I've wanted to write on this topic for years. I have worked for an employment law firm since 1998, and am amazed at how often our wonderful new employment laws were directed exclusively at private employers and not at the government itself.
Most often, the reason those who enacted the laws (i.e., our elected representatives) gave for NOT applying it to their own employees was because the laws would be "too burdensome" for them, yet somehow, would not be too burdensome for private employers.
The second most common reason the laws did not apply to them was simply because they would NEVER behave in the manner that the law was designed to prevent. Frankly, I'm amazed that the media never picks up on this completely hypocritical "let them eat cake" approach taken by those who write our laws.
This post will simply compile a list of recently enacted laws that apply to us (private employers) and not to them (the government). Let the fun begin. We will see if anyone cares, or is it just "business as usual".
Above: Blog posts are boring without a photo. Above is my son catching his first albacore. Bravo! (click to enlarge).
****Update 3/1/2016: Merriam-Webster defines a vagrant as a person who has no place to live and no job and who asks people for money (in other words, a homeless begger). The word "vagrant" joins "transient" as a clue to the point of view of the communicator. Unless you know that the person is homeless, does not have a job, and begs for a living, calling them a "vagrant" demonstrates a lack of empathy for the plight of the homeless.
It is interesting to note that I recently read that it is not "politically correct" to say anything negative about a homeless person. This is a "new one" to me, but okay, I'll play: there are "good" homeless people and "bad" homeless people, just like everything else (good Catholic Priests vs. bad Catholic Priests; good lawyers vs. bad lawyers, etc.). I see no problem with factual statements about homeless people that are negative. However, generalizing about the homeless as bums, transients and vagrants without knowing anything about them is prejudicial and just wrong.
*****Original Article 12/25/2015: You can read more about the difference between a Homeless Person and a Transient person by clicking here. The article was written by a transient who does not consider himself to be homeless.
Let's make a few distinctions here: HOMELESS vs. TRANSIENT. A homeless person is someone who was previously housed, and through undesirable circumstances, they have become homeless. A homeless person may have their issues, like everybody else, but they want to get back into housing. Note that many homeless people in SLO county work full or part time, and still cannot afford our expensive local housing.
The HOMELESS most often feel shame for being homeless, and certainly do not advertise their state of affairs by panhandling or standing on a street corner waving one of those cardboard signs. They would sooner die of shame than work a corner asking for a handout, or aggressively panhandle spare change.
On the other hand, a TRANSIENT is someone who has chosen the homeless lifestyle. More often than not, when you meet them, they tell you they are just passing through, although it is also true that many have chosen to stay in one place for an extended period of time. Though it is true that a TRANSIENT may technically be HOMELESS, they themselves do not consider themselves to be homeless, but simply don't have a permanent address.
In general, TRANSIENT and VAGRANT terms are more pejorative term when compared with HOMELESS PERSON. In fact, one of the signs that a person or group has a negative point of view towards the homeless is when they refer to ALL homeless people as TRANSIENTS, or my other favorite, VAGRANTS. Another favorite of the "hate the homeless crowd" is simply BUMS. Our San Luis Obispo Police Department loves to refer to our homeless population as TRANSIENTS, thus tipping their hand to how they feel about them. Check out this link to this youtube video of SLO Police Chief Gessell where he talks about how they are dealing with the TRANSIENTS. The commentator in the youtube video interview uses the term TRANSIENT as well. Police are considered community leaders, and when they use the pejorative term TRANSIENT then others feel they can use them as well.
Sitting on a Park Bench for more than an hour is a Crime? Really?
Chapter 9.40
PUBLIC BENCHES
Sections:
9.40.010 Infraction established.
9.40.010 Infraction established.
It shall be an infraction for any person to sit, lay, or remain upon any public bench for any continuous period of time in excess of one hour, or for any period of time in excess of three hours in any twenty-four-hour period; or to arrange one’s personal property on or in front of any portion of any public bench in a manner that obstructs or precludes the use of the bench by another person. (Ord. 1491 § 2, 2006)
Above (click to enlarge): Photo of the actual ticket received, with the name of the person covered up. Note the address as "General Delivery", meaning a homeless person with no address. This is not right!
Yes, we are criminalizing homelessness. A group of homeless each got a ticket like this one because he and others were sitting at the picnic table at Meadow Park in SLO during broad daylight, apparently for "more than an hour". I have attended picnics at that very same table (for more than an hour) and never got ticketed. Gee, are they discriminating against the homeless?
Was this written with the homeless in mind? "or to arrange one’s personal property on or in front of any portion of any public bench in a manner that obstructs or precludes the use of the bench by another person."
Casinos have brought some positive financial results to a small number of Indian tribes. However, most tribes remain poor - indeed, the poorest by far of all the ethnic groups in America. For more information on this subject, click on this US News and World Report article from November 2014. Here is a quote from this article:
“American Indians suffer from a variety of problems somewhat similar to African Americans,” says Algernon Austin, author of a 2013 Economic Policy Institute (EPI) report on Native American unemployment. “You have lower levels of education [and] continued racial discrimination in the labor market. Some of my work for EPI showed that … improving education attainment of American Indians would likely produce a significant increase in their employment rates.”
Many of us remain convinced that it is the intention of U. S. Government policy to weaken tribal sovereignty and diminish their economic independence. Here's more proof of that belief: In 2004, in a case involving the San Manual Band of Mission Indians, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reversed 70 years of prior rulings and held that tribal governments - UNLIKE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS - were subject to the NLRB. This ruling meant that tribal businesses would be regulated like private businesses - a clear blow to tribal sovereignty.
Above: Blog posts are boring without photos! Above is Mark and I with one of our Supai Tribe member friends, during a recent visit. The Supai Tribe has managed to preserve it's tribal language and runs a wonderful tourist business at their Grand Canyon National Park tribal reservation location. They still have their challenges, but have a history for fighting for control of their native tribal lands. You can read more about visiting by clicking here.
