Amazing how the US is behind absolutely everyone else in terms of laws that actually protect workers.
Brush up on US employment law, it's become very, very hard for employers to offer unpaid internships anymore, no smart employer even considers such an option - the legal risk and penalties are too great under current employment law.
Everyone I know who did gap year just did it with no plan and certainly no formal program, and they did the gap year precisely because they had no plan.
It's called a deferment, that is the entire extent of the "gap year program", you ask for your admission to be deferred to the following year for whatever reason.
Most college applications are due well before the end of the last year of high school.
Applications are due around December/January, and acceptance letters (which seems to be what you are talking about) are contingent on your successful graduation from High School.
Most future employers, colleges, etc. don't care at all about the piece of paper.
A high school education isn't about securing a piece of paper, anyone that thinks that has no understading of the world.
They want an official transcript from your high school showing you've graduated.
Colleges want "official Transcripts", employers want workers that can peform the job they are hiring for, and certainly have no interest in revieing your third year high school English grades or other such nonsense on your transcript.
I've had several employers that require a background check (consulting firms that want to verify the resume they are presenting to a potential client, school districts) that includes a confirmation of my HS education, nothing more.
Why can't parents take on this responsibility? Can't they encourage their children to have a plan for post-high school?
Let me guess, parents don't have time to turn to their 15 year-old and ask them "what do you want to be when you grow up?" The Chicago Public Schools have all but eliminated career counseling (according to the article, I have no first-hand experience with CPS), and now they want to make it mandatory that all seniors get career counseling?!?! Their commitment to this idea seems like a hastily slapped-together response to distract from a failing public school system.
Honestly this seems like something that would make more sense after they eliminate "social promotion", enforce strict graduation requirements that has High School graduates performing at a high school level in things like math and reading, and have gotten their drop out rate under control.
Just curious, can the Chicago community colleges absorb all the high school graduates that fail to either find a job or secure admission to a four year college? Because that is where they are going to head, in all likelyhood.
Tracing publicly available IPs and looking through publicly available information it's perfectly fine.
Pretty certain at some point you'd need an ISP to turn an IP address into an actual address, I'm not aware of any 'publicly available information' that allows me to determine who used a particular IP at a particular time - care to share those 'public' sources?
You remember when the white non-Muslim man from Switzerland that wrote CURL was not granted a visa? That was also because of Trump's travel ban, even though he was white, non-Muslim, and from Switzerland, right?
Clearly stated in both stories is the phrase 'a country not on the (trump EO) list', but who reads the summary?
President Trump recently ordered a ban on travel from six Muslim-majority countries, but Afghanistan was not included on the list. Teams from Iran, Sudan and Syria -- which are on the list -- did manage to enter the country.
And
"We still don't know the reason why we were not granted visas, because other countries participating in the competition have been given visas," Fatemah Qaderyan, 14, told Reuters.
So obviously it's because of the Trump travel ban EO, right?
Apparently no forigeners were ever prevented from entering the US without an explaination before Trump took office, right?
This entire story boils down to "a handful of Afghan girls were not granted visas to the US, we don't know why".
That you rely on something doesn't make it a right - Define what a 'right' is please (hint, it doesn't involve the requirement that someone provide a good or service to/for you)
So, you are saying that people should be "free" to work for low wages where they can't afford food or shelter?
So you're saying the only jobs that should exist need to pay well enough that the worker can survive without any for of assistence? Where will a high school graduate go to get their first job? What about summer jobs to pay help pay for college?
It's hard to buy the whole "raises wages costs jobs" argument when the evidence is to the contrary.
Your single, cherry-picked example considered in the most superficial terms proves nothing.
How many "minimum wage" workers were there in the region before the increases, how many now? (And remember, as the minimum wage increased by 100% over the last ten years it would have scooped up anyone earning between $5.01-$10.00/hr as going from making better than minimum wage to becoming minimum wage workers.
Another point to consider, as the minimum wage increases, it chokes off first-job opportunities, leading to more unemployment in the "just out of school" age group (18-24), as previously no-skill, first-time job opportunities are eliminated because the economic incentive for the current employee to move on is removed.
I doubt the majority of Starbucks, McDonalds, and WalMart employees are paid the minimum wage. In my experience (observational, not personal) they tend to offer better than minimum wage to attract employees that can function at a higher-than-minimum level.
First off, if we accept the premise that workers escaped low-wage employers and migrated to larger employers, are we to believe that this was never the case before, that larger employers didn't always offer better pay and benefits packages than smaller employers?
Second, we are expected to believe that increasing the cost of labor in no way encouraged employers to reconsider and possibly cut back on the number of workers they hire and the number of hours they work? A slightly higher wage coupled with fewer hours of work per week leads workers not to enjoy more money in their pocket and increased leisure time, it instead motivates them to seek out additional work to make up for smaller take-home paychecks.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure that the Chicago public school system is full of shit schools.
You forget, before becoming President, Barrack Obama worked to improve the Chicago Public School System, along with his neighborhood domestic terrorist Bill Ayers - they should be palaces of higher learning!
Amazing how the US is behind absolutely everyone else in terms of laws that actually protect workers.
Brush up on US employment law, it's become very, very hard for employers to offer unpaid internships anymore, no smart employer even considers such an option - the legal risk and penalties are too great under current employment law.
Everyone I know who did gap year just did it with no plan and certainly no formal program, and they did the gap year precisely because they had no plan.
It's called a deferment, that is the entire extent of the "gap year program", you ask for your admission to be deferred to the following year for whatever reason.
Most college applications are due well before the end of the last year of high school.
Applications are due around December/January, and acceptance letters (which seems to be what you are talking about) are contingent on your successful graduation from High School.
Most future employers, colleges, etc. don't care at all about the piece of paper.
A high school education isn't about securing a piece of paper, anyone that thinks that has no understading of the world.
They want an official transcript from your high school showing you've graduated.
Colleges want "official Transcripts", employers want workers that can peform the job they are hiring for, and certainly have no interest in revieing your third year high school English grades or other such nonsense on your transcript.
I've had several employers that require a background check (consulting firms that want to verify the resume they are presenting to a potential client, school districts) that includes a confirmation of my HS education, nothing more.
Why can't parents take on this responsibility? Can't they encourage their children to have a plan for post-high school?
Let me guess, parents don't have time to turn to their 15 year-old and ask them "what do you want to be when you grow up?" The Chicago Public Schools have all but eliminated career counseling (according to the article, I have no first-hand experience with CPS), and now they want to make it mandatory that all seniors get career counseling?!?! Their commitment to this idea seems like a hastily slapped-together response to distract from a failing public school system.
Honestly this seems like something that would make more sense after they eliminate "social promotion", enforce strict graduation requirements that has High School graduates performing at a high school level in things like math and reading, and have gotten their drop out rate under control.
Just curious, can the Chicago community colleges absorb all the high school graduates that fail to either find a job or secure admission to a four year college? Because that is where they are going to head, in all likelyhood.
CNN appears to be giving veiled threats at a Reddit user who posted critical comments about the media giant.
Please explain how CNN's threat was 'veiled'? It seems pretty overt in my opinion.
Tracing publicly available IPs and looking through publicly available information it's perfectly fine.
Pretty certain at some point you'd need an ISP to turn an IP address into an actual address, I'm not aware of any 'publicly available information' that allows me to determine who used a particular IP at a particular time - care to share those 'public' sources?
Or as mundane as "unable to process applications in time"
20,000 Coptic Christians want to know why Obama refused their visa requests
Fascinating how you took a story with nothing to do with Trump and tried to make it all about Trump...
The simple answer could be that someone forgot to process their visa applications in time for the trip.
#TrumpDerangementSyndrome
It matters because in Afghanistan, women risk being attacked for daring to get an education.
Shouldn't that Have been included in the summary, since apparently that is what makes this story important...
Remember the outcry when 20,000 Coptic christian refugees his administration refused to grant visas to? Me neither.
You remember when the white non-Muslim man from Switzerland that wrote CURL was not granted a visa? That was also because of Trump's travel ban, even though he was white, non-Muslim, and from Switzerland, right?
Clearly stated in both stories is the phrase 'a country not on the (trump EO) list', but who reads the summary?
President Trump recently ordered a ban on travel from six Muslim-majority countries, but Afghanistan was not included on the list. Teams from Iran, Sudan and Syria -- which are on the list -- did manage to enter the country.
And
"We still don't know the reason why we were not granted visas, because other countries participating in the competition have been given visas," Fatemah Qaderyan, 14, told Reuters.
So obviously it's because of the Trump travel ban EO, right?
Apparently no forigeners were ever prevented from entering the US without an explaination before Trump took office, right?
This entire story boils down to "a handful of Afghan girls were not granted visas to the US, we don't know why".
That you rely on something doesn't make it a right - Define what a 'right' is please (hint, it doesn't involve the requirement that someone provide a good or service to/for you)
Maybe for rural farmers in nowhere Indiana. For the rest of the developed world, internet is a necessity to conduct business and live a modern life.
Maybe try wireless, isn't great cell coverage one of the great things about not living in "nowhere Indiana"?
That no one chooses to offer a competing service doesn't force AT&T to change it's TOS.
So, you are saying that people should be "free" to work for low wages where they can't afford food or shelter?
So you're saying the only jobs that should exist need to pay well enough that the worker can survive without any for of assistence? Where will a high school graduate go to get their first job? What about summer jobs to pay help pay for college?
Every job has to pay $15/hr?
McDonalds hires only the minimum number of workers to serve its business, to sack workers it would need to have a drop in sales, which isn't shown.
Or automate.
It's hard to buy the whole "raises wages costs jobs" argument when the evidence is to the contrary.
Your single, cherry-picked example considered in the most superficial terms proves nothing.
How many "minimum wage" workers were there in the region before the increases, how many now? (And remember, as the minimum wage increased by 100% over the last ten years it would have scooped up anyone earning between $5.01-$10.00/hr as going from making better than minimum wage to becoming minimum wage workers.
Another point to consider, as the minimum wage increases, it chokes off first-job opportunities, leading to more unemployment in the "just out of school" age group (18-24), as previously no-skill, first-time job opportunities are eliminated because the economic incentive for the current employee to move on is removed.
San Francisco restaurants are closing due to increased wages for workers. Granted they are lower-reviewed restaurants, but that doesn't lessen the sting for the terminated employee or former employer when their 3/4 star Yelp-rated restaurant closes.
I doubt the majority of Starbucks, McDonalds, and WalMart employees are paid the minimum wage. In my experience (observational, not personal) they tend to offer better than minimum wage to attract employees that can function at a higher-than-minimum level.
But feel free to make a baseless one?
First off, if we accept the premise that workers escaped low-wage employers and migrated to larger employers, are we to believe that this was never the case before, that larger employers didn't always offer better pay and benefits packages than smaller employers?
Second, we are expected to believe that increasing the cost of labor in no way encouraged employers to reconsider and possibly cut back on the number of workers they hire and the number of hours they work? A slightly higher wage coupled with fewer hours of work per week leads workers not to enjoy more money in their pocket and increased leisure time, it instead motivates them to seek out additional work to make up for smaller take-home paychecks.
But hey, who knows - in San Francisco restaurants are closing due to increased wages for workers. Granted they are lower-reviewed restaurants, but that doesn't lessen the sting for the terminated employee or former employer when their 3/4 star Yelp-rated restaurant closes.