Excess Mortality

The idea of "excess mortality" first came to my attention during the Great Panic. Undoubtedly, a great many people died during that time. There have been disagreements voiced in academia regarding whether some people died who had contracted SARS-Cov-2 or whether there was proof that SARS-CoV-2 killed those people. The distinction is perhaps only of academic interest. For the person who dies and their loved ones, the cause is not as important as the outcome itself. And yet, causation was a topic.

Some of the discussion revolved around "excess mortality." Over the years, we have learned that death rates can be predicted with relative accuracy. That study in the field of actuary science has led to a viable and profitable prediction business called life insurance. I tell my students that when you purchase this produce you are literally betting you will die. The seller is conversely betting you will live. The same is true for any indemnification purchase. The underwriter bets you won't flood, get sick, wreck your car, etc. Much like the "house" in Vegas, the actuaries have better and more complete information in that gamble.

Despite their sound actuarial predictions, it is possible for the expectations in any particular sense to defy accurate forecasts. When that happens regarding life expectancy, the market experiences a mortality rate that exceeds (excess) or is less (reduced). The predictability is important in a variety of perspectives, both economic and health care. When it is wrong in either direction, the mathematicians become curious and there is a search for causes. That search is intended to build knowledge and therefore make better bets in the next attempts.

This certainly or predictability is of interest in the realm of public health. People passing away is a reality of life. But, volumes occurring that are unexpected or unpredicted casts challenges that are worthy of consideration and study. Understanding causation might be of benefit in terms of resource deployment, preventative medicine, education, and more.

Nature published an article in early October 2024 regarding a recent study of mortality. It addressed deaths from natural disasters with a particular emphasis on tropical cyclones, without distinction between the general storms and those that reach hurricane designation. It concluded that there are clearly related deaths from these, "directly observed," which it labels "immediate deaths." These are seemingly simple to connect to a storm and to accept in terms of causality.

However, the study reported there concludes that there are "delayed downstream outcomes" that are "indirectly caused by the disaster." These, it concludes, are attributable to cyclones even though they "are difficult to trace back to the initial event." The study scientists conclude that there are "lasting economic impacts" tied to storms and those may contribute to the long-term "full health impact(s)" of such events.

The reader will likely recall I have encountered many cyclones. My life has been directly impacted by Ivan, Dennis, and Sally. I have engaged in recovery following Katrina and Zeta. I have sat here watching many others form, threaten, and yet divert to unleash horrors elsewhere. Some discount that latter experience, but there is an emotional toll from each storm, even when it hits elsewhere. For me, Irma, Michael, and Katrina are prime examples.

The study reported focused on mortality following all cyclones "between 1930 and 2015." That is what actuaries call a large data set. Following the rate of demise in the areas in which storms struck, these scientists are comfortable concluding "that the average TC (cyclone) generates 7,000–11,000 excess deaths, exceeding the average of 24 immediate deaths reported in government statistics."

Some would argue with this. Their inclination would be to focus on the “immediate deaths” more specifically. However, there may be some that would take issue in some instances even with the causation of some portion of those. In Hurricane Helene, there were motor vehicle collision deaths that were attributed to slick roads. Such conditions might occur to some degree in any thunderstorm, not necessarily a cyclone. Causation may be debatable in various contexts.

The study authors say they addressed "the effects of 501 historical storms" "between 1930 and 2015." That is a significant volume, much higher than the 165 tropical cyclone landfalls listed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in that period. That said, the 501 storm figure equates to 3.5 to 5.5 million deaths using the averages the authors provide (7,000 to 11,000). That is a great many deaths.

Just as the cause and effect may be very difficult to connect linearly in the “immediate” category, it may be more of a challenge for deaths that are further removed temporally from a storm’s immediate impact. The fact is that cyclonic impacts have broad impacts on people, structures, employment, social systems, and more. Therefore, the broad connection between the geography of cyclonic impact and the geography of death leaves many unanswered questions.

Of particular concern to the study authors is that there appears to be more significant “excess” impact "among infants (less than 1 year of age), people 1-44 years of age, and the Black population." Why is there a disparate impact perceived in the mortality rates of these particular demographics? Some might have expected a disproportionate impact among the aged and the ill as their medical usage is usually higher than the norm and service interruption is a noted challenge the authors mention. Nonetheless, the disparity is worthy of note.

The authors suggest that precipitate causes of "excess" may include health "behaviour (sic), healthcare systems, and pollution." Thus, there are interests here in long-term community impacts and ancillary potential causes. Some might therefore see any connection between deferred mortality and a particular storm as somewhat tenuous, The study authors, however, are quick to jump to allegations that similarly the "tracking (of) only these 'direct deaths'" may be a "misrepresent(nation)," signaling perhaps an allegation or suggestion of intent or ill will on the part of the official reporters (government at some level).

The authors are careful not to make suggestions of causation per se regarding the “excess mortality.” Instead, they provide insinuation of outcomes allegedly "traceable" to cyclones. There is mention of potentiality and suggestions of probability that are perhaps supported only by similarities in the data as regards various cyclone impacts, and the later measure of “excess mortality” in those areas.

The similarity of net effect at future points following such landfalls may provide the support the study proposes, even in the absence of causation proof. Or, it is possible that there are other more tenuous, and as yet not identified, parallel causes of "excess," that are worthy of examination and perhaps blame.

Because of this complexity, many approaches to measuring the mortality impact of disasters focus narrowly on enumerating cases where a disaster is the most immediate plausibility. These are described with words like "might" or could. There is characterization in the article of the logic path of "complex cascades of events," which may suggest that at least some of the perceived connections are tangential or inferential. Some may be downright tenuous.

Nonetheless, there remains the evidence of increased mortality, pure numerical inconsistency, that begs for some explanation. And, there may be value in this study in that other potential causes might be explored, debated, and either validated or excluded through the analysis. Elimination of any cause is helpful in narrowing the population that might be actual cause.

The authors see indirect cyclone effects that they deem worth of discussion:

1. damage to infrastructure, homes, and businesses
2. population relocation
3. social and economic disruptions
4. ecological changes
5. reduced access to basic services
6. increased pollution
7. crop damage
8. insurance payouts, and
9. political actions

Some of these are intriguing. There is some patent logic, for example, that there is population increase and thus societal and service burdens might constrain overall service access; but why would this not desperately impact the old (see above)? On the contrary, there is seemingly less explanation as to how insurance payouts or "political actions" might impact mortality. In this regard, there are both intuitive and perhaps counterintuitive examples cited.

The methodology the study employed involved both geography of cyclonic impact sites and geography without. This is not a side-by-side comparison of two communities, one hit and one not, but instead a chronologically different comparison. In other words, the "control" group for analysis on some particular locality after a cyclone is that same community or locality in a prior time period, before cyclonic impact ("each state before a (cyclone) serves as the control for the same state after").

There would be those who would criticize either method (“its not the same kind of city” or “it is a different period, era” etc.). Both are valid potential criticisms. Any study will have its methodology challenges and there will be a likelihood of criticism in any such attempt.

This Nature study dovetails into a recent report from CNN regarding the “harsh new world” of disasters. The author describes “back-to-back jolts of anxiety, uncertainty, and fear.” This is seen as “compounding the suffering inflicted” by the two storms (Helene and Milton) in a matter of days. The article concludes that there is a resulting “vast trail of despair and frayed nerves,” and the potential for “susceptib(ility) to depression and post-traumatic stress syndrome.”

There is a citation by CNN to a UCLA psychologist’s 2022 study that connects increased “mental health issues” tied to prior Florida storms (“Irma and Michael”). There is also suggestion of “exacerbate(ion) (of) existing mental health problems” as part of the overall psychological impacts alleged. Much of that article is devoted to conclusory opinions regarding “climate change” and the opinions of experts regarding whether storms will be more robust or frequent in years to come.

One may validly wonder how much the media's hype of storms contributes to mental health issues, anxiety, and worse. Every storm brings the dire predictors, the adventurous reporters, and the stress on the bad outcomes. I have many times seen the media focus on a single decimated structure in a particular neighborhood. No one tunes in at 6:00 and 11:00 for video of the boats that were not wrecked, the houses that were not destroyed, or the people who were not displaced. There is sometimes a tendency to sensationalism.

The news media learned long ago that the public wants the shocking and the disturbing. The news that delivers that is the one that garnered yesterday's Neilson ratings and today's clicks. How much of society's mental health impact is driven by media, repetition of gloomy stories, and our seemingly innate desire for such shocking scenes?

In much of our current conversation, there is a forgiveness and accommodation for people having their own “truth.” See Infantilized (September 2024). Perusing the media, there is perhaps less accommodation for the "truth" of others suggested in some contexts than others. To some, it appears the media takes sides with its own "truth" in some instances or is forgiving of some "own truth" at times. However, at other times, it is quick to label someone's "own truth" as false. Is there a rational distinction or reason why some "own truth" is more acceptable or excusable than others?

Nonetheless, there will perhaps be more opinionating and prognosticating about the results of storms, the probability of future storms, and the questions of contribution or causation that challenge this or that "truth." Or, there is the chance that only one truth will be deemed worthy of adherence and acceptance. That is, the media may endorse one "truth" over others and heretical labels will be attached to those who dare hold contrary views.

Regardless, the Nature article is an interesting read. The cited CNN story brings some interesting perspectives also. Each drives contemplation and consideration of potentials for consideration and debate to the extent our commonality accommodates expression of views and ideas. That is, to the extent disagreement will be welcome or at least tolerated as healthy to the debate and not heretical or unhinged beliefs simply dismissed by the media or others (if a report labels someone's perceptions "a lie" that perspective is being dismissed by the media, rightly or wrongly).

The bottom line supported by either story is that there is at least the potential for natural events to impact human emotions, naturally or through media amplification. Those who operate businesses in affected communities, send employees into such areas, or have employees with affected family or friends in such areas would do well to consider how to best monitor mental health, address emotional fatigue risks, and accommodate remediation.

These are employer and employee concerns. Both are likely to benefit from open discourse and resource that address both the "immediate" and the "delayed downstream outcomes." It is a societal issue, a work issue, and a personal issue all intertwined and therefore complex.

Name one Litela?

There is no such hurricane Litela. That title is a satirical reference - read on.

In the 1970s, comedian Gilda Radner played a variety of characters on the late-night Saturday skit show. It was a time of irreverence and satire. Perhaps her best-known caricature was Emily Litela. This editorialist was on the satirical news and prognosticated at length about her emotions, feelings, and analysis.

The joke was that she was always mistaken. Inevitably her ranting would be interrupted by another cast member who would correct some fatal foundational flaw in her diatribe. I cannot provide numerical justification, but my memory is that Jane Curtin and Chevy Chase were often this moderating or correcting force.

When she understood the correction, she would look innocently into the camera and say simply "Never mind." That was hilarious and fun. But, "never mind" is not always in the offing. 

This came to me recently as Milton inevitably crossed the gulf and dominated water cooler conversations. There was much talk of the potential for death and destruction. Wouldn’t it be nice, I was asked, if Milton would instead simply stop off the coast, reconsider his position, and merely utter “never mind.” That is fanciful and irrational. But one can hope.

This stemmed a deeper conversation or two here in Paradise. We have repeatedly been the site of the storms. In my memory, there have been Erin, Opal, Ivan, Dennis, and Sally. We have had angst and worry over a great many other storms that impacted our neighbors, such as Michael, Katrina, and Zada. Hurricanes are neither new nor exceedingly well understood. They are feared, but not necessarily understood.

The first European colonial settlement in North America was in Pensacola. It is historically accepted that Don Tristan Deluna‘s expedition here was rapidly accosted by a hurricane or tropical storm sufficient to decimate it. The survivors are said to have persisted for months thereafter, but the settlement was soon enough abandoned. The effect of that storm was decimation and destruction. The point is that these things are not novel or new.

So, our state history teaches that storms will come here. The recent history of storms mentioned above and others like Francis, Jean, Michael, Andrew, Ian, Irma, Helene, Milton, etc. etc. illustrates that we will see these threats come to fruition on our premises. It is part and parcel of being a Floridian. We persist and we recover. That is the inspirational part. We recover every time.

But, that recovery is dependent on being here to recover. You see, the old pirate adage "dead men tell no tales" has a corollary, "dead do not rebuild and recover." That is a harsh message. I do not make light of death, and those who have lost loved ones in these storms are persistently in my thoughts. But the point is valid. To rebuild and recover, you must first survive.

The news before Helene featured a sheriff advising people to write their names on their bodies. A similar request was made by a mayor before Milton's landfall. They (and others) had cautioned people against staying in various locales. They had stressed safety and encouraged good judgment. They strove to enforce evacuation orders and to protect life and limb. Despite their pleas, some remained and hunkered down.

It is easy to criticize these people. Some stayed to stream their experience on social media and profit from their "clicks." Some stayed intending to protect their property from a force of nature that is simply irresistible. Some stayed because they felt they lacked resources or options. Some who won't evacuate are merely stubborn. But, nonetheless, some did not heed warnings. That frustrates the officials.

That must demoralize first responders when they are later unable to ride to the rescue of such holders-on during a storm. I have heard 911 recordings of the stranded and threatened as they plea for help amidst a storm that turned out worse than they predicted. Their cries for help are painful and hurtful. They are in dire need, but there is no safe way in that mid-storm moment to render aid. That is a tough situation.

We all hope that each storm will be Hurricane Litela. We hope each is a false alarm. We pray for the "never mind." We are often blessed when a potential killer turns out to be not quite so bad. But, as often, we are cursed with a Michael that looks like a category 2 or 3, and yet makes landfall as a killer 4 or 5. The fact is that science has come a long way, and predictions are persistently improving. But, we cannot have complete faith in the science. Storms are unpredictable events by their very nature.

The point of all of this is that you cannot count on anything except every storm presents risk. The science is imperfect, but it is better than your gut in every instance. When the science says evacuate or shelter, that is sound advice. You will be needed for the recovery that is our Floridian nature and destiny.

We will return each time and we will be better for it. We will individually and collectively mourn loss, rebuild, and recover. That is, those of us that survive will. When the season ends next month, there will be a respite in which we can all reflect. There should be focus on how we react when we are ordered to evacuate or shelter. We should think about the fact that the storms cannot and will not all be Hurricane Litela; some may fade or strengthen unexpectedly, but none will simply stop with a "never mind."

Your job is to respect nature and the threats it poses. You must listen to authorities and maximize your chance to be both a survivor and part of the recovery. You must strive not to put first responders at risk of life and limb to compensate for your refusal to listen to the officials and the predictions. Yes, those predictions may be wrong. Yes, you may get lucky. But, the better bet is to follow instructions and survive the storm.

Whose job is it to see to your safety? It is yours. Who benefits from your focus and compliance? Well, primarily you do, but also your family that does not have to care for you and your neighbors you can help in the recovery. This is not to mention those who then do not have to ride to your rescue. 

No, the punch line to this post is not "never mind." The punch line is "pay attention," follow instructions, and be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. 

Surprised at Trial

I was privileged in September 2024 to preside over two trials at the DOAH Trial Academy in Tallahassee. This is a phenomenal opportunity for lawyers to hone existing skills and gain new perspectives. A vast quantity of imagination was poured into the hypothetical case by organizers, and successful competition requires a commensurate level of imagination by the attorneys. Collaboration and collegiality are also both critical and beneficial.

One of the unpredictable challenges in this hypothetical problem involved the case style of a former state employee versus a state agency. There is a tradition under the law in which the “petitioning” party can pursue relief against a “respondent.“ Thus, the petitioner must prove her/his/their/its case. That’s all well and good. However, at times, the law supplants this "normal" process with the provision of a presumption or burden “shift.” That shift was present in this hypothetical, placing the burden proof on the state agency.

For those apt to remind me this blog is about workers' compensation, that law is impacted by various similar presumptions. I have watched various first responders represented by counsel who ignored this shifting of the burden and did not insist on the employer/carrier (the respondent) proceeding first. When the rules put the burden on the other side, a lawyer who fails to recognize that and persistently reiterate that is often making a grave tactical error. 

The shock was palpable when I initially called the case and called upon the petitioner for an opening statement. The significantly-populated attorney team representing the petitioner seemed shell-shocked and confused. One team member had the presence of mind to voice “objection.“ She did so from the audience, not from the council table. And she seemed uncertain how to proceed with her concerns, beyond uttering "objection."

Shocked from the initial confusion, a teammate was soon inspired to leap to the objector's aid and voiced a cogent, coherent explanation of why the respondents should proceed first. The lawyer explained the respondent has the burden to the statute, and thus the inverse order. Why the initial confusion over jumping in with an objection? At the end of the day, judges don’t know everything about a case (or sometimes even anything), and make mistakes. If you don’t voice what you want, raise an objection, you may not get it. 

The next shock came when the respondents opened by calling the petitioner himself to testify. The petitioner had listed himself as a witness, but the respondent had not. The petitioner claimed surprise, and we had a logical agent and able argument regarding whether the witness could be called.

Notice is a fundamental element of due process. Cases are pre-tried for the purpose of identifying witnesses, documents, and other evidence to avoid. The goal of trials is the resolution of disputes on their merits, not by surprise, not by trick, not by crook.

The petitioner, having listed himself as a witness, was in a somewhat difficult position to claim “surprise” at being called by the opposition. The defense team made a valiant effort to resist, based on the foundation of the traditional confines of “scope.” By calling the witness, the respondent essentially took control of the scope of the examination. That is what the petitioner feared and therefore resisted.

Under the rules, the cross-examination of a witness is limited to the “scope “of the direct testimony that was provided. If the witness testifies on direct as to “A, “and “B,” the other party will not be allowed to cross that witness regarding “C" or “D.“ The party calling witness exercises, significant control regarding the scope of examination. The petitioner wanted to only be called to the stand by his own lawyers, and thereby have his team decide what would be discussed.  

Had the petitioner prevailed in this objection, then his testimony would’ve been limited significantly by this “scope" argument, and the issues specifically raised by his legal team. By calling the opposing in their case, the respondent sought to themselves this examination scope.” That is always going to be a tough argument when the witness claiming to be surprised by some inquiry is a party to the case. 

The petitioner nonetheless made a valiant legal objection regarding this “surprise.” The team noted the potential for changing the "scope,” and even identified Florida’s seminal case on point. Anyone who will try lawsuits should read and understand the very brief opinion in King v. Binger Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981). This analysis teaches that the question in such instances is whether prejudice "would accrue." The objecting petitioner argued instead that prejudice "could accrue." That is not the same thing. 

There is an old adage "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade." The surprised attorney in this instance was essentially burdened with lemons and strove valiantly. Whether he had not read Binger recently, or whether he had misunderstood it, one will never know. But he raised the argument that this “surprise“ had the potential for significant prejudice. In other words, he did the best he could in that moment. He did not prevail. 

I am certain that in some circumstances, one could make an argument of “actual prejudice“ regarding being called out of turn to testify. However, it is suggested, that such an argument might be very difficult. The witness at issue here was a party to the legal proceeding. He was ready and available in the venue and represented by counsel. He was intimately familiar with the proceedings, allegations, and likely the prior rulings already rendered. Demonstrating "actual" prejudice would be difficult.

However, any of those points might be very different for a witness who is not a party to the case. Furthermore, the issue might be entirely different for someone who is not named in any manner in the pre-trial stipulation (a complete surprise as compared to this more mundane timing surprise). Thus, it may be critical that the petitioner in this matter had listed himself to testify, and therefore seemingly was expecting to do so when he arrived at trial.

The critical points from this anecdotal example are reasonably simple. First, when trying lawsuits always be prepared for anything. Trials rarely go precisely as planned, and it is the surprises and your responses in that moment that will be critical. 

Second, never hesitate to raise an objection regarding process or procedure. The worst case is that such an objection may be overruled. Nonetheless, the attorney must strive for an appropriate process, and if possible one that is advantageous. If the judge takes an unexpected direction, raise the objection and make your point. The maxim is that "you will miss every shot you do not take," Wayne Gretzky. 

Third, great attorneys will keep a small toolbox of “just in case” at their fingertips. Back in the day, this was usually a legal pad long-dog eared from perennial storage in a briefcase. The pad was rarely removed and was perhaps more of a security blanket than anything else. But, it was there. Today, it could be a Word document, flash drive, or folder on a digital desktop. 

The point is its contents. There, the careful lawyer keeps stored a handy reference to authorities like Binger. This allows counsel, a ready reference to an authority, which may provide the foundation to prevail on a procedure point. This cannot be encyclopedic if you hope for it to be effective (keep it short and remain familiar with it). However, there are a handful of such cases that are cited again and again by trial judges.

The trial was otherwise interesting in several regards. Future posts will address subjects that were suggested by these proceedings. In the end, there were lessons and reminders for all participants. And, if they learned nothing else, they learned judges can be unpredictable and the key is to remain attentive, responsive, and prepared. The trial counsel's job is to be ready, but more importantly to react to the challenges of surprise. 

 

The Virtual Reality

The world went crazy a few years ago. We all lived through the greatest disruption (yet) of the 21st century. A virus broke on the scene and the world of work was upended in many locales, perspectives, and worlds. Before this, we had all heard of the lucky ones who worked from home. But in SARS-CoV-2, a great many got to escape to their bat caves. 

While the OJCC never shuttered, never stopped, and never failed, a great many businesses and government agencies did all three. Some were upfront about it. Others hid in the shadows and exclaimed their resilience while actually abandoning their offices. I note it as a point of pride that the OJCC team remained in the offices, open, and functioning throughout. Those employees and their resilience will always be a point of extreme pride for me.  

I have written about it extensively. See Remediating (February 2022); Productivity is Down (December 2022); Virtual Productivity (August 2023); and Shifting Virtual (August 2024). The fact is that feelings are diverse. Those who want to work at home see themselves as more productive and happy there. Those who manage workers typically see that paradigm as less effective and less productive. There is, here, conflict. 

In September 2024, Amazon ordered its workers back to the office, according to CBS. In making that announcement, the company spokesperson said ""When we look back over the last five years, we continue to believe that the advantages of being together in the office are significant." The company seems to have evolved from an "all remote" to a hybrid, to a "in office" perspective. 

The shock of going virtual in 2020 was traumatic for some. Perhaps companies see the potential for an immediate return to the office as equally shocking? That may explain why it has taken 5 years to transition back to an office environment, complete with commute, wardrobe, expense, and more. 

Amazon is not alone. Tech.co published a list of "Companies (that) Have Ditched Fully Remote Working." The list is extensive and has many recognizable names like Starbucks, IBM, Microsoft, and more. The era of remote work is at least ending, and may already have ended. That article notes that there has been contemplation, weighing of employee preferences, and more that influenced the recent years of both indecision and decision. 

What the article does not say is that the labor market has changed. In the Great Panic, employers were in the unenviable position of labor shortages, skill shortages, and demand. They needed workers, and the plethora of work-at-home alternatives had to be competed with. As the markets have changed, and workers are more plentiful, that collective need has diminished and business is finding it can be more demanding and less accommodating. 

The overall implications are fascinating in a macro sense. However, in a micro sense, there will be employees who are faced with tough decisions about how to proceed. Some will see this as the classic Clash debate "Should I stay or should I go." (The Clash, Epic, 1982). And, it is a fair question. 

Microsoft News recently featured I quit my job because of an RTO mandate. I never want to work in an office again. It recounts the perspectives of an employee and commuter who found solace and peace in the work-at-home environment of the early Panic. When that changed early in the recovery, 2021, a "return to office" requirement led her to quit the job. Office work is not for everyone. 

This person sees the analysis as one of work/life balance. She sees a personal cost/benefit analysis that leads her to conclude that she will not return to the world of office work. She has background, education, and experience that apparently affords that choice and the ability to both preserve her personal preferences and earn a living. That is a leverage that many in the workforce will simply lack (some personally, skills, some vocationally because certain jobs simply require presence). 

Nonetheless, she was able to pull a Johnny Paycheck and say "Take this job and shove it, I ain't working here no more." (CBS, 1977). That is a phrase that many an employee has dreamed of uttering over the years. But, as likely, many an employee has lamented making such a statement. Remember that famous James Bondism "Never say never again." (Warner Brothers, 1983). 

That was a cute play on words when the "last" (then) James Bond, Sean Connery, returned to the franchise he had previously abandoned and in which the "latest" (then) James Bond, Roger Moore, was flourishing. The decision to depart the franchise was sound and considered when made, but times change. 

Having departed need not be a permanent change. People change as well. And, in fairness, Sean Connery's return as an iconic and popular star was perhaps easier than others may find a return after a long hiatus from a particular work environment or paradigm. 

The point of all of this is that virtual work is not disappearing (perhaps), but it is markedly diminishing. The world of office work, far from the dire prognostications of recent years, is not only alive and kicking but apparently expanding. The impact of the Panic is fading. The challenges to management are prevailing. The worker's leverage is diminishing. The world of work is changing (again). 

Will it matter? I think that will depend on the person. Supertramp nailed this analysis for me with Goodbye Stranger a lifetime ago. They sang:

Now some they do and some they don't

And some you just can't tell

And some they will and some they won't

With some it's just as well

(Supertramp, Goodbye Stranger, A&M 1979)

And so it is today, with "they" being either employers or employees. The fact is "some they will and some they won't" either allow remote or agree to commute. And the facts are patent. It will be hard to tell at times. And in the end, with either employer insistence or employee resistance, "with some it's just as well" (either "we didn't need that worker" or "I didn't need that opportunity.")

The reality is that there are choices. The reality is that there will be variations and decisions. The reality is that there will be both virtual and real. What a great country we live in that such choices are before us.    

Stay, Just a Little Bit . . .

It may be hard to imagine, but close your eyes and try. Ok, that didn't work because reading with your eyes closed is a feat for anyone. So, just imagine you have your eyes closed imagining that we could take a journey through the law and in the process look to Jackson Browne, Lisa Loeb, Rhianna, and Justin Beiber in one post. That is a pop-culture diversity that is tough to beat.

The thought came to mind recently when an order came across my desk. The assigned judge of compensation claims had ordered a "stay" in proceedings.

I have written about "stays" previously. See Can I Go or Should I Stay (May 2017). See also Statutory, Inherent, or Delegated Authority (July 2018); and Sanctions (January 2023). The analysis is essentially one in which parties ask themselves "what authority does the judge have in this instance?" Or, "what relief might I hope for."

Thc Florida Courts have been readily clear that judges of compensation claims don't have the authority to enter stays. Periodically, they do anyway. That reminds me of bumble bees, but that is for another day.

Fortunately, the music icons I note today may have educated us thoroughly on stays. Of course, some may not be listening (see bumblebees).

For Jackson Browne, it’s a longing. He is looking for acquiescence, and not too much. “… Oh won't you stay, Just a little bit longer,” (Jackson Browne, Stay, Asylum 1978)(many covers previous and since. The original was Maurice Williams and the Zodiacs, 1953). Nonetheless, the point from that perspective is pleading, longing, and emotional.

Rhiana reminds us that humans are likely to be influenced by their own desires. She concedes something beyond Jackson Browne's mere suggestion. She says "I want you to stay." (Rhiana, Stay, Def Jam 2012). She goes on to describe why her reaction is so tuned to her feelings. She says it is “Something in the way you move,” thus a persuasiveness, that “takes me all the way.” It is the motion, she says, that makes her want the stay.

The Beiber is less reserved. He is beyond wanting a stay. He, like many attorneys, has hit the wall and finds no apparent alternative. His is not a "want, but is instead a “need” He pleads “I need you to stay, need you to stay, hey," (Justin Beiber, Stay, Columbia 2021). Ever notice how hackneyed the "hey" has become?

Be it a want, a feeling, or a need, the lyrics of a stay in Florida workers compensation always is more Mick Jagger (not really "always," see above re the order crossing my desk and bumblebees). But Jagger is right, "you can't always get what you want" (Roling Stones, Let it Bleed, Decca, 1969). No matter how desperately you may want a stay, that is not in the JCC toolbox, and Mick might just tell you so.

Perhaps in this, the judge is more Lisa Loeb. She doesn’t seek the stay, but evaluates another’s request. “And you say, stay," Lisa Loeb, (Stay, RCA 1994). She is doubtful, resistant, and curious. She makes the point, perhaps, that just because someone says "stay," that does not mean the result will be "stay." She is contemplative, reflective, and introspective (shouldn't a judge be?). One does not, in that, merely acquiesce because she/he was asked. But, back to Mick and the boys:

You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes, well, you might find
You get what you need

When a party is seeking to not proceed with this case, in this setting, today, there is usually some reason. It may be good, bad, or in between, but there is a reason. Two parallel paths are suggested. 

First the "I can't" proceed. This is because of a bankruptcy stay, the circuit court stay, or similar. The parties have been ordered not to proceed, but the OJCC has not been so instructed. The party seeking the stay in this setting is asking the JCC to alleviate a "rock and a hard place" conundrum. 

But that is not true. In these settings, the party actually only needs to ask the JCC to respect the other entities' stay. The party does not need a JCC stay, merely the JCC's acquiescence in an existing stay. That is called comity, and should not be a problem. JCCs jurisdiction is actually inferior to court jurisdictions. We need to follow court orders just like parties, but to do so we must be informed of them (file a motion?). 

Then there is the "I don't want to" proceed. These are settings in which it is less Bieber and more Rhiana. But, there may well be a good reason to not proceed. The world of litigation is replete with a vast array of challenges and complications. What if you would like to better refine the evidence? What if an indispensable party has been identified and you want to seek their involvement? What if, what if.

The point is that whether you are Rhiana or Beiber, the courts have said that the JCC has no authority to enter a stay. Thus, the attorney may (1) make an argument that this is not true, that some authority or argument can be made, and seek a stay. Or, (2) may simply seek a continuance of the OJCC proceedings under the auspices of section 440.25. 

Either a stay or continuance is a pause. Either affords the time to act, react, or recalibrate. Either accomplishes the goal of not proceeding today. And, between them, the continuance is more fully illustrated, and perhaps more obvious in the statute, rules, and practice?

Or, you can file your Rhiana (want) or Beiber (need) motion and let the assigned judge Loeb it. If you are lucky, the assigned judge might actually Love it instead and you will get your stay regardless of statutory authority. You never know what a judge doesn't know (hint, though, just because you push that past one unsuspecting or sympathetic JCC does not mean it will work with another). 

That said, the continuance is the more likely path. Unless someone is giving you odds, bet on the continuance (but be prepared to demonstrate how the need is beyond your control). 

If your issue is tied to some court, bankruptcy, appellate, etc., you might find life easier in simply asking that court for your stay, and then asking the JCC to deviate from all this music and proceed to comity (play on words, you work it out). 

Balance, Perspective, and Wheels?

I was engaged in an interesting conversation with a student in a class meeting last semester regarding our court systems. I experienced some degree of resistance regarding the roles and course of trial courts versus appellate courts. I have often times explained distinctions that are important in court systems. 

Primary amongst these is the trial courts may find room to be court of “justice.” As an aside, that is not true for administrative judges, whose role is to follow the law. Statutory judges like me are not courts at all. Our job is to follow the statute, determine the facts, and leave equity to the efforts of others. Too many a statutory judge has forgotten or forsaken that mandate.

Appellate courts are more readily described as courts of “error.” Appellate courts are not prone to fact-finding, but to legal analyzing and explaining. The Florida Supreme Court has "held that it will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, and likewise on the credibility of witnesses." Windom v. State, 886 So. 2d 915, 927 (Fla. 2004). 

That is not to say each appellate court remains true to its role. At times, when all the testimony on an issue has been in writing (documents and depositions), we have seen appellate courts conclude they are as well-positioned as the trial judge to make credibility decisions and re-weigh evidence. That is a slippery slope in the best of circumstances. 

These points all came up in this classroom discussion, which became lively at times. I am always grateful for such discussions as they evidence thought, passion, and enthusiasm that too many students today lack. It is rewarding to see them take a stand and make a point. 

A critical underlying theme of any court discussion might be that no one, judge or otherwise, is perfect. As humans are imperfect, so, inevitably, are their creations and institutions; so too are their hypotheses, arguments, and conclusions.  But, this conversation raised some points worthy of reinforcement.

Certainly, in this trial or appellate court comparison, there is the distinction of timing. Trial judges of many descriptions are faced with various deadlines, time parameters, congested calendars, and other constraints. Appellate courts are less so, and so some perceive them to therefore be more amenable to reflection and extended consideration. There is some merit in that. 

On the spur of the moment in that class, trying to explain the concept of collegiality, I stumbled either brilliantly or ignorantly onto an analogy that I now propose for feedback and comment. 

Many Hollywood stunts over the years have involve pitching a motor vehicle from four wheels onto two. Perhaps the most memorable of these was James Bond, in a red Mustang, in Diamonds are Forever (Eon 1971)(Sean Connery, Jimmy Dean, and Jill St. John in Vegas and beyond). So, we know a vehicle might use less than the designed and intended wheels. But, normally will be used as designed. 

I analogized other vehicle‘s for my student. I suggested that a trial judge in America is singular, much like a unicycle. The trial judge has little in terms of visible outside support. The trick to riding this vehicle is to maintain balance and momentum simultaneously. As anyone who has ever observed a unicyclist might note that sometimes means paddling backwards, and then returning to pedaling forwards. Sometimes it involves some arm waving and gracelessness. It may mean deviations in course, and various adjustments to regain forward momentum. 

The trial process is indeed one of balance and finesse. And, at times, it can be appropriate to back pedal (reconsider or rehear) some point(s) as evidence is developed and strategies solidify or shift. Some may as readily see such unicycle comparison in the role of litigator as trial judge?

I suggest that an appellate court is perhaps more like a tricycle. Appellate judges in many jurisdictions, examine, research, and opine in groups (“panels“) of three judges. While one might never contrive to pull a tricycle up on two wheels, a la James Bond, the tricycle is inherently more stable than the unicycle. 

Someone sitting on a tricycle may come to a complete standstill, and yet maintain balance and posture. The tricycle might readily come to a complete stop and either appreciate the view or even smell the roses. There is more propensity or possibility for pause, contemplation, and reflection. 

The appellate court is most often considering issues collegially, that is, essentially, by committee. Decisions will require mutuality in either agreement or consensus. All three wheels needn't agree, but any appellate decision will involve some confluence or agreement of at least two (a la James Bond). In this, it is possible that disagreement, debate, and compromise might play roles. 

Each of the appellate judges is as human and thus imperfect as the next judge. But, in most contexts, the cooperation required in a multi-judge process will perhaps blunt or smooth such individual frailties and imperfections? That is, each is as imperfect, but through collaboration and collegial interaction might somewhat make up for each other's human shortcomings to some extent? 

The unicycle/tricycle analogy is undoubtedly an imperfect comparison. However, it seems to provide an illustrative touchstone that may help some students or lawyers understand and remember  the potential benefit of striving in a collegial environment.

                                    Image courtesy of Adobe Images

Savings and Unexpected

The economics of our lives is ever present, yet too often ignored. As a nation, America is persistently insufficient in the simple concept of savings. And that failure comes to roost periodically when the tomorrow we expect is supplanted by the tomorrow that we get.

This week, WEARTV reported that evacuating from a storm like Helene can be an economic challenge. Paradise is a normal vacation destination, but last week it became an evacuation destination. People streamed in here for the hotels, camping spots, and other rentals. The traffic was noteworthy, and likely brought significant business revenue.

Some noted spending $1,000 to escape. Others claimed that "hurricane evacuees could spend $1,200 to $5,000 to ride out the storm." That is significant. The Red Cross suggests a lower figure, $400. Even if that is accepted, the Red Cross representative is quoted as saying, "Ninety percent of our clients are at a level where even just the $400 expense, they don't have that in the savings account."

These discrepancies are likely products of the family size, the distance evacuated, and the duration of stay. There are many variables that might affect the $400 versus $5,000, and some may be about personal choice, the type of accommodations or meals, etc. 

For many of us, having $400 in the bank or available on a credit card does not seem that unlikely. Unfortunately, there is some population of people that are not able to scrape together the minimum to drive out when ordered (it is difficult to know what portion of the evacuee population is in that "Red Cross client" population that is measured above.

I was pondering the implications of such a challenge when I ran across Hollywood's Boom has gone Bust by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). This notes the effects of the strike that the creatives engaged in 2023. This "lasted multiple months and marked the first time since the 1960s that both writers and actors joined forces. The labor market joined together and shut down production. The result was a deal that they welcomed. Or, was the result a deal that is unsustainable?

The exemplar in this story is among those persistently unemployed since the big strike. Business has not returned to pre-strike levels. Concededly, the whole entertainment business was impacted by the Great Panic of 2020, and the closure of theaters and other entertainment venues undoubtedly impacted many facets of both production and distribution.

But, the exemplar notes that he has lost his California housing and moved to Nevada. He complains of the lack of work, his dwindling savings, and laments the economic challenges. He notes that he was unconcerned before the strike "about going out to dinner with my wife and kids and spending 200 bucks," and more recently he is concerned "about going out and spending $5 on a value meal."

This is an instance in which the labor pushed its collective issue, and the result appeared a "win." Nonetheless, employment has shrunk in its wake. Will the outcome be better for the machinists who recently went on strike turning down a 30% pay increase or the longshore workers who turned down a 50% increase to strike?

As I read, I was drawn to workers' compensation. As a side-effect of my decades in this space, everything reminds me or workers' compensation. First, I have been historically surprised at how many injured workers had zero savings when an injury happened. I recall years ago a worker needed prescription orthotic shoes (medically necessary).

The doctor also recommended a particular sock (not medically necessary). The injured worker explained to the nurse case manager that he would forego the socks because he could not afford the $12.00 three-pack. The employer bought the socks. Months later, when he arrived for a deposition, I was astounded to see he drove a much newer, much nicer vehicle than my own.

We would all love to have a bright, shiny, new car. Some would even like to own a 70-foot yacht or a Bentley. But, we make economic choices and largely strive to live within our means. We don't borrow money that we can never hope to pay back. We budget and conserve. We keep something in a savings account for when the air conditioner fails or the car needs repair. 

According to World Population Review, the United States ranks 109 out of 172 countries, with a savings rate of about 18%. These statistics are not static, and the comparison is therefore less than ideal. Nonetheless, if one assumes that the number one country on that list is equivalent to a 100% "A" grade, we are barely above passing with a 63% "D."

This is not a new phenomenon. Savings comparisons have long faulted the American efforts. Why is there such a distraction from saving? Why are there so many for whom a $400 unexpected expense is insurmountable in the face of some urgency?

Some will say it is because the world is not fair. Others would say it is the government's fault, or at least that it is the government that should pay for everything, including storm evacuation. Others may point to poor economic choices and wonder if the fellow in the sporty SUV might have an easier time evacuating if he had a simple, affordable sedan instead. 

In both macro (the economy writ large) and micro (any one of us) terms, earning, saving, and spending money are choices. When we make sound ones, we remain self-reliant and responsive to urgencies. When we make unsound choices, that can lead to potential moments in which we are not so ready for the unexpected storm, strike, or sock recommendation. It is something to ponder. 

Generational Woes

I had some positive feedback on a recent post Infantilised (September 2024). There are perceptions about the differences among various generations. Those perceptions are purportedly driving behavior. At the outset, it is imperative that we recognize that generations are a natural delineation of groups. Some rail against any grouping of people, generalizations, or preconceptions. There is merit in that in some contexts.

Nonetheless, there is value in tracking and studying groups based on "age cohorts." The folks at Pew Research explain this better than I could. They believe there is value in "generational analysis," and they explain that it is of value in regard to "demographics, attitudes, historical events, popular culture, and prevailing consensus."

That said, any grouping of people can also afford a foundation for misperceptions. Because some view or perspective on a particular topic is prevalent within a particular cohort does not necessarily mean that view is shared or endorsed by the entire cohort. Let's remember not to generalize or 

That said, there may be specific similarities or underlying themes to which people in age groups are more likely to be drawn. In this regard, there has been some trend to humor. I have related some of these in various presentations and discussions. I cite them here for ready reference.

The Millenial Job Interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo0KjdDJr1c). This clip provides some reflection of younger workers entering the workforce. There are examples of generational perspective differences, technology acceptance, and individual misalignment. In short, the video demonstrates where and how friction may occur in the workplace.

Millenials in the Workplace (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz0o9clVQu8) concludes that there is a "civic duty" to employ millennials. The video presents four scenarios that are sarcastic and frankly insulting examples of people who cannot show up on time, follow instructions, or persist without constant adulation. There is humor there but at an entire generation's expense. Generalizations abound.

In A Millenial vs a Baby Boomer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed-5Zzdbx0E) two protagonists poke each other about their respective generations. There is tech fear, property ownership, communication skills, and more. To make it more blunt, the clip ends with a special shared insult in which the two conspire to ridicule a "Gen X."

Comedian Brad Upton has made a career out of "the stupidest generation." Though his ire is directed at those "under 30," much of his humor is directed at the way things were decades ago when kids were a bit more rambunctious and far less organized. In one special, Boomber Triggers Gen-Z Snowflakes, he says "These are the dumbest people I've ever met, not personally, just as a group." This illustrates the main point, the acknowledgment that people are capable of individuality, and there may be danger in judging based on membership in any cohort.

The Millenials are not taking all of this without reaction. In Millenials - I'm Sorry (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4IjTUxZORE) a group takes a bit different tack on the generational differences. The tone is apologetic for the generation, but then delves into various challenges that some perceive Millenials have uniquely faced. It is tongue-in-cheek and entertaining. It also may make you think a bit.

Who are these generations? Purdue University has an interesting and informative graphic for edification and differentiation. It includes facts and perspectives. According to Marsh, the following is the current 2024 workplace makeup

• Baby boomers (1946-1965) 18%
• Generation X employees (1966-1980) 31%
• Millennials (1981-1996), or Gen Y 36%
• Only 15% of Generation Z (1997-2012) 15%

This will continue to evolve. I can remember when the predominant group was the Boomers. Of course, I remember before there were home computers, cell phones, and indoor plumbing. It is tough getting old, but it beats the alternative. 

So, I have mentioned before, the world will come to run on the proclivities and rules of the predominant groups. Boomerism will fade, but Gen X will likewise, and then the Millenials, and in time the Gen Z folks will see their influence sunset. It is nothing new, and it will persist. 

But, for now, it is important to fit the mold that is cast. And, unfortunately, Gen Z is not doing so well with the world they are entering. These folks began entering the workplace in earnest in 2015, but those who wanted college (2019) and professional school (2021-2022) a bit later. Many a law firm manager has lamented to me the challenges with Gen Z lawyers. I had one tell me "never again" in describing a bad Gen Z experience (she is close enough to retirement that she may be able to live by that promise).

Fortune recently reported Bosses are firing Gen Z grads. Some of these new employees only last for months. There is an appearance of diminishing employer patience and acceptance. There is some consensus that this "next generation" is simply not ready for the workforce. That reminded me of the old line introducing Saturday Night Live in the 1970s, when the cast was called the "Not Ready for Prime Time Players." It may be a fair comparison. Maybe Gen Z is just not yet ready? Many of those original SNL folks went on to do amazing and pervasive work.

Fortune says that "bosses are no longer all talk." Terminations are happening at about 60% of employers. This impacts "some of the Gen Z workers they hired fresh out of college earlier this year." The "class of 2024" is becoming known for shortcomings. Are they new, or is the labor market just reaching a Great Panic recovery point where employers can afford to be more selective?

In that vein, one might reflect on the growing lack of sympathy for the telecommuting model and remote work. That will be in a future post.

Why are managers terminating Gen Zs? There is some generalization that they are "unprepared for the world of work" and "can’t handle the workload." Managers cite challenges like

being late to work and meetings often,

not wearing office-appropriate clothing,

(not) using language appropriate for the workspace.

Educational institutions are reportedly seeking to engage in better preparation. But, while that may benefit coming graduates, it does not help those already in the workforce (or striving to be). For those, unfortunately, there will be hard economic lessons. There is nothing quite as sobering as being fired. Try it sometime if you doubt me.

The solution is complex. There will be those who learn from the present and evolve. Others will continue to struggle. This is multifaceted. Employers will have to up their game on mentoring, coaching, and training. They alone can fill the voids they perceive in the workers already hired. They alone can develop, convey, and enforce workplace culture. If they fail, they will face the ongoing expense of a cycle of hire, train, fail, fire, repeat.

Employees will likewise have to recognize the impact (emotional and financial) of failure and firing. They will likewise face the costs of the cycle of seeking, interviewing, onboarding, adapting and training, firing/quitting, and repeating. These cycles will not be easy on either cohort, employee or employer. These cycles will be expensive (financial) and costly (emotional).

Advice for employers:

1. Provide concrete expectations
2. Provide ongoing feedback
3. Engage in mentoring
4. Be patient

Advice for employees:

1. Ask questions and take a genuine interest
2. Master required skills and seek new assignments
3. Ask for feedback periodically 
4. Accept criticism as opportunity

The Witch Helene

I have written a great deal about hurricanes. Some might see in that an attraction to them. The opposite is true. I have spent decades worrying about these monsters as they potentialize in the Atlantic and Gulf, form, strengthen, and strike. Too often (way) they have implications for Florida and the many people I have come to know across it. The breadth of concern is often surprising to some.

Five months out of the year (I don't worry so much in November), the NHC NOAA website is the first I check each morning. Ritualistically, persistently, every morning. When I am on vacation a world away, that does not change. 

Helene is a good example. From the first announcement of its existence, I began to watch. I began tweeting about it the Sunday before (below - I know it is not "tweeting" anymore, but I am not going to be Xing.") When I mentioned to a friend last Monday that I was watching it, there was incredulity. The simple question was "Why." His point was that there was no apparent Paradise implication, and so why the interest?

The Florida OJCC is spread hither and yon across this incredibly diverse peninsula. With any depression threat, there is likely to be somebody in the OJCC in harm's way. This Office services thousands of professionals whose efforts benefit employers and employees: lawyers, doctors, adjusters, nurses, risk managers, and more. I have met many of them over the decades, and even when the OJCC is not threatened many of them nonetheless are.

These storms are not "a Florida thing," but too often this is the destination. Time and again, we have been "lucky" with a turn or shift, and that "cone of probability" ("cone of uncertainty") has shifted to our neighbors. A minister told me years ago that he felt "unchristian praying for storms to hit his neighbors, but felt compelled to it anyway." He is not alone. There is some degree of survivor guilt that is experienced from these impacts. I have breathed sighs of relief over the years when impacts have been in the Carolinas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Mexico.

Those occasions are not escapes from the destruction and the death, but merely deflections. The damage and devastation still occur in each instance, but it is not here. There is some classic NIMBY in our reaction. That is "not in my backyard." So often the "cone" shifts, the storm strikes elsewhere, and we breathe a collective sigh of relief and move on. We return from the angst and anxiety of storm watching and potentiality fear and move on. And, too easily, we forget that someone, somewhere was struck.

Inevitably, there is damage and devastation. That evil witch Helene is no different. Most recently, the death toll over 60 and predicted to rise. The social media images of destroyed homes in Florida have been heartbreaking. In some ways, the advent of social media sharing has made these events more real, more striking, and more depressing. Make no mistake, these monsters were killing and destroying all along, but we get more immediate and powerful images of the devastation now.

And the breadth has changed. No, not the breadth of the storm but of our consciousness. Today we see social media and news coverage of destruction and death in a far broader scope. The impact of this particular scope on Georgia, the Carolinas, and Tennessee in particular. We see and absorb the misery, death, and destruction. Some is focused on a person or a house, and some implicate desolation of entire communities.

And we sit in the aftermath and face the angst and anxiety that is "survivor guilt." But those who were damaged by Helene were in a path we neither controlled nor instigated. Mother nature can be a hideous and hateful force sometimes and these witches she sends will land somewhere. That we hope and pray it will not be "here" is never a factor. The storms go where the storms go. They don't follow our hopes, prayers, or pleas. There is, in short, nothing about which to feel guilty.

The aftermath brings opportunities. There will be many that will travel to the affected places. I have been to communities after Katrina, Michael, and Zeta. I have lived through Floyd, Ivan, Dennis, and Sally. There are opportunities to pitch in, commiserate, and comfort. There are many in need, and there is much to do. There are people you know, and others you might come to, who will be blessed with the arrival of church groups, civic organizations, heavy equipment, and the inevitable parade of power trucks. Who knew there were this many power trucks in the entire world? Amazing. 

There is presently a disconcerting level of societal disconnect, anger, vitriol, and worse, in America. But in these moments, there is opportunity for commiseration, consideration, and community. People will come together in the aftermath, as they always do. Neighbors, strangers, and visitors will gather, and coalesce, and progress will result. Wounds will heal, recovery will proceed, and communities will rebuild. There will be millions of minor kindnesses and contributions.

The church and civic groups and their food are always welcome. A hot meal is real comfort in times of recovery. The visiting police and national guard are a sight for sore eyes in the aftermath. I will forever remember the Sarasota County Deputy who guarded the neighborhood of our Paradise District Office for weeks after Ivan. He became a familiar daily site. I stopped to chat long after he became comfortable with waiving me through the checkpoint. Then one day, he was abruptly gone. The recovery, you see, progresses. 

Unfortunately, in each recovery, we will also see memory fade. Those who survive these storms are too quick to forget. Those who are uninitiated are too ready to discount or disregard. Too many disregard the good advice to evacuate to higher ground. A sheriff suggested before Helene that those refusing to leave should write their name on their own body to aid in the aftermath. There will be much confusion, searching, angst, and worry in the wake of any storm. The bigger and badder, the more the worry.

The fact is, Helene will not be the last. They will add her to the list of the "worst." There are more than one list. There is the death toll list of which she will certainly become part (the lowest on that list is 53); AP reports the current loss of life is more than 64.  The news is full of stories memorializing heroes who have kept that list so low. There is the economic loss list. There are many familiar names there; Ivan and Katrina will forever stick in my mind. I am confident the wicked Helene will take a spot there at least for a time. But, she may nonetheless one day be displaced from that list by some worse witch.

Her name will be forever retired from the NOAA rotation (click for list; some will reminisce over years that are etched in memory like 2004 when FOUR storm names in Florida were retired: Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne). Like so many before her, the wicked Helene will be the last of her name, just like Ivan, Katrina, Ian, Betsy, and Andrew. It will take time, but her wrath, vigor, insolence, and indifference will fade from memory and become legend. 

People must strive to remember and to remain conscious. When the threat comes, they need to listen. When told to evacuate, they need to go. But many will not. They will say "It won't happen here." They will believe that Atlanta is "safe" or that Tennessee is "safe." Some will even delude themselves into believing their coastal home is "safe." Many times they will be absolutely right and occasionally, someone will be dead wrong. If you missed that entendre, "dead wrong" is nonetheless "dead."

There will be lessons learned from the witch Helene. Some will be new, but most will be recycled. Ritualize your annual May preparations, watch the tropics, plan for the worst, follow instructions, put your safety first, and strive to pitch in for the damaged and displaced when you are lucky enough to avoid the direct hit. Simple lessons. Simple humanity. Simple sense. 

And, if you are out there reading this by generator or car inverter, know that it will get better. Know that recovery is as inevitable as the storm itself. Know that you have the strength and the spirit to recover and rebuild. Many have doubted they did, and they were each wrong.

Kiosks and Expectations

I have often written about technology, robots, and AI. See The Coming Automation (November 2017) Technology Changing Work (November 2018) and The Gig of Participatory Democracy (December 2020). I have predicted various cost-benefit analyses impacting the workplace as tech is adapted and adopted. The self-service kiosk was one of the earliest of these. I anticipated that in the ordering paradigm (food), jobs would be lost to these wonders.

Yahoo News recently republished a CNN piece that takes issue with my fears. The analysis is in from one fast-food organization that shifted significantly to the kiosk model. Its data does not support my fears. The kiosks have supplemented human labor, and altered assignments, but not eliminated jobs. At least, that is, as of yet. It notes similar outcomes in the past with adoption of such tools as automated teller machines (ATM) and other technology. 

The authors note that the result is surprising. I am apparently not the only one who suspected or feared coming job loss. The data apparently supports that kiosks are better at selling the product than a person has proven to be. They are not troubled by the long line at the register and so the kiosks strive to upsell a shake or side to go with that burger or meal. That, the authors note, drives up sales, and there is more preparation and serving work to be done as a result. 

As a result of business evolution, the article says that those no longer needed in the order-taking are involved instead in the preparation of orders, delivery or serving, and facility cleanliness. The suggestion is that "fast food" will now be even faster due to the streamlining of these functions. 

But, there remain critics. One cited by the Yahoo article says that kiosks don't always speed the process or encourage the "upsell" (that extra shake or side). The authority there says that when people have someone behind them at the kiosk, "they experience more stress when placing their orders and purchase less food." I have personally experienced that anxiety.

There is, it seems, both good and bad. Some of the kiosk "stress" may be lack of familiarity. Perhaps as we all become more kiosk-acquainted we will become more kiosk-comfortable? And, as we become more calorie conscious, perhaps the milkshakes will not be so alluring regardless of whether a man or machine is suggesting it? That said, the ice cream does look great in the pictures on the kiosk. Can the kiosk tell us, again and again, “sorry, the ice cream machine is down?” (Asking for a friend).

I was pleased recently to find myself at such a fast food outlet in Poland. After monotonous days of the challenges of a diet replete with European continental delicacy and treat after treat and delicacy, there was some admitted desire on my part for a return to the American fare. A particular soda on ice with a side order was truly appealing. (FYI, finding a cold, iced, soda in Europe is right up there with winning the lottery in my book). 

I placed my order at a kiosk. I had to put in my name so they could call me to the counter for payment and pick up. I waited. Then I waited some more. I became weary of waiting, so I merely paused persistently in expectation of my order. 

Eventually, I put the Kiosk-generated receipt in a trash bin and hit the highway again. I suspect that order has still not been called by the counter help in that particular store. In fairness, that place was immaculate. But what good is clean if you cannot get a soda and fries in fifteen minutes?

The Yahoo article notes that many Kiosks are equipped to do more than take an order. Some "are now rolling out kiosks that can take cash and accept change." So, had I been at one of those, my choice would have been harder - abandon my already-paid bill to hit the road or remain standing there. For the price of fries and a soda, over $6.00, I might still be there even today. $6.00? This inflation is really something. 

So, the article supports that we critics and naysayers were not necessarily "right" about the consequences of kiosks on the fast food environment. However, I remain unconvinced I was wrong either.

I see a day with increased kiosk capability (taking the payment in card or cash or app). I see a day when a QR code dispensed by that kiosk gets me the cup for a self-serve soda. I see a day when the trip from the make table to the counter may be roboticised as a matter of course. 

But, on one point, I agree wholeheartedly with the article's sources. The key to the success of any adaptation is communication and familiarity. No change is going to be instantly adopted and adored by the masses. People hate change. Period. End of discussion. 

That said, some are more amenable than others. Some are more adventurous. The change will come and through evolution rather than revolution, we will find ourselves one day content with kiosks, robots, and more. 

Our acceptance or resistance will influence the marketplace of products, services, and ideas. We will be given opportunities, and some will thrive. Progress will come whether we like it or not, much like Christmas came to Whoville despite the dedicated efforts of the Grinch (How the Grinch Stole Christmas!, Cat in the Hat Productions, 1966). 

There, the Grinch was disappointed his prognostications and predictions bore no fruit. Similarly, our anticipations and beliefs may or may not be accurate as this evolution proceeds. Nonetheless, the road will bring change. Adapt, avoid, or at least step to the curb so you aren’t hurt.