TU NO ESTAS SOLO EN ESTE MUNDO. YOU ARE NOT ALONE SI TE HA GUSTADO UN ARTICULO, COMPARTELO

Friday, January 13, 2006

LEY Nº 20.022 CREA NUEVOS JUZGADOS DEL TRABAJO

Desde el Blog del Senador Jovino Novoa http://www.senado.cl/blog/jnovoa/ tenemos esta nueva información en materia de Juzgados del  trabajo.

Finalmente, se aprobó la ley No. 20.022 que crea nuevos juzgados laborales y, además, establece, por primera vez, juzgados de cobranza laboral y previsional. Estos últimos van a estar a cargo de los juicios de cobranza propiamente tal, tanto en materia laboral como de previsión o seguridad social, como por ejemplo, el pago de las imposiciones, dejando a los juzgados laborales los conflictos netamente laborales, como por ejemplo, el despido por causales que no corresponde aplicar, el no respeto de la jornada laboral o de las vacaciones legales, etc.

Esto permitirá agilizar las causas laborales, lo que constituye una necesidad real y urgente de los trabajadores.

Esta ley regirá desde el 1 de marzo de 2007, salvo en lo que respecta a los tribunales de Cobranza Laboral y Previsional, los que debieran estar funcionando en marzo de 2006.

Si necesitan más información sobre los nuevos juzgados laborales, escríbanme! Pueden, además, revisar el siguiente INFORME

Ese informe se refiere es un excelente trabajo de Hedy Mathei F  de gran utilidad para abogados y estudiantes de Derecho.

Nuevos Juzgados del Trabajo:  Saludos Rodrigo González Fernández, consultajuridica.blogspot.com

 

Analyzing Judge Alito's Votes: By Case

During his 15 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Samuel A. Alito Jr. helped to decide 221 cases in which the court's opinion was divided. To shed light on Alito's views, The Washington Post reviewed these cases and coded Alito's votes. The results of this review are shown here by case. Read more about the analysis.

Although the newspaper used the Westlaw and Lexis online services to find these cases, many can be searched by case name on the 3rd Circuit's public Web site.

See also: Results shown by issue | Blog: Campaign for the Supreme Court | Story | Graphic.

From Washington post …http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2006/alito/cases/

Sincerely yours, Rodrigo González Fernández, consultajuridica.blogspot.com   parpolitic.blogspot.com

Thursday, January 12, 2006

The Top Ten Lies of Venture Capitalists

Venture capitalists are simple people: we've either decided to invest, and we are convincing ourselves that our gut is right (aka, “due diligence”) or there's not a chance in hell. While we may be simple, we're not necessarily forthcoming, so if you think it's hard to get a “yes” out of venture capitalist, you should try to get a conclusive “no.”

This is because there's no upside to communicating a negative decision. Entrepreneurs will simply hate us sooner--instead the game is to string along entrepreneurs in case something miraculous happens to make them look better. (An example of a miracle would be Boeing approving a $5 million purchase order.)

Alas, entrepreneurs are also simple people: If they don't hear a conclusive “no,” they assume the answer is yes. This is an example of the kind of breakdown of communication between venture capitalists and entrepreneurs that causes much pain and frustration for entrepreneurs.

To foster greater understanding among the two groups, here is an exposé of the top ten lies of venture capitalists.

  1. “I liked your company, but my partners didn't.” In other words, “no.” What the sponsor is trying to get the entrepreneur to believe is that he's the good guy, the smart guy, the guy who gets it; the “others” didn't, so don't blame him. This is a cop out; it's not the other partners didn't like the deal as much as the sponsor wasn't a true believer. A true believer would get it done.
  2. “If you get a lead, we will follow.” In other words, “no.” As the old Japanese say, “If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.” Well, she doesn't have balls, so it doesn't matter. The venture capitalist is saying, “ We don't really believe, but if you can get Sequoia to lead, we'll jump on the pile.” In other words, once the entrepreneur doesn't need the money, the venture capitalist would be happy to give him some more--this is like saying, “Once you've stopped Larry Csonka cold, we'll help you tackle him.” What entrepreneurs want to hear is, “If you can't get a lead, we will.” That's a believer.
  3. “Show us some traction, and we'll invest.” In other words, “no.” This lie translates to “I don't believe your story, but if you can prove it by achieving significant revenue, then you might convince me. However, I don't want to tell you 'no' because I might be wrong and by golly you may sign up a Fortune 500 customer and then I'd look like a total orifice.”
  4. “We love to co-invest with other venture capitalists.” Like the sun rising and Canadians playing hockey, you can depend on the greed of venture capitalists. Greed in this business translates to “If this is a good deal, I want it all.” What entrepreneurs want to hear is, “We want the whole round. We don't want any other investors.” Then it's the entrepreneur's job to convince then why other investors can make the pie bigger as opposed to re-configuring the slices.
  5. “We're investing in your team.” This is an incomplete statement. While it's true that they are investing in the team, entrepreneurs are hearing, “We won't fire you--why would we fire you if we invested because of you?” That's not what the venture capitalist is saying at all. What she is saying is, “We're investing in your team as long as things are going well, but if they go bad we will fire your ass because no one is indispensable.”
  6. “I have lots of bandwidth to dedicate to your company.” Maybe the venture capitalist is talking about the T3 line into his office, but he's not talking about his personal calendar because he's already on ten boards. Counting board meetings, an entrepreneur should assume that a venture capitalist will spend between five to ten hours a month on a company. That's it. Deal with it. And make board meetings short!
  7. “This is a vanilla term sheet.” There is no such thing as a vanilla term sheet. Do you think corporate finance attorneys are paid $400/hour to push out vanilla term sheets? If entrepreneurs insist on using a flavor of ice cream to describe term sheets, the only flavor that works is Rocky Road. This is why they need their own $400/hour attorney too--as opposed to Uncle Joe the divorce lawyer.
  8. “We can open up doors for you at our client companies.” This is a double whammy of lie. First, a venture capitalist can't always open up doors at client companies. Frankly, he might be hated by the client company. The worst thing in the world may be a referral from him. Second, even if the venture capitalist can open the door, entrepreneurs can't seriously expect the company to commit to your product--that is, something that isn't much more than a slick (10/20/30) PowerPoint presentation.
  9. “We like early-stage investing.” Venture capitalists fantasize about putting $1 million into a $2 million pre-money company and end up owning 33% of the next Google. That's early stage investing. Do you know why we all know about Google's amazing return on investment? The same reason we all know about Michael Jordan: Googles and Michael Jordans hardly ever happen. If they were common, no one would write about them. If you scratch beneath the surface, venture capitalists want to invest in proven teams (eg., the founders of Cisco) with proven technology (eg., the basis of a Nobel Prize) in a proven market (eg., ecommerce). We are remarkably risk averse considering it's not even our money.
  10. I'm at a Starbucks in Hawaii writing this blog. I've been at it for ninety minutes. I don't have my charger with me. My PowerBook is out of gas. You're going to have to be happy with the top nine lies of venture capitalists until “Dear God” ships the PowerBook Vaio.

Written at: Starbucks Ward Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Let the Good Times Roll by Guy Kawasaki

Blogger. n. Someone with nothing to say writing for someone with nothing to do.

 

With best regards, from consultajuridica.blogspot.com  Rodrigo González Fernandez

The Top Ten Lies of Venture Capitalists

Venture capitalists are simple people: we've either decided to invest, and we are convincing ourselves that our gut is right (aka, “due diligence”) or there's not a chance in hell. While we may be simple, we're not necessarily forthcoming, so if you think it's hard to get a “yes” out of venture capitalist, you should try to get a conclusive “no.”

This is because there's no upside to communicating a negative decision. Entrepreneurs will simply hate us sooner--instead the game is to string along entrepreneurs in case something miraculous happens to make them look better. (An example of a miracle would be Boeing approving a $5 million purchase order.)

Alas, entrepreneurs are also simple people: If they don't hear a conclusive “no,” they assume the answer is yes. This is an example of the kind of breakdown of communication between venture capitalists and entrepreneurs that causes much pain and frustration for entrepreneurs.

To foster greater understanding among the two groups, here is an exposé of the top ten lies of venture capitalists.

  1. “I liked your company, but my partners didn't.” In other words, “no.” What the sponsor is trying to get the entrepreneur to believe is that he's the good guy, the smart guy, the guy who gets it; the “others” didn't, so don't blame him. This is a cop out; it's not the other partners didn't like the deal as much as the sponsor wasn't a true believer. A true believer would get it done.
  2. “If you get a lead, we will follow.” In other words, “no.” As the old Japanese say, “If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.” Well, she doesn't have balls, so it doesn't matter. The venture capitalist is saying, “ We don't really believe, but if you can get Sequoia to lead, we'll jump on the pile.” In other words, once the entrepreneur doesn't need the money, the venture capitalist would be happy to give him some more--this is like saying, “Once you've stopped Larry Csonka cold, we'll help you tackle him.” What entrepreneurs want to hear is, “If you can't get a lead, we will.” That's a believer.
  3. “Show us some traction, and we'll invest.” In other words, “no.” This lie translates to “I don't believe your story, but if you can prove it by achieving significant revenue, then you might convince me. However, I don't want to tell you 'no' because I might be wrong and by golly you may sign up a Fortune 500 customer and then I'd look like a total orifice.”
  4. “We love to co-invest with other venture capitalists.” Like the sun rising and Canadians playing hockey, you can depend on the greed of venture capitalists. Greed in this business translates to “If this is a good deal, I want it all.” What entrepreneurs want to hear is, “We want the whole round. We don't want any other investors.” Then it's the entrepreneur's job to convince then why other investors can make the pie bigger as opposed to re-configuring the slices.
  5. “We're investing in your team.” This is an incomplete statement. While it's true that they are investing in the team, entrepreneurs are hearing, “We won't fire you--why would we fire you if we invested because of you?” That's not what the venture capitalist is saying at all. What she is saying is, “We're investing in your team as long as things are going well, but if they go bad we will fire your ass because no one is indispensable.”
  6. “I have lots of bandwidth to dedicate to your company.” Maybe the venture capitalist is talking about the T3 line into his office, but he's not talking about his personal calendar because he's already on ten boards. Counting board meetings, an entrepreneur should assume that a venture capitalist will spend between five to ten hours a month on a company. That's it. Deal with it. And make board meetings short!
  7. “This is a vanilla term sheet.” There is no such thing as a vanilla term sheet. Do you think corporate finance attorneys are paid $400/hour to push out vanilla term sheets? If entrepreneurs insist on using a flavor of ice cream to describe term sheets, the only flavor that works is Rocky Road. This is why they need their own $400/hour attorney too--as opposed to Uncle Joe the divorce lawyer.
  8. “We can open up doors for you at our client companies.” This is a double whammy of lie. First, a venture capitalist can't always open up doors at client companies. Frankly, he might be hated by the client company. The worst thing in the world may be a referral from him. Second, even if the venture capitalist can open the door, entrepreneurs can't seriously expect the company to commit to your product--that is, something that isn't much more than a slick (10/20/30) PowerPoint presentation.
  9. “We like early-stage investing.” Venture capitalists fantasize about putting $1 million into a $2 million pre-money company and end up owning 33% of the next Google. That's early stage investing. Do you know why we all know about Google's amazing return on investment? The same reason we all know about Michael Jordan: Googles and Michael Jordans hardly ever happen. If they were common, no one would write about them. If you scratch beneath the surface, venture capitalists want to invest in proven teams (eg., the founders of Cisco) with proven technology (eg., the basis of a Nobel Prize) in a proven market (eg., ecommerce). We are remarkably risk averse considering it's not even our money.
  10. I'm at a Starbucks in Hawaii writing this blog. I've been at it for ninety minutes. I don't have my charger with me. My PowerBook is out of gas. You're going to have to be happy with the top nine lies of venture capitalists until “Dear God” ships the PowerBook Vaio.

Written at: Starbucks Ward Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Let the Good Times Roll by Guy Kawasaki

Blogger. n. Someone with nothing to say writing for someone with nothing to do.

 

With best regards, from consultajuridica.blogspot.com  Rodrigo González Fernandez

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Northern DFA-Link Highlights: January 5th

Blog for America features highlights from DFA-Link groups around the country each week. Jeff Gardner from NJ for Democracy writes about the Northern half of the U.S. on Thursdays. You can see more local DFA actions going on at www.dfalink.com.

After recovering from New Years Eve celebrations, Local DFA groups got straight to work on making 2006 DFA's most important year ever, with monthly meetings already taking place, and plans to hit the ground running:

Town Hall Meetings: Already this week, Fairfax Democracy for America is promoting a town hall meeting with special guests, Congressman Jim Moran and Congressman Jack Murtha, to discuss our ongoing involvement in Iraq.
And Morris County DFA hosts its Out of Iraq Public Forum.

Next week, New Haven DFA and representatives from Local DFA groups throughout Connecticut will be meeting with U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman!

Candidate Forums: DFA's initiative to find, develop and nurture great candidates is taking root across the country. Just a quick sampling shows Candidate Forums planned or in the works from Bellingham, WA to Oak Park, IL to Long Island, NY, even to good old South Burlington, VT. Yes—even Vermont needs a candidate forum!—start planning yours today!

Training: The DFA Training Academy makes the long trip to Central Vermont for a late January installment of the powerful, fun, effective, and affordable grassroots training that's reminding thousands of activists around the country why they still have the power to take back our country. And mark your calendars for upcoming February editions in Saratoga, NY (2/4) and Philadelphia (2/25-26)

Plus, Fairfield County DFA in Connecticut is promoting the Campaign-Smart Alliance Grassroots campaign training, with guest speakers Jim Dean, and Congressional Candidates from around the state.

Until next week, on with making this New Year truly happy! Keep fighting for better tomorrows!

 

Interesante artículo

Blogging better than email newsletters for law firms : Case studies

Blogging is better than newsletters, says Nathan Burke at LawFirmBlogging. Commenting on Blogging is the new Black, a recent article in Small Firm Business (published by American Lawyer Media) on Sheppard Mullin’s success with blogs (7 blogs outperforming prior newsletters), Burke makes some sound points.

This is probably a no-brainer for most of you out there, but blogs are outperforming email newsletters. I think it has a lot to do with our disdain for spam and being inundated by emails. When you subscribe to an email newsletter, you’re telling the publisher you’re interested in what they have to say. But you’re not telling them when you want them to say it.

When you are a blog reader, however, you can easily see if there are any updates through an RSS reader, and check out the content whenever you feel like it. Say you’re having a busy day, and you get an email newsletter. Let’s be honest: if it goes off your screen, will you ever go back to it? Not likely.

Burke also offers a case study where one of his clients already had a large readership for his site, and sent out a monthly email newsletter to a few thousand registered recipients. "Since they started blogging, page views have doubled…..into the very high six figures.

Blogging better than email newsletters for law firms : Case studies

Blogging is better than newsletters, says Nathan Burke at LawFirmBlogging. Commenting on Blogging is the new Black, a recent article in Small Firm Business (published by American Lawyer Media) on Sheppard Mullin’s success with blogs (7 blogs outperforming prior newsletters), Burke makes some sound points.

This is probably a no-brainer for most of you out there, but blogs are outperforming email newsletters. I think it has a lot to do with our disdain for spam and being inundated by emails. When you subscribe to an email newsletter, you’re telling the publisher you’re interested in what they have to say. But you’re not telling them when you want them to say it.

When you are a blog reader, however, you can easily see if there are any updates through an RSS reader, and check out the content whenever you feel like it. Say you’re having a busy day, and you get an email newsletter. Let’s be honest: if it goes off your screen, will you ever go back to it? Not likely.

Burke also offers a case study where one of his clients already had a large readership for his site, and sent out a monthly email newsletter to a few thousand registered recipients. "Since they started blogging, page views have doubled…..into the very high six figures.

 

Sunday, January 01, 2006

CORAJE PARA STEVE JOBS

Coraje Tu tiempo es limitado, de modo que no lo malgastes viviendo la vida de alguien distinto. No quedes atrapado en el dogma, que es vivir como otros piensan que deberías vivir. No dejes que los ruidos de las opiniones de los demás acallen tu propia voz interior. Y, lo que es más importante, ten el coraje para hacer lo que te dicen tu corazón y tu intuición. Ellos ya saben de algún modo en qué quieres convertirte realmente. Todo lo demás es secundario. – Steve Jobs, en el discurso de graduación de Standford (2005) CORAJE PARA S.JOBS, DESDE MICROCIERVOS, RODRIGO GONZALEZ FERNADEZ, LAWYEWRSCHILE.BLOGSPOT.COM

Sunday, December 25, 2005

Lawyers

LAWYER OF THE YEAR | PATRICK FITZGERALD

Relentless man on a mission

 

By Leigh Jones

Staff reporter

December 19, 2005

 

 

No one else in 2005 roiled politics inside the Beltway and the media that feed on it like the prosecutor from Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald.

 

As special counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice, Fitzgerald has taken on some of the most influential people in the world by trying to uncover who in Washington divulged to the press the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

 

The list is long on powerful politicians, lawyers and journalists that his continuing investigation has touched so far. But the matter also encompasses the very reasons for the war in Iraq that has cost about 2,150 American lives, while at the same time striking at the heart of freedoms protected by the U.S. Constitution.

 

For those reasons, Fitzgerald is The National Law Journal's 2005 Lawyer of the Year.

 

At 44, Fitzgerald is, to some, exacting and thorough. To others, he is perhaps obsessive and relentless. But it is this attention to detail and his formidable memory that many observers say make him a tough and level-headed adversary.

 

"He doesn't take unfair advantage of the fact that he's smart," Frederick Cohn said. A criminal defense attorney, Cohn represented one of four men convicted of conspiring to bomb the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. Fitzgerald prosecuted the case as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, where he worked for 13 years before becoming the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois in 2001.

 

"If I were someone who was a bad guy, I would not want him on my trail," Cohn said.

 

Fitzgerald earned recognition as a meticulous and sometimes single-minded prosecutor while working for the Southern District of New York. There, he served as chief of the organized crime/ terrorism unit. Besides the embassy terrorism trial, he handled the prosecution of 12 defendants charged with conspiring to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993. He also prosecuted the Gambino crime family, charged with drug trafficking and murder, among other things.

 

But it is his role in the CIA leak investigation that has brought Fitzgerald the most attention. Appointed in 2003 by James Comey, then the deputy U.S. attorney general, Fitzgerald has the task of determining whether senior officials in the Bush administration violated the Intelligence Protection Act of 1982.

 

His mission is to uncover how Plame's name appeared in a syndicated column by Robert Novak.

 

Bush detractors charge that the administration leaked her name in response to an opinion piece by Plame's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, published in the New York Times that was critical of the administration's reasons for entering the war in Iraq.

 

The ongoing investigation has snowballed, gathering in its path top administration officials and well-known journalists, one of whom, the New York Times' Judith Miller, spent 85 days in jail for violating a subpoena to reveal her source.

 

So far, Fitzgerald has indicted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, on five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements. And Fitzgerald is presenting evidence to a new grand jury, which could lead to charges against others, including Karl Rove, top advisor to President George W. Bush.

 

The attorney for Rove, Robert Luskin with Patton Boggs in Washington, declined to comment for this article. Libby's attorney, Theodore Wells of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in New York, did not return a phone call.

 

Afflicted with 'tunnel vision'

 

Despite the dogged determination that has characterized Fitzgerald's investigation, he is a mild-mannered, regular fellow, say those who know him well.

 

"He's a plain-spoken, boy-next-door kind of guy," said Karen Seymour, a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell in New York. Seymour is a former federal prosecutor who led the government's obstruction case against Martha Stewart and worked with Fitzgerald in New York.

 

He has the ability to take complicated issues and facts and convey them in plain language that connects with jurors, she said. But beneath that average Joe demeanor is a "brilliant strategist" with a "quick wit," she said.

 

It may be difficult to find those who would criticize the man himself, but it is not difficult to find those who take issue with the leak investigation.

 

First Amendment attorney Bruce Sanford said that Fitzgerald, whom he has met, has the typical "tunnel vision of a prosecutor," one who believes that anyone "deserves to be in jail for one thing or another." But he is also an "appealing and accomplished" man, Sanford said.

 

The investigation itself, however, is the result of "classic bureaucratic infighting" and a waste of taxpayer money, he said.

 

Sanford, a partner in Baker & Hostetler's Washington office, has represented several television networks, magazines and publishing houses, and has called for a national shield law to protect reporters from having to reveal sources.

 

He questions whether anyone connected to the Plame matter has actually violated the Intelligence Protection Act of 1982, since the law is narrowly drawn to protect free speech. In addition, that issue has become muddled in the politics surrounding the inquiry, he said.

 

"It has become confused with whether people like the Bush administration, whether they approve of our reasons for entering Iraq and what should be done about the war," Sanford said.

 

The Conrad Black case

 

Besides handling the leak investigation, Fitzgerald, as the U.S. attorney in Chicago, earlier this year brought fraud charges against Conrad Black, accusing the former publishing executive at Hollinger International and three of its other executives of illegally diverting almost $84 million from the sale of the company's newspapers and other publications. Fitzgerald announced four new charges against Black last week: racketeering, obstruction of justice, money laundering and wire fraud.

 

Also this year, Fitzgerald's office charged two Chicago executives in a widespread corruption scandal with fraudulently rigging the hiring and promotion of favored job applicants by conducting false employment interviews and falsifying application scores.

 

Jack Carriglio, immediate past president of the Federal Bar Association's Chicago chapter and a partner at Meckler Bulger & Tilson, said that Fitzgerald is "highly regarded" among attorneys in the Chicago community. He added that in March Fitzgerald "spoke privately" to bar association lawyers who gathered after the murders of the husband and mother of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow.

 

A native of Brooklyn, N.Y., Fitzgerald is the son of Irish immigrants. His father worked as a doorman in Manhattan. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Amherst College with a degree in economics and mathematics, and he received his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1985.

 

After law school, he practiced for three years as an associate at Christy & Viener in New York, which in 1999 merged with Salans Hertzfeld & Heilbronn.

 

Fitzgerald then went to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Four years ago, the U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed his nomination as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, where he manages a staff of more than 160 attorneys. He has not married.

 

Fitzgerald, famously press shy, is known to keep cool under pressure. Dean Polales, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago who served as counsel to Fitzgerald until last February, said that his former boss is positively "mellow."

 

"Even in the pressure-cooker situations, I have never seen him get upset. I've never seen him bark at anyone," said Polales, who now practices white-collar criminal defense with Chicago's Ungaretti & Harris. Fitzgerald's patience will continue to be tested, it seems, as the leak investigation marks its second anniversary this month.

 

Fitzgerald would not comment for this article. More information:

 

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1134727510888

The national law journal, lawyer of the year , 2005,  Rodrigo González  Fernández, lawyerschile.blogspot.com, Santiago, Chile

RODRIGO GONZALEZ FERNADEZ has sent you an article from npr.org

RODRIGO GONZALEZ FERNADEZ thought you would be interested in this story:

"NPR : U.N. World Summit on Information Age" <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5013744>

This message was included:

AQUI VA UN INTERESANTE ARTICULO DE L.LESSING

* Listen to this story * You may listen to this story with a RealAudio or WindowsMedia player. Visit the NPR Online Help Center to download a player or request support. <http://www.npr.org/help/>

* Order a text transcript of this story * <http://www.npr.org/transcripts/>

____________________________________________________________

* Hanukkah Lights: Stories of the Season * New product in the NPR Shop: Hanukkah Lights, a book/cd set featuring stories from NPR's annual holiday special. <http://shop.npr.org>

From The Chicago tribune Will execution move the debate? The case of Stanley Tookie Williams, who was killed by lethal injection Tuesday, rallied foes and advocates of the death penaltyBy Maurice Possley and Steve MillsTribune staff reportersPublished December 13, 2005, 2:42 AM CST LOS ANGELES -- Of the more than 1,000 people executed in this country since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, the case of Stanley Tookie Williams is one of only a few that have emerged as touchstones in the national debate over the ultimate punishment.Early Tuesday, Williams was executed by lethal injection at California's San Quentin prison, after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger rejected two last-minute bids for clemency. On Monday, Schwarzenegger had argued that Williams' failure to express remorse for four 1979 murders showed he was not rehabilitated.Whether Williams' execution ultimately moves the death penalty debate is a matter of debate itself.Public support for the death penalty has dropped in the past 25 years as 122 inmates have been exonerated and set free from Death Rows. At the same time, the machinery of execution has slowed.In these most public of cases, questions are posed in varying ways: Is this case a question of innocence? Is it a matter of rehabilitation and, consequently, mercy? Or is it the continuing question of the propriety of capital punishment?Think of Gary Graham and Karla Faye Tucker (both executed in Texas), Mumia Abu-Jamal (who obtained a new sentencing hearing this year in Pennsylvania) and more recently, Robin Lovitt (commuted last month to life in prison in Virginia).Assessing the legacy of these cases is difficult, particularly when they seem to have a relatively short public shelf life.The most recent Gallup poll, taken in October, shows that support nationally for the death penalty has dropped from as high as 80 percent in 1994 to 64 percent, though it has remained steady for the past three years.According to the poll, that support dips to 56 percent if the alternative is life in prison without parole.Death sentences have dropped too. The Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, reports that the number of death sentences imposed has fallen from a high of more than 300 annually in the 1990s to 144 in 2003.At the same time, the number of executions has fallen from a high of 98 in 1999 to 59 in 2004. Williams was the 59th this year.And in the past year, the specter of wrongful executions was raised by the Tribune and the Houston Chronicle, whose investigations strongly suggested that Texas executed innocent men--Cameron Todd Willingham and Ruben Cantu.Williams' is the latest in a series of recent capital cases that have captured the attention of the public and the media. His case focused primarily on his rehabilitation, though his attorneys contended at the 11th hour that they had found three jailhouse witnesses who claimed Williams was framed.In the end, death penalty advocates and opponents alike will likely point to his case as supporting their positions. As a former leader of the notorious Crips street gang, he was convicted of four murders. While in prison, he wrote children's books with anti-gang themes and denounced violence.A commutation likely would have fueled the anti-death penalty movement more than his execution will bolster those who support capital punishment, said Joshua Marquis, the district attorney in Clatsop County, Ore., and vice president of the National District Attorneys Association.Marquis, a noted death penalty supporter, said individual cases rarely lead to significant change. Virginia Gov. Mark Warner's recent commutation of Lovitt's sentence came and went with little controversy.Rallying point for opponentsAt the same time, though, Lawrence Marshall, founder of Northwestern University Law School's Center on Wrongful Convictions and now a professor at Stanford Law School in California, said, "Clearly, here in California, this [Williams'] case has engendered a tremendous amount of passion and has created an anti-death penalty movement that is more vocal than ever."The question is what's going to happen to that," he said. "Will this be part of a series of events that triggers more scrutiny and questions, or will it be perceived as a defeat with people going back to their homes to forget about it? It is too soon to tell." Much like Williams' case, the lead-up to the executions in Texas of Tucker and Graham stirred great controversy.Marquis compared Williams' case to that of Abu-Jamal, the Pennsylvania Death Row inmate who attracted celebrity supporters. After a court granted Abu-Jamal a new sentencing hearing, the case swiftly "fell off the radar," he said. If the Williams case has any impact, Marquis said, it will be that, for a short time at least, the death penalty became a topic of discussion. "The Tookie Williams execution is being used as a vehicle to discuss the death penalty, which is not an altogether bad thing," Marquis said. "Through the fog of all the rhetoric, some good issues are being discussed." To Richard Dieter, head of the Death Penalty Information Center, Williams' bid for clemency was a test case in an effort to determine which way the capital punishment debate is headed--though reading the trend is far from simple. Conflicting signals For example, Congress is threatening to break up the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has long been seen as one of the most liberal federal appeals courts in the nation. In addition, lawmakers are considering the Streamlined Procedures Act, which would limit convicted inmates' ability to take their appeals to federal court. At the same time, the California Senate created a commission to study the death penalty system there and deliver a report by the end of 2007. "It used to be that the way Texas goes, there goes the death penalty," Dieter said. "But maybe now it will be California. This could signal California having quite a few executions." David Dow, a death penalty lawyer who runs the Texas Innocence Network, offered another view, predicting the spike in the death penalty debate would subside until another high-profile case comes into focus. He noted that just two weeks ago, the nation's 1,000th execution made headlines. "But in the two weeks after number 1,000, there were two more executions that nobody paid attention to," he said. Had Schwarzenegger spared Williams, it might have provided cover for other governors--especially Republicans who traditionally have been outspoken supporters of the death penalty--to grant clemency. But sometimes a governor's decision has little long-lasting impact. In 1996, then-Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar commuted the death sentence of Guinevere Garcia, even though Garcia demanded to be put to death, in what was largely perceived as Edgar's reluctance to sign a death warrant for a woman. Edgar's action was only a footnote when Gov. George Ryan imposed a moratorium on executions in Illinois in 2000 and emptied Death Row with a mass commutation in 2003. "Sure, the level of attention [the Williams case] is receiving is not going to last," Dieter said. "But it will have an effect. You may not remember the name, but it may give a hint on the death penalty's direction." Steve Mills reported from Los Angeles and Maurice Possley from Chicago

Friday, December 23, 2005

EXTREME JOBS

Este artículo lo traigo a propósito de un amigo Abogado Marcelo Montero I , que tiene especiales opiniones al respecto . Lo voy a invitar a opinar sobre este especial tema, porque el conoce la realidad Chilena y la de los Estados Unidos muy bien. Esperamos que sus compromisos académicos y profesionales se lo permita, pero aprovecharemos el verano para preocuparnos de ver la realidad Chilena en particular James Waldroop, who codeveloped CareerLeader, the interactive career-assessment program used by more than 240 MBA programs and corporations, says work-hours inflation is growing, not just in the United States but globally. Last summer, he says, the newspapers in Madrid were ablaze with reports of the demise of the siesta, as Spanish workers scrambled to keep up with their E.U. counterparts. In Germany, workers at Siemens grudgingly agreed to an extension of their workweek to 40 hours. The French government is contemplating lengthening the 35-hour workweek established in 1998. In Japan, there were 160 official cases of "karoshi," or "death from overwork," in fiscal 2002, and another 43 people committed suicide because of overwork. Extreme jobs are a problem when they're staffed by workers who aren't necessarily stoked by the spine-tingling thrill of a shift in interest rates, or jazzed by the chance to restructure a call center in Omaha. In the United States, both consulting firms and investment banks lose a significant number of their young associates -- particularly women -- to the unrelenting toil of the job. The career Web site Vault.com says that 55% of consultants and 30% of investment bankers quit after five years. "The sheer demands of the job burn people out," Bishop says. "Or they leave when there's been a shock to the system -- a new baby comes along, or they want to devote time to a relationship." While there are still reports that long hours are part of a hazing ritual (one young analyst at Merrill Lynch recalls a supervisor saying, "When we ask you to work on Christmas Day, it's not that we're being mean. It's just building character"), most firms deny an attempt to wash out the less committed. "Sure, there's a natural selection process," says Melanie Karbe, a partner at the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton in San Francisco. "But I don't think it's a Darwinistic approach to see who survives. People will understand whether they really enjoy this and want to do this. We do not say, 'Let's be as brutal as we can, especially at the associate level.' " Still, some experts think business-service firms in particular are caught in a predicament of their own creation. "When you're charging huge amounts of money, companies want you to dance to their tune, not yours," says Waldroop, whose own firm, Peregrine Partners, works with Fortune 50 corporations. "Frankly, consulting firms and I-banks have built up these expectations. In the 1950s, they didn't operate like this." Stewart Friedman, who runs the Work/ Life Integration Project at the Wharton School, says he's seeing more students and workers who are looking for career tracks that don't require such sacrifices. "The problem is that there are certain unquestioned assumptions about what's required to be successful," he says. "And for every one of those people telling you 'I gotta do the 24-7-365-BlackBerry-travel-around-the-world deal,' I'm willing to bet a lot of money I could help them figure out ways of creating boundaries that could reduce some of that demand." But even Friedman concedes that among the folks who live to work -- the ones he calls "happy workaholics" -- such strategies are irrelevant. And don't try telling them that long hours and high stress will ultimately make them sick. "There are studies that look at the impact of weekly work hours on health, and two that link it to heart disease," says Paul Spector, professor of industrial and organizational psychology at the University of South Florida. "But here's the kicker: In order to pay the price, it has to be a job where you're forced to work hours that you don't want to." In other words, if you like what you're doing, there's no physical risk. "The data suggest that people who are doing it because they want to are perfectly fine," says Spector. David Clark, 35, has one of those glamour jobs that make people say, "Where do I sign up?" As VP of global marketing partnerships for MTV, he travels constantly, following the music scene around the planet. In late January in his Times Square office, he was frenetically working to turn the MTV Asia Awards in Bangkok into a tsunami relief event and mapping the launch of the network's 100th channel, in Africa, in the spring. Clark knows he's lucky. He also knows how easily his job can suck the hours out of his week, a realization that's become more acute since the birth of his baby, Nicholas, 18 months ago. "Since our son's been born, it's become more difficult," he says. "I'm still figuring it out." Because Clark is "the global guy" at MTV, there are few hours in his day when some part of the world is not clamoring for attention. He wakes up at 6:30 a.m. to the alarm on his BlackBerry and spends half an hour answering the 30 to 40 messages that have piled up, before he even gets out of bed. His little son can already mimic Daddy's BlackBerry thumb dance. After a few calls to clients in far-flung time zones, he heads to the office where the barrage doesn't die down until late afternoon, when there's a brief pause as Asia goes to bed and Europe goes home to dinner. Still, by 4 p.m. one day, he had 578 unread messages clogging his inbox, and Latin America was desperately trying to get his attention by phone. In the evenings, he says, he tries to get home for an hour with his son, and then it's back on the phone and email until he collapses into bed at midnight. That's when he's not in Singapore or Rio. Curiously, instead of reducing the need for travel, all this connectivity has actually increased it, he says: "My theory is that there comes a time in any project where you just need to be face-to-face." Clark logs about 200,000 miles a year. But while he loves the travel and the challenge of doing global deals, he worries about the effect it will have on his nonwork life. "Some of the older managers have warned me that if you're not careful, these all-consuming jobs can ruin your family," he says. Still, "there are plenty of people who would love to have this job. They're knocking on the door all the time. So that's motivating." At least Clark has a family. Until recently, John Bishop -- tall, smart, good-looking, and making an enviable salary -- had trouble finding time for even a date. "I had a huge network of friends at Wharton. That's shrunk," he says, ruefully. "My friends say I'm much more difficult to reach now. I pull out of things at the last minute; I've canceled vacations, family time, dates. When you're single and trying to start a relationship, nobody understands that." Bishop tries to lay the groundwork upfront, warning women that his job is unpredictable and unlikely to get better. "Somebody with a 9-to-5 job and a needy personality would never work for me," he says. Fortunately, he has recently reconnected with a former girlfriend who's now a medical resident in Boston with equally ridiculous hours. But it's the next step -- having a family -- that seems to be the point at which extreme jobs often become unsustainable. "I don't have any concept of how I could do this if I were a parent," says Avery Baker, the Hilfiger exec. "That's why it's enjoyable for us to have such an extreme life now, because we both know it won't always be this way." Even workers who think they can handle the demands often find the trade-offs not worth the price. After trying to handle her job at consulting firm DiamondCluster International for two years following the birth of her son, Andrea Kampine, 35, recently left for a company that required less travel. "In the end, I decided I needed to see my family every day," she says. "Life doesn't get easier the more senior you get in consulting. I looked out on the horizon and didn't see a point where constant travel would be okay for me." Some organizations are taking steps to keep workers like Kampine. Karbe says Booz Allen has put a lot of effort into retention and making jobs less onerous. "The industry has begun to evolve," she says. "There's a recognition that you're not necessarily just losing the underperformers; you're losing your good people." Now, she says, managers are evaluated based partially on their ability to create work-life balance on their teams. "You cannot burn teams," Karbe says. "We do not tolerate it. That didn't exist 10 years ago." The Human Capital Institute's Schweyer thinks more companies will have to find a way to reconcile draconian work demands with real-life needs. "The unsustainability is what companies have to prepare for," he says. "They've been able to put it off because the economy and the labor market have been weak for the past five years. But what happens if we get back to the point like in the late '90s, when the job seeker was in control? There will be a retention crisis." But Bishop, who recruits for Citigroup at Wharton, isn't convinced. "Even if people leave, there's so much demand for people wanting to get into the system, it doesn't really matter. They can always find more." And Tse says the question is beside the point. Periodically, she says, she toys with the idea of giving it all up to study music at a conservatory in Florence. But she can't quite bring herself to step away. "If you're doing something you love, and you're great at it, life can't be better." Linda Tischler is a Fast Company senior writer. Ver más en Consultajuridica.blogspot.com Saludos Rodrigo González fernández

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

FROM TOM PETERS

="TEXT css?>

dispatches from the new world of work

TP's Healthcare Twenty-seven/December 2005

In preparation for a healthcare client conference call, I hastily jotted down this list of my more or less "beliefs" about healthcare (no particular order, not in order of importance—but main points are BOLD):

  1. Fully utilize Physician's Assistants to do routine work in a timely fashion. ("Doc in a Kiosk" at Wal*Mart is great!)
  2. Maximize Outpatient Services!
  3. Short hospital stays work!
  4. Support home care to the max. (E.g., "Declaration of Independents"—Beacon Hill/Boston)
  5. STOP THE 100K+ NEEDLESS DEATHS—much/most of the "quality stuff" is eminently fixable. (Don Berwick for President! AHA for Hall of Shame!) (Strong, vicious insurer incentives!!!)
  6. FLIP HC 177 DEGREES TO EMPHASIZE PREVENTION & WELLNESS. ("Steps" are being taken but not enough. Med schools: Awful! Insurers: Little better. Support for appropriate-proven alternative therapies is an important part.) (HUGE INCENTIVES FOR EFFECTIVE WELLNESS-PREVENTION PROGRAMS-MEASURABLE SUCCESSES.)
  7. "Boomers" will determine HC's (very different?) future. (They are from a different & demanding planet compared to yesterday's Oldsters.)
  8. "Focus on Women." (It's my generic—and correct—rallying cry, and it applies to HC in spades, women-as-patients-with different-woes-than-men; women-as-HC decision makers at the "consumer"—and commercial—level.)
  9. "Patient/Consumer-driven" may be a buzz phrase bandied about all to easily ... but it is true. (And changes the game.)
  10. Reduce incentives for unnecessary tests. (Malpractice caps would help, though the issue is complex. Insurers-HMOs doing so-so on this.)
  11. OUTCOME-BASED MEDICINE IS A MUST! (There is a long, long way to go!) (Measure until you're blue in the face!)
  12. Science-based medicine is a terrific idea!! (Many-most "therapies" unproven scientifically, uneven in application when proven.)
  13. Over the next 5-25 years, the Life Sciences Revolution will make the likes of the "info revolution" look like small beer. (Get ready.)
  14. Radical increase in "best practices" utilization—inculcate in Med school!
  15. Med school "revolution" imperative—outcome-based medicine, abiding emphasis on Wellness & Prevention, etc.
  16. Get info to Patients! (HIPAA mostly good.—"I wanna see my records!") (Detailed hospital-by-hospital, disease-by-disease, doc-by-doc success records a must—despite controversy.)
  17. Upgrade IS-IT in the entire system, starting with acute-care institutions. (Current grade: D-.) (Winners include: Indiana Heart Hospital; Inova Fairfax Heart Institute.)
  18. Healtheon WebMD-like (if it had worked) mega-, integrated-info network will-should emerge. (A healthcare Google+?)
  19. MOVE HEAVEN & EARTH TO IMPLEMENT ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS. NOW.
  20. By hook or by crook, something approximating basic universal care, starting with kids—50 state partial experiments is a help; some are quite far along. ("Market-based" as much as possible—but this is far from a "perfect market.")
  21. Deal with the enormous HMO "I want my doc" perception problem. (Fact: MARCUS WELBY, STATISTICALLY, AIN'T THAT GREAT A HEALER IN TODAY'S "HIGH SCIENCE" WORLD! Incidentally, same perception problem re Congress, schools. "My Congressman is great, Congress has 434 other crook-clowns." "My kids' school is good, the system is awful.") · Blitzkrieg of Patient/Customer/Citizen education (e.g., re "outcomes-based HC," "Get the most for your HC dollar"). (Corporate cuts should motivate this.) · "Healing-centric" care supported. (E.g., Planetree model—reduces future problems.) · Emphasize front-to-back "customer care" practices—cuts waaaaay down on malpractice claims among other things. · Specialization in acute care works wonders, regardless of howls! (E.g., Shouldice/hernia repair.) · Shorten the FDA approval process. (Tom, age 63, wants the good new stuff and will accept associated risk; so will most boomers-geezers.) · DON'T MESS AROUND WITH H5N1/AVIAN FLU! Tom Peters posted this today. SINCERELY YOURS

  1. RODRIGO GONZALEZ FENANDEZ, CONSULTAJURIDICA.BLOGSPOT.COM

Saturday, December 17, 2005

LAWYERING VS. LOBBYING

Lawyering vs. Lobbying As the ethically-challenged ex-lawmakers Bill Shoemakers, Wally Kunickis, Gary Georges, Chuck Chvalas and Brian Burkes turned Wisconsin into Illinois North with their pay-to-play campaign strategies, here is a nugget from our big-city neighbors that has some merit.As a business model, it would seem logical for law firms to bring non-attorneys in-house to generate new business or compliment existing business. And because law firms market the attorney-client privilege as a bonus of doing business with them, versus a lobby-shop, where there are no standards of practice or ethical guidelines (other than the paper tiger of a state Ethics Board), it also seems more up-and-up to retain a law firm.On the surface, everything appears kosher. Yet, as society becomes ever-more litigious, I suspect it becomes exponentially more difficult to work both ends of the equation; the slow slog of lawyers processing motions and digesting case history, versus the more desirable (from a corporate viewpoint) process of drafting a bill or an amendment and lobbying legislative leadership or committee chairmen to fast-track relief. (In Wisconsin, see All Sums legislation)Neither lawyering nor lobbying are inherently evil professions. The process needs both.But the process also needs an infusion of better judgment and Winston & Strawn may be setting a new, old, trend that will migrate to Wisconsin.Winston & Strawn halts lobbyingHeaded by ex-Gov. Thompson, firm's growth led to conflicts-----The law firm that former Gov. James Thompson built into a lobbying powerhouse in Springfield has quietly gone out of that line of work, a casualty of changing ethics laws and its own growth as a worldwide corporate litigator. Loop-based Winston & Strawn LLP shut down its lobbying practice this summer after the firm's two main Springfield hands, John Nicolay and Timothy Dart, left the firm to set up their own lobbying practice.They were the only two left in an office that once had six attorneys lobbying for big-name clients such as Philip Morris USA and Illinois doctors' insurance interests. The action follows Mr. Thompson's decision early in 2004 to cease his own lobbying activities. Under a new state ethics law that took effect then, Mr. Thompson had to cease lobbying if his wife, Jayne, was to continue to chair the board of the Chicago Public Library, which is partially funded by the state.FRIENDLY SPLITBoth Messrs. Thompson and Nicolay say their split was amicable but necessary, given Winston & Strawn's rapid growth into an international firm with offices serving lucrative corporate clients around the world."We'd bring in clients, and we couldn't take them," says Mr. Nicolay. "We got tired of having a conflict (of interest) with some (Winston & Strawn) guy in London or New York that we'd never met."Indeed, Springfield lobbying increasingly is the domain of boutique firms, such as Chicago's Nicolay & Dart, which don't carry the conflict issues or the overhead of litigation behemoths."When you have the costs, the freight, that major law firms do, it makes it much harder to compete," says lobbyist Andrew Raucci, who left a Chicago law firm and struck out on his own several years ago. Unlike lawyers who have to worry about billable hours, "I can be in Springfield all the time," says Mr. Raucci, who charges clients a flat fee, rather than an hourly rate.Mr. Thompson, who will send prospective lobbying clients to Nicolay & Dart, says he misses "the interaction with the legislative folks" that lobbying provided.But the four-term former governor noted that under the law, he still can advise clients on legislative strategy. And he continues to rub shoulders with lawmakers on occasion."I still see them," Mr. Thompson says. "I just can't lobby them." For more information : http://www.wisopinion.com/blogs/2005/09/lawyering-vs-lobbying.html Saludos Rodrigo González Fernández, lawyerschile.blogspot.com