WWTBAM Bored

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscienc ... creen-Ban/

Bob didn't have to go all the way to Texas to find sunscreen bans and (in this case) hospitalization due to such.

I am guessing Bob didn't post this at the time as it is in Washington and not Texas.

Collateral Damage in War on Drugs

Spock wrote:http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscienc ... creen-Ban/

Bob didn't have to go all the way to Texas to find sunscreen bans and (in this case) hospitalization due to such.

I am guessing Bob didn't post this at the time as it is in Washington and not Texas.

What I find shocking is that I live in the only state that permits the use of sunscreen at school without a doctor's note. Until I saw this link, I was not aware of that. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscienc ... creen-Ban/

Bob didn't have to go all the way to Texas to find sunscreen bans and (in this case) hospitalization due to such.

I am guessing Bob didn't post this at the time as it is in Washington and not Texas.

What I find shocking is that I live in the only state that permits the use of sunscreen at school without a doctor's note. Until I saw this link, I was not aware of that. --Bob

I guess everyone isn't free to use sunscreen....

lb13

Sadly, Captain Son-of-Spiff has always needed lots of sunscreen (his mother's side). But he's always been an outdoors kind of kid, playing lacrosse, soccer, rugby, plus other things. Yes, he's used sunscreen pretty much all his life (he even was dubbed "Casper" in the Scouts because of it), and he always wore the army boonie hat and long sleeves in his deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq. And as he approaches 30, his face looks like it's closer to 40.

Yes, it was over a decade ago, but he always had sunscreen with him at school. And I'll bet that if he needed a doctor's note, his ma made sure he had one.

Sorry, but this sounds like a case of where common sense isn't common here (and apparantly in most states).

Sorry to be dense - isn't the reason the other story was more newsworthy is because it was in an area where it is predominantly sunny, and this one is in any area that is predominantly, well, not?

I am not wanting to stick up for any Bob in particular, really, just thinking about why some things are more newsworthy than others. Man bites dog, and all that.

Dr Hugo Hackenbush of the Standish Sanitarium said that Mr X’s condition was not unusual. “A hundred years ago Educators Disease was virtually unheard of. There were scattered reports in Utopian communes like the Oneida Community, but the public never heard of them. Now a week doesn’t go by without another case being diagnosed.”

Captain Spaulding said common symptoms are hysteria, in men a loss of manhood resulting in an almost complete feminization, unreasoning severity in mood and attitude, incoherence, a rapid slide into bureaucratic insistence on form and rules for the rules’ sake.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=12745

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Dr Hugo Hackenbush of the Standish Sanitarium said that Mr X’s condition was not unusual. “A hundred years ago Educators Disease was virtually unheard of. There were scattered reports in Utopian communes like the Oneida Community, but the public never heard of them. Now a week doesn’t go by without another case being diagnosed.”

Captain Spaulding said common symptoms are hysteria, in men a loss of manhood resulting in an almost complete feminization, unreasoning severity in mood and attitude, incoherence, a rapid slide into bureaucratic insistence on form and rules for the rules’ sake.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=12745

Unfortunately this is not a Marx Brothers movie.

After Michael and Melinda May's daughter was drug-tested five times in three years at Susquenita Middle School, they refused to sign a permission slip allowing it to happen again.

Leila May was drug-tested once during her fifth grade year, once in sixth grade and three times as a seventh grader because Susquenita School District randomly tests students in grades five through 12 who participate in extracurricular activities and apply for parking permits.

Without the permission slip signed, Leila was unable to participate in the National Junior Honor Society during her eighth-grade year, which ended last week. But Melinda May said that's what had to happen to ensure the 14-year-old wouldn't have to face another "embarrassing" urine test. All of Leila's tests came back negative, she said.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index. ... rt_m-rpt-1

Ritterskoop wrote:Sorry to be dense - isn't the reason the other story was more newsworthy is because it was in an area where it is predominantly sunny, and this one is in any area that is predominantly, well, not?

I am not wanting to stick up for any Bob in particular, really, just thinking about why some things are more newsworthy than others. Man bites dog, and all that.

Honestly, I am much more interested in this Washington incident, based on the fact that the mother knew that one daughter had a medical condition that requires the preventative use of sunscreen, and she did not take that step.

I also found the hat prohibition very interesting. As implied by the story, the Nebraska schools that my childen attend do not allow the children to re-apply sunscreen during field trips or at recess (for the youngest). However, our youngest certainly has sunscreen applied before school, especially on field trip days. More importantly, since she started school, our youngest has worn a hat at school whenever she goes outside. Every year, the teacher is advised that she is not allowed to go to recess unless she is wearing a hat. (Her fellow classmates are very good at reminding my daughter when she forgets in her excitement for recess.) We have never been asked for a doctor's note. The huge surgical scar/"bald spot" likely serves as enough of a "note".

Another way California is unique: We appear to be one of two states (the other is North Dakota) that largely prohibits the use of non-compete clauses. This is becoming a larger news story because employers are inserting them into contracts more frequently.

In California it's considered an issue of public policy. That means that the California courts will refuse to enforce a non-compete clause even if the underlying contract is governed by the law of a state that does permit them. So if anyone if finding their ability to change jobs restricted by such a clause, we encourage them to move to California. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Another way California is unique: We appear to be one of two states (the other is North Dakota) that largely prohibits the use of non-compete clauses. This is becoming a larger news story because employers are inserting them into contracts more frequently.

In California it's considered an issue of public policy. That means that the California courts will refuse to enforce a non-compete clause even if the underlying contract is governed by the law of a state that does permit them. So if anyone if finding their ability to change jobs restricted by such a clause, we encourage them to move to California. --Bob

So you and California don't respect contracts? And you expect businesses to stay there?

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Another way California is unique: We appear to be one of two states (the other is North Dakota) that largely prohibits the use of non-compete clauses.

So you and California don't respect contracts? And you expect businesses to stay there?

All states place limits on non-compete clauses. They recognize that employees cannot be prevented from earning a living. Texas allows non-compete clauses in employment cases but places conditions on them. As with most states, the non-compete clause must be reasonable in terms of length of time, geographic restriction, and the scope of what constitutes "competing." In addition, Texas appears to have a requirement that the employer has to give something of value beyond a mere at-will job to an employee in order for a non-compete clause to be enforceable. Here's a discussion:

http://www.robertslegalfirm.com/busnoncomp.html

Texas is more willing to enforce a non-compete clause than California is, but it's a mistake to say that any state "respects contracts" because the laws in every state have lots of circumstances under which contracts are or may be unenforceable.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Another way California is unique: We appear to be one of two states (the other is North Dakota) that largely prohibits the use of non-compete clauses. This is becoming a larger news story because employers are inserting them into contracts more frequently.

In California it's considered an issue of public policy. That means that the California courts will refuse to enforce a non-compete clause even if the underlying contract is governed by the law of a state that does permit them. So if anyone if finding their ability to change jobs restricted by such a clause, we encourage them to move to California. --Bob

So you and California don't respect contracts? And you expect businesses to stay there?

Absolutely. Businesses go where they can find employees who will meet their needs. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Another way California is unique: We appear to be one of two states (the other is North Dakota) that largely prohibits the use of non-compete clauses. This is becoming a larger news story because employers are inserting them into contracts more frequently.

In California it's considered an issue of public policy. That means that the California courts will refuse to enforce a non-compete clause even if the underlying contract is governed by the law of a state that does permit them. So if anyone if finding their ability to change jobs restricted by such a clause, we encourage them to move to California. --Bob

A California judge has ruled that tenure in teacher contracts is unconstitutional.

California teacher tenure is struck down: Expect years of appeals

Tenure helped workers, but it hurt kids in the worst schools, who were stuck with the least experienced teachers to boot. They're serious in California about prohibiting contracts that are bad for the public.

jarnon wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Another way California is unique: We appear to be one of two states (the other is North Dakota) that largely prohibits the use of non-compete clauses. This is becoming a larger news story because employers are inserting them into contracts more frequently.

In California it's considered an issue of public policy. That means that the California courts will refuse to enforce a non-compete clause even if the underlying contract is governed by the law of a state that does permit them. So if anyone if finding their ability to change jobs restricted by such a clause, we encourage them to move to California. --Bob

A California judge has ruled that tenure in teacher contracts is unconstitutional.

California teacher tenure is struck down: Expect years of appeals

Tenure helped workers, but it hurt kids in the worst schools, who were stuck with the least experienced teachers to boot. They're serious in California about prohibiting contracts that are bad for the public.

Well remember that's one judge who found that violates the California constitution. The headline says it all: Expect years of appeals.

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Another way California is unique: We appear to be one of two states (the other is North Dakota) that largely prohibits the use of non-compete clauses. This is becoming a larger news story because employers are inserting them into contracts more frequently.

In California it's considered an issue of public policy. That means that the California courts will refuse to enforce a non-compete clause even if the underlying contract is governed by the law of a state that does permit them. So if anyone if finding their ability to change jobs restricted by such a clause, we encourage them to move to California. --Bob

So you and California don't respect contracts? And you expect businesses to stay there?

Absolutely. Businesses go where they can find employees who will meet their needs. --Bob

Like Toyota?