Cowboy Who?

This post, my employee doesn’t think we’re doing enough about bears at work , was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.

A reader writes:

Okay, I’m going to sound like a strange Canadian lumberjack stereotype here, but I had a question come up in my workplace about bear safety and when it’s reasonable to refuse work in bear country for occupational health and safety reasons. The safety hazard is “potential bear encounters” but I feel like the logic of other workplace health and safety and team dynamics should also apply.

I work in a natural conservation area. My team of seasonal staff does some of their work outdoors in a campground, working with the public. All of the staff live on site in the park or nearby. Black bears are common in this area. My team gives bear safety talks to visitors as a part of their duties, so they are very aware of the kinds of things they should do to prevent bear encounters, and know the steps they should take if they actually do encounter a bear. Bear attacks are extremely rare – usually once the bear and human notice each other, one or the other retreats with no issues. Sometimes we have to posture a bit, or get into a building or a work vehicle. Bear encounters are a frequent part of life here during our operational season. I probably see them twice a week, but almost never in super close proximity or in a dangerous way. They frequently wander through residential areas, including near staff housing and visitor cabins. If you’re aware of them and know what to do, they aren’t considered any more of a danger than, say, being aware of vehicle traffic and making sure to stay safe around motor vehicles.

This past summer, as a part of general safety supplies, like our two-way radios and sunscreen, I purchased two canisters of bear spray for my team, and said that if members of my team wanted to carry it when out in the park on work business, they were available as an optional tool. Bear spray, for the uninitiated, is pepper spray for bears. If a bear is charging you or won’t give you space, you make sure the wind isn’t blowing into your face and then spray it at them. It’s a non-lethal deterrent and it’s only deployed as a last resort. I’ve only had to use bear spray once, while hiking on my time off, in nearly 10 years. Other teams at my site who work in different jobs in the backcountry carry it as a part of their kit because they’re more isolated, and I thought it would be a good optional thing for my staff to carry – also to set a good example for visitors setting out to go for hikes in the woods.

One staff member, when they heard that I had made bear spray available to our team, said that we needed “intensive” bear safety training and that what I had provided was not sufficient to keep them safe from bears while they were on duty. This person had apparently received a half-day workshop at a previous job with a different organization and another site and was expecting the same here. It apparently involved actually deploying some sort of deactivated spray. The thing is, the only other formal bear safety training my site offers for employees are for those who haze problem bears out of town and actively trap and relocate them. Getting that close and personal with the bears is far and above what’s required of my staff and that training is not something that the other team can take the time to lead for my team. Essentially, it’s not a requirement of their role. When I spoke with the visitor safety officer at my workplace, they said that reading the instructions on the canister and watching the instructional video on the manufacturer’s website should be sufficient for the kind of work my team does, especially as my staff are trained to deliver bear safety messaging to visitors. That’s what other teams who work in the backcountry who carry bear spray do. We do not have a specific documented work practice from the occupational health and safety committee for bear encounters, but we do have one for if staff are actively working with wildlife (again, like relocating bears) which is not what my staff do.

When I came back to my staff member with this information, they were still very dissatisfied, and announced in front of the whole team that none of them should enter the campground unless they had intensive safety training in bear spray. I did say that it was not a requirement to carry or use bear spray, so if they were not comfortable with it they didn’t have to carry it and can follow the other safety protocols as normal (be aware of your surroundings and escape routes, practice prevention, carry a radio for communication). They countered that carrying bear spray was necessary when working outside on site for “safety reasons.” It almost got to the point of a refusal to work – but in the end, I hadn’t even assigned this staff member the shifts that would take them into the campground so the complaint fizzled.

I was a bit baffled by what my staff member was asking me. If this person is saying that it’s actively unsafe for staff members to enter the campground without bear spray and “intensive” training … then following that logic, would it not be considered unsafe for any people, including janitorial staff and members of the public, to enter the campground there without the same tools and training? Should we evacuate the campground? Should I just … not provide bear spray as an option for my staff to carry? But nobody else on the team had any objections to carrying bear spray or working outdoors. Spending time outside on-site is a requirement of the job and that will always carry with it the potential for animal encounters (bear, deer, elk, wolves).

I know this is an extreme example, but I’m struggling with what to do should this person come back next season and have the same complaint. Bear encounters are a normal part of living and working in this region – and this person is a long-time resident and to my knowledge does not own bear spray or carry it in their off hours. Bears are just as likely to walk through their front yard as they are to be in our outdoor workplace. What happens when I as the employer provide safety tools and training that the occupational health and safety committee and our park’s visitor safety officer consider sufficient and my staff member still says it’s not enough?

I can’t speak to bear safety at all, but I can talk about how to approach this from a management perspective in general — with the caveat that there might be something specific to bears that I don’t know but you’d need to factor in.

From a strictly management standpoint, I’d argue that you need to do two things:

First, reality-check your approach with someone who is a bear expert. Do they agree with the training and support you’re providing to keep employees safe? If so, great. (That might be exactly what you did when you checked with your visitor safety officer, assuming that person does indeed have expertise in bear safety.) For the sake of answering the rest of your letter, I’m going to assume that you’ve done this step and gotten confirmation that you’re using the best practices to keep people safe.

The second step is a very up-front, transparent conversation with your concerned employee if they end up wanting to return next season. Before hiring them back, you should raise this! You can say, “I know you had concerns last year about bear spray training. I sought advice from (insert specifics here) and they’ve confirmed we’re using best practices for the type of work we do and the bear exposure we have in our work. They didn’t recommend bear spray training, and it’s not something we’re currently able to offer. Knowing that, will you be comfortable with the expectations of the job? If not, I certainly understand. I want to make sure we sort this out up-front so you’re not in a situation you’re not comfortable in.”

But also … are there any creative ways to offer this person the training they want? While the team doing that additional training doesn’t have the time to offer it to your team too, could this employee (or other interested team members) sit on in a training the other team is already doing for themselves? Or if there aren’t other local resources for training, are there online trainings you could make available if your team members want it? I get that you’re saying it’s unnecessary for their jobs, but if you can make people feel safer at work with just a bit more effort (or money), it’s worth doing.

On the other hand, it also sounds possible that this person was revealing a fundamental lack of alignment with the work you do. My lack of bear knowledge makes it hard for me to assess that with any confidence, but I do wonder if that was part of what happened last summer. Maybe it wasn’t! And certainly it’s reasonable for people to want to feel safe performing their jobs. And while I get your point that there are others at the campground without this training (janitors, members of the public) and that a bear is just as likely to walk through someone’s front yard as through your campground, I do think it’s different when you’re in a professional role where you are responsible for other people’s safety. So from that perspective, your team member might not have been entirely off-base.

Ultimately, though, all you can really do is to (a) confirm that your practices are safe and the ones recommended, (b) see if there are realistic ways to offer any extra training anyway, and then (c) be up-front with employees and potential employees about what you can and can’t offer, so they have a clear-eyed view of what they’d be signing on for and can decide if it works for them or not.

Elections have consequences. This political bromide is overused for a reason—it’s reliably true. And this year, the fallout for vulnerable Texans could be particularly destructive.

After something approaching a blue wave swept across Texas in November 2018, a chastened Republican majority in the Legislature kept its focus in the 2019 session on serious policymaking—school finance and property tax reform—while largely forgoing their typical red-meat fare.

Republicans thwarted expectations of another Democratic surge in November 2020, and the next year the GOP ignored the problems laid bare by the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing economic crisis, instead focusing on passing as much right-wing legislation as possible over the course of a regular session, plus three painful specials. 

The final outcome was ugly: Abortions were effectively banned by threat of bounty, handgun permits were done away with, voting laws were made more restrictive, transgender kids were targeted with statutory bigotry, and school curricula on race and history were whitewashed. Profound policy problems, meanwhile, were left to fester. 

Critically, the state’s electoral districts were redrawn for the next decade to ensure incumbent Republican majorities will be insulated from electoral backlash while the state’s growing numbers of people of color and Democratic-aligned voters are kept at bay. 

This fresh gerrymander set the table for another Republican rout last November as the GOP maintained strong majorities in the state House and Senate and easily swept the state’s high-powered executive offices—led by Governor Greg Abbott’s 11-point defeat of Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke. 

Firmly in control, Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, and GOP lawmakers are now free to do as they please—to pick up where their vengeful 87th legislative session mercifully left off just over a year ago. 

Some top Republicans hinted during campaign season that they might want to soften the sharpest edges of their draconian and unpopular ban on abortion or pull back on the most extreme parts of their so-called “election integrity” laws. But there’s little reason to think this legislative session will yield moderation. The party’s activist base is eager to continue the march toward one-party authoritarianism, punishing political enemies and catering to political patrons as they go. 

The GOP’s activist base is eager to continue the march toward one-party authoritarianism.

Many bills have already been filed to further expand prosecution under Texas’ abortion ban, along with measures to concentrate power over elections in the office of GOP Attorney General Ken Paxton and to continue persecution of transgender children and their families.

Lawmakers will also be charged with allocating a projected massive surplus of state revenue—over $25 billion—from inflation-fueled sales tax receipts and huge oil and gas production taxes. Republicans are salivating as they plan to shovel money into tax relief for homeowners, likely without alleviating the fundamental problem of soaring property taxes. Many other political pet projects, like Abbott’s bloated Operation Lone Star border scheme, are likely to get a taste too. 

But that shiny surplus figure contains plenty of smoke and mirrors, budgetary gimmicks, and external uncertainties that can only be resolved by transparent fiscal governance—not hide-the-ball, kick-the-can budgeting. Meanwhile, there is plenty of serious work to be done. There are billions in once-in-a-generation federal funds for infrastructure and energy projects that could set Texas up for the future. The electric grid still needs fixing. The public school system still needs help recovering from the pandemic. Government agencies and public services are crying for significant reform and investment. 

Ahead of every new legislative session in Texas, there’s always a glimmer of hope that lawmakers will rise to the occasion, that reason will at least get a public hearing. This is usually coupled with the well-earned suspicion that, instead, the next race to the bottom will take us to parts previously unknown and unimaginable. 

Here, we do our best to survey what we believe will be some of the most high-profile policy topics facing Texas—what could and should be done, and, more likely, what will happen instead. — Justin Miller

Make Government Good Again

For years, lawmakers have failed to heed warnings from leaders of Texas’ biggest and most important state agencies about a growing inability to provide critical services to a booming population, often due to depleted workforces and antiquated technology. 

Instead, legislators have repeatedly cried poverty, demanding departments do more with less. Now GOP policymakers are confronted with the consequences of their indifference and hostility toward the state’s moribund bureaucracy. 

The roughly 150,000 state government workers who administer food stamp and Medicaid benefits, ensure vulnerable youth are living in safe homes, regulate the most powerful industries, and guard one of the world’s largest incarcerated populations are underpaid, overworked, and increasingly heading for the exits. 

From the 1970s well into the 21st century, the state regularly funded pay increases for its government employees. But now workers haven’t seen a wage bump since 2014, when lawmakers approved a modest 3 percent raise over two years, accompanied by heavier workloads. Employees in the lowest-paid positions are predominantly people of color, who are hit the hardest by these stagnant wages. 

The COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing economic upheaval prompted a nationwide surge in people leaving their jobs, whether in the public or private sector, a phenomenon dubbed “The Big Quit.” Texas government has been particularly hard-hit, facing catastrophic staffing shortages in major agencies that run the state prison system, the juvenile justice system, and foster care and child protective services. Agencies like the Texas Attorney General’s Office and the Public Utility Commission, charged with protecting the public from unscrupulous actors and regulating essential industries, can’t maintain the sort of white-collar workforce—attorneys, analysts, investigators—needed to perform their duties.

In 2021, the turnover rate among state workers was 21 percent, according to the state auditor’s office—the highest level seen in at least 20 years.

Nearly half of the Texas Juvenile Justice Department workers who resigned that year cited unsafe working conditions and a poor work environment. The department stopped accepting new juveniles, who had to remain in overcrowded local facilities because state centers were so understaffed. The agency is struggling to hire guards because they’re competing with service-sector employers like Buc-ee’s, where workers can make the same money in safer conditions.

At the Health and Human Services Commission, frontline workers charged with administering social services earn an entry-level salary of just below $28,000, low enough for a single parent of two to qualify for the same government benefits they deliver to other families. 

Ahead of the 2023 legislative session, almost every state agency is calling for more funding to pay workers better. In their legislative budget request, Texas’ largest agencies are asking for $1.9 billion in new funding for salary increases and incentives, according to the state Legislative Budget Board, along with over $6 billion for IT improvements and capital projects. 

While that may sound pricey, those demands represent the cost of years of neglect. And they are coming as the state trumpets surprisingly rosy revenue projections, with the Legislature likely to have at least $25 billion in surplus funds to spend. 

After years of belt-tightening, agency heads finally have an opportunity to go big. “If you don’t ask for it now, then when?” said Eva DeLuna Castro, a longtime budget analyst in Texas. “If not now, then it’s basically never going to happen.”

“If you don’t ask for it now, then when? If not now, then it’s basically never going to happen.”

But agency pleas will be competing with higher-octane political priorities. Governor Abbott, for example, has already pledged to use at least half the budget surplus on short-term “tax cuts” for property owners. 

Texas Republicans have faced no electoral punishment for the myriad crises born of their crumbling government. So, even in a year of financial abundance, the bureaucrats who merely serve the most vulnerable among us will likely be sent to the back of the line. — Justin Miller

Stopping the Next Uvalde

There is a policy that would likely have prevented the deadliest school shooting in Texas history. It is an uncomplicated measure, one that would probably have saved some or all of the 21 kids and teachers who perished on May 24 at Robb Elementary in Uvalde. Three of the nation’s four most populous states—California, New York, and Florida—already have it on their books. It is supported by some three-quarters of Texans as well as a majority of Texas Republicans. It is simply this: Raise the minimum age for buying an assault-style rifle—a weapon that literally pulverizes human bodies—to the same age generally required for handguns, alcohol, and cigarettes. 

This policy has emerged as the principal demand of the Uvalde families who lost their fourth-grade children last spring. That’s because the killer, a high school dropout who’d been labeled by friends “the school shooter,” was legally able to purchase two AR-style rifles and 2,000 rounds of ammo shortly after turning 18. Killers under 21 also carried out the school shootings in Santa Fe; Parkland, Florida; Newtown, Connecticut; and Columbine, Colorado. Shootings with assault-style rifles are far deadlier than those carried out with other weapons.

“We have to have an age limit on having access to militarized weaponry. … I mean, I’ve had Republican colleagues contact me and say, ‘Look, we need to do this,’” Democratic state Senator Roland Gutierrez, who represents Uvalde, told the Texas Observer. Gutierrez filed a bill in November to raise the minimum age, and Representative Tracy King, a moderate Dem representing Uvalde in the House, said in October the specifics of the shooting had convinced him to support the age limit. 

Meanwhile, Abbott avoids addressing the popular proposal head-on, instead claiming—falsely—that recent court rulings “have made it clear” the measure would be unconstitutional. Republican House Speaker Dade Phelan has similarly sidestepped the proposal’s substance, saying “the votes aren’t there” in the GOP-controlled Legislature. 

Democratic lawmakers have also filed “red flag” legislation that would allow judges to remove guns from dangerous individuals and other bills to establish universal background checks on gun buyers. But, as Texas gun control advocates know bitterly well, the same proposals have perished in recent sessions. 

“We would hope that the pain and suffering that the families in Uvalde went through would push some widely agreed-upon gun safety legislation through the Texas Legislature,” Molly Bursey, volunteer state legislative lead for the gun control group Moms Demand Action, told the Observer. “In reality, I would say, if you think that [gun policy] can’t get worse … think again, it can definitely get worse.” 

“If you think that gun policy can’t get worse … think again.”

Depressingly, Texas GOP leaders have a record of loosening gun laws in response to mass shootings. In 2019, following the tragedies in Santa Fe and Sutherland Springs, Abbott signed laws making it easier to carry guns in public places; in 2021, after the massacres in El Paso and Midland-Odessa, Abbott approved legislation creating so-called constitutional carry, which allows Texans to carry handguns without a permit.

Bursey fears the 2023 Legislature will reduce remaining limitations on firearms in certain locations. These include courts, bars, and polling places. The state could also expand 18-year-olds’ ability to carry handguns. As for school shootings, the Legislature is likely to repeat its 2019 gambit of funding “school hardening,” an expensive solution of dubious effectiveness that can leave schools militarized yet still vulnerable to mass shooters. Bursey particularly worries about further efforts to arm ill-prepared school staff.

Texans resoundingly reelected Republican leaders in 2022, Bursey notes, so she’s prepared for radical pro-gun lawmakers to simply forge ahead. “We’re going to keep raising the voices of my neighbors, of myself, of the vast majority of Texans,” she said. “But, no, I don’t hold out a lot of hope that they will find the courage and do the right thing.” — Gus Bova

Fixing the Grid

Two years after hundreds died and millions lost power during Winter Storm Uri, the state’s electric grid remains a problem. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has warned that, faced with another deep freeze, Texas won’t be able to cope. State leaders have made improvements, like requiring essential energy infrastructure to be weatherized, but they are willfully ignoring the fundamental threats posed by climate change and endlessly consuming fossil fuels.

Rather than updating the grid and electricity market so that Texas reaps the benefits of clean energy, state Republicans are primarily interested in propping up the oil and gas industry. Given massive federal investment in renewables and efficiency through the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the transition to clean energy is inevitable. The question is how long and how painful Texas will make it.

The most glaring issue is that the Texas grid is largely cut off from the rest of the country, unable to import electricity in times of need. But if Texas insists on going it alone, there’s another immediate fix: curbing our hunger for electricity.

Energy wonks say the cheapest kilowatt is the one we don’t use. Despite Texas having cheaper electricity than most states, a Census Bureau survey recently found a shocking 45 percent of Texans are sacrificing food and medicine to pay energy bills. Helping people weatherize their homes and get efficient appliances would save households money and free up electricity when it’s needed most—during scorching summer days and winter cold snaps. 

Efficiency measures could shave Texas’ peak electricity demand by as much as 15 percent, according to one estimate by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Lawmakers need only tighten the state’s energy efficiency standard, and utilities would expand existing initiatives like weatherization assistance programs and rebates for appliances. Lawmakers could also help ensure Texas claims its full share of the billions of federal dollars available from the Inflation Reduction Act for energy efficiency.

But Republican legislators treat saving energy as the elephant in the room. 

“Energy is an equation. You’ve got to balance demand on one side, and supply on the other side. The fact that we’ve been talking about this for almost two years with absolutely no discussion of the demand side is insane,” said Adrian Shelley, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office. “It just cannot be stressed enough that it is entirely because Texas is still obsessed with this idea of selling fossil fuel energy. And everything else, including the public’s right to affordable, reliable electricity, comes second.”

Instead of embracing efficiency, the Legislature is likely to spend the year dancing with the Public Utility Commission over a complicated overhaul of the state’s electricity market. The commission recently hired consultants to evaluate several redesign proposals.

“Texas is still obsessed with this idea of selling fossil fuel energy. And everything else, including affordable, reliable electricity, comes second.”

One favored proposal would pay generators a premium for keeping extra fuel around and providing power during peak demand. But the plan doesn’t guarantee greater reliability, and it could cost more than $460 million per year. Commissioners want the redesign to exclude wind and solar facilities, potentially even those with battery storage, from getting the same credits. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle disagree on the details, but the Republican majority shares the commission’s overall goal: incentivizing energy companies to build more fossil-fueled power plants. Many conservative legislators still claim—misleadingly—that renewables make the grid unreliable, despite ample evidence that it was natural gas that failed us most during Uri.

If the Abbott-appointed public utility commissioners have their way, this market redesign would not fix the grid. Instead, it would stymie renewable energy development in Texas in favor of putting the fossil fuel industry on life support. While the state Legislature is unlikely to hand the utility commissioners everything they want, plenty of lawmakers will support their overarching, retrograde mission. — Delger Erdenesanaa

Public Schools in Crisis

For “school choice” proponents, the upcoming session could be a stampede, with public schools getting trampled in the process. For decades, the push for school vouchers—which allow parents to use public education dollars to enroll students in private charter and religious schools—has been a fringe issue across the country. In Texas, Democrats and many Republicans, especially from rural districts, have stood with public education advocates to block such legislation. 

But the emboldened right-wing policy movement has gained ground in the past year, with Abbott expressing support for school choice in his reelection campaign. GOP lawmakers have already filed several pieces of legislation to that end. If pro-voucher legislation passes, education advocates warn that taxpayer funding would bleed out of public schools across the state.

“The one thing that [voucher proponents] may be right about is this may be the one and only chance that they actually have to pass it,” said Zeph Capo, president of the Texas American Federation of Teachers. “I do think that they’re going to put an all-out effort into it. And people who actually care about real public education … are going to have to stand up and make their presence known.”

This all comes amid a growing teacher shortage exacerbated by low pay, the pandemic, unsafe working conditions, and political attacks from Republicans. If public school funding shrinks, educators would be forced to work with even smaller budgets. For every seven students opting out of a public school district, that district would lose the equivalent of a teacher’s salary and benefits, according to the public education advocacy group Raise Your Hand Texas. The group is in favor of school choice—including in-district magnet schools or transferring within or between districts—but it is opposed to vouchers and other programs that leech funding out of public schools. “We want to make sure that wherever we’re spending our public tax dollars, that there’s a way that we can account for where the money is going and what it’s being used for,” said Will Holleman, Raise Your Hand Texas’ senior director of government relations.

Support for traditional public schools remains resilient within both parties. In November, the majority-Republican State Board of Education advised lawmakers not to pursue school choice efforts. The board voted to oppose all forms of school choice measures, including vouchers and all tax credits that effectively divert funding from public schools. But Republicans including Dan Patrick are trying to drown out skepticism with promises to rural Republicans that their districts won’t be affected by voucher programs.

It’s still unclear what form of school choice will emerge as the favorite this session, and whether there will be more support in the Texas House of Representatives, which has roundly blocked school choice bills for decades.

Just on the first day of bill filing, lawmakers submitted more than a dozen bills that sought to either hamstring or expand what teachers are permitted to teach.

But savvy activists and legislators are capitalizing on the growing controversy around public school curricula, which has reached a fever pitch as anti-critical race theory and anti-LGBTQ+ candidates have found success in many local school board races. Just on the first day of bill filing, lawmakers submitted more than a dozen bills that sought to either hamstring or expand what teachers are permitted to teach—from a Republican bill requesting that students be taught that life begins at conception to a Democratic bill creating a compulsory ethnic studies curriculum. At least one bill, filed by San Antonio Representative Diego Bernal, will attempt to undo recent attempts to ban educators from teaching students about the extent of racism in U.S. history and current events. 

The anti-voucher coalition has held firm in the Legislature for years, keeping Texas from joining the ranks of other red states like Florida that have implemented sweeping school choice policies. But that opposition force is likely to come under more pressure than ever as vouchers become fully integrated into the broader conservative culture war against public schools. Will 2023 be the tipping point? — Michelle Pitcher

The State of LGBTQ+ Rights

Queer people have come to expect the worst from the state’s Republican leadership, but ahead of the upcoming legislative session they’re bracing for what could be a record-breaking wave of attacks on their rights.

Some of the most dangerous bills filed as of November target parents and medical professionals who support trans kids and teenagers with gender-affirming medical care. It’s a continuation of a shockingly vicious policy instituted early in 2022 by Paxton and Abbott that forced child welfare agents at the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) to investigate families with trans kids as if they were potential child abusers. Even though the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, and Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays went to court and halted these abuse investigations, the directive sent DFPS into disarray and caused some families to flee the state. 

Representative Bryan Slaton, the most staunchly anti-transgender legislator of the 2021 session, is back with a bill to redefine gender-affirming care provided by medical professionals as child abuse, and other GOP legislators have joined the effort to enshrine into law what Paxton and Abbott failed to achieve through executive decree and legal maneuvers. For example, a bill from Representative Cole Hefner would set prison sentences for parents who support their child’s gender-affirming health care, while Representative Steve Toth filed two bills penalizing insurance companies for paying for that care. 

Alejandra Caraballo, a clinical instructor at Harvard Law’s Cyberlaw Clinic who specializes in the intersection of gender and the law, called the situation “beyond dystopian.”

“Teachers, doctors, first responders, therapists, social workers—anyone who has a mandated reporter role around child abuse—would be required to turn in friends and family and their patients, their students, to the state,” she told the Observer. 

Other bills attempt to capitalize on the moral panic around drag queens, simultaneously using it as a way to attack both LGBTQ+ culture as a whole and the ability of transgender people to participate in public life. HB 643 from Representative Jared Patterson broadly seeks to ban anyone from “performing” in public when children are present if the performer’s clothing doesn’t match conservative norms for their assigned gender at birth. It’s so broadly written, in fact, that experts are concerned it could even ban trans people from performing at major league sporting events or all-ages concerts. Venues found to be in violation would face misdemeanor charges. 

“That could literally mean a trans person doing standup at a comedy show would then turn it into a sexually oriented business,” Caraballo said.

“A trans person doing standup at a comedy show would turn it into a sexually oriented business.”

These measures just scratch the surface of the attacks on bodily autonomy coming down the pike. Senator Charles Perry introduced a bill to prohibit trans young people from changing the gender marker on their birth certificates, and Patrick has promised to attack the rights of teachers to educate students about LGBTQ+ people.

Just as in past sessions, bills aimed at actually protecting LGTBQ+ Texans almost certainly will go nowhere. Once again, the 88th legislative session will force activists to focus on playing defense. Activists have had success killing, or at least weakening, the worst elements of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in recent years by coming together with some of Texas’ major corporate employers. 

“The optimist in me is hoping that [Republicans] come out swinging with this,” said Ash Hall, a legislative consultant who’s tracked anti-LGBTQ+ legislation at the Texas Capitol for years. “And then it’ll die down, and they’ll focus on things that are more specific to their districts.” — Kit O’Connell

The post Catastrophe #88: The Texas Legislature Returns for a Brutal Year appeared first on The Texas Observer.

On the heels of an unprecedented 24-day labor strike late last year, around 20 journalists at the 117-year-old Fort Worth Star-Telegram have ratified the only union contract at a Texas newspaper. The union victory comes after more than two years of difficult negotiations and forms part of a surge in nationwide newsroom organizing since the mid-2010s as journalists have increasingly fought back against corporate predation in a struggling industry. Workers at two other Texas papers, in Dallas and Austin, are still bargaining for union contracts after roughly two years.

Before launching the labor strike on November 28—likely the first open-ended newsroom work stoppage in Texas history—Kaley Johnson, a justice reporter at the Star-Telegram and vice president of the paper’s union, the Fort Worth NewsGuild, said negotiations were largely stuck in the mud. The Star-Telegram, which serves the state’s fifth-largest city and politically crucial Tarrant County, is owned by the McClatchy Company, a chain of about 30 papers nationwide. In turn, McClatchy is now controlled not by the family that ran it from the 19th century until 2020, but by the New Jersey-based hedge fund Chatham Asset Management. These corporate profiteers, per Johnson, were unwilling to move from a wage floor of $45,000 or consider other demands for months on end.

“The main reason we went on strike was because they weren’t negotiating at all; they were committed to stalling tactics and stonewalling,” she said. Once the work stoppage began, McClatchy swiftly cut off health insurance for the strikers and even posted temporary jobs to replace the journalists. Meanwhile, the workers raised some $51,000 on GoFundMe to sustain the effort. Suddenly, a few weeks into the stoppage, the company offered a new wage floor of $52,000 for current employees and $50,000 for future hires, along with other concessions on layoff procedures and bereavement leave. 

“It appears that the longer we were on strike, the more pressure they did feel to compromise with us, and that ultimately is what led to us being able to have those wins … so I guess striking does work,” Johnson said.

There are many policies the union forewent by inking the deal. One example that galled many workers: The company will still offer less parental leave to parents who gave birth vaginally than by c-section. And the union had deemed that $57,500 was the necessary salary to live comfortably in Fort Worth. But Johnson said the three-year agreement is a starting point: “They definitely still did not move enough to create equitable conditions, but it’s enough for a first contract.” The Fort Worth newsroom joins about a dozen other papers with union contracts under the NewsGuild, the country’s preeminent journalists’ union with some 26,000 members.

The Star-Telegram was part of a trio of Texas newspapers that announced union drives in 2020, including the Dallas Morning News and the Austin American-Statesman. Prior, there hadn’t been a union paper in the Lone Star State since the San Antonio Light shuttered in 1993. For most of the last two years, workers reported that bargaining progressed comparatively well at the Morning News while journalists at the Star-Telegram and the Statesman, which is owned by the country’s largest newspaper chain, Gannett, struggled mightily against their out-of-state corporate owners. 

The 138-year-old Morning News, often deemed the state’s leading paper, is owned by the DallasNews Corporation, which runs no other papers outside Dallas and has been controlled by the same family since the 19th century. (Robert Decherd, the family scion, passed the CEO title to a non-family member last year but remained the majority shareholder.) The paper has a long anti-union history, including possibly coining the misnomer “right to work” and crushing a printing press strike. But after workers voted overwhelmingly in October 2020 to unionize, the company has reportedly been somewhat amenable. 

Leah Waters, a housing reporter at the Morning News and chair of the Dallas NewsGuild, said in early January that the sides could reach a tentative agreement within weeks. The last issue to resolve, she said, concerns the company’s ability to replace in-house staff with outside contractors. The parties have already agreed, per Waters, to a new minimum salary scale ranging from $55,000 to $80,000 along with provisions expanding parental leave, increasing diversity, and protecting against unjust firings. Crucially, the sides have agreed to ample notice before layoffs. (The Dallas organizing effort began after the company laid off 43 employees with almost no notice in early 2019.) Waters said the new wage jump will be “life-changing” for some staff.

There has been turmoil, including recent fights over work-from-home exemptions for Dallas staff and the closure of the paper’s Washington, D.C. office. But Waters remains grateful not to be bargaining with a huge corporate chain or hedge fund. “If we were dealing with the parasites, the spineless parameciums, in Gannett, I’m not sure we would ever have a contract, and I feel for my brothers and sisters in McClatchy and Gannett,” she said.

Like most in the industry, the Morning News is facing economic headwinds. Its digital subscription base is up eightfold since 2016, but that hasn’t compensated for the relentless decline in print subscriptions and profitable print advertising. Waters recognizes this and even said the paper should consider going non-profit. “The business model isn’t working, but the solution isn’t to continue to erode workers’ rights and working conditions and then by default, the product of local journalism,” she said. 

McClatchy, the DallasNews Corporation, and Gannett did not immediately respond to Texas Observer requests for comment.

As for the Austin American-Statesman, owned by Gannett—a company name synonymous with brutal downsizing and the nation’s largest newspaper owner with some 200 dailies—progress has been characteristically challenging. Katie Hall, a courts reporter for the paper and chair of the Austin NewsGuild, said the company hadn’t made any significant concessions in nearly two years and the sides hadn’t even begun seriously discussing economic issues like wages. The Austin union has filed about a dozen complaints with the National Labor Relations Board, which enforces U.S. labor law, alleging various violations of the workers’ bargaining prerogatives. “It’s indicative of a company that at times doesn’t respect our rights as a union,” Hall said.

In a 2021 annual report, Gannett said 17 percent of its U.S. workforce was unionized and stated, “Our business and results of operations could be materially adversely affected if current or additional labor negotiations or contracts were to further restrict our ability to maximize the efficiency of our operations.” 

Gannett’s top executive, Mike Reed, received nearly $8 million in total compensation in 2021. In the latter months of last year alone, the company laid off or bought out hundreds of journalists around the country, though the unionized Austin workers—many of whom reportedly haven’t seen a raise in more than five years—were spared.

Hall doesn’t know if or when there could be a bargaining breakthrough at the Statesman, but she certainly had her eyes on the successful Fort Worth strike. “Whether what Fort Worth did is in our future is entirely up to Gannett; if they want to create a contract that allows for the survival of a local newspaper in Austin, they need to ensure we’re paid a wage that allows us to live in Austin,” she said. “But it will get to a point where if we get fed up, we will begin to escalate the actions that we take.”

The post ‘Striking Does Work’: Fort Worth Journalists Win Only Newspaper Union Contract in Texas appeared first on The Texas Observer.

CALUMET, OK—In an effort to prepare the teenagers for the reality of rearing children, students at Calumet High School were reportedly learning co-parenting skills Tuesday by fighting over who got to take their egg home for the weekend. “While not a perfect simulation, this project gives students a taste of what it’s…

Read more...

Supporters of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro who refuse to accept his election defeat stormed Congress, the Supreme Court, and presidential palace in the capital, a week after the inauguration of his leftist rival, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. What do you think?

Read more...

The C and C++ languages reserve certain categories of names for the implementation, which means that you cannot use them in your own code. Some are reserved unconditionally, precluding their use for for variable names, parameter names, classes, methods, macros, whatever. Others are reserved only in certain contexts.

The rules for C++ are collected in the [lex.name] chapter. The rules for C happen to match the C++ rules for the most part, (section 7.1.3 “Reserved identifiers“), so that makes things easier to remember.

Pattern	Conditions
Begins with two underscores	Reserved
Begins with underscore and uppercase letter	Reserved
Begins with underscore and something else	Reserved in global scope (includes macros)
Contains two consecutive underscores	Reserved in C++ (but okay in C)

Note that a popular convention of prefixing private members with an underscore runs afoul of these rules if the member name begins with an uppercase letter.

class Widget
{
public:
    Widget();

private:
    int _size; // okay
    void _Toggle(); // not okay
};

The C language does not have namespaces, so it also must reserve names in the global namespace for future expansion. Some names may not be used by symbols with external linkage. You can use them for type names, enumeration members, local variables, and functions or global variables declared with static storage class, but not for extern functions or extern global variables.

// Not allowed: Identifier with external linkage
// beginning with "str" and a lowercase letter.
int strategy;
void strafe() { /* ... */ }

// Allowed: Identifier with internal linkage beginning
// with "str" and a lowercase letter.
static int strawberry;
static void stream_video() { /* ... */ }

Furthermore, if you include the corresponding header file, the names are permitted to be shadowed by function-like macros. This means that if you intend to use a reserved name for someting without external linkage, you must first #undef it or enclose the name in parentheses to prevent it from being treated as a macro.

// Including this header may result in the definition
// of a function-like macro named "strategy".
#include <string.h>

// Must enclose in parentheses to prevent misinterpretation
// as function-like macro.
static void (strategy)();

As of C11, identifiers matching the following regular expressions may not be used for symbols with external linkage. (The list is given in section 7.31: “Future library directions”.) There are also reserved names for type definitions and macros, but I won’t list them here.

Pattern	Header
cerfc?[fl]?, cexp2[fl]?, cexpm1[fl]?, clog1[0p][fl]?, clog2[fl]?, c[lt]gamma[fl]?	complex.h
is[a-z].*, to[a-z].*	ctype.h, wctype.h
atomic_[a-z].*	stdatomic.h
str[a-z].*	stdlib.h, string.h
mem[a-z].*	string.h
wcs[a-z].*	string.h, wchar.h
cnd_[a-z].*, mtx_[a-z].*, thrd_[a-z].*, tss_[a-z].*	thread.h

It may come as a surprise that the C language reserves identifiers like strong, island, and together, but it does.

Bonus chatter: Windows header files have historically not been conscientious about avoiding these reserved names. We’re trying to do better for new headers, but not everyone has gotten the memo.

Update: Added special “internal double-underscore” rule.

The post On leading underscores and names reserved by the C and C++ languages appeared first on The Old New Thing.

This post, do I still need to wear a suit to a job interview? , was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.

A reader writes:

I read your blog religiously and am excited to have some interviews coming up! Looking back through your archives, like these posts in 2015, 2012, and 2008, you have me convinced that my best option is to wear a suit for these interviews. But when it comes to actually shopping for a suit, I am at a loss! At my go-to workwear stores (Ann Taylor, Banana Republic), blazers/jackets are sold separately from pants, whereas I thought I needed to buy them as a set to ensure the color/fabric are an exact match. Plus, when you buy these pieces separately, I’m looking at something like $300 – $400. I’m also not sure what to do in a situation where I’m called back for multiple interviews — surely, people don’t have three suits that they plan to wear pretty much one time only?

So, my questions are practical ones:
• Where should I be shopping for a women’s suit?
• Am I correct that what I’m looking for is a suit set, meaning a blazer and pants that are sold together?
• A sheath dress would likely be cheaper. Can I wear a sweater with a sheath dress, or must it be a blazer?
• Any recommendations for those of us who want to impress, but don’t have $300+ to spare?

I am so excited to say this: This convention has changed!

In all but a handful of conservative fields (think: parts of law and finance), it’s become normal to interview in something a step down from a formal suit. You still need to dress up for most job interviews (not all — some fields, like IT, can be an exception), but for women that no longer needs to mean a traditional suit where everything is made of the same fabric in the same color.

Things you can wear now wear as alternatives to suits:

* a jacket and pants that aren’t made of identical suiting fabric
* a reasonably businessy dress on its own, no blazer
* a dress and a cardigan (the dress should still at least somewhat businessy; not a casual sundress)

You also don’t need to buy three separate outfits. You wouldn’t want to re-wear the same highly memorable outfit (like a bright dress in a bold pattern) to multiple interviews with the same people (no, I can’t defend this but it’s the convention nonetheless) but you could re-wear a basic black blazer and pants but change up the shirt and accessories, for example. In addition to your go-to workwear stores, you can try department stores (which, depending on the store, could be less) or consignment/thrift stores (although some sizes can be easier to find there than others).

As always, this is general advice. Some fields have their own conventions (either more or less formal), as do some geographic regions. So adapt for your field and location.

Republican Kevin McCarthy was elected House speaker on a historic post-midnight 15th ballot early Saturday, after making extensive concessions to right-wing hardliners that raised questions about the party’s ability to govern. What do you think?

Read more...

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Really shouldn't have given every single chatbot access to the nuclear codes.

Today's News:

Windows 7 launched in October of 2009. Barack Obama was president, Avatar was soon to hit movie theaters, and swine flu was officially declared a global pandemic. The world has changed a lot since then (for example, Avatar 2 is set in the water instead of the forest), and so has Windows. While Microsoft “officially”…

Read more...

This post, here’s some free help preparing for job interviews , was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.

If you’re like most people, you struggle with preparing for job interviews and feeling confident going into interviews, so I have a free guide to help you.

How to Prepare for an Interview:
Boost Your Confidence, Impress Your Interviewer, and Get a Job

You’ll learn things like:

• An easy 4-step process for interview prep
• 14 tips to get your mind in gear
• 15 questions that I would ask you in an interview

Get the guide

Just enter your email address into the sign-up box below, and I’ll email you the guide.

If you sign up here, I’ll also send you an occasional email about other resources I’ve produced, but you can unsubscribe at any time (including immediately). There won’t be a lot — I think I’ve emailed that list twice in the last five years.

This post, was I wrong to be put off by interviewing on Bring Your Kids to Work Day? , was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.

A reader writes:

I wanted to get your thoughts on an interview situation I was in a while ago. This experience sticks out in my memory as Not Good, but I wonder if I’m being a stick-in-the-mud.

A while ago (pre-Covid), I had an in-person interview that ended up coinciding with Bring Your Kids to work day. (They did not warn me ahead of time.) While I was waiting in the building lobby to go up to their office, I noticed lots of people and little kids wearing company t-shirts as they boisterously made their way to the elevators. When I went upstairs to their office, there was a general atmosphere of “party” and it took a bit to hunt down the receptionist person to let them know I was there. I was nervous for my interview and having so many distractions going on didn’t really help me get into a good mindset.

When it was time to do the interview, we went into an office that had a door, so that kept the noise down, and luckily my back was to the door (which had a window in it) so I couldn’t see people walking by. After the interview, they offered to show me around the office, but I politely declined, figuring that since there was so much extra activity going on, it wouldn’t really represent what the office was normally like.

Is it too much to expect to be able to attend an interview and not have a circus going on at the office where you do the interview? I understand that offices can be busy, but this was beyond the normal hustle and bustle. It really added to my anxiety about the whole process.

I did well enough in the interview and they called me to move on to the next stage of the process. However, I decided the combination of the strange style interview and a less than calm atmosphere for my interview left me not feeling great about the company.

(The interview was conducted by two people: one of them asking all the questions, the other just typing the answers on their laptop. They asked me to tell them both a positive and negative about each job AND manager I had for the past 20 years. It felt like being grilled down to minute details and like nothing I had ever before experienced in an interview, and not a two-way conversation)

It’s not that I’m against Bring Your Kids to Work Day, because I also have kids and have in the past brought them to work occasionally when it was appropriate and we had a great time. I never conducted an interview with it going on though! It just seems like it’s unnecessary to interview candidates on the same day as that. Am I a curmudgeon and this should have been totally fine? Maybe the rapid fire one-way interview made the family activities just seem that much worse. I didn’t get any info myself from my interviewers, and could only judge the company based on the general atmosphere I saw.

I think this was just an unfortunate confluence of events.

The person scheduling your interview may not have realized it would be Bring Your Kids to Work Day, or they didn’t realize how loud and disruptive it would be (it’s not like that everywhere!), or it was the only day where everyone’s schedules lined up.

But even when interviewers make every attempt to ensure a distraction-free environment for interviews, things can go wrong. I once interviewed someone with a loud protest going on right outside my window (not against my organization! this was D.C., where protests are common). I was once interviewing someone when a fire alarm went off and we had to evacuate the building. Stuff happens, and to some extent you’ve got to try to roll with it.

I don’t know that you’re a curmudgeon necessarily. It’s understandable that you felt distracted and thrown off your game, and it sucks that that happened. But the “how could they have thought this would be okay?” part of your reaction is probably a little misplaced, and you might be assuming that clearly anyone would have reacted as you did, when in fact I don’t think everyone would. It’s okay that you felt thrown off! But it’s also worth knowing that it’s not a universal reaction.

If you hadn’t been turned off by this company for other reasons, I would have encouraged you to go back and do the second interview because it probably would have been on a quieter day and you might have ended up feeling better about things. But it sounds like it wasn’t a match regardless — but not because of the Bring Your Kids to Work scheduling.

New comic!
Today's News:

I suspect that being introduced to the franchise with Yakuza 0 gave me some preconceived notions about how Kiryu's problem-solving skills would work in the original story. 

The grassroots movement has grown among consumers around the world as repair costs soar.

Some students have been using ChatGPT, a text-based bot, to do their homework for them. Now, 22-year-old Edward Tian's new app is attracting educators working to combat AI plagiarism.

(Image credit: GPTZero.me/Screenshot by NPR)

This post, my team planned a wine-tasting while I’m pregnant, no one is paying attention to my training, and more , was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…

1. My team planned a wine-tasting team-builder while I’m pregnant

I’m on a team of 15 people and am currently pregnant, which the team is aware of. The team is fairly young, and only one other employee has a child.

One of our teammates who is in charge of running quarterly team builders chose virtual wine tasting as the next activity. I expressed to her that I wouldn’t be able to participate, and to her credit she offered to find non-alcoholic options to send me, but I was still offended this activity was chosen. I didn’t think it was inclusive or considerate.

I declined the team builder invite, and when my boss asked me I told her why. She was initially surprised and suggested I go along anyway, but when I stood my ground she agreed to change the activity.

Am I in the wrong or making too big of a deal of this? It’s over now, but I’m still debating documenting the situation with HR, but again am not sure if I’m overreacting.

With a young team, it’s likely that you’re dealing with people who haven’t yet needed to think much about the needs of pregnant people. It sounds like your coworker picked wine tasting without realizing you wouldn’t be able to participate (probably reflecting lack of life experience) but then tried to think of a way to include you once you pointed it out (even though it wasn’t a particularly good way). And then your boss changed the activity once you brought the issue to her attention. None of this is ideal, but it sounds like it’s more about inexperience on your team than deliberate carelessness.

If your boss hadn’t agreed to change activities, it would have made sense to bring it to HR at that point (since team-building by definition needs not to exclude people). But since she did, there’s not a need to loop them in. If you really wanted to, though, you could frame it not as a complaint but as “it would be helpful to remind managers that team-building activities should be inclusive of everyone on their team, which means they need to ensure activities work for people who might be pregnant, don’t drink, or have physical restrictions.”

2. Should I have to be the one scheduling meetings with my boss?

My boss routinely puts it on her staff to schedule one-on-ones or any meetings. I don’t understand this, she has access to all of our calendars since she does the schedule.

Recently she asked about dividing up job duties since a staff member is leaving. I replied to the email, indicating what I thought. She then replies to me saying, “Please set up a meeting with me, thanks.” I feel if she wants to meet with me she should send a meeting request. I don’t get it. Am I being nitpicky here? I feel there is no real professional way to answer that email, except ignoring it without sounding bitchy.

Yes, you’re in the wrong. It’s reasonable for your boss to ask you to handle setting up the meeting so that she’s able to spend her time on other things. In fact, when I coach busy managers — many of whom have way too much on their plates — I encourage them to delegate everything that can be done by someone else, so that their own time is freed up for things only they can do … even when something seems small, because those things add up.

My advice to you is to see it as an advantage because it means you can pick the meeting time based on what works best for you rather than your boss always controlling that.

3. I’m leaving my job and no one is paying attention to my training in what they’ll need to do when I’m gone

I work in healthcare. My job is a very niche role in my organization; literally no one else does my job in its entirety. After a lot of thought, I accepted another role in a completely different organization with a 20% pay raise and 50% more PTO. I’m super excited. I’ve given a total of four weeks’ notice.

I have been working with the two people who are at least temporarily getting my job responsibilities: Lisa, who is my manager, and Kim. I have run into an issue where my job is demanding basically a brain dump. I am writing incredibly detailed instructions of how to address things for both Lisa and Kim. However, neither of them has been following said instructions as I have them working alone. It has become a great frustration in the training process when I find yet another noteworthy error that is directly related to not following the written procedure in front of them.

In addition, neither wants to take any incentive in trying to learn anything or attempting a new task that I don’t absolutely push on them. They are more than willing to ask me very basic questions and demand that I write up a “cheat sheet” on that question, which is significantly lower level than they need to be at (and should be at.) They have ignored my numerous requests to write down the questions as they ask them so I have something to go by.

Every time I’ve tried to train my supervisor when I went on vacation in the past, when I returned I’d get everything just dumped back on me. She is supposed to be my backup but doesn’t want to do the work.

I am 1.5 weeks into this notice period and I want to just scream every time they seem to think that I’m not going to leave or ignore the process. I don’t know how to phrase that they need to take some level of ownership or they will be figuring it out after I leave. I don’t know if I need to address this to my supervisor’s boss. They have a tendency to be very aggressively verbose without accomplishing anything.

I have good news: this isn’t your problem to solve. You’re going above and beyond in trying to ensure things will run smoothly after you’re gone, but that’s out of your hands. It’s up to Lisa and Kim, and they apparently aren’t terribly concerned about it. So be it, then — it doesn’t make sense for you to be more invested in getting them trained than your own manager is. You’ve spelled out what you need, you’ve tried to convey the urgency … and they’re not matching your investment. All you can do is continue being diligent about your own responsibilities, including the documentation you’re leaving behind (within reason — you shouldn’t try to write down every single thing you’ve learned about doing your job in the years you’ve been there because that’s impossible … and would probably be wasted effort if you did, since for some reason when people leave detailed manuals behind, more often than not they’re consulted far less than the people who leave them envision.)

Again, this is not your problem to solve. You’ve given notice, you’ve offered to train people, and the rest is up to them. In a couple of weeks, you’ll move on to a better job and they’ll figure it out one way or another at that point.

4. My employees and I have different ideas of what professional development they’re owed

What is the expectation for managers to help their direct reports grow and develop, leading specifically to a promotion or another role (internally or externally)? I’m of the mind that it’s my role to help my team develop relevant skills to their role, and capitalize on their strengths, talents, and what they enjoy doing. Then if they come to me with ideas about what they want their future to look like, I can help them with guidance and resources and help pave the way if it’s in a role in our company or department (connect them with relevant people, pull them in on projects that would build their skills and put them in the spotlight, etc.).

What I can’t do is come up with a tailored career path for each of my direct reports and guarantee that each step will happen on a specific timeframe. Most of them are six years or less out of college, and I think have the expectation that that’s how things work. Many of them don’t know exactly what they want to do (which is fine!) and I am happy to show them a couple of common areas of growth within my department.

For example, one teammate told me she was interested in project management (we are not project managers). I gave her a few responsibilities that would align but told her if she wanted that as a career, she would likely have to take classes, get certified, or learn more outside of working hours. She thought that that wasn’t fair, and that I should allow her to have professional development time during the workday or we should create a PM role for her, and that I and the company owed her professional development opportunities of her choosing, and otherwise we wouldn’t be enabling her growth. I really don’t want to be the “kids these days” person, so I’m hoping you can gut-check me on what’s happening.

Your understanding is the common one, and your reports sound out-of-touch. What you’re doing is exactly what you should be doing (and what a lot of managers don’t). It would be highly unusual to create roles for people that aren’t aligned with what your team needs (like the PM job) and it’s not a typical expectation that you’d offer development that has nothing to do with the work your team does. Occasionally there might be circumstances that make it possible (for example, someone is a strong writer and wants more writing experience even though her job is phone sales, and so you have her write some things your department happens to need) but it’s not an expectation or obligation; it’s more a lucky confluence of events. And offering on-the-job time for someone to prepare for a totally different position at another company would be really unusual — maybe something that could happen in the exact right set of circumstances, but not something people typically expect or feel entitled to as a matter of course.

You should be really up-front about this with your team so they know what they should and shouldn’t expect … but they sound naive enough that they might not get it until they have more professional experience (and it might not happen while they’re working for you at all).

5. Invitations to interview before I finish the application

I am applying to some positions in schools, and the strangest thing keeps happening when I apply to a charter school — I get an invitation to interview before I finish the application!

At two different schools now, I have started an online application and then paused halfway through, only to get an invite to interview from my unfinished application. Both websites sent form letters asking me to finish my application, but then sent another form email inviting me to pick an interview time immediately after! As far as I can tell, they’re all automated emails, so no human is connected to this process.

Is this a new thing? It feels creepy that even beginning an application — usually by uploading a resume — triggers an interview request. It doesn’t make me feel particularly good about working at the school! The first time this happened, I assumed I hadn’t done my due diligence and the charter school was a bad match. There are a lot of subpar charter schools in my state due to lack of regulation. But the second time, this happened with a charter school with a superb reputation! I uploaded my resume, saw that they asked me to disclose my salary range, and decided to do some more market research. The next thing I knew I was invited to interview!

Is this just the new normal? I’ve worked in public schools for almost 10 years and am only moving away from it due to outside circumstances, so I haven’t done this in a while. But it seems like such a strange thing to do! It really made me feel like it wasn’t a school I should interview at, even though it is beloved in my state.

You’re the second person I’ve heard about this from. If I had to guess, I’d say it’s because there’s a major teacher shortage right now. (But also, if you’ve fully uploaded your resume, it’s not totally unreasonable that they’d feel they have enough to do an initial screen and invite you to talk.)

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
When I was a kid, there was one superhero movie every 5 years and it was bad and we all felt ashamed and THAT'S THE WAY WE LIKED IT.

Today's News:

Comet C/2022 E3 was first spotted last year and will draw nearest to the Earth in early February. The brightness of comets tends to be unpredictable, but astronomers say this one is promising.

(Image credit: Dan Bartlett/NASA)

The vote for House Speaker has offered a unique glimpse into the behind-the-scenes action.

Mike Rogers dramatically confronts a fellow Republican after 14 rounds of voting for Kevin McCarthy.

One of my most memorable experiences at the Dallas Museum of Art (DMA) was taking my 8th grade art students to see the 2008 exhibition Take Your Time: Olafur Eliasson. Filled with immersive light installations, the show was transformative for my class, who had always thought of art in more traditional terms. So, when the DMA announced Movement: The Legacy of Kineticism, featuring a piece by Eliasson along with other light-based installations and works rooted in kineticism, it was at the top of my list of exhibitions to see in the fall. While some aspects of the show’s layout were underwhelming, overall the depth of the exhibition was impressive, bringing together works from across a century and across continents.

Movement is on view in the DMA’s Barrel Vault galleries, a space which was originally home to Claes Oldenburg’s Stake Hitch. Since the removal of that site-specific piece, the space, along with four adjacent square Quad galleries, has most often been used to host temporary installations of contemporary art. Over the years, the large, open Barrel Vault has been transformed to respond to the work on view. In 2013, temporary walls were built in the center of the space to hold large-scale photographs in Cindy Sherman’s retrospective. In 2019, for the Dior exhibition, stair-stepped platforms lined the sides of the gallery, and the back wall featured about a dozen lit arched windows showcasing couture dresses. However, considering the DMA’s precedent of impressive presentations in the space, even when taking into account Movement’s showstopping entrance piece, the larger Barrel Vault section of the exhibition falls flat.  

The first work viewers encounter, Vaga Lume, which is Portuguese for “firefly,” is an interactive installation made up of a grid of thousands of simple light fixtures, each with a single light bulb and a nearly ceiling-to-floor-length metal ball pull chain. Visitors are invited to not only walk through the installation, but to gently pull the chains to turn off or on the lights as they move through the piece. Wandering through the chains is reminiscent of wading through calm waters — each step forces a small sway in the otherwise still environment. And while each participant’s decision to activate the lights varies, the action can leave a trace of a person’s movement even after they are gone. 

Emerging from Vaga Lume and looking across the Barrel Vault to a sparse arrangement of works and an oddly placed vertical video high up on an otherwise empty white wall is an unexpected visual disappointment. The left side of the space holds small-scale jewelry pieces presented in a floor case and a mounted wall case, which has a small video to its left. The right half of the gallery displays larger, but still mid-sized works, including photos by Carlotta M. Corpron and two abstract sculptures. Though these pieces add to the scope and depth of the exhibition, which otherwise heavily focuses on painting and installation, they are dwarfed by the vast empty space around them. The area could be stronger with the inclusion of additional photographs, sculptures presented in the center of the gallery, or the video work, by Trisha Donnelly, projected larger against the back wall. The Quad galleries, on the other hand, are where the exhibition truly shines.

An introductory section in the Gayle and Paul Stoffel Gallery, titled Before Kineticism: Utopia and Utility in the Avant-Garde, provides historical context from the 1910s through the 1960s, and highlights significant Latin American works alongside better-known European pieces. I was pleasantly surprised by the presentation of a painting by Piet Mondrian, which is flanked by works by Uruguayan artists Rhod Rothfuss and Marco Maggi, as I have not often seen Mondrian’s art in conversation with South American artists working in similar styles. The gallery also includes a hands-on activity and a small reading nook, though again, the design of the space could have been elevated by including a splash of color to bring energy to and offset this area from the rest of the white-walled gallery.

The remaining three Quad galleries each hold a meditative full-room installation — Olafur Eliasson’s The outside of in, Tomás Saraceno’s Sounding the Air, and Ricci Albenda’s Panning Annex (Albert). In the Nancy and Tim Hanley Gallery, Eliasson’s 2008 light projection uses 24 analog spotlights, rather than the expected single-channel video projector, to create a slow methodical presentation of colors and shapes. The lights build and deconstruct over the course of 12 minutes, and in the process create new colors and shapes through overlapping projections and imagined afterimages created by the viewer’s mind. This captivating piece is undoubtedly one of the strongest works in the exhibition. 

Saraceno’s Sounding the Air, previously on view in Sound as Sculpture at the Rachofsky Warehouse, is presented in a darkened gallery with three ground-mounted spotlights pointing toward the ceiling. Viewers are unable to get close to the installation, so without reading the text panel some may miss that the lights illuminate suspended strings of spider silk. The heat from the lights causes the silk to undulate, and these movements are picked up by a receiver and translated into sounds. Just as the works by Soares and Eliasson are partially activated by the viewer’s presence, Saraceno’s delicate silk threads fluctuate with the breath and presence of an audience.

Albenda’s Panning Annex (Albert) is a minimal video projection on the back wall of the gallery, and at times appears to be an extension of the space. The video is a 360-degree panning loop that rotates the projected walls and floor, creating an illusion of distorted space. The effect is an ever-changing sense of (un)comfort and (in)stability. One moment the room feels stable, and with the blink of an eye the space becomes unsettling, and at times dizzying. Created in 2007, this piece is a continuation of Albenda’s play with space and perception. His earlier Portal to Another Dimension series of fiberglass sculptures, when presented on white gallery walls, create the illusion that the wall is dented or bulging. Unlike the other immersive works in this show that are changed by audience participation, Albenda’s projection operates on its own, filling the space no matter who is there to see it.

Other works dotting the exhibition include one of my favorites from the Rachofsky Collection, Mona Hatoum’s + and –. Though the placement of Hatoum’s small-scale mechanized sculpture (just outside of the Cindy and Howard Rachofsky Gallery that holds Albenda’s Panning Annex (Albert)) feels awkwardly tacked on, it does create a subtle conversation between the two works, which each feature a continuous 360-degree rotation. Hatoum’s work is a small, square wooden box containing a thin layer of light sand and a metal arm which spins inside the square, creating a circle. Half of the arm has comb-like tines that rake and displace the sand as it spins, and the other half is flat, smoothing out the sand as it comes into contact with it. In my past viewings of this piece, I have always considered it a conversation about the infinite, futility, and equilibrium. Juxtaposed with Albenda’s video projection, Hatoum’s sculpture also reveals tinges of destabilization and restabilization.

While the presentation of the exhibition feels empty and awkward in places, a product of the Barrel Vault’s inherent architecture, which is built to elevate monumental works, the individual pieces in Movement more than make up for it. The works themselves are compelling, and it was refreshing to see a thematic show that so deeply embraced cross-continental dialogue. While museums and galleries in general have been working towards presenting a more diverse scope of artists, encyclopedic institutions like the DMA are uniquely positioned to make lasting global connections that, for posterity, will broaden the art historical canon. In addition to exposing visitors to artists they may not otherwise be familiar with, these pairings provide new context for even the most experienced museumgoer — a significant takeaway from an institution that itself writes histories. 

 

Movement: The Legacy of Kineticism is on view at the Dallas Museum of Art through July 16, 2023. 

The post Review: “Movement: The Legacy of Kineticism” at the Dallas Museum of Art appeared first on Glasstire.

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
We need to replace gender roles with chores. It's a win for everyone.

Today's News:

Try out my quantum mechanics course (and many others on math and science) on Brilliant using the link https://brilliant.org/sabine. You can get started for free, and the first 200 will get 20% off the annual premium subscription.

Does time really slow down when you move? What about gravitational fields? What's the resolution to the twin paradox and what's up with Newton's bucket. In this video, I tell you how it really works.

👉 Transcript and References on Patreon ➜ https://www.patreon.com/Sabine
💌 Sign up for my weekly science newsletter. It's free! ➜ https://sabinehossenfelder.com/newsletter/
📖 Check out my new book "Existential Physics" ➜ http://existentialphysics.com/
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yNl2E66ZzKApQdRuTQ4tw/join

00:00 Intro
00:34 Space+Time = Spacetime
04:30 Proper Time
07:59 Time Dilation
10:21 The Twin Paradox
13:59 Newton's Bucket
15:25 Time Slows Down Near Black Holes
19:30 Learn More on Brilliant

#physics

AUSTIN, TX—After a year in which the electric automaker’s stock lost 65% of its value, CEO Elon Musk has doubled down on plans to build Tesla’s Cybertruck, introducing on Friday a new design for a concept vehicle that would boldly reimagine the American pickup. “This is a truck unlike any the world has ever seen: the…

Read more...

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
I feel there's an entire branch of mother-mocking founded in vast macroeconomic considerations.

Today's News:

This post, coworker sent me his racy photography page, do I need to give my coworkers gifts, and more , was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.

It’s four answers to four questions. Here we go…

1. Coworker sent me his photography page — and it’s mostly racy portraits of women

I’m a woman in my late twenties and I work at an entirely remote company of about 250 people, although we get together for events once or twice a year and see each other at trade shows. Because of this, although I’ve worked here for seven months, I have met most of my coworkers on other teams only once, at a multi-department, multi-day event a few months ago.

I joined another (all-male) team’s weekly meeting to present a project I had worked on for them. During my presentation, one of the members I had met during the big event sent me a “good to see you again!” message, and I responded to it after the meeting with “great to see you too!” He then followed up with “did you know I do photography in my spare time?” with an Instagram link. Although I was a little dubious, I clicked on it hoping it would be nature shots … it was not. The vast majority of the (to my untrained eye, pretty good? I guess?) photos are of women, and while some are just regular headshots, some are tasteful nudes, in lingerie, or just … pretty sexual? I feel deeply uncomfortable and am not sure how to proceed. There is also possibly a cultural or language disconnect — I am American and he is Northern European and not a native English speaker.

As I see it, I could message him back directly, talk to my boss (who is amazing and I would feel comfortable talking about this with), or progress directly to some sort of HR report, which I feel like would be a big escalation without discussing with him directly, but I also … do not want to respond at all. We’ve never even talked about photography before! Why did he send me this? I feel so uncomfortable! How would you proceed?

Ugh. He sent it to you because he doesn’t care about boundaries and he’s getting something out of sending you a page with nude photos. It’s not about his photography hobby; you don’t even know him and he brought it up out of absolutely nowhere, with no context where it would be relevant. I’m sure he thinks he has plausible deniability because it’s his “hobby,” but he doesn’t.

I completely get not wanting to deal with it, and you’re not obligated to if you’d rather just ignore it. It’s exhausting having to take on the labor of responding to this stuff. But if you do want to say something, personally I’d respond with, “WTF dude? You just sent me a page with nude photos. Totally inappropriate for work.” (Adapt language as needed to fit your own style.) And then I’d forward it to my boss in case it’s part of a pattern. If you’d rather just do the last part, that’s fine too — it’s perfectly reasonable to transfer this burden to your boss to deal with rather than you having to be the person who stresses over what to do about it.

2. How to avoid constant questions from job candidates who haven’t yet been invited to interview

I am involved in recruitment for my team and we often have many applicants. Invariably, I receive numerous emails asking questions about the role, or even that I call them to discuss these questions.

I am happy to respond to a simple factual question not adequately answered in the job ad (say, is hybrid work an option, expected travel time, etc.) and for a highly specialized role with few relevant candidates I’d also be open for more pre-interview discussion. However, mostly we hire generalist entry- to mid-level staff from a relatively large pool of possible candidates, and the questions posed are either sort of pointless/already described in the job ad or in-depth questions I would only want to discuss while interviewing candidates. As has been mentioned on your site before, it is rarely well-qualified candidates that do this, and I honestly don’t want to spend time on unqualified candidates other than the screening.

What I am lacking is a polite response to those reaching out with overly detailed questions. I want to protect our organization’s image, and a poor candidate for this job may be a good candidate for another job, perhaps later in their career, so I don’t want to come off as rude or too rigid. Do you have any suggestions for such a response?

Yeah, in my experience, the vast majority of people who do this aren’t contacting you because there’s something crucial they need to know before they decide whether to apply, but because they want to try to pitch themselves and make a connection that they think will give their application a boost. (Of course, make sure your ad really does have enough info in it, but you can have the most informative ad in the world and you’ll still get these calls.) I agree it’s different when you’re hiring for a hard-to-fill, specialized role — but the rest of the time it’s typically a better use of your time to steer people to the actual hiring process that you’ve established for each side to learn more about the other.

I often use language like this when a candidate sends over questions that would be impractical to answer over email (whether because there are so many or because it doesn’t make sense to delve into them in depth at this stage): “It would be tough to do justice to these questions in an email, but we’ll make plenty of time to discuss them in detail if we move forward to an interview. So if you’re interested, I’d encourage you to apply and we can go from there.”

Or if they’re just asking for a phone call for vague reasons: “Were you thinking of throwing your hat into the ring for one of our open positions? If so, I’d encourage you to do that as a first step. We get a tremendous volume of interest for our openings and we’ve found that the best way to get to know people and explore the possibilities is to steer them to the process we’ve created.” Or even, “Because we get a high volume of interest in our open positions, we’re not generally able to set up calls outside of our hiring process. But I encourage you to throw your hat in the ring and we can take it from there!”

Caveat: make sure that your application process isn’t time-intensive. If you’re requesting more up-front investment than just a resume and cover letter, it’s going to alienate people if you also decline to answer any questions first.

3. Do I need to buy my coworkers gifts if they bought me gifts?

I work for a large company and this year relocated to one of our satellite offices in a different city. The small office has about 20 employees, none of whom work in my department (all my coworkers who I work with are based at headquarters). Even though we don’t work together, I often chat with my “cubicle neighbors” to pass the time, and while we aren’t super close, we’ve gotten to know each other. Many people here have worked together many years and so some have close-knit friendships outside of work. I prefer to keep work and my personal life separate, so I’m not trying to become close beyond an amicable work relationship.

We had an office holiday party for the 20 of us, and there was a “white elephant” gift exchange, which I participated in. (Everyone brings a gift, you pick from the pile or can “steal” etc.)

In the days after that, the five people who sit closest to me, who I know best, gave me separate gifts. Nothing extravagant – things that probably cost $10-$15. I thought this was very sweet, but I was surprised. I’ve worked in corporate jobs for about a decade and have never received a holiday gift from a coworker, outside of the occasional gift exchanges for the whole office – and this year, I’ve received five! No one on my actual team (based at headquarters) got me a gift, either this year or in past years when we worked in the same office. I’ve wondered if it’s just a cultural difference – while we’re a large company, this office has a more of a “small company” feel due to the office size.

Do I have any obligation to buy gifts in return? I don’t really want to; it seems like a hassle to think of something for everyone, and I don’t want to set the expectation that I’ll buy gifts for several people every year (especially when I already participate in the gift exchange), and it seems odd to buy my “office neighbors” gifts but not my actual coworkers. I think this is reasonable but am I committing a social faux pas buy not getting them gifts in return?

Nah. It very likely is a cultural difference due to the small office size, but you’re not obligated to give gifts back. You could do new year’s cards if you’d feel better doing something (or could do that next year if you want), but as long as you thank them warmly for what they gave you, you don’t need to reciprocate if it’s not your thing.

4. An observation about updates

I’ve noticed over time that a good number of updates involve someone ultimately leaving the job they were writing about. Do you think that’s because writing the letter to you is the catalyst for people to realise it’s time to move on regardless of your answer?

I’ve had something similar happen with a relationship (where telling a friend out loud that I wasn’t happy made me realize the answer was to break up rather than continue to be unhappy) so it seems plausible that it would be the same for job relationships.

It’s a good question! I do think that often by the time someone is moved to write in, the situation is bad enough that they’d likely start thinking about leaving anyway. But it’s also true that the act of writing out your question can clarify the situation for you — and sometimes that can mean that you realize how bad it is, or that the only real solution is to leave. (And I’ve heard from a number of people who say, “The act of writing my letter made me realize what you would say, so I didn’t even need to send it to you.”)

Other times, though, it’s just normal professional churn — sometimes people leave for reasons that aren’t connected to the situation they wrote about. Or it’s connected in a less obvious way — like that what they wrote about was really the tip of the iceberg, and there were a bunch of other problems there that ended up making them flee, beyond what we heard about in the letter.

LOS ANGELES—Saying it seemed like something he was supposed to do given his level of income and public renown, local celebrity Chris Hemsworth was reportedly thinking Friday about getting his pilot’s license. “I was just wondering what I should do now that I have a bunch of money and free time, and it just hit me—I…

Read more...

BOSTON—Putting his headphones over his ears and taking a deep breath, local man Dalton Griffith was reportedly listening to his pump-up playlist at the gym Friday to get the courage to take off his shirt in the locker room. “I got this,” said Griffith, who turned up the volume on the DMX song from his carefully…

Read more...