I am just flabbergasted that PA's governor wants to slash 1 billion of education funding, but impose absolutely no taxes/fees on natural gas frakkers. I know that he claims that it will 'create more jobs' but frankly that's bull. Those companies will hire workers regardless of whether they have to pay taxes or fees. Its not like they can effectively harvest the natural gas in another state, its in PA, so why not get something for it?
I'm tired of hearing businesses complain that their taxes are too high (hello GE who got a 14million refund). I've never run a business, so maybe this is incorrect. But aren't the wages paid to workers tax deductible as a business expense? Has anyone thought that perhaps if businesses paid their employees more, perhaps give them the same percentage of raises and bonuses given to executives, that their tax burden would be less? Then any tax hikes on those businesses won't actually affect them (much).
Maybe the reason maybe why businesses started complaining so much about what they paid in taxes is because they stopped increasing their workers' pay in the 70s and thus had less tax deductions and more 'profit' that was being taxes. Go back to increasing worker pay to meaningful levels and lower your tax burden.
Plus, those employees who now make more money can spend that money and increase their "consuming." That will then create even more jobs, which will make businesses grow and hopefully earn more money for everyone. More profits for the execs, more employees getting better wages, able to spend more, requiring businesses to hire even more workers. More people can afford to buy homes again and will want to, because their employer needs them to stick around and pays them well.
Win win for everyone. Yeah, maybe those execs/stockholders won't be super super super rich, maybe they have to just settle for super super rich. Is that so bad?
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Another One, Seriously?
While I believe that politicians' sex lives shouldn't be important and as big a deal as our media makes it out to be, the fact is, our media does, and our public does. Otherwise, tabloid papers and paparazzi would be out of business.
So, knowing that it is a huge deal that is totally blown out of proportion, and knowing that anything once put on the internet is forever on the internet, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE MEN? I mean seriously, is it that hard to keep one's sex life private and off the computer? Is it that hard to stay faithful, or have an agreement with one's wife? Did you even try to talk with your wife about your issues?
These men have to know that every moment of their life has the potential to be scrutinized and publicized. If they don't want to be public figures, then stay out of politics. You can't have it both ways - obviously. They obviously know what they are doing won't be viewed in a good light, that's why they lie about it, which of course, makes it worse. And naturally, those lies will be exposed. You think that makes people view you better? Now you've exposed yourself in some way and you lied about it, in public. Way to go.
If you want to have your sex and politics, move to France or Italy. Otherwise, buck up, live within this society's prudish morals for politicians, and keep it off the internet.
So, knowing that it is a huge deal that is totally blown out of proportion, and knowing that anything once put on the internet is forever on the internet, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE MEN? I mean seriously, is it that hard to keep one's sex life private and off the computer? Is it that hard to stay faithful, or have an agreement with one's wife? Did you even try to talk with your wife about your issues?
These men have to know that every moment of their life has the potential to be scrutinized and publicized. If they don't want to be public figures, then stay out of politics. You can't have it both ways - obviously. They obviously know what they are doing won't be viewed in a good light, that's why they lie about it, which of course, makes it worse. And naturally, those lies will be exposed. You think that makes people view you better? Now you've exposed yourself in some way and you lied about it, in public. Way to go.
If you want to have your sex and politics, move to France or Italy. Otherwise, buck up, live within this society's prudish morals for politicians, and keep it off the internet.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Another Rare Rave
Today, I'm raving about a recent travel experience I had. Of course, it didn't start out that way. I had to fly to Germany for some depositions. Knowing how much travel sucks, especially with luggage, delayed flights, etc., I decided to travel a day earlier than I really needed. I wanted to give myself plenty of time to arrive, prepare for the depositions and get enough rest/overcome jet lag. So I flew out on a Saturday evening and arrived Sunday afternoon in Germany. I arranged to meet the local Germany attorney we had retained on Monday afternoon and Tuesday was the depositions.
Well, good thing I was prepared. Because this trip was several days, I opted to check my luggage. Besides clothes, I also packed a large amount of documents that I planned to review for the depositions, which were a bit too heavy to easily carry, especially since I had to take two planes (couldn't fly direct). I carried on the plane my purse and laptop.
Naturally, as I swear has happened the last four times either my or my husband's family have flown in or out of Europe, the luggage didn't complete the trip. Despite a four hour layover in Zurich, somehow my small suitcase didn't get transferred from US Airways/Lufthansa to Swiss Air. I filed the claim with Lufthansa immediately and they gave me an overnight package of toiletries (toothbrush, toothpaste, shampoo, lotion). It worked for Sunday night, but I was hard pressed to put my now two-day worn clothes back on again Monday. Plus I had the meeting that afternoon.
Swiss Air/Lufthansa still hadn't found my bag by Monday morning and certainly made it sound like it was lost. Fortunately, almost all the documents I brought were scanned on my work's computer system, so I could access them on the laptop. But I still needed new clothes. Lufthansa said I'd be reimbursed 50% of my purchases, so out I went shopping.
Given that it was very possible I wouldn't have my luggage at all, I bought 2 days worth of clothes. That got me through my meeting Monday afternoon. Happily, my suitcase was finally found and returned to me Monday night, so I could wear my packed clothes for the depositions the next day.
As there was the possibility of further meetings on Wednesday, I didn't schedule my return trip until Thursday. That provided me with the time on Wed to return half the clothes I bought, as the meetings didn't happen (although I was able to do some other work on the laptop in my hotel room). I wasn't sure I would be reimbursed for 2 days of clothes, when my suitcase was delivered only 1 day late. I might have kept the extra clothes, but they were a bit expensive, especially with the exchange rate and I really didn't need them.
When I arrived back home, I again followed up with Lufthansa about reimbursement for the clothes I did keep (and couldn't return - well, I suppose I could have hidden the tags, but I did like the outfit a lot). Lufthansa referred me over to Swiss Air, which responded very quickly. Swiss Air confirmed that they would reimburse my purchases up to 50%, with a certain capped amount they didn't disclose. I provided them with my receipts, nearly 300 euros for shoes, skirt, blouse, jacket, hose, underwear, toiletries, which cost me $438. I wasn't sure whether I spent too much, or if they'd take issue with the extra toiletries, claiming I didn't really "need" them or that my buying them wasn't due to the lost luggage (some perfume, scented soap/lotion, tampons - yes I have wonderful timing with my traveling).
To my surprise, Swiss Air quickly acknowledged everything, and sent me a check for $267.50 (which was an exchange rate of $1.83 compared to the $1.45 +3% my credit card charged). No questions about my purchases, no issue with spending too much, just thanks for the receipts, here's your money. Less than a month from my trip, I got reimbursed for more than 50% of my purchase, effectively giving me a nice new outfit for $170.50.
So despite losing my luggage, Swiss Air/Lufthansa get a rave for their quick and very easy reimbursement me for new clothes.
Well, good thing I was prepared. Because this trip was several days, I opted to check my luggage. Besides clothes, I also packed a large amount of documents that I planned to review for the depositions, which were a bit too heavy to easily carry, especially since I had to take two planes (couldn't fly direct). I carried on the plane my purse and laptop.
Naturally, as I swear has happened the last four times either my or my husband's family have flown in or out of Europe, the luggage didn't complete the trip. Despite a four hour layover in Zurich, somehow my small suitcase didn't get transferred from US Airways/Lufthansa to Swiss Air. I filed the claim with Lufthansa immediately and they gave me an overnight package of toiletries (toothbrush, toothpaste, shampoo, lotion). It worked for Sunday night, but I was hard pressed to put my now two-day worn clothes back on again Monday. Plus I had the meeting that afternoon.
Swiss Air/Lufthansa still hadn't found my bag by Monday morning and certainly made it sound like it was lost. Fortunately, almost all the documents I brought were scanned on my work's computer system, so I could access them on the laptop. But I still needed new clothes. Lufthansa said I'd be reimbursed 50% of my purchases, so out I went shopping.
Given that it was very possible I wouldn't have my luggage at all, I bought 2 days worth of clothes. That got me through my meeting Monday afternoon. Happily, my suitcase was finally found and returned to me Monday night, so I could wear my packed clothes for the depositions the next day.
As there was the possibility of further meetings on Wednesday, I didn't schedule my return trip until Thursday. That provided me with the time on Wed to return half the clothes I bought, as the meetings didn't happen (although I was able to do some other work on the laptop in my hotel room). I wasn't sure I would be reimbursed for 2 days of clothes, when my suitcase was delivered only 1 day late. I might have kept the extra clothes, but they were a bit expensive, especially with the exchange rate and I really didn't need them.
When I arrived back home, I again followed up with Lufthansa about reimbursement for the clothes I did keep (and couldn't return - well, I suppose I could have hidden the tags, but I did like the outfit a lot). Lufthansa referred me over to Swiss Air, which responded very quickly. Swiss Air confirmed that they would reimburse my purchases up to 50%, with a certain capped amount they didn't disclose. I provided them with my receipts, nearly 300 euros for shoes, skirt, blouse, jacket, hose, underwear, toiletries, which cost me $438. I wasn't sure whether I spent too much, or if they'd take issue with the extra toiletries, claiming I didn't really "need" them or that my buying them wasn't due to the lost luggage (some perfume, scented soap/lotion, tampons - yes I have wonderful timing with my traveling).
To my surprise, Swiss Air quickly acknowledged everything, and sent me a check for $267.50 (which was an exchange rate of $1.83 compared to the $1.45 +3% my credit card charged). No questions about my purchases, no issue with spending too much, just thanks for the receipts, here's your money. Less than a month from my trip, I got reimbursed for more than 50% of my purchase, effectively giving me a nice new outfit for $170.50.
So despite losing my luggage, Swiss Air/Lufthansa get a rave for their quick and very easy reimbursement me for new clothes.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Work Bits
Yay for more work rants.
Update from the prior post about subpoenas. I just found out that said sec'y who didn't know how to fill in said subpoena with a person's name or an accident date, failed to have said subpoena actually signed and stamped by the Court before she sent it out to the hospital and police dept. for the records. Now you might (and I mean MIGHT) get away with that with a small doctor's office, and that's even up for speculation considering HIPPA laws these days and doctors' general awareness of said laws. But no way is a hospital or a police dept. going to respond to a subpoena that's not signed and stamped. I mean really. I just can't believe this sec'y didn't know the basics. We had to redo the subpoena, get it signed/stamped, and re-served.
But then again, I asked her today if she sent out a document we just received yesterday for an estimate on its translation from German, and she honestly did not recall getting it (forwarded by my sec'y as I was out) and forwarding it onto the translator. Its like total swiss cheese in there. She honestly can't recall what she did the day before. I feel like I'm dealing with Momento. Its a good thing email can document these things.
Not that my own sec'y is any better sometimes. I specifically asked her to look through the file to find a witness phone number my boss wanted me to contact for a trial appearance (we represented non-party plaintiff employer on plaintiff's third party injury claim). I suggested starting with his depo transcript, and if it wasn't there to check discovery, attorney notes, correspondence. It wasn't in the depo. She asked Swiss cheese sec'y, who said she saw it in the attorney notes file (I can't believe she remembered that). However, the attorney notes file was missing (possibly accidently taken by my boss on his business trip - he forgot to take it out of his briefcase). Did she look elsewhere? No. Oh she said she did, but she clearly didn't because when I looked through the correspondence folder later, I found it. Of course, it would have been nice if someone had maybe typed up a list of the witnesses with their address and phone on a computer document. I do that because I if I lose the paper, I can look it up easily. But no one else thought to do this.
About the only thing that makes my sec'y better is that I know she doesn't know things. I know she doesn't know what an "affirmative defense" or a "new matter" or a "cross-claim" is. That's why I have to refer her to a specific document #1, cut and paste paragraphs 10 to 19, then go to specific document #2, cut and paste paragraphs 25-30, then specific document #3, etc. and I do it in order. She can at least follow those orders.
My boss assumes his sec'y knows what all those things are, so he just says "do standard affirmative defenses/new matter claims and std cross-claim for indemnity" and she has no idea what that is and of course, comes and asks me because she doesn't want to ask the boss. I do the work, and I bill for it. If my boss asks me why I billed for something (which he rarely, if ever does), I'll explain.
I suppose I could tell him about things as they are, but I'm not entirely sure it'll do all that much good. Besides, it helps me get to know the cases ahead of time, so I'm not caught too off guard when he asks me a question about the case (that he hasn't previously told me about).
I have to remember to keep these work rants very general, not be specific about any names, cases, etc. Was at an employment law seminar for two days and was reminded about confidentiality challenges in the electronic age, and the importance of googling oneself now and again. That's rather an interesting thing to do, its amazing what info gets out on the web. Like, how in the world did my name get attached as a "debt settlement attorney"? I have no idea, I've never done that sort of work. I also had to contact a few places that listed by work address as an attorney with my home address. Asked to have the address changed. I don't mind people having my work info, but not to publicize my home address.
I'm pleased that my facebook profile shows almost nothing for the public. I will always keep it that way, no one gets to be my "friend" unless I really know who they are. I've declined invites from people who said they knew me in high school or even elementary school and I didn't recall them. I've made some MMORPG people "friends," some that I've never met IRL too, which is about the farthest I'll go.
Of course, pretty much everything has the potential to be exposed with a subpoena.
Update from the prior post about subpoenas. I just found out that said sec'y who didn't know how to fill in said subpoena with a person's name or an accident date, failed to have said subpoena actually signed and stamped by the Court before she sent it out to the hospital and police dept. for the records. Now you might (and I mean MIGHT) get away with that with a small doctor's office, and that's even up for speculation considering HIPPA laws these days and doctors' general awareness of said laws. But no way is a hospital or a police dept. going to respond to a subpoena that's not signed and stamped. I mean really. I just can't believe this sec'y didn't know the basics. We had to redo the subpoena, get it signed/stamped, and re-served.
But then again, I asked her today if she sent out a document we just received yesterday for an estimate on its translation from German, and she honestly did not recall getting it (forwarded by my sec'y as I was out) and forwarding it onto the translator. Its like total swiss cheese in there. She honestly can't recall what she did the day before. I feel like I'm dealing with Momento. Its a good thing email can document these things.
Not that my own sec'y is any better sometimes. I specifically asked her to look through the file to find a witness phone number my boss wanted me to contact for a trial appearance (we represented non-party plaintiff employer on plaintiff's third party injury claim). I suggested starting with his depo transcript, and if it wasn't there to check discovery, attorney notes, correspondence. It wasn't in the depo. She asked Swiss cheese sec'y, who said she saw it in the attorney notes file (I can't believe she remembered that). However, the attorney notes file was missing (possibly accidently taken by my boss on his business trip - he forgot to take it out of his briefcase). Did she look elsewhere? No. Oh she said she did, but she clearly didn't because when I looked through the correspondence folder later, I found it. Of course, it would have been nice if someone had maybe typed up a list of the witnesses with their address and phone on a computer document. I do that because I if I lose the paper, I can look it up easily. But no one else thought to do this.
About the only thing that makes my sec'y better is that I know she doesn't know things. I know she doesn't know what an "affirmative defense" or a "new matter" or a "cross-claim" is. That's why I have to refer her to a specific document #1, cut and paste paragraphs 10 to 19, then go to specific document #2, cut and paste paragraphs 25-30, then specific document #3, etc. and I do it in order. She can at least follow those orders.
My boss assumes his sec'y knows what all those things are, so he just says "do standard affirmative defenses/new matter claims and std cross-claim for indemnity" and she has no idea what that is and of course, comes and asks me because she doesn't want to ask the boss. I do the work, and I bill for it. If my boss asks me why I billed for something (which he rarely, if ever does), I'll explain.
I suppose I could tell him about things as they are, but I'm not entirely sure it'll do all that much good. Besides, it helps me get to know the cases ahead of time, so I'm not caught too off guard when he asks me a question about the case (that he hasn't previously told me about).
I have to remember to keep these work rants very general, not be specific about any names, cases, etc. Was at an employment law seminar for two days and was reminded about confidentiality challenges in the electronic age, and the importance of googling oneself now and again. That's rather an interesting thing to do, its amazing what info gets out on the web. Like, how in the world did my name get attached as a "debt settlement attorney"? I have no idea, I've never done that sort of work. I also had to contact a few places that listed by work address as an attorney with my home address. Asked to have the address changed. I don't mind people having my work info, but not to publicize my home address.
I'm pleased that my facebook profile shows almost nothing for the public. I will always keep it that way, no one gets to be my "friend" unless I really know who they are. I've declined invites from people who said they knew me in high school or even elementary school and I didn't recall them. I've made some MMORPG people "friends," some that I've never met IRL too, which is about the farthest I'll go.
Of course, pretty much everything has the potential to be exposed with a subpoena.
Monday, April 4, 2011
I'm Doing Two Jobs
Double post today, but this is annoying me.
I have a full time job. Actually more than full time. However, most days, I feel like its really two jobs. It may be close to three. Apparently, I have to seriously calendar and double check every thing at work that I give to my boss (or his secretary). I can't rely on my boss' secretary to have anything calendared for when stuff has to be filed with the court, or provided to the client, or otherwise followed up on. I have to double check that when I give something to my boss for him to review, a court filing, a letter to the client, that the document has subsequently been signed, filed with the court, mailed, etc. I have to double check everything that is created by my boss for filing, service, etc. because his secretary will not do anything extra.
The last couple of weeks were just amazing. We have a settlement conference in a case coming up. My computer reminds me two weeks before that I have to do the statement and have it filed with the court a week before the conference. I do the statement, give to my boss. The last day for filing, my reminder comes up (should have been the day before, next time). I never got the statement back from my boss (which he'd do if a change was needed), so I ask my boss' secretary if she filed it with the court. She looks on the computer to see if it was electronically filed (our local court does that for 90% of documents). I have to remind her that it won't show up on the computer because the settlement conference statement is hand filed, not electronically filed. She should know this.
However, she also doesn't find a cover letter of service to the other parties. I look in her redwell of documents for filing in our office files. Sure enough, there's the Settlement conference statement, signed by my boss, just sitting there ready to be put in the case folder. Not filed with the court (no stamp). Not served (no cover letter or proof of service). Fortunately, the courthouse is across the street, so we can get it filed and served on the last day.
How does she just put something in her filing folder without looking at it? Without knowing it has to be filed with the court? She supposedly has experience, but seriously she has to be told every little thing.
When we got a copy of the filed statement back, I double check the client correspondence file. My boss' last letter to the client, dated a month previously, said we'd let him know about the settlement conference when it was scheduled. No letter since then. With the conference a week away, I draft a letter to the client, enclosing the statement and asking him to call us before the conference to discuss our position. I print and give to my boss.
Now, three days before the conference, I find out that more than likely, the letter never got emailed. Oh, the letter is in the client correspondence folder, but its not signed, there's no email attaching it, and the settlement conference statement never got scanned in to be an attachment. Again, a document gets put in the file, by my boss' secretary, without actually having anything done with it. She can't recall a day or two later that a letter she's filing never got sent?
My bosses secretary also needed me to sign some cover letters today to serve subpoenas (because my boss is out). Good thing I had to, since I do read "routine" letters before I sign them. She hands me four subpoenas for records we need to get, one for accident/investigation records, two for medical records, one for employment records. The subpoenas simply say that, "Investigation records for accident." "Medical records and documents." "Employment records and documents." Nothing about um, like WHOSE records we're requesting. Nothing about um, like WHAT accident (date, location, something). I'm sure the hospital going to say, "Oh nice, a subpoena for somebody's medical records, that narrows it down." The Police Dept. says, "an accident report? How about a date maybe?"
I just can't believe this secretary was going to let those subpoenas be served. She says, I just type what he (my boss) tells me to. I want to say, don't you think he assumed you fill in whatever info is necessary, like a name, date, etc.? Haven't you ever done a subpoena before, since you're supposed to have been a legal secretary for 15 years? Don't you even read what you've typed from the point of view of the person receiving it? Did you really think the hospital records clerk is going to have ESP to know to which of the thousands of patients your subpoena referred? While most of the time, yes we're subpoenaing the plaintiff's records, in this case, we were also subpoenaing a co-defendant's records. The Hospital isn't going to know that. You really want to tell the boss you didn't know to put a name on the subpoena, or who he was referring to and then didn't ask him, when he inevitably gets the letter from the hospital saying "We have no idea what you want, the subpoena doesn't say what patient"?
The second excuse, that my boss probably looked at them when he signed the Notice of Intent (which has to be served on opposing parties 20 days before you serve the subpoenas, so they can object) and he didn't have any problems and opposing counsel didn't object, is also without merit. She knows my boss doesn't review what he considers to be 'routine' items. I doubt he even looked at them, he just signed the Notice of Intent and cover letter, and probably didn't read those either (the subpoenaes are signed/stamped by the court clerk, not the attorney).
My boss barely looks at discovery we serve. He had one set of "standard/form interrogatories" that had about 10 questions that needed to be slightly changed each time for the particular case facts (change names, dates, address, etc.). His prior secretary always made those changes, so he never bothered looking at them, he just signed the last page. The new secretary didn't make those changes (even after I pointed it out to her), so we started getting a bunch of "not applicable" or "I don't know what you mean" answers to those questions. We had one plaintiff threaten to file a motion with the court because our questions implied she had other problems with her house that she wasn't aware of, but that was only because the questions were from a different case. I finally had to take my own time to redraft "standard interrogatories" for each type of case and court system (state and federal) so that they didn't require any changes for the different cases because it became obvious that my boss' secretary was never going to individualize the rogs for each case.
Finally, of course, opposing counsel isn't going to object to vague subpoenas that aren't going to produce anything. Its not his problem if we don't get his client's medical records. He'd probably prefer we didn't, or at least that we cost the client more money so the defendant will want to settle.
This mindless, 'I just following the literal instructions,' is annoying as hell. Its not that difficult to think a little bit. Read what you type. Does it make sense? If not, figure out what will make it make sense.
I have the same complaint about my own secretary. She just types what she thinks she hears/reads, and doesn't bother to determine whether the sentence makes any sense. This is why most of the time, I do my own typing. I can type what I want to say in half the time it takes me to dictate, proof-read, make corrections, proof-read my corrections, make more corrections, proof-read those corrections, etc. Its bad enough that I have to do my time-sheets twice. Write them once (sometimes twice if I scribble), then review them again after my secretary types them into the time program, usually requiring multiple fixes.
Secretaries are supposed to help us do our jobs. They are supposed to be a back up for dates, names, etc. It does not help me, and in fact makes my job twice as hard, if I have to track down and follow up on every thing I give my boss, or that my boss does to make sure its been done right, or even done at all.
I better get a good raise next review time.
I have a full time job. Actually more than full time. However, most days, I feel like its really two jobs. It may be close to three. Apparently, I have to seriously calendar and double check every thing at work that I give to my boss (or his secretary). I can't rely on my boss' secretary to have anything calendared for when stuff has to be filed with the court, or provided to the client, or otherwise followed up on. I have to double check that when I give something to my boss for him to review, a court filing, a letter to the client, that the document has subsequently been signed, filed with the court, mailed, etc. I have to double check everything that is created by my boss for filing, service, etc. because his secretary will not do anything extra.
The last couple of weeks were just amazing. We have a settlement conference in a case coming up. My computer reminds me two weeks before that I have to do the statement and have it filed with the court a week before the conference. I do the statement, give to my boss. The last day for filing, my reminder comes up (should have been the day before, next time). I never got the statement back from my boss (which he'd do if a change was needed), so I ask my boss' secretary if she filed it with the court. She looks on the computer to see if it was electronically filed (our local court does that for 90% of documents). I have to remind her that it won't show up on the computer because the settlement conference statement is hand filed, not electronically filed. She should know this.
However, she also doesn't find a cover letter of service to the other parties. I look in her redwell of documents for filing in our office files. Sure enough, there's the Settlement conference statement, signed by my boss, just sitting there ready to be put in the case folder. Not filed with the court (no stamp). Not served (no cover letter or proof of service). Fortunately, the courthouse is across the street, so we can get it filed and served on the last day.
How does she just put something in her filing folder without looking at it? Without knowing it has to be filed with the court? She supposedly has experience, but seriously she has to be told every little thing.
When we got a copy of the filed statement back, I double check the client correspondence file. My boss' last letter to the client, dated a month previously, said we'd let him know about the settlement conference when it was scheduled. No letter since then. With the conference a week away, I draft a letter to the client, enclosing the statement and asking him to call us before the conference to discuss our position. I print and give to my boss.
Now, three days before the conference, I find out that more than likely, the letter never got emailed. Oh, the letter is in the client correspondence folder, but its not signed, there's no email attaching it, and the settlement conference statement never got scanned in to be an attachment. Again, a document gets put in the file, by my boss' secretary, without actually having anything done with it. She can't recall a day or two later that a letter she's filing never got sent?
My bosses secretary also needed me to sign some cover letters today to serve subpoenas (because my boss is out). Good thing I had to, since I do read "routine" letters before I sign them. She hands me four subpoenas for records we need to get, one for accident/investigation records, two for medical records, one for employment records. The subpoenas simply say that, "Investigation records for accident." "Medical records and documents." "Employment records and documents." Nothing about um, like WHOSE records we're requesting. Nothing about um, like WHAT accident (date, location, something). I'm sure the hospital going to say, "Oh nice, a subpoena for somebody's medical records, that narrows it down." The Police Dept. says, "an accident report? How about a date maybe?"
I just can't believe this secretary was going to let those subpoenas be served. She says, I just type what he (my boss) tells me to. I want to say, don't you think he assumed you fill in whatever info is necessary, like a name, date, etc.? Haven't you ever done a subpoena before, since you're supposed to have been a legal secretary for 15 years? Don't you even read what you've typed from the point of view of the person receiving it? Did you really think the hospital records clerk is going to have ESP to know to which of the thousands of patients your subpoena referred? While most of the time, yes we're subpoenaing the plaintiff's records, in this case, we were also subpoenaing a co-defendant's records. The Hospital isn't going to know that. You really want to tell the boss you didn't know to put a name on the subpoena, or who he was referring to and then didn't ask him, when he inevitably gets the letter from the hospital saying "We have no idea what you want, the subpoena doesn't say what patient"?
The second excuse, that my boss probably looked at them when he signed the Notice of Intent (which has to be served on opposing parties 20 days before you serve the subpoenas, so they can object) and he didn't have any problems and opposing counsel didn't object, is also without merit. She knows my boss doesn't review what he considers to be 'routine' items. I doubt he even looked at them, he just signed the Notice of Intent and cover letter, and probably didn't read those either (the subpoenaes are signed/stamped by the court clerk, not the attorney).
My boss barely looks at discovery we serve. He had one set of "standard/form interrogatories" that had about 10 questions that needed to be slightly changed each time for the particular case facts (change names, dates, address, etc.). His prior secretary always made those changes, so he never bothered looking at them, he just signed the last page. The new secretary didn't make those changes (even after I pointed it out to her), so we started getting a bunch of "not applicable" or "I don't know what you mean" answers to those questions. We had one plaintiff threaten to file a motion with the court because our questions implied she had other problems with her house that she wasn't aware of, but that was only because the questions were from a different case. I finally had to take my own time to redraft "standard interrogatories" for each type of case and court system (state and federal) so that they didn't require any changes for the different cases because it became obvious that my boss' secretary was never going to individualize the rogs for each case.
Finally, of course, opposing counsel isn't going to object to vague subpoenas that aren't going to produce anything. Its not his problem if we don't get his client's medical records. He'd probably prefer we didn't, or at least that we cost the client more money so the defendant will want to settle.
This mindless, 'I just following the literal instructions,' is annoying as hell. Its not that difficult to think a little bit. Read what you type. Does it make sense? If not, figure out what will make it make sense.
I have the same complaint about my own secretary. She just types what she thinks she hears/reads, and doesn't bother to determine whether the sentence makes any sense. This is why most of the time, I do my own typing. I can type what I want to say in half the time it takes me to dictate, proof-read, make corrections, proof-read my corrections, make more corrections, proof-read those corrections, etc. Its bad enough that I have to do my time-sheets twice. Write them once (sometimes twice if I scribble), then review them again after my secretary types them into the time program, usually requiring multiple fixes.
Secretaries are supposed to help us do our jobs. They are supposed to be a back up for dates, names, etc. It does not help me, and in fact makes my job twice as hard, if I have to track down and follow up on every thing I give my boss, or that my boss does to make sure its been done right, or even done at all.
I better get a good raise next review time.
Government Jobs and Vacation
I was watching Bill Maher's show on Saturday (recorded from Friday night). I don't always agree with him, particularly on extreme anti-religious views. Some yeah, I can agree with, like how so many people just take on face value what a priest, or pastor or other church leader tells them is "God's word" or what God wants them to do, without doing any investigation on their own, without asking any questions, just being told "you must believe it" and they do. In this day and age, when there are so many resources available to people, you have question, you have to investigate, and yes, you may then have to just follow your heart, but you just can't blindly believe.
But besides that, I tend to agree with a lot of Maher's politics (again, not all, he's a bit too liberal on drugs, for example), but I have no qualms agreeing with his socialism. Maher had an excellent panelist, Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont. He was so articulate and clear about the health care law and education (we're cutting funding for millions of kids, but the Republicans are saying "but wait, we're helping 1700 kids in DC, yay us").
Another point brought up is how the corporations pay little, if anything, in taxes, yet they complain about raising corporate tax rates. Of course GE might be upset if the tax rate got raised from 35% to 39%. GE might actually have to pay taxes instead of getting a 3.2 billion refund/rebate on its 14 million in profits. In addition to the huge sums that corporations don't have to pay in taxes, these corporations cut jobs, freeze wages, cut/freeze or just never provide benefits, like sick and vacation time.
Then the corporations get its employees all worked up against public employees who do get sick and vacation time. Thus, instead of being mad at their bosses, the CEOs, the management, for only getting 2 weeks vacation, if that, the private sector workers get mad at the public sector employees who do get sick time and 5 weeks vacation. Its like having 20 cookies to share amongst a CEO, a Teabagger, and a union worker. The CEO takes 19 cookies, then tells the Teabagger to watch out for that greedy union worker stealing the last cookie. And the Teabagger falls for it.
Why isn't the Tea Party riled up against corporations who aren't paying their fair share of taxes? Heck, so many billion dollar corporations don't pay any taxes and yet the Tea Party is worried about people making less than $50,000 a year not paying enough taxes, having health care and getting too much vacation? Are you kidding me? Seriously, if you want that 5 weeks of vacation so much, why don't you rise up against the CEOs of these corporations rather than trying to take it away from other workers?
Already today, workers in America work far more than any other industrialized nation in the world. We work the longest hours and get the fewest number of paid vacation days. No, providing more paid vacation days would not necessarily have to lead to higher prices on goods and services. GE could well afford to have slightly less profits, or at least a lower tax refund.
And don't tell me that one just has to negotiate for better benefits. Even in the "boom times" I didn't know anyone who got more than 3 weeks vacation. One worker cannot adequately negotiate with a business/corporation, that's why there are unions, that at least bring collectively bargaining, the strength of thousands, to have some possibility of equal bargaining power with a corporation. Many places have never had unions, and realistically, the vast majority of employees can't dictate their salary and benefits. Most of us, are extremely fungible. Maybe you can get a little more, IF you have some special/rare skill, IF you are highly desired by the company and IF you have multiple offers for your services. But really, how often does that happen? Even the lowest fast-food employee in France gets 5 weeks vacation, I never got paid vacation when I worked at Burger King, you really think I could have negotiated for that?
I might be more sympathetic to corporations if they maybe used their profits and lower taxes for better work benefits or even jobs here in America. While current reports show that many corporations are making new jobs, those jobs are in China, India, Indonesia, where they can pay workers $1 a day. Come on, we're not even talking about minimum US wages, let alone union wages that are reportedly so outrageous. Do we really want to force US workers to live on a $1 day? Do we really want that standard of living?
I'd have a helluva lot more respect for the Tea Party if they weren't complete and utter tools of the Republican (Corporation) party. All they talk about is cutting spending to reduce the deficit. How about raising taxes on those billion dollar corporations and millionaires? How about raising more money to lower the deficit. Why take it out on kids, the poor, the sick, rather than those that can truly afford it. Don't blame unions or government workers who only want to eat 1 cookie, blame it on the 19cookie hoarding corporations.
But besides that, I tend to agree with a lot of Maher's politics (again, not all, he's a bit too liberal on drugs, for example), but I have no qualms agreeing with his socialism. Maher had an excellent panelist, Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont. He was so articulate and clear about the health care law and education (we're cutting funding for millions of kids, but the Republicans are saying "but wait, we're helping 1700 kids in DC, yay us").
Another point brought up is how the corporations pay little, if anything, in taxes, yet they complain about raising corporate tax rates. Of course GE might be upset if the tax rate got raised from 35% to 39%. GE might actually have to pay taxes instead of getting a 3.2 billion refund/rebate on its 14 million in profits. In addition to the huge sums that corporations don't have to pay in taxes, these corporations cut jobs, freeze wages, cut/freeze or just never provide benefits, like sick and vacation time.
Then the corporations get its employees all worked up against public employees who do get sick and vacation time. Thus, instead of being mad at their bosses, the CEOs, the management, for only getting 2 weeks vacation, if that, the private sector workers get mad at the public sector employees who do get sick time and 5 weeks vacation. Its like having 20 cookies to share amongst a CEO, a Teabagger, and a union worker. The CEO takes 19 cookies, then tells the Teabagger to watch out for that greedy union worker stealing the last cookie. And the Teabagger falls for it.
Why isn't the Tea Party riled up against corporations who aren't paying their fair share of taxes? Heck, so many billion dollar corporations don't pay any taxes and yet the Tea Party is worried about people making less than $50,000 a year not paying enough taxes, having health care and getting too much vacation? Are you kidding me? Seriously, if you want that 5 weeks of vacation so much, why don't you rise up against the CEOs of these corporations rather than trying to take it away from other workers?
Already today, workers in America work far more than any other industrialized nation in the world. We work the longest hours and get the fewest number of paid vacation days. No, providing more paid vacation days would not necessarily have to lead to higher prices on goods and services. GE could well afford to have slightly less profits, or at least a lower tax refund.
And don't tell me that one just has to negotiate for better benefits. Even in the "boom times" I didn't know anyone who got more than 3 weeks vacation. One worker cannot adequately negotiate with a business/corporation, that's why there are unions, that at least bring collectively bargaining, the strength of thousands, to have some possibility of equal bargaining power with a corporation. Many places have never had unions, and realistically, the vast majority of employees can't dictate their salary and benefits. Most of us, are extremely fungible. Maybe you can get a little more, IF you have some special/rare skill, IF you are highly desired by the company and IF you have multiple offers for your services. But really, how often does that happen? Even the lowest fast-food employee in France gets 5 weeks vacation, I never got paid vacation when I worked at Burger King, you really think I could have negotiated for that?
I might be more sympathetic to corporations if they maybe used their profits and lower taxes for better work benefits or even jobs here in America. While current reports show that many corporations are making new jobs, those jobs are in China, India, Indonesia, where they can pay workers $1 a day. Come on, we're not even talking about minimum US wages, let alone union wages that are reportedly so outrageous. Do we really want to force US workers to live on a $1 day? Do we really want that standard of living?
I'd have a helluva lot more respect for the Tea Party if they weren't complete and utter tools of the Republican (Corporation) party. All they talk about is cutting spending to reduce the deficit. How about raising taxes on those billion dollar corporations and millionaires? How about raising more money to lower the deficit. Why take it out on kids, the poor, the sick, rather than those that can truly afford it. Don't blame unions or government workers who only want to eat 1 cookie, blame it on the 19cookie hoarding corporations.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Rich Teachers and 93 Sentras
So put me in the camp in support of the union supporters in Wisconsin. I find it absolutely incredible that people that want to keep the top 2% of American's income, i.e. those that make over $250,000, at a lower tax rate, they get to keep a whole $5,000 or so a year (yes, more for those that make $1,000,000 - oooo, I bet they really feel the pain), and instead are trying to take away the wages and benefits of people that make $50,000 a year. Yes, these teachers that make a fifth, or even less of the richest people in America, those are the people that are the "blame" for our country's budget woes. As Stephen Colbert states, damn those rich teachers and their 93 Sentras. Totally makes sense to go after people driving almost 20 year old cars instead of those that, you know, own several 2011 Rolls Royces, or Bently's, or Mercedes, or Porches.
Now the unions in Wisconsin are willing to compromise. They are willing to accept less in wages and less in benefits. They understand that everyone needs to contribute in these hard economic times to help balance budgets. But what they are not willing to accept is their absolute destruction, the complete inability to later bargain and negotiate to get those benefits and wages back when economic conditions improve. These people will sacrifice some money now, but want the right to get it back later. Compare this to bankers, who didn't even have to sacrifice their money, not one single penny of it, now. The bankers got bailed out in the billions. They got their six figure bonuses. Did you get a bonus for Christmas this year? Or last year? Did you get a raise? Bankers did, teachers did not. Teachers are giving up their ability to trade in their 18 year old car for a 10 year old car, whereas bankers are trading in their 2010 RRs for the new 2011 model. Cry me a friggin river you top 2%.
Oh, but those teachers get 3 months vacation and only work till 3pm. Well, let me say Bullshit! My mother was a teacher. She worked well past 3pm. At home, she was always grading papers, getting lesson plans together, making bulletin board displays. She worked summer schools often. I remember seeing many of my teachers working in grocery stores over the summer because they just couldn't last 3 months without a paycheck. That's right, its not like these teachers get 3 months "paid vacation." They get 3 months without a paycheck. You try living 3 months without a paycheck.
QUIT BALANCING OUR BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF TEACHERS AND KIDS! We have to pay teachers well to encourage more to enter the field. I've constantly heard the excuse by big companies. Oh, we have to pay our CEOs these millions of dollars to encourage them to stay/come to our company. That's what "big lawfirms" say to excuse their $160,000 paychecks to top law students. Why not use that same excuse to attract more teachers to the profession?
Maybe, just maybe, if more teachers entered the profession and could make living wages, our kids would be better educated. I've heard arguments that teachers are so secure in their jobs, so they don't try. How about, our teachers are so overwhelmed with 35+ student classes, having to find ways to get school supplies, even paying for them out of their own pocket (there's a special tax write off for that too, you think that would be necessary if teachers were getting such supplies from the school?), having to be babysitters as well as teachers because both parents (to the extent there are two parents) are working long hours trying to pay the rent or mortgage and put food on the table. These teachers are exhausted, and so are the parents. Meanwhile the poor top 2% are having to "sacrifice" by canceling one of their ten trips to Europe this year and only being able to buy 10 new pairs of shoes this year instead of 15. Lets get that violin out.
A poor education leads to poorly trainable workers. A recent article in my local paper talked about problems with the new Septa rail cars. They have a lot of defects. They're being made in America (which we're all supposed to encourage, right, rather than having them made in Mexico?), but the Korean supervisors are complaining that all the workers are unskilled and they are difficult to train. Maybe if they could read and do math better, they'd be better workers. And maybe if those workers had better education in school they could read and do math better. And maybe they'd get that better education if there was more money being paid to the schools and the teachers.
Some say that "throwing money at the problem won't solve it." HOW DO THEY KNOW THAT? WE'VE NEVER TRIED IT! How about we give it a try and throw more and more money at education, and do it for like 10 years and see if things improve?
Unions may not be perfect. There may be corruption at the top. But there's no way there's more "corruption" in unions than there is at the top of big business, and no way that union bosses earn more than the CEOs of these businesses. You think CEOs "make jobs"? Yeah, maybe, but I bet half of those jobs are in other countries, Mexico, India, China. Union bosses, however, make American jobs. Union bosses fight for more wages for their union members, giving them more money, so that maybe the members can afford to eat out at Applebees once a month, thereby allowing Applebees to hire more waiters, servers, cooks and dishwashers. There, more jobs created and in America.
So I say no to abolishing unions or taking away collective bargaining rights. Frankly, I don't think they should be giving up any of their hard earned wages or benefits, not unless the top 2% make similar concessions in their taxes. You want union employees to take a 5% cut in wages and benefits, then raise the taxes 5% on the top 2%. Guess which one creates more money for state and federal budgets?
Now the unions in Wisconsin are willing to compromise. They are willing to accept less in wages and less in benefits. They understand that everyone needs to contribute in these hard economic times to help balance budgets. But what they are not willing to accept is their absolute destruction, the complete inability to later bargain and negotiate to get those benefits and wages back when economic conditions improve. These people will sacrifice some money now, but want the right to get it back later. Compare this to bankers, who didn't even have to sacrifice their money, not one single penny of it, now. The bankers got bailed out in the billions. They got their six figure bonuses. Did you get a bonus for Christmas this year? Or last year? Did you get a raise? Bankers did, teachers did not. Teachers are giving up their ability to trade in their 18 year old car for a 10 year old car, whereas bankers are trading in their 2010 RRs for the new 2011 model. Cry me a friggin river you top 2%.
Oh, but those teachers get 3 months vacation and only work till 3pm. Well, let me say Bullshit! My mother was a teacher. She worked well past 3pm. At home, she was always grading papers, getting lesson plans together, making bulletin board displays. She worked summer schools often. I remember seeing many of my teachers working in grocery stores over the summer because they just couldn't last 3 months without a paycheck. That's right, its not like these teachers get 3 months "paid vacation." They get 3 months without a paycheck. You try living 3 months without a paycheck.
QUIT BALANCING OUR BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF TEACHERS AND KIDS! We have to pay teachers well to encourage more to enter the field. I've constantly heard the excuse by big companies. Oh, we have to pay our CEOs these millions of dollars to encourage them to stay/come to our company. That's what "big lawfirms" say to excuse their $160,000 paychecks to top law students. Why not use that same excuse to attract more teachers to the profession?
Maybe, just maybe, if more teachers entered the profession and could make living wages, our kids would be better educated. I've heard arguments that teachers are so secure in their jobs, so they don't try. How about, our teachers are so overwhelmed with 35+ student classes, having to find ways to get school supplies, even paying for them out of their own pocket (there's a special tax write off for that too, you think that would be necessary if teachers were getting such supplies from the school?), having to be babysitters as well as teachers because both parents (to the extent there are two parents) are working long hours trying to pay the rent or mortgage and put food on the table. These teachers are exhausted, and so are the parents. Meanwhile the poor top 2% are having to "sacrifice" by canceling one of their ten trips to Europe this year and only being able to buy 10 new pairs of shoes this year instead of 15. Lets get that violin out.
A poor education leads to poorly trainable workers. A recent article in my local paper talked about problems with the new Septa rail cars. They have a lot of defects. They're being made in America (which we're all supposed to encourage, right, rather than having them made in Mexico?), but the Korean supervisors are complaining that all the workers are unskilled and they are difficult to train. Maybe if they could read and do math better, they'd be better workers. And maybe if those workers had better education in school they could read and do math better. And maybe they'd get that better education if there was more money being paid to the schools and the teachers.
Some say that "throwing money at the problem won't solve it." HOW DO THEY KNOW THAT? WE'VE NEVER TRIED IT! How about we give it a try and throw more and more money at education, and do it for like 10 years and see if things improve?
Unions may not be perfect. There may be corruption at the top. But there's no way there's more "corruption" in unions than there is at the top of big business, and no way that union bosses earn more than the CEOs of these businesses. You think CEOs "make jobs"? Yeah, maybe, but I bet half of those jobs are in other countries, Mexico, India, China. Union bosses, however, make American jobs. Union bosses fight for more wages for their union members, giving them more money, so that maybe the members can afford to eat out at Applebees once a month, thereby allowing Applebees to hire more waiters, servers, cooks and dishwashers. There, more jobs created and in America.
So I say no to abolishing unions or taking away collective bargaining rights. Frankly, I don't think they should be giving up any of their hard earned wages or benefits, not unless the top 2% make similar concessions in their taxes. You want union employees to take a 5% cut in wages and benefits, then raise the taxes 5% on the top 2%. Guess which one creates more money for state and federal budgets?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)