Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been gaining a lot of traction as of late with various industry experts, government officials, and financial experts expressing the need to explore the possibilities of implementing a basic income program.
UBI is a lump sum of money given periodically to individuals unconditionally. There are no tests or work requirements that bar an individual from getting the money. In addition to this, the income that they will receive is a supplement to their total income which means that under this system, individuals have an option to work or not.
At the heart of the proposals for UBI is the prevention of poverty in certain countries which is why it is highly suited in regions like Africa where poverty is rampant.
This pilot study is one of many that are being planned out around the world. Finland has already started to give out basic income to its residents with the same goal of reducing poverty. Ontario, Canada and Oakland, California are also starting to plan out their own programs.
Read entire report…
By Sam Glover
There is a disconnect between what clients want and what lawyers sell. Clients, as many commentators have pointed out, just want their legal problem solved.
Consumers don’t want drill bits, they want holes. They don’t want a scanner, they want a digital copy of a paper document. They don’t want a taxi, they want to get home. In each case, the product or service is just a means to an end. But not the only means. There are other ways to get holes, digital documents, and transportation. Sometimes better ways.
Maeve P. Carey
Following the election of Donald J. Trump on November 8, 2016, questions have been raised as to whether and how a new President’s administration can amend or repeal regulations issued by the previous administration. In short, once a rule has been finalized, a new administration would be required to undergo the rulemaking process to change or repeal all or part of the rule. If a rule has not yet been finalized, however, a new President may be able, immediately upon taking office, to prevent the rule from being issued. In addition to these administrative actions, Congress can also take legislative action to overturn rules.
Read entire article…
Copyright © 2016 beSpacific, All rights reserved
The tides turned with an EEOC ruling in 2015, in which the agency concluded that alleged discrimination against a gay man–because he was gay–constituted a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law banning employment discrimination on the basis of certain protected characteristics such as sex, race, ethnicity, and religion. The EEOC sparked a second look at this question, decades after several courts had dismissively, and with little reasoning, concluded that the law’s prohibition of sex discrimination is not broad enough to encompass sexual orientation discrimination. The new case from a federal district court in Pennsylvania, EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center, builds on a more recent trend, in which courts (and the EEOC) draw on more contemporary thinking about the nature of sexual orientation discrimination and its relationship to gender.
Read entire article and analysis…
Correction – the date for the first “Improvisational Acting in the Court House” workshop with Robert Galinsky is November 22 (next Tuesday) in NYC: We hope you can make it!
Details and registration:
Posted by Leonard E. Sienko, Jr. on November 15, 2016 5:47 PM
The GP Section is sponsoring Acting for Lawyers as a two-part program on the following dates:
Links to register for Acting for Lawyers:
November 11: www.nysba.org/store/events/…
January 10: www.nysba.org/store/events/…
Please register for this great program. Bargain pricing: $20 for GP members, $10 for attorneys admitted 5 years or less ($45 all others).
(Editor’s Note: We received notice of the November 11, 2016 program on that day; i.e., too late to post or publish. Enjoy the January 10th, 2017 program)