Posts Tagged ‘President-elect Barack Obama’

Signs of the Times

December 9, 2008

A couple of days ago I was in a conversation with my sister over the phone where she informed me that my aunt had suffered a fall which put her into the ICU of a Queens hospital. I questioned my sister as to what had happened at which she informed me that my aunt had fainted and fallen to the floor where she sustained a blow to the head.  Right away I went to the root of the matter and asked why she had fainted in the first place. It seemed that she has not been in good health for some time. I thought about this and it dawned on me what was happening. Like many elderly people across America she is in the position in which she lives on a fixed income. As such her income is limited and her age and health do not permit her to continue caring for children which was her way of supplementing her income.

She is in the position that many elderly Americans find themselves in these trying times. A fixed income with everything going up on a regular basis. The health outcomes of this soon become apparent and will be seen in the near future statistics as they become available.

More and more people in this category are by passing medical exams and visits to the doctor due to the high costs. They fear the debt they will get into for a hospital stay. Even with those that have some sort of medical coverage the expenses can quickly get out of hand. The thought of this in itself is enough to bring on additional stress that makes things even worse. Just this past week there was a report that many doctors will no longer administer flu shots because of the cost.

Right now many of these people are deciding between paying the electric bill or buying food. Between paying for heating fuel or buying a much needed coat and sweater. Between medicine and bus fare for work. And things don’t seem to get better.

From what I have been seeing we a catastrophe in progress and I wonder if the government is prepared for what is coming. President elect Barack Obama has already acknowledged that things are worse than were thought and that this economic crisis is going to take some time to overcome. In the mean time many of the countries elderly are making some harsh decisions regarding their health. Many are opting to forego visits to the doctor and hoping nothing will happen, a rather perilous decision to say the least, but what choices do they really have?

No doubt the future statistics will show some tragic numbers and one might ask, What will the government do about this situation?

Hunterseeker

I think we got into this mess when our fearless leader sent our troops to fight a war. Mr. Bush is a millionaire so what worries did he have? I bet this war costs more than Viet Nam. Because of a group of men (with educations at 4th grade level, according to sources I’ve read) whole populations of the Middle East are being
routinely killed off in the name of some false beliefs by brainwashed men hoping for compensation in the afterlife. These are a different type of gangsters with no reason to kill other than false promises from their leader, whoever that may be as each one if killed.

As far as the US, when I read that it cost over $12 billion dollars a day to support the war in Iraq, it simple blew my mind. That is so unconceivable given the state of our health care system, not to mention our 450,000 citizens out of a job now (me being one of them). Employers say that it’s a financial decision to lay off huge numbers of people because of “the economy”. What have the auto makers ever done to improve my life? I was quite disappointed to see that Ford and all the other auto makers are being treated like they have a “right” to be bailed out. Sorry folks, you certainly should NOT be the priority in our national affairs when our health care and standard of living are being jeopardized.

In a way, I feel sorry for Obama. what a time to become president. With a war and a recession upon us, good luck. Bush should be held accountable for a lot of this mess. He made the decision to go to war and we all know that war is BIG MONEY, especially for aircraft makers like Boeing, to name one.
Cybercatxq

I’m 67, retired and living in public housing. Every year when we get a cost of living raise, which is usually $10-$15, our rent goes up five to fifteen dollars. How in the world can you win? I can’t even get food stamps. They say I make too much. Between S.S. and my late husbands small pension, which I only get a portion of, I make $1045 a mo. The maximum per Cobra is like $750. I skip days on some of my meds as I can’t afford to get them refilled. I live on a lot of pot pies and tv dinners. Forget fresh produce and fruit. Even at our local discount grocer a small bag of apples is $3.99 for 3 lbs. I’ve cut way back on meat as that seems to cost me the most when grocery shopping. I haven’t bought any new clothes in months. I have a dog and I got his rabies this year, but couldn’t afford his 3 in 1, which includes his Parvo, as its more expensive. My car is almost 15 years old and needs new tires, but forget it. I just survive and have months where I can’t afford to go see my mother, as she lives fifty miles away. The price of gas going down has helped there, but now she’s in a nursing home and I need to get over there. I worked for over 30 years as a nurse and never imagined my latter years would be like this.
posted by nanakay65

We are in the same boat, and have not gotten much needed food in order to pay the heating bill and electric bill on and off for the past few months. We are already living and finding ourselves not going to the doctor when we need to because of the cost and the bills we still find ourselves in debt and trying to pay off what medical bills we have already. I was already canceled from getting any more of Social Security Income for my disability and next year after I have to settle my Workman’s Comp case, I will no longer even be covered for Medicare, and so I will NOT have any type of medical coverage at all, for doctors visits which I need for all my pain and for any of the prescriptions that I need also, which I will have to do without due to that on just Paul’s SSI income, we will not be able to afford it. Paul will be the only one covered, which is great cause he has active Glaucoma in his left eye and is completely blind in his right, so he needs the coverage,. We have no idea what we will do as far as any medical for me. It scares me to death, thinking about it. This coming summer of 2009 we have to move form where we currently are, due to we can not afford to stay here, cause though the rent is going up asgain, our income doesn’t, so we have to leave our home of going on 6 years here.
Donna & Paul
posted by dloglesby57

Angry Laid-Off Workers Occupy Factory in Chicago

December 8, 2008

Monday, December 8, 2008
by Rupa Shenoy

CHICAGO – Workers who got three days’ notice that their factory was shutting its doors have occupied the building and say they won’t go home without assurances they’ll get severance and vacation pay.
About 250 union workers occupied the Republic Windows and Doors plant in shifts Saturday while union leaders outside criticized a Wall Street bailout they say is leaving laborers behind.

I have been hearing about this over the weekend on CNN and gave it some thought at length. It suddenly dawned on me that this might turn out to be a blue print or working model for other manufacturers looking to get out during this economic crisis, so I did some checking on the WARN ACT.  Here it is:

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
A Guide to Advance Notice of Closings and Layoffs
http://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/warn.htm

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) was enacted on August 4, 1988 and became effective on February 4, 1989.
General Provisions
WARN offers protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs. This notice must be provided to either affected workers or their representatives (e.g., a labor union); to the State dislocated worker unit; and to the appropriate unit of local government.
Employer Coverage
In general, employers are covered by WARN if they have 100 or more employees, not counting employees who have worked less than 6 months in the last 12 months and not counting employees who work an average of less than 20 hours a week. Private, for-profit employers and private, nonprofit employers are covered, as are public and quasi-public entities which operate in a commercial context and are separately organized from the regular government. Regular Federal, State, and local government entities which provide public services are not covered.
Employee Coverage
Employees entitled to notice under WARN include hourly and salaried workers, as well as managerial and supervisory employees. Business partners are not entitled to notice.
What Triggers Notice
Plant Closing: A covered employer must give notice if an employment site (or one or more facilities or operating units within an employment site) will be shut down, and the shutdown will result in an employment loss (as defined later) for 50 or more employees during any 30-day period. This does not count employees who have worked less than 6 months in the last 12 months or employees who work an average of less than 20 hours a week for that employer. These latter groups, however, are entitled to notice (discussed later).
Mass Layoff: A covered employer must give notice if there is to be a mass layoff which does not result from a plant closing, but which will result in an employment loss at the employment site during any 30-day period for 500 or more employees, or for 50-499 employees if they make up at least 33% of the employer’s active workforce. Again, this does not count employees who have worked less than 6 months in the last 12 months or employees who work an average of less than 20 hours a week for that employer. These latter groups, however, are entitled to notice (discussed later).
An employer also must give notice if the number of employment losses which occur during a 30-day period fails to meet the threshold requirements of a plant closing or mass layoff, but the number of employment losses for 2 or more groups of workers, each of which is less than the minimum number needed to trigger notice, reaches the threshold level, during any 90-day period, of either a plant closing or mass layoff. Job losses within any 90-day period will count together toward WARN threshold levels, unless the employer demonstrates that the employment losses during the 90-day period are the result of separate and distinct actions and causes.
Sale of Businesses
In a situation involving the sale of part or all of a business, the following requirements apply. (1) In each situation, there is always an employer responsible for giving notice. (2) If the sale by a covered employer results in a covered plant closing or mass layoff, the required parties (discussed later) must receive at least 60 days notice. (3) The seller is responsible for providing notice of any covered plant closing or mass layoff which occurs up to and including the date/time of the sale. (4) The buyer is responsible for providing notice of any covered plant closing or mass layoff which occurs after the date/time of the sale. (5) No notice is required if the sale does not result in a covered plant closing or mass layoff. (6) Employees of the seller (other than employees who have worked less than 6 months in the last 12 months or employees who work an average of less than 20 hours a week) on the date/time of the sale become, for purposes of WARN, employees of the buyer immediately following the sale. This provision preserves the notice rights of the employees of a business that has been sold.
Employment Loss
The term “employment loss” means:
(1) An employment termination, other than a discharge for cause, voluntary departure, or retirement;
(2) a layoff exceeding 6 months; or
(3) a reduction in an employee’s hours of work of more than 50% in each month of any 6-month period.
Exceptions: An employee who refuses a transfer to a different employment site within reasonable commuting distance does not experience an employment loss. An employee who accepts a transfer outside this distance within 30 days after it is offered or within 30 days after the plant closing or mass layoff, whichever is later, does not experience an employment loss. In both cases, the transfer offer must be made before the closing or layoff, there must be no more than a 6 month break in employment, and the new job must not be deemed a constructive discharge. These transfer exceptions from the “employment loss” definition apply only if the closing or layoff results from the relocation or consolidation of part or all of the employer’s business.
Exemptions
An employer does not need to give notice if a plant closing is the closing of a temporary facility, or if the closing or mass layoff is the result of the completion of a particular project or undertaking. This exemption applies only if the workers were hired with the understanding that their employment was limited to the duration of the facility, project or undertaking. An employer cannot label an ongoing project “temporary” in order to evade its obligations under WARN.
An employer does not need to provide notice to strikers or to workers who are part of the bargaining unit(s) which are involved in the labor negotiations that led to a lockout when the strike or lockout is equivalent to a plant closing or mass layoff. Non-striking employees who experience an employment loss as a direct or indirect result of a strike and workers who are not part of the bargaining unit(s) which are involved in the labor negotiations that led to a lockout are still entitled to notice.
An employer does not need to give notice when permanently replacing a person who is an “economic striker” as defined under the National Labor Relations Act.
Who Must Receive Notice
The employer must give written notice to the chief elected officer of the exclusive representative(s) or bargaining agency(s) of affected employees and to unrepresented individual workers who may reasonably be expected to experience an employment loss. This includes employees who may lose their employment due to “bumping,” or displacement by other workers, to the extent that the employer can identify those employees when notice is given. If an employer cannot identify employees who may lose their jobs through bumping procedures, the employer must provide notice to the incumbents in the jobs which are being eliminated. Employees who have worked less than 6 months in the last 12 months and employees who work an average of less than 20 hours a week are due notice, even though they are not counted when determining the trigger levels.
The employer must also provide notice to the State dislocated worker unit and to the chief elected official of the unit of local government in which the employment site is located.
Notification Period
With three exceptions, notice must be timed to reach the required parties at least 60 days before a closing or layoff. When the individual employment separations for a closing or layoff occur on more than one day, the notices are due to the representative(s), State dislocated worker unit and local government at least 60 days before each separation. If the workers are not represented, each worker’s notice is due at least 60 days before that worker’s separation.
The exceptions to 60-day notice are:
(1) Faltering company. This exception, to be narrowly construed, covers situations where a company has sought new capital or business in order to stay open and where giving notice would ruin the opportunity to get the new capital or business, and applies only to plant closings;
(2) unforeseeable business circumstances. This exception applies to closings and layoffs that are caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable at the time notice would otherwise have been required; and
(3) Natural disaster. This applies where a closing or layoff is the direct result of a natural disaster, such as a flood, earthquake, drought or storm.
If an employer provides less than 60 days advance notice of a closing or layoff and relies on one of these three exceptions, the employer bears the burden of proof that the conditions for the exception have been met. The employer also must give as much notice as is practicable. When the notices are given, they must include a brief statement of the reason for reducing the notice period in addition to the items required in notices.
Form and Content of Notice
No particular form of notice is required. However, all notices must be in writing. Any reasonable method of delivery designed to ensure receipt 60 days before a closing or layoff is acceptable.
Notice must be specific. Notice may be given conditionally upon the occurrence or non-occurrence of an event only when the event is definite and its occurrence or nonoccurrence will result in a covered employment action less than 60 days after the event.
The content of the notices to the required parties is listed in section 639.7 of the WARN final regulations. Additional notice is required when the date(s) or 14-day period(s) for a planned plant closing or mass layoff are extended beyond the date(s) or 14-day period(s) announced in the original notice.
Record
No particular form of record is required. The information employers will use to determine whether, to whom, and when they must give notice is information that employers usually keep in ordinary business practices and in complying with other laws and regulations.
Penalties
An employer who violates the WARN provisions by ordering a plant closing or mass layoff without providing appropriate notice is liable to each aggrieved employee for an amount including back pay and benefits for the period of violation, up to 60 days. The employer’s liability may be reduced by such items as wages paid by the employer to the employee during the period of the violation and voluntary and unconditional payments made by the employer to the employee.
An employer who fails to provide notice as required to a unit of local government is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $500 for each day of violation. This penalty may be avoided if the employer satisfies the liability to each aggrieved employee within 3 weeks after the closing or layoff is ordered by the employer.
Enforcement
Enforcement of WARN requirements is through the United States district courts. Workers, representatives of employees and units of local government may bring individual or class action suits. In any suit, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.
Information
Specific requirements of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act may be found in the Act itself, Public Law 100-379 (29 U.S.C. 210l, et seq.) The Department of Labor published final regulations on April 20, 1989 in the Federal Register (Vol. 54, No. 75). The regulations appear at 20 CFR Part 639.

General questions on the regulations may be addressed to:
U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
Office of Work-Based Learning
Room N-5426
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210

(202) 219-5577

The Department of Labor, since it has no administrative or enforcement responsibility under WARN, cannot provide specific advice or guidance with respect to individual situations.

Related news:

Chicago labor sit-in captures support from Obama

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) — A weekend sit-in by laid-off workers at a Chicago window factory drew high-profile support from President-elect Barack Obama ahead of a Monday meeting between union leaders and the plant’s major creditor.

About 200 workers from the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America have conducted what they call a “peaceful occupation” of the Republic Windows and Doors plant since Friday, when their abruptly announced layoffs were supposed to take effect.

The workers said Republic told them Bank of America had cut off credit to the company and gave them three days’ notice that they were losing their jobs. Federal law requires either 60 days’ notice or 60 days’ pay for the laid-off workers. More…

Citigroup secures U.S. government lifeline

November 24, 2008

Well, it seems that the government is throwing out yet another lifeline this time to Citigroup. I begin to wonder how long this will continue before the Government needs a Bailout? Now 21 nations are pledging not to implement Protectionism measures, at least not for the next 12 months.

Protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between nations, through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other restrictive government regulations designed to discourage imports, and prevent foreign take-over of local markets and companies. This policy is closely aligned with anti-globalization, and contrasts with free trade, where government barriers to trade are kept to a minimum. The term is mostly used in the context of economics, where protectionism refers to policies or doctrines which “protect” businesses and “living wages” within a country by restricting or regulating trade between foreign nations.

Source: Wikipedia

The U.S. seems to be scared that other nations were already planning on this measure which, if implemented could have restricted U.S. exports.  It makes me wonder who in their right mind would want to buy for instance an American made, gas guzzling SUV?

Well, you can check out the latest below and one or two extra pieces that I felt should be here.

Citigroup secures U.S. government lifeline

NEW YORK (CNN) — The U.S. government outlined a massive rescue package for Citigroup early Monday that would inject another $20 billion into the banking giant, shares of which have plunged in the past week.
The additional $20 billion follows a $25 billion injection into Citigroup earlier this year as part of the $700 billion bank bailout Congress passed in October. And the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. will backstop some losses against more than $300 billion in troubled assets.

The hard times are not only in the U.S. Here is a look at New Zealand

Hard times give rise to the ‘nouveaux pauvres’

4:00AM Monday Nov 24, 2008
By Catherine Field

France used to complain about the tackiness of its nouveaux riche.
Now, the concern is for the “nouveaux pauvre”, who have become newly impoverished by losing their job or falling into debt or who struggle to make ends meet on a tiny pension or pay cheque.

Charities are reporting a rise in demand at shelters for the homeless for free meals and parcels of food, as these vulnerable people feel the lash of a worsening economic crisis.

Volunteers of America Greater Sacramento & Northern Nevada

Winter Shelter to open Monday, Nov. 24

The Winter Shelter,located at Cal Expo, operated by Volunteers of America and funded by the Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance (DHA), will open Monday, Nov. 24, 2008.
Able to house as many as 154 men, women and children each night throughout Sacramento’s cold and wet winter months, it will remain open through late March 2009.

The shelter provides clients shelter and two daily meals in a comfortable dorm-style environment. Residents may stay at the shelter for 14 consecutive days with extensions granted on a case-by-case basis. A valid TB clearance is required from each resident within three days of admittance for them to be able to remain at the shelter.

November 22, 2008 — Updated 0355 GMT (1155 HKT)

APEC leaders endorse ban on protectionism

LIMA, Peru (AP) — Leaders from 21 nations that account for half the world’s economy pledged not to implement protectionist measures for the next 12 months — no matter how punishing the global downturn gets.

As if things aren’t bad enough for the homeless, what does New York do?

N.Y. churches ordered not to shelter homeless

By VERENA DOBNIK

NEW YORK — Twenty-two churches have stopped providing shelter to homeless New Yorkers — on city orders.
With temperatures below freezing on Saturday, the churches had to follow a city rule requiring faith-based shelters to be open at least five days a week — or not at all.
Arnold Cohen, president of the Partnership for the Homeless, a nonprofit that serves as a link between city officials and shelters, delivered the news to the churches several weeks ago that they no longer qualify.

Jobless claims jump unexpectedly to 16-year high

November 20, 2008 – 1:09pm
By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER
AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) – New claims for unemployment benefits jumped last week to a 16-year high, the Labor Department said Thursday, providing more evidence of a rapidly weakening job market expected to get even worse next year.
The government said new applications for jobless benefits rose to a seasonally adjusted 542,000 from a downwardly revised figure of 515,000 in the previous week. That’s much higher than Wall Street economists’ expectations of 505,000, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

Family homelessness rising in the United States

Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:07 am EST
By Ross Colvin – Analysis
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President-elect
Barack Obama has vowed to help middle-class U.S. homeowners facing foreclosure, but he has said little about how he will help low-income families made homeless by a worsening economy.
Obama has spoken broadly about boosting affordable housing and restoring public housing subsidies. But with economists forecasting a deep recession in 2009, he may find it hard to find the money to fulfill those promises soon.

This one is not new but I imagine things are a lot worse now.

In hard times, tent cities rise across the country

Since foreclosure mess, homeless advocates report rise in encampments
updated 3:36 p.m. ET, Thurs., Sept. 18, 2008

RENO, Nev. – A few tents cropped up hard by the railroad tracks, pitched by men left with nowhere to go once the emergency winter shelter closed for the summer.
Then others appeared — people who had lost their jobs to the ailing economy, or newcomers who had moved to Reno for work and discovered no one was hiring.

Below is a related link:

NATIONAL COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS