December 12, 2017

Archives for November 30, 2017

Bullshit Jobs

“Work is the refuge of people who have nothing better to do.”
Oscar Wilde

Radio journalist Studs Terkel interviewed hundreds of people for his 1974 book Working. Here are a couple quotes from it:

Work is about a search for daily meaning as well as daily bread, for recognition as well as cash, for astonishment rather than torpor; in short, for a sort of life rather than a Monday through Friday sort of dying.

Most of us have jobs that are too small for our spirit. Jobs are not big enough for people.

Apparently not much has changed in the 43 years since Working came out. Consider this from The Power of Meaning, by Emily Esfahani Smith (2017):

Today, about 70 percent of all employees either are “not engaged” in their work—that is, they feel uninvolved, uncommitted, and unenthusiastic about it—or are “actively disengaged” from it, and less than half of all workers feel satisfied with their jobs.

Or consider anthropologist David Graeber’s widely circulated 2013 article On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs: A Work Rant:

In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by century’s end, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved a 15-hour work week. There’s every reason to believe he was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn’t happen. Instead, technology has been marshalled, if anything, to figure out ways to make us all work more. In order to achieve this, jobs have had to be created that are, effectively, pointless. Huge swathes of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it.

“Virtually no one talks about it.” Why not? The Financial Times ran an article a couple months ago called Britain’s Joyless Jobs Market Can Be Bad For Your Health. (It’s here, but you’ll have to subscribe to read it.) It makes the same point as the following quote from the article published by the Lawyers Assistance Program of British Columbia which we looked at a few weeks ago:

[I]t is unhealthy to do meaningless, unchallenging, uncreative work, especially for those that are intelligent and well trained.

Seems like a pretty uncontroversial thing to say, but you can’t tell from the nastiness in the comments that follow the article — one more sad case of polarized opinions talking past each other and the loss of meaningful discourse. Not only can’t we talk about economics, but apparently we also can’t talk about how crummy jobs ruin our health.

Why has it become so inflammatory to suggest that boring, meaningless work might not be a good thing? Because of the widespread “truths” about work that have become culturally sacred. To many — maybe most — people, work represents a moral good, no matter how boring, trite, thoughtless, and demeaning.

One person who isn’t afraid to talk about it is Rutgers history professor James Livingston. He says the following in his book No More Work: Why full employment is a bad idea (2016):

Work means everything to us. For centuries—since, say, 1650[1]—we’ve believed that it builds character (punctuality, initiative, honesty, self-discipline, and so forth). We’ve also believed that the market in labor, where we go to find work, has been relatively efficient in allocating opportunities and incomes. And we’ve also believed that even if it sucks, the job gives meaning, purpose, and structure to our everyday lives—at any rate we’re pretty sure that it gets us out of bed, pays the bills, makes us feel responsible, and keeps us away from daytime TV.

Those beliefs are no longer plausible. In fact, they’ve become ridiculous, because there’s not enough work to go around, and what there is of it won’t pay the bills—unless, of course, you’ve landed a job as a drug dealer or a Wall Street banker, becoming a gangster either way.

[Work] no longer functions as either a moral calendar or an economic calculator. You will learn nothing about character by going to work at the minimum wage because the gangsters or the morons at corporate headquarters control your opportunities; you will learn nothing about the rationality of the market because the same people determine your income.

More next time.


[1] 1650 is the year René Descartes died.

 

Kevin Rhodes left a successful long-term law practice to scratch a creative itch and lived to tell about it… barely. Since then, he has been on a mission to bring professional excellence and personal wellbeing to the people who learn, teach, and practice the law. He has also blogged extensively and written several books about his unique journey to wellness, including how he deals with primary progressive MS through an aggressive regime of exercise, diet, and mental conditioning.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Treatment with Approved Physician Did Not Terminate Previous Physician’s Authorized Treatment Provider Status

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Berthold v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office on Thursday, November 16, 2017.

Workers’ Compensation—Change of Authorized Treating Physician—Maximum Medical Improvement—Final Admission of Liability.

Claimant sustained work injuries and received medical care from Sharma, an authorized treating physician (ATP). Several months later she requested and received permission, under C.R.S. § 8-43-404(5)(a)(VI)(A), to begin treatment with another physician, Miller. Notwithstanding the agreed-upon change of doctor, claimant’s employer periodically sent her to the see Sharma. After Miller assumed her care, Sharma reported that claimant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). Miller disagreed. Despite this disagreement, claimant’s employer filed a final admission of liability (FAL) based on Sharma’s conclusion. Claimant challenged the FAL, and an administrative law judge found that Sharma’s status as claimant’s ATP terminated when Miller began treating her, pursuant to C.R.S. § 8-43-404(5)(a)(IV)(C), the automatic termination provision. A panel of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) disagreed, concluding that C.R.S. § 8-43-404(5)(a)(IV)(C) applied only if the worker sought a change of physician under C.R.S. § 8-43-404(5)(a)(III). The Panel further held that the termination provision in C.R.S. § 8-43-404(5)(a)(VI)(B), which automatically terminates the relationship between an ATP and an injured worker upon treatment with a new ATP, did not apply either because it was not in effect when claimant changed physicians.

On appeal, claimant contended that her employer erred in relying on Sharma’s MMI finding when issuing the FAL because Sharma was no longer an ATP when he made the MMI finding. She argued that (1) her treating relationship with Sharma was automatically terminated by C.R.S. § 8-43-404(5)(a)(IV) because it applies to all changes of physicians, and (2) even if this section does not apply, her relationship with Sharma was terminated by recently amended C.R.S. § 8-43-404(5)(a)(VI). The Colorado Court of Appeals held that the C.R.S. § 8-43-404(5)(a)(VI)(B) termination provision only applies to requests to change a treating physician made after the effective date of the provision. Second, C.R.S. § 8-43-404(5)(a)(IV) is limited to changes made under C.R.S. § 8-43-404(5)(a)(III) “within ninety days after the date of the injury.” Because claimant’s request in this case to change her physician predated C.R.S. § 8-43-404(5)(a)(VI)(B), and because it was not granted under C.R.S. § 8-43-404(5)(a)(III), her treatment with Miller did not automatically terminate Sharma’s status as an ATP.

The order was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Fault-Based Grounds for Dependency and Neglect Must Be Proved as to Each Parent

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of M.M. and P.M. III on Thursday, November 16, 2017.

Dependency and Neglect—No Fault—Summary Judgment.

The Fremont County Department of Human Services (Department) filed a dependency and neglect petition concerning M.M. and P.M. III. Mother admitted that the children were dependent and neglected. Although father did not dispute that the children were in an injurious environment and were without proper parental care through no fault of a parent, he denied the allegations in the petition against him and requested an adjudicatory trial before a jury. The Department moved to adjudicate the children dependent and neglected by summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment and adjudicated the children dependent and neglected.

On appeal, father asserted that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. He contended that the facts concerning him were disputed, the remaining undisputed facts concerned only mother, and the children could not be adjudicated dependent and neglected simply because the Department established that mother was a danger to the children. There are four statutory grounds for adjudication, two of which require a showing of fault as to each parent. The undisputed facts established that, with respect to the “no-fault” grounds, C.R.S. § 19-3-102(1)(c) and (e), the children were dependent and neglected and the trial court properly granted summary judgment on those statutory grounds. With respect to C.R.S. § 19-3-102(1)(a) and (b), however, the material facts concerning father’s conduct were disputed and thus the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on those grounds.

The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case was remanded for the trial court to amend the order of adjudication to reflect that the children were adjudicated dependent and neglected only under C.R.S. § 19-3-102(1)(c) and (e).

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 11/29/2017

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and seven unpublished opinions.

Pang v. Sessions

United States v. Beierle

Groesbeck v. Bumbo International Trust

Vansickle v. Braggs

United States v. Ross

United States v. McIntosh

Haley v. Allbaugh

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.