Re: For a Couple, Strauss-Kahn Is a Case for Silence, New York Times, June 20, 2011:A20.
I have one simple question: Why didn't the head of the law firm for which the husband works say to the client: I am sorry we cannot take your case, one of our partners is married to the lead prosecutor.
It seems to me that the couple should share recusals, otherwise defendants can play a game of choosing their law firm with the purpose of rendering highly competent and experienced prosecutors impotent.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
States Want More in Pension Contributions
It is unfortunate that Steven Greenhouse perpetuates the myth that employees are not responsible for paying 100% of their pension contributions (States want more in pension contributions, New York Times, June 16, 2011:B1, B8).
A pension is merely cash compensation that has been deferred. Instead of an employee taking all the compensation in cash and then saving some proportion and managing those savings, it is cheaper and more effective for the employer to make those savings and manage the assets -- financial services are cheaper wholesale than retail.
The proportion set aside for pensions is negotiated through collective bargaining -- but all of it comes from the employees' pockets. here is a negotiated trade-off between cash pay and benefits. The proportion of the pension contribution that is formally deducted from the paycheck versus the proportion that the employer holds back (and supposedly sets aside) is merely a book-keeping convention.
The reason that citizens are balking at the compensation enjoyed by public sector employees is that their wages have been stagnant over the past 25 years (except for the top 1 percent of wage earners); while corporations have failed to compensate employees in line with productivity increases, they have also fed them a story about the excesses of the public sector.
These attacks on public sector workers are appealing to the rest of us who have lost our good pensions and health benefits, but they miss the target of restoring fiscal balance.
Lower levels of government need additional support from the Federal government. This should be paid for by a new tax on financial transactions. That is where the money is, that is where a tiny tax on each transaction would result in a flow of funds to the treasury without crimping normal economic activity on main street.
It is only right that Wall Street should help out at this time.
Sent to New York Times
A pension is merely cash compensation that has been deferred. Instead of an employee taking all the compensation in cash and then saving some proportion and managing those savings, it is cheaper and more effective for the employer to make those savings and manage the assets -- financial services are cheaper wholesale than retail.
The proportion set aside for pensions is negotiated through collective bargaining -- but all of it comes from the employees' pockets. here is a negotiated trade-off between cash pay and benefits. The proportion of the pension contribution that is formally deducted from the paycheck versus the proportion that the employer holds back (and supposedly sets aside) is merely a book-keeping convention.
The reason that citizens are balking at the compensation enjoyed by public sector employees is that their wages have been stagnant over the past 25 years (except for the top 1 percent of wage earners); while corporations have failed to compensate employees in line with productivity increases, they have also fed them a story about the excesses of the public sector.
These attacks on public sector workers are appealing to the rest of us who have lost our good pensions and health benefits, but they miss the target of restoring fiscal balance.
Lower levels of government need additional support from the Federal government. This should be paid for by a new tax on financial transactions. That is where the money is, that is where a tiny tax on each transaction would result in a flow of funds to the treasury without crimping normal economic activity on main street.
It is only right that Wall Street should help out at this time.
Sent to New York Times
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Time for American Business to Step Up To the Plate
a bit naive op ed on Employment in Cambridge Chronicle
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Right back at those Republicans, Sir
Letter about Obama's Economic Appointees in the Boston Globe.
Article on how to negotiate with the recalcitrant which provides theoretical support for the views in the letter.
Article on how to negotiate with the recalcitrant which provides theoretical support for the views in the letter.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Friday, June 3, 2011
States Secrets Blocks Resolution of Contractors' Case
The two recent decisions by the Supreme Court not to intervene in State Secrets cases means we have to seek a legislative solution (State Secrets Block Resolution of Contractors' Suit, Justices Say. New York Times, May 24, 2011: A17).
The States Secrets Protection Act was introduced by a bipartisan coalition into the last two Congresses following the 2007 report by the American Bar Association on the misuse of the States Secrets Privilege.
The bill should be re-introduced and passed in a timely fashion by both Houses of Congress. The bill will allow judicial review of whether or not the States Secrets defense is justified. Instead of having to rely on the word of the Government, there will be appropriate judicial review. Such review is essential when we remember that the initial acceptance of the States Secrets privilege was built on a lie in the original 1953 Reynolds decision.
Sent to New York Times
The States Secrets Protection Act was introduced by a bipartisan coalition into the last two Congresses following the 2007 report by the American Bar Association on the misuse of the States Secrets Privilege.
The bill should be re-introduced and passed in a timely fashion by both Houses of Congress. The bill will allow judicial review of whether or not the States Secrets defense is justified. Instead of having to rely on the word of the Government, there will be appropriate judicial review. Such review is essential when we remember that the initial acceptance of the States Secrets privilege was built on a lie in the original 1953 Reynolds decision.
Sent to New York Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)