TresSugar

Group Therapy: Should I Quit or Try to Make It Work?

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 03:00:00 -0700

I have been a preschool teacher for four years. During that time, I have been faced with some challenging behaviors from children - 4- and 5-year-olds. Over this past week, I have experienced some issues with a particular child I just don't know what to do about. This boy gets very agitated easily and becomes very violent. When he was in the younger room, he would assault the kids, destroy the room, and eventually lead the teacher to quit. He split her lip open. Parents were outraged and a couple families even pulled their children from the class.

The director said that she will never kick a child out and wants to help him. I agree he needs help; however, this has been going on for five months and has only slightly improved. Initially due to his parent's split, it looked like he was going to move away, but then my boss informed me that he would be coming back to my class. He started last Monday and the class has been turned upside down. We were not given any instruction on how to deal with his outbursts until after they had already happened. Tuesday, he spit, punched, kicked, and scratched one of my assistants because he didn't want to follow the rules. Wednesday he came after me because he didn't want to put his mat away after nap and punched me from behind.

Yesterday might have been the last straw for me. He was interrupting the entire group and I asked him to stop, which only led to violence. Later in the day he did not want to share his toys, so he threw the tray across the room and then picked up a chair and threw it across the table, almost hitting other kids. My boss says that we have to physically restrain him when he hits, but I am not comfortable with that. He needs help, but I don't think that we are trained for this. My boss is in and out of the classroom to help, but he needs special care. Should I call it quits and protect myself or should I try to make it work?

[EDITOR'S NOTE: To be involved in more GROUP THERAPY, click here]

Source

Beauty and the Geek: Lawmaker Wants Models Off Tech Visas

LibertySugar — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:00:04 -0700

International geeks may be able to thank their beautiful counterparts for freeing up about 1,000 H1-B visas. Congressman Anthony Weiner, from New York, wants to end the practice of making foreign models and foreign hi-tech workers compete with each other for a limited number of work visas.

Rep. Weiner wants Congress to create a separate immigration class for models. Oh, and in case you were wondering - foreign supermodels such as Gisele Bundchen already qualify for super O-1 visas, those reserved for immigrants with extraordinary ability, like Nobel Prize winners.

Of course creating a Beautiful People Visa would not solve the HB-1 visa crunch. The 65,000 H-1B visas granted this year were snatched up in one day. Bill Gates told Congress last March that the tight controls force companies to outsource jobs overseas.

When companies, technology or fashion, set up global businesses they're likely to go where they can hire the best, brightest, and beautifulist. Should America do more to fight the brain and beauty drain?

Source

Florida County Tells Smoking Job Applicants to Butt Out

LibertySugar — Wed, 21 May 2008 10:00:58 -0700

Sarasota County in Southwest Florida has just announced it will no longer be hiring smokers. In the interest of taxpayers, the county hopes to cultivate a less expensive and more productive work force.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, smoking employees cost an extra $3,400 a year in health care and lost productivity costs.

While it saves resources, Sarasota County doesn't have to worry about being slapped with a discrimination lawsuit - in 1995, Florida's supreme court ruled that smokers are legal victims of employment discrimination. Still, other counties in Florida take a less extreme approach, hiring smokers, while requiring them to pay more for health care, and attend smoking cessation classes.

Is it fair to exclude even super-productive smokers based on a broad statistic? Does the county have an obligation to cut costs, and thus refuse to hire smokers? Will this type of discrimination eventually lead to a smoke free America? Should employers refuse to hire individuals based on other bad habits and health problems?

Source

Bill Gates: Tight Immigration Leads to Outsourcing

LibertySugar — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:00:33 -0700

Allowing more foreigners to work in the US would not steal jobs away from Americans. Instead, it would create more jobs for Americans. That's what Bill Gates told Congress today, when he urged lawmakers to increase the number of visas available for high-skilled immigrants. The 65,000 H-1B visas granted this year were snatched up in one day, and Gates believes that the tight controls force companies to outsource jobs overseas.

Gates told the panel:

Microsoft has found that for every H-1B hire we make, we add on average four additional employees to support them in various capacities.

Are you surprised by the counterintuitive link between importing high-skilled professionals and creating more jobs for Americans? Why do you think America needs more foreign workers to keep its high-tech industry competitive?

Source

Employee Recognition Program Gets Realistic

GiggleSugar — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 02:00:00 -0700

It's a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it.

Source

Shelf Stocker Thinks He's Funny

GiggleSugar — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 04:00:00 -0700

And you thought what happened to Bambi's mother was bad?

Source

How To Score A Job. I Think.

GiggleSugar — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 03:00:00 -0700

For a larger version, go here and then click on the document to magnify it.

Abortion Coverage: Missing What Many Never Knew They Had

TresSugar — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:00:03 -0800

One of the most convincing arguments for passing the public health plan without abortion coverage is that very few women use insurance to cover abortions to begin with. But if you've heard the statistic that only 13 percent of abortions are billed to insurers, that's not exactly the whole truth.

The Guttmacher Institute, the pro-choice organization responsible for the study the stats were pulled from, contests the 13 percent statistic has been taken out of context and widely used through the media - like, say, in the Wall Street Journal article we linked to yesterday.

While the study does say only 13 percent of first-term abortions are billed to private insurers, that figure is skewed because it looked at all women who had abortions and not just those who had insurance. You can't bill an insurer if you don't have one! The study also did not include women who paid for abortions up front and were later reimbursed.

So what's a realistic number? Nobody really knows because of the private nature of abortions. Another Guttmacher study found that 87 percent of employer-based insurance plans covered abortions, but a Kaiser Family Foundation study found that only 46 percent of covered workers reported coverage. Why such a big a difference? Many women just don't know their insurance covers abortion.

As Congress continues to debate the public health plan, do you care if it includes abortion coverage? Can we miss something so many women never knew they had?

Source: Flickr User amypritchizzle

If Women Have to Pay For Abortion, What Does It Cost?

TresSugar — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:00:52 -0800

The initial reaction to the Stupak amendment - which forbids coverage for abortion from a public insurance plan and prevents private insurers from covering abortions for anyone getting a tax credit - was not anger for many women, but "What? Health insurance covers abortions?!"

Looking into the issue, the Wall Street Journal found that eliminating abortion coverage would have almost no effect because so few women use insurance for the procedure. Women often pay out of pocket because they don't realize insurance covers abortion, or because they choose to keep it private from employer-provided plans or other subscribers, like parents and husbands.

So since many women are paying for their abortions now - and, unfortunately, more may be soon - what do they cost? Take this quiz to find out.

Take the quiz

Should the Government Tell People to Lose Weight?

CitizenSugar — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:15:45 -0700

Big Mac attacks in Tokyo have caused expanding Japanese waistlines to spur the government into action. Statistics collected by Japan's government found on average, Japanese men are 10 percent heavier than they were only 10 years ago, and the women are catching up. The solution? The government is requiring employers to slim the number of overweight employees by 10 percent by 2012 and 25 percent by 2015. The belt-circumference limit is 34 inches for men, and 35 inches for the gals.

Earlier this year, the UK government started toying with the notions of healthy food vouchers and cash prizes for slimming down. Ministers said the Health Service said:

We will look at using financial incentives, such as payments, vouchers, and other rewards, to encourage individuals to lose weight and sustain that weight loss, to eat more healthily, or to be consistently more physically active.

Some employers in the US are side stepping the government and taking matters into their own hands - incentives for weight loss are common, with some up to as much as $50 per month for employees who achieve and maintain a loss of 30 percent of body weight. There's a whole program called IncentaHealth that advertises incentivizing health by paying employees to drop pounds, will "improve your bottom line." The idea might not be far off, as a new report shows obesity costs US employers $45 billion a year.

Is it the government's place to say what size pants you need? Are they right to get involved?

Source