Posts
Yes, apparently, according to a sharply divided Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court opinion issued in Oliver v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
Typically, unemployment compensation benefits are awarded to a claimant who is not responsible for willful misconduct. The burden of proving willful misconduct is on the employer.
Traditionally, willful misconduct has required a knowing action on the part of the claimant that his or her conduct was in violation of a known work rule. There is a case denying benefits that held that a negligent violation of a workrule might be sufficient. In that case, Heitczman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 638 A.2d 461 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994), a claimant was aware of a rule requiring him to walk around the back of his truck before backing up. He failed to do so, and backed his truck into a light standard resulting in damage to the truck, after which he was terminated. The referee had granted benefits, finding that the light standard had been in the claimant's "blind spot," but the board reversed and the court affirmed finding that regardless whether the collision was "accidental" or not, the claimant had deliberately failed to walk around the back of the truck, and thereby had deliberately violated a workplace rule.
In Oliver, the claimant, a teacher at a pre-school, had been reminded two weeks earlier of the school's "zero tolerance policy" regarding failure to keep 100% of all children in their care under 100% control.
While exiting a playroom to lead her students outside, the claimant tripped then closed the door behind her accidentally leaving one of her students in the room. Several minutes later it was pointed out to her that she had only five of her six charges, and had left one of them alone in the playroom unattended. She was terminated, although she claimed that the violation had been an "honest mistake."
The Commonwealth Court ruled that "honest mistake" or not, the claimant knew that the policy existed, she had previously been warned, and she had nonetheless violated it when she left the student alone in the playroom. Of note was that the court considered all of the explanations the claimant offered, and still noted that her violation of the policy, regardless of whether accidental or deliberate, was "knowing," and accordingly justified a denial of benefits.
The moral of the story is that in order to prevail at UC hearings in Pennsylvania where an employer alleges "willful misconduct," it will be easier for employers to establish the employee's "knowledge" of the violated work rule and less important for the employee to explain the reasons behind the violation.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Whose Dream is it Anyway?
Last week, Glenn Beck shared, or I should say borrowed the venue at Martin Luther King gave his seminal "I Have a Dream" speech.
Beck claimed that the rally was to honor "our heroes, our heritage and our future." (While I hate to link to it, Beck's site is here.) He claimed the rally was a non-political event to pay tribute to America’s service personnel and "other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor."
Perhaps I am plagued by the paranoia that afflicts some diasporan Jews, but his rallying cry to "restore honor" is eerily reminiscent of Hitler's early speeches in pre-war Germany.
I arrived at this juxtaposition on my own, but it appears I am not alone in seeing the pattern, witness here and here .
Fact is that Beck trades on his "commoner" image without any reasonable foundation. He is not one of his followers. He makes more than 20 million dollars a year spewing vitriol, hatred and paranoia. And he does so without shame, while invoking God.
As a civil rights attorney, I will defend his right to speak, regardless of the lack of any intellectual content to his drivel, but the fact that he appeals to anyone without cortical level impairment remaings frightening.
As one of my very favorite bloggers, Helen Philpot of "Margaret and Helen" wrote recently here:
"The greatest threat against America is not terrorism. It’s not a mosque in Manhattan. It’s not gay marriage. It’s not healthcare reform. And, believe it or not, it’s not even Beck or Palin. The greatest threat against America are the tens of millions of Americans who won’t turn out to vote this November effectively giving power to 87,000 angry assholes."
Nothing positive can come from such negative energy. Nothing positive ever came from Hitler either.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Employee or Independent Contractor? How much are you willing to bet?
A significant number of employers cut corners by classifying their employees as "independent contractors." These employers are also hoping to avoid considerable employment taxes which are due to Federal, state and even local departments of revenue. The New York Times reported yesterday that Federal and state officials are beginning to pursue aggressively those employers who misclassify employees as independent contractors, in an effort to address their deficits.
Professional firms are among the most notorious who do this. I know many law firms who treat their associates as independent contractors, issuing 1099's at year's end, and expecting their associates to file business tax returns in those municipalities where such taxes are required. In addition, many other service companies --- cleaning, contracting, delivery --- use the "independent contractor" approach to dodge paying employment taxes.
While case law varies from state to state, much of the legal analysis comes from a well-established United States Supreme Court decision United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (1947). In that case, the Court outlined several criteria which are still followed to this date in determining whether an employee is an employee or a genuine independent contractor:
Remember that there can be individual liability on the part of corporate officers for unpaid employment taxes, and no corporate structure will adequately protect individuals from such liability. In addition, many states provide for criminal liability on the part of non-paying employers, and I know of more than one corporate officer with reporting probation while a past balance of unemployment compensation tax is paid off.
So, you may call those employees of yours independent contractors, but how much do you really want to bet?
Professional firms are among the most notorious who do this. I know many law firms who treat their associates as independent contractors, issuing 1099's at year's end, and expecting their associates to file business tax returns in those municipalities where such taxes are required. In addition, many other service companies --- cleaning, contracting, delivery --- use the "independent contractor" approach to dodge paying employment taxes.
While case law varies from state to state, much of the legal analysis comes from a well-established United States Supreme Court decision United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (1947). In that case, the Court outlined several criteria which are still followed to this date in determining whether an employee is an employee or a genuine independent contractor:
- The degree of the employer's control, that is, to what extent does the employer dictate how, when and where the job is performed?
- The alleged independent contractor’s investment in facilities and tools. Does the employer supply the tools, equipment and supplies or does the independent contractor?
- The independent contractor’s exposure to “profit and loss.” Is the alleged independent contractor dealing with costs versus sales or is their compensation thinly disguised piece work, hourly work, or salaried?
- The permanency of the relationship between the parties. Is this a one shot deal? Have the two been working together for years? Is the employer "assigning" jobs to the independent contractor like a referral agency, or is the employee intrinsically part of the employer's operations?
- The skill involved.
Remember that there can be individual liability on the part of corporate officers for unpaid employment taxes, and no corporate structure will adequately protect individuals from such liability. In addition, many states provide for criminal liability on the part of non-paying employers, and I know of more than one corporate officer with reporting probation while a past balance of unemployment compensation tax is paid off.
So, you may call those employees of yours independent contractors, but how much do you really want to bet?
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Of Cemeteries and Crosses.
What's Wrong With This Picture?
The following is an exerpt from oral argument before the United States Supreme Court on October 5, 2009 in the case of Salazar v. Buono:
JUSTICE SCALIA: The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war? Is that -- is that --
MR. ELIASBERG: I believe that's actually correct.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Where does it say that?
MR. ELIASBERG: It doesn't say that, but a cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins, and I believe that's why the Jewish war veterans --
JUSTICE SCALIA: It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. It's the -- the cross is the -- is the most
common symbol of -- of -- of the resting place of the dead, and it doesn't seem to me -- what would you have them erect? A cross -- some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Moslem half moon and star?
MR. ELIASBERG: Well, Justice Scalia, if I may go to your first point. The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.
(Laughter.)
MR. ELIASBERG: So it is the most common symbol to honor Christians.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that's an outrageous conclusion.
MR. ELIASBERG: Well, my -- the point of my -- point here is to say that there is a reason the Jewish war veterans came in and said we don't feel honored by this cross. This cross can't honor us because it is a religious symbol of another religion.
There has been ample online discussion of Justice Scalia's religious myopia here , here and here , but what has been noticeably lacking is outrage.
We are talking about the highest court in our great country. A court where every time a new nominee is sent to the senate the nutcakes come out of the closet to predict doom and gloom to their particular brand of polarized political justice.
Even more galling is that the justice involved wraps himself in the piety of the constitution under the term "original intent."
Let us start by pointing out that no matter how much the Radical and fundamentalist right doth protest, the United States was not born as a "Christian nation." The founding fathers were, for the most part, Deists. They repeatedly and expressly repudiated the notion that the nascent United States was a "Christian nation." It is impossible to adhere to "original intent" without acknowledging this fact.
You may have your religion, whatever that is. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, it does not matter to me --- it's your relationship with a divine being that matters to you.
But don't sit on the bench of the highest court in this land and impose your own myopic views on my justice system and wrap them in some warped sense of "original intent."
The argument of the fallacy of original intent is for another day; but this was an inglorious show of intellectual dishonesty. As it was, the Chief Justice rapidly cut off the discussion before his colleague could embarrass himself further. There should have been more outrage.
The following is an exerpt from oral argument before the United States Supreme Court on October 5, 2009 in the case of Salazar v. Buono:
JUSTICE SCALIA: The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war? Is that -- is that --
MR. ELIASBERG: I believe that's actually correct.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Where does it say that?
MR. ELIASBERG: It doesn't say that, but a cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins, and I believe that's why the Jewish war veterans --
JUSTICE SCALIA: It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. It's the -- the cross is the -- is the most
common symbol of -- of -- of the resting place of the dead, and it doesn't seem to me -- what would you have them erect? A cross -- some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Moslem half moon and star?
MR. ELIASBERG: Well, Justice Scalia, if I may go to your first point. The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.
(Laughter.)
MR. ELIASBERG: So it is the most common symbol to honor Christians.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that's an outrageous conclusion.
MR. ELIASBERG: Well, my -- the point of my -- point here is to say that there is a reason the Jewish war veterans came in and said we don't feel honored by this cross. This cross can't honor us because it is a religious symbol of another religion.
There has been ample online discussion of Justice Scalia's religious myopia here , here and here , but what has been noticeably lacking is outrage.
We are talking about the highest court in our great country. A court where every time a new nominee is sent to the senate the nutcakes come out of the closet to predict doom and gloom to their particular brand of polarized political justice.
Even more galling is that the justice involved wraps himself in the piety of the constitution under the term "original intent."
Let us start by pointing out that no matter how much the Radical and fundamentalist right doth protest, the United States was not born as a "Christian nation." The founding fathers were, for the most part, Deists. They repeatedly and expressly repudiated the notion that the nascent United States was a "Christian nation." It is impossible to adhere to "original intent" without acknowledging this fact.
You may have your religion, whatever that is. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, it does not matter to me --- it's your relationship with a divine being that matters to you.
But don't sit on the bench of the highest court in this land and impose your own myopic views on my justice system and wrap them in some warped sense of "original intent."
The argument of the fallacy of original intent is for another day; but this was an inglorious show of intellectual dishonesty. As it was, the Chief Justice rapidly cut off the discussion before his colleague could embarrass himself further. There should have been more outrage.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
HR: Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated
Appearing on several blogs today are discussions of the "death of Human Resources." Examples are here, here and here. I think some of the posts miss the point.
Needless to say, a down economy with a surging unemployment rate is going to put enormous pressures on an employer's HR department, and its hard not to succumb to a 'seige mentality.'
The argument goes:
I like very much 's approach on his similarly named blog focusing on HR from a management perspective, The Human Race Horses. (Any similarity between our blogs is strictly coincidental....)
HR does needs to be more proactive in tough times. It also has to be better at what it does all around. I have recently been working with more than one employer who is forced to do a reduction in force. We have worked assiduously with the HR department to ensure that the process was above all else, humane, not destructive of the employer's corporate culture, and treated everyone with dignity and respect. More than anything else, that approach will reduce exposure to subsequent employment practices claims, and keep HR in the center of things when the time comes to staff up.
Recruiters have a mission which is not necessarily in concert with the HR department. Recruiters are selling (or buying, as the case may be) human capital. HR manages human capital. The value recruiters add to the equation is in effectively finding the best candidate for the position; the value HR adds is to keep that candidate effective in the context of the organization.
Just like a business may have a sales department and a customer service department; a car dealership has a sales department and a service department; law firms have their rainmakers and their scriveners; and a restaurant has its cooks and its servers, the occasional disjunction between the departments does not necessarily mean the entire industry is going south.
HR is hurting because the economy is hurting, and it has always been easy to be mediocre. Now is the chance to improve HR practices and procedures (and HR staff quality as well). Once the economy recovers and hiring starts up, it's going to be full steam ahead. If it doesn't, the inefficiencies which are appear now just on the surface will explode, and staffing up will be a nightmare.
YMMV, but that's the perspective from this independent professional.
Needless to say, a down economy with a surging unemployment rate is going to put enormous pressures on an employer's HR department, and its hard not to succumb to a 'seige mentality.'
The argument goes:
- Recruiters constantly undermine the human resources department;
- Job applicants avoid human resources; and
- Employees "dread their interactions with any member of a Human Resources team."
I like very much 's approach on his similarly named blog focusing on HR from a management perspective, The Human Race Horses. (Any similarity between our blogs is strictly coincidental....)
HR does needs to be more proactive in tough times. It also has to be better at what it does all around. I have recently been working with more than one employer who is forced to do a reduction in force. We have worked assiduously with the HR department to ensure that the process was above all else, humane, not destructive of the employer's corporate culture, and treated everyone with dignity and respect. More than anything else, that approach will reduce exposure to subsequent employment practices claims, and keep HR in the center of things when the time comes to staff up.
Recruiters have a mission which is not necessarily in concert with the HR department. Recruiters are selling (or buying, as the case may be) human capital. HR manages human capital. The value recruiters add to the equation is in effectively finding the best candidate for the position; the value HR adds is to keep that candidate effective in the context of the organization.
Just like a business may have a sales department and a customer service department; a car dealership has a sales department and a service department; law firms have their rainmakers and their scriveners; and a restaurant has its cooks and its servers, the occasional disjunction between the departments does not necessarily mean the entire industry is going south.
HR is hurting because the economy is hurting, and it has always been easy to be mediocre. Now is the chance to improve HR practices and procedures (and HR staff quality as well). Once the economy recovers and hiring starts up, it's going to be full steam ahead. If it doesn't, the inefficiencies which are appear now just on the surface will explode, and staffing up will be a nightmare.
YMMV, but that's the perspective from this independent professional.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
What's Wrong with the Debate on Health Care? Everything.
Right now the mass media and even social media are ablaze with so-called "discussions" of health care and the Obama administration's initiative to tackle the social monster which has been looming for years. The problem is that nobody is really talking about the underlying issues. The debate is a shrill screaming match staged for the cameras, microphones, and pundits, each of whom are standing on the sidelines, well outside the ring, shouting on their fighters. There are so many things wrong with this very important public discussion that I feel it necessary to divert, even if slightly, from discussing purely employment related matters to this "greater good," and point out what I feel is fundamentally flawed in the health care debate.
1. It's not a debate. Nobody is addressing the real issues. They are talking about talking points and about buzz words and about sensationalist phrases like "death panels" and "forced abortions" and "socialism" and other labels without readily discernible meanings. I have not heard anyone discuss the important issues like:
2. Positions are being staked out without defining those positions. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and pretty much all of Faux News have created a 'teabag' entity which stands for nothing except opposing the Obama Administrations efforts, regardless of what they are. It is almost as if Limbaugh willed Obama to fail and then recruited zombies to seek to ensure that he does. This is mindless pedagogy with no counterpoint. What is Rush Limbaugh's plan (other than free oxycontin upon demand?) what is Glenn Beck's plan? What has Bill O'Reilly offered? Has anyone heard a pundit on Faux News (or, frankly CNN for that matter) outline an "ideal health plan" and show how Obama's plan is different? Do you have a plan? Let's hear it.
3. Partisanship is more important than the product. The Republicans offered more than a hundred amendments to one Congressional Plan, and then threatened to vote against the plan anyway. What the hell is that all about? Who have they impressed? How can they in good conscience continue to accept a paycheck merely by being obstructionist?
4. Nobody is looking at the bigger picture. When Social Security was proposed by the Roosevelt Administration, there was a similar hue and outcry. "Socialism!" (Heck, they even called people communists back then, and there is not a lack of similarity between McCarthy and the right wing extreme now). And yet now we take Social Security, Medicare and many other government programs for granted and we can barely conceive of a time when they did not exist.
Mark my words, within ten or fifteen years people will say, "I can't believe there was a time when we did not have a National health care policy and system in this country. What the hell were those people thinking about?"
Well, we're not thinking about the issues. And until we do, we aren't going to get a whole heck of a lot done.
I'm tired of seeing angry citizens yelling at the President and at Senators. When did this become acceptable? When did this become appropriate? When did such a lack of civil debate and discussion become so commonplace that we have to watch it incessently blaring from our televisions and radios?
Where is the intelligent discourse where folks with differing points of views exchange those points of views articulately, intelligently, and with a nod, maybe even a respectful nod, to their opposition's valid counterpoints?
Yesterday morning Good Morning America put Anne Coulter opposite James Carville for a three minute "sound bite" on health care. Chris Cuomo tried to tee up the issues, but all I heard was shrill invective from Coulter and Carville could not outline the entire plan (or, for that matter any of it.) What was that for? Why did we need that? When did GMA become the substitute for the now-defunct Crossfire? That show was killed because John Stewart appropriately pointed out that it masqueraded as intelligent debate but was little more than a smack down.
We don't need a National Healthcare Smack Down. We need a National Healthcare Debate.
I can't wait do hear that. Neither should anyone else.
1. It's not a debate. Nobody is addressing the real issues. They are talking about talking points and about buzz words and about sensationalist phrases like "death panels" and "forced abortions" and "socialism" and other labels without readily discernible meanings. I have not heard anyone discuss the important issues like:
- Cost of treatment versus likelihood of success;
- Various approaches to health care cost containment;
- Examination of the nature and extent of insurance company regulation;
- Addressing life style choices which make health care more necessary or expensive such as obesity and smoking.
- Underwriting approaches to "universal" healthcare; and
- Geographic variations in healthcare issues from west coast to east coast and south to north.
2. Positions are being staked out without defining those positions. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and pretty much all of Faux News have created a 'teabag' entity which stands for nothing except opposing the Obama Administrations efforts, regardless of what they are. It is almost as if Limbaugh willed Obama to fail and then recruited zombies to seek to ensure that he does. This is mindless pedagogy with no counterpoint. What is Rush Limbaugh's plan (other than free oxycontin upon demand?) what is Glenn Beck's plan? What has Bill O'Reilly offered? Has anyone heard a pundit on Faux News (or, frankly CNN for that matter) outline an "ideal health plan" and show how Obama's plan is different? Do you have a plan? Let's hear it.
3. Partisanship is more important than the product. The Republicans offered more than a hundred amendments to one Congressional Plan, and then threatened to vote against the plan anyway. What the hell is that all about? Who have they impressed? How can they in good conscience continue to accept a paycheck merely by being obstructionist?
4. Nobody is looking at the bigger picture. When Social Security was proposed by the Roosevelt Administration, there was a similar hue and outcry. "Socialism!" (Heck, they even called people communists back then, and there is not a lack of similarity between McCarthy and the right wing extreme now). And yet now we take Social Security, Medicare and many other government programs for granted and we can barely conceive of a time when they did not exist.
Mark my words, within ten or fifteen years people will say, "I can't believe there was a time when we did not have a National health care policy and system in this country. What the hell were those people thinking about?"
Well, we're not thinking about the issues. And until we do, we aren't going to get a whole heck of a lot done.
I'm tired of seeing angry citizens yelling at the President and at Senators. When did this become acceptable? When did this become appropriate? When did such a lack of civil debate and discussion become so commonplace that we have to watch it incessently blaring from our televisions and radios?
Where is the intelligent discourse where folks with differing points of views exchange those points of views articulately, intelligently, and with a nod, maybe even a respectful nod, to their opposition's valid counterpoints?
Yesterday morning Good Morning America put Anne Coulter opposite James Carville for a three minute "sound bite" on health care. Chris Cuomo tried to tee up the issues, but all I heard was shrill invective from Coulter and Carville could not outline the entire plan (or, for that matter any of it.) What was that for? Why did we need that? When did GMA become the substitute for the now-defunct Crossfire? That show was killed because John Stewart appropriately pointed out that it masqueraded as intelligent debate but was little more than a smack down.
We don't need a National Healthcare Smack Down. We need a National Healthcare Debate.
I can't wait do hear that. Neither should anyone else.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Hard-Wired? Are we programmed to treat everyone else like strangers?
By now, word of the Valley Swim Club’s massive ignorance has spread to national news outlets. It seems a small suburban Philadelphia swim club was only too happy to accept money for several ‘camps’ to have access to its facilities, until it learned that the campers were Black and Hispanic, whereupon the management whined that their actual presence at the club might ‘change the complexion’ of the club. The outraged response has even drawn the attention of Senator Specter, as he looks for new constituents from his new party.
There is a marked similarity between what happened at the Valley Swim Club and what is happening in Iraq, and, for that matter, the entire Middle East. The Suni’s don’t want Shiite’s in their pools; Suni’s don’t want Shiite’s in their pools. To the extent the Israeli’s and Palestinians can even determine which is whose pool, neither group wants the other in their pools.
Isn’t that what underlies Facebook? Who do you want to friend? Whom do you want to ‘Friend’ you? Are there people, types of people, who you wouldn’t friend? And how about your followers on Twitter (and whom you follow?) Is everyone you follow just like you? Do you avoid people who are substantially different than you?
Why limit the inquiry to the middle east? How about politics? Those on the right want to hear how their fellow right-wingers are noble, good people and those folks on the left fringe are reprehensible. Likewise the left demonizes the right. There are Twitter users in both extremes (heck, both Karl Rove and President Obama are there). There are fundamentalists of all religions who consider all other religions nothing short of pagan. There are extremes of all races and ethnicities who still endorse genocide as a solution to their problem. It comes up over and over again. Somalia. Rwanda. Bosnia. Kurdistan. Yet there are Holocaust deniers with a group on Facebook.
The vast overwhelming presence of this polarization and ‘us-ism’ leads me to ultimately ponder whether we’re simply hard-wired to keep to our own kind. Has natural selection left us in 2009 at a point where we are still genetically pre-programmed to keep to our own kind and avoid ‘strangers?’ As someone once asked, "Why can't we all just get along?"
When children are about 3 years old, have no fear of people. They find other people they meet fascinating, and they are intrigued by anything different and new. They are not intimidated by people they meet of different ethnicity, race or appearance, they are curious, inquisitive, and want to know why these people are ‘different,’ and how they are still the same as them. If we all stayed at that developmental state one wonders whether many of the world’s conflicts would vanish.
One wonders whether three year olds would have responded differently when the campers arrived at Valley Swim Club.
And one wonders whether the caseloads of lawyers like me who spend so much time solving employment disputes arising from these very prejudices and biases would be a lot lighter if people didn't act like they were hard-wired to treat everyone else like strangers.
There is a marked similarity between what happened at the Valley Swim Club and what is happening in Iraq, and, for that matter, the entire Middle East. The Suni’s don’t want Shiite’s in their pools; Suni’s don’t want Shiite’s in their pools. To the extent the Israeli’s and Palestinians can even determine which is whose pool, neither group wants the other in their pools.
Isn’t that what underlies Facebook? Who do you want to friend? Whom do you want to ‘Friend’ you? Are there people, types of people, who you wouldn’t friend? And how about your followers on Twitter (and whom you follow?) Is everyone you follow just like you? Do you avoid people who are substantially different than you?
Why limit the inquiry to the middle east? How about politics? Those on the right want to hear how their fellow right-wingers are noble, good people and those folks on the left fringe are reprehensible. Likewise the left demonizes the right. There are Twitter users in both extremes (heck, both Karl Rove and President Obama are there). There are fundamentalists of all religions who consider all other religions nothing short of pagan. There are extremes of all races and ethnicities who still endorse genocide as a solution to their problem. It comes up over and over again. Somalia. Rwanda. Bosnia. Kurdistan. Yet there are Holocaust deniers with a group on Facebook.
The vast overwhelming presence of this polarization and ‘us-ism’ leads me to ultimately ponder whether we’re simply hard-wired to keep to our own kind. Has natural selection left us in 2009 at a point where we are still genetically pre-programmed to keep to our own kind and avoid ‘strangers?’ As someone once asked, "Why can't we all just get along?"
When children are about 3 years old, have no fear of people. They find other people they meet fascinating, and they are intrigued by anything different and new. They are not intimidated by people they meet of different ethnicity, race or appearance, they are curious, inquisitive, and want to know why these people are ‘different,’ and how they are still the same as them. If we all stayed at that developmental state one wonders whether many of the world’s conflicts would vanish.
One wonders whether three year olds would have responded differently when the campers arrived at Valley Swim Club.
And one wonders whether the caseloads of lawyers like me who spend so much time solving employment disputes arising from these very prejudices and biases would be a lot lighter if people didn't act like they were hard-wired to treat everyone else like strangers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)