To contact us Click HERE
Look no further than Marcellus gas production for the most important, single reason why national gas prices have plunged, giving consumers a bonanza of savings, and causing gas generation to massively displace coal power. The Marcellus and especially Pennsylvania's production are the tipping point.
Don't believe it? See the following great Bloomberg piece by Naureen Malik: http://www.telegram.com/article/20120621/NEWS/106219795/1002/business.
In that piece, Fadel Gheit, the senior energy analyst for Oppenheimer and Company says: "The Marcellus single handedly changed the gas balance in the U.S...Marcellus Shale production is the reason why we have low gas prices."
By March 2012, gas production from the Marcellus had reached 6.3 billion cubic feet per day or about 10% of US daily gas production. Marcellus gas production alone supplied 62% of the gas needed for the 6 New England states, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Maryland--the 11 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. That was enough new supply to crash prices, given the inadequate increases in demand to keep up with production.
At this point, the Marcellus gas production is bringing low gas prices not only to the Northeast 11 states but also across America, saving consumers many tens of billions of dollars, a blessing for the national economy.
27 Haziran 2012 Çarşamba
Low Gas Prices Boost CHP: Montclair University Showcases $90 Million CHP Energy Project
To contact us Click HERE
Low natural gas prices are causing massive central station power plants to switch to natural gas but also are opening doors for more power production where businesses and institutions operate. An especially interesting option for on-site energy are combined heat and power (CHP) projects that cut bills and emissions, as a result of the much more efficient use of fuel.
A big example of the growing CHP trend, another fruit of the shale gas revolution, is under construction by 400 workers in the Garden State.
Partnering with Energenics US, LLC, Montclair State University is in the process of becoming substantially energy self-sufficient by building a 5.4 megawatts (CHP) gas power system on its campus that will provide electricity, chilled water, and steam to the campus. It is a $90 million project that showcases how CHP is good environmental stewardship and helps tight budgets by cutting energy costs. http://www.northjersey.com/news/education/Montclair_State_building_new_energy_plant.html.
A big example of the growing CHP trend, another fruit of the shale gas revolution, is under construction by 400 workers in the Garden State.
Partnering with Energenics US, LLC, Montclair State University is in the process of becoming substantially energy self-sufficient by building a 5.4 megawatts (CHP) gas power system on its campus that will provide electricity, chilled water, and steam to the campus. It is a $90 million project that showcases how CHP is good environmental stewardship and helps tight budgets by cutting energy costs. http://www.northjersey.com/news/education/Montclair_State_building_new_energy_plant.html.
Texas Wind Sets New Records: 17.6% Of ERCOT's Demand On June 19th
To contact us Click HERE
The wind power industry in Texas rewrites the record books every few months. It just happened again.
On June 19th, Texas wind hit 8,368 megawatts of generation at 7:25 pm, breaking the "old" record that had been set in April. http://www.evwind.es/noticias.php?id_not=19340.
Wind provided 17.6% of all the electricity consumed on June 19th within the ERCOT market that comprises most of Texas. Wind power capacity remained above 6,000 megawatts for the entire day and was at 7,790 megawatts during the daily peak from 4pm to 5pm. In short, wind provided 15% of the day's peak demand.
Wind is very big business and a key to keeping air conditioning humming and the lights lit in Texas.
On June 19th, Texas wind hit 8,368 megawatts of generation at 7:25 pm, breaking the "old" record that had been set in April. http://www.evwind.es/noticias.php?id_not=19340.
Wind provided 17.6% of all the electricity consumed on June 19th within the ERCOT market that comprises most of Texas. Wind power capacity remained above 6,000 megawatts for the entire day and was at 7,790 megawatts during the daily peak from 4pm to 5pm. In short, wind provided 15% of the day's peak demand.
Wind is very big business and a key to keeping air conditioning humming and the lights lit in Texas.
Marcellus Dry Gas Profitable At $1.90 But Barnett & Haynesville Shales Lose Money
To contact us Click HERE
The Marcellus Shale rush is rooted in the region's superior economics. It's big and cheap to produce.
In fact, Laurent Key of Societe Generale in New York is quoted by Bloomberg as saying that $1.90--an incredibly low price--is the price at which dry gas goes from being profitable to unprofitable in the Marcellus.
By contrast, the gas price must be $3.20 in the Haynesville and Barnett shales for dry gas production to be profitable. See http://www.telegram.com/article/20120621/NEWS/106219795/1002/business.
At recent prices, gas producers lose money producing dry gas in Texas and Louisiana but make profits in Pennsylvania.
What does that mean? For one thing, Marcellus gas is uniquely valuable. For another, sustained prices below $2 will be needed to bust the Marcellus gas boom. That's just not going to happen.
In fact, Laurent Key of Societe Generale in New York is quoted by Bloomberg as saying that $1.90--an incredibly low price--is the price at which dry gas goes from being profitable to unprofitable in the Marcellus.
By contrast, the gas price must be $3.20 in the Haynesville and Barnett shales for dry gas production to be profitable. See http://www.telegram.com/article/20120621/NEWS/106219795/1002/business.
At recent prices, gas producers lose money producing dry gas in Texas and Louisiana but make profits in Pennsylvania.
What does that mean? For one thing, Marcellus gas is uniquely valuable. For another, sustained prices below $2 will be needed to bust the Marcellus gas boom. That's just not going to happen.
Motor Trend Raves About Volt's Performance
To contact us Click HERE
There has been a lot of pure drivel about the Volt's engineering and performance over the last year. Motor Trend, however, can be counted on for an objective review, after test driving the 2011 Volt for one year and 26,000 miles. Here is its review that matches pretty well my sister's experience: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/oneyear/alternative/1208_2011_chevrolet_volt_verdict/.
Kim Reynolds writes that, "...the real headline here is nothing ever went wrong with the car. Zip. Zero...it was breathtakingly reliable, given the Volt is...the biggest quantum jump in automotive technology in decades."
It's good to know that an American car company developed this cutting edge vehicle. Motor Trend says the price must come down for it to be a big commercial success and predicts it will.
Motor Trend ends its review by taking a big shot at the "political pundits" cheering for the car's failure and reminding them of the sales history of the Prius, the last car to make the kind of technology jump the Volt has made. The full Motor Trend review is well worth the few minutes it takes.
Kim Reynolds writes that, "...the real headline here is nothing ever went wrong with the car. Zip. Zero...it was breathtakingly reliable, given the Volt is...the biggest quantum jump in automotive technology in decades."
It's good to know that an American car company developed this cutting edge vehicle. Motor Trend says the price must come down for it to be a big commercial success and predicts it will.
Motor Trend ends its review by taking a big shot at the "political pundits" cheering for the car's failure and reminding them of the sales history of the Prius, the last car to make the kind of technology jump the Volt has made. The full Motor Trend review is well worth the few minutes it takes.
25 Haziran 2012 Pazartesi
Insider Report: Joe Paterno Fought Penn State's Attempts to Discipline Players
To contact us Click HERE
Did Joe Paterno Oppose Penn State's Efforts to Discipline Football Players?
Click Here for interesting report from ESPN that, to me, is at once unsurprising and damning. It details a recent Wall Street Journal piece based in large part upon discussions with former PSU student disciplinarian Vicky Triponey, who also released a 2005 e-mail she had written to then-PSU President Granham Spanier.
Here is an excerpt from the 2005 e-mail:
"[Coach Paterno] is insistent he knows best how to discipline his players ... and their status as a student when they commit violations of our standards should NOT be our concern ... and I think he was saying we should treat football players different from other students in this regard."
"Coach Paterno would rather we NOT inform the public when a football player is found responsible for committing a serious violation of the law and/or our student code, despite any moral or legal obligation to do so."
Ms. Triponey, who resigned from PSU in 2007, held that e-mail for 6 years. I am reminded of the Italian proverb, La vendetta è un piatto che si serve freddo ("Revenge is a dish best served cold").
Click Here for interesting report from ESPN that, to me, is at once unsurprising and damning. It details a recent Wall Street Journal piece based in large part upon discussions with former PSU student disciplinarian Vicky Triponey, who also released a 2005 e-mail she had written to then-PSU President Granham Spanier.
Here is an excerpt from the 2005 e-mail:
 |
| I'll Handle This, Vicky |
"Coach Paterno would rather we NOT inform the public when a football player is found responsible for committing a serious violation of the law and/or our student code, despite any moral or legal obligation to do so."
Ms. Triponey, who resigned from PSU in 2007, held that e-mail for 6 years. I am reminded of the Italian proverb, La vendetta è un piatto che si serve freddo ("Revenge is a dish best served cold").
SEVERANCE PAY, SETTLEMENTS AND PENNSYLVANIA'S NEW UNEMPLOYMENT LAW
To contact us Click HERE
HOW DOES SEVERANCE PAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO UNEMPLOYMENT UNDER PENNSYLVANIA’S NEW UNEMPLOYMENT LAW?
It is important to understand that, under the old Pennsylvania Unemployment law, there was not a “set off” for severance pay. Hence, if you entered into a severance agreement prior to January 1, 2012, the new law does not apply to you. Otherwise, it does.
The new Act has no effect at all on persons receiving less than $18,000 in severance pay. But, what happens if one is entitled to receive more than $18,000 in severance pay? As I currently understand it, of you are entitled to severance pay in excess of $18,000, there is an offset assigned to each weekly benefit to which you would otherwise be entitled. How is the offset calculated?
I believe they are taking the amount of severance IN EXCESS of $18,000 as a starting point, and then denying unemployment benefits until that excess payment has been received by a Claimant.
Example:
You are entitled to receive $573 per week in unemployment benefits. You are going to receive $20,092 in severance. Unemployment takes the $2,092 excess, and assigns $573 of it per week to your unemployment entitlement. Thus, under this scenario, you would not receive any unemployment payment for the first 4 weeks of your eligibility (i.e. $573 x 4 = $2,092).
WHAT IS SEVERANCE PAY UNDER PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT LAW?
Pennsylvania’s amended Unemployment law defines “Severance Pay” as “one or more payments made by an employer to an employee on account of separation from the service of the employer, regardless of whether the employer is legally bound by contract, statute or otherwise to make such payments.” Severance pay does not include payments for pension, retirement, or accrued leave, or payments of supplemental unemployment benefits.
A common question certain to arise going forward is as follows: What is a severance payment?
Clearly, if you receive an offer of severance at the time of your termination pursuant to a written company policy or standard practice, that would qualify as a severance payment.
DO SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS FOR A WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OR DISCRIMINATION CLAIM AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS?
Pennsylvania’s Unemployment statute states as follows in this regard (emphasis added by me):any person who has received or employer who has made a back wage payment pursuant to an award of a labor relations board arbitrator or the like without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period to which such wages are allocated shall notify the department immediately of the receipt or payment of such back wage award. The recipient of such back wage award, made without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period, shall be liable to pay into the Unemployment Compensation Fund an amount equal to the amount of such unemployment compensation benefits received.
Thus, one could easily argue that, unless the settlement amount was awarded by a tribunal of some sort (as opposed to via voluntary settlement), one’s entitlement to unemployment is in no way affected by a voluntary settlement.
Hence, prior to the enactment of the new severance provision, it did not matter how such settlements were characterized (i.e. as severance versus simply as settlement proceeds). Now, it does.
WILL I LOSE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IF I ACCEPT A SETTLEMENT THAT IS DEEMED A SEVERANCE PAYMENT BY MY FORMER EMPLOYER?
So, I can foresee employers attempting to characterize payments of settlement proceeds as severance, simply to get out from under any responsibility for unemployment compensation benefits.
Don’t let this happen to you! Under employment law principles, unemployment compensation benefits cannot be “counted against” your lost wages, and therefore cannot be used to reduce the value of your claim for lost wages. Allowing your former employer to characterize a settlement payment as “severance” will, as a practical matter, have the effect of reducing your settlement by the amount of unemployment benefits you have/will receive(d), which is contrary to all employment law principles.
Have additional questions about Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation law? Click Here for answers to your most FAQs.Have questions about any aspect of employment law under state and federal statutes? Click Here for our answers to your FAQs.Thank you for checking in on our Blog, and I wish you the very best. John A. Gallagher, Esquire
It is important to understand that, under the old Pennsylvania Unemployment law, there was not a “set off” for severance pay. Hence, if you entered into a severance agreement prior to January 1, 2012, the new law does not apply to you. Otherwise, it does. The new Act has no effect at all on persons receiving less than $18,000 in severance pay. But, what happens if one is entitled to receive more than $18,000 in severance pay? As I currently understand it, of you are entitled to severance pay in excess of $18,000, there is an offset assigned to each weekly benefit to which you would otherwise be entitled. How is the offset calculated?
I believe they are taking the amount of severance IN EXCESS of $18,000 as a starting point, and then denying unemployment benefits until that excess payment has been received by a Claimant.
Example:
You are entitled to receive $573 per week in unemployment benefits. You are going to receive $20,092 in severance. Unemployment takes the $2,092 excess, and assigns $573 of it per week to your unemployment entitlement. Thus, under this scenario, you would not receive any unemployment payment for the first 4 weeks of your eligibility (i.e. $573 x 4 = $2,092).
WHAT IS SEVERANCE PAY UNDER PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT LAW?
 |
| True Severance = Voluntary Payment |
A common question certain to arise going forward is as follows: What is a severance payment?
Clearly, if you receive an offer of severance at the time of your termination pursuant to a written company policy or standard practice, that would qualify as a severance payment.
DO SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS FOR A WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OR DISCRIMINATION CLAIM AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS?
Pennsylvania’s Unemployment statute states as follows in this regard (emphasis added by me):any person who has received or employer who has made a back wage payment pursuant to an award of a labor relations board arbitrator or the like without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period to which such wages are allocated shall notify the department immediately of the receipt or payment of such back wage award. The recipient of such back wage award, made without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period, shall be liable to pay into the Unemployment Compensation Fund an amount equal to the amount of such unemployment compensation benefits received.
 |
| Anything but a Jury Trial - We'll settle! |
Hence, prior to the enactment of the new severance provision, it did not matter how such settlements were characterized (i.e. as severance versus simply as settlement proceeds). Now, it does.
WILL I LOSE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IF I ACCEPT A SETTLEMENT THAT IS DEEMED A SEVERANCE PAYMENT BY MY FORMER EMPLOYER?
So, I can foresee employers attempting to characterize payments of settlement proceeds as severance, simply to get out from under any responsibility for unemployment compensation benefits.
Don’t let this happen to you! Under employment law principles, unemployment compensation benefits cannot be “counted against” your lost wages, and therefore cannot be used to reduce the value of your claim for lost wages. Allowing your former employer to characterize a settlement payment as “severance” will, as a practical matter, have the effect of reducing your settlement by the amount of unemployment benefits you have/will receive(d), which is contrary to all employment law principles.
Have additional questions about Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation law? Click Here for answers to your most FAQs.Have questions about any aspect of employment law under state and federal statutes? Click Here for our answers to your FAQs.Thank you for checking in on our Blog, and I wish you the very best. John A. Gallagher, Esquire
What is My Base Year Under Pennsylvania's Unemployment Law?
To contact us Click HERE
How Long Do I Have to Work For a Company to Get Unemployment in Pennsylvania?
At least 13 weeks, and maybe more depending upon how much you earn each week. Allow me to explain via a relatively common hypothetical.
Assume that you worked for a Company X for 3 years at a salary of $40,000 until your employment ended on January 1, 2012.
On April 1, 2012, you find a new job with Company Y paying you w-2 wages in the amount of $500 per week. Unfortunately, Company Y lets you go as part of a lay off on June 30, 2012 (i.e. 12 weeks after you started with Company Y).
You then apply for unemployment in connection with your involuntary lay off from Company Y.
Under this scenario, and based upon the way your Base Year of earnings is calculated, you have not earned enoungh from Company Y to entitle you to unemployment benefits, because it did not pay you any wages during your Base Year (which, as discussed below, is the last 3 quarters of 2011, and first quarter of 2011, during which time you did not work for Company Y).
How Does Pennsylvania Unemployment Calculate My Base Year of Wages?
Your Base Year is the first 4 of the last 5 quarters that immediately preceded the date of your separation from your most recent employment. In this scenario, your most recent job ended June 30, 2012 so, in calculating your Base Year earnings, one skips your most recent quarter of earnings (i.e. do not take into account any of your earnings from Company Y, all of which were made during the second quarter of 2012 - i.e. in the most recent of the 5 quarters immediatly preceding your claim). So, if you had not during the last 5 quarters worked for anyone other than Company Y, then you did not earn enough to qualify for unemployment.
However, you did work for another employer during the relevant time operiod - Company X. Therefore, even though Company Y may not be charged for your benefits, you may still be eligible for benefits chargeable to Company X or from the unemployment common fund.
Click Here to find out more about how this may work.
Additional questions about how Pennsylvania unemployment works? Click Here to jump to our soup to nuts answers to your FAQs.
At least 13 weeks, and maybe more depending upon how much you earn each week. Allow me to explain via a relatively common hypothetical.
Assume that you worked for a Company X for 3 years at a salary of $40,000 until your employment ended on January 1, 2012.
On April 1, 2012, you find a new job with Company Y paying you w-2 wages in the amount of $500 per week. Unfortunately, Company Y lets you go as part of a lay off on June 30, 2012 (i.e. 12 weeks after you started with Company Y).
You then apply for unemployment in connection with your involuntary lay off from Company Y.
Under this scenario, and based upon the way your Base Year of earnings is calculated, you have not earned enoungh from Company Y to entitle you to unemployment benefits, because it did not pay you any wages during your Base Year (which, as discussed below, is the last 3 quarters of 2011, and first quarter of 2011, during which time you did not work for Company Y).
How Does Pennsylvania Unemployment Calculate My Base Year of Wages?
Your Base Year is the first 4 of the last 5 quarters that immediately preceded the date of your separation from your most recent employment. In this scenario, your most recent job ended June 30, 2012 so, in calculating your Base Year earnings, one skips your most recent quarter of earnings (i.e. do not take into account any of your earnings from Company Y, all of which were made during the second quarter of 2012 - i.e. in the most recent of the 5 quarters immediatly preceding your claim). So, if you had not during the last 5 quarters worked for anyone other than Company Y, then you did not earn enough to qualify for unemployment.
However, you did work for another employer during the relevant time operiod - Company X. Therefore, even though Company Y may not be charged for your benefits, you may still be eligible for benefits chargeable to Company X or from the unemployment common fund.
Click Here to find out more about how this may work.
Additional questions about how Pennsylvania unemployment works? Click Here to jump to our soup to nuts answers to your FAQs.
Franklin & Marshall Women's Lacrosse Coaches' Press Release re: Hazing Incident
To contact us Click HERE
Lauren Paul Fired; Caitlin Powderly and Lidia Sanza Placed on Indefinite Leave in F & M Lacrosse Scandal
John A. Gallagher, Esquire has been retained to represent these coaches. Here is a Press Release on behalf of the coaches:
Neither F &M woman’s lacrosse Head Coach Lauren Paul, nor her Assistant Coaches, Caitlin Powderly and Lidia Sanza, had knowledge of or involvement in the March 11, 2011 incident giving rise to their present circumstances, and do not condone hazing in any form. If they had known that hazing occurred in March 2011, if it occurred, they would have taken corrective action.
The facts of this matter are important for the public to understand.
In early February 2012, Coach Paul made cuts from her team in the ordinary course. Soon after, the parents of one of the cut players registered a complaint about a student-led event in March 2011, eleven months prior. This incident, about which no details have been released to Ms. Paul or her assistants, has since been categorized as “hazing.” It is unknown whether the parents in question made any sort of threats to the college.
After hearing of the March 2011 event in mid-February 2012, the administration took virtually no steps to investigate same until April 6th, 2012. It is unknown what action the complaining parents, or their lawyer, took during this period of inactivity.
F&M thereafter began an “investigation” wherein the student-athletes were instructed not to speak with their parents, and told they did not need to seek representation of any kind. This investigation was procedurally flawed in many significant respects.
Although F & M fired Ms. Paul, placed her assistants on leave of absence (a particularly curious decision where Ms. Sanza is concerned, since she wasn’t even coaching F & M in March 2011) and suspended 11 student athletes from the team on April 17, the investigation was on that date still ongoing.
It appears that F & M elected to release news of these sanctions to the public on April 18, 2012. It is unknown if this release was made solely at the election of F & M, or to satisfy the demands of third-parties. The initial press releases were accompanied by statements from F & M that sought to blame Ms. Paul, and her assistants, for the March 2011 events.
The college acknowledged in writing that, as of Friday, April 20, 2012, the investigation was still ongoing. Why F & M chose to fire Ms. Paul, and to zealously publish the news of such firing, while its investigation was still ongoing, is a matter that only F & M and its lawyers can answer.
Earlier this week, and having completed its investigation, F & M decided to invite the 11 suspended players back on to the team. None of the suspended players were suspended or expelled from the college. Interestingly, the suspended players have rejected the college’s invitation to rejoin the team.
Ms. Paul understands that F & M takes its Student Code of Conduct very seriously, and that it enforces same vigorously when students have engaged in violations that threaten the mental or physical safety of its students. The decision to reinstate the suspended players, coupled with the absence of any meaningful student discipline being pursued or carried out, particularly when viewed through the prism of F & M’s stated principles where student well-being is concerned, clearly suggest that whatever occurred in March 2011 did not constitute “hazing.”
Ms. Paul's goal moving forward is to have a fulfilling and rewarding career. Ms. Powderly and Ms. Sanza share that ideal. While the coaches believe the actions taken against them were rash and wholly unwarranted, they understand that F & M, having published the reports concerning same, is unlikely to change its mind at this time. Consequently, they are presently considering their vocational and legal options.
Join the Petition Seeking Reinstatement of Coach Lauren Paul
There is a strong grass roots campaign advocating the rescission of the termination of Ms. Paul, and her reinstatement as F & M Head Coach. Please Click Here to sign a Petition supporting this important cause in the name of what is just and right.
Footnote: The remaining members of the F & M lacrosse team elected on Friday April 27 not to play in the Centennial Conference tournament, thereby foregoing a near surefire NCAAA tournament bid for the 10th ranked Diplomats. These student athletes are a credit to themselves, their parents and families, and to Coach Paul and her staff. Gallagher Law Group, PC
Paoli, Pa (Main Office)
Other Locations: Plymouth Meeting, Exton, Radnor, Philadelphia
866-719-5614
E-Mail Questions or Comments to : jag@johnagallagher.com
John A. Gallagher, Esquire has been retained to represent these coaches. Here is a Press Release on behalf of the coaches:Neither F &M woman’s lacrosse Head Coach Lauren Paul, nor her Assistant Coaches, Caitlin Powderly and Lidia Sanza, had knowledge of or involvement in the March 11, 2011 incident giving rise to their present circumstances, and do not condone hazing in any form. If they had known that hazing occurred in March 2011, if it occurred, they would have taken corrective action.
The facts of this matter are important for the public to understand.
In early February 2012, Coach Paul made cuts from her team in the ordinary course. Soon after, the parents of one of the cut players registered a complaint about a student-led event in March 2011, eleven months prior. This incident, about which no details have been released to Ms. Paul or her assistants, has since been categorized as “hazing.” It is unknown whether the parents in question made any sort of threats to the college.
After hearing of the March 2011 event in mid-February 2012, the administration took virtually no steps to investigate same until April 6th, 2012. It is unknown what action the complaining parents, or their lawyer, took during this period of inactivity.
F&M thereafter began an “investigation” wherein the student-athletes were instructed not to speak with their parents, and told they did not need to seek representation of any kind. This investigation was procedurally flawed in many significant respects.
Although F & M fired Ms. Paul, placed her assistants on leave of absence (a particularly curious decision where Ms. Sanza is concerned, since she wasn’t even coaching F & M in March 2011) and suspended 11 student athletes from the team on April 17, the investigation was on that date still ongoing.
It appears that F & M elected to release news of these sanctions to the public on April 18, 2012. It is unknown if this release was made solely at the election of F & M, or to satisfy the demands of third-parties. The initial press releases were accompanied by statements from F & M that sought to blame Ms. Paul, and her assistants, for the March 2011 events.
The college acknowledged in writing that, as of Friday, April 20, 2012, the investigation was still ongoing. Why F & M chose to fire Ms. Paul, and to zealously publish the news of such firing, while its investigation was still ongoing, is a matter that only F & M and its lawyers can answer.
Earlier this week, and having completed its investigation, F & M decided to invite the 11 suspended players back on to the team. None of the suspended players were suspended or expelled from the college. Interestingly, the suspended players have rejected the college’s invitation to rejoin the team.
Ms. Paul understands that F & M takes its Student Code of Conduct very seriously, and that it enforces same vigorously when students have engaged in violations that threaten the mental or physical safety of its students. The decision to reinstate the suspended players, coupled with the absence of any meaningful student discipline being pursued or carried out, particularly when viewed through the prism of F & M’s stated principles where student well-being is concerned, clearly suggest that whatever occurred in March 2011 did not constitute “hazing.”
Ms. Paul's goal moving forward is to have a fulfilling and rewarding career. Ms. Powderly and Ms. Sanza share that ideal. While the coaches believe the actions taken against them were rash and wholly unwarranted, they understand that F & M, having published the reports concerning same, is unlikely to change its mind at this time. Consequently, they are presently considering their vocational and legal options.
24 Haziran 2012 Pazar
Tape of Laurie Fine's Discussion With Bobby Davis About Syracuse's Bernie Fine
To contact us Click HERE
Click here to hear relevant parts of the phone call between Bobby Davis and Laurie Fine, wife of accused molester and former Syracuse assistant head coach Bernie Fine.
Click here to read a transcript of the phone call.
Click Here to read our comprehensive report on the Syracuse scandal.Gallagher Law Group, PC
Paoli, Pa (Main Office)
Other Locations: Plymouth Meeting, Exton, Radnor, Philadelphia
866-719-5614
E-Mail Questions or Comments to : jag@johnagallagher.com
 |
| Bobby Davis - With Mr. and Mrs. Fine? |
Click here to hear relevant parts of the phone call between Bobby Davis and Laurie Fine, wife of accused molester and former Syracuse assistant head coach Bernie Fine.
 |
| Laurie: You Should Have Done Something |
Click here to read a transcript of the phone call.
Click Here to read our comprehensive report on the Syracuse scandal.Gallagher Law Group, PC
Paoli, Pa (Main Office)
Other Locations: Plymouth Meeting, Exton, Radnor, Philadelphia
866-719-5614
E-Mail Questions or Comments to : jag@johnagallagher.com
SEVERANCE PAY, SETTLEMENTS AND PENNSYLVANIA'S NEW UNEMPLOYMENT LAW
To contact us Click HERE
HOW DOES SEVERANCE PAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO UNEMPLOYMENT UNDER PENNSYLVANIA’S NEW UNEMPLOYMENT LAW?
It is important to understand that, under the old Pennsylvania Unemployment law, there was not a “set off” for severance pay. Hence, if you entered into a severance agreement prior to January 1, 2012, the new law does not apply to you. Otherwise, it does.
The new Act has no effect at all on persons receiving less than $18,000 in severance pay. But, what happens if one is entitled to receive more than $18,000 in severance pay? As I currently understand it, of you are entitled to severance pay in excess of $18,000, there is an offset assigned to each weekly benefit to which you would otherwise be entitled. How is the offset calculated?
I believe they are taking the amount of severance IN EXCESS of $18,000 as a starting point, and then denying unemployment benefits until that excess payment has been received by a Claimant.
Example:
You are entitled to receive $573 per week in unemployment benefits. You are going to receive $20,092 in severance. Unemployment takes the $2,092 excess, and assigns $573 of it per week to your unemployment entitlement. Thus, under this scenario, you would not receive any unemployment payment for the first 4 weeks of your eligibility (i.e. $573 x 4 = $2,092).
WHAT IS SEVERANCE PAY UNDER PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT LAW?
Pennsylvania’s amended Unemployment law defines “Severance Pay” as “one or more payments made by an employer to an employee on account of separation from the service of the employer, regardless of whether the employer is legally bound by contract, statute or otherwise to make such payments.” Severance pay does not include payments for pension, retirement, or accrued leave, or payments of supplemental unemployment benefits.
A common question certain to arise going forward is as follows: What is a severance payment?
Clearly, if you receive an offer of severance at the time of your termination pursuant to a written company policy or standard practice, that would qualify as a severance payment.
DO SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS FOR A WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OR DISCRIMINATION CLAIM AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS?
Pennsylvania’s Unemployment statute states as follows in this regard (emphasis added by me):any person who has received or employer who has made a back wage payment pursuant to an award of a labor relations board arbitrator or the like without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period to which such wages are allocated shall notify the department immediately of the receipt or payment of such back wage award. The recipient of such back wage award, made without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period, shall be liable to pay into the Unemployment Compensation Fund an amount equal to the amount of such unemployment compensation benefits received.
Thus, one could easily argue that, unless the settlement amount was awarded by a tribunal of some sort (as opposed to via voluntary settlement), one’s entitlement to unemployment is in no way affected by a voluntary settlement.
Hence, prior to the enactment of the new severance provision, it did not matter how such settlements were characterized (i.e. as severance versus simply as settlement proceeds). Now, it does.
WILL I LOSE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IF I ACCEPT A SETTLEMENT THAT IS DEEMED A SEVERANCE PAYMENT BY MY FORMER EMPLOYER?
So, I can foresee employers attempting to characterize payments of settlement proceeds as severance, simply to get out from under any responsibility for unemployment compensation benefits.
Don’t let this happen to you! Under employment law principles, unemployment compensation benefits cannot be “counted against” your lost wages, and therefore cannot be used to reduce the value of your claim for lost wages. Allowing your former employer to characterize a settlement payment as “severance” will, as a practical matter, have the effect of reducing your settlement by the amount of unemployment benefits you have/will receive(d), which is contrary to all employment law principles.
Have additional questions about Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation law? Click Here for answers to your most FAQs.Have questions about any aspect of employment law under state and federal statutes? Click Here for our answers to your FAQs.Thank you for checking in on our Blog, and I wish you the very best. John A. Gallagher, Esquire
It is important to understand that, under the old Pennsylvania Unemployment law, there was not a “set off” for severance pay. Hence, if you entered into a severance agreement prior to January 1, 2012, the new law does not apply to you. Otherwise, it does. The new Act has no effect at all on persons receiving less than $18,000 in severance pay. But, what happens if one is entitled to receive more than $18,000 in severance pay? As I currently understand it, of you are entitled to severance pay in excess of $18,000, there is an offset assigned to each weekly benefit to which you would otherwise be entitled. How is the offset calculated?
I believe they are taking the amount of severance IN EXCESS of $18,000 as a starting point, and then denying unemployment benefits until that excess payment has been received by a Claimant.
Example:
You are entitled to receive $573 per week in unemployment benefits. You are going to receive $20,092 in severance. Unemployment takes the $2,092 excess, and assigns $573 of it per week to your unemployment entitlement. Thus, under this scenario, you would not receive any unemployment payment for the first 4 weeks of your eligibility (i.e. $573 x 4 = $2,092).
WHAT IS SEVERANCE PAY UNDER PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT LAW?
|
| True Severance = Voluntary Payment |
A common question certain to arise going forward is as follows: What is a severance payment?
Clearly, if you receive an offer of severance at the time of your termination pursuant to a written company policy or standard practice, that would qualify as a severance payment.
DO SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS FOR A WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OR DISCRIMINATION CLAIM AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS?
Pennsylvania’s Unemployment statute states as follows in this regard (emphasis added by me):any person who has received or employer who has made a back wage payment pursuant to an award of a labor relations board arbitrator or the like without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period to which such wages are allocated shall notify the department immediately of the receipt or payment of such back wage award. The recipient of such back wage award, made without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period, shall be liable to pay into the Unemployment Compensation Fund an amount equal to the amount of such unemployment compensation benefits received.
|
| Anything but a Jury Trial - We'll settle! |
Hence, prior to the enactment of the new severance provision, it did not matter how such settlements were characterized (i.e. as severance versus simply as settlement proceeds). Now, it does.
WILL I LOSE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IF I ACCEPT A SETTLEMENT THAT IS DEEMED A SEVERANCE PAYMENT BY MY FORMER EMPLOYER?
So, I can foresee employers attempting to characterize payments of settlement proceeds as severance, simply to get out from under any responsibility for unemployment compensation benefits.
Don’t let this happen to you! Under employment law principles, unemployment compensation benefits cannot be “counted against” your lost wages, and therefore cannot be used to reduce the value of your claim for lost wages. Allowing your former employer to characterize a settlement payment as “severance” will, as a practical matter, have the effect of reducing your settlement by the amount of unemployment benefits you have/will receive(d), which is contrary to all employment law principles.
Have additional questions about Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation law? Click Here for answers to your most FAQs.Have questions about any aspect of employment law under state and federal statutes? Click Here for our answers to your FAQs.Thank you for checking in on our Blog, and I wish you the very best. John A. Gallagher, Esquire
What is My Base Year Under Pennsylvania's Unemployment Law?
To contact us Click HERE
How Long Do I Have to Work For a Company to Get Unemployment in Pennsylvania?
At least 13 weeks, and maybe more depending upon how much you earn each week. Allow me to explain via a relatively common hypothetical.
Assume that you worked for a Company X for 3 years at a salary of $40,000 until your employment ended on January 1, 2012.
On April 1, 2012, you find a new job with Company Y paying you w-2 wages in the amount of $500 per week. Unfortunately, Company Y lets you go as part of a lay off on June 30, 2012 (i.e. 12 weeks after you started with Company Y).
You then apply for unemployment in connection with your involuntary lay off from Company Y.
Under this scenario, and based upon the way your Base Year of earnings is calculated, you have not earned enoungh from Company Y to entitle you to unemployment benefits, because it did not pay you any wages during your Base Year (which, as discussed below, is the last 3 quarters of 2011, and first quarter of 2011, during which time you did not work for Company Y).
How Does Pennsylvania Unemployment Calculate My Base Year of Wages?
Your Base Year is the first 4 of the last 5 quarters that immediately preceded the date of your separation from your most recent employment. In this scenario, your most recent job ended June 30, 2012 so, in calculating your Base Year earnings, one skips your most recent quarter of earnings (i.e. do not take into account any of your earnings from Company Y, all of which were made during the second quarter of 2012 - i.e. in the most recent of the 5 quarters immediatly preceding your claim). So, if you had not during the last 5 quarters worked for anyone other than Company Y, then you did not earn enough to qualify for unemployment.
However, you did work for another employer during the relevant time operiod - Company X. Therefore, even though Company Y may not be charged for your benefits, you may still be eligible for benefits chargeable to Company X or from the unemployment common fund.
Click Here to find out more about how this may work.
Additional questions about how Pennsylvania unemployment works? Click Here to jump to our soup to nuts answers to your FAQs.
At least 13 weeks, and maybe more depending upon how much you earn each week. Allow me to explain via a relatively common hypothetical.
Assume that you worked for a Company X for 3 years at a salary of $40,000 until your employment ended on January 1, 2012.
On April 1, 2012, you find a new job with Company Y paying you w-2 wages in the amount of $500 per week. Unfortunately, Company Y lets you go as part of a lay off on June 30, 2012 (i.e. 12 weeks after you started with Company Y).
You then apply for unemployment in connection with your involuntary lay off from Company Y.
Under this scenario, and based upon the way your Base Year of earnings is calculated, you have not earned enoungh from Company Y to entitle you to unemployment benefits, because it did not pay you any wages during your Base Year (which, as discussed below, is the last 3 quarters of 2011, and first quarter of 2011, during which time you did not work for Company Y).
How Does Pennsylvania Unemployment Calculate My Base Year of Wages?
Your Base Year is the first 4 of the last 5 quarters that immediately preceded the date of your separation from your most recent employment. In this scenario, your most recent job ended June 30, 2012 so, in calculating your Base Year earnings, one skips your most recent quarter of earnings (i.e. do not take into account any of your earnings from Company Y, all of which were made during the second quarter of 2012 - i.e. in the most recent of the 5 quarters immediatly preceding your claim). So, if you had not during the last 5 quarters worked for anyone other than Company Y, then you did not earn enough to qualify for unemployment.
However, you did work for another employer during the relevant time operiod - Company X. Therefore, even though Company Y may not be charged for your benefits, you may still be eligible for benefits chargeable to Company X or from the unemployment common fund.
Click Here to find out more about how this may work.
Additional questions about how Pennsylvania unemployment works? Click Here to jump to our soup to nuts answers to your FAQs.
I Quit My Old Job to Take a New Job and Then I Got Laid Off - Can I Get Unemployment in Pennsylvania?
To contact us Click HERE
Yes. If you had the job offer from the new job in hand when you quit your old job, you can.
You need to understand, though, that your old job may fight your claim by filing for Relief From Charges if it os chargeable for your benefits as your sole or primary Base Year employer.Gallagher Law Group, PC
Paoli, Pa (Main Office)
Other Locations: Plymouth Meeting, Exton, Radnor, Philadelphia
866-719-5614
E-Mail Questions or Comments to : jag@johnagallagher.com
You need to understand, though, that your old job may fight your claim by filing for Relief From Charges if it os chargeable for your benefits as your sole or primary Base Year employer.Gallagher Law Group, PC
Paoli, Pa (Main Office)
Other Locations: Plymouth Meeting, Exton, Radnor, Philadelphia
866-719-5614
E-Mail Questions or Comments to : jag@johnagallagher.com
Franklin & Marshall Women's Lacrosse Coaches' Press Release re: Hazing Incident
To contact us Click HERE
Lauren Paul Fired; Caitlin Powderly and Lidia Sanza Placed on Indefinite Leave in F & M Lacrosse Scandal
John A. Gallagher, Esquire has been retained to represent these coaches. Here is a Press Release on behalf of the coaches:
Neither F &M woman’s lacrosse Head Coach Lauren Paul, nor her Assistant Coaches, Caitlin Powderly and Lidia Sanza, had knowledge of or involvement in the March 11, 2011 incident giving rise to their present circumstances, and do not condone hazing in any form. If they had known that hazing occurred in March 2011, if it occurred, they would have taken corrective action.
The facts of this matter are important for the public to understand.
In early February 2012, Coach Paul made cuts from her team in the ordinary course. Soon after, the parents of one of the cut players registered a complaint about a student-led event in March 2011, eleven months prior. This incident, about which no details have been released to Ms. Paul or her assistants, has since been categorized as “hazing.” It is unknown whether the parents in question made any sort of threats to the college.
After hearing of the March 2011 event in mid-February 2012, the administration took virtually no steps to investigate same until April 6th, 2012. It is unknown what action the complaining parents, or their lawyer, took during this period of inactivity.
F&M thereafter began an “investigation” wherein the student-athletes were instructed not to speak with their parents, and told they did not need to seek representation of any kind. This investigation was procedurally flawed in many significant respects.
Although F & M fired Ms. Paul, placed her assistants on leave of absence (a particularly curious decision where Ms. Sanza is concerned, since she wasn’t even coaching F & M in March 2011) and suspended 11 student athletes from the team on April 17, the investigation was on that date still ongoing.
It appears that F & M elected to release news of these sanctions to the public on April 18, 2012. It is unknown if this release was made solely at the election of F & M, or to satisfy the demands of third-parties. The initial press releases were accompanied by statements from F & M that sought to blame Ms. Paul, and her assistants, for the March 2011 events.
The college acknowledged in writing that, as of Friday, April 20, 2012, the investigation was still ongoing. Why F & M chose to fire Ms. Paul, and to zealously publish the news of such firing, while its investigation was still ongoing, is a matter that only F & M and its lawyers can answer.
Earlier this week, and having completed its investigation, F & M decided to invite the 11 suspended players back on to the team. None of the suspended players were suspended or expelled from the college. Interestingly, the suspended players have rejected the college’s invitation to rejoin the team.
Ms. Paul understands that F & M takes its Student Code of Conduct very seriously, and that it enforces same vigorously when students have engaged in violations that threaten the mental or physical safety of its students. The decision to reinstate the suspended players, coupled with the absence of any meaningful student discipline being pursued or carried out, particularly when viewed through the prism of F & M’s stated principles where student well-being is concerned, clearly suggest that whatever occurred in March 2011 did not constitute “hazing.”
Ms. Paul's goal moving forward is to have a fulfilling and rewarding career. Ms. Powderly and Ms. Sanza share that ideal. While the coaches believe the actions taken against them were rash and wholly unwarranted, they understand that F & M, having published the reports concerning same, is unlikely to change its mind at this time. Consequently, they are presently considering their vocational and legal options.
Join the Petition Seeking Reinstatement of Coach Lauren Paul
There is a strong grass roots campaign advocating the rescission of the termination of Ms. Paul, and her reinstatement as F & M Head Coach. Please Click Here to sign a Petition supporting this important cause in the name of what is just and right.
Footnote: The remaining members of the F & M lacrosse team elected on Friday April 27 not to play in the Centennial Conference tournament, thereby foregoing a near surefire NCAAA tournament bid for the 10th ranked Diplomats. These student athletes are a credit to themselves, their parents and families, and to Coach Paul and her staff.
John A. Gallagher, Esquire has been retained to represent these coaches. Here is a Press Release on behalf of the coaches:Neither F &M woman’s lacrosse Head Coach Lauren Paul, nor her Assistant Coaches, Caitlin Powderly and Lidia Sanza, had knowledge of or involvement in the March 11, 2011 incident giving rise to their present circumstances, and do not condone hazing in any form. If they had known that hazing occurred in March 2011, if it occurred, they would have taken corrective action.
The facts of this matter are important for the public to understand.
In early February 2012, Coach Paul made cuts from her team in the ordinary course. Soon after, the parents of one of the cut players registered a complaint about a student-led event in March 2011, eleven months prior. This incident, about which no details have been released to Ms. Paul or her assistants, has since been categorized as “hazing.” It is unknown whether the parents in question made any sort of threats to the college.
After hearing of the March 2011 event in mid-February 2012, the administration took virtually no steps to investigate same until April 6th, 2012. It is unknown what action the complaining parents, or their lawyer, took during this period of inactivity.
F&M thereafter began an “investigation” wherein the student-athletes were instructed not to speak with their parents, and told they did not need to seek representation of any kind. This investigation was procedurally flawed in many significant respects.
Although F & M fired Ms. Paul, placed her assistants on leave of absence (a particularly curious decision where Ms. Sanza is concerned, since she wasn’t even coaching F & M in March 2011) and suspended 11 student athletes from the team on April 17, the investigation was on that date still ongoing.
It appears that F & M elected to release news of these sanctions to the public on April 18, 2012. It is unknown if this release was made solely at the election of F & M, or to satisfy the demands of third-parties. The initial press releases were accompanied by statements from F & M that sought to blame Ms. Paul, and her assistants, for the March 2011 events.
The college acknowledged in writing that, as of Friday, April 20, 2012, the investigation was still ongoing. Why F & M chose to fire Ms. Paul, and to zealously publish the news of such firing, while its investigation was still ongoing, is a matter that only F & M and its lawyers can answer.
Earlier this week, and having completed its investigation, F & M decided to invite the 11 suspended players back on to the team. None of the suspended players were suspended or expelled from the college. Interestingly, the suspended players have rejected the college’s invitation to rejoin the team.
Ms. Paul understands that F & M takes its Student Code of Conduct very seriously, and that it enforces same vigorously when students have engaged in violations that threaten the mental or physical safety of its students. The decision to reinstate the suspended players, coupled with the absence of any meaningful student discipline being pursued or carried out, particularly when viewed through the prism of F & M’s stated principles where student well-being is concerned, clearly suggest that whatever occurred in March 2011 did not constitute “hazing.”
Ms. Paul's goal moving forward is to have a fulfilling and rewarding career. Ms. Powderly and Ms. Sanza share that ideal. While the coaches believe the actions taken against them were rash and wholly unwarranted, they understand that F & M, having published the reports concerning same, is unlikely to change its mind at this time. Consequently, they are presently considering their vocational and legal options.
23 Haziran 2012 Cumartesi
Study Warns That Rising Water Temperatures Threaten Some Power Plants Production
To contact us Click HERE
After a new round of record high temperatures during the first two days of the summer of 2012, now is a good time to discuss a major study that projects what the rising temperature of water used to cool power plants will do to power generation over the coming decades.
It has happened a few times already--a power plant shutting down, because the water needed for cooling is too hot. The Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant had to stop operating last year when the water in the Tennessee River became too warm. Power reductions for the same reason have also happened at French nuclear reactors.
About 90% of America's power plants require water to cool them, and their steam turbines operate poorly or not at all, if the temperature of the intake water is too hot.
Now a study by European and American scientists concludes that rising river and water temperatures endangers the operation of up to 16% of America's generation capacity over the coming decades.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-06/uow-nac053112.php. As average air temperatures increase and the ratio of record highs to lows expands, water temperatures are rising too.
Temperature records for the Susquehanna River, for example, show an approximately 4-degree warming of its waters over the last 4 decades. Similar temperature increases have already happened on other waters and more heat is ahead.
It has happened a few times already--a power plant shutting down, because the water needed for cooling is too hot. The Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant had to stop operating last year when the water in the Tennessee River became too warm. Power reductions for the same reason have also happened at French nuclear reactors.
About 90% of America's power plants require water to cool them, and their steam turbines operate poorly or not at all, if the temperature of the intake water is too hot.
Now a study by European and American scientists concludes that rising river and water temperatures endangers the operation of up to 16% of America's generation capacity over the coming decades.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-06/uow-nac053112.php. As average air temperatures increase and the ratio of record highs to lows expands, water temperatures are rising too.
Temperature records for the Susquehanna River, for example, show an approximately 4-degree warming of its waters over the last 4 decades. Similar temperature increases have already happened on other waters and more heat is ahead.
Climate Change Stunner: Shale Gas Makes USA World Leader In Cutting Carbon Emissions Since 2006
To contact us Click HERE
You will not find this fact in any of Josh Fox's videos about fracking and shale gas. Our Canadian friends call it a "climate change stunner." The stunning fact for Canadians is that the USA leads the world in reducing carbon emissions since 2006. This fact likely stuns most Americans too, as little has been said about it.
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/climatesnapshot/2012/06/04/climate-change-stunner-usa-leads-world-co2-cuts-2006.
Across the Atlantic, the British are equally amazed by the turn of events that make the USA the world leader in reducing carbon pollution. A headline said somewhat incredulously: "US Carbon Emissions Down More Than Any Other Country." See http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/20120620/carbon-emissions-down-more-than-any-other-country.htm.
Both the Canadian and British reporting quickly identify that the shale gas boom is the key to the remarkable transformation of Uncle Sam into the world's leading carbon reducer. Importantly, both note that shale gas could do the same in other countries.
For example, the British publication quotes the chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, to say: "The replacement of coal by shale gas is a key factor and what happened in the US could very well happen in China and other countries and could definitely help in reducing CO2 emissions."
Environmentalists attacking shale gas especially must come to grips with the facts stated by Mr. Birol, as inconvenient as they may be to anti-fracking campaigns around the world. Their failure to do so is the reason that famed environmental scientist and guru, James Lovelock, is "cross with the greens." www.johnhanger.blogspot.com/2012/06/famed-environmentalist-embraces-gas.html.
Roaring carbon increases in China, where shale gas is plentiful but not yet produced in large quantity, makes the US success in using shale gas to reduce its carbon pollution a particularly important model. Since 2006, the US has reduced carbon emissions by 7.7%, the equivalent of removing 84 million cars from the road. The total vehicle fleet in the USA is about 246 million and so a reduction equal to 84 million cars is enormous, comparable to more than 1 of 3 cars off the road.
According to calculations by the Canadian journalist, the carbon footprint of a typical American is back to 1964 levels and US emissions are falling faster than necessary to meet the Copenhagen Accord goal of 17% reduction by 2020.
So how is the news that carbon emissions are falling substantially largely as a result of shale gas being treated here? Remarkably few Americans have been exposed to the fact that the USA is now the world leader in cutting carbon emissions and to the fact that pollution fighting leadership is substantially thanks to the shale gas revolution.
Most unfortunately, in some circles, the huge carbon reductions made possible by shale gas remains the truth that cannot be spoken.
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/climatesnapshot/2012/06/04/climate-change-stunner-usa-leads-world-co2-cuts-2006.
Across the Atlantic, the British are equally amazed by the turn of events that make the USA the world leader in reducing carbon pollution. A headline said somewhat incredulously: "US Carbon Emissions Down More Than Any Other Country." See http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/20120620/carbon-emissions-down-more-than-any-other-country.htm.
Both the Canadian and British reporting quickly identify that the shale gas boom is the key to the remarkable transformation of Uncle Sam into the world's leading carbon reducer. Importantly, both note that shale gas could do the same in other countries.
For example, the British publication quotes the chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, to say: "The replacement of coal by shale gas is a key factor and what happened in the US could very well happen in China and other countries and could definitely help in reducing CO2 emissions."
Environmentalists attacking shale gas especially must come to grips with the facts stated by Mr. Birol, as inconvenient as they may be to anti-fracking campaigns around the world. Their failure to do so is the reason that famed environmental scientist and guru, James Lovelock, is "cross with the greens." www.johnhanger.blogspot.com/2012/06/famed-environmentalist-embraces-gas.html.
Roaring carbon increases in China, where shale gas is plentiful but not yet produced in large quantity, makes the US success in using shale gas to reduce its carbon pollution a particularly important model. Since 2006, the US has reduced carbon emissions by 7.7%, the equivalent of removing 84 million cars from the road. The total vehicle fleet in the USA is about 246 million and so a reduction equal to 84 million cars is enormous, comparable to more than 1 of 3 cars off the road.
According to calculations by the Canadian journalist, the carbon footprint of a typical American is back to 1964 levels and US emissions are falling faster than necessary to meet the Copenhagen Accord goal of 17% reduction by 2020.
So how is the news that carbon emissions are falling substantially largely as a result of shale gas being treated here? Remarkably few Americans have been exposed to the fact that the USA is now the world leader in cutting carbon emissions and to the fact that pollution fighting leadership is substantially thanks to the shale gas revolution.
Most unfortunately, in some circles, the huge carbon reductions made possible by shale gas remains the truth that cannot be spoken.
Insider Report: Joe Paterno Fought Penn State's Attempts to Discipline Players
To contact us Click HERE
Did Joe Paterno Oppose Penn State's Efforts to Discipline Football Players?
Click Here for interesting report from ESPN that, to me, is at once unsurprising and damning. It details a recent Wall Street Journal piece based in large part upon discussions with former PSU student disciplinarian Vicky Triponey, who also released a 2005 e-mail she had written to then-PSU President Granham Spanier.
Here is an excerpt from the 2005 e-mail:
"[Coach Paterno] is insistent he knows best how to discipline his players ... and their status as a student when they commit violations of our standards should NOT be our concern ... and I think he was saying we should treat football players different from other students in this regard."
"Coach Paterno would rather we NOT inform the public when a football player is found responsible for committing a serious violation of the law and/or our student code, despite any moral or legal obligation to do so."
Ms. Triponey, who resigned from PSU in 2007, held that e-mail for 6 years. I am reminded of the Italian proverb, La vendetta è un piatto che si serve freddo ("Revenge is a dish best served cold").
Click Here for interesting report from ESPN that, to me, is at once unsurprising and damning. It details a recent Wall Street Journal piece based in large part upon discussions with former PSU student disciplinarian Vicky Triponey, who also released a 2005 e-mail she had written to then-PSU President Granham Spanier.
Here is an excerpt from the 2005 e-mail:
|
| I'll Handle This, Vicky |
"Coach Paterno would rather we NOT inform the public when a football player is found responsible for committing a serious violation of the law and/or our student code, despite any moral or legal obligation to do so."
Ms. Triponey, who resigned from PSU in 2007, held that e-mail for 6 years. I am reminded of the Italian proverb, La vendetta è un piatto che si serve freddo ("Revenge is a dish best served cold").
SEVERANCE PAY, SETTLEMENTS AND PENNSYLVANIA'S NEW UNEMPLOYMENT LAW
To contact us Click HERE
HOW DOES SEVERANCE PAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO UNEMPLOYMENT UNDER PENNSYLVANIA’S NEW UNEMPLOYMENT LAW?
It is important to understand that, under the old Pennsylvania Unemployment law, there was not a “set off” for severance pay. Hence, if you entered into a severance agreement prior to January 1, 2012, the new law does not apply to you. Otherwise, it does.
The new Act has no effect at all on persons receiving less than $18,000 in severance pay. But, what happens if one is entitled to receive more than $18,000 in severance pay? As I currently understand it, of you are entitled to severance pay in excess of $18,000, there is an offset assigned to each weekly benefit to which you would otherwise be entitled. How is the offset calculated?
I believe they are taking the amount of severance IN EXCESS of $18,000 as a starting point, and then denying unemployment benefits until that excess payment has been received by a Claimant.
Example:
You are entitled to receive $573 per week in unemployment benefits. You are going to receive $20,092 in severance. Unemployment takes the $2,092 excess, and assigns $573 of it per week to your unemployment entitlement. Thus, under this scenario, you would not receive any unemployment payment for the first 4 weeks of your eligibility (i.e. $573 x 4 = $2,092).
WHAT IS SEVERANCE PAY UNDER PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT LAW?
Pennsylvania’s amended Unemployment law defines “Severance Pay” as “one or more payments made by an employer to an employee on account of separation from the service of the employer, regardless of whether the employer is legally bound by contract, statute or otherwise to make such payments.” Severance pay does not include payments for pension, retirement, or accrued leave, or payments of supplemental unemployment benefits.
A common question certain to arise going forward is as follows: What is a severance payment?
Clearly, if you receive an offer of severance at the time of your termination pursuant to a written company policy or standard practice, that would qualify as a severance payment.
DO SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS FOR A WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OR DISCRIMINATION CLAIM AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS?
Pennsylvania’s Unemployment statute states as follows in this regard (emphasis added by me):any person who has received or employer who has made a back wage payment pursuant to an award of a labor relations board arbitrator or the like without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period to which such wages are allocated shall notify the department immediately of the receipt or payment of such back wage award. The recipient of such back wage award, made without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period, shall be liable to pay into the Unemployment Compensation Fund an amount equal to the amount of such unemployment compensation benefits received.
Thus, one could easily argue that, unless the settlement amount was awarded by a tribunal of some sort (as opposed to via voluntary settlement), one’s entitlement to unemployment is in no way affected by a voluntary settlement.
Hence, prior to the enactment of the new severance provision, it did not matter how such settlements were characterized (i.e. as severance versus simply as settlement proceeds). Now, it does.
WILL I LOSE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IF I ACCEPT A SETTLEMENT THAT IS DEEMED A SEVERANCE PAYMENT BY MY FORMER EMPLOYER?
So, I can foresee employers attempting to characterize payments of settlement proceeds as severance, simply to get out from under any responsibility for unemployment compensation benefits.
Don’t let this happen to you! Under employment law principles, unemployment compensation benefits cannot be “counted against” your lost wages, and therefore cannot be used to reduce the value of your claim for lost wages. Allowing your former employer to characterize a settlement payment as “severance” will, as a practical matter, have the effect of reducing your settlement by the amount of unemployment benefits you have/will receive(d), which is contrary to all employment law principles.
Have additional questions about Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation law? Click Here for answers to your most FAQs.Have questions about any aspect of employment law under state and federal statutes? Click Here for our answers to your FAQs.Thank you for checking in on our Blog, and I wish you the very best. John A. Gallagher, Esquire
It is important to understand that, under the old Pennsylvania Unemployment law, there was not a “set off” for severance pay. Hence, if you entered into a severance agreement prior to January 1, 2012, the new law does not apply to you. Otherwise, it does. The new Act has no effect at all on persons receiving less than $18,000 in severance pay. But, what happens if one is entitled to receive more than $18,000 in severance pay? As I currently understand it, of you are entitled to severance pay in excess of $18,000, there is an offset assigned to each weekly benefit to which you would otherwise be entitled. How is the offset calculated?
I believe they are taking the amount of severance IN EXCESS of $18,000 as a starting point, and then denying unemployment benefits until that excess payment has been received by a Claimant.
Example:
You are entitled to receive $573 per week in unemployment benefits. You are going to receive $20,092 in severance. Unemployment takes the $2,092 excess, and assigns $573 of it per week to your unemployment entitlement. Thus, under this scenario, you would not receive any unemployment payment for the first 4 weeks of your eligibility (i.e. $573 x 4 = $2,092).
WHAT IS SEVERANCE PAY UNDER PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT LAW?
|
| True Severance = Voluntary Payment |
A common question certain to arise going forward is as follows: What is a severance payment?
Clearly, if you receive an offer of severance at the time of your termination pursuant to a written company policy or standard practice, that would qualify as a severance payment.
DO SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS FOR A WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OR DISCRIMINATION CLAIM AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS?
Pennsylvania’s Unemployment statute states as follows in this regard (emphasis added by me):any person who has received or employer who has made a back wage payment pursuant to an award of a labor relations board arbitrator or the like without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period to which such wages are allocated shall notify the department immediately of the receipt or payment of such back wage award. The recipient of such back wage award, made without deduction for unemployment compensation benefits received during the period, shall be liable to pay into the Unemployment Compensation Fund an amount equal to the amount of such unemployment compensation benefits received.
|
| Anything but a Jury Trial - We'll settle! |
Hence, prior to the enactment of the new severance provision, it did not matter how such settlements were characterized (i.e. as severance versus simply as settlement proceeds). Now, it does.
WILL I LOSE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IF I ACCEPT A SETTLEMENT THAT IS DEEMED A SEVERANCE PAYMENT BY MY FORMER EMPLOYER?
So, I can foresee employers attempting to characterize payments of settlement proceeds as severance, simply to get out from under any responsibility for unemployment compensation benefits.
Don’t let this happen to you! Under employment law principles, unemployment compensation benefits cannot be “counted against” your lost wages, and therefore cannot be used to reduce the value of your claim for lost wages. Allowing your former employer to characterize a settlement payment as “severance” will, as a practical matter, have the effect of reducing your settlement by the amount of unemployment benefits you have/will receive(d), which is contrary to all employment law principles.
Have additional questions about Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation law? Click Here for answers to your most FAQs.Have questions about any aspect of employment law under state and federal statutes? Click Here for our answers to your FAQs.Thank you for checking in on our Blog, and I wish you the very best. John A. Gallagher, Esquire
What is My Base Year Under Pennsylvania's Unemployment Law?
To contact us Click HERE
How Long Do I Have to Work For a Company to Get Unemployment in Pennsylvania?
At least 13 weeks, and maybe more depending upon how much you earn each week. Allow me to explain via a relatively common hypothetical.
Assume that you worked for a Company X for 3 years at a salary of $40,000 until your employment ended on January 1, 2012.
On April 1, 2012, you find a new job with Company Y paying you w-2 wages in the amount of $500 per week. Unfortunately, Company Y lets you go as part of a lay off on June 30, 2012 (i.e. 12 weeks after you started with Company Y).
You then apply for unemployment in connection with your involuntary lay off from Company Y.
Under this scenario, and based upon the way your Base Year of earnings is calculated, you have not earned enoungh from Company Y to entitle you to unemployment benefits, because it did not pay you any wages during your Base Year (which, as discussed below, is the last 3 quarters of 2011, and first quarter of 2011, during which time you did not work for Company Y).
How Does Pennsylvania Unemployment Calculate My Base Year of Wages?
Your Base Year is the first 4 of the last 5 quarters that immediately preceded the date of your separation from your most recent employment. In this scenario, your most recent job ended June 30, 2012 so, in calculating your Base Year earnings, one skips your most recent quarter of earnings (i.e. do not take into account any of your earnings from Company Y, all of which were made during the second quarter of 2012 - i.e. in the most recent of the 5 quarters immediatly preceding your claim). So, if you had not during the last 5 quarters worked for anyone other than Company Y, then you did not earn enough to qualify for unemployment.
However, you did work for another employer during the relevant time operiod - Company X. Therefore, even though Company Y may not be charged for your benefits, you may still be eligible for benefits chargeable to Company X or from the unemployment common fund.
Click Here to find out more about how this may work.
Additional questions about how Pennsylvania unemployment works? Click Here to jump to our soup to nuts answers to your FAQs.
At least 13 weeks, and maybe more depending upon how much you earn each week. Allow me to explain via a relatively common hypothetical.
Assume that you worked for a Company X for 3 years at a salary of $40,000 until your employment ended on January 1, 2012.
On April 1, 2012, you find a new job with Company Y paying you w-2 wages in the amount of $500 per week. Unfortunately, Company Y lets you go as part of a lay off on June 30, 2012 (i.e. 12 weeks after you started with Company Y).
You then apply for unemployment in connection with your involuntary lay off from Company Y.
Under this scenario, and based upon the way your Base Year of earnings is calculated, you have not earned enoungh from Company Y to entitle you to unemployment benefits, because it did not pay you any wages during your Base Year (which, as discussed below, is the last 3 quarters of 2011, and first quarter of 2011, during which time you did not work for Company Y).
How Does Pennsylvania Unemployment Calculate My Base Year of Wages?
Your Base Year is the first 4 of the last 5 quarters that immediately preceded the date of your separation from your most recent employment. In this scenario, your most recent job ended June 30, 2012 so, in calculating your Base Year earnings, one skips your most recent quarter of earnings (i.e. do not take into account any of your earnings from Company Y, all of which were made during the second quarter of 2012 - i.e. in the most recent of the 5 quarters immediatly preceding your claim). So, if you had not during the last 5 quarters worked for anyone other than Company Y, then you did not earn enough to qualify for unemployment.
However, you did work for another employer during the relevant time operiod - Company X. Therefore, even though Company Y may not be charged for your benefits, you may still be eligible for benefits chargeable to Company X or from the unemployment common fund.
Click Here to find out more about how this may work.
Additional questions about how Pennsylvania unemployment works? Click Here to jump to our soup to nuts answers to your FAQs.
21 Haziran 2012 Perşembe
Franklin & Marshall Women's Lacrosse Coaches' Press Release re: Hazing Incident
To contact us Click HERE
Lauren Paul Fired; Caitlin Powderly and Lidia Sanza Placed on Indefinite Leave in F & M Lacrosse Scandal
John A. Gallagher, Esquire has been retained to represent these coaches. Here is a Press Release on behalf of the coaches:
Neither F &M woman’s lacrosse Head Coach Lauren Paul, nor her Assistant Coaches, Caitlin Powderly and Lidia Sanza, had knowledge of or involvement in the March 11, 2011 incident giving rise to their present circumstances, and do not condone hazing in any form. If they had known that hazing occurred in March 2011, if it occurred, they would have taken corrective action.
The facts of this matter are important for the public to understand.
In early February 2012, Coach Paul made cuts from her team in the ordinary course. Soon after, the parents of one of the cut players registered a complaint about a student-led event in March 2011, eleven months prior. This incident, about which no details have been released to Ms. Paul or her assistants, has since been categorized as “hazing.” It is unknown whether the parents in question made any sort of threats to the college.
After hearing of the March 2011 event in mid-February 2012, the administration took virtually no steps to investigate same until April 6th, 2012. It is unknown what action the complaining parents, or their lawyer, took during this period of inactivity.
F&M thereafter began an “investigation” wherein the student-athletes were instructed not to speak with their parents, and told they did not need to seek representation of any kind. This investigation was procedurally flawed in many significant respects.
Although F & M fired Ms. Paul, placed her assistants on leave of absence (a particularly curious decision where Ms. Sanza is concerned, since she wasn’t even coaching F & M in March 2011) and suspended 11 student athletes from the team on April 17, the investigation was on that date still ongoing.
It appears that F & M elected to release news of these sanctions to the public on April 18, 2012. It is unknown if this release was made solely at the election of F & M, or to satisfy the demands of third-parties. The initial press releases were accompanied by statements from F & M that sought to blame Ms. Paul, and her assistants, for the March 2011 events.
The college acknowledged in writing that, as of Friday, April 20, 2012, the investigation was still ongoing. Why F & M chose to fire Ms. Paul, and to zealously publish the news of such firing, while its investigation was still ongoing, is a matter that only F & M and its lawyers can answer.
Earlier this week, and having completed its investigation, F & M decided to invite the 11 suspended players back on to the team. None of the suspended players were suspended or expelled from the college. Interestingly, the suspended players have rejected the college’s invitation to rejoin the team.
Ms. Paul understands that F & M takes its Student Code of Conduct very seriously, and that it enforces same vigorously when students have engaged in violations that threaten the mental or physical safety of its students. The decision to reinstate the suspended players, coupled with the absence of any meaningful student discipline being pursued or carried out, particularly when viewed through the prism of F & M’s stated principles where student well-being is concerned, clearly suggest that whatever occurred in March 2011 did not constitute “hazing.”
Ms. Paul's goal moving forward is to have a fulfilling and rewarding career. Ms. Powderly and Ms. Sanza share that ideal. While the coaches believe the actions taken against them were rash and wholly unwarranted, they understand that F & M, having published the reports concerning same, is unlikely to change its mind at this time. Consequently, they are presently considering their vocational and legal options.
Join the Petition Seeking Reinstatement of Coach Lauren Paul
There is a strong grass roots campaign advocating the rescission of the termination of Ms. Paul, and her reinstatement as F & M Head Coach. Please Click Here to sign a Petition supporting this important cause in the name of what is just and right.
Footnote: The remaining members of the F & M lacrosse team elected on Friday April 27 not to play in the Centennial Conference tournament, thereby foregoing a near surefire NCAAA tournament bid for the 10th ranked Diplomats. These student athletes are a credit to themselves, their parents and families, and to Coach Paul and her staff.
John A. Gallagher, Esquire has been retained to represent these coaches. Here is a Press Release on behalf of the coaches:Neither F &M woman’s lacrosse Head Coach Lauren Paul, nor her Assistant Coaches, Caitlin Powderly and Lidia Sanza, had knowledge of or involvement in the March 11, 2011 incident giving rise to their present circumstances, and do not condone hazing in any form. If they had known that hazing occurred in March 2011, if it occurred, they would have taken corrective action.
The facts of this matter are important for the public to understand.
In early February 2012, Coach Paul made cuts from her team in the ordinary course. Soon after, the parents of one of the cut players registered a complaint about a student-led event in March 2011, eleven months prior. This incident, about which no details have been released to Ms. Paul or her assistants, has since been categorized as “hazing.” It is unknown whether the parents in question made any sort of threats to the college.
After hearing of the March 2011 event in mid-February 2012, the administration took virtually no steps to investigate same until April 6th, 2012. It is unknown what action the complaining parents, or their lawyer, took during this period of inactivity.
F&M thereafter began an “investigation” wherein the student-athletes were instructed not to speak with their parents, and told they did not need to seek representation of any kind. This investigation was procedurally flawed in many significant respects.
Although F & M fired Ms. Paul, placed her assistants on leave of absence (a particularly curious decision where Ms. Sanza is concerned, since she wasn’t even coaching F & M in March 2011) and suspended 11 student athletes from the team on April 17, the investigation was on that date still ongoing.
It appears that F & M elected to release news of these sanctions to the public on April 18, 2012. It is unknown if this release was made solely at the election of F & M, or to satisfy the demands of third-parties. The initial press releases were accompanied by statements from F & M that sought to blame Ms. Paul, and her assistants, for the March 2011 events.
The college acknowledged in writing that, as of Friday, April 20, 2012, the investigation was still ongoing. Why F & M chose to fire Ms. Paul, and to zealously publish the news of such firing, while its investigation was still ongoing, is a matter that only F & M and its lawyers can answer.
Earlier this week, and having completed its investigation, F & M decided to invite the 11 suspended players back on to the team. None of the suspended players were suspended or expelled from the college. Interestingly, the suspended players have rejected the college’s invitation to rejoin the team.
Ms. Paul understands that F & M takes its Student Code of Conduct very seriously, and that it enforces same vigorously when students have engaged in violations that threaten the mental or physical safety of its students. The decision to reinstate the suspended players, coupled with the absence of any meaningful student discipline being pursued or carried out, particularly when viewed through the prism of F & M’s stated principles where student well-being is concerned, clearly suggest that whatever occurred in March 2011 did not constitute “hazing.”
Ms. Paul's goal moving forward is to have a fulfilling and rewarding career. Ms. Powderly and Ms. Sanza share that ideal. While the coaches believe the actions taken against them were rash and wholly unwarranted, they understand that F & M, having published the reports concerning same, is unlikely to change its mind at this time. Consequently, they are presently considering their vocational and legal options.
The Strange But True Fact Of Negative Electricity Prices
To contact us Click HERE
Here is something else that is never found in monopoly electricity markets but is a reality in competitive electric markets--negative electricity prices.
Competitive wholesale electricity markets can produce such fierce competition that sellers of electricity are willing to pay buyers of power to take their production. This is the strange but true world of negative electricity prices.
Yesterday, the EIA posted great data on negative electricity prices. See the mind bending facts at:
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=6730.
Electric generation producers with the lowest production costs in competitive generation markets typically bid zero into the market and take whatever the market clearing price is. In the vast majority of hours each year, the market clearing price is a positive number.
But in a small number of hours, in some geographic locations of competitive electricity markets, the zero supply bids actually exceed the amount of electricity demand. At that point, the market price goes negative. Again the EIA has the fascinating details at the link provided.
Now which electricity producers have the lowest production costs and bid zero all the time to assure that they will be dispatched?
Wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear plants, because these plants have no fuel costs or low fuel costs. Renewable generators typically have production costs well below 1 cent per kilowatt-hour, while well-run nuclear plants have running costs around 1 cent.
This fact of power generation life in competitive markets is one reason why renewable energy producers lower wholesale market prices. There is a term for their impact: "price suppression."
Negative pricing is, indeed, severely suppressed.
Competitive wholesale electricity markets can produce such fierce competition that sellers of electricity are willing to pay buyers of power to take their production. This is the strange but true world of negative electricity prices.
Yesterday, the EIA posted great data on negative electricity prices. See the mind bending facts at:
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=6730.
Electric generation producers with the lowest production costs in competitive generation markets typically bid zero into the market and take whatever the market clearing price is. In the vast majority of hours each year, the market clearing price is a positive number.
But in a small number of hours, in some geographic locations of competitive electricity markets, the zero supply bids actually exceed the amount of electricity demand. At that point, the market price goes negative. Again the EIA has the fascinating details at the link provided.
Now which electricity producers have the lowest production costs and bid zero all the time to assure that they will be dispatched?
Wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear plants, because these plants have no fuel costs or low fuel costs. Renewable generators typically have production costs well below 1 cent per kilowatt-hour, while well-run nuclear plants have running costs around 1 cent.
This fact of power generation life in competitive markets is one reason why renewable energy producers lower wholesale market prices. There is a term for their impact: "price suppression."
Negative pricing is, indeed, severely suppressed.
Kaydol:
Yorumlar (Atom)