*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Community Forum: Stop the ICE Raids and Deportations! Build May 1!
7 pm - Wednesday April 15
Rm. 106 of Mission Campus of City College of San Francisco,
1125 Valencia st. (crosstreet 22nd), near 24th and Mission BART
Join us at this urgent community forum: All are welcome!
Despite the mandate for change expressed through the election of Obama,
the U.S. government continues its brutal, racist offensive against
undocumented immigrants and all workers.
Join us to discuss the following burning questions: How can we organize
to stop the ICE raids and deportations? What will it take to win papers
and equal rights for all? How can we build May 1st in our schools,
workplaces, and communities?
Speakers include: CCSF professor Pablo Rodriguez, Nicaraguan activist
Rodrigo Ibarra, and student organizer Kristina Jackson.
(Translation will be provided.)
7 pm - Wednesday April 15
Rm. 106 of Mission Campus of City College of San Francisco,
1125 Valencia st. (crosstreet 22nd), near 24th and Mission BART
Sponsored by Resistance: Committee for Immigrants Rights (CCSF), Student
Unity and Power, and The Organizer newspaper
Contact: may1protest@gmail.com, 415 646 6469
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Celebrate the release of the new book by Mumia Abu-Jamal:
"Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners vs. the USA"
Friday, April 24th (Mumia's birthday!), 6:30 P.M.
Humanist Hall
411 - 28th Street, Oakland
$25.00 donation or what you can afford.
Featuring:
Angely Y. Davis
Mistah F.A.B.
Lynne Stewart
Tory Serra
Avotcja
Kiilu Nyasha
JR Minister of Information POCC
Ed Mead
Tiny aka Lisa Gray-Garcia
Molotov Mouths
Prison Radio, 415-648-4505
www.prisonradio.org
www.mumia.org
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4/26/2009 SF Speak-out and Video With UE Chicago Republic Workers And Screening
Sunday April 26, 2006 2:00 PM
ILWU Local 34
2nd St and Embarcadero on the left side of AT&T Park
The UE Republic workers of Chicago who occupied their factory to demand their pay and compensation as a result of their factories closure will be speaking and screening a labor film of their occupation on Sunday April 26, 2009 at 2:00 PM in San Francisco at ILWU Local 34 next to AT&T at 2nd St & Embarcadero St. in San Francisco.
The meeting which is being hosted by ILWU Local 34 and also sponsored by Laborfest.net, UPWA.info, Transport Workers Solidarity Committee and other unions and organizations will be the first eye witness report of this important event which electrified the US labor movement. As a result of protests throughout the country including San Francisco at the Bank Of America, the workers won their demands. Bay area workers who are in struggle will also speak at this forum.
To endorse, support or to get more information about this labor solidarity event contact
(415)282-1908 or lvpsf@labornet.org
YouTube - Angry Laid-off Workers Occupy Factory in Chicago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNIQ1-ghsPs
http://www.ueunion.org/uerepublic.html
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Write a letter to Congress today!
'Right to Travel to Cuba' bills introduced in Congress
Thousands of people are writing to tell Congress: End the travel ban to Cuba. A "Right to Travel to Cuba" bill has been introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The bill is simple and self-explanatory: it would end all restrictions on travel from the United States to Cuba. The bill has received bipartisan support, and already has 123 co-sponsors in the House, and 20 in the Senate.
President Obama has proposed lifting travel restrictions on Cuban-Americans. These bills call for the lifting of travel restrictions for all people in the United States. The travel restrictions are part of the larger economic blockade of Cuba. The blockade, which uses food and medicine as a weapon against the Cuban people, must be brought to an end as well.
Please take a moment right now to write members and Congress and tell them you support these important bills. We suggest the following letter, but by clicking this link, you can customize it however you like.
https://secure2.convio.net/pep/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=239
I fully support the Right to Travel to Cuba bills, H.R.874 and S.428, that were introduced in Congress, Feb. 2009. Polls show a strong majority of Americans support a lifting of the travel ban.
It is time that this policy--which harms those in Cuba as well as those in the United States--come to an end.
It is a welcome development that President Obama is lifting restrictions on travel to Cuba for Cuban-Americans, as well as the right to send remittances to their loved ones in Cuba.
Now Congress has the opportunity, and responsibility, to extend that right to all citizens and residents of the United States.
Please act today and become a co-sponsor of H.R.874 or S.428. If you have already done so, I appreciate your positive and just action on behalf of my right to travel to Cuba.
Please take a moment right now and forward this email to your friends and family members and on social networking sites. Thank you!
In Solidarity,
ANSWER Coalition
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
ARTICLES IN FULL:
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) Obama Seeks Quick Approval of More Money for Overseas Military Operations
"...White House officials said one final supplemental war bill was necessary because the legislation passed under the Bush administration provided only enough money to pay for the conflicts [Iraq and Afghanistan] through mid-year. 'The alternative to the supplemental is a sudden and precipitous withdrawal of the United States from both places,' Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said at a news conference with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. 'And I don't know anybody who thinks that's a good idea.'"
By CARL HULSE
April 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/us/politics/10military.html?ref=world
2) Campus Still Split After Jury Sides With Professor
[Readers should read the following article to get the truth about Mr. Churchill's so-called academic misconduct at:
Ward Churchill Redux
April 5, 2009, 10:00 pm
By Stanley Fish
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/ward-churchill-redux/ ]
By DAN FROSCH
April 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/education/10churchill.html?ref=education
3) Obama, Who Vowed Rapid Action on Climate Change, Turns More Cautious
By JOHN M. BRODER
April 11, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/us/politics/11climate.html?ref=us
4) Besieged Detroit Schools Face Closings and Layoffs
By NICK BUNKLEY
April 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/us/10detroit.html?ref=education
5) Longer Unemployment for Those 45 and Older
By MICHAEL LUO
April 13, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/us/13age.html?hp
6) 'Surgical' Bankruptcy Possible for G.M.
By MICHELINE MAYNARD and MICHAEL J. de la MERCED
April 13, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/business/13gm.html?ref=business
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) Obama Seeks Quick Approval of More Money for Overseas Military Operations
"...White House officials said one final supplemental war bill was necessary because the legislation passed under the Bush administration provided only enough money to pay for the conflicts [Iraq and Afghanistan] through mid-year. 'The alternative to the supplemental is a sudden and precipitous withdrawal of the United States from both places,' Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said at a news conference with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. 'And I don't know anybody who thinks that's a good idea.'"
By CARL HULSE
April 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/us/politics/10military.html?ref=world
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration on Thursday asked Congress for quick approval of $83.4 billion to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other overseas initiatives through Sept. 30.
President Obama has pledged to end the Bush administration's practice of paying for the two wars through special so-called supplemental funding requests instead of including the costs in the annual budget. But White House officials said one final supplemental war bill was necessary because the legislation passed under the Bush administration provided only enough money to pay for the conflicts through mid-year.
"The alternative to the supplemental is a sudden and precipitous withdrawal of the United States from both places," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said at a news conference with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. "And I don't know anybody who thinks that's a good idea."
Senior Congressional officials said the administration was seeking nearly $76 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to bolster security in Pakistan and an additional $7 billion for diplomatic activities and foreign aid.
Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, said the money was needed for the administration's plan to bolster the United States military presence in Afghanistan and to begin the process in Iraq that will lead to a withdrawal of American combat forces. Administration officials told Congress they would like the money to be approved by Memorial Day.
Though Congress is likely to be receptive to Mr. Obama's request, some Democrats are uneasy about spending significantly more money in Iraq and others worry about getting bogged down in Afghanistan.
Acknowledging heavy Democratic criticism of the Bush administration's exclusion of the supplemental war spending from annual military budgets, Mr. Gibbs said that this request was unavoidable and that it would be the last outside the normal budget process.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) Campus Still Split After Jury Sides With Professor
[Readers should read the following article to get the truth about Mr. Churchill's so-called academic misconduct at:
Ward Churchill Redux
April 5, 2009, 10:00 pm
By Stanley Fish
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/ward-churchill-redux/ ]
By DAN FROSCH
April 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/education/10churchill.html?ref=education
BOULDER, Colo. - A judge has yet to decide whether Ward L. Churchill, the controversial former University of Colorado professor, will get his job back, but on the campus here, some have already made up their minds.
"I don't think he should come back," said Marissa Jaross, a senior anthropology major. Though Ms. Jaross said she believed the university was looking for a way to get rid of him, she added: "I think he's kind of a shoddy academic. I wouldn't look at his work as great, or even worthy of my time."
Barbara Bintliff, a law professor and former chairwoman of the faculty assembly, shared that view.
"Everyone is just aghast at the prospect that he would be back on the faculty," Professor Bintliff said. "I can't imagine how he would function normally or what kind of relationship he could possibly have with the faculty."
Mr. Churchill, the former chairman of the ethnic studies department, caused a national uproar after it came to light in 2005 that he had written an essay referring to some victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as "little Eichmanns." He was fired two years later when a faculty committee concluded that he had plagiarized and falsified parts of his scholarly work on the persecution of American Indians.
Last week, a Denver jury determined that he had been wrongfully dismissed because of his political views, though he was awarded only $1 in damages.
Sometime in the coming months, Judge Larry J. Naves of Denver District Court will either reinstate Mr. Churchill to his tenured position, as his lawyer is requesting, or order the university to pay Mr. Churchill an annual salary for a period of time.
While faculty members initially leapt to defend Mr. Churchill's right to free speech after his essay came to light, support for him eroded after the faculty report.
"The guy is a liar," said Elizabeth Dunn, an associate professor of geography and international affairs. "It is really hard to conceive of working collaboratively with somebody that doesn't share the fundamental values of honesty and truthfulness in scholarship."
Still, there are those who feel that Mr. Churchill deserves to be back in the lecture hall.
"I would welcome his return to campus," said Margaret LeCompte, an education professor who said she had always thought the university wanted to get rid of Mr. Churchill because of his comments about Sept. 11.
"He is a well-respected teacher, even by students who disagree with him - the kind of a person who should be at a university, where a dialogue of controversial ideas can be held in a safe environment," Professor LeCompte said.
Among students, many of whom were not enrolled when the controversy first exploded, there is less familiarity with the nuances of the case but strong feelings nonetheless.
"I really hope for his presence back on campus," said Vince Amezcua, a junior ethnic studies and psychology major. "I've heard a lot of good things about him, and I know he has a ton of good ideas he could bring forth."
But Rachel Kimmel, a senior international affairs and psychology major, countered: "I definitely don't want him to come back. What he said was terrible and egregious, but the plagiarism alone is reason enough for him not to be a faculty member."
David Lane, Mr. Churchill's lawyer, said reinstatement was more important than any financial settlement.
"The symbolism of Ward Churchill walking back into the classroom after having his civil rights violated in a McCarthy-like manner is overwhelmingly powerful," Mr. Lane said.
Ken McConnellogue, a university spokesman, said Thursday that the institution was "strongly opposed" to Mr. Churchill's returning and would fight to keep him from doing so.
"The things he was found to have engaged in by his faculty peers is behavior that we can't have from our faculty or our students," Mr. McConnellogue said.
Mr. Churchill remains as defiant as ever. In an interview, he said he was not looking for money, despite an article in The Daily Camera, a Boulder newspaper, which reported his saying he would settle for $1 million.
Mr. Churchill said that he was speaking hypothetically, and that his goal was to get his job back.
"Being restored to the position not only signals pretty clearly that the findings of the so-called jury of my peers were fraudulent," Mr. Churchill said, referring to the faculty committee's report. "It also restores me to the implied integrity and dignity of my rank."
As for the possibility of being ostracized by some faculty members, Mr. Churchill said, "If somebody is uncomfortable with my being in that environment, they are free to leave."
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) Obama, Who Vowed Rapid Action on Climate Change, Turns More Cautious
By JOHN M. BRODER
April 11, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/us/politics/11climate.html?ref=us
WASHINGTON - President Obama came to office promising swift and comprehensive action to combat global climate change, and the topic remains a surefire applause line in his speeches here and abroad.
Yet the administration has taken a cautious and rather passive role on the issue, proclaiming broad goals while remaining aloof from details of climate legislation now in Congress.
The president's budget initially included roughly $650 billion in revenue over 10 years from a cap-and-trade emissions plan that he wants adopted. But the administration, while insisting that its health care initiative be protected, did not fight to keep cap-and-trade in the budget resolutions that Congress passed last week, and it wound up in neither the House's version nor the Senate's.
Overseas, American officials are telling their counterparts that they need time to gauge the American public's appetite for an ambitious carbon reduction scheme before leading any international effort.
Has the administration scaled back its global-warming goals, at least for this year, or is it engaged in sophisticated misdirection?
Maybe some of both. While addressing climate change appears to be slipping down the president's list of priorities for the year, he is holding in reserve a powerful club to regulate carbon dioxide emissions through executive authority.
That club takes the form of Environmental Protection Agency regulation of the gases blamed for the warming of the planet, an authority granted the agency by the Supreme Court's reading of the Clean Air Act. Administration officials consistently say they would much prefer that Congress write new legislation to pre-empt the E.P.A. regulatory power, but they are clearly holding it in reserve as a prod to reluctant lawmakers and recalcitrant industries and as evidence of good faith to other nations.
Industry lobbyists and members of Congress who are engaged in writing energy and global warming bills say they are well aware of the E.P.A. process bearing down on them.
"Once the Supreme Court declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, E.P.A. had no choice but to act," said Representative Rick Boucher, a moderate Democrat from a coal-producing region of Virginia. "Most people would rather have Congress act. We can be more balanced; we can take into account the effects on the economy. But if we don't undertake this, E.P.A. certainly will."
Still, the agency's regulations would take months to write and years to become fully effective. Meanwhile, Congress is already starting work on energy and climate legislation, though without significant guidance from the White House, at least in public.
Carol M. Browner, the White House coordinator of energy and climate policy, issued a surprisingly bland statement last week when two top House Democrats unveiled a far-reaching plan to cap greenhouse gases and move the nation toward an economy less dependent on carbon-rich fuels like coal and oil.
Ms. Browner stopped short of endorsing that plan, issued by Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, saying instead that Mr. Obama "looks forward to working with members of Congress in both chambers to pass a bill that would transition the nation to a clean-energy economy." She gave little clue as to what she and the president believe such a measure should say.
At an international climate conference in Germany that ended Wednesday, some delegates said they were disappointed in the Obama administration's lack of robust leadership. The explanation offered by Jonathan Pershing, a leader of the American delegation, was that the administration was waiting to measure the American technological and political capacity to address climate change and was looking to Congress to set specific targets for reducing carbon pollution.
Business lobbyists welcome the White House's go-slow approach, saying the issue is too complicated and too costly to be rushed, especially in a recession.
"We have not until now had a national debate on a climate change proposal, period," said Karen A. Harbert, a former senior Energy Department official who now heads the United States Chamber of Commerce's energy institute. "That has to happen for any piece of legislation to achieve broad support across the country."
Ms. Harbert and other business lobbyists also welcomed the administration's hesitancy to undertake regulation of climate-altering gases under E.P.A. authority, saying the matter should be fully aired before Congress so that all interests and regions could be heard.
Keith McCoy, vice president for energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, said his organization was "strongly opposed to an E.P.A. regulatory process for greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act."
Mr. McCoy said his members would prefer a binding international treaty that would cover all nations, particularly those whose industries compete with energy-intensive American manufacturers. "Absent that," he said, "we would prefer a robust and transparent debate within Congress."
The administration's caution leaves many environmental advocates frustrated, although most are reluctant to speak on the record for fear of alienating their allies inside government.
One environmental and energy lobbyist with close ties to the White House said the administration had been inhibited by a number of factors, including vacancies in many top policy jobs, an intense early focus on the financial and economic crises, and an unwillingness to alienate business and Congressional leaders with a heavy-handed approach.
"With those realities, coupled with the fact that the president himself realizes this is harder to do in the midst of recession, they are basically content to see what Congress will do," this lobbyist said. "Plus, Henry Waxman has put together a very serious piece of legislation, and that in my mind justifies their lack of forceful intervention. That's just where they are now."
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) Besieged Detroit Schools Face Closings and Layoffs
By NICK BUNKLEY
April 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/us/10detroit.html?ref=education
DETROIT - The state-appointed official overseeing the finances of Detroit's impoverished school district said Thursday that in an effort to close a $303 million budget deficit, he planned to shut more than a quarter of its 194 schools and eliminate the jobs of more than 10 percent of its teachers.
The plan calls for 23 schools to be permanently shut over the summer, leaving more than 7,500 students to be transferred to other schools, said the official, Robert C. Bobb, whom Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm appointed last month to address the district's rapidly growing deficit.
An additional 30 to 40 schools will close next year, Mr. Bobb said, and as many as 600 teachers will be laid off this year.
Mr. Bobb said big changes were needed to turn around one of the nation's most distressed school districts.
"We will have to grow smaller to grow larger," he said in a telephone interview after his announcement. "We cannot make these changes incrementally. We need a complete reform of this entire school system."
He said that to pay for improvements to the Detroit schools, he had asked the state for $200 million of Michigan's $1.5 billion in federal stimulus money. He proposes spending $25 million of that amount on safety and security measures, and $81 million to repair and expand buildings that will accommodate those students whose schools will close.
"These are shovel-ready projects that will create jobs for Michigan residents," Mr. Bobb said, "and they will improve the quality of life for students."
The district has already closed about 70 schools over the last decade because of enrollment that has been falling by about 10,000 students a year. It currently has about 95,000 students, the fewest since the city's population boom began around World War I, and 5,700 teachers.
Fewer than 900,000 people now live in Detroit, compared with more than two million half a century ago, but the district has not shrunk proportionally over the years. At the same time, the city's high poverty rate results in little tax revenue for the district, and years of mismanagement have compounded its problems.
Since arriving in Detroit, Mr. Bobb, former president of the District of Columbia Board of Education, has discovered that the budget deficit is twice as large as officials previously thought, and he has brought in auditors and criminal investigators to root out fraud and corruption.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) Longer Unemployment for Those 45 and Older
By MICHAEL LUO
April 13, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/us/13age.html?hp
When Ben Sims, 57, showed up earlier this year for a job interview at a company in Richardson, Tex., he noticed the hiring manager - several decades his junior - falter upon spotting him in the lobby.
"Her face actually dropped," said Mr. Sims, who was dressed in a conservative business suit, befitting his 25-year career in human resources at I.B.M.
Later, in her office, after several perfunctory questions, the woman told Mr. Sims she did not believe the job would be "suitable" for him. And, barely 10 minutes later she stood to signal the interview was over.
"I knew very much then it was an age situation," said Mr. Sims, who has been looking for work since November 2007, a month before the economic downturn began.
The recession's onslaught has come as Mr. Sims and many others belonging to the post-World War II baby boom generation - the demographic burst from 1946 to 1964 that reshaped the country - remain years from retirement. But unemployed boomers, many of whom believed they were still in the prime of their careers, are confronting the grim reality that they face some of the steepest odds of any job seekers in this dismal market.
Unemployed workers ages 45 and over form a disproportionate share of the hard-luck recession category, the long-term unemployed - those who have been out of work for six months or longer, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
On average, laid-off workers in this age group were out of work 22.2 weeks in 2008, compared with 16.2 weeks for younger workers.
Even when they are finally able to land jobs, they typically experience a much steeper drop in earnings than their younger counterparts.
Older workers do hold some advantages. Many have avoided layoffs during this recession, and government statistics show that people 45 and older currently have a lower unemployment rate than younger workers.
Alicia H. Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, said companies were often reluctant to lose the experience of older workers, many of whom also have the protections that often come with age and seniority.
Recent data, however, has shown the advantage deteriorating. "If you are old and have a job, you are less likely - albeit less, less likely than in the old days - to be fired," Dr. Munnell said.
The unemployment rate in March for workers age 45 and over was 6.4 percent, the highest since at least 1948, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking unemployment on a monthly basis.
But once older workers lose their jobs, Dr. Munnell said, "then it's horrible." They have a much harder time finding work again than younger job-seekers, and statistics appear to show that it is harder for them in this recession than previous ones.
(During earlier downturns, workers aged 45 and over were unemployed an average of 19 weeks in 1982 and just under 17 weeks in 2001.)
Many out-of-work baby boomers have despaired as they wonder whether to trim their résumés to avoid giving away their decades of work experience, or to dye their hair.
More of them are now choosing to fight back. Age discrimination complaints were up nearly 30 percent in fiscal year 2008 over the year before, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (The period ended just before the worst of the recession began.)
But the vast majority of those complaints involved layoffs. Discrimination in hiring is often almost impossible to prove.
"Especially in this day and age when you apply online, you're not even told why you can't get past the first screening," said Laurie McCann, a senior lawyer with AARP's Litigation Foundation.
Mr. Sims, in Texas, was so incensed by how he was treated that he tried to call the company's chief executive but was unable to get through. He never seriously considered filing a formal complaint.
"I know enough about H.R. procedures and H.R. situations, it would have never gone anywhere," he said.
Assessing just how pervasive age discrimination is in the job market is difficult. Certainly, older workers believe that it is rampant - an AARP survey in 2007 of workers from the ages 45 to 74 found that 60 percent said they had seen or experienced age bias.
Joanna N. Lahey, an economics professor at Texas A&M University, conducted a study published in 2005 in which she sent out 4,000 résumés on behalf of hypothetical job-seeking women ranging in age from 35 to 62 for entry-level jobs to companies in Boston and St. Petersburg, Fla., changing only the applicant's high school graduation year, an age indicator. Dr. Lahey found workers under age 50 were more than 40 percent more likely to be called back for an interview.
Older workers often accumulate knowledge specific to their firms that helps protect them from layoffs, Dr. Lahey said. But that background is often less useful to other employers.
Older workers must also battle stereotypes about their energy and adaptability, as well as the reality that their health care costs are higher.
The oldest baby boomers have already begun retiring. But with retirement accounts plunging in value, more older workers than ever are trying to stay in the work force. And some unemployed boomers, frustrated after months of fruitless searching, have concluded their only option is to turn their backs on successful careers and start over at much lower pay.
Jonathan Steinberg, 53, a former marketing executive, has been out of work for more than two years. With a résumé that includes an undergraduate degree from Yale and an M.B.A. from New York University, he had a career on a steady upward progression. His most recent position was as senior vice president for communications and marketing at a large organization for the care of the elderly, where he was paid about $170,000 a year.
But after applying for more than 100 jobs and getting few responses, he is now exploring work as a paralegal or a teacher. He believes his age and experience make for slim odds of landing even a junior-level marketing position at this point.
"I've got one to send to college next year, with two more behind her," Mr. Steinberg said. "I can't continue to wait for good news on the old job front."
Ron Higgins, 52, is one of about 100 former employees of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories in the San Francisco Bay Area who filed an age-discrimination complaint against the lab after a round of layoffs in May.
The lab had promised to lay off workers with less seniority first, said Mr. Higgins, who had worked there for more than two decades. But Mr. Higgins believes he was picked because of his age, pointing out he cost the company more than many of his younger colleagues, with his salary climbing to about $80,000 a year and full medical benefits due to him in retirement if he continued working until he was 65.
Since his layoff, Mr. Higgins, who has two children of high school age at home, said he has applied for countless jobs and has gotten only one interview for a janitorial job with a school district. Once again, he said, he believes his age is to blame.
"They're saying, 'Wait a minute, this guy is almost done working,' " Mr. Higgins said.
After running through his severance pay and retirement savings, Mr. Higgins and his wife, who runs a struggling printing business from home, have now fallen two months behind on a risky mortgage on a home they purchased in 1999. They had already been struggling to make their house payments before his layoff and are now $40,000 in credit card debt. They recently got a notice in the mail that the bank would begin foreclosure proceedings in 30 days.
"Sometimes I just break down and start crying," he said, explaining his feeling of powerlessness. "I can't do anything about my situation."
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) 'Surgical' Bankruptcy Possible for G.M.
By MICHELINE MAYNARD and MICHAEL J. de la MERCED
April 13, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/business/13gm.html?ref=business
DETROIT - The Treasury Department is directing General Motors to lay the groundwork for a bankruptcy filing by a June 1 deadline, despite G.M.'s public contention that it could still reorganize outside court, people with knowledge of the plans said during the weekend.
Members of President Obama's automotive task force spent last week in meetings and on conference calls with G.M. officials and its advisers in Detroit and Washington. Those talks are expected to continue this week.
The goal is to prepare for a fast "surgical" bankruptcy, the people who had been briefed on the plans said. G.M., which has been granted $13.4 billion in federal aid, insists that a quick restructuring is necessary so its image and sales are not damaged permanently.
The preparations are aimed at assuring a G.M. bankruptcy filing is ready should the company be unable to reach agreement with bondholders to exchange roughly $28 billion in debt into equity in G.M. and with the United Automobile Workers union, which has balked at granting concessions without sacrifices from bondholders.
President Obama, who was elected with strong backing from labor, remained concerned about potential risk to G.M.'s pension plan and wants to avoid harming workers, these people said.
None of these people agreed to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the process. G.M. declined to comment and the Treasury Department did not comment.
One plan under consideration would create a new company that would buy the "good" assets of G.M. almost immediately after the carmaker files for bankruptcy.
Less desirable assets, including unwanted brands, factories and health care obligations, would be left in the old company, which could be liquidated over several years.
Treasury officials are examining one potential outcome in which the "good G.M." enters and exits bankruptcy protection in as little as two weeks, using $5 billion to $7 billion in federal financing, a person who had been briefed on the prospect said last week.
The rest of G.M. may require as much as $70 billion in government financing, and possibly more to resolve the health care obligations and the liquidation of the factories, according to legal experts and federal officials.
Since replacing Rick Wagoner on March 31, G.M.'s chief executive, Fritz Henderson, has sent increasingly clear signals that bankruptcy is probable unless agreements are reached with labor and the bondholders by the administration's June 1 deadline.
Unlike Mr. Wagoner, who refused until his final days at G.M. to consider a Chapter 11 filing, Mr. Henderson has deployed staff to work with legal and government advisers, although he does not agree a bankruptcy is inevitable.
Last week, he said G.M. was proceeding on a dual track, hoping to restructure out of court, but also preparing for a filing.
"If we need to resort to bankruptcy, we have to do it quickly," Mr. Henderson said in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
John Paul MacDuffie, an associate professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, said he saw little chance of an out-of-court restructuring, given that the Obama administration had rejected G.M.'s proposed revitalization plan in March. It was submitted without the concessions that were required from bondholders and the union, and which have still not been reached.
"The simplest way to frame it is that they took the loans, there were conditions on the loans, they didn't prove their case for financial viability, and they didn't meet the deadline, either," Professor MacDuffie said.
Lawyers for G.M. and the government have much work to do before any bankruptcy case can begin, executives with bankruptcy experience said last week.
First and foremost, G.M. would have to formulate a business plan that addresses virtually every aspect of the company that it hopes to transform while under bankruptcy protection.
It would have to show how it would save billions of dollars through agreements with its bondholders and unions, how many dealers it plans to keep, and the plants and offices it plans to either close or preserve.
The plan also needs to give a candid forecast of the car market, a tricky prospect given the sharp falloff in sales over the last few months, these executives said.
Treasury has hired the Boston Consulting Group to help with the business plan, according to a notice posted April 8 on FedBizOpps.gov, a government procurement Web site.
Participation from banks also may be needed, and because of the weak economic climate, lenders are likely to insist that G.M. wring as much out of its operations as possible.
"It's a complex system and you've got to be thinking big," Professor MacDuffie said.
Finally, legal experts said, G.M. would have to try to prevent panic among consumers in the event of a bankruptcy filing. The government has said it will guarantee G.M.'s vehicle warranties.
Since then, G.M. has started an aggressive advertising campaign stressing that car buyers should have confidence in the company, and offering to make nine months of payments, up to $500 each, for owners who lose their jobs.
One delicate issue for federal officials is the fate of G.M.'s employee pension plans, which could become the responsibility of the federal pension agency if G.M. seeks their termination.
G.M. faces an unfunded liability of about $13.5 billion for its plans, which had $84.5 billion in assets and $98 billion in liabilities as of Dec. 31. That amount could sink the pension agency, requiring its own bailout before a G.M. case could be resolved.
The White House has at least one option to protect the plan.
The Supreme Court, in a landmark 1990 case, ordered the LTV Corporation, a steel maker, to take back responsibility for its pension plans after it emerged from bankruptcy protection.
The pension agency had allowed the steel company to terminate its plans, only to see LTV negotiate a new plan with the United Steelworkers of America in which it agreed to make up a large portion of benefits that workers had lost.
LTV eventually sought bankruptcy protection again and liquidated in 2002, when the federal pension agency assumed the company's pension liabilities.
While Mr. Obama's auto task force has held only one meeting with G.M.'s bondholders - who had rejected the company's previous reorganization plan as too onerous - it is still seeking to win union support for a swift bankruptcy, one person involved in the discussions said.
But the task force is reasonably confident that its restructuring plan could still pass muster with a federal bankruptcy judge even if the union does not accede to the proposal, this person said.
A creditors committee for the "new G.M." would be formed in advance, to start working as soon as the case begins, while those with claims against G.M. would be asked by Treasury to quickly agree on terms to settle the claims.
Still, if the government and G.M. cannot bring all creditors on board, they are likely to argue that creating the new G.M. is an emergency move needed to preserve the value of the carmaker's good assets. Bankruptcy judges are given a lot of leeway to decide what is in the best interest of all parties in a bankruptcy case.
Another question hanging over G.M. is the fate of Delphi, the giant supplier of auto parts that has been in bankruptcy for more than three years.
Delphi, which was once owned by G.M., has been in talks with G.M., the auto task force and its lenders over its own restructuring. The administration has set an April 17 deadline for Delphi to reach an accord over G.M.'s continued support for the parts supplier, which could be pushed back as late as April 24, according to a person briefed on the matter.
Should Delphi fail to reach an agreement with G.M. and the administration, it could be forced to liquidate, this person said. In that event - a prospect that the task force is preparing for - the government and G.M. may acquire some parts of Delphi's business out of liquidation.
Micheline Maynard reported from Detroit and Michael J. de la Merced from New York.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
No comments:
Post a Comment