RSS

Tag Archives: Barack Obama

For 67 years the US has pursued its own interests at the expense of global justice – no wonder people are sceptical now

Obama‘s rogue state tramples over every law it demands others uphold

by  -

US fire white phosphorous at Taliban

US troops fire a white phosphorous mortar towards a Taliban position on 3 April 2009 in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Photograph: John Moore/Getty

You could almost pity these people. For 67 years successive US governments have resisted calls to reform the UN security council. They’ve defended a system which grants five nations a veto over world affairs, reducing all others to impotent spectators. They have abused the powers and trust with which they have been vested. They have collaborated with the other four permanent members (the UK, Russia, China and France) in a colonial carve-up, through which these nations can pursue their own corrupt interests at the expense of peace and global justice.

Eighty-three times the US has exercised its veto. On 42 of these occasions it has done so to prevent Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians being censured. On the last occasion, 130 nations supported the resolution but Barack Obama spiked it. Though veto powers have been used less often since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the US has exercised them 14 times in the interim (in 13 cases to shield Israel), while Russia has used them nine times. Increasingly the permanent members have used the threat of a veto to prevent a resolution being discussed. They have bullied the rest of the world into silence.

Through this tyrannical dispensation – created at a time when other nations were either broken or voiceless – the great warmongers of the past 60 years remain responsible for global peace. The biggest weapons traders are tasked with global disarmament. Those who trample international law control the administration of justice.

But now, as the veto powers of two permanent members (Russia and China) obstruct its attempt to pour petrol on another Middle Eastern fire, the US suddenly decides that the system is illegitimate. Obama says: “If we end up using the UN security council not as a means of enforcing international norms and international law, but rather as a barrier … then I think people rightly are going to be pretty skeptical about the system.” Well, yes.

Never have Obama or his predecessors attempted a serious reform of this system. Never have they sought to replace a corrupt global oligarchy with a democratic body. Never do they lament this injustice – until they object to the outcome. The same goes for every aspect of global governance.

Obama warned last week that Syria’s use of poisoned gas “threatens to unravel the international norm against chemical weapons embraced by 189 nations“. Unravelling the international norm is the US president’s job.

In 1997 the US agreed to decommission the 31,000 tonnes of sarinVX,mustard gas and other agents it possessed within 10 years. In 2007 it requested the maximum extension of the deadline permitted by the Chemical Weapons Convention – five years. Again it failed to keep its promise, and in 2012 it claimed they would be gone by 2021. Russia yesterday urged Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control. Perhaps it should press the US to do the same.

In 1998 the Clinton administration pushed a law through Congress which forbade international weapons inspectors from taking samples of chemicals in the US and allowed the president to refuse unannounced inspections. In 2002 the Bush government forced the sacking of José Maurício Bustani, the director general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. He had committed two unforgiveable crimes: seeking a rigorous inspection of US facilities; and pressing Saddam Hussein to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, to help prevent the war George Bush was itching to wage.

The US used millions of gallons of chemical weapons in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. It also used them during its destruction of Falluja in 2004,then lied about it. The Reagan government helped Saddam Hussein to wage war with Iran in the 1980s while aware that he was using nerve and mustard gas. (The Bush administration then cited this deployment as an excuse to attack Iraq, 15 years later).

Smallpox has been eliminated from the human population, but two nations – the US and Russia – insist on keeping the pathogen in cold storage. They claim their purpose is to develop defences against possible biological weapons attack, but most experts in the field consider this to be nonsense. While raising concerns about each other’s possession of the disease, they have worked together to bludgeon the other members of the World Health Organisation, which have pressed them to destroy their stocks.

In 2001 the New York Times reported that, without either Congressional oversight or a declaration to the Biological Weapons Convention, “the Pentagon has built a germ factory that could make enough lethal microbes to wipe out entire cities“. The Pentagon claimed the purpose was defensive but, developed in contravention of international law, it didn’t look good. The Bush government also sought to destroy the Biological Weapons Convention as an effective instrument by scuttling negotiations over the verification protocol required to make it work.

Looming over all this is the great unmentionable: the cover the US provides for Israel’s weapons of mass destruction. It’s not just that Israel – which refuses to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention – has used white phosphorus as a weapon in Gaza (when deployed against people, phosphorus meets the convention’s definition of “any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm”).

 

It’s also that, as the Washington Post points out: “Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile results from a never-acknowledged gentleman’s agreement in the Middle East that as long as Israel had nuclear weapons, Syria’s pursuit of chemical weapons would not attract much public acknowledgement or criticism.” Israel has developed its nuclear arsenal in defiance of the non-proliferation treaty, and the US supports it in defiance of its own law, which forbids the disbursement of aid to a country with unauthorised weapons of mass destruction.

As for the norms of international law, let’s remind ourselves where the US stands. It remains outside the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, after declaring its citizens immune from prosecution. The crime of aggression it committed in Iraq – defined by the Nuremberg tribunal as “the supreme international crime” – goes not just unpunished but also unmentioned by anyone in government. The same applies to most of the subsidiary war crimes US troops committed during the invasion and occupation. Guantánamo Bay raises a finger to any notions of justice between nations.

None of this is to exonerate Bashar al-Assad’s government – or its opponents – of a long series of hideous crimes, including the use of chemical weapons. Nor is it to suggest that there is an easy answer to the horrors in Syria.

But Obama’s failure to be honest about his nation’s record of destroying international norms and undermining international law, his myth-making about the role of the US in world affairs, and his one-sided interventions in the Middle East, all render the crisis in Syria even harder to resolve. Until there is some candour about past crimes and current injustices, until there is an effort to address the inequalities over which the US presides, everything it attempts – even if it doesn’t involve guns and bombs – will stoke the cynicism and anger the president says he wants to quench.

During his first inauguration speech Barack Obama promised to “set aside childish things”. We all knew what he meant. He hasn’t done it.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

5 Tips For Dealing With Customer Service

Customer-Service-e1269228549577-300x240Whether you are calling to complain or enquire about services or products, you need to be savvy with call centre staff in order to have a successful conversation and get all the answers you need.  Here are tips you can use when dealing with call centre staff:

Be friendly

Don’t call the call centre of a company if you are still angry about their services.  Take some time to calm down before you make the phone call.  You may not get the help you need if you are rude to the person who is supposed to help you or lead you to help. Be friendly and start the conversation my mentioning your name.

Be patient

Sometimes call centre staff will ask you the same questions over and over.  Don’t get easily irritated. They are simply doing their job. In essence, this is to help you and reduce fraud. Repetition of questions can help in cases where someone else tries to use your details without your authorisation.  Be patient and give them your details as accurate as you can. Have all details on hand to provide the correct information as needed.

Get the name and surname of the staff member

Knowing the full names of the person you are talking to will help should you have to make follow up calls.  If you didn’t get the name at first, ask for the person to repeat it and right it down.  Getting the correct name will also help you to lodge a complaint should the consultant treat you in an unfriendly manner.

Get the right information

Research the market first if you are switching or want to get out of something.  Contacting the call centre unprepared may not get you the results you hope for. Use the internet to get all the information about your purpose for calling so that you can provide convincing answers.  Remember that companies don’t want to lose subscribers or money in compensations.  For this reason you have to make your case strong by providing all the necessary information.

Know your rights

Before you make the call, understand your position as a consumer.  Know your rightsconcerning the particular issue you are calling for.  Conduct online research on Citizens Advice Bureau. Read your contract with the company or complaints guidelines to understand fully where you stand as a customer or client, and use this information to your advantage.

Be honest

When you make the call, remember it could be recorded so try not to lie.  Be honest and provide the right information. Should matters be dragged to courts, your recorded calls will be used and you’d like the contents to work for you not against you.

No matter what your reason for calling may be, it would really help a great deal if you can stay calmand be friendly. Don’t contact the call centre with assumptions or rumours. Have the correct information so that you can receive the kind of help you need.  If you are not sure about your facts, ask for clarifications first.

David Jones from Supportnumbers.co.uk – A list of UK Support helplines for hard to reach companies.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily

from The Guardian -

Exclusive: Top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all call data shows scale of domestic surveillance under Obama

Phone records data

Under the terms of the order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data and the time and duration of all calls. Photograph: Matt Rourke/Ansa-headquartersP

The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America’s largesttelecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April.

The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an “ongoing, daily basis” to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.

The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19.

Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered.

The disclosure is likely to reignite longstanding debates in the US over the proper extent of the government’s domestic spying powers.

Under the Bush administration, officials in security agencies had disclosed to reporters the large-scale collection of call records data by the NSA, but this is the first time significant and top-secret documents have revealed the continuation of the practice on a massive scale under President Obama.

The unlimited nature of the records being handed over to the NSA is extremely unusual. Fisa court orders typically direct the production of records pertaining to a specific named target who is suspected of being an agent of a terrorist group or foreign state, or a finite set of individually named targets.

The Guardian approached the National Security Agency, the White House and the Department of Justice for comment in advance of publication on Wednesday. All declined. The agencies were also offered the opportunity to raise specific security concerns regarding the publication of the court order.

The court order expressly bars Verizon from disclosing to the public either the existence of the FBI’s request for its customers’ records, or the court order itself.

“We decline comment,” said Ed McFadden, a Washington-based Verizon spokesman.

The order, signed by Judge Roger Vinson, compels Verizon to produce to the NSA electronic copies of “all call detail records or ‘telephony metadata’ created by Verizon for communications between the United States and abroad” or “wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls”.

The order directs Verizon to “continue production on an ongoing daily basis thereafter for the duration of this order”. It specifies that the records to be produced include “session identifying information”, such as “originating and terminating number”, the duration of each call, telephone calling card numbers, trunk identifiers, International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number, and “comprehensive communication routing information”.

The information is classed as “metadata”, or transactional information, rather than communications, and so does not require individual warrants to access. The document also specifies that such “metadata” is not limited to the aforementioned items. A 2005 court ruling judged that cell site location data – the nearest cell tower a phone was connected to – was also transactional data, and so could potentially fall under the scope of the order.

While the order itself does not include either the contents of messages or the personal information of the subscriber of any particular cell number, its collection would allow the NSA to build easily a comprehensive picture of who any individual contacted, how and when, and possibly from where, retrospectively.

It is not known whether Verizon is the only cell-phone provider to be targeted with such an order, although previous reporting has suggested the NSA has collected cell records from all major mobile networks. It is also unclear from the leaked document whether the three-month order was a one-off, or the latest in a series of similar orders.

The court order appears to explain the numerous cryptic public warnings by two US senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, about the scope of the Obama administration’s surveillance activities.

For roughly two years, the two Democrats have been stridently advising the public that the US government is relying on “secret legal interpretations” to claim surveillance powers so broad that the American public would be “stunned” to learn of the kind of domestic spying being conducted.

Because those activities are classified, the senators, both members of the Senate intelligence committee, have been prevented from specifying which domestic surveillance programs they find so alarming. But the information they have been able to disclose in their public warnings perfectly tracks both the specific law cited by the April 25 court order as well as the vast scope of record-gathering it authorized.

Julian Sanchez, a surveillance expert with the Cato Institute, explained: “We’ve certainly seen the government increasingly strain the bounds of ‘relevance’ to collect large numbers of records at once — everyone at one or two degrees of separation from a target — but vacuuming all metadata up indiscriminately would be an extraordinary repudiation of any pretence of constraint or particularized suspicion.” The April order requested by the FBI and NSA does precisely that.

The law on which the order explicitly relies is the so-called “business records” provision of the Patriot Act, 50 USC section 1861. That is the provision which Wyden and Udall have repeatedly cited when warning the public of what they believe is the Obama administration’s extreme interpretation of the law to engage in excessive domestic surveillance.

In a letter to attorney general Eric Holder last year, they argued that “there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows.”

“We believe,” they wrote, “that most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted” the “business records” provision of the Patriot Act.

Privacy advocates have long warned that allowing the government to collect and store unlimited “metadata” is a highly invasive form of surveillance of citizens’ communications activities. Those records enable the government to know the identity of every person with whom an individual communicates electronically, how long they spoke, and their location at the time of the communication.

Such metadata is what the US government has long attempted to obtain in order to discover an individual’s network of associations and communication patterns. The request for the bulk collection of all Verizon domestic telephone records indicates that the agency is continuing some version of the data-mining program begun by the Bush administration in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack.

The NSA, as part of a program secretly authorized by President Bush on 4 October 2001, implemented a bulk collection program of domestic telephone, internet and email records. A furore erupted in 2006 when USA Today reported that the NSA had “been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth” and was “using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity.” Until now, there has been no indication that the Obama administration implemented a similar program.

These recent events reflect how profoundly the NSA’s mission has transformed from an agency exclusively devoted to foreign intelligence gathering, into one that focuses increasingly on domestic communications. A 30-year employee of the NSA, William Binney, resigned from the agency shortly after 9/11 in protest at the agency’s focus on domestic activities.

In the mid-1970s, Congress, for the first time, investigated the surveillance activities of the US government. Back then, the mandate of the NSA was that it would never direct its surveillance apparatus domestically.

At the conclusion of that investigation, Frank Church, the Democratic senator from Idaho who chaired the investigative committee, warned: “The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter.”

Additional reporting by Ewen MacAskill and Spencer Ackerman

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

7 Body Language Tips to Bear in Mind When Negotiating.

153656919_2869f376d2

Negative Example: Mr X crooked his wrist and slumped his head sideways, crashing it into the open palm of his right hand.

Positive Example:  Mr X came around from behind his desk walking boldly towards his visitor. The barrier of furniture had been dissolved and Mr X met the gaze of the salesman with a disarming confidence.

Body language can betray or confirm your words. An employee can leave his hopes of a pay rise at the door if during the review he sits slouched with his legs strewn out under his boss’ desk or even in more discreet ways fails to present himself as assertive and capable. Fortunately one can boost their chances with a few tips.

1)     Don’t touch your neck

The neck is a vulnerable area. So don’t touch it. If you are rubbing the back of your neck, lightly pinching your Adam’s apple or doing other inventive neck activity this is likely to lead someone to mistrust you or communicate that obvious fact that you are uncomfortable. You will be unable to strong arm that cockney car salesman as he will jump at the signal his helpless prey has just fired off.

2)     Firm handshake

This is essential. There are few things far worse, excluding flatulence, than a flimsy moist handshake. Bill Clinton claimed he always endeavored to meet the web between the thumb and index finger. This is usually a reliable technique. However a firm handshake is not a vice grip. It is about being expressive not aggressive (not physically at least)

3)     Mr. Mime

Professor Michael Wheeler from Harvard Business School observed that “after two or more people have been in each other’s presence for just a few minutes, their behavior begins to subtly converge…breathing patterns and heart rates sync up, and they also tend to mimic each other’s posture and hand gestures.” Emulation is a sign of flattery. It shows the other party you are at ease and are subconsciously in agreement with them. This is a useful negotiating tool as often it is about aligning your interests with that of another.

4)     Contact

During the presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both men made use of physical contact. Obama shook hands with Romney and placed his other hand high on Romney’s shoulder. Analysts speculate that this is a gesture of control. It is also one of affection and can melt the corporate armour of the suit jacket. We touch a persons arm to guide them, to show pity, to reassure them. By doing the same in negotiation we tap into all such associations at once.

5)     Fidgeting

To be a good negotiator implies control over a situation. You cannot be in a position of control if you’re twiddling your thumbs, licking your lips whilst impatiently waggling your feet. It will put the other person on edge and scream incompetence. Relax and sit calmly. If you’re going to make any gestures, time them and execute them with conviction.

6)     Posture

If you’re sitting down, sit up and look interested. While you might not need to lunge across the table attacking the space with your elbows it is equally bad to tilt your head back and gaze at the ceiling. If you’re standing, pin those shoulders back to avoid the slouch, pronounce that chest and revert back to a primitive form of masculinity. Just don’t bash on your chest or make any gorilla roars.

7)     Smile

You’re a warm approachable and honest person. Well if you’re not that, at least this should help create that image. One part of business is about transparency, it is simply not desirable to enter any negotiations with a deceitful agent, and people prefer to be assured of credibility. A smile goes a long way here: it tells the other party that you are at ease, unstressed, and personable. In turn they may feel at ease and negotiations can continue untrammeled.

A last note on body language is that all the above can never look too contrived. Body language must be natural otherwise you risk walking around like a creepy robot or unnerving people with mistimed touchy feely gestures.

Featured images:

This article was supplied by Josh Hervall, a keen blogger and negotiation enthusiast. He writes for www.thegappartnership.com, experts in Business Negotiation Training.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Boston Marathon bombing suspect arrested

A street is closed near the scene of twin bombings at the Boston Marathon on April 17, 2013 in Boston.(AFP Photo / Spencer Platt)

A street is closed near the scene of twin bombings at the Boston Marathon on April 17, 2013 in Boston.(AFP Photo / Spencer Platt)

Law enforcement officials in Boston tell reporters that they have arrested a suspect thought responsible for Monday’s deadly bombing.

CNN confirmed the news at 1:45 p.m. local time when journalist John King said both a federal source and a Boston law enforcement source confirmed the news. Reporter Fran Townsend then added over the phone that “there is an arrest that has been made in the Boston bombing case based off of two independent videos.”

The suspect is now expected to arrive at a federal courthouse in Boston.

Earlier in the day, CNN reported shortly after 1 p.m. that a suspect has apparently been identified. The suspect’s name has not been made public as of this time, but he is reportedly a dark-skinned male, according to police.

According to CNN’s sources, surveillance video from a Lord and Taylor department store and a local television station are believed to have helped authorities identify the person sought responsible for Monday’s incident, which US President Barack Obama said on Tuesday is being investigated as an act of terror.

 

New Lord and Tayloк shop in Boston.(Image from Google.com)

New Lord and Tayloк shop in Boston.(Image from Google.com)

 

CNN’s King reports from Boston that the video footage helped police narrow in on a person being considered a suspect in the attack “to such detail, I’m told, that they believe they have a clear identification, including a facial image of a suspect.”

The footage, sources say, show the suspect carrying and perhaps placing down a black bag that is thought to have contained a bomb that was detonated at the second of two crime scenes near the finish line of the annual Boston Marathon just before 3 p.m. on Monday.

The mayor of Boston, Massachusetts has confirmed that a suspect was ID’d, and officials are expected to speak to the press at 5 p.m. Wednesday afternoon. According to sources speaking to the Boston Globe, authorities may publicize their findings at that briefing.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Forget Washington — Cities Will Win or Lose America

by Jim Clifton

Throughout this year’s long election season, I was often asked: “Who will be better for jobs and the economy, President Obama or Governor Romney?” My reply most surely disappointed partisans from both sides: The president of the United States doesn’t make as much difference in terms of creating economic energy as you’d think, according to Gallup data.

In fact, if the president mattered that much, why is it that cities and states have such extreme variation in their local GDP and job growth? Shouldn’t they all go up or down together with each president?

Instead, Austin, Texas, and Nashville, Tenn., are booming, while Albany, N.Y., and Stockton, Calif., are failing. Texas is prospering while California is almost surely going broke. Austin’s jobless rate is around 5%, while the unemployment rate in Stockton is above 13%.

The reality is, when it comes to creating economic growth and good jobs, local leadership trumps national leadership. For instance, Austin and Albany are both capital cities in big American states. Neither city is located by a port or a natural tourist attraction with beaches or mountains. They’re pretty much alike, except that Austin wins big and Albany loses big.

The difference, in my view, is that Austin has deeply caring, highly engaged business, political, and philanthropic leaders with principles, policies, beliefs, and values about human nature that work. They understand how to build a thriving, growing economy — one that welcomes business and entrepreneurship. Albany has the opposite, as I see it: Leaders with principles, policies, values, and beliefs that discourage business and entrepreneurship, if not outright scaring them away.

Cities across the country with great leadership are filled with booming startup companies, and those cities have thriving economies that create authentic, organically grown good jobs. These cities are saving America, while the others are letting the country down.

Great city leadership has never been so needed. Nationally, business startups are currently growing at under 400,000 annually. If this rate doesn’t double soon, in my view, absolutely nothing will fix our current nightmare of joblessness.

And this just isn’t a problem that Washington can fix, regardless of who is president. Of course good policy for small businesses is better than bad policy, but in my opinion, the estimated 10,000 business, political, and philanthropic leaders of all shapes and sizes who drive the performance of America’s top 100 cities are the most important people in our country right now. Nothing can be more important to these essential American leaders than turning their towns into roaring economic engines that encourage entrepreneurs to thrive. When it comes to building and sustaining economic energy, frankly, they matter more than the president.

The United States is at a critical juncture in its economic history. Whether the country makes a historic comeback or slowly goes broke, it will do so one city at a time.

 

Jim Clifton is Chairman and CEO of Gallup. He is author of The Coming Jobs War (Gallup Press, 2011).

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Obama’s second term: What will it mean for employers?

 

Federal agencies will continue to interpret the laws that protect employees very broadly and enforce them very aggressively.

By Jonathan A. Segal

 

FORTUNE — Democrats have retained control of the White House and the Senate. Republicans have retained control of the House. So the voters, again, have voted for divided government.

What will it mean for workers and their employers? Much of it depends on how Republicans read and respond to the election results.

For example, the House and most Senate Republicans have opposed Democratic proposals that would offer a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and strengthen existing non-discrimination laws related to gender pay equity. Yet, exit polls suggest that the Democratic victory was in part due to big wins among Latinos and women.

MORE: Congratulations, Mr. President. Here’s how to fix the economy.

How the Republicans will respond to the election results is still up in the air. What is clear, though, is that President Obama will continue to control appointments to the administrative agencies. What is equally clear is that the administrative agencies will continue to interpret the laws that protect employees very broadly and enforce them very aggressively.

Expect the National Labor Relations Board to try to reduce the period of time for an election to take place after a union has filed a petition to represent a group of employees. Shorter election periods generally benefit unions, since unions can start to campaign long before employers even know of the campaign.

We can also expect the NLRB to continue to challenge common workplace rules, for example, rules that prohibit disparagement of an employer or its employees. The NLRB’s theory is that such rules interfere with what’s called protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act. Protected concerted activity generally means that union and non-union employees alike have the right to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment, even with social media. That right may include comments that are negative, even disparaging.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will also continue to focus on social issues. For example, the EEOC recently published guidance on how victims of domestic violence could be protected from discrimination under Title VII and the ADA. The EEOC had drafted but decided not to publish guidance in other areas, for example, what are reasonable accommodations for disabled employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is reasonable to expect the EEOC to consider revisiting these and other issues that it had tabled.

MORE: Election 2012: Corporate America gets feisty

And we will likely see more legislation at the state and local level that will affect the employer-employee relationship. Over the past year or so, we have seen states and local jurisdictions impose restrictions on the use of credit reports in the hiring process, the timing of criminal records checks by prospective employers, and the acquisition and use of social media at work. Expect more of the same and anticipate that the bills will tend to favor expanding employee rights.

Former U.S. Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil once said, “all politics is local.” Not only that, but most voters are employees, too.

Jonathan Segal is a partner at the law firm Duane Morris LLP, where he is a member of the firm’s employment, labor, benefits and immigration practice group. This article should not be construed as legal advice. 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,996 other followers

%d bloggers like this: