Scholarships Grants

Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – The United States would lead the world in college graduates by the end of this decade according to the pledges made by the top executive of the country on Wednesday at a manufacturing plant in Alexandria, Virginia.

Addressing an audience at Alexandria campus of the “Northern Virginia Community College,” during an event promoting the program, “Skills for America’s Future Manufacturing,” President Barack Obama touched upon ways aimed at enhancing skills through training workers and investing in research and technology to give the U.S. an edge in competing with other countries.

Citing a student named David, President Obama emphasized the importance of the facility said, “David said whatever he ends up doing, the automotive training program here was “the spark (he) needed to get (his) career started.”

“We’ve got to light more sparks all across America, and that’s going to make a difference in the futures of individuals who are looking for a better life, but it’s also going to make a difference in America’s future,” Obama continued.

Setting a goal “that by the end of this decade, we are going to once again lead the world in producing college graduates,” President Obama said, “To achieve that, we’re making college more affordable and we’re investing in community colleges.”

With unemployment figures still hovering at uncomfortable levels and economy sluggish in recovery, Obama balanced his words saying, “Obviously we’re slowly recovering from a very painful recession … But there are too many people out there still out of work.”

According to the White House officials, the latest program aims to train half a million community college students for manufacturing jobs over the next five years, which would help offset the gap left by the 2.7 million older workers who will be retiring in the next decade or so.

On a lighter vein, Obama explained his rolled-up shirt sleeves, saying, “My sleeves are rolled up. I was getting under the hood (to repair cars).”

Amid laughter, the president asked, “Do you guys want me to work on your car?” adding, “Don’t do it,” with more laughter breaking out among the audience.

Earlier before addressing the audience of more than 100 people, President Obama wearing button- down shirt with the cuffs rolled up, no jacket, light blue tie, gray pants, visited a classroom calling out, “Hello, hey everybody, what’s going on?” as he entered.

President made it a point to ask each students name and then had conversation with instructor Packer, who said it is the 5th semester of doing program.

From the classroom, the president moved to a garage where a half dozen people waited with cars with hoods propped open.

After the instructor had noted that the facility was a hybrid repair class, President Obama told the accompanying journalists, “This facility here at NOVA is one of the few that provides that kind of training.”

“This is going to be the future so you guys are on the cutting edge,” the president told students, adding as he was leaving, “You guys are doing great work, keep it up.”

Obama administration officials have confirmed that the National Association of Manufacturers is now backing the program, “Skills for America’s Future Manufacturing.”

View full post on Labor Stories

Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – The U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law that fines firms in the state which hires illegal migrants. The law revokes the business licenses of such companies.

The justices, on a 5 to 3 vote, rejected the argument that Arizona’s law impinges on Washington’s power to control immigration.

In dismissing the arguments raised by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, civil rights groups, labor unions and the Obama administration, the court said states were given that option.

Although the 1986 federal Immigration Reform and Control Act general prevents states from imposing sanctions on employers to control immigration, Arizona used a clause in that act to punish companies that knowingly and intentionally hired undocumented employees.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. voted in favor of Arizona. Justices Ruth Baden Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, while Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case because she worked on the law when she was solicitor general of U.S. President Barack Obama.

Roberts pointed out that seven states recently enacted a similar law to the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which required employers to check the status of new workers through a federal database.

The court’s ruling paves the way for other states to play a greater role in addressing immigration problems.

View full post on Labor Stories

Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to announce as soon as next week whether it will hear an appeal involving California’s controversial law that grants illegal immigrants in-state tuition at public universities.

The immigrants say they could not afford college if they paid the higher out-of-state tuition rates.

Opponents of the law say taxpayers should not have to subsidize lawbreakers like illegal immigrants.

The controversy extends beyond California to 10 other states that grant reduced tuition to illegal immigrants. Out-of-state tuition can be triple in-state rates.

Courts took up the case of Martinez vs. Regents of the University of California in 2005 when students who paid out-of-state tuition sued the Board of Regents.

They accused the university of violating a 1996 federal law that prohibits public institutions from giving benefits to illegal immigrants.

The University of California’s attorneys argued the state law, AB540, was narrowly written to avoid conflicts with the federal law.

Illegal immigrants can get in-state tuition only if they attend a California high school for three years and graduate.

The same benefit is granted to any graduates of the state’s high schools, thereby eliminating legal U.S. residency as the issue in getting in-state college tuition, attorneys for the University of California argued.

The trial court agreed with the university and dismissed the lawsuit.

However, the California Court of Appeal for the Third District reversed the trial court, saying the state law is preempted by federal law. In other words, illegal immigrants cannot receive in-state tuition.

On appeal in November, the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal.

Now, it’s the U.S. Supreme Court’s turn to decide the dispute, this time with a likelihood of influencing debate in Congress over how to reform immigration laws.

The Supreme Court justices this week discussed whether to grant the case a hearing or let the California Supreme Court decision stand.

Just before the California Supreme Court accepted the case, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff wrote a letter to the state’s highest court saying the dispute reaches “into the heart of the national debate about illegal immigration.”

Utah, along with New York and Texas, is among the states that allow illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition.

Other states, such as Arizona, are strongly opposed to granting any benefits to illegal immigrants.

They have been joined by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest law group, which filed an amicus brief that supports cutting off in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.

If the state law granting in-state tuition is upheld, “overburdened state taxpayers, who are suffering under California’s devastated economy, will be forced to continue subsidizing the college education of adult illegal immigrants,” the Pacific Legal Foundation said in a statement.

The foundation says in-state tuition gives the equivalent of a taxpayer-subsidized scholarship worth between $43,884 to $80,872 at a four year college.

However, LatinoJustice, a civil rights organization that filed an amicus brief in the case, said in a statement that the lawsuit against AB540 “threatens to erect an insurmountable barrier for high-achieving high school graduates from pursuing higher education in hopes of bettering themselves and benefiting their communities as a whole.”

View full post on Education Stories

Palo Alto, CA, United States (AHN) – Stanford University became the latest Ivy League school on Friday to reinastate the Reserve Officers Training Corps.

The Palo Alto campus’ faculty senate voted 28-9 to let the military set up an ROTC program despite opposition over the ban on transgender people from service. Three members of the senate abstained.

Dozens of students protested as the senate debated an ad hoc panel’s recommendation to resume the program 40 years after it was ended.

The university will work with the military to establish a “restructured” program under a proposal that was amended to make clear the senate does not endorse the ban on trangender people.

“If the leadership of the military is drawn from communities that teach and practice true tolerance, change is more likely to occur,” University President John Hennessy and Provost John Etchemendy said in a joint statement.

“The U.S. military has demonstrated an ability and willingness to change over time, and we believe Stanford can contribute by providing leadersdoes not share capable of helping create that change,” they added.

A handful of Stanford students currently take their ROTC training at neighboring campuses, including the University of Berkley.

The decision by Stanford comes after Harvard University’s anniuncement last month that it would reinstate the Naval ROTC this summer, when a law overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban on gays in the military, takes effect.

View full post on Education Stories

New York, NY, United States (AHN) – Toyota said on Friday it would maintain limited production until the end of the year. The automaker is working to resolve supply chain issues and a crisis triggered by a tsunami in Japan.

Production levels in domestic plants are currently at 50 percent, while operations outside Japan are at 40 percent. The company plans to begin restoring normal production in local facilities in July. Overseas operations will ramp up a month later due to the time it takes to deliver parts abroad.

Regular operations are set to resume November and December.

President Akio Toyoda apologized to consumers in a press conference and assured them of “unprecedented customer service.” He told dealers and suppliers, “I feel terribly sorry for the hardships we may have caused you.”

Toyota will continue obtaining parts from its usual suppliers but is considering substituting parts from other companies. There are about 150 parts affecting assembly lines for new cars. The parts are mostly electronics, rubber and paint-related.

The North America unit, which is operating at 30 percent, said there are no plans for layoffs in plants. Production in North America was not suspended after the March 11 quake in Japan. But the unit took steps to conserve parts. It also suspended overtime work and stopped operations for five days last week.

Parts for the dozen Lexus and Toyota models built in the United States are sourced from 500 suppliers in North America. The automaker last month resumed shipments of parts to the United States and began production in Japan of Prius and Lexus hybrids, for which U.S. demand is high.

View full post on Labor Stories

Philadelphia, PA, United States (AHN) – The Philadelphia Orchestra plans to file for Chapter 11 protection to restructure its finances in the face of a $14.5 million deficit.

The orchestra’s board of directors decided over the weekend to declare bankruptcy despite opposition from musicians who have been in talks about a new contract.

The orchestra does not have any debt but expects its operating funds to be exhausted by June. It has faced financial difficulties for more than a year due to declining ticket sales, decreased donations, contracts and pension obligations. The deficit remained despite administrative pay cuts and concessions from musicians, whose collective contract expires in September.

The bankruptcy filing ensures that the orchestra’s 2010-2011 season will not abruptly end before the scheduled closing this summer. The orchestra says no shows have been canceled or postponed due to the filing.

The 111-year-old organization is one of five nationwide that are widely recognized to be the top U.S. orchestras. Its decision to seek Chapter 11 protection comes as the Detroit Symphony Orchestra ended its six-month strike over a new contract.

View full post on Labor Stories

Washington, DC, United States (AHN) – The number of first-time applicants for jobless benefits unexpectedly rose for the week ending April 9 by 27,000 to 412,000.

Analysts had expected the number to remain in the 380,000 range.

Some analysts now say the jump in claims signals uncertainty over recovery in the labor market, while others view it as an anomaly caused by large mass layoffs at the end of the quarter.

Regardless, so far the U.S. recovery from recession has largely been confined to the economic markets with labor not sharing in the nation’s ongoing recovery.

For the week ending April 2 there were 385,000 new claims for unemployment compensation insurance payments, the U.S. Department of Labor said. Initial jobless claims had been trending downward and it was below the 400,000 mark. This marked the first time in five weeks that claims rose above that mark.

Moreover, the four-week moving average, a figure less volatile than the weekly claim numbers, is trending upward again. It increased by 5,500 to 395,750 from the previous week’s revised average of 390,250, DOL officials said.

In addition, the seasonally adjusted rate of jobless workers covered by the unemployment compensation insurance program for the week ending April 2 fell to 2.9 percent from the prior week’s rate of 3 percent.

DOL officials say that there were a total of 8,517,545 people claiming jobless benefits in all programs for the week ending March 26.

View full post on Labor Stories

Cranston, RI, United States (AHN) – The American Civil Liberties Union is suing a Rhode Island high school over a prayer banner the group says violates the Constitution and excludes students who do not share the same beliefs.

The lawsuit against the school district in the state’s largest city concerns a banner at Cranston West High School that became the center of controversy last summer despite having been posted since 1963.

The ACLU received a complaint from a parent and told Superintendent Peter Nero in July that the banner violates the First Amendment. The group cited U.S. Supreme Court decisions on unconstitutional school-sponsored prayers and the posting of Ten Commandments in public classrooms.

Last month, however, the school committee voted 4-3 to keep the prayer posted in the campus auditorium.

Public hearings were held before the vote, after which there were concerns about the safety of a sophomore student, Jessica Ahlquist, who spoke against the banner.

“The public hearings that I have attended have added to that feeling– that my views and beliefs don’t count, or have less value than those of the Christian majority,” Ahlquist said on Monday. I don’t feel that I or anyone else should have to feel that way at school. The prayer does not belong in a public school.”

The ACLU filed the suit on behalf of Ahlquist, who is an atheist, with the endorsement of the Rev. Donald Anderson of the Rhode Island State Council of Churches, which consists of Protestant and Orthodox denominations, and Rabbi Peter Stein of a Jewish congregation in Cranston.

In a statement on Monday, the civil rights group chastised school officials for “ignoring warnings about the cost of litigation and despite the school district’s ongoing and severe budgetary problems, which have led to layoffs and program cuts.”

The school committee has retained the pro bono services of Joseph Cavanagh, a partner for Providence-based Blish & Cavanagh who graduated from Cranston High School East.

Cavanagh will serve as local counsel and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty will serve as outside counsel in the lawsuit, also on a pro bono basis.

Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence has made clear his support to keep the banner, which begins with, “Our Heavenly Father,” and ends with, “Amen.”

“The ACLU should avoid these silly little squabbles and move on to other more important issues where civil liberties are really threatened,” Tobin wrote last month in an op-ed.

“Those who are fighting to have the prayer remain in the school – students, parents and others – I presume that they take some personal time throughout the day to pray,” the bishop added. “No one’s preventing that free exercise of religion. If they’re fighting over the banner and not really practicing faith on other occasions, their passion for the banner is suspect.”

The 8-foot-high, 3-foot-wide banner was written by a member of the school’s first graduating class when students were asked to choose a school creed, school colors and a school mascot. It was recited by students for some time.

In its letter to the school about the banner, the ACLU said, “Even if there have been few, if any, formal complaints in the past from parents or students about this display… there are people, like our complainant, who have been offended by or concerned about it but who were fearful of coming forward.”

The group cited the Cranston school district policy, which says, “The proper setting for religious observance is the home and the place of worship.”

Tobin, however, said in his op-ed, “Why would that inspiration offend anyone? Because it begins with a rather generic reference to ‘our heavenly Father’ and ends with ‘Amen’? The use of our national currency that carries a far more religious sentiment – ‘In God We Trust.’ And I suppose that they hold their ears during the singing of “God Bless America.’ “

The ACLU had dismissed such arguments in its letter, saying it is akin to efforts by Pawtucket city officials years ago to justify sponsoring a nativity scene by comparing Christmas to Thanksgiving.

“Justify[ing] prayers like this one as being merely ‘ceremonial’ or ‘non-sectarian’ … only serves to trivialize what is, at its core, a deeply religious message,” the group said.

View full post on Education Stories

Sacramento, CA, United States (AHN) – California’s community colleges could turn away more than 400,000 students next year because Republican lawmakers refused to let voters decide in a June ballot whether to temporarily extend taxes.

Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed a budget cutting spending by $12 billion, including $400 million for the state’s 112 community colleges.

The plan also called for tax extensions, which under the state constitution requires the approval of two Republicans from the Assembly and two from the Senate before a special election.

The governor, a Democrat who served two terms as governor three decades ago, had been in negotiations with the GOP about the tax extensions since announcing his budget two months ago. Talks broke down on Wednesday, after what Brown said was “an ever changing list of collateral demands” from Republicans.

Without a June ballot to approve the revenue-generating extensions, Community Colleges Chancellor Jack Scott quickly warned that an “all-cuts budget” would “devastate our ability to train th[e] workforce.”

A budget that does not continue 2009 taxes expiring this year will double the cuts for community colleges to $800 million. This reduction would force some districts to offer fewer classes in the summer and fall and deny access to 400,000 students, the same number enrolled in the state university system.

The state has already increased fees at community colleges for the fall from $26 to $36 per unit. Fees could rise to $66 if an all-cuts budget is approved, preventing even more students to attend a community college.

Brown continued to seek support from Republicans while calling them out for demands that he said would undermine the budget, such as giving a $1 billion tax break to out-of-state corporations so the companies would bring jobs to California.

In a letter to state Senate Republican Leader Bob Dutton on Wednesday, he said, “Democrats have swallowed hard and done their part—they have approved painful cuts… I was very surprised (and frankly, disappointed) that you came today with a very long list of demands (53 separate proposals), many of which are new and have no relationship whatsoever to the budget.”

The demands included moving the U.S. presidential primary to March and extending taxes for only a year and a half instead of five years.

California, the world’s eighth-largest economy and the nation’s most populous state, is facing a $26.6 billion deficit. Last month, Brown slashed the number of state-owned vehicles and cell phones by 50 percent and ordered a hiring freeze to help end the budget crisis.

Republicans say the governor’s budget plan actually has only $7 billion of cuts, a small sum compared to the $60 billion from tax extensions, and far from a balanced proposal.

“Gov. Brown and the Dems can’t have it both ways,” GOP state chair Tom Del Beccaro said in a statement. “They asked for ideas — and then complained there were too many. They wanted specific budget solutions — and then complained there were too many details.”

“The list that Republican leadership gave the governor… included a number of proposals to which Brown has publicly agreed — but obviously angered the public unions that control our state government,” Beccaro added. “Not coincidentally, Brown, unlike Democrat Andrew Cuomo of New York, is refusing to reduce the state bureaucracy — demonstrating that he values bureaucracy more than essential services.”

View full post on Education Stories

Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in what could be the biggest sexual discrimination lawsuit in U.S. history.

Six women sued Wal-Mart Stores Inc., saying they were passed over for promotion in favor of men and told they should try to look attractive on the job, or to “doll up.”

They also say they were paid less than men for doing the same work.

They asked the Supreme Court to certify their claims as a class action lawsuit, meaning it could be joined by as many as 1.5 million women.

During the hearing Tuesday, the female plaintiffs seemed to draw the greatest sympathy from the Court’s three women judges.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg implied Wal-Mart could liable if its corporate directors knew sexual discrimination was widespread at its stores but did not try to stop it.

“Isn’t there some responsibility on the company to say, ‘Is gender discrimination at work?’ And if there is, isn’t there an obligation to stop it?” Ginsburg asked.

Wal-Mart’s attorney, Theodore J. Boutrous, argued that the women who sued are not representative of female employees throughout the giant corporation, which operates with 3,400 stores nationwide.

Before a lawsuit can become a class action, the people who sue must prove they are typical of a larger group.

The women plaintiffs held mostly low-level retail jobs whereas other employees hold a wide variety of positions, some of them as supervisors, Wal-Mart’s attorney said.

He also said the women failed to identify a single policy of the retailer that could be identified as discriminatory.

Instead, the claims of sexual discrimination were based on a few personal stories, unproven statistics of pay differences and personnel decisions of local managers, Boutrous said.

“They haven’t shown a pattern across the map,” Boutrous said during the hearing.

Justice Antonin Scalia appeared frustrated in trying to figure out whether individual managers should be blamed or a corporate policy.

“Which is it?” Scalia said. “It’s either individual supervisors who are left on their own or there is a strong corporate culture that tells you what to do.

“If somebody tells you how to exercise discretion, you don’t have discretion,” Scalia said.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. also questioned whether the company should be liable or a few individual managers, saying, “you’re going to have some bad apples.”

Joseph Sellers, the attorney who argued for the Wal-Mart employees, said the discrimination was part of a corporate “culture.”

“Wal-Mart provided to its managers unchecked discretion … that was used to pay men more than women,” Sellers said.

Other examples of discrimination the women sometimes cited included sexist nicknames, arranging for meetings at Hooters restaurants and criticizing female workers for lacking the ambition to seek promotions.

Sellers said a class action is the best approach to the discrimination because filing individual claims would not be worthwhile for them.

The pay difference between women and men averages only around $1,100 per year, which is too small for a major lawsuit, according to the female employees.

Only joining the efforts of all female Wal-Mart employees in what could be over a billion dollars in damages would be effective in ending the sexual discrimination, Sellers argued.

A statistician hired by the plaintiffs concluded Wal-Mart’s female workers make up two-thirds of the workforce but less than 14 percent of store managers. They also earn less money than men despite having more seniority on average, the statistician said.

However, a statistician hired by Wal-Mart said his figures show no difference in pay between men and women at 90 percent of the stores. The company also said hiring and promotion decisions are made by local managers rather than as a result of corporate policy.

The lawsuit attracted a predictable array of amicus, or friend-of-the-court, briefs.

Business groups argued that a huge class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart could increase legal expenses for corporations nationwide.

To avoid lawsuits, the corporations would feel more compelled to settle sexual discrimination allegations with cash settlements, even if the claims lacked merit, some of the 15 amicus briefs from business groups say.

The female employees won allies from 14 civil rights groups, labor organizations and consumer advocacy foundations.

Their briefs say class action status for the lawsuit could encourage effective strategies for combating workplace sexual discrimination.

The women already won their case before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco last year.

However, the Supreme Court is known for being more conservative in sexual discrimination cases.

Since the 1980s, the Supreme Court has required a “rigorous analysis” before it will approve class action status for lawsuits alleging job discrimination.

View full post on Labor Stories