Emblem of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood
If you do not know the answer to the question in the title of this post, see Betteridge’s Law. Also, shame on you. You are a bigot and you are unamerican. We are a nation built on religious tolerance. Whatever opinions you might hold as to any religious faith, our country has never been and will never be at war with a religion.
Having said that, the United States of America is now into our second decade of war with certain Islamic extremist groups as we all know. And, unfortunately, many Americans have obviously found it difficult to draw a distinction between the Muslim faith, broadly, and the much smaller number of extremist Islamic groups who have, in fact, literally waged war on the United States.
I suppose one can easily conclude that there are ignorant hateful bigots on both sides.
But what, in the world, does this have to do with Minnesota, where we are progressive, peaceful, inclusive, tolerant — above average?
Minnesota home care workers voted to unionize this past week.
Some of us are pro-union. Others of us are anti-union. Still others have a nuanced view that there are good unions and bad unions. There are occupations where it seems appropriate for workers to have some means of collective bargaining. There are situations where unions become bloated or corrupt, where they hurt industry, and where they cost jobs.
But all can agree, I hope, that home care workers, unionized or not, do very hard work and very important work for very little money (compared to what a lot of other people get paid for their work). And so, for a day, Labor Day, let’s set aside partisanship and ideology and just celebrate all of the people who do all the hard work. HAPPY LABOR DAY!
Make up an “emergency” and launch the costly and stressful exercise of seeking emergency relief that is dead on arrival. (This is not all that uncommon, unfortunately.)
If you are not already reading DuetsBlog and you are interested in the best IP/trademark blog in Minnesota (and beyond) by far, you are missing out.
Check out this Lulu of a post (and post of a few Lulu’s)…
(To be fair to the lawyers who embark on these Quixotic and futile exercises, sometimes clients come into lawyers’ offices breathless and sputtering with intensity and more or less order lawyers to undertake such actions. Practice pointer: Just say no.)
The extraordinary cost and burden of discovery of ESI in U.S. litigation has been widely recognized and decried for the past 15 years or more. This is changing.
And about a year ago, I did a post on how trial lawyers’ “idiots’ bargain” created an equilibrium, a balance, or a moratorium of sorts, in which lawyers on both sides of the table maneuver or negotiate around electronic discovery obligations so both sides could avoid the potentially huge expense to their clients and also exposing lawyers’ and law firms’ technological incompetence or sloppiness. But the days of truce are numbered if not over. Electronic discovery costs are coming down and lawyers’ knowledge of e-discovery tools (and using them more carefully) goes up.
But note the lengthy and insightful comment of Chris Chalstrom, CEO and President of Shepherd Data, below. With cost savings and cut corners like strictly defined key word searches, you may be “penny-wise and pound foolish.”
Update (August 28, 2014): I guess we’ll see what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has to say…
Original post (July 31, 2014): Apparently not. United States Court Judge Susan R. Nelson (D. Minn.) has thrown out a putative class action against a lock manufacturer who, it is alleged, has made and sold a few lock models that are “stupidly simple” to pick.
The issue: no standing. That is, in the Court’s view, based on recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the plaintiffs have suffered no injury (or “no present injury in fact for purposes of standing”). Really?