Let’s say you update your Facebook status to mention something about your place of employment and others comment on that post. What if your supervisor sees or learns of the comments? Should they be able to use that information to make decisions about your employment such as termination or discipline? The National Labor Relations Board says “No”. The NLRB normally deals with labor unions but as it states on its website the NLRB protects employees rights with or WITHOUT a union and it is now involved in a lawsuit against an employer who allegedly fired an employee after the employee made comments about her employer on Facebook. It will be interesting to see how this case is decided as it could free millions of employees from biting their “tongues” and saying what they really mean on Facebook and other social networking sites.
Please read the online article in the New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/business/09facebook.html?_r=2&hp for the whole story. To learn more about waht the NLRB can do for you visit its website at http://www.nlrb.gov/.
For the first time I am trying to participate in NaNoWriMo – National Novel Writing Month - which maybe should more accurately be named NaCraNoWriMo – National Crappy Novel Writing Month. The goal of NaNoWriMo is to write a 50,000 word novel during the month of November. There are almost no rules; just write with abandon. So I am writing with abandon. I had no plan or even an inkling of what I was going to write until I sat down to the computer on November 1st. I started at the beginning – the birth of a baby in the back of the car on the interstate in the middle of a blizzard. I thought the novel would be about the baby but since a baby can’t really have much of a story to tell until they are old enough to talk and I didn’t want to skip ahead lest I don’t make the 50,000 word goal, I switched my story to be about the mother. So now I have my character, a young single mother kicked out of her house when she got pregnant. And now she is getting ready start college. I keep writing and writing even though I realize every word I put down is total and complete crap.
I know my characters have no depth. I know any reader wouldn’t care one bit about what happens to them. They don’t have any real problems; there is no real conflict. It is boring. It is poorly written. The descriptions suck. There is no color. There is almost all telling and no showing. You can insert any statement descriping a really crappy novel and that would describe what I am writing. BUT – I am writing! And if I have an extra year or two somewhere down the line, I’ll have the basic story and can always go back, fix it and add all of that stuff that makes a readable novel readable. So I’m going to plug away and hope to make my 50,000 word goal by November 30th.
I know this post isn’t creative writing but it is ABOUT creative writing. On Saturday, November 20th, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. I will be teaching a workshop about creative writing basics. Now I’m no creative writing expert; I have a LOT to learn myself so I did initially question my qualifications for teaching this course. However, I did take creative writing courses in college, numerous workshops over the years and participate in extensive self study. So I think I do have the basics down and with some refresher study, can present that with credibility and authority. I am excited; it should be fun. We will cover basic terms, get participants ready to embark on a regular writing routine and do some interesting writing exercises. And I’ll probably learn a thing or two as well. If you are interested in attending, visit the Midwest Writing Center’s workshop page on its website at http://www.midwestwritingcenter.org/WhatWeDo/Workshops.htm.
You can visit my website at www.jodiet.com.
Ms. Smith alleged while working in the bakery department at a Hy-Vee store in Missouri, she was subjected to what many, if not most, people would consider sexually-oriented extremely vulgar and offensive treatment. She alleged she complained about the treatment to no avail and was eventually terminated from her position. So she brought a sexual harassment and retaliation claim against Hy-Vee.
The sexual harassment part of the claim never made it to court; Hy-Vee won that part of the case on a motion for summary judgment wherein the court ruled no questions of material facts for a jury to evaluate existed. The basis of the court’s ruling? Sex was not a “contributing factor” in the treatment to which Ms. Smith alleged she was subjected or the alleged treatment did not occur because she was female.
You see, Ms. Smith’s co-worker not only behaved in the subject vulgar and offensive manner toward Ms. Smith or just women for that matter but she took the same or substantially similar actions toward the men with whom she worked. The lesson? If you make vulgar, offensive, sexually explicit statements or physical actions, do it equally toward both sexes.
Read the full opinion on Findlaw here: Smith v. Hy-Vee, 09-2631, U.S. 8th Circuit Court, October 12, 2010. If you are interested in my general writing and/or legal writing services, visit my website at www.jodiet.com.
Until last Thursday evening, the following thought had never occurred to me: a city’s police department can have a conflict of interest in numerous situations, one of which occurs when a bus operated by the city collides with a vehicle driven by one of its citizens. This causes me to ask the question: should a motor vehicle accident involving a municipal vehicle such as a bus be investigated by the police department from that city?
One may at first opine that yes, technically there would be a conflict of interest in this situation; however, the police department would remain unbiased in investigating such an accident. Perhaps, but I wonder, is this really the case? The bus driver and the police officer share a common employer: the city. Is there an allegiance between police officers and bus drivers as exists between police officers and firefighters or other police officers? Aren’t they all “on the job”? It seems just about every company is trying to cut costs, improve safety ratings and all around reduce their “risk”. Why should the city be any different? When the city’s insurance company has to pay out for an accident caused by its negligence that insurance company is the same for the police officer as the bus driver. If safety rating or incidents are monitored for entire municipalities, wouldn’t a mark on the city’s safety record reflect the police department and the bus department? The “risk manager” is contracted or employed by the city; wouldn’t that same “risk manager” evaluate an accident involving a bus as well as an accident involving a police car? Is there some subtle solidarity between the two?
I ask these questions because last Thursday when I was pulling into an angle parking spot maintained by the city along one of our city’s two lane streets, a bus flew around me through said parking lanes to make a light or otherwise pass me illegally on the right and I hit that bus with my car, the city’s police officer seemed to be making excuses for the bus driver when he arrived over a half hour later. At first he explained the street changes to four lanes at the other side of the intersection so the bus driver was going around me to drive in the outside lane of the wider street. Then when I pointed out that may be the case but THIS side of the intersection, the side she was DRIVING on, was only two lanes and she was not allowed to pass me through PARKING SPACES to go around me, the officer concocted another excuse: the lines delineating the parking spaces were faded and it was getting dark out.
At that point I entered a sort of state of disbelief. If the city refuses to pay to fix my vehicle, I will point out the following. One: The bus driver, having driven bus for thirty YEARS should know there are parking spaces there even if the lines were faint. Two: It wasn’t dark out; it was before 6:20 which I know because I had this wild and crazy thought I was going to be early for the class I was taking, have time to use the restroom and get a good place to sit as opposed to being one hour late. Three: The parking spaces are maintained by the city; therefore, not having the lines painted clearly is still the city’s negligence. Four: How did she know I wasn’t going to take the outside lane upon crossing the intersection; I could’ve chosen either one. Five: It is illegal to change lanes within so many feet of an intersection so even if the street I was on was four lanes, she would’ve still been changing lanes illegally. Finally: Bottom line and back to my original point – I don’t care if the road went to four or six or twelve lanes across the intersection, it was only TWO where she was and she tried to pass me by driving through PARKING SPACES. Oh yeah, and when I went up to the bus after the accident, she opened her window and I asked her something to the effect of, “Were you in a hurry?”, she answered “Yes.”
CRUSH
When my eyes close at night,
Always there he is;
Those big blue eyes
And lips I want to kiss.
He’s always right there
When dreams start to play;
Always holding my hand
Gazing at me the love-way.
The dream always ends
With words he must share;
Always I’m the only one;
Only girl for whom he cares.
Just as his lips lean
To my cheek for a kiss,
My alarm always rings,
Left with elusive bliss.
Though I’m awake,
The image will stay.
As I eat my cheerios,
I hope today is the day.
When I get to my locker,
He’ll be waiting there.
He’ll say “Where’ve you been?”
“I’ve looked everywhere.”
He’ll say he’s been blind;
That’s what it is.
He’ll place his hand over mine
And promise I’ll always be his.
For additional samples from the book, visit the Crush and Other Love Poems for Girls page on my website.
How much do you want the government involved in what you buy? Many Americans would agree government needs to be involved in our purchase options to a certain extent. I am grateful our government has worked toward at least alerting me to the fact products containing lead paint have been making their way onto the toy store shelves. The United States imports more products than it exports (per my marketing class instructor and I have no reason to disbelieve him) so I’m glad unsafe products or components of products are not allowed to be sold in my country. However, I’m not so sure if my government should get involved if the only thing at issue about a product is the price at which it is being sold.
Dumping is a practice in the business world wherein products are sold at prices in foreign countries less than they are sold at home (click for dictionary definition). When a product is suspect of being sold in the United States at a price lower than that at home (being dumped), the Department of Commerce is allowed to impose a tax on that product. Logically this would seem to discourage further importation of the product because the domestic company purchasing it is no longer receiving the bargain and if the domestic company decides to purchase the product with the tax, to drive up the price.
Recently the U.S. Court of International Trade upheld a ruling by the Department of Commerce which found “certain tissue paper contained in Walgreen’s ‘Gift Bag to Go’ gift bag sets are within the scope of an earlier anti-dumping order covering certain tissue paper from … China.” Walgreen Co. of Deerfield, IL v. U.S, 2010-1136, October 8, 2010. Walgreen’s tried to convince the Department of Commerce five of its gift bag sets did not fall under the impositions enacted under the tissue paper provision in the anti-dumping order. Walgreen’s lost when it was ruled the tissue paper was subject to the order.
What do you think? Did the government go too far with the “tissue paper tax”? Do you care that if you went to China (assuming the tissue paper was sold at all in China), you would have to pay more for this tissue paper than you’d pay at Walgreen’s down on the corner? Or would you rather have the ability to purchase the tissue paper at the cheap price, decide for yourself if it meets your quality standards and if it didn’t, take it back or not purchase again thereby allowing the market to dictate the import of the paper? What are your thoughts about dumping and government regulation of products sold – are you in favor for everything right down to the tissue paper you are stuffing into Aunt Harriet’s gift bag of cheap old-lady perfume or maybe just items like food and automobiles? I’m not sure either. Something to think about…
If you missed the link to the full text of this opinion, you can also acess it here. If you are an attorney, law firm, or legal department and desire help on any law or litigation writing tasks, please visit the Jodie Toohey Writing Innovations website.
HOLD STRONG
Fight even as tears drip and reduce you.
Bend but clutch your soul;
your lance against each air wave
attempting to steal your spark.
With perseverant dedication
even a single flame is enough
to guide and comfort the lost.
It seems, according to the case of Stayart v. Yahoo! Inc., in order to sue a search engine if your name gets attached to pornographic or other unsavory web links, you need to register your name as a trademark with the U.S. government and/or start a business.
The 7th Circuit appeals court decided a case on September 30, 2010, upholding a trial court’s decision to dismiss a plaintiff’s lawsuit against the search engine, Yahoo!. If you’ve never done it, type your name into a Google, Yahoo! or other search engine’s search field and click the search button. It is interesting to see what, if anything, comes up (and unless you are a total observer of the internet, you name will likely come up somewhere). When Beverly Stayart did this she found her name attached to links to pharmaceutical company and pornography websites*, assumingly among those connected to her papers and poems published on the web.
Ms. Stayart sued Yahoo! alleging violations of the Lanham Act which was passed in 1946 to set up trademark registration and protection. Specifically, she charged the search results “improperly gave her endorsement” to the undesirable companies and website links. The trial court ruled and the appeals court affirmed the case should’ve been dismissed because Ms. Stayart lacked standing to sue under this statute as she did not have a commercial interest in her name. Her assertion her charitable activities gave her a commercial interest in her name was also debunked when the court ruled those allegations should’ve been brought under a different section of the Lanham Act. It further ruled even if she had brought that charge, it also would’ve failed because she had not registered her name as a trademark with the trademark office.
To read this opinion in its entirety, visit http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/1N0GWBBP.pdf. If you are in need of any writing services, whether for commercial or personal interest, please visit Jodie Toohey Writing Innovations at www.jodiet.com.
*Curiously, the opinion stated the “comprehensive search results EVENTUALLY contained links” to the offensive websites (emphasis added). This causes me to wonder how far down she had to go to find the sites with which she didn’t want her name associated.
An at-first random musing poem by Jodie:
ON THE MOVE
The world is on the move
But I stand still.
They all have somewhere.
Waiting.
The world is on the move
But I stand still.
Silent in the noise.
Stifling.
The world has a purpose
But I stand still.
Aimless in searching.
Drowning.
My chains paralyze.
Imprisoned by cold.
Racing to nowhere.
Raise head from pillow,
Face the day.
Longing for nightfall.
Escape away.
Peace only in sleep.
Restless and weary.
Living only to
Briefly die away
From reality.
