judicialsupport

Legal Writing for Legal Reading!

Archive for the tag “child”

American Airlines Flight Attendants Will Appeal Ruling On Facebook Sexual Harassment

The Melissa Chinery and Laura Medlin cases against American Airlines, cases currently being litigated by my firm, the Law Office of Faye Riva Cohen, P.C., have been featured in an article entitled “American Airlines Flight Attendants Will Appeal Ruling On Facebook Sexual Harassment,” in Forbes b published on September 12, 2018, which can be found here.

___________________________________

Two flight attendants who sued American Airlines, alleging that they were sexually harassed by male co-workers in Facebook postings, say they will appeal after a Philadelphia judge dismissed their cases.

Faye Riva Cohen, the Philadelphia attorney who represents flight attendants Melissa Chinery and Laura Medlin, said Tuesday that she will file in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in about a week.

“American Airlines is [generally] proactive in disciplining employees who do things that negatively impact the airline, but is dragging its heels in trying to enforce social media [policy] for their employees,” Cohen said.

“I feel [American] has no interest in social media policy,” Cohen said. “They just hang it out there.”

Cohen said the court did not adequately consider the new norms of the modern-day workplace, where social media has replaced lunchrooms and water coolers as sites where workers congregate, but bullying cannot be addressed face-to-face. “People are being bullied [and] there should be repercussions when that occurs,” she said, noting that flight attendants, who work with varying sets of co-workers, are particularly vulnerable.

The two flight attendants filed their case in March 2017 in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.  At the time, Chinery was based in Philadelphia while Laura Medlin was based in Charlotte. Chinery has since transferred to the Phoenix base. Their cases were consolidated.

The insults were posted within a Facebook group, whose membership is limited to American flight attendants, by a group of four to five Philadelphia-based male flight attendants.

Medlin said she was harassed with insulting terms including “sow,” while Chinery said she was referred to as “flipper,” a synonym for prostitute. Both women said the harassment was related to union activities in support of leaders whom their harassers opposed.

U.S. District Court Judge Eduardo Robreno dismissed the cases on August 27, when he granted American’s motions for summary judgement.

In Chinery’s case, Robreno ruled, “Looking at all of the complained of behavior objectively, even that which does not appear connected to gender and instead appears to be related to Chinery’s stance on union issues, the behavior does not amount to severe or pervasive sexual harassment.”

He cited behavior by the four men including posting a photograph of a broken record; referring to Chinery as “flipper,” saying the defendant “did not present a good appearance to passengers [and] allegedly posting a picture of a bedazzled vagina.”

“The court concludes that the complained-of conduct was not so objectively severe or pervasive that it would unreasonably interfere with an employee’s work performance,” wrote Robreno. He was nominated for his post in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush.

Regarding Medlin’s case, Robreno wrote that she alleged sexual harassment on Facebook, between 2012 and 2015, including calling her a “sow” and a “mean girl.”

“While there are a number of serious questions that are raised by Medlin’s claims, including whether the alleged harassment over Facebook was due to her sex rather than her opinions regarding labor unions and whether it actually occurred in a work environment, it is clear that the alleged instances of harassment were not adequately severe or pervasive to establish American’s liability,” Robreno ruled.

American spokesman Matt Miller said the carrier, “is proud to foster a work environment in which all team members are respected.

“When American receives reports of alleged harassment in the workplace, those complaints are investigated and appropriate action is taken,” Miller said.

NBI SEMINAR MATERIALS: Key Information to Present Regarding the Initial Claim

I  had the great opportunity to lead (perhaps “teach”) a continuing legal education seminar hosted by the National Business Institute.  The subject was “Human Resource Law From A to Z” and I had opportunity to speak on Unemployment Compensation.  I was joined by other capable attorneys who each had their own topics to present.

Although NBI published the materials, I retain the ownership of the portions I wrote, which I will post here in this blog.

Copied below are the materials I wrote for the section entitled “Key Information to Present Regarding the Initial Claim.”

Thanks!

__________

Key Information to Present Regarding the Initial Claim

The information provided when making an initial claim ranges from very basic information about one’s employment to the causes of one’s termination from employment.

Nowadays the initial claim is typically done via the Department of Labor’s website, which can be found here: https://www.uc.pa.gov/unemployment-benefits/file/Pages/File%20an%20Initial%20Claim.aspx

Aside from the website, there are other options to apply for benefits:

  • By telephone: statewide toll-free number at 1-888-313-7284 (open call hours are 8a.m. – 4p.m. Monday & Tuesday, 12p.m. – 6p.m. Wednesday, 8a.m. – 4p.m. Thursday and Friday from 8a.m. – 12p.m.);
  • Services for the deaf and hard of hearing:
  • TTY: 1-888-334-4046;
  • Videophone: 717-704-8474 every Wednesday from noon to 4p.m.;
  • Paper Form: a paper application can be downloaded and mailed to the address indicated on the form.

It is likely obvious, but the basics about one’s employment to include on an initial claim are as follows:

  • one’s dates of employ (first day of work, last day of work, and final day on payroll);
  • one’s rate of pay on the last day of work;
  • the name, address, and telephone number of oneself and one’s employer;
  • one’s social security number;
  • one’s email address;
  • pension or severance package information;
  • one’s bank account for the deposit of the benefits (optional);
  • one’s own personal identification number (if there has been a prior filing) and the employer’s account number (if known);
  • the cause of separation.

Describing one’s cause of separation is critical as certain causes of separation can render one ineligible for benefits (as described above).  As a result, a claimant must be judicious and precise when describing the cause of termination.  Unfortunately, the application only gives a few options (in a pull down menu if applying online) and these options are often overbroad, imprecise, and/or give the wrong impression as to the actual cause of separation.  One may offer an explanatory statement, but claimants often have insufficient space and write without consideration of legal consequences or precision.  Due to the limitations of the application process – and the difficultly claimants have in fully explaining the cause of their termination – it is not uncommon to be denied an initial claim.

Family Law Tip: Bankruptcy and Family Law

I post some tips regarding family to my Linkedin page (see here) from time to time, and I thought I should start sharing them here too.  Below is one of my family law tips, and you can read my articles on family law here and other posts on family law here and all are cataloged here.

NBI SEMINAR MATERIALS: General Rules on Who is Entitled to Unemployment Compensation

I  had the great opportunity to lead (perhaps “teach”) a continuing legal education seminar hosted by the National Business Institute.  The subject was “Human Resource Law From A to Z” and I had opportunity to speak on Unemployment Compensation.  I was joined by other capable attorneys who each had their own topics to present.

Although NBI published the materials, I retain the ownership of the portions I wrote, which I will post here in this blog.

Copied below are the materials I wrote for the section entitled “General Rules on Who is Entitled to Unemployment Compensation.”

Thanks!

__________

General Rules on Who is Entitled to Unemployment Compensation

  • Three Aspects of Eligibility

Eligibility for Unemployment Compensation is fairly straight forward.  The key element to keep in mind is that Unemployment Compensation benefits are designed to provide a source of income while someone is between jobs.  To that end, first, as directly implied by the name, one must be recently unemployed.  This is the most basic element of eligibility.  Upon being unemployed, there are three basis factors of eligibility.

First, one must have sufficient income during one’s base year.  A base year is the period of time that comprises the four quarters immediately prior to the quarter that precedes the quarter in which an application for benefits was submitted.  For example: if one’s application is submitted sometime in the months of July, August, and/or September of 2018, then one’s base year begins in April 2017 and ends in March 2018.  One must have sufficient qualifying income during the base year to ensure eligibility; this is calculated as follows: the amount of income required for eligibility is determined by using the base year quarter with the highest income (the so-called “High Quarter”) as a guideline.  In other words, one cannot have earned all of one’s income in a single quarter in the base year to be eligible for benefits.  At least thirty-seven percent (37%) of one’s income must be earned in one or more quarters other than the High Quarter.  For example, if one’s High Quarter was $63,000 then one must have at least $100,000 in total qualifying wages in the base year.  If not, then one would not be eligible for benefits.

Second, one must be available, able, and willing to work.  Being “able” to work in this context is rather literal.  It addresses whether one is physically and/or mentally capable of working.  If one is separated from his employment due to a physical or mental disability or injury and is rendered unable to work at all, one cannot receive Unemployment Compensation benefits as he is unable to work.  As long as the Claimant can work some job, even if it is not the job he left, he can still be eligible for benefits.  To that end, one must be actively engaged in searching for a job.  Relatedly, if one refuses suitable work when it becomes available, then one is rendered ineligible for benefits.

Third, and perhaps counter intuitively, how to determine eligibility is, perhaps, best explained by elucidating what makes one ineligible for benefits.

The most common causes of ineligibility are: (1) voluntary termination; (2) willful misconduct; and, (3) being an independent contractor (and/or self-employed).

 

  • Voluntary Termination

Voluntary termination of one’s employment refers to someone quitting his job.  One cannot voluntarily quit his employment and collect benefits.  Put conversely, one has to be terminated from employment involuntarily.  Customarily, an involuntary termination is due to things like a furlough or lay off, downsizing, and/or an employment relationship that simply did not work out.  By contrast, a voluntary quit typically refers to things like quitting to take a new job, to go to school, to retire, and/or to move to a new locale, among other things.  If someone voluntarily terminates his own employment, then he is ineligible for benefits.

Three general exceptions to “voluntary termination” as described above are a hostile work environment, a change in working conditions, and a disability of some sort (as described above).

For example, if someone is a target of sexual harassment, discrimination, or even general mistreatment, and feels compelled to quit to escape the hostile work environment, then such termination would be considered constructively involuntary.  In other words, even though on its face it appears the employee quit his job voluntarily (as he was not fired or laid off, etc), if the working environment is so bad that a reasonable person could no work in it, the quit is considered involuntary as no one should be expected to work in such conditions.

Second, a change in working conditions includes things like a significant change in location, hours, or compensation.  For example, if the location of one’s job moves fifty (50) miles away, then that would be a substantial change in location to render continued employment extremely difficult if not impossible.  Quitting one’s job due to such a relocation is not considered voluntary.  An important caveat to this general rule applies when someone, despite the relocation, elects to try and tough it out for a time.  If someone continues to work for an extended time despite the relocation, his eventual quit could be considered voluntary (and render the employee ineligible for benefits) as the relocation did not make it immediately impossible to work.  Similarly, being laid off due to the work being seasonal, or due to a work lock out, constitutes involuntary termination rendering the claimant eligible for benefits.  Relatedly, if someone quits his job to accept another, better, job (or part-time to full-time) and that new job unexpectedly falls through, then that would not constitute a voluntary quit.

It is important to keep in mind that quitting one’s job to go to school, accept a retirement buy out, look for other work, start a business, and/or participate in a union strike, constitutes voluntary termination to render one ineligible for benefits.

Finally, as briefly mentioned above, there are times when a physical or mental disability or injury causes one to be unable to perform his job.  If that disability/injury renders one unable to work any job, then one is ineligible for benefits; however, if that disability/injury renders one unable to work one’s current job, but still able to work others, then one could be eligible.  For example, if someone is a construction worker, and hurts his foot and cannot stand for long periods of time, he may have to leave his construction job, but could work another job where he could sit (e.g.: a desk job).  In this case, his quitting the construction job would be considered involuntary (as he would still work there but for the injury), but as he is still able to work, he is eligible for benefits.

 

  • Willful Misconduct

As mentioned above, being involuntarily terminated is an element of being eligible for benefits, and forms of involuntary termination include furlough or lay off, downsizing, and/or an employment relationship that simply did not work out.  By contrast, however, another form of involuntary termination, which does not lead to eligibility, is termination due to willful misconduct.  To put it in more common parlance, one is not eligible for benefits if he is fired for cause.  Willful misconduct is rather self-explanatory: it is to willfully break a work rule and get fired as a result.  If this occurs, the employee who is terminated due to willful misconduct is ineligible for benefits.  There are a couple of narrow exceptions to ineligibility due to willful misconduct.  First, if the misconduct is not particularly egregious, and only happened once, then it is possible to be eligible for benefits despite the termination for the misconduct.  Second, if the misconduct was the result of mistake or error, then it would not be considered “willful” and, therefore, the terminated employee could be eligible.  Third, if the work rule that was broken is inconsistently applied or enforced, then it is possible a termination based on that rule would not be considered willful misconduct as a result.  Finally, if violating the work rule was for a good or justifiable reason, it would not be considered willful misconduct.  For example, a delivery company may have a rule prohibiting its trucks from being used for personal reasons.  If a driver of one of those trucks had a medical emergency, or, say, learned that his child was having a medical emergency, and diverted from his route due to that emergency, one could argue that the breaking of the rule was not “willful,” but rather due to a reasonable response to an emergent situation.

 

  • Employee or Contractor?

In order to be eligible for benefits, one must have been someone else’s employee.  If someone is self-employed, or is an independent contractor, then one is not, or has not, been someone else’s employee and, therefore would not be eligible for benefits if the work being done by that person is somehow terminated or concluded.

The obvious question is how one can determine if someone is an employee or a contractor (or self-employed).  Some (alleged) employers do not maintain a payroll (but pay their workers through standard checks instead), and some do not pay for supplies, while still others provide little oversight.  What is the status of those who work for these alleged employers?

In order to determine whether someone is an employee or a contractor, the Pennsylvania Courts use the following two-part test to determine whether an individual is self-employed (i.e.: independently contracting): (1) is the claimant free from control and direction in the performance of the work? and, (2) is the business one that is customarily engaged in as an independent trade or business?

To determine whether an individual is free from the control and direction of an employer in the performance of work, the Unemployment Compensation referees and Pennsylvania Courts frequently look to eight (8) factors.  No one factor is determinative as to whether an individual is an employee or independent contractor, and the Court generally considers and weighs all eight (8) factors in the employment relationship.

The eight (8) factors that are considered are as follows: first, how was the job was performed?  Specifically, it is more likely that an individual is an independent contractor if he sets his own hours, creates his own work/task agenda, and/or decides how many other workers are needed for a particular task.  Second, is there was a fixed rate of remuneration?  Who decides the cost of the services being provided?  Who decides when/if raises are granted?  A worker who establishes his own pay rate and decides when his own pay rate increases or decreases is functioning more like an independent contractor than employee.  Third, are taxes deducted from the claimant’s remuneration?  It is more likely that a worker is an independent contractor if the worker receives a 1099 form and is able to deduct expenses and be responsible for paying his own taxes.  Fourth, does the alleged employer supply the tools necessary to carry out the services being provided?  If the worker must provide and use his own tools to carry out his tasks, it is more likely to rule that the worker is an independent contractor.  Fifth, does the alleged employer offer on-the-job training?  If an alleged employer provides on-the-job training, it is more likely to rule that there is an employment relationship.  Sixth, are there regular meetings with the alleged employer?  Regular meetings generally will signify an employment relationship.  Seventh, will the claimant suffer risk of loss when claimant’s expenses exceed income?  In other words, if the business fails, will the alleged employee merely lose his job, or will the alleged employee have the responsibility to satisfy the business’ potential creditors.  If the alleged employee merely loses his job, and has no responsibility to address the business’ creditors, then it is likely that he is an employee rather than an independent contractor.  Eighth, is the claimant compelled to look only to the employer for further employment?  If a worker regularly sought and/or acquired the same or similar work from other sources, while already engaged with an alleged employer, then it is likely that the worker had independent contracting relationships with his employers.

The explanation typically given for why a self-employed person would not be eligible for benefits is the risk of benefits fraud through the hiring and firing of oneself in order to collect benefits.

One minor exception to the above is the so-called “sideline activity.”  It is not uncommon for someone to work a full time job as an employee but, in his spare time, earn a few extra dollars doing a sideline activity.  For example, someone could work a typical 9am to 5pm, Monday through Friday, job, but on the weekends work a few hours doing landscaping or wedding photography or the like as a sideline activity.  If this person lost his day job involuntarily, his sideline activity would not cause him to be ineligible due to self-employment.  Relatedly, losing the sideline activity would not constitute being unemployed sufficient to be eligible for benefits.  The main pitfall regarding a sideline activity is if the hours spent at that activity expands beyond being merely a “sideline,” and into one’s primary source of income.  The typical situation where this would occur is if one loses a day job and, in order to cover one’s bills and expenses, expands out the sideline activity to more hours.  Suddenly, a sideline activity – which would have no effect on eligibility – would convert someone into being self-employed and, therefore, ineligible for benefits.

It is worth noting that, by statute, someone who works for a religious institution (e.g.: a clergyman), someone who works some agricultural jobs, and someone who works for family, among a handful of other categories, are not eligible for benefits regardless of how or why they are terminated from employment.

Finally, unemployment compensation follows strict deadlines.  If one misses an appeal deadline – even by one day – it will render the claimant ineligible for benefits for the benefit weeks for which the benefits are applied.

Judge Overrules Jury Saying No Religious Discrimination By Homeowners Association Was Shown

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Morris v. West Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Association, Inc., (D ID, April 4, 2019), an Idaho federal district judge enjoined a Christian couple from hosting an elaborate Christmas display that violates Homeowner Association Rules. As described by the Spokane Spokesman-Review’s report on the decision:

On one side, a devoutly Christian couple throwing extravagant celebrations for thousands at a home decked to the halls with 200,000 light bulbs. At times, even featuring a camel and donkey to re-create the Nativity scene.

On the opposite side, a Hayden homeowners association with specific rules that prohibited such excessive celebrations – and the noise that follows – in favor of a more modest showing of holiday spirit.

Despite a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs, the court ruled as a matter of law that plaintiffs had not shown that the Homeowners Association discriminated against them on the basis of religion in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act.  Plaintiff had pointed to a letter from the Homeowners Association which described rule violations that would be involved in the Christmas display.  The letter added that some of the subdivision residents are non-Christians.  The court said in part:

While January 2015 Letter was not drafted with lawyerly precision and contained a boorish reference to “undesireables,” it cannot be read as evidence that the Homeowners Association intended to discriminate against Plaintiffs because they were Christian. On this score, the Court notes that several members of the Board were practicing Christians. Furthermore, Board President Jennifer Scott is both a practicing Christian and married to a Christian minister. The Court is not suggesting that Christians cannot, per se, discriminate against other Christians. But, the fact that the Board was at least partially composed of practicing Christians significantly decreases the probability that the Board intended to discriminate against Plaintiffs based on a faith shared by both Plaintiffs and several Board members.

The court concluded that the jury was likely prejudiced by testimony which they were instructed to ignore relating to threats received by plaintiffs from other homeowners who were not Association board members.  Because the decision is likely to be appealed, the court held that if its conclusion of law was reversed, defendants should be granted a new trial or alternatively the jury’s award of $75,000 in damages should be reduced to $4.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Family Law Tip – A Spouse’s Income and Child Support

I post some tips regarding family to my Linkedin page (see here) from time to time, and I thought I should start sharing them here too.  Below is one of my family law tips, and you can read my articles on family law here and other posts on family law here and all are cataloged here.

Court Says RLUIPA Claims By Mosque May Proceed

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Adam Community Center v. City of Troy, (ED MI, April 3, 2019), a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss RLUIPA substantial burden, discrimination and unequal treatment claims brought against the city of Troy, Michigan and various of its zoning officials.  At issue was the city’s denial of a zoning variance for setback requirements that would have allowed Adam Community Center to use an existing commercial building as a mosque. The court said in part:

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently states a substantial burden claim. Plaintiff alleges that it cannot conduct prayer services in its current facility, that there are no Muslim places of worship within the City for Plaintiff and its community members to practice their religion, that there are no other properties available in the City that satisfy the City’s zoning requirements for places of worship, and that not having a place of worship within the City poses a substantial burden on its ability to engage in religious exercise. Plaintiff also alleges facts, which if true, would support its theory that the City acted with discriminatory intent and treated Plaintiff differently from other faith based organizations. Plaintiff specifically alleges that the zoning laws have not been applied neutrally to it and that commercial businesses and Christian churches are treated more favorably.

Detroit News reports on the decision.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Family Law Tip – Does a Reduction of Income Lead to a Reduction in Support?

I post some tips regarding family to my Linkedin page (see here) from time to time, and I thought I should start sharing them here too.  Below is one of my family law tips, and you can read my articles on family law here and other posts on family law here and all are cataloged here.

Family Law Tip – Child Support after Age 18

I post some tips regarding family to my Linkedin page (see here) from time to time, and I thought I should start sharing them here too.  Below is one of my family law tips, and you can read my articles on family law here and other posts on family law here and all are cataloged here.

What is the Global Economy?

Whenever the topic of the local economy is brought up, economic pundits quickly remind us that we live in a “global economy,” but what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that economic activity now takes place across the globe whereas it previously did not? Does it mean that economic activity occurs much more rapidly than it previously did? Does it mean that human society has changed to the point where the economies of different countries with different cultures are irrevocably linked together? The answer to each of these questions is no.

Global economic activity has been around for over 2,000 years. The speed at which economic activity takes place is certainly faster, but this increased speed is of little to no consequence to the small and medium-sized business—in other words the overwhelming majority of businesses in the world. In what way have our economies become linked together that the failure of a small percentage of the mortgages in the USA resulted in a world-wide economic crisis, the consequences of which are still affecting us after four years? Is this link something that is irrevocable? What does it really mean when economists talk about the “global economy,” and why is it brought up as some sort of argument against supporting the local economy?

I submit that the global economy is really nothing more than the fact that the banking industry and some very large companies have expanded to the point where they don’t really have any national loyalty. Any claim to a national identity is merely a facade; they hold no national allegiance and their only interest in any country is the ability to make a profit. The large international companies make claims of nationality, their headquarters have to be somewhere, but their operations, offices and factories span the globe. Their national claims often appear to nothing more than marketing in their countries of origin. They love free trade agreements because these allow them to lay off more expensive workers in their country of origin and replace them with less expensive workers in another. This increases their profits without regard to the impact in their home country or to their employees.

The only interest the international banks seem to have in any country is the ability to give it loans. It is true that some of them perform a specific function within a country that is integral to that country. The U.S. Federal Reserve controls the currency in the United States. Likewise with the Bank of England and the European Central Bank. However, all of these institutions participate in the funding of governments all around the world. When they do not do so directly, they act through an intermediate financial institution like the International Monetary Fund. They do not function for the benefit, even in a primary sense, of their supposed country.

Because so many countries have relinquished their sovereign right to control their own currencies to these international entities, and have become so indebted to them, they have become completely dependent on them. The claims that these banks have become “too big to fail” raises the question of why they are too big to fail. If they fail, the governments dependent on them fail with them. Without the seemingly endless lines of credit to fund them, governments would have to stop making promises to provide programs they cannot afford. That is a reality no politician wants exposed to the public. If a government had its loans called, it would be shown to be bankrupt. This is why the giant banks, rather than small businesses, had to be bailed out. In the case of global corporations, the ones “too big to fail” were those with extensive ties to the government through contracts and political influence (lobbying and economic power) that they could exert.

The “global economy” is nothing more than near complete dependence of governments on the global banks and international corporations. No State is prepared to operate without them. In other words, the “Global Economy” is not about providing for the economic needs of the community, the region, or even the state. It is not about the production of wealth for the people of a country. It is mainly about finance, which is only one part of economics, and maintaining the consolidated state of wealth on which governments depend so that they can redistribute that wealth through social programs. This may explain why the efforts to solve the economic crisis are ineffective and inadequate for the average family and business. Interest rates are not kept artificially low so that people can get out of debt, but so that they can remain in debt to the banks.

This situation, regardless of how emphatically the economic pundits would like us to believe otherwise, is not a necessary one, and it is certainly no argument against advocating for the local economy. After all, why should the cost of the groceries in your local market be influenced by something that happens in another country? The reason is that we have forgotten the value of the local economy, and, consequently, have lost the local economy itself. I am not discussing city planning and budgeting, that is not “the local economy.” The local economy is the ability of the local community to be self-sufficient and to support its own productive economic activity. It is the next logical expansion of the root meaning of economy in general—which is home management.

Take a look at the typical large city of today. From where do the products needed for daily life come? How would the families and businesses cope if a disaster in another region cut off their normal supply chain for food? For example, The city of Seattle is surrounded by smaller cities (urban areas) and suburban areas which do not produce anywhere near the amount of products used by its population. Seattlites sit in chairs and work at desks made in other cities and even other countries. They drink from cups, use pens and pencils, and wear clothes that are all made somewhere else. The surrounding rural areas do not produce anywhere near the amount of food needed to support the area. Seattlites are dependent upon remote suppliers, typically large industrialized farms which are the central providers for many large cities around the country and the world. When a production problem occurs on one of these giant farms, the ramifications are wide-spread. When another city experiences a disaster, the extra resources sent to assist them can create a shortage in other regions. The widespread dependence on centralized providers of basic necessities creates a situation where continued access to those necessities is more tenuous than most of us would like to believe.

Another example of widespread dependence on centralized production can be seen by a recent issue for the computer industry. Global free trade was supposed to make the market more diverse and ensure that we had a ready supply of needed items from anywhere in the world. What actually happened is that production of parts needed around the world became centralized, not just to single countries, but to single regions in those countries. The case to which I am referring is the manufacture of hard disks for computers. Flooding in one region of one country resulted in a worldwide shortage of hard disks, which impacted the ability of businesses around the world to maintain existing servers or install new ones.

In the past, a city viewed the surrounding rural community as an integral part of its life. The city provided goods and services for the rural community, and the rural community provided the basic necessities of food and other agricultural products needed by the city. In other words, each functioned as the primary market for the other and their combined economic activity established a complete, self-sufficient community in which families were able to provide for their needs and wants. Every producer and service provider in the community viewed the other members of the community as their primary customers. Rather than looking for cut-throat prices, they understood it was in their best interest to give their custom to local businesses. The best way to ensure their own economic success was to ensure the economic success of their customers. This works to make the local economy stable because most economic activity ends up being circular and self-supporting. I buy from you and you buy from me. By being each others’ customers, we keep each other in business, which allows both of us to remain each others’ customer.

Am I, by saying this, arguing against global trade, or trade in general? Not at all. The merchants in the city engaged in trade, which not only brought in desired goods from distant lands, but also opened up those distant markets to any excess production of the local community. Because most economic activity was local, it was also resilient. Not only would a problem in another community have little impact on the overall local economic situation, but the local community could more directly assist that other community. This could circumvent the need for state or federal assistance for all but the most wide-spread of disasters.

If economic activity across the country was primarily local, the overall economy of the country would be self-sufficient because the local economies would be self-sufficient. The overall economy of the country would be stable because the local economies would be stable. The overall economy of the country would be resilient because the local economies would be resilient. There would still be regional and global trade because the desire for other goods would still be present, but there would not be a dependence on those goods.

By David W. Cooney and originally published in The Distributist Review on August 18, 2012 and can be found here.

Post Navigation