Edibles and Illness

I have been told time and again that the great thing about dope is that it is harmless. I have witnessed a parade of conference speakers and experts (not always coincident) opine on the safety, efficacy, and harmlessness of weed. They are synchronized, emphatic, and sincere. There is another choir that sings about dope being inevitable. Their refrains often include the comparison analysis, "at least dope isn't as bad as _________." 

I have written about the substance repeatedly. There is Mischaracterizing Pot Again (February 2020); Decriminalizing Marijuana (May 2021); Medical Pot Evaluation in Florida (July 2021); Justice Thomas and Pot (August 2021); Dope in the News (June 2023); and more. It is a persistent subject. Its ubiquity makes it newsworthy, but that is not why it is in the news. 

Back in 2016, I wrote about the promise of more accurate testing related to pot. The news back then was about a customer who did not read the label and mistakenly ate an entire pot cookie in one sitting. I said it then, and I will repeat, you cannot rationally expect me to eat half of a cookie and stop. Half a package? Still not realistic. New Testing for Marijuana (April 2016). 

I heard from readers back then. The lamented my lack of understanding of their cannabis. They poo-pooed my criticism, and assured me once again of either message one ("harmless") or message two ("not as bad as ______"). They are confident, committed, and clear. 

Unfortunately, we naysayers appear to be amassing evidence on the "less than absolutely harmless" side of the debate.

A December 2021 study causes some doubt about whether dope will help you sleep. In fact, there is some suggestion that using it will be detrimental for sleep. CNN reports that sleeping too much or not enough can be a path to a variety of other medical complaints.

A recent 2023 study is discussed in the Johns Hopkins Magazine. This suggests that use in adolescence can affect the brain and the immune system. The scientists warn "Studies in animals suggest there may be long-lasting and negative effects of marijuana use during adolescence." Negative? say it isn't so. Who are these scientists? 

USA Today claims that "Mississippi has seen a spike in calls regarding child poisoning from marijuana-laced treats." How can someone be poisoned by a substance that proponents heartily and enthusiastically tell us cannot harm anyone? You see, some of us mistakenly think that "harmless" actually means no harm. 

ABC News reports that the frequency of involvement of poison centers is increasing: "Between 2000 and 2020, reports to poison centers for child and teen marijuana use increased by 245%." Why are people calling poison centers for something that is absolutely safe?

Last week in New York, some well-meaning (perhaps) neighbor slipped THC-laced "edibles" into children's trick-or-treat bags. KFYR Television reported that "children who eat edibles containing cannabis can experience vomiting, dizziness, difficulty walking, a rapid heart rate, drowsiness, confusion, and breathing difficulties. In severe cases, hallucinations, an abnormally slow heart rate and low blood pressure may occur." That seems at odds with the "harmless" crowd.

It seems Vanderbilt is on this bandwagon. Forbes has published about poisoning. The New York Times claims children are becoming ill. The Washington Post is on the same page. WebMD says that these edibles are not safe for children. NBC, People, and more. Hold on. Is it possible that the "harmless" choir is incorrect? That is hard to believe, they have all sung so persistently and consistently from the same music for decades. 

Or are all of these news publications and websites in a conspiracy to hide the absolutely harmless nature of these so-called "edibles" and weed?

Last week in Paradise, a teenager happened upon a classmate in the school bathroom. Finding the student in distress, this young lady picked her friend up and carried her to help. I probably would not be strong enough to do that, but am most impressed. WEAR Television reported the teenager was incapacitated by those harmless pot gummies. That is intriguing. Perhaps the choir has another explanation? Maybe the student had a pre-existing incapacitation and the pot just exacerbated it?

It is not just edibles. Well, perhaps it is not. We cannot completely discount the "harmless" choir. The New York Times says that weed itself and the derivative oils and by-products are increasingly powerful. They suggest that harm can come to teenagers, in addition to the naysayers above complaining in support of children. The Times claims "Marijuana is not as dangerous as a drug like fentanyl, but it can have potentially harmful effects - especially for young people, whose brains are still developing." 

Well, that is perhaps good news. It is not as harmful as fentanyl. Turns out beating people with sticks is not as harmful as hammers. Good news indeed. 

The Times article says that frequent use by teenagers may result in

1. uncontrollable vomiting
2. addiction,
3. psychosis
4. increased likelihood of developing depression and suicidal ideation,
5. changes in brain anatomy and connectivity
6. poor memory.

CNN says uncontrolled vomiting is on the increase. People are apparently coming to emergency rooms. How can it be, pot is "harmless." They are not calm, but in acute distress. One doctor describes them as "writhing" and complaining of nausea, and unrelenting pain. The physicians are diagnosing this as "cannabis hyperemesis syndrome, or CHS.”

There are those who see the onset of pain after dope use as counterintuitive. They note that weed has been used to treat pain. They seem flummoxed by this association between pot use and pain onset. 

Amazingly, there is little to nothing in the news about the revelation of yesteryear "hyperalgesia." Harvard reminds us of when we realized that harmless opioids were both dangerous and curious. It turns out that chronic use of pain relievers actually made some people more susceptible to pain. Thus, they needed more pain relievers. It was a vicious cycle. Remember when we were all told opioids were THE answer? Remember doctors prescribing fentanyl lollipops for back pain?

 

Well, at least none of those dope reactions numbered above sound too bad. A little psychosis never hurt anyone, right? And, there is always a chance that the alarmists at the Times are just mistaken, misinformed, or anti-dope. Maybe the "harmless" choir is right. I mean they seem to be pretty adamant in their "pot is harmless," and "leave us alone" messages. And the world seems inclined to agree with them. They are insistent that dope is fine. They even advocate on how to ensure that children are persistently exposed to it. 

Doctors are increasingly recommending dope to patients (I remember when they recommended cigarettes). Society is increasingly accepting of weed. The downsides, if there really are any, will be for the young to face. At least society's youth today are otherwise amazingly well-adjusted and capable. We can only imagine how all this THC, reefer, and loud would affect a population that was not so well-adjusted, balanced, and prepared.

In case the point has been lost, there is significant sarcasm above. The fact is simple. Dope is not harmless. Weed is in fact dangerous. There is a dose-response, the more someone uses, the more danger and impact can be expected. The "harmless" crowd is wrong. The effects of this drug use pandemic will be with us for generations to come. It is a juggernaut, unstoppable, and irresistible. But, at least it is not as bad as Fentanyl. At least it only impacts those who make conscious, informed, and mature decisions about its use (sorry, sarcasm again). 

Court Decisions 2023

In preparation for my trip to the annual WCI last summer, I penned Public Viewing OpportunityJudge Case decided Su-Ann Belle Zilnicki v. Steward Sebastian River Medical Center in October 2022. The final order includes a ruling regarding the Daubert constraint on expert testimony, conclusions about the affirmative defense of misrepresentation, and credibility determinations. 

The Employer/Carrier sought rehearing, which is always an appropriate path when a party feels that there are "rulings that were outside the scope of the issues presented; or" a need for "clarification in matters of law or fact that the judge may have overlooked or misapprehended." Those are the two appropriate bases for rehearing under Rule 60Q6.122.

The motion for rehearing was denied, and the Employer/Carrier sought appellate review. The case was noticed for oral argument at the WCI conference in August. The arguments were described as interesting, animated, and informative. There were significant legal issues discussed and audience members likely gained better appreciation for the challenges of trying a case. The First District Court affirmed Judge Case's order on September 19, 2023, but without any explanation or edification.

In that, there is some letdown for the viewer. After a great oral argument, with the verve and energy that this one displayed, it seems a little anticlimactic to hear only "affirmed." The reader, viewer, observer should understand that this is the probability though. The majority of appeals end in the same manner. The last time I looked, about 78% conclude with a per curium affirmed, denied, or dismissed. The outcome remains, but the explanation and path remain forever a mystery.

The second case that was argued at the WCI was Siena v. Orange County Government. This was an interesting case from various perspectives. I overheard one attendee ask "is this workers' compensation?" I discussed the oral arguments with a judge from another jurisdiction who asked "is this the only cancer reference in the Florida law?" These are both valid questions and highlight for me the value of this very public oral argument (they are all public, but not as accessible), and the court's written opinion delivered on October 23, 2023.

I have heard some of the inquiries before. People who thrive in the world of workers' compensation tend to be rather unifaceted. We get together at cocktail parties, after long days of studying and interpreting this law, and we avoid talk of football, fashion, and even the Kardashians. For some unfathomable reason, we talk about workers' compensation. It is worse when our curiosity is piqued.

So, does Florida workers' compensation have a cancer benefit? The answer delivered by the court is yes. The court in Siena addressed the interaction between two sections of the law, section 112.1816 and section 440.16, one of which is workers' compensation. Section 440.16 is the definition and distribution of benefits in the event of a workplace death.

The manner in which the law was structured led to a need for interpretation and coalescing. The opinion notes that the challenge there revolved around the use of words. The facts of the case are reasonably simple, involving "a firefighter who died of brain cancer." His survivors had asked for benefits under both statute sections. The "benefits under subsection 112.1816(2)," are not as robust as the broader benefits in the workers' compensation law. 

Therefore, after receiving those chapter 112 benefits, workers' compensation benefits were sought. The trial judge denied the section 440.16 benefits. That conclusion was based on a conclusion of an "election of remedy" in seeking and accepting the section 112.1816 benefits. Part of that statute characterizes benefits “as an alternative to pursuing workers’ compensation benefits under chapter 440.” The trial judge was persuaded that this meant that one or the other, but not both, might be due.

The court noted that another portion of the section 112.1816 language refers to “all of the benefits arising out of such death," and another paragraph makes reference to “in addition to any workers’ compensation.” The court acknowledged the "alternative," but was persuaded by the references to "addition" and "all." The court sought to reconcile the potential for conflict in these words.

It concluded that "the context of all three of those statutory provisions" supports the conclusion that the "alternative" provision does not apply "to death benefits available elsewhere in chapter 112, nor to chapter 440 death benefits." That limitation ceases to apply "upon the injured worker's death." Therefore, the "alternative" language has some limiting effect on an injured worker, but not specifically as to the death benefits as sought in this case.

The court therefore vacated the trial judge's order.

The discussion from the court is informative and helpful. There is an opportunity here for education for the entire workers' compensation community. There should be no conclusion that value is limited, only benefitting those who work with the specific population of first responders and their special benefits.

The court's analysis is far broader, providing insight into the complexity that can result from the use of various words. That analysis here is about the cancer statute, but the methodology and logic path for dealing with perceived conflicting language is of merit in the broader context of statutory interpretation. We all remind ourselves persistently that workers' compensation is all statutory. This interpretational challenge will thus persist in many instances, and the court's description of the process illuminates that.

There will be opportunities for attendance at oral arguments and exposure to these kinds of issues. Those who would strive for comprehension of the world of workers' compensation would be well served by attending, discussing, and studying such opportunities.

Evolving Science

We have just come through an amazingly disruptive and destructive pandemic. The loss of life has been extensive. The economic loss has touched most and perhaps all Americans. We find ourselves in retrospect looking back at the scientific reactions. 

We heard from the scientists. "don't wear masks," "wear masks," "wear this kind of mask," "stay home," "keep distance," and more. I have commented before about the perceptions of some that consensus has been substituted for science. See Consensus in the Absence of Proof (January 2021); Tootsie Pops Make you Think (August 2021); The Science of Consensus and Masks Again (June 2021). 

I think of consensus every time I read about science. The scientists have been so profoundly mistaken in so many instances. Remember the Body Mass Index? See The BMI  Conundrum (August 2022), and racist assumptions, see Race Based Medicine (August 2021). How can the science be so wrong? And, how are we to accept and adopt today's conclusions, opinions, and conjectures without thinking of these spectacular prior fails?

I have the opportunity periodically to speak to physicians about their processes and procedures. I know, what can I offer a bunch of much more intelligent and intellectual scientists? Not much perhaps, but they do invite me back. One of them told me once how humorous my presentation was. I think he meant it as a compliment, but I did not tell any jokes that day. That made me wonder.

The Associated Press recently published Science Paints a New Picture, September 2023. It is an amazing article, with some intriguing revelations. These scientists today have concluded that beliefs held by scientists "for a long time" are not so supportable (not true). You see, the experts have been convinced that we Homo Sapiens "were the only true humans to ever walk the earth." Ooops.

The scientists of the past cannot be faulted. They did what they could with the evidence they had. They lacked some data points, particularly DNA, that might have helped them. They were in a significantly closed scientific community. You think cancel culture is a new thing, think again. Scientists who have different theories are often subjected to ridicule, ostracizing, and worse.

Ask Katalin Kariko of the University of Pennsylvania. That school failed to support her, demoted her, and cut her pay. She won the Nobel Prize in 2023 for being brilliant. Somehow, her peers (if in fact, anyone in that community is even near her prowess) failed utterly to see her brilliance. In fact, they treated her horribly. They ridiculed her. Those in charge of that University (somewhat), that College (yes), and her department (absolutely) deserve to be called out for their treatment of her. Science is not an exercise in group think, consensus, and punishment. But, I digress (only a bit).

Turns out, when you get past the artifacts, fossils, and bad assumptions, the human DNA tells a bit different version of human existence. As the AP notes, "we are not that special." In fact, for the greater part of history "we shared the planet with other kinds of early humans." Not only that (are you sitting down?), they "were a lot like us." Different? sure. But closer to us than we might have ever imagined. Or perhaps as close as some did imagine and were shouted down for their heresy.

The Sapiens, it turns out, had "close - even intimate" interactions with these other categories "Neanderthals, Denisovans, and 'ghost populations' we know only from DNA." Hold on. They are telling us now that there were people like us that they never knew about. People that were not in their fossils and artifacts. People they never discovered, imagined, or knew about when they were hypothesizing and guessing, lecturing about who we are and from where we came.

Turns out that they are still learning. Science is not so absolute. There are challenges, curiosities, and questions. No matter how convincing some theory may be, nor how many PhDs you get to endorse it, that is just a theory. There is nothing wrong with theories, but science is about hypotheses that are put to tests. Results are measured, experiments are repeated, confirmed, or disproven. It is there, in the science that we see emergence of facts (truth). The guesses and hyperbole? That is all just theory. If one hundred million PhDs believe and endorse it, it will still be a theory.

W. Edward Deming once said "In God we trust. All others must bring data." Amen. Want to know how to be credible? Here it is

1. Do the work, test the hypothesis, and show the work you did. Not the answer alone, the work.
2. If all you have is a consensus, bring it. But admit it is consensus. That it is the best there is may be a good second place winner when science does not exist.
3. If you are guessing, well . . .. At least say so. Tell us it is a guess. Tell us why there is no science or consensus. Tell us why the resort to the guess is unavoidable now and why this guess is the best of possible options.
4. Don't hide guesses or consensus behind the guise of science. It may work once, but we may lose faith in you when the next test or experiment comes along.

Last bit of advice. Put your "no, no, no" glasses away and pull your fingers from your ears. I am not asking that you agree with the folks like Dr. Kariko. I would just appreciate it if you would put aside your "can't work" and "can't be" attitude and listen to those with different ideas. Check your bias at the door and listen. Then, let's have an honest debate without the hyperbole, cliques, and groupthink.

Just think where we might go.

The Value Exchange

I hear a great deal about the challenges of running a business in the post-pandemic world. There is seemingly a strained relationship between management and labor. There are expectations on both sides of the equation and for whatever reason those are not always in sync. This leads some to despair for the future. It leads to complaints from both sides of the relationship. 

Technology is changing the workplace. One might see major milestones in the industrial revolution (1760-1840), the digital revolution that began in the mid-1950s, the information revolution that began in the mid-1980s,  the smartphone revolution earlier this century, the social media revolution that followed, or the artificial intelligence revolution of today. Change has been a challenge. Management and labor likely have different views of each successive innovation, and there has been recent strife in the relationship.

I have had students give me the "o.k. boomer" for which they hold such an affinity. They find my advice on the working world arcane and out-of-touch. They are genuinely and sincerely convinced that the world cannot work in the manner I describe in class. While I respect their perspective, I think the world does in fact work in that manner. To wit:

1. The world of work is a value exchange. In simple economic terms, the employer/employee relationship turns on the perceptions each has of what "value" means.
2. The world of work is persistently evolving.
3. Skills are needed for success, and this is true for both sides of the equation.
4. Employers and employees are likely to differ as to the value of contributions.
5. Some degree of ymbiosis is necessary, that is both parties must perceive benefit.

I came across a story recently about a college graduate "upset" at the burdens of work. She posted a video on social media complaining about the 40-hour work week, her commute to/from work, and the dent that effort puts in one's life. She complains that she cannot afford to live closer to work, and thus must commute. In a word, the real point is that life is not fair. Or, that life is hard. Yes, both of those is true. 

Commenters apparently were largely on her side of things. Some commented that it is time for a four-day workweek. Others explained that 40 hours is not necessary for productivity. The article cites some shorter workweek proponents who both concede that a 4-day week results in less productivity and nonetheless proclaim the benefits it yields in "work-life balance." 

In another example, a recent college graduate laments the challenge of finding work. She "branded college as a scam," and complained about the debt she chose to incur to obtain a degree. Despite her college degree, she has been unable to locate entry-level work in her chosen field. That is, entry-level work that pays a significant six figures.  She laments that her current occupation as a server pays better than those entry-level marketing jobs. She expected perhaps too much from college?

There is, fortunately, a World Wide Web out there with lots of data. Several provide expectations of potential earnings from degree-dependent work. Job search sites also provide data. 

This poster has incurred $80,000 in debt and has "a bone to pick with America." The country, somehow, is responsible for her career choice, borrowing choice, and unrealistic (see data sites above) expectations, according to The Daily Mail. As a new college graduate, she laments "'the jobs that are $150,000-$200,000 a year, I'm not getting those." Who ever led her to believe that a bachelor's degree in marketing would yield such a six-figure income is to blame. Or, perhaps the graduate bears some responsibility for not checking the wealth of contrary data on the internet before investing that $80,000?

I hear it. "O.k. Boomer." Sure, what do I know? I get it. I am old and out of touch. Perhaps my lack of familiarity with the latest social media renders me clueless. Or, perhaps my worldview of hard work and sacrifice render my perspectives less than persuasive. 

Well, where does the money come from to pay a salary? Somehow, the business doing the hiring has to generate income. It does that through selling some product or service. That has to bring value to its customers. If you are providing someone a good or service that does not enhance their existence in some way, does not bring them value, then they will not consume it. That is a simple fact.

In the same manner, if an individual does not bring value to the production of that good or service, then the employer is not benefitted. If the employer is not benefitted by that employee, in the production, maintenance, marketing, etc. of its good or service, then the business does not need that employee.

If it takes four full-time employees a full work week (40 hours) to produce the product or service that is being sold for $10,000 to a customer, using the $65,810 per year salary that Indeed says might be a reasonable marketing salary expectation (not necessarily "starting," but average), then those labor inputs cost ($65,810/4 52 weeks = $1,265.58, times 4 employees = $5,062.31). Without rent, taxes, and a slew of other expenses, the labor cost in this example is about 50%.

The input is four employees at 40 hours, that is 160 hours of labor to produce this income. Well, if the work week is fewer hours per employee (say 32 for a 4-day week), then that 160 hours now requires 5 employees. The labor cost (a "variable" in this instance) is now $6,327.90. It has escalated from 50% to 65%, plus additional facility space, oversight/management costs, and more. Will the customer pay more, $11,266, so that the employer's margins stay similar with these four-day workers, or will the customer buy from some competitor whose input costs are lower? If the business has no customers, how will it pay anyone anything? How will it stay in business?

The employee has to remember these simplicities. What value do you bring to the exchange? Do you somehow bring $200,000 of value to the employer such that a salary of that amount is worthwhile to that business? Do your efforts generate sales or consumption of the employer's product or service that draws that kind of revenue? Are you capable of bringing three times the effort, expertise, and contribution to the table compared to the employee earning the rational (or published at least) $65,810? If not, consider why the company would not hire three workers at $65,810 each instead of hiring you for $200,000.

The simple answer is this. If you draw that kind of revenue to the business, then you can logically demand that kind of salary. If you are bringing that kind of value, making that kind of production, the business should be happy to compensate you at those levels. This is a win-win for the business. Your success is their success. And if the business will not pay you, and you can draw that kind of revenue, then abandon them and open your own shop. 

Know this also. Running a business is not as easy as it looks. It will require sacrifice, investment, time, labor, and (I hate to say it) likely blood, sweat, and tears. It is a persistent challenge of managing costs of inputs (materials, labor, rent, taxes, and more), and finding and convincing willing consumers of the value of outputs. See, if your competitors can provide the product or service with three employees, and you require four to accomodate that idealic 32-hour work week, then your customers may be driven to your competition. If so, your company loses customers, sales, and revenue. If your company loses enough, it may fold. It may be unable to compete in a dynamic market. 

If it was easy, everyone would do it. Trust me, it is not easy. O.K. Boomer. What do you know? Well, I know I have worked for a multitude of businesses (over 20). I have managed several processes, departments, or facilities. I have started and run businesses. I have had to hold more than one job at a time to produce the income my lifestyle choices demanded. I have had a few years to study a multitude of inputs, outputs, expectations, and failures. I'm old, antiquated, and approaching obsolete. But, I have been there and done that. 

That said, there is no reason to be treated badly. It is not a reason to allow anyone to undervalue you and your contributions. You should absolutely value yourself, respect your own boundaries, and expect others to as well. But that relationship with work will persist for a long time. Most people will labor around 40 years. It is not easy, rarely fun, and that is why they call it work. If it was easy, fun, and without stress, oh what a wonderful world that would be. But let's stick with reality. 

That is not to say you cannot enjoy it. You can. That is not to say that you cannot benefit. You can. That said, expecting to earn $150,000 or $200,000 as a new college graduate is not realistic for the vast majority of workers. Expecting to be able to live in expensive neighborhoods as a new graduate is not realistic. Expecting to have lots of free time, leisure, and minimal stress is not realistic.

That is frustrating. True. It is challenging. True. It is exhausting. True. It is not new. You are not unique. And things will improve with time. When you grow and can bring that value to the employer, it will either pay you commensurately or lose you to its competition (which might be the company you start). There is some tendency to think the old folks had it easier. But I know lots of old folks who scrubbed dishes, waited tables, made deliveries, lifted packages, and worked multiple jobs simultaneously (I have done all that and more). You can call me names and discount my experiences, but you have never walked a single step in my shoes. 

Success may come in time. You may grow into the world, gather and leverage experience, and derive increasing value with decreasing effort as you mature and evolve. But to expect that as a new graduate or when entering the workforce is not realistic. Those expectations will lead to disappointment, frustration, and even upset. Those emotions will not likely be positive for you. Do not invest in college degrees that are economically misaligned with your expectations. Study those probable salaries before picking a path. Pick a path after you have carefully examined your desires (what you like to do) and your expectations (the income, work life, etc). 

Do not borrow money to obtain anything without careful research and introspection. Whether it is an education, a car, a house, or anything, you are making an investment. What do you expect of that investment? Can you reasonably expect a return? Will that car be dependable? Will that house be resaleable? Will that career bring fulfillment or income or both? Study that before you buy that thing. Figuring out the challenge of that consumption after you spent the $80,000 can be frustrating. If I emotionally invest $80,000 buying a combine and then find it is not ideal as a commuting vehicle, shall I complain that America is to blame for my decision, my uncomfortable and slow commute? No, I bought the combine. I selected the vehicle. I have to learn from that, drive the combine, and perhaps make a better choice next time. 

So, set reasonable expectations and make plans. Study and weigh before you consume. Ask old folks about their perspectives and let them help you; they really want to help. Do not forego the work-life balance. Respect yourself, your value, and your needs. However, do not expect to earn a full-time salary for a part-time effort. Do not expect to earn three times the average salary in a career if you do not bring significantly more value than others who work there. Will your customer pay you three times the price for something they could as easily buy from a competitor? To earn above average, you will likely find you must produce above average. 

Get over the "fair" and the "I want." In the end, no one is looking out for you to the degree that you are. Life will bring reward and sacrifice. There will be ups and downs. All of it will enhance you, and you will grow. There is great value in being productive, active, and achieving. Go at that with gusto. But do so realistically and with appreciation for the fact that work is a value exchange. What value do you bring, what value does your employer or customer(s) bring, what relationship between those is practical and acceptable to you? 

Words, Meanings, and Questions

Words have meaning. They are the tool of lawyers everywhere, and the law often turns on the use of them. The expressions may be in statute or contract. They may be written or spoken. Their meaning may be patent, or subject to interpretation. There are times that even the punctuation between them will bring meaning or doubt. See I Never Knew Oxford had a Comma (March 2017).

Long ago, judges began to establish rules of construction. These are paragonal constructs through which the courts strive to bring predictability to the law, and structure to their work. The use of words is given structure. The Florida First District provided a broad overview of these in City of Bartow v. Flores, 301 So. 3d 1091, 1096–97 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020):

"When the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning ... the statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning.’ ” Fla. Dep't of Revenue v. New Sea Escape Cruises, Ltd., 894 So. 2d 954, 960 (Fla. 2005)."

"In construing a statute, we presume that the Legislature knows the meaning of the words it uses and that it intends to employ those meanings in the statute. Overstreet v. State, 629 So. 2d 125, 126 (Fla. 1993)."

"The Legislature's use of differing language in the same statute is a sign the Legislature intended varied meanings. Carlson v. State, 227 So. 3d 1261, 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“The legislative use of different terms in different portions of the same statute is strong evidence that different meanings were intended.”)."

These are examples, there are other citations provided in that interpretation, including a secondary source written by a former United States Supreme Court Justice. These are illustrations of the manner in which maxims have evolved and of the importance that words have.

It may be important that the "varied meanings" expression is focused upon use in the "same statute." Nonetheless, the use of words is subject to far broader interpretation. When writing, one faces the challenges of words. They can be powerful, useful, persuasive, and distracting, confusing, and vexing. Words convey import. We learn that at a young age. Perhaps the reader remembers Alice in Wonderland and the intriguing exchange between a novice and all too frustrating Leporidae?

The furry mammal's interchange with Alice, including interjections from others, went:

“Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on.

"I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least-at least I mean what I say-that's the same thing, you know."

"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "Why, you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see'!"

"You might just as well say," added the March Hare, "that 'I like what I get' is the same thing as 'I get what I like'!"

"You might just as well say," added the Dormouse, which seemed to be talking in its sleep, "that 'I breathe when I sleep' is the same thing as 'I sleep when I breathe'!"

"It is the same thing with you." said the Hatter

Is it, in fact the same thing? Is meaning what you say of value? Is saying what you mean of value? But in the end, more importantly, do the two phrases in fact mean the same as Alice assures, or are they so different as compelled by the Hatter, Hare, and Dormouse? As an aside, should any of us be garnering grammatical advice from such a cast?

Are words synonyms or are they merely similar? What do we mean when we employ them? And in the end, what is the purpose of words but to inform? Perhaps if you are Lewis Carroll or Charles Dodgson, you will have a gift for words. Or, perhaps you are willing to work hard to craft and draft, substituting elbow grease for talent. But you may also be a simple reader as am I. You may crave the simplicity of one merely telling it like it is.

My reader, by now, is likely used to these exceedingly long introductions. There is a patience that allows one to reach this stage of a post without utter frustration. But here, in the end, I strive to get to the point. In recent months, there has been what some see as a trend in word use in Florida appellate decisions. There has been a seeming avoidance recently of the word "reversed."

In fairness, no judge has ever been enamored with the word "reversed." It is universally disliked. More than once, I have heard it described with energetic and even vulgar disdain. There is more of a split in sentiment among lawyers, as their perceptions somehow seem to depend on whether the word is used in their favor or their defeat. That is all-to-often true in the broadest view of individual proclivity and perception. A "roll tide," no matter how intended might engender a high-five or a face slap.

The questions began for me in early October 2023. I received an email when the appellate court published E. Coast Waffles, Inc. v. Haselden, __ So. 3d __; 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1954 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023). It summarized the outcome in all caps: "SET ASIDE."

As a broader "aside," not to quibble, but some perceive all caps as meaningful. 

What, I was asked frankly, does "set aside mean?" Was the decision "reversed?" Was the judge below intended to conduct further proceedings ("remanded?"). Upon further reflection, perhaps clarity dawns? The trial judge there found benefits due, and ordered the employer carrier to provide them. The appellate court nullified that order ("set aside"). Thus, the injured worker there failed to prove the case, and is entitled to nothing. Seemingly, perhaps, there is no point or purpose in further action by the trial judge. Fait accompli?

The topic came up again. On October 25, 2023, the appellate court rendered Siena v. Orange County, __ So. 3d __; __ Fla. L. Weekly D__; No. 1D2022-0958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023). This case involved a JCC denying a benefit based upon an interpretation of a question of law. The appellate court disagreed with the denial and the outcome was a resounding "ORDER VACATED." Thus, the JCC order is of no import. Should the JCC rehear the case and decide if benefits are due? Are benefits due as a result of the court's conclusion?

Vacated: "to make legally void: ANNUL," according to Merriam-Webster. Perhaps "vacated" and "set aside" could be synonyms?

I was motivated to pursue further. I began pulling previous opinions of the court. In August, there was N. Collier Fire Control v. Harlem, __ So. 3d __; 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023). There, the question was of law through which the JCC had awarded compensability. Perhaps ironically in the context of this post, it was about interpretation of words. The appellate court concluded there with "Vacated." (no ALL CAPS). Notably, this interpretation of words included reference to some of the same touchstones mentioned in City of Bartow (above).

In August, the decision in Normandy Ins. Co. v. Bouayad, __ So. 3d __; 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) was more simply "Vacate." Is there a distinction between past and present tense? Or, is this a typographical oversight?

In May, the decision in Churchill v. DBI Servs., LLC, 361 So. 3d 896, 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) was a more familiar and perhaps commanding "REVERSED and REMANDED." There, the JCC denied compensability. Perhaps in that there is more necessity for further proceedings? But more so than in Siena? (above). Is the "reversed" more compelling? Is the "remanded" more instructive?

I have written before about the intriguing performance of Demi Moore in A Few Good Men (Columbia Pictures 1992). One of the great courtroom scenes of all time is not the "Perry Mason Moment" (copyright 2019) with Colonel Jessup ("you can't handle the truth"). The highlight for me is instead the criticism of Leitenant Weinberg (Kevin Pollak) "Oh! You strenuously object. Then I’ll take some time and reconsider.” Uh, no. I think the "overruled" likely gets the job done there. Does the "vacated," the "set aside," or the "reversed?" Or, is there a point in the "remanded?" 

If the trial judge's order is no longer efficacious, then what? Something must follow. Is the trial judge able to proceed without the "remanded?" Seemingly so. Even in light of the "vacated" and "set aside" that are not accompanied by the "remanded?" I spoke with one scholar who suggested the recent absence of "remanded" is a recognition that perhaps the judicial branch is not able or willing to tell the executive branch what to do. That is, a separation of powers recognition might be inferred?

I am doubtful of that one for several reasons. The most pertinent, however, is the recent (May) employment of "remanded." But in fairness, there have been lots of "remanded" over the years and not a whisper of separation of powers. Not saying it couldn't be, but expressing sincere doubt. 

Is there distinction between "vacated" and "set aside?" At least some believe there is not ("There is no substantive difference between "setting aside" and "vacating" any judgment"). But that is just what some lawyers think. Thesaurus.com does not list "set aside" as a synonym when "vacate" is searched, nor vice-versa. Thus, perhaps they have the same import, but are not synonyms? Perhaps they are synonyms, but only in the legal context? 

The folks at Cornell Law School, a noted repository of legal definition and knowledge, seem to see at least similarity. In defining "set aside," the authors or editors there add "see also annul or vacate" In defining "vacate," the Cornell team says the meaning is "To set aside or annul." Perhaps the more narrowly focused legal definition supports these are synonyms despite the thesaurus?

Is there a difference between those two words and "reversed?" Believe it or not, there allegedly is (or at least was) a Style Manual that is used by the United States Supreme Court. I have never seen it, so "alleged." But, I read about it on the Internet and everyone knows you cannot put it on the Internet if it's not true. This style manual reportedly says:

"This Court should reverse if it deems the judgment below to be absolutely wrong, but vacate if the judgment is less than absolutely wrong. Questions in difficult cases should be directed to the Chief Deputy Clerk.”

Question one: the judge of the Supreme Court (presumably who wrote the style manual for that court and who make its decisions) should consult the clerk? I digress. 

Question two: that is the test? "Less than absolutely wrong?" I wish these people had represented me in my childhood debates with mother. She did not believe in something "less than absolutely wrong," did anyone's mother see grey area? 

Question three: does this seemingly recent foray away from "reversed" suggest that the appellate court has concluded that the feelings of the trial judge (or non-prevailing party) must be assuaged? Does someone feel better being "sort of reversed?" Can everyone in the case get a trophy? I knew a girl in high school who told people she was "sort of pregnant." Well, we all know how that "sort of" worked out. She "sort of" had a baby. 

Back to the good folks at Cornell, they say that "reversed" means the trial judge is wrong. They say reversal means:

"The result of reversal is that the lower court which tried the case is instructed to vacate the original judgment and retry the case."

So "reversed" maybe reaches the same result, but in addition to the spanking the trial judge in that instance must also "get the switch." Old folks perhaps will get that; the next generation has somehow struggled with it on the vast expanse of knowledge that is Reddit. Perhaps this reads too much into the "reversed," as it is never about the judge, reversed is always about the decision, error, and justice. I am always concerned with "I got reversed"; no, it was never about you. 

I arrive (as I so often do) at the conclusion of Mr. Spicolli, a great legal scholar and notorious gentleman (Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Universal Pictures 1982): "I don't know." Mr. Hand loved the answer, and I am a bit enamored myself frankly. It almost always works (though it never did with Mom). 

Perhaps for clarity, it would be simpler for the courts to stick to a word that has no chance of confusion or misinterpretation? How about "affirmed?" Friesen v. Highway Patrol/Division of Risk Management, 364 So.3d 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023). I'm just sayin. 

Rebecca Solnit is purported to have said “you can use the power of words to bury meaning or to excavate it.” Perhaps there is merit in that. But, in the meantime, some suggestions*:

1. Anything other than "affirmed" means that the trial judge was wrong (quibble with degree or extent if you "sort of" wish). 
2. Anything but "affirmed" should cause the trial judge to take another look and ask introspectively "what could/should I do next?"
3. Any party to a case that desires further trial judge action following the issuance of a mandate should be prepared to seek it (file a motion?) if it does not come spontaneously.
4. Any party can advocate further trial judge action, or argue against it. Then the trial judge can make a decision. 
5. If the parties don't like that decision, they can seek review by the court. 

Or, perhaps there are better or other ways to interpret or proceed. That, you see, is up to you. But always remember that Mr. Spicoli's answer has merit. 

* This is a blog post expressing questions and ideas. It is not legal advice and is of no precedential authority whatever. This blog should not be cited in any legal proceeding except in the event of utter desperation. See Citing Authority (August 2023).

 

Purpose

What is the purpose of government? Some would posit various arguments, definitions, and thoughts. Perhaps what government brings is security and safety. I have suggested that it is when we fear for our safety that we cede our rights and convey power to government. See Citing Authority (August 2023).

Government may thrive, or languish. Through its action or inaction, people might be attracted to, complacent in, or driven from any locale. When it fails to deliver safety, we see tragedy. An example is Mali, which lacks stability. It has relied upon France, the United Nations, and armed mercenaries for security. Through it all, the country has been disunited according to the British Broadcasting Corporation (Inside Mali, August 2023). People there are reportedly suffering from violence, disease, and disfunction. 

When government fails in its primary function of security, people suffer. In the ancient past, I lived near "the City by the Bay" (Journey, Lights, CBS Records, 1978). That tune expresses "I want to get back to my City by the bay." Of course, more famous, Tony Bennet recorded I left my Heart in San Francisco back in 1962. That one forever romanticized the Golden City, the "Paris of the West."

I happened upon the locale in between the releases of those two mega hits. There was a time I was enthralled by the place, the people, and the atmosphere. Baz Luhrmann advised experiencing the world, including such locales. In his Everybody's Free (the "Sunscreen Song")(EMI, Capitol Records, 1999), he exalted:

Live in New York City once but leave before it makes you hard

Live in northern California once but leave before it makes you soft

I never lived in New York, but I both lived in northern California and left. Certainly, a great many have moved to California and stayed. But a great many have "been there, done that," and simply moved on. 

San Francisco was never a perfect place, is anywhere? But Mr. Bennet's song resonates with its rejection of New York, Rome, and Paris. No, he exalts the city "high on a hill," the "little cable cars," "chill in the air," "windy sea," and the "golden sun." It was, indeed, a magical place in my youth.

That is nostalgia. Even then, in the 1960s and 1970s, the quality of life in San Francisco had its detractors. There was a perception of danger in that city. Drugs were a perceived problem in the Haight Ashbury district. There were many "hippies" throughout the city, and there was discussion of changes in populations and the cost of living. I recall talk about the challenges in "the Tenderloin," the "Mission District" and "the Wharf." Despite my youth, I was aware of the dangers to some extent and strove to understand them. 

But, mine was a relatively secure existence across the wonderous Golden Gate in Marin County, and in a guarded community. That county was a miraculous place of extreme beauty that encompassed Samuel P. Taylor State Park, Point Reyes, Muir Woods, and more. It was a phenomenal place. I perhaps viewed it then through rose-colored glasses. But on several return trips since, my sentiment at its beauty has been affirmed. 

The area was perhaps never inexpensive. But in the years since my departure, it became incredibly expensive. The influx of technology and those who produce and manage it changed the "city by the bay." And the area changed in other ways. 

Drugs remained a challenge there. The rate of Drug use is notable according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. It notes that "21.9%" of the population "used any illicit drug in the past year." Pot use was 17%. Both of those exceed the rates "in California and the Nation." Many lamented the prevalence when I lived there. It has not apparently improved. There is seemingly some acceptance of drug use. 

San Francisco perceives a crime problem. The city contemplated in 2022 deploying "robocops" capable of deadly force. See These are the Good Old Days (December 2022). Also in 2022, we learned that retailers were closing stores. See Evolution in Economy (January 2022). We heard that people defecate on the sidewalks in the Paris of the West, such that an App was developed to help people avoid the poop. The city did not prevent the public hazard, but in a city of almost a million, it deployed a five-person crew to make an appearance of effort in cleaning it up.

I returned to Muir Woods this century. I found spots on the road that had collapsed. The solution was not to fix the roads, but to put orange cones there. Those warned drivers of the holes and the routine was for drivers in each direction to share the remaining lane at those junctures. The great state of California was unable or unwilling to patch its highways.

I returned to the Wharf on that trip. Unfortunately, I did not feel safe venturing beyond the Wharf itself. The food was fantastic, the scenery sublime, and the atmosphere appealing. But a few blocks off the water, the feeling was simply to return to the Wharf. There was a feeling of diminishing hospitability as one gained distance from the main tourist enclave.

There are those who decry California's approach to property crime. See Theft and Violence (May 2022). There are undoubtedly other cities and states that suffer from such challenges.

But since the pandemic, there is now a reference there to a "doom loop" in San Francisco. There is concern that economic realities may be damaging to "the City by the Bay." The Wall Street Journal has noted the potential. Others are discussing it also. In a recent message on X, the closure of a retail "flagship" in San Francisco was noted. The author of that X said “The city is in a doom spiral," and yet the author committed to remain there.

Some in those articles see the potential for violence as an extension of previous attitudes and responses (or lack) to seemingly more minor challenges. Some lament that challenges have migrated to what they perceive "used to be a good part of San Francisco.” There are those who strive to defend the city from perceptions of "doom," but even those who would "debunk-the-doom" are noting that overdose is prevalent there, and other challenges persist.

One concluded "that no one will catch you if you fall" there. Is there a better definition of community than there will in fact be others there to catch you? Perhaps. The city is now reportedly trying security guards, retired police, and at least once it appears the National Guard was deployed there. The theme seems to be public safety.

Local businesses are closing. National retailers are leaving. And there are those who see the police as the problem, choosing to preclude armed and uniformed police in their businesses. That is anecdotal, but a Google search will find more anecdotes. Despite the portrayal of "doom," there are those who see opportunity. The mall from which retailers have departed may be turned "into a soccer stadium." Would such a facility draw patrons?

What is the purpose of government?

San Francisco is not alone. Business Insider notes that "downtown vitality" is struggling in America. It suggests struggle in St. Louis, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Cleveland, and Kansas City, Missouri." Those cited in that article support the contention that this is "a people problem, not a business problem." There are arguments that downtowns have been too focused on business, and have not been effective at addressing the desires and needs of people.

And there is the rub. There is no difference between people and business. Business is people. Those people are owners, managers, workers, visitors, and customers. All people. We work to survive, but also to self-actuate. Our interactions and engagements are very often either in our work in business or our patronage of business. It is incredible that one might view people and business as severable or even distinct.

Government has to make environs safe for people and business. If businesses are not secure and able to thrive, the San Francisco example demonstrates there will be closures. If the customers do not feel safe, they will not visit, and business will suffer and perhaps close. Sociologists and similar will lament the impact. Recent news on "pharmacy deserts" is in that vein. They will complain that businesses leave, but will perhaps not acknowledge that poor policy, inadequate security, and bad decisions have made business persistence there untenable.

Government can step into the resulting void. It can elect to own and operate retail stores in those environs it has created and facilitated. Chicago is contemplating that now. A government-run store can persist perhaps when private enterprise cannot. No matter how much is stolen or destroyed, tax dollars can nonetheless support ongoing operations. Government, in this context, need not have a profitable store as it has broad and powerful other methods of financial support.

What is the purpose of government?

Through its decisions, government can influence whether people feel safe. Those decisions and policies impact whether businesses have customers and thrive. Government can provide safe and inviting locales, build thriving environments, or it can ignore people pooping on the streets, camping on the sidewalks, and otherwise making others uncomfortable.

The Wall Street use of "spiral" is apt. Environments may spiral upward because of customer demand. As business in an area is successful, customers will be drawn there, more businesses will open, employees will be hired, commerce will thrive. Or, if customers are aloof, scared, or reluctant, then businesses will suffer, jobs will be lost, and closures will occur. The "spiral" can go down as well as up.

What is the purpose of government?

There is a persistent push for workplace safety. We have an abiding concern for reducing accidents and ensuring people have a suitable environment for their labors. But employers cannot make a neighborhood safe. They can, perhaps at best, pick a safe neighborhood. When employers and businesses look out for the workers, the customers, and the business, who has a right to complain that an environment was allowed to deteriorate to the extent that businesses leave for greener pastures? "I cannot believe business left" might instead be "I cannot believe business stayed so long." 

That is the purpose of government. It should ensure a safe environment. It should facilitate a community in which people can work, live, and thrive. That will include encouraging and supporting the workplaces that support the employees, the customers, and the community. 

Dosage Discrimination

I have been on a couple of exposés regarding discriminatory medicine in America. See Race-Based Medicine (August 2021); Hippocrates, Harm, Racism (May 2022). I have also been on more than one sidetrack about obesity. How can they Both Increase? (February 2019); I am What I am (July 2013); Obesity Could Kill Me (March 2015). The evidence suggests that there is potential for discrimination in medicine. And there is also an alleged disparate impact of tools like the Boby Mass Index (BMI) on various populations. The BMI Conundrum (August 2022). 

These posts point out examples of our modern science coming up short from time to time. We are struggling societally with the challenges of obescity, and the many complications that can bring. People are dying right here in America from the silent killers that are frustrated by, caused by, or exacerbated by the great overconsumption of calories and underactivity of our lives. Some people are fat. Sorry, that is the truth. Some people can change that, and some people cannot. That is likewise the truth. Hard, but the truth.

The USA Today reported last week that there is another wrinkle. This is alleged to result from a blind spot in the manner in which we vet and approve medications in this country. It is 2023 and someone just recently noted that we are not including the obese in the process for testing new medicines. Some contend that 40% of Americans are obese. Our medication approval process is somewhat ignoring 40% of the American population?

USA Today reports that the ignoring of these people in our testing and approval process is resulting in that segment of the population being administered medication at the wrong dose. See, they believe that "it may not be just the extra weight that adds risk." In addition, they now believe that "people with a lot of body fat metabolize drugs differently." The body is an extremely complex conglomeration of tissues and systems. The critics think that with obesity comes further complexity. The article lists various medications, discusses the science of "fat solubility," and explains that obesity may mean a patient needs a different dose, may retain a dose longer than other patients, or simply may need different attention. 

In multiple tests, the researchers have concluded that people "might be getting the wrong amount of needed medication." The medication dosage is set through the clinical trial process. That process, it seems, is focused on a one-size-fits-all paradigm (or a most-sizes-fits-all?). And, in a nutshell, we are not all one size. Is there a reason that children are prescribed different doses? They are generally smaller. They may likewise have different reactions and interactions. That is logical. If the patient's size has a potential impact, why not consider this? If the volume of fat cells has an impact on the solubility of the chemical, why not consider this?

There is consideration of the needs of children in those trials and research. The researchers contend that there is no (or little) consideration of the obese. And one researcher is blunt about why. He contends that "people don't care about obesity." Perhaps. Or, is it that we do not care about the obese? Are we all a little too quick to judge and condescend? Is there just a little fat shaming in all of us? Are we too ready to think its the cookies, the soda, etc.? Are we conscious of our potential bias?

The article cites examples of people having minimal or no reaction to their medications. There is a discussion of the manner in which these chemicals interact with our bodies and produce results that are therapeutic, or not. And, perhaps there is too much tendency to say "well, the package says that dose is appropriate, so let's discount the patient's reported results." What are the downsides for the doctor if she elects to exceed that "appropriate" dose determined by the clinical trial? 

There are various perspectives offered. There seems to be one sentiment that would test drugs specifically in this context. That would add a layer of regulatory research and would perhaps cost in dollars and time (getting the product to market and aiding the patient is important). But others note that there need be no deep dive on every drug. They suggest that instead, we could begin by simply asking the question, "Oh, would this (weight) be a problem?" within the analysis of a drug.

To be clear, the challenge is not in precluding participation. The obese are not per se excluded from clinical trials, but their presence is not required. That said, some who are obese are excluded because of comorbidities "such as high blood pressure or diabetes," and so there is some suspicion of a resulting absence. Others contend that there is some tendency among the obese to lack faith in the medical profession or in their potential to benefit from treatment. Some perceive that the population may harbor some degree of detachment or even resentment resulting from prior medical experiences ("the drugs the doctor gives me do not help"). 

Thus, there are concerns about treatment efficacy. There are concerns about patient perceptions. And to round it out, the quota proponents are seeking to have a government mandate regarding obese participation in drug trials. So, if such a mandate is a good idea, does that mean it is a good idea to forego trials, progress, and potentially life-saving treatments for all if we cannot meet the quota in a given instance? Quotas are perhaps potentially a dangerous path forward. 

That said, there are sound arguments presented for testing that include broader populations. There is likely room for definitions, "best practices," and progress. This might all be accomplished with encouragement, advocacy, and science. The involvement of the government, quotas, and regulations is likely not necessary or advisable. 

Safe Workplaces in Challenging Times

It is a challenging time for many. The last several years have brought us a pandemic, hurricanes, wildfires, and more. There is a general sense of angst I experience periodically among those with whom I converse. The invasion of Ukraine has been a topic so often, and it is difficult to fathom that we now approach a two-year anniversary of that fateful February 2022 date. There is a consensus that our present is challenging, hurtful, and anxiety-ridden. 

In a different age, Billy Joel recorded We Didn't Start the Fire (Columbia 1989). See, it is easy today to think that the world is in a general state of higgledy-piggledy. People are no doubt anxious, confused, and even angry. There is some tendency to long for the "good old days." Well, folks, let's face it the world has been challenging for as long as I can remember. And based on what the old folks told me when I was young, it was challenging long before that.

Was there really a time when people lived in iron lungs? Was there a miracle vaccine that people lined up to obtain? Was there a fateful war in Vietnam? Were there entertainment figures dying senselessly from drug use? Was there a nuclear threat from the Soviet Union? Were there debates over books? Was communism a threat to freedom? Were there various powers exerting influence outside their own borders? The fact is, the world has not always been at peace. That 1989 recording notes all of the above, and also references "Lebanon."

There are those who hear nothing in Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire except confusion and disconnection. But others hear a litany of challenges and reminders.

We live today in a world of conflict. That is not new. We live in a world of challenges. That is not new. We live in a world of misconception and confusion. That is not new. We live in a day when trust in the media is at record low. A poll recently concluded:

"Only 7% of adults have a ‘great deal’ of trust in news media, a new Gallup poll found. 38% say they have none at all."

Was the media ever trustworthy? Or were us old folks simply too naive to notice indiscretions and inaccuracies? Are today's critics smarter than we were back in the day, or are they just armed with the benefit and miracle of social media and near-instantaneous communication? Were the "good old days" really "all that good?" Billy Joel, Keeping the Faith, Columbia, 1984).

Amazingly, in a world of creativity and "new," a band called Fall Out Boy did a remake of We Didn't Start the Fire (Elektra 2023). It is a reboot, an update, a recitation of "newsworthy items from 1989-2023," according to the band and as reported in the LA Times. Some will view it as flattery. Some will demonize its unoriginality. There will be fans and haters.

Well, you may be able to settle into each successive "new normal." You may or may not be "Instagram Famous." Neither of my followers thinks I am (thanks Mom!). That there are successive "new normals" seemingly daily is not a recent development. We have all had to face a myriad of challenges in our world. They can tear at us, intellectually, emotionally, and viscerally.

I wrote last summer about the impact of social media and our differences. See The Buck Stops (July 2023). I got some angst in response to that one. One critic assured me that after multiple trips through that post the reader was reassured that the message was of accountability. The unwritten criticism was more to point that I did not take a stand of some kind on the emotional topics in the beer dispute discussed. Over the years, I have learned that usually people who think I should take a stand on difficult or controversial issues only think I should so long as I agree with their views.

Let that one sink in. Is that true in your audience, circle, or similar?

By the long route (I know, that just the way I write), I reach today's topic, the Middle East. It may be that whatever words I might use would inflame or disgust someone. See, there is angst about "that" we do or do not say something. Similarly, there is likely to be criticism of "what" we might say. This is dissected down to word choice, timing, and even the perceived enthusiasm of the message.

The Associated Press reports this week that there is fallout regarding the when and what of people's reactions to the Middle East. Companies are vocal or not. Their expressions were prompt or not. Their thoughts and sentiments were clear or not. The examples listed are interesting. I have followed the many news stories in recent days, and this AP story is a reasonably thorough catalog. The piece is well worth the read. But be prepared to find something in it you will not like. And be prepared to disagree with my assessment that it is worth reading, that it is a news story, or anything else you read here, hoped to read here, inferred, etc. etc.

Think about that one for a minute. You are not entitled to find agreement and harmony with your own thoughts in all that you read.

A couple of thoughts from the AP bear amplification. Some are "fearful of the possible consequences" of sharing their feelings about the Middle East. They are perceiving that they "risk" careers and more by speaking out. Newsflash, that is always true. That has always been true. That can often be regarding import and at times even of minutia. I knew a fellow once who lost a job for wearing the wrong football jersey on the Friday before a particular game. You decide if that is important or minutia. (Hint, it likely depends on you).

Consider that it is a choice. To speak or not to speak is choice. To hold a sign, add a bumper sticker, or write a social media post is choice. And to decline is also a choice - Freewill (Rush, 1980).

Recognize that around the world, the country, the community, people are making that choice. And that is impacting the workplace and people's relationships with it. This blog is about workers' compensation and thus the workplace. The AP story supports that the Middle East is impacting the workplace. The thoughts expressed by individuals is impacting hiring, sales, worker retention, and more. The effects on the workplace are in the news.

The effects on the workplace are potentially broader. There was news last week of violence. A boy was stabbed according to CNN. More recently, the president of a synagogue was found stabbed, according to the Detroit News. These were not workplace violence. They were clearly violence. What is clear is that various people have deep feelings about the world, their perceptions, and therefore each other. It is challenging to work through the melange, to sort through the various messaging in the news and social media. All employers should be focused on the challenge of keeping the workplace safe with the potentials that exist for emotions, reactions, and violence.

But, critically, that is nothing new. The workplace is always going to involve differences and dissent. The threat of workplace violence is always going to persist. The success of business will be inexorably tied to public perceptions, of the product or service, of the company leadership, of the company personality, and of the company character (actual or perceived). Action and inaction will always matter. Those are difficult choices. But workplace safety is not a choice. It is an imperative. 

What will not ever change is that people will be different. They will disagree and at times their disagreements will variably be principled, emotional, logical, calm, or even unhinged. In the end, it is impractical to expect that individual conclusions will change or be assuaged. Try to explain to a _______ fan why their perceptions of their team are misguided. Good luck. Thus, there will be anguish, grief, and backlash. How is this workplace tightrope to be walked?

In the end, the real point is that the world around us is in fact in disarray. It has been historically and it is today. We can rest assured that it will be tomorrow. There is no easy path, no universal consensus, and no safe spaces (I hear troubling things constantly). But, the truth is that there never has been and nonetheless we are here today. We have survived thus far. We have disagreed, been disgusted, and been hurt. But the workplace can survive. It is possible to choose those with whom you associate. It is possible to admit that you cannot please everyone, or change their minds. Is it really that hard to get over the adamant expressions of others?

Nonetheless, perhaps it remains possible that even in our chaotic and challenging world there are still both "right" and "wrong." We may have perspectives, and we can each believe in these. We can wish those opinions were universal. They are not. But we owe it to ourselves to keep the workplace safe from violence and injury. This is among the challenges for management and ownership and should receive its share of the consideration and concern. 

In the end, the critics will address this post. "why didn't you . . . ." And so in the end let me just say this about that: I believe . . . ..