#workplace anti-abuse legislation

[pwrn51]

Learn how to move on from a toxic work experience

  Will the laws change workplace abuse? My guest today is Debra Falzoi. Debra has been on the show before and we talk about what is happening in the workplace. Debra is the founder of Dignity Together. She has helped hundreds of targeted employees understand their abusive situations, discover their self-worth, and learn how to move on from their toxic work experience. Today Debra spoke on the…

[reasonsforhope]

"For the first time in almost 60 years, a state has formally overturned a so-called “right to work” law, clearing the way for workers to organize new union locals, collectively bargain, and make their voices heard at election time.

This week, Michigan finalized the process of eliminating a decade-old “right to work” law, which began with the shift in control of the state legislature from anti-union Republicans to pro-union Democrats following the 2022 election. “This moment has been decades in the making,” declared Michigan AFL-CIO President Ron Bieber. “By standing up and taking their power back, at the ballot box and in the workplace, workers have made it clear Michigan is and always will be the beating heart of the modern American labor movement.”

[Note: The article doesn't actually explain it, so anyway, "right to work" laws are powerful and deceptively named pieces of anti-union legislation. What right to work laws do is ban "union shops," or companies where every worker that benefits from a union is required to pay dues to the union. Right-to-work laws really undermine the leverage and especially the funding of unions, by letting non-union members receive most of the benefits of a union without helping sustain them. Sources: x, x, x, x]

In addition to formally scrapping the anti-labor law on Tuesday [February 13, 2024], Michigan also restored prevailing-wage protections for construction workers, expanded collective bargaining rights for public school employees, and restored organizing rights for graduate student research assistants at the state’s public colleges and universities. But even amid all of these wins for labor, it was the overturning of the “right to work” law that caught the attention of unions nationwide...

Now, the tide has begun to turn—beginning in a state with a rich labor history. And that’s got the attention of union activists and working-class people nationwide...

At a time when the labor movement is showing renewed vigor—and notching a string of high-profile victories, including last year’s successful strike by the United Auto Workers union against the Big Three carmakers, the historic UPS contract victory by the Teamsters, the SAG-AFTRA strike win in a struggle over abuses of AI technology in particular and the future of work in general, and the explosion of grassroots union organizing at workplaces across the country—the overturning of Michigan’s “right to work” law and the implementation of a sweeping pro-union agenda provides tangible evidence of how much has changed in recent years for workers and their unions...

By the mid-2010s, 27 states had “right to work” laws on the books.

But then, as a new generation of workers embraced “Fight for 15” organizing to raise wages, and campaigns to sign up workers at Starbucks and Amazon began to take off, the corporate-sponsored crusade to enact “right to work” measures stalled. New Hampshire’s legislature blocked a proposed “right to work” law in 2017 (and again in 2021), despite the fact that the measure was promoted by Republican Governor Chris Sununu. And in 2018, Missouri voters rejected a “right to work” referendum by a 67-33 margin.

Preventing anti-union legislation from being enacted and implemented is one thing, however. Actually overturning an existing law is something else altogether.

But that’s what happened in Michigan after 2022 voting saw the reelection of Governor Gretchen Whitmer, a labor ally, and—thanks to the overturning of gerrymandered legislative district maps that had favored the GOP—the election of Democratic majorities in the state House and state Senate. For the first time in four decades, the Democrats controlled all the major levers of power in Michigan, and they used them to implement a sweeping pro-labor agenda. That was a significant shift for Michigan, to be sure. But it was also an indication of what could be done in other states across the Great Lakes region, and nationwide.

“Michigan Democrats took full control of the state government for the first time in 40 years. They used that power to repeal the state’s ‘right to work’ law,” explained a delighted former US secretary of labor Robert Reich, who added, “This is why we have to show up for our state and local elections.”"

-via The Nation, February 16, 2024

[the-cimmerians]

At 2:27 p.m. on Friday, March 8, the Florida Legislature adjourned sine die. With this adjournment, 21 of 22 anti-LGBTQ+ bills were effectively killed, leaving an anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in education bill as the lone piece of legislation to pass this session. This session featured some of the most severe bills ever proposed against transgender individuals, all of these bills are now officially dead. LGBTQ+ activists in the state now have the rest of 2024 to regroup, with hopes that the November general election will yield results against a legislature that has spent two years targeting transgender individuals in every aspect of life.

The bills that have failed include H599, a bill that would have expanded "Don't Say Gay" policies to the workplace. It proposed banning government employees and any business with government contracts from sharing pronouns. Furthermore, it aimed to prohibit all nonprofits in the state from requiring education and training on LGBTQ+ issues—a significant issue for LGBTQ+ nonprofits, which would have been unable to operate within the state. That bill is now dead.

Another bill that died is H1639, a measure that would have mandated transgender individuals to have driver's license sex markers matching their sex assigned at birth. It also aimed to penalize insurance providers offering gender-affirming care coverage and would have required health insurance plans to cover conversion therapy for transgender individuals. Although this bill did not pass, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles has reinterpreted certain provisions that already exist, effectively banning changes to driver's license gender markers in the state and threatening individuals with accurate markers with charges of criminal fraud. However, challenging an administrative action is simpler than challenging a law enacted by the legislature, and such actions can also be reversed by future administrations.

Further bills that made headlines which died include:

A ban on Pride flags in schools and government buildings.

A “bill of rights” for student organizations to exclude transgender people.

A bill that would end legal recognition of trans people in the state.

A bill that would exempt rejection of transgender youth from child abuse provisions.

A bill that would make calling someone racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic be treated as defamation.

In a press release from the Human Rights Campaign, Geoff Wetrosky stated, “Despite years of relentless attacks and dehumanizing rhetoric, LGBTQ+ people and our allies have never given up the fight for Florida. And we are shifting the momentum. People across the state showed up by the thousands to speak out and push back against anti-LGBTQ+ bills; and they are to thank for pushing back the tide of hateful and discriminatory policy. The fight to free Florida from the grip of Governor DeSantis’ devastating and extreme agenda of government censorship and intrusion into people’s lives is far from over. And the devastation he and his allies have caused will last long after these politicians are gone. But the tide is turning. Perhaps the anti-LGBTQ+ fever in Tallahassee is beginning to break. The people will prevail.”

Not every bill was defeated in the state, which still has some of the harshest anti-transgender laws in the nation. The one bill that did pass, House Bill 1291, prohibits educating teachers on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) topics and bars "teaching identity politics." Additionally, transgender drivers still face the potential revocation of driver's licenses by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV), and many transgender adults have lost access to gender-affirming care. The state also enforces a criminal bathroom ban that could jail transgender individuals for up to a year.

However, this is the first time in three years where the bills targeting LGBTQ+ people, and trans people in particular, seem to be losing steam, according to local organizers.

“The momentum is undeniably shifting against extremism,” Nadine Smith of Equality Florida said in a press release, “Extremist groups are collapsing amidst multiple scandals. Parents are mobilizing on behalf of their kids and to stop the dismantling of public education. We will build on this momentum and redouble our commitment to the fight. Together, we can put power back in the hands of the people.”

[smashorpassgilf]

Jeremy Irons does have a past with holding views that generally would disallow him from being allowed on this blog, such as claiming allowing gay marriage would lead to incestuous marriage, that women shouldn't speak up about harassment/ assult, and anti abortion views.

In 2020, he has walked back his previous statements in an interview.

"Let me make my views this morning entirely clear on these particular subjects once and for all,” Irons told journalists (via Variety). “Firstly, I support wholeheartedly the global movement to address the inequality of women’s rights, and to protect them from abusive, damaging, and disrespectful harassment, both at home and in the workplace. Secondly, I applaud the legislation of same-sex marriage, wherever it has been attained, and I hope that such enlightened legislation will continue to spread into more and more societies. And thirdly, I support wholeheartedly the right of women to have an abortion, should they so decide.” [x] [Irons explicitly said that same-sex marriage, abortion and women's rights are] "essential steps toward a civilized and humane society, for which we should all continue to strive. There are many parts of the world where these rights do not yet exist, where such ways of living lead to imprisonment, and even to death." [x]

I am not telling anyone to forgive him for previous statements, nor is it required to agree with him.

This post is simply to address that I am aware of his past comments, and I am not taking him off the blog due to that reason. If Jeremy has made other comments since 2020, that will be heard.

[schraubd]

FIRE's Proposed Anti-DEI Legislation is an Academic Freedom Trainwreck

FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression -- formerly Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) is a controversial organization that works in a controversial area. By and large, though, I'm a FIRE defender -- I tend to think they get more right than wrong, and strive to be genuinely evenhanded in dealing with threats to academic freedom on campus.

But this makes it all the more striking to read their proposed model legislation targeting "DEI statements" at public universities. It is nothing short of an academic freedom trainwreck -- the sort of vague censorial tool that in most contexts FIRE would be blasting the alarm over. That it does not just endorse but drafted this disaster show is deeply worrisome and disconcerting.

I've written before trying to tease out the connection between DEI statements and (threats to) academic freedom before, which is far more complicated than groups like FIRE are letting on. The core problem is that while I absolutely agree that DEI statements can be used in abusive ways to create an ideological monoculture, it is actually very difficult to distinguish such statements from other arenas in which academic actors are asked to make normative assessments of their peers (for example, regarding teaching or scholarship) -- arenas which also are prone to ideological abuse. Almost inevitably, an "anti-DEI" rule that tries to have any teeth will put at risk basic practices of academic evaluation, and will do so regardless of any disclaimers to the contrary. This risk is only accentuated by the impossibly vague language that purports to distinguish licit versus illicit appraisals. And university bureaucrats who want to avoid potentially crippling financial liability (we'll get to that in a moment) are going to be very defensive regarding what is and is not permitted, inviting exactly the sort of administrative interference in academic affairs that FIRE purports to oppose.

The core practice FIRE targets in its legislation are requirements that academic community members or job candidates "pledg[e] allegiance to or mak[e] a statement of personal support for or opposition to any political ideology or movement, including a pledge or statement regarding diversity, equity, inclusion, patriotism, or related topics." In addition, the law would forbid any institution from "request[ing] or requir[ing] any such pledge or statement from an applicant or faculty member."

Right from the outset, this is impossibly vague. Academia is, of course, beset with normative controversies. Some are very specific questions of disciplinary dispute ("Is originalism the best way to interpret the Constitution?"). But many are broad questions of academic mission. "Should university education be primarily vocational or academic in focus?" "What is the best way that professors can create a supportive learning environment for their students?" "What do you hope students will get out of your classes?"

These questions are contested, and often politically contested. For example, on university education as academic versus vocational, many conservatives contend that universities focus too heavily on hoity-toity theory and should instead concentrate on disciplines which prepare students for specific workplace jobs; liberals, by contrast, are more comfortable with the classic model of a liberal arts education where the project of learning and development is valuable even if it doesn't directly translate into a specific career arc. Are all of these questions qualifying "political ideologies or movements" that fall under the ambit of the law? If not, what conceptually distinguishes those questions from the seemingly-similar question "How do we render our institution equitable and inclusive to the diverse populations that we serve?" If the questions are identical in form, then the only basis for specifically banning DEI related questions is ideological hostility -- an imposition of state orthodoxy under the guise of pluralism.

One possible response is that the question is fine so long as it actually is a question, and does not dictate a particular answer. So if you ask "What is the best way that professors can create a supportive learning environment for their students," there are multiple ways to answer that question; the question does not require a "statement of personal support for or opposition to" any particular ideology, since the respondent is free to take any stance they like on the subject. By contrast, it would be problematic to ask job candidates to explain why the Socratic Method simply is the best way to create a supportive learning environment, since now they are being compelled to express support for a particular (pedagogical) ideological view, and we should be open to a diversity of positions on that subject.

Problem #1 with this response is that it's not clear that the model legislation permits even this, insofar as asking them to take any position on "supportive learning environments" arguably requires them to issue a "statement of personal support for" the practices they endorse, and opposition to the ones they reject. The law is vague as to whether it prohibits requiring candidates to endorse one favored view on an "ideology", or if it prohibits requiring candidates to simply present a view on the subject.  At least for DEI, the text points towards the latter -- the language prohibits requirements of statements "regarding" DEI or "related topics." So even an open-ended question which expressly invites multiple potential answers is forbidden if the subject matter of the question "relates" to DEI.

Problem #2 is that, assuming the model legislation does permit questions like "What is the best way that professors can create a supportive learning environment for their students" because they're open-ended and don't demand avowal of a particular ideological view, then it's unclear what distinguishes that sort of question from standard DEI statement questions. Contrary to popular belief, most DEI prompts do not take the form "explain why Derrick Bell is the greatest political theorist since Rousseau" (and if that sort of request is all that's being covered here, the law scarcely does anything at all). They are far more likely to be framed as something like "How do you propose making your institution equitable and inclusive to the diverse populations that we serve?" That question, too, can be answered in a multitude of ways, and so is not different in kind from all the other normative appraisal questions that are endemic to academic life (and which also can elicit strong views and significant political controversies).

In order to carve out a distinction for why DEI is different, one might make one of two arguments. The first is that although the DEI question is nominally open-ended, everyone knows that there is but one "right answer", and that answer is kowtowing to the politically-correct standards of the moment. To begin, I'm dubious that this is true at least in the strong form (there might be some answers generally thought of as wrong, but there is not only one answer accepted as right). I'm also skeptical that a complaint that is fundamentally about abusive-applications can justify prohibiting such questions as a class. I'll concede that it's probably true that a job candidate whose views on a given issue of concern are sharply at odds with their employers will be at a disadvantage in the process; I'll even concede that a flat unwillingness to even consider a contrary view is deeply malformed practice.  But that a candidate who answers a DEI question in a fashion at odds with prevailing sentiments may be at a comparative disadvantage to others cannot alone suffice to establish that the statements are being "abused" or that the statement's usage is tantamount to a desire to create a monoculture. The core risk -- dissidents are disadvantaged -- is always present for any normatively-laden assessment, it is not distinct to DEI. It exists for the academic job candidate whose views on pedagogy or research sharply diverge from the departmental line, it exists for that matter for the corporate job candidate whose views on business expansion break from the general consensus held by the executive leadership. Across the board, for any normatively-laden question, dissident candidates are probably at a disadvantage. If that fact is enough to justify banning an interview question, then we have a lot of questions to ban.

The second potential argument for why DEI questions are materially different is that the DEI question, while admitting multiple answers, still encodes certain values inside the question's very structure as presuppositions which an answer must tacitly endorse -- i.e., that values like "equity" and "inclusiveness" are in fact values the university should pursue. Someone who rejects the very premise will struggle to answer the question. But this "distinction" actually isn't one; similar presuppositions are likely embedded into most normative questions. "What is the best way that professors can create a supportive learning environment for their students," embeds a presupposition that professors should try to create a supportive learning environment; a candidate who rejects that premise (thinking, perhaps, that students learn best in a trial-by-fire academic Sparta) would likely be at disadvantage. Again, the objection here would cover far, far too much.

And at this point we do start to see FIRE unsuccessfully try to cabin its law's reach, with a provision contending that "Nothing in this Act prohibits an institution from considering, in good faith, a candidate's scholarship, teaching, or subject-matter expertise in their given academic field." Great verbiage; no idea how it works in practice. Suppose I, in good faith, believe that demonstrating capacity to work with and respond to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion, is part of assessing a candidate's teaching (or, for that matter, scholarship or subject-matter expertise). Can I ask about that? I have no idea, but I suspect the answer is "no", notwithstanding this supposed carve-out. FIRE is I suspect embedding a normative presupposition of its own: that issues "related" to DEI never are in good faith connected to valid considerations of academic merit. But this position is very much a contested one -- I'd contest it -- and certainly should not be encoded into state law as legally-compulsory orthodoxy. Again, 90 times out of 100 FIRE would be screaming bloody murder about this sort of thing -- they are a victim of their own blindspots that they don't see how they're promoting exactly the sort of legislation they normally abhor.

And speaking of legislation -- we shouldn't conclude without talking about penalties for a moment. They have several different penalty formulations, but they all coalesce around proposing six-figure monetary fines "for each violation of the act." That's gigantic on its own, and certainly will counsel extreme defensiveness by university bureaucrats and lawyers regarding what faculty are and are not permitted to say in job interviews or other like forums on matters of DEI. The potential for censorial chilling is massive. But worse, the law does not tell us what counts as a single violation. A college posts hiring announcements across a dozen different departments, requesting application materials which are later determined to include Forbidden Questions. Is that one violation, or twelve? Probably twelve, meaning that a $300,000 fine just got converted into a $3.6 million fine. Or worse -- each of those job postings (based on what I know of the academic market) will likely get 250 applications. And since the structure of the act suggests that each individual applicant is separately injured by unlawful consideration of the Forbidden Questions -- well, 250 x 12 x $300,000 = Nine Hundred Million Dollars in potential liability. Given that exposure, you better believe that the university bureaucracy is going to be policing faculty hiring and promotion practices with a very fine-toothed comb to root out anything that could even possibly represent eliciting a statement "relating" to DEI as interpreted by whatever lickspittle Ron DeSantis has put in charge of oversight. And I guarantee you that the ensuing bureaucratic regime will be far more onerous, oppressive, and censorial than anything currently happening at the behest of DEI offices.

FIRE knows better than this. It knows that the strong arm of state regulation and compulsion is almost inevitably toxic to the free and open exchange of ideas on campus, and it knows that academic freedom means that it must be the academics themselves -- not bureaucratic meddlers, not state legislatures, not politically-appointed boards -- who get to decide how to appraise their peers and the requirements of their discipline. Some academics do not think that matters of DEI are germane to that assessment. Many others think they are quite germane, not because we demand all candidates adhere to the One True Path, but because I absolutely want to know that any potential member of my academic institution has at least thought critically and comprehensively on the subject of how to best create an equitable and inclusive environment for a diverse educational community. That interest of mine is no different than my wanting to know that they have thought on how to create supportive learning environments, or wanting to know that they have thought on how the important normative questions that are part of many research agendas. In terms of what conclusions they draw from that critical consideration, I'm willing to hear a wide range -- I don't have a single answer in mind that is the only acceptable conclusion. But it doesn't matter, because under FIRE's view if I try to elicit information on the wrong subjects I risk bankrupting the university. That can only have a censorial and chilling effect.

It is not possible to declare the topic of DEI a Legally Forbidden Question without doing catastrophic damage to academic freedom, and the manner in which this law proposes to enforce its prohibitions will inevitably generate a nightmarish cavalcade of bureaucratic censorship. To be blunt: Academic departments are absolutely entitled, as part of their discretion to determine how to assess disciplinary, pedagogical, or service-based standards, to decide how and to what extent questions relating to DEI are germane to their evaluative appraisals. I do not doubt there are departments that will exercise their discretion in a fashion that I would not approve of; I do not doubt that are departments that will exercise it ways I find impossibly narrow-minded and abusive. It does not matter: any state legislation which limits that fundamental prerogative of academic independence and faculty self-governance is a limit on academic freedom -- full stop. Problems of abuse, to the extent they exist, are not validly delegated to state legislatures, and FIRE absolutely knows better than to argue otherwise.

This legislation is a stain on FIRE's reputation. They should withdraw it, and they should reflect on just what it is about this issue that caused them to so flagrantly abandon their normal principles regarding academic freedom. That an organization that has done so much to fight for academic freedom is poised to usher in this sort of censorial dystopia is fiendish irony. One hopes they backtrack before it becomes reality.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/n0aDTWA

[deveshmaharaj]

Devesh Maharaj Trinidad - Legal Remedies for Workplace Harassment

Workplace harassment is a pervasive issue that undermines employee well-being and the overall productivity of organizations. Addressing it effectively requires a robust understanding of legal frameworks, supportive mechanisms, and actionable steps. Advocate Devesh Maharaj, a distinguished legal expert in Trinidad, shares valuable insights on navigating workplace harassment and exploring legal remedies available to employees.

Understanding Workplace Harassment

Workplace harassment encompasses a wide range of unwelcome behaviors, including verbal, physical, or visual conduct that creates an intimidating or hostile work environment. Common forms include:

Sexual Harassment: Unwanted advances, inappropriate remarks, or physical contact.

Discriminatory Harassment: Bullying or unequal treatment based on race, gender, religion, disability, or other protected characteristics.

Power Dynamics: Abuses of authority, where superiors exploit their position to demean subordinates.

Cyber Harassment: Online bullying, including emails or messages targeting individuals.

Recognizing these behaviors is the first step toward addressing the issue.

Employee Rights in Trinidad

In Trinidad, several laws protect employees from workplace harassment. Advocate Devesh Maharaj emphasizes the importance of understanding these rights:

Equal Opportunity Act: This legislation prohibits discrimination and harassment based on attributes like race, ethnicity, gender, or disability.

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA): Employers are mandated to provide a safe and healthy working environment, which includes addressing harassment.

Employment Contracts: Many organizations include anti-harassment clauses in employment agreements, reinforcing zero-tolerance policies.

Steps to Take if You Experience Harassment

Advocate Maharaj advises employees to act decisively while navigating workplace harassment. Here are the recommended steps:

1. Document the Incidents

Maintain a detailed record of incidents, including dates, times, locations, individuals involved, and specific behaviors. This documentation serves as crucial evidence if legal action becomes necessary.

2. Review Workplace Policies

Examine your employer’s anti-harassment policies, complaint procedures, and the reporting structure. Most organizations outline these in employee handbooks or internal communications.

3. Report the Harassment

File a formal complaint with the designated personnel, such as HR or an ethics officer. Advocate Maharaj advises reporting harassment promptly to ensure timely intervention.

4. Seek Support

Discuss the situation with trusted colleagues, mentors, or counselors. Support networks can provide emotional strength and practical advice.

5. Consult a Legal Expert

If internal mechanisms fail, consult a seasoned attorney like Advocate Devesh Maharaj. A legal professional can guide you on the appropriate course of action, including filing a formal complaint with relevant authorities or initiating a lawsuit.

Legal Remedies Available

In Trinidad, employees subjected to harassment can pursue the following legal remedies:

1. Filing a Complaint with the Equal Opportunity Commission

The Equal Opportunity Commission investigates claims of discrimination and harassment. Employees can lodge complaints for impartial mediation or resolution.

2. Civil Lawsuits

Victims can initiate civil lawsuits against perpetrators or negligent employers for damages, including emotional distress, financial losses, and punitive compensation.

3. Reporting to OSHA

Advocate Maharaj stresses the importance of reporting unsafe work environments to OSHA. The agency has the authority to investigate and mandate corrective measures.

4. Criminal Action

In severe cases involving assault, stalking, or threats, employees can file criminal complaints. Law enforcement authorities ensure perpetrators are held accountable under criminal law.

Employer Responsibilities

Advocate Maharaj highlights that employers play a pivotal role in fostering a safe workplace. Key responsibilities include:

Implementing Robust Policies: Clear guidelines on acceptable behavior, reporting mechanisms, and consequences for violations.

Training Programs: Regular training sessions to sensitize employees and management about harassment.

Prompt Action: Investigating complaints thoroughly and taking swift corrective measures.

Support Systems: Offering counseling and assistance to affected employees.

Advocate Devesh Maharaj s Commitment

Advocate Devesh Maharaj has dedicated his legal career to championing employee rights in Trinidad. His expertise in employment law and unwavering commitment to justice make him a trusted ally for victims of workplace harassment. Maharaj emphasizes the importance of empowering employees through knowledge and access to legal recourse.

“Every employee deserves a workplace free from fear and intimidation. By understanding your rights and taking decisive action, you can reclaim your dignity and foster a culture of respect,” asserts Advocate Maharaj.

Conclusion

Handling workplace harassment requires courage, awareness, and support. Advocate Devesh Maharaj’s guidance underscores the necessity of leveraging legal remedies to address grievances effectively. Whether through internal mechanisms or judicial interventions, employees have the tools to combat harassment and advocate for a respectful and inclusive work environment.

If you or someone you know is facing workplace harassment, seek advice from experts like Advocate Devesh Maharaj in Trinidad. Empower yourself with knowledge and take the necessary steps to ensure justice and workplace harmony.

Source:-https://medium.com/@DeveshMaharajUNC/devesh-maharaj-trinidad-legal-remedies-for-workplace-harassment-61fe3ef3938b

[johnalexcooper]

The Importance of Harassment Legal Support: Protecting Your Rights and Well-Being

Harassment is a distressing experience that can have a profound impact on an individual’s emotional, mental, and physical well-being. Whether it occurs in the workplace, online, or in social settings, harassment is a serious issue that requires prompt attention and resolution. In Edinburgh, legal support plays a crucial role in addressing harassment, ensuring justice, and protecting victims’ rights.

Understanding Harassment

Harassment encompasses a wide range of behaviours that are unwelcome, offensive, or threatening. It can take various forms, including:

Workplace Harassment: Unwelcome conduct from colleagues or superiors, such as verbal abuse, discrimination, or sexual advances.

Online Harassment: Cyberbullying, stalking, or other harmful activities conducted through digital platforms.

Public Harassment: Persistent and unwanted attention or actions in public spaces.

Edinburgh, like many other cities, has robust laws designed to address harassment and ensure a safe environment for everyone. However, understanding your rights and navigating the legal system can be challenging without proper guidance.

Why Legal Support is Essential

Victims of harassment often feel isolated, overwhelmed, and unsure of how to respond. This is where legal support becomes invaluable. Engaging professional assistance ensures:

Protection of Rights: Legal experts are well-versed in laws surrounding harassment in Edinburgh and can help victims understand their rights.

Guidance Through Legal Procedures: The process of filing complaints, gathering evidence, and pursuing justice can be complex. A legal advisor provides step-by-step guidance.

Emotional Support: Beyond the legal aspects, having someone to advocate on your behalf can provide significant emotional relief.

Preventing Retaliation: Legal intervention can deter harassers from retaliating or continuing their behaviour.

Actions to Consider If You’re Experiencing Harassment

If you are facing harassment in Edinburgh, it is important to take proactive steps to protect yourself:

Document the Incidents: Keep a record of all instances of harassment, including dates, times, locations, and any witnesses. Save emails, messages, or other evidence that support your claim.

Report the Behavior: Inform the relevant authorities or management in your workplace, school, or community. Many organizations have dedicated procedures for handling such complaints.

Seek Legal Advice: Consult with a legal expert specializing in harassment cases. They can help you understand the best course of action based on your situation.

Consider Mediation or Legal Action: Depending on the circumstances, your legal advisor might suggest mediation, filing a formal complaint, or pursuing a lawsuit.

Legal Framework in Edinburgh

Edinburgh operates under Scotland’s robust legal system, which includes strict regulations against harassment. Key legislation includes:

The Equality Act 2010: Protects individuals from harassment based on characteristics such as gender, race, age, or religion.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997: Addresses repeated and distressing behavior that causes alarm or distress.

These laws empower victims to take action and ensure that perpetrators are held accountable. However, successfully utilizing these laws often requires the assistance of a legal professional.

Preventing Harassment in the Workplace

Workplace harassment is one of the most common forms of harassment, and organizations in Edinburgh are increasingly adopting measures to prevent it. These include:

Creating Clear Policies: Employers must establish anti-harassment policies and communicate them effectively to all employees.

Providing Training: Regular training sessions can educate employees about recognizing and addressing harassment.

Encouraging Reporting: Establishing a safe and confidential reporting system is essential to addressing incidents promptly.

Victims of workplace harassment should feel confident that their concerns will be taken seriously and addressed without fear of reprisal.

Online Harassment: A Growing Concern

The growth of digital communication has regrettably resulted in a surge of online harassment. Cyberbullying, doxxing, and online stalking are just a few examples. In Edinburgh, victims of online harassment can:

Report incidents to social media platforms and request the removal of harmful content.

Seek legal protection under Scotland’s cyber laws.

File complaints with law enforcement agencies, particularly if the harassment involves threats of violence.

Support Systems for Victims in Edinburgh

Edinburgh offers various resources for individuals facing harassment:

Local Helplines: Confidential support lines provide immediate assistance and counselling.

Community Groups: Organizations dedicated to protecting vulnerable populations offer advice and advocacy.

Legal Aid Services: Free or low-cost legal advice is available for those who cannot afford private representation.

The Role of Awareness and Education

Raising awareness about harassment and its consequences is vital to fostering a safe community. Educational initiatives can help individuals recognize harassment, understand their rights, and learn how to seek help.

In Edinburgh, schools, workplaces, and community groups are increasingly focusing on awareness campaigns. These efforts aim to create an inclusive environment where everyone feels valued and respected.

Conclusion

Harassment is a pervasive issue that demands immediate and effective action. In Edinburgh, legal support serves as a cornerstone for addressing harassment, ensuring victims’ rights are upheld, and fostering a culture of respect and accountability.

If you or someone you know is experiencing harassment, remember that help is available. By seeking legal guidance, documenting incidents, and leveraging the robust legal framework in Edinburgh, you can take meaningful steps toward justice and recovery. Protecting your well-being and rights is not just an option—it’s a necessity.

[qnewsau]

NSW Sex Workers welcome Equality Bill

New Post has been published on https://qnews.com.au/nsw-sex-workers-welcome-equality-bill/

NSW Sex Workers welcome Equality Bill

The Sex Workers Outreach Program NSW says sex workers have made important gains with the passage of the NSW Equality Bill but there is still more to do.

WORDS Joanna Megan

When the Equality Bill finally passed, SWOP NSW celebrated some significant wins for sex workers, and for many of the LGBTQIA+ members of our community.

We are grateful for the efforts of Alex Greenwich to achieve this vital change, and for the beginning of long overdue reform of sex industry regulation.

This is the first time this legislation has been touched since the partial decriminalisation of sex work in 1995.

The new legislation makes it a crime to threaten to out someone who is, or was, a sex worker.

This still needs to be backed by comprehensive anti-discrimination protections. Sex workers experience difficulty accessing housing, education, employment in other industries, access to financial services, and essential healthcare.

The new legislation also repeals the Summary Offences Act 1988 clause 15, “living on earnings of prostitution (of another person),” allowing sex workers to lawfully support their parents, partners and adult children.

With “pimping” virtually non-existent in a decriminalised context, assertions by politicians that this clause was an essential “anti-pimping protection” are out-of-touch.

When sex worker workplaces operate openly, they are routinely visited by regulators and other agencies, including council staff, SWOP NSW, and sexual health clinicians.

Sex workers can seek assistance from police and legal services, and can report problems to the same health and safety authorities as other businesses.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by SWOP NSW (@swopnsw)

Furthermore, sex work is, by definition, consensual. Any sex that occurs “because of force, fear… coercion, blackmail, intimidation… detain[ment] … abuse of … authority, trust or dependence” is already recognised as sexual assault.

The Summary Offences Act conflates sex work with sexual assault and carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment. Sexual assault carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.

Similarly, clause 15A, “Causing or Inducing Prostitution” carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment. Causing Sexual Servitude, is punishable with up to 15 years.

Other remaining Summary Offences Act clauses are already far more appropriately covered by existing, generally applied legislation.

The street-based sex work clauses keep police as regulators. The 1995 Wood Royal Commission found that police involvement results in corruption, amongst other problems.

Since then, the WHO, Amnesty International, the UN, and sex worker organisations globally have strongly recommended against police regulation.

Street-based sex workers suffer inhumane treatment at the hands of authorities and perpetrators who know that their victims are unlikely to report to police.

In the lead up to the debate, the religious right made bizarre claims suggesting that decriminalising street-based sex work will result in hordes of sex workers soliciting on the steps of St Mary’s Cathedral.

In New Zealand, where street-based sex work was decriminalised in 2005, numbers of street-based sex workers then steadily declined, whilst relationships between this population and police steadily improved.

We are optimistic that the reforms passed last week bode well for a more progressive, inclusive and humane future.

Sex workers must be recognised as the experts on this matter, and SWOP NSW has and will be available to answer any questions policy makers might have.

It is time to stop moralising and catastrophising, and start making decisions based on evidence, and in the interest of human rights.

The changes to sex industry legislation included in the original iteration of the Equality Bill remain essential to ensure that sex workers have the access they deserve to health, safety and justice, with benefits for NSW society as a whole.

-Joanna Megan is the CEO of SWOP NSW

For the latest LGBTIQA+ Sister Girl and Brother Boy news, entertainment, community stories in Australia, visit qnews.com.au. Check out our latest magazines or find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

[ai-for-recruitment]

The Role of HR in Combating Workplace Harassment

In today's professional environments, workplace harassment persists as a major problem even with extensive knowledge and strict policies. In addition to harming the victims, it also compromises an organisation's general well-being, morale, and output. In order to handle and prevent harassment and make workplaces safe and courteous for all workers, human resources (HR) departments are essential. We will look at how HR can effectively prevent harassment at work and promote a respectful and decency-based culture in this post.

Understanding Workplace Harassment

Sexual harassment, physical intimidation, verbal abuse, and discrimination are just a few examples of the many undesirable actions that fall under the umbrella of workplace harassment. These actions make the workplace unfriendly, which causes the victims' emotional and psychological suffering. Harassment can happen between coworkers, between employees and external stakeholders, or even between different levels of the corporate hierarchy.

The ramifications of harassment in the workplace are extensive. Individuals may have physical health problems, anxiety, sadness, and a decline in job satisfaction as a result. Harassment can cause a company's reputation to suffer, legal risks, and significant employee turnover. Thus, dealing with workplace harassment is not only a matter of ethics but also a matter of business.

HR's Role in Policy Development

Establishing and enforcing comprehensive anti-harassment rules is one of HR's most important tasks in the fight against workplace harassment. These guidelines need to specify what harassment is, how incidents should be reported, and what happens to people who are found to have engaged in such behaviour. Effective communication of these policies to all staff members is crucial to ensuring that they are all aware of the expectations for behaviour inside the company.

Additionally, HR has to make sure that the policy is routinely reviewed and modified to take into account modifications to the legislation, society standards, and corporate culture. Employee participation in policy reviews can also be advantageous since it promotes a sense of pride in and dedication to upholding a civil workplace.

Training and Awareness Programs

HR is in charge of teaching staff members about harassment and the value of upholding a respectful work environment in addition to creating policies. To make sure that all staff members, including management, are informed on what harassment is and how to react in the event that they witness or encounter it, regular training sessions must be held.

These training sessions ought to be continuous processes that change as the company does, rather than a one-time occurrence. Scenario-based learning, which assists staff in comprehending the subtleties of harassment in various settings, need to be incorporated. Additionally, HR ought to stress the importance of bystanders and motivate staff members to speak out when they see improper activity.

HR should encourage an open culture where workers feel comfortable raising problems without fear of reprisal in addition to providing training. Regular communication, anonymous surveys, and feedback channels that let staff members share their opinions on workplace safety and culture can all help achieve this.

Handling Complaints with Sensitivity and Fairness

HR is required to respond to reports of harassment with the highest discretion, fairness, and sensitivity. The complaint investigation procedure needs to be prompt, unbiased, and open. HR specialists must receive training on how to carry out exhaustive inquiries that obtain all pertinent information while protecting the privacy of all parties.

In addition, HR has to make sure that there are no conflicts of interest or prejudices in the inquiry process. To guarantee objectivity, outside investigators may be consulted if needed. The complainant's safety and well-being should be given priority throughout the process, and they should be regularly updated on developments.

The organisation's policies should specify the sanctions for harassment in detail and apply them consistently. This covers not just the punishment of the offender but also the victim's assistance, including counselling and other necessary accommodations. In addition, since retribution against employees who report harassment is a prevalent worry that deters many from coming forward, HR should take action to prevent it.

Building a Respectful Workplace Culture

Creating an inclusive and respectful work environment is essential to preventing workplace harassment, as is reacting to instances as they arise. HR is essential in creating this culture because it upholds principles like accountability, equality, and empathy.

Integrating these ideals into the company's performance management system is one smart move. While individuals who engage in or tolerate harassment should face consequences, those who show respect and inclusivity should be acknowledged and rewarded. This strategy highlights how important it is to behave respectfully as a fundamental organisational principle.

HR may contribute to a positive work environment by assisting with activities related to inclusion and diversity. A diverse workforce is less likely to tolerate harassment because it values and respects the opinions of its members. HR should endeavour to remove any institutional impediments to diversity and guarantee that every worker has an equal chance at success..

The Importance of Leadership Commitment

Ultimately, a strong commitment from the leadership is necessary for HR's efforts to address workplace harassment to be successful. It is imperative for leaders in an organisation to set a positive example by not tolerating any form of harassment and actively fostering a respectful environment. HR should collaborate closely with leaders to make sure they have the tools necessary to support these initiatives, including giving them the resources and training they require to promote a polite and safe work environment.

Leaders should communicate the organisation's principles and expectations in a clear and consistent manner, as well as by openly supporting anti-harassment programs. Employees are more inclined to treat harassment seriously themselves if they observe their bosses doing so.

HR has a broad role in preventing workplace harassment, including developing policies, providing training, responding to complaints, and fostering a positive workplace culture. HR may contribute to the development of a work environment where all employees feel appreciated, respected, and safe by adopting a proactive and thorough strategy. By doing this, HR helps to create a more upbeat, effective, and inclusive work atmosphere while also shielding the company from the dangers of harassment.

[parasparivaar]

Paras Parivaar Charitable Trust: Promote women’s rights

Paras Parivaar Charitable Trust: Promote women’s rights in India

India has made significant progress in empowering women and promoting their rights, but much more work remains to be done before gender equality is achieved. Women in India face numerous challenges, including discrimination, abuse, a lack of access to education and healthcare, and limited economic opportunities. A multifaceted approach is required to effectively address these challenges and improve women’s rights.

Paras Parivaar Charitable Trust Aim

From the bottom of our hearts, we extend a warm welcome to you into the Paras Parivaar Charitable Trust family. In our Sanatan Dharm, this Parivaar was founded and is now being maintained by our Mahant Shri Paras Bhai Ji of Sanatan Dharm to contribute to the welfare of the underprivileged and needy people. Because he consistently states, “happiness of maa is behind their smile.” This idea of Mahant Shri Paras Bhai Ji has become the focus of our family’s daily activities.

The Paras Parivaar Charitable Trust works 365 days a year to lug our Paras Guru’s vision forward. We have helped more than 10 lakh Needy, and thanks to Maa and our Mahant Shri Paras Bhai Ji of Sanatan Dharm, this number is steadily rising. And it is the grandeur of Sanatan Dharm that we strive to assist those who cannot afford to pay for their education or who are food insecure.

Because we usually hear the quote “Unity is Strength” in everyday life, the Paras Parivaar Charitable Trust would like for you to join our family. We are certain that if we all work together as a single family, we will be stronger and more committed to helping more people in need. Serving an increasing number of individuals in need will enable us to carve out a large place in the heart of our Maa. So, join the Paras Parivaar now for the chance of a lifetime to make the poor and needy smile widely.

Working hard to boost the lives of the poor and needy would also help us reduce the rate of poverty and increase the rate of education in our nation. In addition to providing aid to those in need, our Mahant Shri Paras Bhai Ji wants to educate them so that they may become self-sufficient and contribute to the cause. join our Paras Parivaar Charitable Trust and aid those in need and destitute with what they need for food, shelter, and education.

Strengthening legal frameworks

India has a robust legislative framework in place to protect women’s rights, including the Constitution, which guarantees equal treatment under the law and prohibits gender discrimination. However, effective implementation of these laws is still a concern. To enhance the legal framework, the government should:

1. Strictly enforce existing rules and create new legislation to meet rising issues.

2. Provide legal assistance and support to women who have faced violence or discrimination.

3. Educate women on their legal rights and how to seek justice.

Increasing access to education and healthcare.

Education and healthcare are vital rights that contribute to women’s empowerment. To improve access to these services, the government should:

1. Increase investment in education, particularly in rural regions, to guarantee that females have access to a quality education.

2. Offer scholarships and incentives to encourage girls to pursue higher education.

3. Improve access to healthcare services, particularly maternity and reproductive health, and ensure that women receive high-quality treatment.

Encouraging Self-Sufficiency

Economic empowerment is essential for women’s independence and self-reliance. To promote economic empowerment, the government should:

1. Provide skill development and vocational training programs to assist women in acquiring employable skills.

2. Encourage women’s entrepreneurship by providing loans, mentoring, and business development assistance.

3. Ensure equal compensation for equal effort and enforce workplace anti-gender discrimination policies.

Taking Action Against Violence Against Women

Domestic violence, sexual assault, and other forms of abuse are common in India, and many women are victims of them. To address the issue, the government should:

1. Strengthen laws and practices aimed at preventing and punishing violence against women.

2. Offer survivors of violence support services such as counseling, shelters, and legal aid.

3. Raise awareness about gender-based violence and promote a culture of respect and equality.

Interacting with Boys and Men

Men and boys must also participate in advocating for women’s rights. In order to include men and boys, the state should:

1. Encourage positive masculinity while combating harmful gender stereotypes.

2. Engage men and boys in gender equality initiatives and encourage them to become allies in the fight for women’s rights.

3. Educate men and boys about the need to defend women’s rights and promote gender equality.

To summarize, advancing women’s rights in India requires a multifaceted approach that addresses the numerous issues that women face. India can make significant progress toward gender equality by strengthening legal frameworks, increasing access to education and healthcare, promoting economic empowerment, eliminating violence against women, and involving both men and boys.

[bukmarkmedia]

Protection from Harassment Law in the UK: Safeguarding Individuals' Rights

In today's interconnected world, harassment has become an increasingly pervasive issue, affecting individuals in both their personal and professional lives. The UK has recognized the importance of protecting individuals from harassment through robust legislation. This blog explores the key aspects of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, offering insight into how the law works to safeguard individuals' rights and what steps can be taken if one is a victim of harassment.

Understanding the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is the cornerstone of anti-harassment legislation in the UK. It was introduced to address a range of behaviors that can cause distress or alarm to individuals. The Act makes it an offense for a person to engage in conduct that amounts to harassment and provides both criminal and civil remedies.

What Constitutes Harassment?

Under the Act, harassment is defined broadly and can include various forms of behavior that cause alarm or distress. These behaviors can be:

Stalking: Repeated and unwanted attention, following, or surveillance.

Abusive Communication: Sending threatening or abusive messages, whether via text, email, social media, or other means.

Physical Harassment: Any unwanted physical contact or intimidation.

Verbal Harassment: Threatening, abusive, or offensive remarks made in person or over communication channels.

The key element is that the behavior must occur on more than one occasion, indicating a pattern of behavior rather than a one-off incident. The Act covers both intentional harassment and instances where the harasser ought to have known their behavior would cause distress.

Legal Protections and Remedies

The Protection from Harassment Act offers several layers of protection and legal recourse for victims.

Criminal Offense: Harassment is a criminal offense under the Act. If found guilty, the offender can face up to six months in prison or a fine. For more severe cases, particularly those involving stalking, the punishment can be up to five years in prison.

Restraining Orders: Victims can apply for restraining orders, which prevent the harasser from contacting or approaching them. Breach of a restraining order is a criminal offense, punishable by imprisonment or a fine.

Civil Remedies: Victims can also seek civil remedies, including injunctions and compensation for the distress caused. An injunction can prevent the harasser from continuing their behavior, while compensation can cover both financial loss and emotional distress.

Protection Against Workplace Harassment

Workplace harassment is a significant concern, and the UK law provides specific protections under the Protection from Harassment Act, as well as the Equality Act 2010. Employers have a duty to protect employees from harassment by colleagues, customers, or anyone else they come into contact with through their work.

Steps to Take if You Are a Victim of Harassment

If you believe you are being harassed, it is important to take action to protect yourself. Here are some steps you can take:

Document the Harassment: Keep a record of all incidents of harassment, including dates, times, and descriptions of the behavior. Save any evidence, such as messages, emails, or voicemails.

Report to Authorities: If the harassment is severe or involves threats, report it to the police. They can investigate the matter and, if necessary, take legal action against the harasser.

Seek Legal Advice: Consider consulting a solicitor who specializes in harassment cases. They can provide guidance on your legal options, including obtaining a restraining order or pursuing a civil claim.

Inform Your Employer: If the harassment occurs at work, report it to your employer. They are legally obligated to take action to protect you from harassment in the workplace.

Conclusion

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 serves as a critical tool in safeguarding individuals from the damaging effects of harassment. Whether in personal life or the workplace, the law provides a range of protections to ensure that victims have the means to stop the harassment and seek justice. If you or someone you know is experiencing harassment, understanding your rights under this legislation is the first step towards reclaiming your peace of mind.

[thxnews]

PH Crackdown Intensifies on POGO Human Trafficking

In a renewed push to combat human trafficking in the Philippine offshore gaming industry, prosecutors heard gripping testimony from Chinese workers detailing alleged rights abuses at a major Pasay City operation. "The victims' accounts provide a disturbing look into the inhumane conditions some were forced to endure." Said Winston Casio, spokesperson for the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission (PAOCC), his voice tinged with concern.   Key Points: Testimonies from 10 Chinese nationals against 7 compatriots Allegations of forced labor, human trafficking at Smart Web Technology Corp. 731 workers, including Filipinas, rescued in October 2023 raid Self-contained compound with entertainment facilities uncovered   The testimony marks the latest development following last year's dramatic raid on the Smart Web Technology Corp. compound in Pasay. Authorities discovered a veritable self-contained city, complete with living quarters, entertainment amenities like a KTV lounge and massage parlor, restaurants, and even a small clinic.  

Pasay-raid. Photo by Joann Manabat. Rappler. However, the opulent facade belied a darker reality, according to the PAOCC. Chinese workers showed signs of physical abuse and claimed they were being held against their will and subjected to forced labor practices. "We cannot turn a blind eye when basic human rights are being violated in this manner," Casio stated firmly. "The Philippine government has no tolerance for these kinds of nefarious activities on our soil."  

Labor Trafficking Accusations

Prosecutors are now weighing whether to file charges against seven Chinese nationals identified as the alleged operatives behind the illegal practices at Smart Web. The PAOCC asserts the men were involved in deceptive hiring and human trafficking through schemes like the forced "selling" of workers between POGOs. Defense lawyers have pushed back, claiming workplace misunderstandings and cultural differences were the root causes of the situation. They decried the "heavy-handed" raid as an overreaction.   Oversight and Prevention The jarring case has amplified calls for increased oversight and prevention measures in the billion-peso POGO sector. Legislators have proposed tightening licensing requirements, enhancing regular inspections, and mandating workers' rights training. "Left unchecked, this underbelly of exploitation threatens to tarnish our nation's reputation as a sound investment environment," warned one Senate leader. "We must get our house in order."   Next Steps Prosecutors now have 60 days to render a decision on pressing charges based on the evidence presented, including the powerful worker testimonies. The PAOCC has also hinted at upcoming cases against other POGO firms. Casio said: "This is just the opening salvo in regaining control over a valuable sector that has spun out of control. We will be relentless in rooting out these kinds of abuses." As the investigation unfolds, the fates of the firm's operators, the rescued workers, and the future of POGO oversight in the Philippines hangs in the balance.   Sources: THX News & Philippine News Agency. Read the full article

[exoid-the-locomotive-monarch]

You fucking idiot.

It is different, you coward.

First off, correct about apple, the phones made are made of sweatshop labor, every mobile phone is made from sweatshop labor. This is bad and we should stop it, but you only bring this up when people call you out on buying a wizard game you don’t need versus a vital piece of technology for communications.

Second of all, HP Lovecraft and Shakespeare are dead and the works you own do not financially contribute to them and you can approach the media while criticizing its problematic contents. J.K. Rowling is alive and all Harry Potter media you buy contributes to her money which she spends on fundraising anti-trans spaces and legislation! How do you not know what the difference between a dead author and an alive one is?!

Third, buying a Far Cry game doesn’t one on one equal financial support of workplace abuse, the workplace is controlled by the publishers, and what makes a studio create a workplace isn’t financial contributions, but a lack of unions!

Rowling is a lady who you give money to for transphobia! It’s that simple!

As for Disney, to be fair I don’t have much to argue in disagreement, it is still fundamentally a “hide the gays” media work but racist? Disney has condemned the earlier works and even took out the balckface centaur from fantasia!

Rowling is transphobic, and transphobic right now!

You only say “there’s no difference” because you don’t have nuance or critical thinking! You’re a dumbass to protect yourself from the deserved guilt and shame you should feel for spending 60 dollars to give to a transphobic author about a game where you out slaves back into shackles! Leave this website forever!

If we are calling people who genuinely are excited to play a game that is part of an extremely influential novel from their childhood "terfs" or "transphobic" because of the author, alright, okay. Then these I guess also have to be true.

1. If you have ever owned an apple product, you support sweat shop labour

2. If you are a fan of bloodborne, call of cthulu, or have read/purchased/enjoyed anything by H.P. Lovecraft, you are racist

3. If you enjoy Shakespear, and have anything in regards to him, you support pedophilia

4. If you ever supported the far cry series, you support workplace abuse.

5. Ever purchased anything made/owned by Disney? Not only are you racist, you're homohobic too!

Before you say 'it is different.' No, it's not.

Now if you excuse me, I'm going to enjoy being a wizard while still supporting my friends and family in the transgender community.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The Big U

Writing in Matt Stoller's BIG newsletter, Sam Haselby makes the case that US elite universities - the Ivies - are a cartel that uses its monopoly to reproduce its monopoly, to the detriment of the rest of us.

https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/break-up-the-ivy-league-cartel

Mistrust of the Ivies is as old as the nation. They were founded by members of the Puritan "elect" whose explicit project was to maintain the rule of a minority over the majority, in a nation that was steadily increasing its democratic, majoritarian governance.

These schools would produce "leaders" whose credentials would help them secure the reins of power that they were divinely entitled to.

No less than Thomas Jefferson rebelled against this idea, founding the University of Virginia "to counter what he saw as their anti-democratic influence."

America's historical turning points have been accompanied by surges that widened access to higher ed: the great land-grant colleges built after the Civil War, and the Cold-War-driven investment in public ed that incubated the Civil Rights movement.

Today, that tendency of widening access to higher ed is in retreat, while the Puritans' vision of elite institutions for elite individuals whose status entitles them to rule is on the rise in the Ivies, who cloak themselves in the eugenicist doctrine of "meritocracy."

Even as smaller educational institutions lurch toward destruction - shedding 650,000 jobs during the pandemic, relying on non-tenure-track, brutally exploited adjuncts for 75% of their workforce - the Ivies have only grown richer.

The 20 richest schools in America hold endowments worth $311 billion, helped along by tax-favored treatment that benefits wealthy benefactors who bulk up these vast fortunes that go to benefit the children of their ultra-wealthy friends and colleagues.

Even as the US has plummeted in the UN's Human Development Index, its top universities grew in wealth and status, while becoming less accessible: Harvard's acceptance rate was 80% in 1940, 20% in 1970, and 3.4% in 2021.

This selectivity isn't the result of higher standards; rather, it's the result of a more expensive, exclusive winnowing system that sees more admissions from kids of the richest 1% than of kids from the poorest 60%.

The wealth and privilege reproduce themselves. Professors' families are 34% richer than the average US family, and PhDs are 50 times more likely to have a parent with a PhD than the average American.

"American meritocracy has become a complex, inefficient, and rigged system conferring a series of 'merits' on ambitious children of highly educated and prosperous families."

The Ivies epitomize the disastrous, shifting base of the Democratic Party, from representing working people and racialized, low-waged workers to representing "socially liberal," highly educated wealthy elites.

80% of Harvard grads in the mid-Twentieth were Republicans; today 70% of people with graduate degrees vote Democrat.

77.6% of Harvard profs call themselves "left-leaning" while only 2.9% call themselves "conservative."

But what does it mean to be a "left-leaning" institution that preferentially hires and admits only the wealthiest people in the country? If Harvard is "a hedge fund with an educational arm," can it really be "left-leaning?"

The class that Harvard reproduces is Thomas Piketty's "Brahmin Left" - highly educated high earners who - Haselby reminds us - are the same people that the populist right labels "woke capital."

But just because the right deplores a group of people, that's not a good reason for the left to cheer them on. The consultant class of McKinsey-trained, finance-oriented "progressives" do not seek to build a world of broadly shared power and personal self-determination.

Rather, they seek to replace the system in which 150 white men run the world with a "fairer" one that replaces half of those white men with women and people of color.

The technocratic, meritocratic vision sees low-waged, abused workers as having settled to their natural level, in accord with their capacity for self-governance. They need paternalistic protection, not a say in their jobs.

In this view, if Amazon warehouse workers are being maimed by repetitive stress injuries, the answer isn't unionization and workplace democracy - it's an algorithm that task-switches them so they can evenly distribute their musculoskeletal loads.

Haselby calls the Ivies "natural refuges for leftists or progressives in an oligarchy" that are nevertheless "poor environments for democracy or democratic thinking."

A progressive Yale would be one that ended its policy of denying dorm-space to front-line workers battling the pandemic. A progressive Columbia isn't one that allocates $5m for two professorships to study "democracy" - it's one that recognizes its grad students' union.

High-quality public education is a prerequisite for a true democracy. Bernie Sanders and Pramila Jayapal have sponsored legislation to make university free for families earning $125k or less per year, with a focus on state schools and community colleges.

https://jayapal.house.gov/2021/04/21/college-for-all/

With hundreds of thousands of academics thrown out of work, there's never been a better time to reimagine widespread access to high-quality education, separated from winner-take-all institutions who recirculate the wealth of elite philanthropists to their children.

We have to get past the bizarre resistance from people who suffered under the old system and insist that everyone else endure the same - "I lived with crushing student debt for 40 years, why shouldn't you?" is pure spite.

Haselby: "The regional divide we're seeing, with a few gilded cities and their educational castles, must be broken to have a free self-governing people. That means making education work not just for an elect, but for everyone."

[reasonsforhope]

!!!! And here's a source!

Thanks so much for posting about this, OP

More from the article:

"At 2:27 p.m. on Friday, March 8, the Florida Legislature adjourned sine die. With this adjournment, 21 of 22 anti-LGBTQ+ bills were effectively killed, leaving an anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in education bill as the lone piece of legislation to pass this session. This session featured some of the most severe bills ever proposed against transgender individuals, all of these bills are now officially dead. LGBTQ+ activists in the state now have the rest of 2024 to regroup, with hopes that the November general election will yield results against a legislature that has spent two years targeting transgender individuals in every aspect of life.

The bills that have failed include H599, a bill that would have expanded "Don't Say Gay" policies to the workplace. It proposed banning government employees and any business with government contracts from sharing pronouns. Furthermore, it aimed to prohibit all nonprofits in the state from requiring education and training on LGBTQ+ issues—a significant issue for LGBTQ+ nonprofits, which would have been unable to operate within the state. That bill is now dead.

Another bill that died is H1639, a measure that would have mandated transgender individuals to have driver's license sex markers matching their sex assigned at birth. It also aimed to penalize insurance providers offering gender-affirming care coverage and would have required health insurance plans to cover conversion therapy for transgender individuals. Although this bill did not pass, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles has reinterpreted certain provisions that already exist, effectively banning changes to driver's license gender markers in the state and threatening individuals with accurate markers with charges of criminal fraud. However, challenging an administrative action is simpler than challenging a law enacted by the legislature, and such actions can also be reversed by future administrations.

Further bills that made headlines which died include:

A ban on Pride flags in schools and government buildings.

A “bill of rights” for student organizations to exclude transgender people.

A bill that would end legal recognition of trans people in the state.

A bill that would exempt rejection of transgender youth from child abuse provisions.

A bill that would make calling someone racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic be treated as defamation.

...This is the first time in three years where the bills targeting LGBTQ+ people, and trans people in particular, seem to be losing steam, according to local organizers.

“The momentum is undeniably shifting against extremism,” Nadine Smith of Equality Florida said in a press release, “Extremist groups are collapsing amidst multiple scandals. Parents are mobilizing on behalf of their kids and to stop the dismantling of public education. We will build on this momentum and redouble our commitment to the fight. Together, we can put power back in the hands of the people.”"

-via Erin in the Morning, March 8, 2024

21 of 22 anti-LGBTQ+ bills dead in the Florida Legislature!!!

[whentherewerebicycles]

i am not reblogging this post from OP (posted 2 days ago, with 4,400 notes and counting) because i know that often people are just making their own vent posts on their blogs and maybe don’t expect them to circulate widely outside of their small tumblr circle! and i don’t mean to like, jump on someone who is just commenting on something and then going on with their life. but i feel like i keep seeing versions of this sentiment on leftist twitter too and i really think it is a gross misrepresentation of the bill that passed earlier this month - which is due in part to social media’s intense focus on the “stimulus check” part of the bill. but the bill was not called “the stimulus check” act! it was called “The American Rescue Plan” and it was specifically geared towards providing desperately-needed relief to the American middle & working classes. the $1400 direct payments to individuals was just one small portion of the bill. here are the far more important parts:

in addition to receiving a $1400 direct payment themselves, individuals with children receive an additional $1400 check for each dependent

college students who are still listed as dependents on their parents’ tax forms (typically so they can retain health insurance benefits under the ACA) can more easily claim stimulus money - which is huge for college kids who may be helping to financially support immediate or extended family members

unemployment benefits have been extended from March 31, 2021 (their original expiration date) to September 6, 2021

unemployment benefits will be supplemented with a $300 weekly payment (ie $300 on top of what people are receiving from their state government)

unemployment benefits received in 2020-21 are tax-exempt (a retroactive change that means people who are unemployed won’t receive a surprise tax bill counting their unemployment money as “income”)

a substantial tax credit for employers who offer paid sick leave and paid family leave benefits (ie creating a direct incentive for employers to authorize emergency paid leave)

15% increase in food stamp benefits and extension of eligibility

child and family tax credit benefits!!!! this is the part that people are describing as one of the most significant anti-poverty initiatives in American history. families are eligible for a tax credit of $3600 for each child under the age of 6 and $3000 for each child between 6-18. people can also claim a child and dependent care credit with a maximum benefit of $4000 for one eligible dependent and up to $8000 for two or more. it also expands the earned income tax credit and lowers the age limit to 19. dems also pushed to get at least 50% of the tax credit money to people this year instead of making them wait for their 2021 tax return. this calculator allows you to calculate how much families will receive. if you make $50,000 a year and have four children, you will receive $13,200 through the child tax credit alone, paid out in monthly payments of $1,100 from July to December 2021 + an additional $6,600 lump-sum payment when you file your 2021 tax return early next year. there are also some additional dependent-related tax credits things that I don’t fully understand but that seem to indicate people are eligible for even more money.

forgiven student loan debt is made tax-free (a necessary prerequisite for future efforts to cancel/forgive student loan debt)

huge expansion of grant benefits to small businesses, including $28.6 billion specifically for bars and restaurants; $15 billion for low-interest, long-term replayment emergency disaster loans; and $7 billion more for the paycheck protection program (which can only be used on payroll expenses and makes it possible for small businesses to keep workers on payroll even if they are operating at lower capacity). you can describe this as “for the economy only” if you want, but I sure feel like it will alleviate a whole lot of human suffering by allowing people to keep their jobs & paychecks even if their workplaces remain partially shut down. my dad is a small business owner and has been able to keep his entire staff on payroll through the entire pandemic. the bill also includes billions for airlines and concert venues, which will again! means people won’t lose their jobs!! plus it allocates $175 million to fund a Community Navigator Program that reaches out to eligible businesses and helps guide them through the application process—ie making it possible for small businesses to actually take receive these benefits.

$350 billion to state, local, and tribal governments

$130 billion for K-12 schools to improve ventilation, reduce class sizes, purchase PPE for employees and students, and hire support staff; of this money, 20% must be dedicated to programs designed to counteract “learning loss” from students who missed school during the pandemic

$40 billion for colleges and universities, at least $20 billion of which must go to emergency grants to students (our university has been giving regular emergency grants throughout the pandemic to students to help cover rent, unexpected medical expenses, costs related to family emergencies or lost family income, tuition bills that they suddenly can’t pay, fees associated with wifi or purchasing tech equipment so they can learn virtually)

a HUGE amount of money four housing benefits!!!! i keep seeing people yelling about how $1400 won’t cover their rent but THAT’S WHAT THE RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS ARE FOR. $21.6 billion in rent and utility assistance, paid directly to states and local governments so they can disburse it to eligible households!!! plus $5 billion to Section 8 housing (which “must go to those who are or were recently homeless, as well as individuals who are escaping from domestic violence, sexual assualt, or human trafficking”).

$5 billion to support state and local programs for homeless and at-risk individuals (can be used for rental assistance, homelessness prevention services, and counseling; can also be used to purchase properties that will be turned into permanent shelters or affordable housing for people who are homeless). plus an additional $120 for housing counseling.

$4.5 billion earmarked for a special assistance program that helps low-income households cover costs of heating and cooling and $500 million to cover water costs

$750 million in housing assistance for tribes and native Hawaiians (who are also eligible for other benefits through the rental assistance and direct tribal government grants described above)

and then BILLIONS of dollars to support FEMA, the Veterans Affairs’ healthcare system, the CDC, and state, local, and territorial public health departments for all things related to: COVID testing, contact tracing, vaccine production and distribution, vaccine outreach, PPE, and public health education. this includes (among many, MANY other things), $5.4 billion to the Indian Health Services (division of the Department of Health and Human Services that specifically provides health services to Native people and tribal territories), $200 million for nursing loan repayment programs, $80 million for mental health training, $3.5 billion in block grants specifically geared towards community mental health programs and substance abuse/prevention/treatment programs

$86 billion for a rescue package for pension funds (esp union-sponsored pension funds) that are on the verge of collapse - collectively covering 10.7 million workers.

billions of dollars for public transit programs (and sure, public transit is important to the economy, but access to regular, reliable, affordable, and safe public transit is HUGELY important to human health and well-being! it is how many people esp in urban areas access grocery stores, health care, their jobs, childcare facilities, etc.

$10.4 billion for agriculture, of which $5 billion is specifically earmarked for socially disadvantaged farmworkers. to quote wikipedia: “Experts identified the relief bill as the single most important piece of legislation for African-American framers since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

tons of money to fund 100% of premiums for COBRA (health insurance for people who have unexpectedly lost or had to leave their jobs) through October 2021. COBRA is hella expensive and experts estimate that 2.2 million people will need to enroll for COBRA benefits in 2021. there are also various provisions that expand Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (a program targeted at uninsured children in families who don’t qualify for Medicaid but may not be able to afford adequate healthcare coverage. it also fixes some things with the ACA that could’ve led to people getting surprise bills due to fluctuating income or unexpected changes in employment status.

i am SO OVER the so-called ‘progressive’ rhetoric that no good can ever come from the government, or that all politicians (dems or republicans) are basically the same level of evil and incompetent, or that ~mutual aid~ (ie small payments made between individuals in a community) is the only thing we can count on or should count on in times of crisis. no!!!! fuck no!!!! like mutual aid is great but America is an INSANELY WEALTHY country and it is such bullshit to act like we can’t or shouldn’t expect our government to take care of the people who live here. and i am also just GRAHARRGHGHH at people who are completely disengaged from politics offering their jaded and hyper-cynical hot takes on things they don’t! actually! know! anything! about!!!!!!! and in the process making other people increasingly jaded and cynical about the possibility of electing a government that actually prioritizes the needs & well-being of its citizenry!!!

ugh i’m just TIRED of leftist political cynicism y’all especially when it comes from people who have absolutely no understanding of how much WORK it takes to make huge things like the American Rescue Act happen (work that includes not just the immediate negotiation of the bill but also the years of organizing & voter recruitment work it took to get a narrow democratic majority in the senate so that we could pass things like this!!!!). I’M DONE WITH BEING CYNICAL!!!! i feel, in a totally earnest and unjaded way, that it’s absolutely incredible that dems were able to write, negotiate, and pass this bill, and i feel so so so relieved to be currently living under an administration that is flawed in many ways but is at least actually and earnestly TRYING to reckon with unprecedented “suffering in an actual human scale” (to quote OP) and is even using this crisis as an opportunity to advance major anti-poverty initiatives that will have a LASTING IMPACT on actual human lives. as opposed to our previous administration, which was made up of thousands of people who woke up every single day and asked themselves “what can I do today to further dehumanize & inflict needless suffering upon millions of people?”

PHEW!!!! SORRY!!!! JUST HAVE A LOT OF FEELINGS I GUESS!!!!!!!!