Mental/Mental at Home?

CBS News reported recently that remote work may pose risks for some workers: "Research shows it hurts their mental health." Remote work is wildly popular with some. Employers have reported struggles with finding and retaining in-office workers in a workforce acquainted with the slippers and sweats world of virtuality.

The mental health concerns are centered on "alone time" and the absence or minimization of human contact. This is characterized as the absence of "idle chitchat," speaking to a coworker, or even a "smile from a passerby." The quoted study noted that most workers have not "compensate(d) by socializing more outside of work hours."

The study also raises some questions. The conclusions are based, in part, on frequency of mental health provider visits and prevalence of psychiatric prescriptions. Some will argue that the data and premise are arguably not scientific proof of causation but of coincidence. See Consensus in the Absence of Proof (January 2021); Tootsie Pops Make you Think (August 2021);

There is a stark difference between coincidence or correlation (the presence of two findings) and causation (the conclusion that one resulted in the other). See Work Hours are Deadly? (June 2021); Disparity and Evolution (August 2024).

Nonetheless, some may conclude that there are mental health risks to isolation. During SARS-CoV-2, I once instructed a remote worker, simply, "go outside." Asked what they should do, I replied that it did not matter, but their persistent isolation indoors needed to end. I still think that was good advice. But I have never heard of an AI suggesting it. See Ya Jonesing Man? (March 2025). To be clear, I have no mental health counselor training, but everyone benefits from a break and some fresh air. 

Workers' compensation systems across America take very different approaches to emotional complaints and allegations of injury. Some states, like Florida, require most employees to suffer a physical injury as a predicate for compensability of emotional injury. This is commonly referred to as a "physical mental" state. We had a great discussion of these intricacies at the SAWCA annual convention last week, comparing and contrasting four state perspectives. 

There are states in which an emotional injury alone can be compensable, commonly labeled "mental/mental" states. These distinctions are discussed in The Debate of Mental Mental and PTSD (January 2017); More Rust (October 2022), and other posts noted there.

I have also noted the challenges of emotional health periodically and have made some suggestions that there are particular challenges to mental health in the modern world. See Mental Health News (September 2020); Emotional Health (October 2022); and AI and Mental Health (October 2023).

The overarching point is that there can be stress in the workplace. In physical/mental states, that stress will not generally be sufficient alone as a workers' compensation injury. Nonetheless, in states in which "mental/mental" injuries are compensable, the emotions of an employee may be a sufficient foundation for a workers' compensation claim.

How prevalent is this mental/mental? Researchers have struggled with quantifying because the various state requirements, definitions, presumptions, and burdens are quite different. Nonetheless, some research concludes that "mental-to-mental injury, an injury involving purely mental stimuli, may be eligible for compensation in 40 states." 

That is not to say to all employees in those states. Several laws treat various occupations with different and disparate laws. Occupations with proficient lobbies and through extensive efforts have carved out special treatment for themselves. Those are policy decisions that intentionally treat workers differently. 

So, we conclude with the risk of isolation. Being alone persistently may present significant risk of mental health effects. One might begin having conversations with inanimate objects like volleyballs, see Tom Hanks in Castaway (20th Century Fox, 2000). In fairness, many of us mutter to ourselves in the office. 

Nonetheless, the work-at-home paradigm may increase that risk, particularly if the worker does not consciously strive for human contact elsewhere in their non-work time. And, as to the point in workers' compensation, the resulting emotional condition(s) may be compensable under some workers' compensation laws.

This could be an important point, the "some." It is practical for a worker to have potential entitlement in the state where a work accident happened (the home), where hired (might have made an acceptance by telephone from almost anywhere), where the employee lives, or even where the employer is located. An employer might face multiple potential exposures in one employee. 

Might an employer find themself on the hook for compensating the employee for that non-work time spent socializing? If the mental health provider prescribes an evening out to socialize, a bowling league, or walks in the park, will the mental/mental states treat that differently than an orthopedic ordering physical therapy? Maybe the work-at-homer can get a script for a night or two on the town as "treatment?" Or maybe a trip to Aruba?

A final note is that workers' compensation laws tend to embrace events within a particular state, noted above. So do many workers' compensation insurance policies. Is that New Jersey employer covered for a mental health claim from its Illinois remote worker? Might the potential exist for a coverage dispute by a carrier purportedly unaware of what company payroll represents work in remote states?

It is a fair question to consider when explaining to the broker or issuer that you need coverage in the state where the employee is located. A company in Iowa with a work-at-homer in California may well face liability under the California workers' compensation law. 

How Could You Not Know Now

Early in my legal career, there was excitement when the Florida Legislature changed the law slightly, and the result was the potential for cigarette companies to be successfully sued. The legislation was not the end by any means; there have since followed a whole raft of lawsuits. Some say there have been thousands; others say that it is many more. 

I remember many conversations about the litigation. The plaintiffs, thereafter, in the 1990s, often alleged that they did not know of the dangers of smoking. Had they known, they posited, they would never have taken up such a dangerous distraction, habit, or addiction. Or, at least, they would have striven harder to quit. If only someone had told them. 

There was much discussion among lawyers about the federally-mandated warning on cigarettes that was established in 1966 (for those struggling with math, that was 28 years before the start of Florida lawsuits following the 1994 statutory enabling change. 

Certainly, some folks may have started smoking before 1966, but even so, there had been a great deal of time in which to quit. As certainly, the initial warning was somewhat milktoast: ""CAUTION: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health." It was later enhanced with the requirements of graphics, but not until 2009. 

Was there bad action by "big tobacco?" I doubt there is anyone who would argue that there was not any. It is generally accepted that the cigarette companies hid internal research data about dangers and diseases. 

There is little doubt that nicotine addiction was manipulated, children were targeted, misdirected research was allegedly bought and paid for, and the whole "low-tar" campaign could be a lesson all its own. There is some seeming consensus that various companies acted inappropriately from time to time. Google "Gladys Kessler Philip Morris RJ Reynolds, corrective statements." 

I personally harbored some skepticism about the "I didn't know" arguments in the 1990s as I watched Florida tobacco litigation expand and accelerate. How was it possible for smokers to not know of the dangers? I got the warnings as a youth, echoed by every adult smoker I knew (many), repeated later in high school, they were printed on the packages, and also on stickers on the vending machines where many bought cigarettes (machines did not discriminate on age).

Nonetheless, I had some serious discussions in the 1990s about starting a cigarette company. We were going to call our product "Death" and the proposed logo prominently featured a skull and crossbones. We planned to eschew the federally mandated:

"Caution: Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health."

We planned, instead, to have a warning on one side panel that said simply:

"Strictly a novelty, do not open, consume, or light under any circumstance."

On the other side panel, we planned a more stern and direct warning:

"These cigarettes will undoubtedly destroy your mouth, esophagus, lungs and will kill you. Do not smoke."

Our critics said we would not sell any. But we had a feeling that those who wanted to smoke would light up no matter what the package said. We also suspected that the "real" tough person crowd would smoke them simply because they were "Death." The "manly" man in that era was associated with one particular brand; some even quibbled over which package of that brand was the most manly.

Imagine an ad that opens with a group shooting pool and sipping suds. A buff gentleman unrolls his sleeve (yes, this was a real thing, people kept cigarette boxes in their shirt sleeve) to reveal a pack of "Death," which he gallantly offers a vivacious young lady who intones, "Death for us all!" and the commercial fades to black with the skull and crossbones logo and our "these will kill you" warning. The voiceover is "some fear death, others flee it, but some even smoke it!"

Unfortunately or not, we got distracted by some other opportunities and never got "Death" launched. Any time I would lament the foregone opportunity, I was readily assured that "Death" would never have succeeded. Too much was known about the dangers. Smoking was "over." I rarely met anyone who thought such a venture could succeed. 

The premises-banning began in the 1990s, also. The Centers for Disease Control credit California with leading the way. There were prohibitions on smoking in various venues like bars, restaurants, and more. I will never forget the incredulous look I got from a California restaurant hostess when I asked for a "non-smoking" section in the 1990s. Time reported that trend continued through the beginning of the 21st century.

That followed the ban on domestic airline flights that started in 1988 and which soon cascaded into a near-universal ban on aircraft. Some foreign-flagged carriers continued through the 1990s with "smoking sections." I once flew on one where the smoking section was the seats on one side of the aisle, and the non-smoking were inches away on the other side.  

George Carlin questioned in that era 

“Isn’t making a smoking section in a restaurant like making a peeing section in a swimming pool?”

Crass, but memorable. By the second decade of the 21st century, those indoor smoking bans had spread to even the area around entrances to certain buildings. 

It has now been 60 years since the mandatory warning became the norm. Gallup reports that smoking is at an "80-year low," but 11% of American adults smoke. The Census Bureau says there are 258.3 million American adults, so that is 28 million customers still in the market for "Death." Some contend that the biggest winner is, in fact, the taxman. Some argue that government makes more from each sale than the producer does. 

That is intriguing. It is more intriguing that smoking is more prevalent in Europe ("Roughly 1 in 4 Europeans smoke compared to about 1 in 7 Americans"). And you can buy from machines there without identification, though there are warning stickers. This is despite a Harvard analysis that the cost and taxation in Europe are more pervasive, as are smoking regulations.

By this point, the reader probably has questions. Primarily, likely, what does this have to do with anything? Fair criticism. Well, the New York Post recently reported that cigarettes are cool again!

There were trays of them, "at the Vanity Fair Oscar's Party." And, as important, a random cool woman recently appeared on the cover of that magazine puffing away. There are, again, cameos in films and television. The paper concludes, "Smoking is well and truly back," despite those pesky government warnings.

Those who enjoy some nicotine include some otherwise health-conscious folks. They are nonetheless interested in "an occasional indulgence." Cigarettes are said to be "a great way to network" and a "good way to meet people." They are a "rejection of wellness culture."

Reason argued in 2026 that the American indoor smoking bans are too restrictive, arguing for the inconsistency that Japan has adopted. In their flexibility, one might see freedom of choice or chaos. The answer in Japan to whether smoking is acceptable is likely always "it depends." Whether right or wrong, the point is that advocates are seeking to re-establish smoking in public places. 

I said it in the 90s, and sadly, I was right. People will smoke regardless of the science, the warnings, and the dangers. There is a draw, social and societal, and all the cool kids seem to be doing it. Some of the cool kids are advocating for its return to acceptance or at least some nightclub deregulation. It is possible that some of them are even being paid for their advocacy or public use. 

I am not a fan. Nonetheless, how someone chooses to use the life they have been given is for them to decide. Nonetheless, I don't buy the "second-hand smoke can't hurt you" routine. I prefer that you keep your death to yourself. But it is also somewhat up to me to be willing to avoid the spaces in which people do smoke or vape. 

In the coming years, will those who have used these products in the 21st century be compensated for their conditions or diseases? Will there come a point where the world is comfortable concluding that everyone who consumed these products knew and accepted the risks? Despite all that is now known, will young people keep adopting this habit?

The Pretty Good Imposter

In 1960, Tony Curtis starred in The Great Imposter (Universal 1960). It chronicled the life of Ferdinand Waldo Demara, a native of Massachusetts who lived a life of adventure and lies. He was apparently incredibly bright and managed to undertake several surprising roles without formal training.

The National Catholic Reporter wrote about him on his passing in 2015. He served in several Catholic orders, was a teacher, joined the Army, and deserted. He later joined the Navy, faked his suicide, and began impersonating a psychologist. 

Somehow, he became the "dean of the School of Philosophy" at a small college and published some of his academic work. His story involves forged checks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, surgeries he performed, desertion from the Canadian Navy, and prison time. According to UPI, he was also

"a law student, a zoology graduate, a career researcher and teacher at a junior college in Maine, a surgeon in the Royal Canadian Navy, an assistant warden of a Texas prison and a teacher on a Maine island village."

Despite his ventures and adventures and being repeatedly charged with criminal allegations, he reportedly "never served jail time on any of the charges, either receiving probation or being acquitted."

A similar story is related in Catch Me if You Can (Dreamworks 2002) detailing the legend of Frank Abagnale, Jr. According to Britannica, Mr. Abanale claims to have cashed thousands of false checks, impersonated an airline pilot, and engaged in other chicanery. Some doubt the breadth of his claims and exploits.

So, it may be Hollywood fiction, or these two may each present some grain(s) of truth in their exploits. Tall tales can get that way. I once outran, on foot, a university police car and two very frustrated officers. That is a great story, but for another day, perhaps.

No, today is for Autumn Bardisa, a "Florida woman who posed as a nurse and treated more than 4,400 patients." According to Fox News, the 29-year-old "never held a valid nursing license." She used another nurse's name and license. 

When someone noticed her last name did not match, she claimed to have changed her name when she got married. She not only survived but also progressed in the nursing business, earning a promotion in January 2025. 

Despite providing care to many patients, the news reports no instances in which her care was alleged to be substandard or resulted in injury. Nonetheless, she was unlicensed and was eventually caught and arrested in August 2025.

Somewhat like Ferdinand Demara, at least on this outing, she will not serve any jail time. She pleaded guilty to "unlicensed practice of healthcare and fraudulent use of identification." The Circuit Court, in April 2026, "sentenced Bardisa to five years of probation and 50 hours of community service."

That is about one week of community service. So, several few days of building Habitat homes or organizing canned goods at a food bank. 

And, Bardisa "must also write a letter of apology to the nurse whose license number she used." Before sentencing, she also "forfeited a nursing license she obtained after her arrest." The plea specifies she will not work in "the medical field during her probation."

While that ends the current inquiry, the Fox News story ends with an encouragement for "anyone" who "may have been treated by Bardisa" to contact the local sheriff's office.

The parallels between Bardisa, Demara, and Abanale are intriguing. It seems incredible that people can be so successful as impostors. They present a public face, demonstrate knowledge or skill, and they fool us all. Well, at least for a bit. 

Perhaps Ms. Bardisa is not up to the Hollywood hype of the others. Nonetheless, she appears to have been a "Pretty Good Imposter." 

I have lamented our challenges with staffing our national medical needs. See Emergency, Acute, Urgent, and Routine (March 2026) and the posts cited there. To be clear, impostors seem like a poor approach to the problem. 

Probate Judge Suspended

Yahoo recently reported that an Alabama judge has been suspended. She is accused of postponing hearings and making a racist comment about an employee; well, those are the headline allegations, but see below. Some will question how such behavior merits suspension when other salacious behavior and lying to the chief judge resulted in only a private reprimand. See Lessons from Poor Behavior (May 2026). 

The postponed hearing, "without promptly arranging another," resulted in a patient remaining "hospitalized for another two weeks" and prevented the patient "from being home with her family for Thanksgiving." Many will see that as a poor outcome, both financially and personally. 

The judge is also accused of denying a court clerk's requested transfer to be closer to family; the employee was seeking this to be by "her sister’s deathbed." In the end, the sister passed, and the clerk was not able to reach her in time due to the traffic and congestion she had to fight from work to that location. 

The complaint also says the judge used racially insensitive language in referring to a court clerk. This was a reference to the clerk's race and was apparently made in at least somewhat of a public setting. There is no room for racism in judicial proceedings. 

Despite some contentions that context and intent matter, the fact is that the listener will decide, and the speaker cannot control any element of their perceptions. See also When is Profanity Appropriate? (April 2017); Honest Critics - Invaluable (November 2018); What was Said and Heard (August 2019); Subtle Sabotage? (February 2025); Extraneous and Inappropriate (May 2026).

The American Bar Association Journal (ABA) reports that the recent Alabama complaint alleges that

"she ran the probate court in an incompetent and unprofessional manner, routinely targeted attorneys and staff, and manufactured a backlog that created havoc in involuntary commitments"

She is also charged with

"a pattern of failing to follow the law by exhibiting bias against attorneys in her court; failure to disqualify from a case in which Blanchard was an attorney; and harassment, intimidation and retaliation against probate court staff."

1819News characterized the allegations as "horrifying." It quotes a "scathing" complaint that alleges

"Judge Blanchard's conduct has degraded the public's confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and brought the judicial office into disrepute."

1819News details seven charges:

1. Pattern and practice of failing to diligently discharge judicial duties
2. Pattern and practice of failing to follow the law
3. Pattern and practice of exhibiting bias against attorneys appearing in Judge Blanchard's court
4. Failure to disqualify from a case in which Judge Blanchard served as an attorney
5. Harassment, intimidation, and retaliation against probate court staff
6. Allowing other court officials, subject to Judge Blanchard's direction and control, to engage in harassment and intimidation of probate court staff
7. Failure to maintain professional competence in judicial administration

Any one of these, if proven true, would justify at least some intensive retraining and refocusing. Better diligence might be taught and learned. 

But there are some on the list that, if true, are likely beyond retraining. Following the law is not that difficult. Certainly, there are some tough cases, conflicting statutes, and shifting appellate authority. Nonetheless, consistently failing to follow the law is a troubling allegation. And competence in administration is also in this category. Nonetheless, all 7 are troublesome and disturbing.

Failure to disqualify or recuse in a case in which the judge previously provided representation is a no-brainer. Certainly, such a case might slip through the cracks (after 25 years on the bench, I do not begin to remember my cases as a lawyer; nonetheless, if someone pointed out such a conflict, I would be quick to jump ship). 

But, much worse, are the simple "do unto others" challenges that are more patent. The judge engaging in "Harassment, intimidation, and retaliation" or allowing others under their management "to engage in harassment and intimidation" is simply not acceptable. The same is true of having, much less exhibiting, bias. 

If demonstrated, these three strike at the very heart of the credibility and competency of the judge, judicial system, and judiciary. Critically, they are allegations, not convictions. Nonetheless, these are foundationally serious. 

In fairness, there will perhaps be observers who view lying to the chief judge, attending a political event, and engaging in an open and loud office love affair to be as problematic or poor behavior. They may point to the federal judge and say the state judge here is being treated unfairly. Lessons from Poor Behavior (May 2026). 

Nonetheless, each investigation must be independent, and the conclusions that are reached must be viewed primarily through the lens of that investigation, those facts, and those conclusions. Judges should strive to garner feedback in regard to perceptions of bias or worse (e.g., "harassment and intimidation"). 

They must put their best self forward each day. They cannot demean, fail to consider feelings or perceptions, or fail to be diligent and proactive. These pages keep finding their way back to judges who are alleged to have behaved poorly or less than competently. The news is persistent, relentless, and often critical.

Nonetheless, these are allegations, and not to be taken as any more than that. But the judge has to be concerned about the impact and effect of their performance and words. 

A Judge Too Busy

The Oregonian reported in April on a judge who expressed that she was too busy to do her job. Judge Adrian Brown was first elected to the circuit bench in 2020 and was running for re-election. She is a 2000 graduate of Lewis and Clark Law School. She complained she was "too busy on the campaign trail" to "oversee any trials."

The judge has reached out to the other judges, asking them to "take on her long-planned rotation staffing misdemeanor domestic violence trials this month." She explains that she did not plan on being so busy with her re-election and "would not wish this on any of us."

The Willamette Week ran the story, adding Judge Brown's observation that handling the trials and campaigning would be impossible. The "presiding judge" responded to her group message, reminding her that judges are obligated to do their jobs. She wrote:

“I would like to remind everyone that we, as public officials, must be ready and willing to do our jobs every day unless on vacation or out on sick leave.”

She added that campaigning is for "outside of work hours."

Judge Brown's perceived predicament stems from her anticipation of running unopposed. As a result, seemingly, she did not plan in advance to have leave time available for campaigning. In her initial plea for relief, she noted that an opposition candidate had filed a mere "30 minutes before the deadline," upending her perceptions and plans.

The Willamette Week report concludes that Judge Brown is "a particularly vulnerable incumbent" due to perceptions about her impartiality and the reactions of the District Attorney to her rulings. The District Attorney decided in 2025 to move "serious criminal cases" from her docket to other judges.

The story is illustrative of the potential challenges between fulfilling the judicial role and the demands of personal life. This is the work-life balance of which we hear so much.

Oregon, like other states, has a Code of Judicial Conduct. It includes various familiar provisions, though the organization is in "Rule" rather than "Canon" form.

Judges are to "act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary and the judicial system." Rule 2.1. Some might see a challenge in that, regarding the District Attorney's decision to publicly question impartiality. Impartiality is the Oregon Code at Rule 3.3.

The primacy rule is expressed similarly to other states, Rule 3.1:

"The duties of judicial office, as prescribed by law, shall take precedence over a judge's other professional activities."

That encapsulates the primacy of judicial responsibility. Judges are responsible for handling proceedings, writing orders, and managing dockets. The job requires being present each day for the expected an unexpected. Judges who are not in the office are not fulfilling that duty.

The Oregon Code directs "perform(ing) judicial and administrative duties competently and diligently." Rule 3.5. It also compels "cooperat(ing) with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business." But most compelling is the "Duty to Decide," which is paramount to the public responsibility of a judge:

"A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except when the judge permissibly disqualifies himself or herself or disqualification is required by Rule 3.10 or other law. " Rule 3.6.

It is amazing how many judges I have encountered over the years who ignore this duty to preside. They are quick to recuse or disqualify and to disregard their duty to "hear and decide matters assigned." Their focus and analysis may be difficult to comprehend.  

The assigned docket is that judge's responsibility. Nonetheless, as the Presiding Judge noted here, there will be impracticality of that when on "vacation or out on sick leave." Vacations can be planned, but sick leave is usually unexpected unless for some scheduled medical procedure. There is a distinction between the unpredictability of illness and the surprise of an election opponent. 

Finally, Oregon Rule 4, like other codes, requires a judge to "not participate in activities when the judge's conduct would: (A) interfere with the performance of judicial duties." That is, essentially, judicial duties come first for judges. The duties of being a judge take primacy over the privilege of running to be reelected as a judge.

In all, the outcome in this instance is not inconsistent with the provisions of many judicial conduct codes. The primacy of judicial responsibility, the duty to preside as assigned, diligence, and avoiding conflict are all common components of the various codes of judicial conduct.

Nonetheless, the focus in such a situation might be as simple as "public confidence in the judiciary and the judicial system." Does the judge's entreaty regarding reelection belong in an email to the other judges? Do the outside demands of campaigning, expected or not, rise to the emergent relief level that an illness or surgery would?

Ultimately, in this instance, the voters made their own decision about Judge Brown's service. The Oregonian reported later in May that she "lost her seat to (a) challenger" in the election, in an apparent landslide.  

Willamette Week reported that the outcome was unusual. It noted that judicial elections rarely draw any challengers. The defeated judge alleged the challenger "lied his way into office," and suggested she would "set the record straight." Asked to comment, the successful challenger declined. At least as yet, no further news story has been located regarding the judge or her defeat. 

Thus, there will not likely be any judicial qualification action regarding the email seeking support from peers to allow time for campaigning. That said, the request was curious at best. 

The Workforce Pipeline

I have written often about the next generation. They are as unique as any generation before them.  That sounds cliche, but each generation has been different from the last. Shaped differently by technology, economy, and more. We expect so much of them and always lament they are not like us. 

Fortune reported in March 2026 on a bipartisan group seeking to awaken America from the doldrums of complacency. They are ringing the clarion about students, education, and the future of our very economy. They are trying, but the message must be heard by so many and appreciated among a cacophony of other concerns and distractions.

The conclusion of this Bipartisan Policy Center is simple - the education system is broken. The "workforce pipeline" is compromised and that has implications for the workers, employers, and the rest of us who consume the various goods and services.

They are proposing a "national talent strategy," and I am doubtful they mean a new "Star Search" or "Someone has Talent" franchise. They have concluded that without such a strategy, in a rapidly evolving economic vortex, we are "headed towards severe economic instability."

That is both vexing and concerning.

This is not about artificial intelligence (AI), but that is one of the threats they cite. There will be the elimination of various jobs, and yet the advent of others. Are we focused on training people to make buggy whips?

For whatever reason, there is no mention of the isolation of youth, and demise of physical activity. The Fortune article makes no mention of social media and its impact on both soft skills and attention span. The pipeline is an analytical analogy, but what goes into the pipe bears greatly on what comes out the other end. 

As the value of college education is questioned in many quarters, and the workplace of tomorrow evolves, are we recruiting, channelling, and facilitating the needs of tomorrow's workforce?

The Policy Center group is focused on AI, remote work, the "gig" economy, education, and more. There are various challenbes, concerns, and perspectives. Some will jump to the solitary focus of how to raise taxes and spend the money.

Having recognized the problems, it will be a shame if the only solution is to shovel more money at the "lost Einsteins" that so many believe are being deprived of their shot at Harvard. While some see providing opportunity to all, "to discover and develop their talents," that battle cry has dumped billions into un marketable college degrees to our collective dismay and harm.

Almost certainly, education processes and foci must change. But that does not necessarily mean more resources or expense as much as it means reallocation. There may be less need for some facilities, institutions, and programs, but more demand for others.

In the end, there is little room for a "traditional college-only pathway," according to the Center. That ignores that there is little history for that pathway, and referring to it as "traditional" is both disingenuous and misleading.

The Center's focus on "options such as apprenticeships, technical credentials, short-term training programs, and opportunities for lifelong learning" is much more deeply rooted in "tradition" and human history that college has ever been.

If the challenges are to be met, that will be through frank and careful consideration of the realities of both the work at hand and the workforce required to address it.

The Center report notes that we "currently spend over $230 billion annually across 150+ programs with no cohesive strategy." If there is a better indictment of the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), with its $268 billion annual budget, that is hard to imagine.

Of the various authorities that might have invested in a "cohesive strategy," some might think DOE could have provided that introspection, analysis, and leadership. Imagine that we spend 4% of our national budget on the DOE, and another 4% on programs, and there is no "cohesive plan."

Sorry, that was sarcastic. There is no need to imagine. Apologies.

In the face of reducing the commitment to that money pit, the Center leaders believe it is time to raise public awareness and mobilize Americans to demand reform. Some in that effort believe that there can be consensus in the workforce pipeline challenge, and that the debate will not be polarizing.

Time will tell.

Another Birthday

As we are wrapped up in our individual day-to-day, life keeps us busy. Each summer, we pause a short moment for the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. July 4th is a moment recognizing that on one Thursday, 250 years ago, there were 56 "traitors" to the crown who gathered in Philadelphia and signed the document. Others were invited but declined. More on that in a moment.

There has been little popular debate over the years about why we celebrate that day instead of one in 1783. America became a real country not when our forebears thumbed their noses at the British throne, to put it politely, but when they prevailed in war. 

It was therefore not a real success until the British "officially conceded," by signing the Treaty of Paris, on September 3, 1783. Of course, it was a brief peace. The United States declared war on Britain again June 18, 1812. 

That one was somewhat concluded on December 14, 1814, with the Treaty of Ghent. Unfortunately, word travelled slowly, so fighting continued for weeks after, including the famous Battle of New Orleans on January 8, 1815. More complicated, the Ghent treaty required Senate approval, so was not official until February 17, 1815.

Why don't we have a holiday on September 3? For that matter, recognizing how long it took for the word to travel in those days, why no holiday for whenever the last of our ancestors finally heard of the initial peace and Britain's capitulation? Why not December 14, January 8, or February 17?

If it is not clear, I would like more holidays. Just saying. Of course, it is mighty cold for fireworks and BBQ in December, January, or February. 

The Treaty of Paris was signed there. Why don't American tourists flock to the former site of the Hotel D' York, at 56 Rue Jacob, Paris? It is only a couple of blocks from Pont Neuf, the oldest stone bridge over the Seine, and just across the river from the Musée du Louvre. But that address is not an attraction or a stop for the tour buses. 

Did you note that 56 signed, and coincidentally, the treaty was signed at 56 Rue Jacob? The plaque on that building today is reproduced here, and a translation is at the end of this post. 

There is also a plaque on Veldstraat in Ghent. That one was apparently affixed by the Daughters of the American Revolution in the 1960s, and memorializes the house in which the American diplomats stayed during the months of peace negotiations. 

What do we really know of our history? Does it make sense to celebrate the day we thumbed our nose or the day we won the ensuing fight? In a global sense, the September 3 date is far more important. That is not to diminish the Declaration, but why don't we celebrate the Constitution that underpins much that we hold imperative?

As the Archives reminds, it was September 3 that America stepped onto the world stage. The war that was concluded was actually a world war, "involving not only the United States and Great Britain but also France, Spain, and the Netherlands." Those were global powers, and the nascent U.S. was among them despite its youth and inexperience. 

People don't think about this piece of the puzzle much, but the Floridas (there were two back then) were also British colonies in 1776. They did not join in the rebellion, despite being invited to the Continental Congress. Florida "remained solidly loyalist during the Revolution." Notably, Florida also chose the losing side in the war between the states, but that's another story entirely. 

The Continental Army assaulted both Floridas (the eastern one mostly) multiple times unsuccessfully. Florida was British. That put the enemy in reasonable proximity to the nascent American nation and its forces. 

France was involved in the revolution as an American ally, first supplying goods, then financing, troops, and naval support. Some attribute that to ideological identification with the budding ideals of liberty and egalitarianism. Others feel France merely hated Britain (my enemy's enemy is my friend).

Spain entered the fray, not so much in support of America as in support of France. And there are those who perceive their motivations to be more about territory than anything else. They enjoyed success. Spanish forces from New Orleans invaded West Florida, making it as far as Pensacola.

The Dutch were significant suppliers to the Americans. They were smugglers, certainly, but also the first to recognize America's sovereignty. Notably, "The first salute to an American flag by a foreign power took place in St. Eustatius in November 1776."

Pensacola again played a significant role in the next fight. By that time, the Spanish hold on Florida had weakened during the Napoleonic wars, and Britain had reinforced Spanish troops in places like Pensacola. Andrew Jackson and his troops walked through  November 7-9, 1814, and expelled British troops there with little resistance. 

Of course, Jackson then marched to New Orleans and the "the greatest American victory of the War of 1812," a month after that war had ended in Belgium. Word travelled slowly in that era.

But, for some reason, our ancestors chose July 4, 1776. As a side note, if the "nose-thumbing" is the critical point, how about that Tea Party revolt three years before in Boston? No, no holiday for December 16, 1773 either. 

No, we acknowledge the Declaration and its 56 signers. A great many of us can trace some ancestry back to those "traitors to the crown." They took a great risk, despite being anonymous until 1777.  The cause of independence was not unanimously endorsed, and some left the colonies to return to England. 

What of the 56? The American Revolution notes that "Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died." Another "Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned." Still another "Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or the hardships of the Revolutionary War."

That American Revolution website does a great job identifying them. They were lawyers, farmers, merchants, and more. They were people with wealth, "men of means, well-educated." They nonetheless foresook their allegiance to a king and signed their names. Overall, they did not make out so well. They are nonetheless worthy of remembrance. We don't mark the dates of their birth, death, or even widely publish their names. 

So, this July 4, we mark 250 years from the "traitors'" signing. That is momentous. I suggest we make as big a deal about the end of the first "world war" on September 3, 1783, which is 243 this year and will mark 250 in 2033. Let's mark November 7, December 14, December 16, January 8, and February 17. Let's remember that there have been many important dates leading up to now. 

Let's remember those who gave their all in exchange for our freedom to vehemently disagree with each other (Gators, schmaters)! There is much disagreement and discord, and yet much to celebrate in our collective, yet flawed, history. Are we "united," or should we do better? Are there, today, "truths (we hold) to be self-evident?" Despite our differences and flaws, are we not doing pretty well overall?

The signers of the Declaration were (signers of the Constitution marked with "*," and Treaty of Paris with "#"): HUNTINGTON, Samuel (CT); SHERMAN, Roger (CT)(*); WILLIAMS, William (CT); WOLCOTT, Oliver (CT); McKEAN, Thomas (DE); READ, George (DE)(*); RODNEY, Caesar (DE); GWINNETT, Button (GA); WALTON, George (GA); HALL, Lyman (GA); ADAMS, John (MA)(#); ADAMS, Samuel (MA); GERRY, Elbridge (MA); HANCOCK, John (MA); PAINE, Robert Treat (MA); CARROLL, Charles (MD); CHASE, Samuel (MD); PACA, William (MD); STONE, Thomas (MD); HEWES, Joseph (NC); HOOPER, William (NC); PENN, John (NC); BARTLETT, Josiah (NH); THORNTON, Matthew (NH); WHIPPLE, William (NH); CLARK, Abraham (NJ); HART, John (NJ); HOPKINSON Francis (NJ); STOCKTON, Richard (NJ); WITHERSPOON, John (NJ); FLOYD, William (NY); LEWIS, Francis (NY); LIVINGSTON, Robert (NY); MORRIS, Lewis (NY)(*); CLYMER, George (PA)(*); FRANKLIN, Benjamin (PA)(*)(#); MORRIS, Robert (PA); MORTON, John (PA); ROSS, George (PA); RUSH, Benjamin (PA); SMITH, James (PA); TAYLOR, George (PA); WILSON, James (PA)(*); ELLERY, William (RI); HOPKINS, Stephens (RI); HEYWARD, Thomas, Jr. (SC); LYNCH, Thomas, Jr. (SC); MIDDLETON, Arthur (SC); RUTLEDGE, Edward (SC); BRAXTON, Carter (VA); HARRISON, Benjamin (VA); JEFFERSON, Thomas (VA); LEE, Francis Lightfoot (VA); LEE, Richard Henry (VA); NELSON, Thomas, Jr. (VA); WYTHE, George.

Translation of the Paris plaque: "In this building, formerly the Hôtel d'York, on September 3, 1783, David Hartley, in the name of the King of England, and Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and John Adams, in the name of the United States of America, signed the Definitive Peace Treaty recognizing the independence of the United States."

Who Raised You?

I don't fly often, and perhaps that limits my exposure. Nonetheless, I have been generally pleased with the patience and courtesy of my fellow passengers over the years. There have been a few exceptions, but exceptions nonetheless. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, there were "more than 1,800 unruly passenger incidents in 2024," costing millions in fines.

That seems like a lot. But for perspective, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says that "On any given day, more than 87,000 flights are in the skies in the United States." 

Of those, a third are commercial passenger flights - 28,537. In a year, that is 10,416,005, give or take. The "1,800 unruly passenger incidents" is a very small portion of the whole (.017%). Sure, that 1,800 is the reported incidents, and many are likely never reported. Nonetheless, it is a very low potential for unruly, rude, or childish behavior. 

The news recently featured an incident that was recorded and posted on social media. It reminded me of some previous suggestions that we all need to remain conscious of the ubiquity of cameras and the permanency of the internet.

See Assume Everyone is Watching (September 2015); Evolving Issue of Body Cameras (July 2018); Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020); Orwellian Store Security (August 2022); Judicial Bullying in the News (April 2018), Surveillance, Conflicting Rights, and Balance (May 2021), Pay Attention (July 2023)(and the posts linked there), Optics and Options (September 2025).

I have seen some poor behavior in person, and the air travel examples on social media are seemingly frequent and repetitive. The recent example illustrated a calm and well-aimed response that has apparently appealed to the world of social media.

The poor soul in this instance is convinced that her utterance of "excuse me" should work magic and clear the aisle of the aircraft to allow her access to the front of the line. The narrative suggests that the aircraft door had not opened yet and that all the passengers were waiting for their turn to deplane.

Courtesy DailyDot, Yahoo, and Twitter

The repeated utterance of "excuse me" and the insistence that those words should unequivocally clear a path may lead one to wonder at the passenger's logic. Another passenger employs the ubiquitous cell phone camera and makes a permanent record of the interaction, while yet another verbally confronts the bulldozing passenger. The language he uses is too often peppered with unfortunate expletives, but one point he makes seems to resonate with the wider world - "who raised you?"

That is an intriguing question. Perhaps in the way that the name Karen has become synonymous with self-appointed privilege, "who raised you?" may become a rallying cry in our public interactions (without the accompanying expletives?). 

Perhaps in that deposition that becomes heated? Perhaps in discussions of why discovery has not arrived, phone calls weren't returned, or courtesy was not reciprocated? Perhaps in that authorization phone call? Perhaps in that emergency room waiting area, as the time clicks by? Maybe before we reach the angst, anger, or frustration, we might just internally reach the "who raised me?"

The Yahoo story likened the recent incident to another seemingly self-absorbed lady on another flight. It relates that she was similarly in a hurry to get off the plane rapidly. She engages in a debate with multiple other passengers. She accuses all of her fellow passengers of being the "Karens." Then she challenges the person with the camera, asking if they have her permission to record her.

This person then plays the lawyer card, "I'm a lawyer." She then offers to show fellow passengers her "bar card" after they deplane. Who raised you? It seems a fair question. 

Notably, we are left to wonder whether the passenger had a bar card, whether it was shown to fellow travelers, and most importantly, how that would be of interest or relevance to anyone (having a bar card, or not, is not an indicator of intellect, couth, compassion, or any other attribute - a bar card means you went to school and passed a test. It is not a measure of worth or anything else).

Most lawyers would know that no one needs permission to video people in public. The Freedom Forum provides a reasonable overview of the First Amendment, the expectation of privacy, and more. 

To be clear, it does not matter who you are. A recent series of judicial missteps illustrated that and reminded us of the whole "cameras are everywhere." See Tech Frustration and Outburst (May 2026) and A Recap and Result of the Judicial Viral Video of 2014 (January 2016). Noted there, when you make a mistake or misstep, just own it. An intriguing recent example of a police officer's dumb double-down reminds us of the value of owning a mistake. 

That said, everyone has bad days. Certainly, it is unlikely that either passenger mentioned in this story can be defined by their actions or words in these short video clips. People have bad days. We say stupid things. People make mistakes in judgment. And in the 20th century, we could easily limit the breadth, scope, and travel of such instances. 

But the 21st century does not afford such easy forgiveness or forgetness (I made that word up). The "lawyer" video is a year old, according to this story. It was reiterated again by the Yahoo story now for wide distribution, again. How many more times will it make the national news? It is part of the World Wide Web and will persist forever. 

Each time someone misbehaves on a plane, such a video may resurface. Each time it does, you might get a call from a friend, family member, or business associate to help you lament it. Or, they may just cringe in silence and commiserate from afar.

Such examples are likely to become lasting and even permanent attributions of our lives. The world is watching, and someone is likely always making a video. Before we reach for anger, storm the boarding door, or otherwise disregard our fellow humans, let's reach for the courtesy card, remember who raised us, and keep our pomposity to ourselves (don't make me show you my bar card!).

Courtesy DailyDot, Yahoo, and Reddit

Comparative Value

My recent foray into and through France was amazing. I drove about 2,048 kilometers on this trip, which equals about 1,273 miles. It is fair to say I saw a great deal of the countryside. As I watched the gas gauge and later pumped fuel, it occurred to me that we have far less to be troubled about in America.

Before I departed, I lamented the price of regular gas sneaking over $4.00 per gallon in Paradise. In the weeks since the Middle East conflict began, gas had crept from about $2.91 to just over $4.00. The increase was about $1.11, and that represented a change of 38%. It was frustrating.

The digital signs in France are far less depressing, with fuel listed between 1.98 and 2.20. It is also less patent in France also because there are fewer stations, and so the price of fuel is not as frequently in-your-face. No billboards are pushing the message either. Notably, one might expect dollar signs in the first sentence of this paragraph, but this was in France, and the currency there is Euros (€). The resulting exchange rates were illuminating.

But first, for a comparison, Yahoo Finance notes fuel in France rose after the Iran war began from €1.71 to €2.20, or €.49, an increase of about 29%. That is not as significant as the U.S. increase of 38%.

In that light, there may be room for some continental envy.

But there is room here for some additional math.

First, that €2.20 mentioned did not buy a gallon of fuel, but a litre ("liter" if you must). A litre is about a quarter gallon, .2642 of a gallon to be more precise. So the French price per gallon that I experienced was €8.34 (€2.20 x 3.79). That is an expensive gallon of gas.

And that is in Euros, not Dollars. Converting €8.34 (1.16 dollars to each Euro), makes €8.34 the equivalent of $9.67. The price of gas in France was more than double the U.S. price in Paradise (though the cost has continued upward here and was concurrently about $4.35). The price per gallon in France was close to TEN DOLLARS per gallon.

Time is critical. The price in France today has decreased to about €1.90, about a 14% decrease from May's €2.20. And gas in Paradise has decreased to about $3.49 from May's $4.35, about 20%. This further illustrates that U.S. prices are more elastic, more prone to fluctuation. 

The impact of the high French fuel costs on traffic was negligible or less. The French roads, highways, expressways, and toll roads were busy. The drivers were pushing or exceeding the posted speed limits consistently. On the toll roads, there was no hesitation from the 130 kph (81 mph) posted limit, and traffic often flew by when I drove that speed.

This all illustrates that values for goods or services can be very different across jurisdictions. They can be subject to change and evolution. Costs and prices can be influenced by outside forces that are unrelated or only tangentially related to the ultimate product that is being discussed. Their propensities to increase or decrease are not static across jurisdictional lines either. 

It is no different in workers' compensation. Across the country, jurisdictions are different in law, regulation, economy, and more. There are variations that persist and others that vacillate. While it may be that there are few true constants or predictabilities, there are certainly factors and considerations that are more or less steady within the confines of any particular system.

Tipping in Negotiation?

There are a myriad of predispositions with which we might struggle or suffer. I have detailed many in my book Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution. I was reminded of the influence of visual representations recently while paying a restaurant bill.

Many establishments provide alternative suggested tip amounts on their bills, and that is not new. But the advent of technology has made that simpler and more convenient than it once was, as many locations now provide a machine for you to swipe your own card and make a payment.

These can be programmed to present any alternative tip amounts. By presenting the alternatives of 18%, 20%, 22%, and 25%, the choices set an expectation, subconscious or not, that these are the only viable selections. This is apropos to multiple predispositions. 

That said, there is usually a "Custom" button that allows the user to do their own math, to pick their own tip. What does this have to do with negotiation? To some extent, the parties are doing similarly when they present a demand or offer, whether they know it or not.

First, those suggestions "bracket" some ultimate target. The "bracketing" suggests, subconscious or not, that the "right" number is between them somewhere. There are many mediations that begin with such bracketing, subtle or not. In others, mediators may move the parties to such bracketing purposefully. As the parties progress, some degree of bracketing is inevitable, and likely steered by that first set of numbers. 

Second, the presentation of multiple alternatives may also be used to create the Decoy Effect. The human brain tends to react differently to a two-alternative choice than it does to a choice between multiple choices. Classic Decoy involved a third choice, significantly related to one of the primary two, leading to a predicted preference for one of those.

The Decoy Effect is used to steer behavior. In this example, the 25% is both a decoy and an anchor. There is no real expectation that someone will tip 25%, though that could happen. But this array sets a bracket that what is "appropriate" is between 18% and 25%.

For some, it will also foster the perception that rejection of the highest should automatically eliminate the lowest (i.e., I'll be a "moderate" tipper). That conclusion thus leads to the manipulated outcome closer to the center, in this example of 20% to 22%. The higher, 22%, then, is rejected, the 22% "decoy," leading to a 20% tip. 

All that said, where do the brackets come from? Some, like Bankrate, contend that the minimum restaurant tip "should be at least 18 percent of the pretax bill," relying on a college professor who claims expertise. That academic offers no support for that opinion, and ignores that many people are simply not capable of calculating 18% in their heads.

American Express suggests instead that "the standard tip percentage for eating out in the U.S. is 15% to 20%," with which Emily Post agrees. Despite these opinions, CNBC reports that the majority of tippers (57%) "tip 15% or less." That certainly does not sound supportive of the academic, Amex, or Emily.

CNBC also noted that the tip is "often due to social approval instead of service quality." This illustrates that payment may readily be about more than the facts. The introduction of a new control group and their reactions support this. The soccer world is traveling this summer and complaining about American tipping culture, according to the BBC (the BBC has had its own credibility problems). If it is true in tipping, why not in settlement negotiation?

An aside is the further complication of trust in the math. Do the "18%, 20%, 22%, and 25%" on that screen really represent that math? There are documented instances in which the math was inaccurate. The example in the picture above shows a check amount of $60.50, for which the restaurant's computer calculates an 18% tip of $29.00. That $29.00 is actually about 48%. As we increasingly rely on computers, as Idiocracy pervades, might one tip 48% out of ignorance or deceit?

The potential for inaccuracy is apparent. This can be because the tip is calculated on an "after tax" total, because it is based on a pre-discount total, because it includes hidden fees, or because it is simply false. And, repeating, there is social pressure not to whip out the calculator, and some part of the population that does not do 18% math calculations in their head. 

Thus, the concerns when presented with choices are fourfold. (1) Are you (or others) anchoring to some number, and how will that affect your subsequent perceptions? (2) Where did those number choices come from, and is their formulation and math accurate? (3) Is bracketing impacting your perceptions and focusing you inappropriately? (4) In the multiple-choice setting, are you suffering from the Decoy Effect?

So, how does the payer react to a set of choices like "18%, 20%, 22%, and 25%?" The folks at Bankrate say that only "67 percent of Americans who dine at sit-down restaurants always tip." One in ten finds tipping confusing. The same is likely true for negotiation, such as occurs in mediation.

But the most compelling result in the Bankrate survey is that "34% of U.S. adults are annoyed about pre-entered tip screens." Some, about "25% tend to tip less, or not at all, when they’re presented with the screens." The statements of suggestions or "brackets" can be a turn-off for some people (and both parties in a mediation are people, regardless of the potential to see either as a monolith or edifice).

Thus, there may be a benefit in presenting multiple choices. There may likewise be potential for distraction and distrust. The presentation of math that is inaccurate may cause doubt in negotiation or in relationships generally. 

Nonetheless, above all, when a demand or offer is voiced, the speaking party or the listener may become attached to that number(s). This "Anchor Bias" may impede movement from those numbers. Stated simply, people have a tendency to cling to the first information that they acquire. This is a critical consideration when those numbers are first introduced, particularly if they are a great distance apart and from the probable ultimate destination.