David Lazarus fills in for Larry to discuss gun control and the fight over movie money between Hollywood and Silicon Valley. We'll also discuss the president of France and his ban on homework. Could it work in the U.S.? Later, we consider whether someone an employer considers to be "irresistibly attractive" should be fired. All that and more, today on AirTalk.
Do we need more gun laws, or just stronger enforcement of the ones we have?
On Monday in upstate New York a 62-year-old man who was once convicted of manslaughter ambushed and shot four firefighters who had responded to a fire at his home. Two of the firefighters were killed, and two were seriously wounded; the gunman then shot and killed himself. Convicted felons are not allowed to own firearms, so the question is – how did William Spengler obtain his arsenal of weapons? Should the existing gun laws in this country be enough to keep guns out of the hands of a convicted felon? This and other recent tragedies such as the Sandy Hook shooting have focused a sharp lens on gun policy in this country. But while both gun owners and gun control advocates agree that something has to be done, where do we start? Do tougher guns laws need to go into effect immediately? Or is it going to take generations of different thinking to change the culture?
Guests:
Erika Aguilar, KPCC reporter, speaking with us from the LAPD gun buyback at the Los Angeles Sports Arena
John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws" He was also the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission.
Jack Scott, former state senator (CA-D), gun control advocate who began his efforts after his son Adam was fatally shot
North and South: will Hollywood or Silicon Valley win the battle over America’s movie money?
This is one in a series of year-end stories that look back at the most memorable pieces KPCC reporters worked on in 2012 and look ahead at a key issue that will be the focus of coverage in the coming year.
Two of California's most important industries are having a little problem: They can't get along. And they may never get along. Hollywood is the world's entertainment capital. Silicon Valley is the world's technology capital. Hollywood is Southern California and "laid back" Los Angeles while the Valley is Northern California and the nerdy, youthful energy of hundred of San Francisco Bay Area startups. There are riches to be had in both realms. But Hollywood has been making people rich for a century. It’s old money. It’s mansion and Malibu. Silicon Valley’s riches are much, much newer. And no one cares about how big your house is. It’s all about how big your brain is. Despite that, both Hollywood and Silicon Valley realize that they need each other.
Guest:
Matt DeBord, KPCC business reporter, writes The DeBord report
French president to abolish homework - should the U.S. do the same?
While America is home to some harsh critics of France, it might have gained a few new supporters, particularly amongst those who are still in school. That’s because President François Hollande announced that he intends to ban homework for all primary and middle school students.
While students in France may be celebrating, their counterparts in the United States are being drowned with homework. Critics of homework in this country range from limiting the amount teachers are allowed to assign to abolishing it completely. That’s because many progressive educators claim that there is no correlation between homework and the ability to make good decisions later in life.
To them, and to most students, homework is simply designed to keep children busy or as a means to check an objective off a list of core standards. But not everyone is against homework in the United States. Some claim that there is a correlation between school success and homework, but even that is not a very strong correlation and there are still criticisms that homework is assigned too heavily.
Which camp do you agree with? What about your kids? Do you find yourself scratching your head when you’re asked to help them with an assignment? Have you seen homework make a difference in your child’s education?
Guest:
Steven Schlossman, Professor of History specializing in education at Carnegie Mellon University
Patricia Hinchey, Ph.D, Professor of Education at Penn State
What will Obamacare cost California? It’s anybody’s guess
8.2 million California currently lack health insurance. Many hope that will change when the Affordable Care Act (ACA) rolls out in 2014, but it’s almost anyone’s guess what the final bill will be for California.
In 2010, state officials said it would cost California $2.7 billion annually; this year they estimated annual costs would be in the, “low hundreds of millions of dollars”; and the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation recently pegged it at almost $14 billion for the first decade.
The discrepancies lie in uncertainty over how many people will sign up for Medi-Cal, the public insurance program for the poor. And in spite of the Californians who will gain health insurance from the ACA, the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research estimates that by 2019, 4.1 million Californians will remain uninsured and rely on emergency rooms for their care, the cost of which counties will still need to absorb.
That intensifies the debate because Brown’s administration is already suggesting reducing Sacramento’s annual $1.4 billion to counties to help them care for the uninsured. David looks at the numbers.
Guest:
Kavita K. Patel, adjunct assistant clinical professor at UCLA’s Geffen School of Medicine
Too sexy for my office? Iowa woman fired for being ‘too attractive’
An Iowa Supreme Court composed of only male judges ruled unanimously that a dentist who fired his employee because he and his wife viewed her as a threat to their marriage was acting within the law.
The court determined that employers could fire someone they consider to be an “irresistible attraction,” regardless of the nature of their relationship with the employee.
Dentist James Knight fired Melissa Nelson after his wife became wary about text messages between the two. Nelson, who is married and has children, says that she had no interest in a sexual or romantic relationship with her boss, who she saw as a father figure, and claims that her messages were friendly. Knight still saw her attractiveness as a threat, and fired her after consulting with his wife and pastor.
In his defense, Knight’s lawyers claimed that the termination was not an act of gender discrimination – Knight did not fire Nelson because she was a woman, but because she was an irresistible attraction.
Although the court ruled in his favor, many critics have jumped to Nelson’s defense, saying that the all-male court failed to recognize the gender discrimination women face in the workplace. They argue that the judges have sent the message that men can’t be held responsible for controlling their desires, and that responsibility for monitoring attraction falls on female employees.
Although the law would presumably protect a female boss who fired a male employee, or a boss attracted to an employee of the same-sex, if the gender imbalance in sexual harassment reports is any indicator, those circumstances would be far less likely.
While hiring and firing power lies with employers, especially in small business without a formal HR presence, the lines between preference and discrimination are frequently blurry.
According to employment law specialist Nancy Bornn, similar legislation may not go over so well in other states. In California, where she practices, there are currently no similar laws protecting employers who want to fire those they find themselves attracted to. Bornn doubts that laws making such action legal would pass anytime soon.
Bornn also speculates that the Iowa decision could be backlash from more liberal moves made by Iowa courts in recent years. She cites the fact that four newly appointed judges sat on the panel that determined Knight to be within his rights – the Governor who put them on the bench is a Republican, Terry Branstad. Since Iowa’s landmark decision in 2009 to legalize same-sex marriage, there has been widespread disapproval in the popular vote of judges who took part in allowing the measure to pass. The result? A more conservative Iowan court.
Defenders of Knight’s decision claim that he was within his rights, legally and morally, to terminate Nelson’s employment. Subjective hiring and firing should be allowed in a small business, and if Knight found Nelson to be a distraction he felt could turn into a threat to his personal life, shouldn’t he be allowed to fire her? Bornn says no.
“Whether she’s attractive or she’s not attractive, this is a man who’s out there saying ‘I can’t control my emotions, therefore I should have the right to fire somebody who might be a potential threat to me,’” said Bornn, adding that the argument for family values, while politically compelling, is not an excuse for what she claims is clearly a gender issue.
So, should culpability for unreciprocated workplace attraction rest on the employer, on the employee, or both? What should bosses who find themselves distracted by an attractive employee do to control their feelings?
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, private businesses are not allowed to discriminate based on sex, race, sexual orientation, age, or other distinguishing factors. Title VII restrictions vary by state and the size of a business – Bornn notes that in California, businesses with even one employee must uphold Title VII.
She says that this, along with the fact that the mental state of the perpetrators is irrelevant in sexual harassment cases, would make a case like this an unlikely victory in more liberal states where judges and voters are more likely to draw distinctions between sexual harassment and gender discrimination.
Could Knight’s decision to fire Nelson for being too attractive be considered sexual harassment? Should employers be able to fire anyone they deem “irresistible,” even if the person being fired has shown absolutely no interest in pursuing a relationship? Even if the decision to terminate employment based on attraction is legal, is it morally out of bounds? Have you ever been fired for no reason, or a bad one?
Guest:
Nancy Bornn, employment law attorney with a practice in Marina Del Rey
Les Mis and the future of movie musicals:
The highly anticipated musical-cum-movie Les Miserables opened yesterday, breaking box office records for the highest advance ticket sales for a Christmas day release and taking in $18 million in one day, according to Deadline.com. But that apparent enthusiasm has been dampened by reviews like this one from Gawker, which referred to it as “banal schmaltz” and “a nonsensical, emotional vampire of a movie.” Some people will just never like musicals, but is that just generational? Whatever happened to the crooning days of Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire? Are they never to return? Are modern audiences beyond reach when it comes to musical movies?
Guest:
Wade Major, film critic for KPCC and boxoffice.com