You too can contribute to that melange - anyone can.

Some legal scholars are seeing other challenges ahead for lawyers. Lawyers are considered special. Some recognize the Rules of Professional Conduct acknowledge attorneys "play a unique role in serving the public interest and maintaining the integrity of the legal system."

Lawyers have responsibilities to be forthright, honest, and protective of client interest and security. They must strive for competency and professionalism, and serve the public interest.

In both professional and personal perspectives, there are opportunities for lawyers to find difficulty with the law. A non-lawyer might get some traction with "I didn't know," but that track may be more challenging for an attorney. The more an attorney proclaims their expertise, perhaps the more difficult it becomes. Sorry, but it may be easier to excuse the ignorance of a first-year lawyer than a 50-year lawyer. 

And with that predicate, we turn for a moment to an old lawyer standby - plagiarism. It has been said that "plagiarism is the highest form of flattery." Law students, all students, are cautioned about it and punished for it. I knew students in law school who found great tribulation in lifting someone else's work and calling it their own.

Nonetheless, in practice, there is a good argument that plagiarism is beyond tolerated - it "is encouraged." Some Bar Association and court decisions lend credence to excusing plagiarism or at least to forgiving unintentional copying. Despite that, there are examples noted in which lawyers have been "disciplined for plagiarizing portions of their briefs, often by copying judicial opinions without citing."

I have seen eminently qualified and prominent lawyers punished for plagiarism. The road home from that was challenging, repeatedly. Despite this chilling example, there is a sentiment in the law that plagiarism is acceptable and even laudable. Those law students threatened with discipline for it are seemingly suddenly licensed for it by bar passage.

A law review article in 2024 pointed out poignantly that AI may both enable and encourage plagiarism. The author notes that lawyers are rapidly and confidently engaging AI. And there are allegations that the AI platforms have already violated copyright. Some contend that their very existence results from gross plagiarism.

More specifically, however, the author cautions that these LLMs are capable of lifting "entire sections of copyrighted works as output." This is caused by "a well-documented phenomenon known as memorization," which essentially means that in their training these LLMs retained (copied) a great deal of what they "read." The article provides concrete examples.

Have you ever clicked on an internet headline and found yourself unable to read the page it took you to? Often we find ourselves confronted by paywalls or other impediments - the article is available only to paying subscribers. The 2024 law review says that LLMs have been able to penetrate these measures and return "whole paragraphs" of literature for review and use without subscribing.

Lawyers engaging in that practice might rethink the definition of larceny. Is it appropriate to take someone's property? Is it more appropriate when you can excuse yourself and blame a computer program?

To summarize - despite the fact that some perceive "plagiarism" as flattery, it can be actionable. Even though lawyers often copy material from forms, and the work of others, it is not right or excusable. And, there is evidence that LLMs are capable and culpable of lifting and even stealing copyrighted information.

Lawyers are held to a higher standard. They have obligations and responsibilities. As they engage the LLM for speed and ease, they should remain cognizant of the dangers of plagiarism, and more. A future post will address the other risk of civil liability for copyright infringement. 

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

Should we Pause? (January 2025)

Plagiarism Now? (February 2025)

Hon. William Johnson

The Florida community has lost a leader and respected jurist. Judge William Johnson passed recently. 

There have been a few people who have adjudicated workers' compensation claims in Florida, about 260 over the last 90 years. Many were here only briefly until the position became full-time in 1961. The adjudicators were employed by the Florida Industrial Commission, three members who largely held partisan roles. We saw the judges move to the Department of Commerce in 1969, then to Labor. The transition to Commerce saw appellate review shift to the short-lived Industrial Relations Commission that was abolished in 1979.

There is much to the history, and only part of the story has been told in Floridiana and the Workers' Compensation Adjudicators. There have been some interesting and intriguing people here. They have perhaps brought individual perspectives into the community, the evolution, and the foundation of this social safety net.

Floridiana details firsts. Bette Miller was Deputy Commissioner in Jacksonville in 1950. She was the first female workers' compensation adjudicator and the second female judge in Florida. Mario Goderich was the first Hispanic workers' compensation adjudicator, appointed in Miami in 1975, at age 42. The first black workers' compensation adjudicator in Florida was William Johnson, appointed in 1977, at age 29. 

He earned his undergraduate degree from Rollins College and his law degree from the University of Miami Law School in 1973 (Judge Johnson first clerked and then practiced law with Kaplan, Dorsey, Sicking, & Hessen before his appointment. He was a contemporary of Mark Zientz. 

Judge Johnson stayed with the OJCC for 20 years, leaving workers' compensation in 1997. He was appointed then to the 11th Circuit Court in Miami. His efforts and service there included establishing the first Juvenile Drug Court. Many have said it, and it bears repeating, those who serve in Juvenile Court are a special group of very patient and persistent souls. He served until 2011, and retired to senior status.

William Johnson's service on the bench approached 35 years. He was known for his interest in technology and his skills in adapting and using it. Only a handful remember Judge Johnson. As time passes and eras change, the practice and practitioners evolve. 

I was saddened to learn last week that Judge William Johnson passed in January. He was 76 years old. I had intended this year to strive to contact some of the prior workers' compensation adjudicators I have not met. I will regret missing the opportunity to speak with him.

Ramon Malca remembered Judge Johnson as "always even-tempered, balanced,  (and) friendly." He had a "big smile but controlled the courtroom (and) ... commanded respect by his dignified demeanor."  Mr. Malca said, "We were fortunate to have him deciding cases."  A posting on LinkedIn generated various positive recollections.

There is much to say about Florida workers' compensation, the law, the community, and more. As with any tapestry, the history here fades with time. Perhaps we can remember that many served here, in various roles, professions, and capacities, over the last 90 years, and made this what it is.

Rest in peace judge. The obituary posting is here: https://www.paradisemfh.com/obituary/the-honorable-judge-william-johnson

Am I a Mountain?

As I have studied artificial intelligence, and the perspectives of various contributors, I was surprised at the suggestion that computers could have rights. See Rights for the Toaster (October 2024). I have struggled with this. Would we grant (or recognize inalienable) rights for the toaster we built? Would it be different if it was a biological creature we created (think cloning and similar)?

An intriguing aspect of law is that humans can take different views and hold various opinions. What seems clear and unequivocal to one may remain debatable to another. I persistently remind my students that the "rule of law" is critical to a civil society. Without law, humans are left to the baser instinct of violence as a solution to disagreement.

A recent headline reminded me of a vast variance in perspective. Well beyond the debate of whether my toaster is sentient, the law has now recognized the personhood of a mountain. Most would likely either agree that granite is not sentient, or would harbor at least  some skepticism of its personhood.

Nonetheless, the government in New Zealand has entered into a legislative compromise with the Māori people. That group holds a worldview that ascribes humanity, ancestry, or at least sentience to a very large rock (group of rocks or a conglomeration of rocks and the flora that co-exists there). 

And, because the Māori people came to be in New Zealand before Europeans came, colonized, and conformed, there is some tendency to afford deference to their belief system. As a side note, it is possible that some other people inhabited that area before the Māori came. However, if that were fact, it was long ago. No peoples have stepped forward to express any oppression by the Māori. Does that mean there were none or that none survived?

Some might be willing to debate the most appropriate methodology for choosing foundational world perspective. Some might conclude, in the spirit expressed above, that “might makes right." Certainly, across the world, anecdotal support could be found for that contention among various peoples, continents, and islands. Some might perceive it as ongoing today in the Ukraine, Haiti, the Congo, and even Chicago. 

Others might take a more deferential posture towards chronology. In other words, they might argue that those who were present first get to dictate the rules and beliefs. Or the first as far as we know? The noted challenge with that mindset may be the near possibility of determining who was “first," above.  

In the end, the message is likely one of complacency or cooperation more than intellectual agreement. The relative logic or evidence regarding one worldview versus another is largely relegated to a modicum of compromise. Some believe that rocks are minerals, and others believe rocks are people, ancestors, or spirits. Who is to arbitrage right and wrong in such a debate?

At the end of the day, parties are perhaps willing to either stipulate to diametric inconsistency, in the interest of forgoing what is “right“ for what is expedient. If one of the parties to a dispute insists that they are a mountain, hours could be wasted arguing over the anatomical, scientific, and common sense arguments against that in a particular worldview. Or, the other dispute parties could merely accept the contention of mountainood, and move forward toward mutual agreement on other, critical, points of dispute.

Is there value in being right about mountainhood? Is there, in the topsy-turvy world we live in, a true “right“ or “wrong?“ Have we evolved so far from science that we collectively believe in mountainhood? Or, is ignoring such a contention, merely a means to an end? If there is perception here of some disrespect for mountainhood, that is unfortunate. This post could have been about a plethora of other beliefs and foundations that might struggle with science and our grasp of fact. However, mountainhood was in the news.

Is any dispute so different? If one of the parties to a workers' compensation dispute walks into mediation and introduces themselves as an alien from mars, or a mountain, should that be the main focus of the mediation? Or, might the mountainhood be overlooked and the focus directed at the pending issues and suggestions for resolution?

At the end of the day, "to-may-to" or "to-mah-to," the resolution is the resolution. Certainly, some will say "But what of the mental capacity issue?" That is fair. If I believe I am a mountain, well . . .. But, if that is my worldview, does it matter so much that mine is different from yours (you might believe I am a no mountain but perhaps a Quart?)? See Candor, Quarts, and Consistency (January 2025). Does it matter so much that we differ in perceptions or worldview?

The fact is that those differences challenge societies as they negotiate with each other. It is likely inevitable that parties in our smaller, personal disputes will struggle with it as well. And, perhaps the Māori people are right and the mountain is more than a bunch of rocks. Who am I to insist they are wrong?

Vienna Waited

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

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

The song beckons:

"But you know that when the truth is told 

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

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

When will you realize Vienna waits for you?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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