What must be done to make going back to work a better option than collecting unemployment benefits?

In 1931 James Truslow Adams coined the phrase, “The American Dream.” His definition stated that The American Dream meant citizens of every rank feel they can achieve a better, richer and happier life. I have heard many times that one goal of each generation has always been to pass on to the next generation a “better” life. The United States of America, like all countries, experiences economic highs and lows. Many countries, the United States included, offer assistance to those struggling to make it.

Ideally each person could work full-time, have benefits, and grow and prosper in one’s career. In the current economic times, it is often more realistic for people to get one or more part-time jobs in order to make ends meet. Oftentimes people need to collect unemployment benefits while seeking employment.

A recent article on Yahoo News has me quite concerned. Those receiving unemployment benefits are being discouraged from taking part-time jobs because of the impact it is having on unemployment benefits. Some quotes from the Yahoo article:
“Most of the people caught in this snag are on Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC), a federal program to help those who have exhausted their state benefits. However, after workers have been jobless for 52 weeks, states are required to check to see if a worker has requalified for state benefits. If someone is eligible for state benefits – no matter how small – federal law requires that he or she stop collecting EUC and go back onto state benefits. The states, many with unemployment pools that are borrowing from the federal government, are dramatically reducing the amount paid out to individuals…The potential reduction in benefits for parttimers and temps comes as temp services are starting to hire more workers because businesses don’t want to add fulltimers until they're sure the economic recovery is permanent. In February, temporary help services added 48,000 jobs, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported. Since September, jobs at temp services have risen by 284,000…In the 1990s, the last time America saw high long-term unemployment among a sizable share of its work force, Congress changed the law to prevent the unemployed from being penalized for taking up parttime work. However, that change expired.”

A business professional has confided with me that, although she has been unemployed for 60 weeks, she has had to turn down opportunities because unemployment benefits outweigh the benefits of working in a less-than full-time career position.
I want to avoid the obvious questions like, “Is it right?” or “Is it fair?” What I would like to hear are suggestions on how to fix it. What must be done to make going back to work a better option than collecting unemployment benefits?

This article may be found at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100329/ts_csm/291284

Are you conscientiously doing anything in your daily routine that would be considered stroke prevention?

For the first time in a number of generations, we are expecting this upcoming generation will not have the average lifespan of its parents. We are inundated with information on what increases our risks for health issues like cancer, heart attack and stroke. We are also inundated with plans, methods and techniques for minimizing that risk. A recent article on LiveScience.com caught my attention. It is “7 Ways to Raise Your Risk of Stroke.” To raise it? I read on. Three of the seven did not surprise me. A high-fat diet, being obese and smoking lead to an increase risk of three. Even the one that stated being unhappy increases one's risk of stroke did not totally surprise me. Three of the seven made me pause and think.

Being single – Being born in the wrong demographic – Being born in the Southern United States.

One study showed that happily married men had a 64% reduction in likelihood of having a stroke. The same study also showed that unhappily married men had the same risk as single men. Blacks have twice the incidence of stroke as do whites. Women 35-64 are three times as likely as men of the same age group to have strokes.

A term with which I was previous unfamiliar was that of the “Stroke Belt.” North and South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama are part of the “Stroke Belt.” Depending upon one’s demographic, being born in the “Stroke Belt” could increase your risk of stroke by 22-30%. A Harvard public health professor indicated that part of the reason may be due to risk factors like poor diet, smoking and obesity which may start earlier in southern states.

Obviously there are some factors which can not be controlled. With in the influx of media information on how to prevent a stroke, I wonder whether or not people are really listening. Are you really listening? Are you conscientiously doing anything in your daily routine that would be considered stroke prevention?

Information for this blog came from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100316/sc_livescience/7waystoraiseyourriskofstroke/print

Should the right to protest at funerals be protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution?

Inviting Conversation for March 10, 2010

In March 2006, a funeral was held for Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, a U.S. Marine who was killed in Iraq . Fundamentalist Preacher Fred Phelps of Kansas ’ Westboro Baptist Church and some of its members attended Snyder’s funeral. It was not, however, to pay their respects to Snyder. The 75-member, mostly interrelated congregation based in Topeka , Kansas , says soldiers are dying because of the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality. According to one web site, “At Snyder's funeral in Westminster , Maryland , Phelps and other protesters held up a variety of offensive signs decrying gays, Catholics, and Americans generally. Members of the church also posted an essay on the church's Web site called ‘The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder.’ The essay contained numerous statements indicating that Snyder was a sinner and was going to hell.” Some of the signs read “Fag troops” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.”

Corporal Snyder’s father filed a civil suit, claiming defamation, intrusion upon seclusion, publicity given to private life, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. The jury agreed and awarded the family a $5 million award. This past September, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision. As written by Judge King, the protestors are protected by the First Amendment right to free speech.

Several states do have laws severely limiting or banning protests at funerals. I am wondering, however, if this ruling is placed before the United States Supreme Court, would these laws either be upheld or possibly dismantled? The question is: Should the right to protest at funerals be protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution?

“Are Americans so unwilling to tackle the obesity problem that the Government has to get involved?”

In an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Jean-Luc Picard argues with his brother Robert about “modern technology.” Robert is quite adamant that life is already too convenient. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a replicator so that dinner could be prepared at the touch of a button? How nice would it be to travel from place to place through a transporter? Ok, back to reality…or maybe not. Hungry? For $2.99 get a whole meal! Convenient foods have not always been healthy foods. There is no question that being overweight causes health problems. There is no question that Americans are struggling with being overweight. “The average 10-year-old in the United States weighs 10 pounds more than the average child in the 1960s, according to the Centers for Disease Control. And that translates into adult obesity: The average adult now weighs roughly 25 pounds more than his or her 1960s counterpart. Over the past two decades, the obesity rate for children has doubled, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. For adolescents, the picture is worse: More than three times as many are now obese.” The reasons are many. The solutions are just as varied. “A new national study suggests that pre school-aged children are likely to have a lower risk for obesity if they regularly engage in one or more of three specific household routines: eating dinner as a family, getting adequate sleep and limiting their weekday television viewing time.”

There is NO question that something needs to be done. Here is the statement that really struck me. Don George, Neutraceutical Consultant for the Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program at the National Center for Education Statistics said, “This is a huge problem and I am thankful the Federal Government is finally getting involved.” After reading this, I ask myself the question, “Are Americans so unwilling to tackle the obesity problem that the Government has to get involved?” What are your thoughts?

One in ten vehicles may be driven “legally.” Are you concerned?

Inviting Conversation for February 23, 2010

Whether or not driving is a right or a privilege has been debated for as long as I can remember. Whichever side one takes with this, one should acknowledge that certain conditions must be met to be “legally” allowed to drive. In most states, the vehicle should be properly insured. Some states require the vehicle to pass an emissions test to be considered legally roadworthy. The vehicle must be registered. The person should be properly licensed, which means having a license with the correct information, as well as a license in good standing. There are situations when a license revocation or suspension has been declared. This should be common knowledge.

I recently discovered that an alarming number of drivers who have had their licenses suspended because of a DUI charge are still driving. I have read several reports where an estimated 20% of fatal crashes involve an unlicensed driver. Although alcohol-related deaths are on the decline, deaths relative to drug use are rising heavily. I heard a recent discussion on the radio which focused the rising use of marijuana by Americans 55 and older, from 1.9% to 2.9%. Ohio reported that in 2008, 626,255 administrative or court-mandated drivers license suspensions were handled by the BMV. This generated $36,692,637 in reinstatement fees for the state.

An attorney informed me that at a recent CLE (learning) seminar, it was revealed that it is estimated that 9 in 10 drivers on Ohio roads are missing one or more elements which means they not legally compliant as they drive. The drivers may have no insurance. Their licenses are suspended, revoked or have incorrect information. The driver may have no license at all. I confirmed this with another attorney who attended the event.

As ten vehicles pass by you, think about that. Only ONE of them may be truly “legal.” Should anything be done? Do we need checkpoints? How do we discern between people who made mistakes versus those who knowingly disregard the law? Should it matter? Is it economically feasible to try and stop all of the people driving illegally? One in ten vehicles may be driven “legally.” Are you concerned?

Information taken for this article from:
http://www.bmv.ohio.gov/facts_figures.stm

http://www.thetennesseeautoaccidentattorney.com/tag/drivers-with-suspended-and-revoked-licenses-often-drive/

In order for Congress to work as it should, do we the voters need to vote out the incumbents and just start anew?

Inviting Conversation for February 16, 2010

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh stunned the political world recently by announcing he would not seek reelection. Reports indicated that the Senator appeared strong in his bid for reelection. His resignation itself is not what caught my interest. It was Senator Bayh’s comments that surprised me. He said that the American political system is dysfunctional. He claims that the current environment is so divisive that Senators are spending six years campaigning and raising money, and that with these demands it was impossible to focus on passing legislation. It was also noted that 44% of Americans, as noted in a recent poll, want the incumbents to be voted out. His bold recommendation: Bayh argued that the American people needed to deliver a "shock" to Congress by voting incumbents out in mass and replacing them with people interested in reforming the process and governing for the good of the people, rather than deep-pocketed special-interest groups.

Is Senator Bayh correct? Is the current Congress that dysfunctional? In order for Congress to work as it should, do we the voters need to vote out the incumbents and just start anew? Is there a better answer?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1134

Is it discrimination for an employer to disqualify a nicotine user from employment?

Inviting Conversation for February 9, 2010

“As if higher tobacco taxes, steeper health insurance premiums and smoke-free workplaces weren’t enough, tobacco users have one more financial incentive to kick the habit — missed job opportunities. Starting Feb. 1, [Chattanooga, Tennessee’s] Memorial Hospital no longer will hire people who use tobacco products, making the hospital one of a small number of employers nationwide that consider smoking status in job applicants. Under the new rule, which does not affect current Memorial employees, those offered employment at the hospital will be tested for nicotine during their required drug test, a human resources officer said. Even nicotine gum or the patch would make a potential employee ineligible”
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/jan/18/smokers-need-not-apply-job/.

Unquestionably, there have been many debates over the years about smoking.

There have been debates about smoking in bars, restaurants and other public places. There have been debates over who is responsible for paying for the medical costs as lifelong smokers become older. A recent CDC study showed that children who are exposed to second-hand smoke are “at increased risk for bronchitis, pneumonia, ear infections, severe asthma, respiratory symptoms, and slowed lung growth”

http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/fact_sheets/smoking.htm.

The actions of Chattanooga’s Memorial Hospital poses an interesting question. As companies face increasing health care costs, and as the debate continues to rage on Capitol Hill about how to address our health care crisis, how much latitude should companies be given with regard to hiring smokers? Is it discrimination for an employer to disqualify a nicotine user, even someone trying to quit, from employment?