Jenksismyhero

Oof, that's such a slap in the face to Nash. Send the poor guy to a contender. He's given the Suns franchise how many years? And good years at that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 11:20 AM) I'd love to actually believe it's a general trend in policy or thinking...problem is, the undermining data is in your first statement...70% of illinois prison inmates are in jail for drugs or drug related cases. Sure, but I think recent budget concerns will really push this further.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 11:14 AM) In this case, 2k5 is fully right...actually providing testing and treatment would be much cheaper than dealing with the long term consequences of abuse. Problem is...there's a big assumption here...that a positive test provokes treatment and not jail time. SS is right that if you have people fearing that they'll get caught and go to prison, they'll be even less likely to get assistance. Can anyone argue to me successfully that this country would rather take the people who test positive while qualifying for a program like this and offer them treatment rather than punishment? This happens already at least here in Cook County. Most first time drug offenses sends you to a treatment facility, not jail. And since 70% of Illinois prison inmates are in jail for drugs, and the newly elected Cook County president recently came out and said drugs are a healthcare problem, not a criminal one, I think we're moving that way. Edit: Sorry! Sorry, that's just Cook County, so it doesn't apply to other areas of the country, and it doesn't speak for a general trend in policy or thinking. My bad! My bad.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 10:45 AM) Yes, maybe you should figure out why they're "safety-sensitive" positions and why drug abuse in those positions could have a serious impact on the welfare of others. Compare to the risks of someone on WIC or the clerk at the DMV smoking pot. Well, as i've said before, pot wouldn't be included. And i'm not discounting the fact that it's important to have that safety position exception. I'm just pointing out that we've made exceptions to that constitutional right before, so it's not some right that is never excluded in favor of a societal goal or policy. Ideally I'd limit the amount of time someone can be in public housing and limit the scope of public aid altogether. But seeing as we've already broken that rule, I gotta work with what exists already. IMO this is a pretty small move that could potentially save billions over the years and more importantly save the lives of people that might get hooked on drugs and ruin their life. Ah, there's my favorite SS response. "You're not as smart as I am, are you?" Look, i'm not suggesting that what my friends experience is what happens all over the country. But even if it's 5% of the public housing population, well, that's 5% that could be changed if you give them an ultimatum of homelessness over drugs. Some will still choose homelessness and commit more crime. But even if a small % decide it's not worth it, well, that's potentially a whole life of public aid off the books. Ah, so you can NEVER question any study that SS deems 100% accurate, lest you be giving in to your extreme biases. I get it. I'll try to remember that response next time someone provides you a study or report that goes against what you think and you respond by questioning the source or methodology.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 10:11 AM) Not sure that "safety-sensitive" is a "random exception" "Safety-sensitive" is a constructed exception to a constitutional right. Society has determined that it's important to make sure that police officers and others in "safety sensitive" positions are drug-free, constitutional rights be damned, and suspicions or evidence of actual drug use be damned. That's somehow ok, but ZOMG don't stereotype people in public housing!! Who said anything about minorities here? I'm not saying ONLY poor black kids need to be tested. It's everyone. It's based on a system that requires ZERO effort other than meeting a financial criteria to receive tax payer money. I've pointed out that other credits and deductions require things like buying a house, getting an education, starting a family. Are those not beneficial to society? Be smarmy all you want, but why not address the distinction I've made? And yeah, I'm gonna trust my cop friends who see this stuff day in day out over someone who's conducted a survey over the phone asking people if they partake in illegal activity or if they consider themselves "dependent" on drugs/alcohol. I'm SURE those results are 100% accurate. GMAFB.

More depressing news if you live in Illinois/the Chicago area: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/section/blo...mentId=blogDest

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 09:51 AM) There's actually a pretty clear standard for those drug tests. They need to be "safety-sensitive" positions, which cops, firefighters etc. fall under. http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/oct96/niaaa-23.htm "Proportions of welfare recipients using, abusing, or dependent on alcohol or illicit drugs are consistent with proportions of both the adult U.S. population and adults who do not receive welfare, report National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism researchers in the November American Journal of Public Health." BTW you forgot to answer my question re: your mortgage tax deductions. When can you be expected at the clinic for the testing? So we can come up with some random exception and call it "safety-sensitive" positions, but we can't create another for this purpose? Yeah, that study gets at use, not drug activity, which includes selling or dealing. It is also limited by this: I'll trust what my cop friends who work in these areas of Chicago tell me - the percentage is very high and most of their work is at the various public housing projects. Re the deduction, I think there's a big difference between giving someone something for nothing (you're poor, here's a house and some money for food...no expectations to work for it or pay it back or contribute at all to society) and giving someone a break for things like having a kid (a positive for society), purchasing a home (a positive for society), getting a college education (a positive for society), etc. Or is this not a significant distinction for you?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 09:09 AM) Well, s&s is not a bulls*** argument and it's not equivalent to taking a public sector job. But it really addresses a non-issue. Drug use for people on public aid isn't statistically significantly higher than the population at large, so off the bat it stigmatizes them as "likely drug users." Second, it's really expensive to do this. It's going to cost a lot more money than it saves. Third, what's the end result? "You're addicted to heroin, sorry, out in the streets with ya" I struggle to see it as anything more than further punitive "war on drugs" crap. eta: I guess you'd be cool with mandatory drug testing for your mortgage deduction, right? Since it's basically the same thing, the government paying for part of your housing costs? It is a bulls*** argument because it's not consistent. Think of other public officials like cops. There's ZERO suspicion of them doing drugs, yet they have to submit to random drug tests. Why isn't that an unreasonable search and seizure? And I find it hard to believe that the poorest of the poor out there aren't doing drugs at an increased rate than the general population. At the very least I find it highly suspect that "drug activity" rates aren't significantly higher (using/dealing/selling) in public housing. Do you have a link for that?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 14, 2011 -> 04:34 PM) Pretty good recruiting article on the upcoming Big Ten classes: Still not sure how/why Mike Shaw dropped so much over the last two years. At one point he was a top 35 recruit IIRC.

Not really sure where to put this, but since i'll rant about it, I guess the Rep thread is as good as any: http://www.suntimes.com/6090804-417/cha-ki...-residents.html CHA actually had some balls for a second and considered drug tests for public housing tenants and applicants. Of course they gave in. I'm still not sure why the majority doesn't win this argument. The unreasonable search and seizure argument is bulls***, as these people choose to receive public aid just like other people choose to take a job (like being a cop) that requires drug tests. I'm fine not including recreational drugs like pot, but meth, heroin, crack, etc. why not?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:54 PM) It's also worth noting this. Did you think the lawyers were going to work for free for 10 years?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:55 PM) Fair enough. If you lose as a pro se plaintiff, can you still be responsible for defendants' filing fees? Nope. Only in the rarest of cases (i.e., you do something frivolous wasting the court/defendants money....very, very rare)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:56 PM) Nope! What, if any, are the financial risks for a pro se plaintiff who brings a non-frivolous claim but loses? None, other than filing costs, which can be waived with an application for economic hardship.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:50 PM) Yeah but you risk losing to powerful corporate attorneys on a technicality and being ordered to pay filing fees and maybe attorneys fees. You also need to be sufficiently intelligent and capable enough to realize the damages, file the appropriate claim and defend it on your own. Not sure how losing class action (mandatory arb. with no class cases) doesn't wind up as effectively keeping poor and less-intelligent people from ever getting recourse from legitimate damages. But like I've said, I'm not arguing the decision in Walmart was wrong, this is more about class suits in general. This rarely, if ever happens, and most laws are written to protect pro se plaintiffs and give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when construing things like complaints and charges of discrimination and the like. And attorneys fees and costs, at least in Illinois and Federal courts, aren't available except in frivolous cases, and I think only against attorneys who bring those cases, not pro se plaintiffs.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:48 PM) No, but if they were to happen to hire and promote managers who systematically discriminated against women in salary, that would save the company a fortune. So greedy companies that care only about money and profit aren't going to discriminate against men in the same way?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:42 PM) Assuming a position or claim for the sake of an argument isn't bias, it's making an argument. eta but Walmart is a horrible company, plenty of rational reasons to hate them. Evil or not, they're an incredibly smart company. Do you honestly believe they teach their managers to discriminate against women? I don't. I have no doubt in my mind some in their management team thinks that way. All or most big companies do. But in my experience, on both sides of these cases, there's almost always a legitimate reason for differences in pay/promotions/what have you unless you're dealing with those select few assholes who really do think that way.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:42 PM) Assuming a position or claim for the sake of an argument isn't bias, it's making an argument. eta but Walmart is a horrible company, plenty of rational reasons to hate them. Reading through his posts it's pretty clear what his bias is. It started with the "ZOMG SCALIA RUINED THE WORLD AGAIN!" post. Which is fine. That's his right. But at some point it's no longer a logical argument about the pros and cons of class action lawsuits, and its more about "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?" responses.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:38 PM) There are probably well over a million who have legitimate claims...they just will never bring them. You're just playing dumb now. Um, ok? Look, you clearly have some irrational bias towards Walmart and big companies. Hell, you've already determined for everyone that there IS a corporate policy for discriminating against women. So what's the point in arguing with you?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:36 PM) It wasn't a hypothetical, it was the actual dollar amount the Concepcions claim they and thousands of others were defrauded over. And the point is you're not going to get 100k small claims. You'll get a handful, maybe. Much less than 1.5M worth. I was referring to your .05 cent wage difference point.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:33 PM) Of course its more expensive to have to defend 100k small claims....but it's insulting to our intelligence to say that 100k small claims would be filed. The correct number of small claims likely to be filed in the AT&T case for example is 0. The number in this case is probably at best in the teens...because you can't argue for systematic discrimination on the part of the company, rather you need to argue that you have strong evidence you were passed over in a specific case because of a specific person's discrimination. "It sucks, eat the cost" is not an acceptable answer. I'm going to remember that one whenever you complain about anything else done illegally, say, illegal immigrants. "It sucks, they're here, deal with it." If out of 1.5 million there's only a "handful" of people with legitimate claims, then it's probably not some wide spread corporate policy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:28 PM) How exactly if you're an individual defendant in this case who got passed over for a promotion do you establish that you were passed over because of a weighted system and not because of an individual management decision? Can't all 1.5 million of these cases argue that the decisions were individual cases and nothing untoward happened in that specific case? The real problem appears to have been that this was an institutional policy that impacted everyone. How do you deal with it when it's an instititutional issue? And more importantly now what reason does Walmart have to correct it when it can, in every case, just push the blame for a lack of promotion/equal pay downwards to individual departments that no one would ever sue? The same way the lawyers in the class action would have tried to prove it - point to statistics of the company, show that the company has a history of doing this to women, point to the fact that the individual plaintiff had an excellent record, was qualified, etc. And I think you have a fundamental understanding of how this whole thing works. You do realize that the lowest of low manager IS Walmart right? So regardless of how it all plays out (who discriminates), Walmart is still liable. How many CEO's make every HR decision? That's why Title VII is drafted the way it is.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:21 PM) BTW I still haven't seen anyone address Breyer's contention that restricting class action will essentially eliminate many legitimate claims because they're too small for individuals to file suit over. In the hypothetical he has a point. But in reality it's not a good one because everyday people get screwed in various ways. They could file suit if they want, but ultimately it's not worth the cost of filing a suit. So you eat the cost. It sucks, but it's life. Class actions don't deter companies from doing whatever they did wrong, so it's not like the system is some great savior to society. As I've argued before, in the long run it's probably more expensive to have to defend 100k small claims than to pay out a 1.5 million person class action.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:19 PM) Plenty of contracts require arbitration and bar you from filing a claim in court or from acting as a class. The AT&T agreement was actually one of the better ones, but it still completely barred class action. Not sure why companies should be able to limit your access to the courts. Arbitration itself isn't something evil, but the current system is ripe for abuse and limiting claimants' rights. We went over this before, but i'm too lazy to look it up. It didn't bar you completely from filing suit. At some point you had the choice to continue with the arbitration process or seek redress in court.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 03:54 PM) I'll just go back to some commentary on the AT&T v Concepcion case based on Breyer's dissent: Basically, without class action, a company can get away with large-scale fraud, discrimination, etc. if the effects on each individual are spread out enough so as to not make it worth their time to pursue remedies. eta: Go back to my .25 raise versus .30 raise, maybe a grand total of $200 of legitimate damages for the individual who worked there a year. Are you really going to bring suit against that on your own? Probably not. You might not even be aware of the pattern of discrimination. Would you sign on to a large class-action suit? Maybe, maybe not, but the likelihood is much higher. The problem is that discrimination doesn't work that way. One person might have made .05 less per hour, another might have been passed over for a job that would have netted a 50k a year salary increase. Class actions work when you can say, here's a whole set of plaintiffs who are in the exact same position (or nearly exact same), and here's the defendant who committed the same wrong against all of them. There's no need to hold 1.5 million trials on damages, or heck, in this case whether any discrimination occurred at all.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 03:29 PM) It's probably also worth noting that Walmart could happily now include a mandatory forced arbitration clause in every employee contract. So? I have yet to hear a good reason why arbitration is such a bad system. It's an efficient means of settling small claims. And most of the time you have the right to still sue in court as an alternative. Just like in the AT&T case. Hell, that system had a huge deterrent on AT&T screwing people out of decent settlements in arbitration, but apparently that's still not enough.