And no, these are not parodies or Onion articles
LA Times:
One-fifth of Americans find their workplace hostile or threatening, study finds
A Harvard Medical School economist, Nicole Maestas, reporting on the results of an ‘in-depth study’ which found, to Nicole’s enormous surprise that there are jobs that are ‘physically demanding’, and, …cover your children’s ears…that there are “less-educated workers” who cannot “take a break whenever they want to” while on the job.
Further, the study found that 78% of the study respondents reported that they are actually “required to be present in their workplace during work hours!”
OH THE HUMANITY!!!! There are in this modern society devilish employers who prefer that their bridge builders or chefs or store clerks or airline pilots or crane operators not do their jobs at home by telecommuting. And who thought Ebeneezer Scrooge was the model for a cruel employer?
This lady, who obviously enjoys a more ‘civilized’ work environment wonders whether such “toxic work conditions” as some of those described above, are “keeping Americans out of the labor force.”
“Wow – (work) is pretty taxing place for many people… I was surprised by how pressured and hectic the workplace is”, the lady is quoted as saying.
One can only wonder what kind of “work” actually gets done by Ms. Maestas and her colleagues at Harvard Medical School…and what kind of doctors is that institution turning out!?
—————————–
Des Moines Register
University of Iowa proposes tuition increase of 7 percent annually for 5 years
A proposal unveiled Monday by University of Iowa President Bruce Harreld would raise resident undergraduate tuition by 7 percent each year for the next five years, a plan similar to one laid out last week by Iowa State University.
As the article properly points out the proposal would amount to a 41% tuition increase in that relatively short time frame. The DMR of course does not point out any irony but the readership should be incredulous about the inherent presumptions of some of those quoted in the article. Democrats are against tuition increases, isn’t that lovely, what they are for is more tax money into the regent system.
Then there is the charmer U of I President Harreld, another education bureaucrat who has no idea about cost benefit of “higher” education anyway. Catch the irony here :
“This lack of resources has resulted in placing the UI at a competitive disadvantage with its national competitors and has also had an impact upon our rankings and placed an unnecessary burden, I believe, on our students, their families and the state’s economy,” Harreld said during the presentation. . . .
Harreld repeatedly has suggested that the regents give UI their blessing to increase base undergraduate tuition so the university can move to the middle, rather than the bottom, of its group of peer institutions in tuition cost. He estimates that bringing UI’s tuition rate to the average of its peer group would provide an additional $91 million for the university.
ISU similarly is at the bottom of its peer group when it comes to in-state tuition and fees.
A competitive disadvantage because it has lower tuition cost?? The intonation of “at the bottom” in tuition cost?? Well what are you saying about what you are offering Mr Harreld — no value for that money? Usually a quality product at a discount is looked on with favor, even used as a marketing feature. Not in education world.
DLH and R Mall
I’d take 7% compounded on my 401 for the next 5 yrs and smile the whole time.
Perhaps there is some very profound aspect of President Herreld’s plaintive appeal for more taxpayer cash that I’m missing. It seems to me , though, that he is delivering an unintended message to current and prospective U of I students (and alumni) that the education his institution offers must necessarily be “at the bottom” of its “peer group”. It further strongly suggests that, behind his plea for more cash is his hope that with more money he can attract a better faculty. It seems apparent to me that the university’s esteemed president has very low regard for its faculty, the institution’s pitifully inadequate resources, and, consequently, the product it offers…at the very “bottom of its peer group”, as it were.