Do pregnancy, illness and bereavement entitle employees to special privileges?

Every few seconds, another baby is born.  Yea!   Ok, I’ll avoid the temptation to be cynical (saying something like “What are babies good for?”  or “Why bring yet another screaming baby into this hellish world?”)    It does seem rather odd, however, that many employers offer extraordinarily generous benefits—namely, to be absent from work, with FULL PAY, for one, two or even three months!!!    Yes, you heard correctly.  You have a baby, and suddenly you are entitled to collect the same pay you would have received, had you been working????  That’s a good gig if you can get it!   

Does this not seem just a tad unfair, not just to all the men, but the single and unpregnant women in the workforce, as well ?  What is their compensation for NOT having had a baby?   And how exactly does pregnancy benefit the employer?  Some people say pregnancy is a wonderful thing, and a benefit to society. Well, that may be.  I don’t see it, but whether it is or not, how does that benefit your employer, who lets you have all that time off?  How does it benefit the workers who don’t have, don't want, or can't have children?  How are you more entitled to time off, for doing the same work? 

Don't get me wrong.  I have no problem with them getting time off.   I'm simply asking why their co-workers shouldn't have the same privileges.

For that matter, why even have sick leave?  Doesn’t that unfairly reward the lazy or dishonest people who call in sick when they are not?…. Doesn’t it likewise reward the people who may be hard working but are often indisposed to work because of frequent or chronic illnesses? 

And speaking of time off, why have bereavement leave to attend funerals of the dear departed? Are employees with a plethora of dying relatives more entitled to time off than those who have few, if any, relatives, or those who don’t care about the relatives they DO have, and wouldn’t attend one of their funerals if their favorite reality TV show was on at the same time?

Having an open ended, one-size-fits-all leave plan is more efficient, helps people be honest, and best of all, treats everyone equally, regardless of gender, health, or even how many elderly dying relatives they may have.   I would personally opt for six weeks off a year for all workers, two of it mandatory, with four weeks being accumulative.   That way, employees could all have a much-needed vacation, but could use the four weeks per year for whatever they wished:   pregnancy leave, bereavement leave, vacation time, sick leave, or just a few mental health days to prevent them from “going postal” on their co-workers.  It seems the best solution.... if treating everyone equitably is important to you.

original oil painting by Mikyong Rodgers

click here for virtual art gallery

Skin tone, and other misplaced priorities

I'm sure you've all heard someone say "I'm going to work on my tan!" I can't help but wonder what exactly they are "working" on. It seems to me that such labor generally consists of lying on the beach, and, perhaps less often, sitting or squatting, but it all pretty much amounts to the same inactivity that inflicts a large percentage of tan seekers. It's always amazed me, anyway, how society places such importance on skin color. 

Over the years, it has changed, of course. A century ago, young white women in polite society, carried around parasols in sunny weather, to prevent their skin from becoming dark or freckled. These days, much to their detriment, it has become fashionable to soak up the rays and become dark. 

In the movie "The Talented Mr. Ripley," the very tanned Jude Law, upon seeing the very UNtanned Matt Damon, remarked disparagingly..."You are sooooo white!" 

It was not a compliment.

Unfortunately, the societal pendulum which has swung in a decidedly darker direction does not bode will for tan seekers. Note to sun worshippers everywhere: skin becomes dark under the sun's rays as a negative reaction to being poisoned by the ultraviolet rays of the sun!  

People! This is not a good thing! 

One of the supreme ironies of life is that all those things that we need to survive (such as the sun) also kill us! The sun is not something it's particularly wise to expose your skin to. It can lead to all kinds of radiation poisoning that wrinkles the skin, causes cancer, and decreases longevity.

The next time you are tempted to lie in the sun and get a tan, spend eight bucks, get an umbrella, and shade yourself from the celestial orb which is doing its utmost to shorten your time on planet Earth.

a day at the beach

original oil painting by Mikyong Rodgers

virtual art gallery

Republicans' ill-conceived love affair with the Constitution

I've often found it interesting that Republicans are always invoking the constitution, as in "We only want our Constitutional rights," as if the document is somehow the exclusive domain of right wing conservative tea party do-gooders. Don't get me wrong. I like the Constitution. It's a fine piece of parchment, but if you're going to support the sanctity of a document, you cannot, at the same time, call for constant amendments to nullify it. How can the same group of people who revere the Constitution, simultaneously call for changes in the document anytime they disagree with it???? They call for Constitutional amendments.... 1. to ban abortion 2. to ban flag burning 3. to ban same-sex marriage 4. to ban stem cell research 5. to ban euthanasia ...... anyone notice they like to do a lot of "banning"????? 5. to ban any ban on capital punishment 4. to ban any mention of Ronald Reagan having dyed his hair jet black. (Come on, he MUST have! How can an 80 year old man not have a single gray hair?) Ok, ok, I made that last one up, but it IS a rather disturbing trend, wouldn't you agree? Personally, I think most of this is tied to the second amendment, on the right to bear arms. Republicans, look....you can't help being who you are, but here is something to reflect on. Don't you think it's possible that you are reading into the Constitution just what you want to read and nothing more? How else can one explain the preposterous propensity for reciting endlessly that all Americans have the right to bear arms, and totally ignoring the first and most important part of the amendment, that it is for a "well regulated militia, being necessary for the maintenance of a free state"? They can't have somehow....accidentally...skipped over that part, could they? 250 years ago, the American "people" were the "militia." They were citizens, mostly farmers and craftsmen who from time to time were called upon to help their fledgling country in its time of need. This does NOT mean, that in the 21st Century, psychopaths should be allowed to massacre kindergarten students as some kind of sporting competition. Can any sane person really believe that to ban automatic weapons, to limit the number of gun sales, and to require gun registration, is in anyway contrary to what the Founding Fathers espoused? And even so, isn't it the sane choice in the world today?

Lip Synchers and Other Liars

Music technology can be a wonderful thing when used correctly, but in recent years, it unfortunately has enabled liars and cheats to convince people they were actually performing, when, in fact they were not. Even musicians are not above such deceit. At President Obama’s 2008 inauguration, famed cellist Yo Yo Ma infamously faked his own cello playing. He said later it was too cold to be able to play well. Paula Abdul clearly lipsynched her supposedly live American Idol performance a few years ago, and it’s been said that Madonna lip synchs every concert (Of course, with the way she sings, who could blame her?!) Beyonce, at the super bowl, lip-synched the entire National Anthem. To appease the critics, afterward, Beyonce sang, supposedly live, for a news conference, smugly asking “any questions?”, as if singing live somehow negated having lied to us the day before. It’s a little like a murderer who, the next day, holds a knife to someone’s throat and then doesn’t kill him, just to prove he is capable of NOT murdering a person when given half a chance! He is still a murderer…and Beyonce is still a liar. I wish I had been at that news conference! I would have said “Yes, Beyonce, I have a question. Why did you lie to the American people by pretending you were singing live when in fact you were just flapping your gums? No one questions whether or not you CAN sing, the fact is that you DIDN’T sing. If you saw a baby in a burning building, and ignored her, would you later justify your cowardly actions by claiming that you COULD have saved the baby. You just decided not to? It defies all logic and credibility. So to all you liars and cheats out there…. I have no problem with your cowardice, just be honest about it. The next time you’re tempted to lie to the audience, just say “I am afraid I might make a mistake,, so I recorded something earlier I’d like you to listen to. Why don’t you all just sit back with me and enjoy it.” It might seem rather odd, but at least you could look yourself in the mirror the next morning.

The Grinch Who Stole Christmas in California

 

original watercolor by Mikyong Rodgers

 

click here to visit virtual art gallery

 

 

 

For over sixty years, private groups have put up 14 Nativity scenes in Palisades Park in Santa Monica, California. For the first 45 years, there was little controversy, but 14 years ago, atheist groups began demanding equal time. Because of their insistence, the city decided to institute a lottery system and divvy up spaces at random. This meant that Christmas displays were set up side by side posters declaring all religions nothing but ugly myths. This all came to a boiling point last year when atheists flooded the lottery and got most of the available spaces, prompting church groups to sue and leading a frustrated city council to ban all private displays. Much of this supposed controversy is nothing more than ignorance of the Constitution, and a lack of the regard for people with differing traditions and beliefs. . First, even though Puritans 400 years ago banned Christmas celebrations as too secular, and the majority of Christmas revelers today pay little attention to its religious beginnings, for the sake of argument, let’s assume many think of Christmas as a purely religious celebration. As such, is it a violation of the Constitution to display religious symbols on public property? The short answer is “no.” Contrary to common belief, nowhere in the Constitution does it state there should be a separation of church and state. What the Bill of Rights does say, is that Congress cannot either establish a religion, or prevent people from exercising the right to worship the way they choose. Clearly, private groups displaying their personal beliefs in no way establishes a religion, but preventing them from putting up Nativity scenes could very well violate the second part of the amendment. The city council of Santa Monica caved into pressure from atheist groups, and by so doing, punished everyone for the actions of a few. Allowing groups to display their traditions and beliefs in public is, or should be acceptable. What should not be allowed is for people to ruin someone’s long-standing tradition just because they don’t wish to play a part. It was wrong of the council to ban everything. What they ought to do is to allow Christmas displays at Christmas time, just as one might allow Pumpkin displays during Halloween, even though clearly not everyone celebrates Halloween, and some are even offended by it. If atheist groups wish to have their say, let them have space where other holidays are not being celebrated. August comes to mind as having very few holidays. Hatred and vindictiveness should not be considered valid points to establishing displays and ruining the Christmas spirit for the 97% of Americans who celebrate it.

a car horn honking cacophony

If ever an award were to be given for the world's most idiotic invention, first place would surely have to go to the inventor of the eardrum-piercing, car-horn-honking-door lock.

One can hardly traverse a parking lot these days without being bombarded by a shrill cacophony of piercing horns, ostensibly from misguided miscreants who are haplessly locking their car doors, without a thought to how it it disrupts the otherwise tranquil landscape. What was the inventor thinking, as he put down his half-chewed peanut butter and jelly sandwich?--that there wasn't enough noise in the world? That drivers are too stupid to understand whether or not they've locked their own car doors? That everyone within a 5-block perimeter should be made aware that they've accomplished their Herculean task?

What's next? A siren to signify you've changed the baby's diapers? A foghorn to let everyone know you've successfully dislodged a kernel of corn from your incisors?

I am not saying this merely to gripe about inane human behavior. Nor am I saying this simply because the car horn fiasco is exceedingly annoying--it is. This is also a safety issue of life-threatening proportions. The average person is gradually becoming desensitized to the significance of the car horn and its warnings. (I will never be one of those people, but nevertheless...). The horn was invented to warn people of danger but as it is increasingly being used to inform idiotic drivers that they've locked (or even UNlocked) their car doors, drivers and pedestrians alike are incrementally losing any sense of importance they may once have placed on heeding the horns' warning of potential disaster. If you don't believe me, take a look around the next time some fool lets loose on his car horn and see how few people take notice these days. Next, imagine you are the one honking the horn because an unobservant driver is backing up into your car. Will he take notice of the fact that you are warning him of an impending collision when you lay on your horn, or will he simply assume that you are one in a long line of misguided innocents, blithely locking your car door with a vengeance, as you head off to do some grocery shopping?

What can be done about it? You can refuse to buy, or even rent a car, which provides no easy option for silently locking the doors. Let your state legislators know that drivers are routinely breaking the law, and let the car companies know that their decision to make these abhorrences are in direct violation of the laws of most states. Finally, kindly inform the drivers that all cars come with instructions on how to disable such monstrosities. If they aren't sure how, ask me. I'll be more than happy post the instructions online. ESL coffee shop