Author: Andrew Sullivan

Shifty Work Conditions

McArdle contemplates the current state of part-time labor:

Unfortunately, the weakness in the labor market has coincided with yet another market development: scheduling software and technology that allows retailers to manage their workforce as another just-in-time input.

Workers are asked to input blocks of hours when they will be available; the software then crunches through everyone’s availability and spits out a schedule that takes account of everything from weather forecasts to the danger that a worker will go over the maximum number of hours to still be considered part time. Obviously, you can’t string together multiple jobs this way, because each job requires that you block out many more available hours than you will actually work. Meanwhile, Steve Greenhouse reports on even worse practices that I hadn’t heard of: requiring workers to be “on call” at short notice or scheduling them for shifts and then sending them home if business looks light.

In this situation, no matter how hard you are willing to work, stringing together anything approaching a minimum income becomes impossible. That makes it much more deeply troubling than low pay.

Update from a reader, who brings up unions:

This is why anyone who works at a part-time job in a non-union shop is essentially a wage slave.

My company – a major grocery chain – uses similar software for scheduling, but union rules specifically rule out “on call” employees, or sending employees home during unexpectedly light business without their consent. In addition, it is strictly against the rules – and grounds for a grievance – to schedule an employee outside their available hours.

Thus many of our employees can work multiple jobs – several spend three or four days with us and another two or three with another employer (the only stipulation being it cannot be a competitor, obviously). Some even work making deliveries for our suppliers on their “off days”. It also means working moms can schedule themselves to be home when the kids arrive from school or daycare, students can reliably schedule college classes without worrying about work conflicts, etc.

Without union rules, none of this would be possible.

The Best Of The Dish Today

Tensions Remain High At Israeli Gaza Border

If you believe, as most Republicans still seem to do, that the most important boon for the economy and the deficit would be further tax cuts, then surely Kansas’ recent, radical experiment in slashing tax rates should merit a view. The result, it now appears, is that tax revenues in Kansas have collapsed:

From June, 2013 to June, 2014, all Kansas tax revenue plunged by 11 percent. Individual income taxes fell from $2.9 billion to $2.2 billion and all income tax collections plummeted from $3.3 billion to $2.6 billion, a drop of more than 20 percent.

Did growth rebound? Nah: “Since the first round of tax cuts, job growth in Kansas has lagged the U.S. economy. So have personal incomes.” Now take a look at California, that big tax-and-spend liberal state. In 2013, they went in the opposite direction and raised taxes considerably on sales and high incomes. Many predicted disaster. The result?

Last year California added 410,418 jobs, an increase of 2.8 percent over 2012, significantly better than the 1.8 percent national increase in jobs. California is home to 12 percent of Americans, but last year it accounted for 17.5 percent of new jobs, Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows.

Obviously, there are other factors involved in both cases, and you should read the links to see the qualifications. But they are qualifications. We’ve know for a long time that cutting taxes does not help the government’s bottom line and has very limited potential for job growth given the historically low rates of tax in the US right now. But we didn’t know that tax increases could coexist with quite robust job growth and fiscal health. Count this as one more piece of evidence that re-thinking Republican economics on reformocon lines is a necessary but not sufficient initiative to alter GOP dogma.

Today, we covered the ever-more-sobering news out of Ukraine and Gaza – in particular Putin’s dead end and Netanyahu’s Gaza strategy (if you can call it that). And if you weren’t depressed enough, here’s a look at the fate of Iraq’s beleaguered Christians. To balance this a bit, check out pheromone dating rituals and an ode to the pit-bull as the archetypal American dog.

The most popular post of the day was “The Oldest Depiction Of Sex On Record” on the Ron Jeremys of ancient Egypt, followed by Holding Corpses Hostage. Many of today’s posts were updated with your emails, including this back and forth sparked by a reader upset with his situation under Obamacare.

39 more readers became subscribers today (a much bigger Monday total than usual, probably due to our Gaza coverage and Ukraine coverage). You can join those new subscribers here – and get access to all the readons and Deep Dish – for a little as $1.99 month. Gift subscriptions are available here.

See you in the morning.

(Photo: Family members  of Major Tsafrir Bar-Or mourn and cry during his funeral on July 21, 2014 in Holon, Israel. By Ilia Yefimovich/Getty Images)

In Case You Need Another Reason To Hate Mosquitos …

Last week, Maggie Koerth-Baker warned that chikungunya, a mosquito-borne disease that’s not typically fatal but currently has no cure, is inevitably making its way to the US:

The virus has been known since the 1950s, but because it was largely non-lethal and largely confined to developing countries in Africa and Asia, the Western medical establishment didn’t much care about it until 10 years ago. That’s when chikungunya showed up on the French-controlled island of La Réunion, in the Indian Ocean, where it infected 40 percent of the population. Since then, it’s exploded in parts of Asia where it hadn’t been seen in decades (and other parts where it hadn’t been seen at all), reached Australia and Taiwan, and made landfall in Italy and France. And all of that was before the outbreak in the Caribbean.

So what changed? The sudden spread of chikungunya seems to be related to two things. First, the virus itself mutated. The strain that’s spreading around the world is different from the one that hung around sub-Saharan Africa. Specifically, it’s much more efficient at replicating itself in the guts of mosquitoes. That seems to have increased both its ability to move into new places and its ability to be carried by different species of mosquito.

That same day, the CDC announced the first locally acquired case of the virus in Florida. Vanessa Vitiello Urquhart explains why medical entomologists (like her wife Cassandra) are freaking out:

To understand why it’s chikungunya, not dengue, that makes entomologists so nervous, you’ll need to know a bit about another mosquito; Aedes albopictus (more pronouncably known as the Asian tiger mosquito). The Asian tiger mosquito is an invasive species that has spread over much of the eastern half of the United States since its introduction in 1985. These back-and-white-striped jerks are capable of spreading all sorts of diseases, including West Nile, dengue, and yellow fever. However, they often do so pretty inefficiently, with viruses found in only the tiniest minority of the mosquitoes tested. In the case of chikungunya, however, at least one strain has been shown to spread as easily in tiger mosquitoes as in Aedes aegypti. …

Adding to the reasons for alarm is the fact that chikungunya doesn’t need a reservoir—it can be spread directly from one human host to another. This is in contrast with several other mosquito-borne pathogens, including West Nile virus, which needs to replicate inside a bird before it can pass from a mosquito to a human. The special characteristics of tiger mosquitoes once again exacerbate the problem—these particular mosquitoes prefer feeding off of, and living close to, humans. (Many mosquitoes, in contrast, feed opportunistically on humans, while primarily targeting other animals.) Tiger mosquitoes are also daytime feeders, which means that while other species are taking a break, preferring to feed at dawn or twilight, the tigers keep chomping during the times of day when humans are most active.

Poseur Alert

‘”The Mockingbird Next Door’ conjured mostly sad images in my mind. Ms. Lee has a regular booth at McDonald’s, where she goes for coffee. She eats takeout salads from Burger King on movie night. When she fishes, she uses wieners for bait. She feeds the town ducks daily, with seed corn from a plastic Cool Whip Free container, calling “Woo-hoo-HOO! Woo-hoo-HOO!” Somehow learning all this is worse than it would be to learn that she steals money from a local orphanage,” – Dwight Garner, NYT.

(Hat tip: the wonderful Michelle Dean)

Understanding The Permanence Of Greater Israel, Ctd

A small but telling story in the Baltimore Sun reveals how an American couple and their kids, after losing their jobs, have decided to relocate to Israel. Except they’re not relocating to Israel – but to a settler outpost near Jerusalem in the occupied territories. But neither the couple nor the reporter notice this rather pertinent fact:

The Brenners acknowledge the controversy surrounding moves such as theirs, part of a larger movement that many view as a stumbling block to peace in the region. But they say peace is also part of their dream. “We understand that there are other people living in Israel. … We want to live in peace,” David Brenner said. “My wife and I pray for a time when the Jewish people and Arabs and Christians will be able to live peacefully side by side.”

Notice “other people living in Israel” means others living in the occupied territories. Greater Israel already exists. And always will.

Superhero Social Justice

Kevin O’Keeffe relays the big news out of the comic book world:

Continuing the trend of diversifying their lineup of heroes, Marvel announced on last [week’s] episode of The Colbert Report that the next Captain America will be Sam Wilson – currently known as The Falcon. … It’s the second big change for Marvel’s Avengers this week. On Tuesday, the women of The View announced that the next Thor would be a woman. Like with Thor, the new Captain America isn’t an off-shoot series – this is the primary Captain America, and the first black Captain America to officially hold the title.

Freddie sighs at those he believes are confusing symbolic firsts for real progress:

The glee with which these changes have been met, contrasted with the bleak state of structural change and economic justice, will tell you pretty much all you need to know about a certain strain of contemporary American liberalism. We’re mere weeks away from a Supreme Court decision where an alliance of religious crazies and corporatists was able to remove a legal provision requiring employers to pay for emergency contraception, but don’t worry, ladies! You too can now be portrayed as a heavily-sanitized version of a minor god from a long-dead pantheon. Black Americans continue to lag national averages in a vast number of metrics that depict quality of life, and in some of them have actually lost ground, but never fear. The guy portrayed punching people while wearing red white and blue spandex will now be black.

Lighten up, Freddie. Progress comes in all forms, big and small. And it’s often the small cultural changes, added together, that have the most lasting impact. Ta-Nehisi put it best, in a post written four years ago, reacting to the news that Captain America was headed to the big screen:

One thing that makes me sad–I wish they’d been ballsy and made Captain America black. … The subtle power of a black Captain America–in the age of a black president–really could be awesome.

Also awesome:

So far, the Hollywood version of Captain America hasn’t made the same move as Marvel, but here’s hoping. Meanwhile, Danny Fingeroth explains the business logic behind these sort of decisions:

[T]he challenge for comics is how to retain the existing audience and also grow new readers. How do you keep the attention of someone who has read thousands of stories and also take advantage of the visibility and familiarity that the movies and TV shows have brought to the characters? (Interestingly, in recent years, more girls and women have started reading superhero comics again, perhaps lured to the comics by the popular movies and TV series.) One of the answers is to make seemingly radical changes in a character, such as having Thor become a female (or to have a black man become Captain America). The Internet buzz indicates that as many fans are outraged by the gender switch as there are those who are intrigued.

But Liz Watson remarks that “slightly unconventional decision—from casting Heath Ledger as the Joker to putting pants on Wonder Woman—is met with a level of feverish debate normally reserved for schisms within the Catholic Church”:

The equivalence between comic books and scripture is telling of how seriously canon is taken by these fans. To violate the status quo is akin to sacrilege.

The irony is that a format characterized by the boundless scope of imagination is ultimately extremely conservative when it comes to risks with character or story. Major developments like deaths or marriages are almost always undone, via fantastic contrivances ranging from deals with the devil to time-travel. Characters are de-powered, murdered, raped, aged up and down, and yo-yoed between universes with an alarming lack of fanfare. It’s the same problem suffered by long-running soap operas, where catastrophes are regularly smoothed over or forgotten in order to keep the premise going. At least on soap operas, actors leave over contract disputes or pass away. In comics, the stories can go on indefinitely. As such, the limitless nature of comic book fantasy is used, by and large, to keep limits in place.

Related Dish here on the recent move to introduce the first black woman as a major character to the Star Wars franchise. Update from a reader:

Great to see Marvel Comics finally catch up with the times, and finally catching up with DC Comics. However, like most things in the comic world, don’t expect this to be new normal. Don’t expect that Sam Wilson will be Captain America for 30 years, unlike DC’s Jon Stewart, an African American who’s been a Green Lantern for over 3 decades. Hell, for readers of a certain age group, Jon Stewart is the REAL Green Lantern due to having a prominent role in the acclaimed Justice League animated series. Or let’s not forget that Wonder Woman has been a pillar of DC’s “Trinity” (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman) for over 6 decades, and has been headlining her own comic book for over 70 years.

There’s no doubt that the comic book industry (and its fandom) has a long way to go. Misogyny is still rampant, and there still exists an undercurrent of racism. But I think the current hagiography regarding Marvel does a disservice to the industry as a whole. Comic books have been at forefront of social issues from the very first Action Comics, when Superman was a crusading populist who was willing to kill slum lords, through Green Arrow having to deal with teen a sidekick who was a heroin addict (Green Lantern vol. 2, #85, August 1971, “Snowbirds Don’t Fly”), to an openly gay Golden Age superhero (Alan Scott, the original Green Lantern from the ’40s).  Did you also know that one of Green Arrow’s other sidekicks was HIV-positive? Google Mia Dearden.

If I’ve learned anything from my decades of reading comics, it’s that the more things change, the more things stay the same. Steve Rogers will be Captain America again, Thor will be male again, and we’ll wait another 5 years for some great barrier that was broken earlier to be broken again.

The View From Your Obamacare, Ctd

A reader has a jaded view:

It’s nice to see some of the stories you post about how much the ACA has helped people. The President Obama Visits Boston To Talk About Health Carestories where people mourn for those who refuse it and need it are sad. Allow me to present you with a third type, the people who aren’t eligible due to system bugs.

Yep. Jack and shit for my family. I tried to sign up, since my wife and kids’ coverage ended in May and the ACA won’t cover them. We aren’t rich. We’re lower-middle class, according to the federal poverty line, but out of red state Medicaid income levels. I tried the site – nothing but errors. I spent an hour or more on the phone and neither the persons I spoke to or their supervisors understand why they can’t process it for us. I could call my senator or congressman, but I doubt Lindsey Graham or Trey “Benghazi” Gowdy will investigate.

I’m disabled and currently get Medicare. Prior to May, my wife, two small kids and I all received Medicaid.

It was my secondary provider and the only coverage for my wife and kids. My wife had been in school full time and started working two jobs at the end of last year – one ultra low-paying factory job and another seasonal government position. A few months later she was offered a permanent position at the government agency. Our income went from close to the poverty line to significantly higher than that. Not wealthy or even upper middle class, but not subsistence level either. Our income increased and I didn’t want to accept benefits fraudulently, so I called up Medicaid and told them about the income change (not easy to do since the state has minimized the number of social workers) and they set coverage to end that month.

Next I use the ACA website calculators and make sure we are eligible. I try to process an application and there are tons of errors. This is on the federal site. My state (South Carolina) didn’t do anything regarding ACA exchanges. I then call up the ACA support line. He walks the app through the same way I just did and it says my family isn’t eligible. Nothing. He puts me on hold for long periods to consult supervisors. Nothing. My family’s coverage ended, we meet all criteria for coverage, we are all US citizens – born and raised here. Nothing.

No explanation. No assistance. Nothing. They couldn’t figure out why. We are eligible to get coverage outside of the yearly switch period due to loss of coverage according to the rules and staff. So we meet the requirements but the computer hates us.

Anyway, glad it’s working for someone I guess. Must be nice.

Update from a reader:

I’m confused about one notable detail – the writer mentions a wife who recently started a permanent government position. If this is a Federal position, the writer and the kids would almost certainly be eligible under the FEHB (Federal Employees Health Benefit program) – the full family coverage is more somewhat more expensive than individual plan, but very likely a pretty reasonable deal out of the wife’s paycheck.

If this were a state position – or certain (fairly common) local government positions – I think the family would be eligible for the different options available under the South Carolina’s Public Employee Benefit Authority coverage. It looks to me that the deals here are a bit more expensive than the options under the FEHB options, but that’s a pretty quick peek.

Only wrinkle I’d be able to imagine seems a little bit arcane/improbable to assume: if the wife were divorced and there were a former spouse that had a divorce decree requiring the wife to provide coverage, that might be an issue, since SCPEBA only allows one spouse to be covered, and the divorce decree’s mandate might trump the current spouse’s coverage.

In any case, I think that the wife checking with her benefits administrator about expanding coverage from individual coverage to full family coverage would be a more economical strategy than trying to insure the spouse or spouse and children under a separate ACA plan. Hopefully, this sort of request would be pretty common and straightforward for the wife’s benefits admin.

The original reader follows up:

Those options for federal workers don’t apply because it’s a union job and the contract provides for some weirdness. She can join the union any time but can’t get healthcare until she’s been working her contract for a year. Even then she wouldn’t be eligible for most of the other normal federal benefit programs like life insurance until she is “converted” to a career position.

Welcome to the new United States Postal Service. Career-track mail clerks and carriers begin in a position that pays similar to career posts or even more, while having virtually no other benefits except annual leave (paid time off). The USPS will pay for a large portion of our insurance premiums come next year, but until then we are out in the cold.

The family is in great health with the exception of me (here’s a plug for CIDP – Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy – similar to MS). We were broke with insurance and now we’re less broke with the possibility of being broke again if a medical situation arrises.

It’s disappointing, but hey, my 2nd grader was doing algebra two years ago and his little sister is on the same path. They’ll be in college by 12 or 13. I can still type, knock on wood. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. I count myself lucky if anything this nation manages to do is actually aimed at helping me. If it doesn’t hit the mark, at least Obama tried.

(Photo by Yoon S. Byun/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Retroactive Reform

On July 18, the US Sentencing Commission voted unanimously to retroactively apply new sentencing guidelines and allow almost 50,000 federal drug-offense prisoners the possibility of shorter sentences. Dara Lind provides background, including the Obama administration’s role, or lack thereof:

The US Sentencing Commission is independent of the Obama administration. In fact, the Department of Justice originally wanted the Sentencing Commission to approve a much more limited plan — one that would only let about 20,000 prisoners apply for shorter sentences. This week, reports surfaced that Department of Justice officials had been meeting privately with the Sentencing Commission, and had softened its position a little: it now wanted something that would affect about 40,000 prisoners. It’s not clear if the plan the Sentencing Commission approved today is the one the DoJ was lobbying for in private, or a different one.

Chris Geidner passes along Holder’s response to the new development:

“The department looks forward to implementing this plan to reduce sentences for certain incarcerated individuals. We have been in ongoing discussions with the Commission during its deliberations on this issue, and conveyed the department’s support for this balanced approach. In the interest of fairness, it makes sense to apply changes to the sentencing guidelines retroactively, and the idea of a one-year implementation delay will adequately address public safety concerns by ensuring that judges have adequate time to consider whether an eligible individual is an appropriate candidate for a reduced sentence. At my direction, the Bureau of Prisons will begin notifying federal inmates of the opportunity to apply for a reduction in sentence immediately. This is a milestone in the effort to make more efficient use of our law enforcement resources and to ease the burden on our overcrowded prison system.”

Douglas Berman asks how many of the eligible prisoners will be able to get a lawyer:

As hard-core federal sentencing fans likely already know, most lower federal courts have ruled that federal prisoners do not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel applicable at the sentence modification proceedings judges must conduct to implement reduced retroactive sentencing guidelines.  Consequently, none of the nearly 50,000 federal drug offense prisoners who may soon become eligible for a reduced sentence have any right to legal assistance in seeking this reduced sentence.

Fortunately for many federal prisoners seeking to benefit from previous guideline reductions, many federal public defender offices have traditionally made considerable efforts to provide representation to those seeking reduced sentences.  But even the broadest guideline reductions applied retroactively in the past (which were crack guideline reductions) applied only to less than 1/3 of the number of federal prisoners now potentially eligible for reductions under the new reduced drug guidelines.  I suspect that pubic defenders are unlikely to be able to provide significant legal help to a significant number of drug offenders who will be seeking modified sentences under the new reduced drug guidelines.

Jim Newell focuses on the muted response to from the right:

Had the Sentencing Commission and Holder made such moves even just a decade ago, there’s no question they would have been lambasted by Republicans — The Obama administration is setting dangerous drug addicts into the streets to eat your babies, et cetera. And yet, after the announcement Friday, there was relatively silence from the party, even though we’re just ahead of midterm elections.