Thursday, October 25, 2007

The Cornell Daily Sun, October 24, 2007, Wednesday

The Cornell Daily Sun, October 24, 2007

cornellsun.com

The Cornell Connection: Ken Sunshine '70

October 24, 2007 - 12:00am

By Rebecca Weiss

Ken Sunshine has been called one of the most powerful people in New York by New York magazine, who would probably know. His PR firm, appropriately named Sunshine, Sachs & Associates, represents some of the mot famous names in the world (Leo DiCaprio, Ben Affleck, John Mayer, Justin Timberlake — Ever heard of ‘em?) as well as huge unions in New York. All you ILRies who doubt you can put your edumucation to practical use, The Sun just found the one guy who did. The Sun talked with Ken about among other things, his political involvement at Cornell and beyond, incuding hangin’ out with his son and Leo DiCaprio unsupervised in the Oval Office. Don’t worry about it; it was still shaped like an oval when they left. Here is an excerpt of that conversation:

The Sun: What was it like at Cornell for you? What was your favorite aspect of Cornell and what was your least favorite?

Ken Sunshine: Favorite aspects: number one, girls. Two, the politics and trying to effect social change. And three, the hockey team, watching them win the national championships when I was there.

Sun: How did you end up at Cornell after you graduated high school?

K.S.: Ah, for some weird reason they wanted me. I was never really sure. I wasn’t driven career-wise. It was a very different era. I knew that I wanted to get away from home, and I wanted to explore the world a little bit. I wasn’t as driven academically as maybe I should have been, but I definitely didn’t know what I wanted to pursue and I got very caught up in the era of trying to effect social change and make the world better. It was a long time ago, and I think those of us who were trying to crate movements for social change back then were right but weren’t doing real well. The horrible war in Vietnam did end, but not quickly enough, and to see the state of the world now, it couldn’t be more dismal. Frankly, I wish there were more activism on campus now, which was the center of it in that era — my era — to change policy on many fronts, including and especially this rotten war in Iraq that’s not exactly doing too well.

Sun: What kinds of stuff did you do on campus when you were here to achieve the social change that you were hoping for?

K.S.: I was part of several groups that did all kinds of activities. Cornell was a real center of student activism at that era. I was very much part of it. I wasn’t part of the most radical groups, but I certainly allied with them on basic goals. It was a tough time — I’d like to be funny about it, but it was a very serious time, and some serious things happened on campus. I was there when the Straight was taken over by students with guns. It was a pretty hairy time. There was potential for real violence, and I was part of several groups that were very serious about trying to effect social change. I went to many of the peace demonstrations; there were many on campus, but there were many in Washington, New York and other places. In some ways it was a more innocent time, more isolated. There was no such thing as the internet then. There was no interactivity. There were no cell phones. Imagine the dark era we were living in! It was also a very vibrant time culturally. Great music was being produced. It was the end of the 60s, beginning of the 70s, and the end of, I think, one of the greatest eras of American culture. It was also the beginning of the women’s movement. I don’t think the gay movement was active yet, but there were rumblings of it, I guess. But I was involved in many, many activities to promote social change and political change.

Sun: What was your major when you were here?

K.S.: ILR — Industrial Labor Relations.

Sun: Does that have anything to do with what you’re doing now?

K.S.: Yeah. We’re best known—my company is and I am—for working with celebrities and the entertainment business, but we represent some major unions and have since the time when I started my firm. We work for the 1199SEIU, which is the health care workers’ union in New York. We represent the Transit Workers Union in New York, Local 100. Talk about a tough client! They’re the union that went on strike and closed the subways and buses a couple years ago, and we proudly defended them. The MTA [Metropolitan Transportation Authority] was wrong; they deserve a decent wage and have very difficult jobs. That’s a tough client. I still do a lot of work in the labor movement. I’m still very active politically, but there’s a business that I run and it’s multi-faceted.

Sun: Were there any Cornell professors that guided you in any way to where you are now?

K.S.: There was Professor Neufeld. Maurice is his first name. He was a special guy. He actually died recently, in the last couple of years. He lived a very long and wonderful life, and I kept up with him over the years. He was a special kind of guy and a tough professor too if I remember. It’s so long ago. I kept in dialogue with him, and he had some influence on me I remember.

Sun: What did you do immediately after you graduated from Cornell?

K.S.: I went to work at a community center in Long Island and worked with kids who were in trouble or about to get into trouble. Gangs and all kinds of other issues in a low-income community in Freeport in Long Island. I proceeded to work for the school system there in a semi-social work capacity. I was very quickly also getting caught up with Democratic politics. I’ve been complaining about the Democratic party from then and I complain about it today — I don’t know why I’m knocking my head against the wall with the Democratic Party. But it was the era where George McGovern was looking to be the Democratic nominee, and I ended up running as a delegate in the election for delegates to the Democratic National Convention. We ran supporting McGovern who was the anti-war candidate, and I won! I got elected, and I attended the 1972 Democratic National Convention in Miami for McGovern. He became the nominee, and we felt we were really going to change the world. But Watergate happened and Richard Nixon — one of the worst presidents other than the current one, maybe the second-worst president to the current president — was doing all kinds of dirty tricks and won the election. I’m not sure the country’s ever recovered from it. But that got me formally involved in Democratic politics, and I was, again, just beating my head against a wall there.

Sun: What was your next step career-wise?

K.S.: I went to work in political campaigns and I worked for the Bronx borough president, Ben Abrams. I was commuting and had various political campaign jobs throughout much of the 70s. I worked for Bella Abzug, who was one of the most wonderful public officials ever. She was a congresswoman who ran for mayor of New York, almost won but lost. I worked for her. I worked for Mario Cuomo. I worked for Ted Kennedy on his presidential campaign, which he lost to Jimmy Carter in the primary. Jimmy Carter was the incumbent president. I worked on a host of campaigns, and then I kind of slowly changed careers and went to the music business and became involved in the public relations world of ASCAP [American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers]. I did that off and on in the 80s. I took some leaves of absence. My friend David Dinkins ran for mayor [of New York] in 1989, short-circuiting my life very quickly. He asked me to help run his campaign, and I left ASCAP and helped run the Dinkins mayoral campaign. He won; I became his first chief-of-staff. A year after that, I left the government. I stayed close to the administration, and I formed my firm. I’ve been doing that ever since.

Sun: Are the types of tasks that your job entails similar whether you work in politics or in the entertainment field?

K.S.: I think it’s all showbiz. [Laughs] Everything is showbusiness now. It’s the media. It’s protecting an image. It’s trying to sell something through the media. I got my training through the political world and I think that if you can do anything in New York politics, then you can do anything. It’s the hardest training grounds, it’s the toughest, lots at stake. Try helping join a mayoral campaign: it’s rough and tumble. I think those skills that I learned best prepared me for whatever success I’ve had and utilize all the time. I’d like to think my Cornell education helped some, and I think it did, although I think the work I do involves a lot of street sense. I think writing skills are significant; I learned some of those at Cornell. The kind of work we do entails an ability to communicate and an ability to sell stories to the news media.

Sun: Was the scene, how it’s all showbusiness in politics and actual showbusiness, was that the exact same thing when you started as now, or do you think that’s changed over the years?

K.S.: Oh, I think it’s changed a lot. I think there’s a similarity that somebody like myself or who basically started with nothing and didn’t really know too many people, came on with a Cornell degree and a lot of moxie — people always told me that I was pretty aggressive and that I had an interesting way of communicating — but I didn’t come in handed a job or with an advanced degree that would give me an entrée in a more traditional job path. I think those skills remain the same. I think obviously the use of modern technology, the way news is disseminated and the news media is very different now than phsycially handing in press released. Everything is done on the web and everything is done electronically. But the basic skills remain very much the same. There’s just many more news outlets and there’s a much more complicated dynamic now than back then.

Sun: When you started your own firm, what was your original aim?

K.S.: Well, I needed a little bit more money than I was earning as the chief-of-staff to the major of New York, so I think it was a little bit of a lifestyle issue. We were having kids and couple more mouths to feed gave a little need to become a little more practical. That was one consideration. Part of it I wanted to take control of my own destiny a little more and become entrepreneurial for me, as opposed to working for government or for something like ASCAP or a campaign. So I became my own boss and my first few clients were the Democratic National Convention, which was coming to New York in ’92 — We started working a year before — which nominated Bill Clinton. So I worked closely with Ron Brown, who was a terrific guy. He was chairman of the Democratic Party, and Secretary of Commerce when Clinton won. He got killed in a plane crash tragically with a bunch of business executives in Europe soon after that, but I was doing PR for the Democratic Convention and for the Clinton campaign. My other first client was Barbra Streisand who’d been a longtime friend, not a bad entertainer, and a great political activist, and the health care workers’ union 1199. Those were actually my first three clients.

Sun: From there did the firm start to take off on its own, or did it take a while to become what it is now?

K.S.: It happened slowly. I wasn’t that ambitious at the beginning. I don’t have that great ambition and I still don’t, I guess despite the fact that we’re, I guess, pretty successful. I’ve got a lot of very aggressively ambitious people that work for me now, and everybody’s very young. I’m a lot older than everybody that works for me. It built slowly, actually, in the beginning. I didn’t want that many clients. It was myself and a part-time firm that I had—that’s the way my firm started. It expanded a lot in the last seven or eight years. And now I have, as I say too often, despite me, we have a great and thriving business. Recently, in the last couple of months, I made Shawn Sachs, who’s been my right hand for the last seven years, a partner. So the company name has changed: it’s Sunshine, Sachs & Associates now. I’m getting a little gray these days, but this business will live on for many years, I guess, in many different forms.

Sun: What’s your daily schedule like, or if that’s too hard a question to answer, what are your main responsibilities day-to-day?

K.S.: My schedule’s insane and I travel a lot. I’m in L.A. a lot. I’m right now going to miss a flight to Washington because I have to go overnight and I’m trying to hitch a ride in somebody’s plane back tonight so I can be here for an early morning meeting tomorrow. My schedule’s insanely frenetic. I’m always being told I’m insane for the way I travel around, and I don’t know how to do it any differently. With all the people who work for me now, a lot of personal service is what we do. But I don’t know another way to do it. I don’t have too many hobbies. The Yankees lost, so I can’t even watch the games anymore for the World Series and the playoffs. I’m kinda working all the time. The most dangerous invention for me is the BlackBerry. I basically live on it and I’m technologically idiotic, but I’ve mastered the BlackBerry. It’s not very hard. It allows me to stay in touch constantly. For a neurotic like me, it’s just great. I’m always on. I hate when people say, “I turn off the BlackBerry for the weekend.” I’d be institutionalized if I did that.

Sun: You seem to be very New York through and through and I’m wondering if you get a much different perspective of the entertainment business working in New York and not Los Angeles?

K.S.: It’s a good question. A lot of people ask me that. Ot’s been written about me and said about me that I’m so New York, how can I spend so much time in L.A.? I have a great time in L.A.; I have a million friends. I have more family in L.A. than I do here, other than my wife and my kids who are obviously here. I have my other life in New York; my political life is all here. I grew up in New York. I’ve always lived here other than four years in little old Ithaca. So this city is home, but I’m in L.A. so much that most people in the entertainment business always think I live in L.A. They see me at these awards events and with all my clients. Much of the entertainment business, of course, is in L.A, and probably more celebrities live in L.A. I represent many more celebrities that happen to live in L.A., ironically, but not all. We represent Bon Jovi, who’s a proud Jerseyite. John Mayer lives both in New York and L.A. now, but he’s from Connecticut. But Leonardo DiCaprio, Ben Affleck, Barbra Streisand all very much live in L.A. Bette Midler lives here, so it’s kind of the people we’re known for on the celebrity end. But we have many that are based in other places, not only L.A. When I started this, I would make fun of L.A. all the time, just like the Woody Allen movies caricaturing L.A. And it’s funny that people think I have a New York style or a New York swagger. I think a lot of that is just silly. It doesn’t really apply that much anymore. But I personally prefer New York because I’m used to it and it’s normal and that’s why I live here, because I could easily move to L.A. I’d give up much of my political life, but I don’t want to do it, so I don’t.

Sun: Do you meet a lot of Cornellians in your business ventures?

K.S.: It’s funny. I’m so out of it. I had a great experience at Cornell, by the way. I mean, it was a time of turbulence. I remember the politics more than I do the academics, I must admit, but I don’t wear my Cornell experience openly. I’ve had so many lives. I’m so frenetic; that was a couple of lives ago. I’ve done a lot of TV appearances and I’m in the media and people hear about me and my political career, and I’ll find people I went to college with. I frankly don’t remember most of them. My brain can only absorb so many people. But I do! The answer is yes. Just recently I was at a press junket in L.A., and there’s a Cornell Association of Los Angeles, and they all thought I lived in L.A. They wanted me to speak at it. I said, “Well, I love Cornell, but I like in New York.” They thought I was kidding. Sure, at times it pops up, and there are all these weird characters that went to Cornell. So the answer is yes, I guess, to your question.

Sun: What are some of the crazier or funnier experiences you’ve had in your line of work?

K.S.: Oh god. I don’t want to give … people are always saying I should write a book, which I’ll never do by the way, just for the record. On the record, I will never write a book, because the book they want me to write is kiss-and-tell stories of what the real stories are of these political experiences or celebrity involvement. I hate when people do that who have inside knowledge. They’re clients and they put their trust in me. I have been in lots and lots of crazy and sometimes ridiculous experiences that I could talk about that don’t involve breaching confidence. I’m trying to lobby for time to think about something that might be amusing. There are a couple I just don’t want to tell because they are a little bit inside. Let me think about it a little bit and I’ll come back to you with something.

Sun: Alright. What’s the most fun thing you’ve been able to do in your line of work, something that maybe you never thought you’d ever do?

K.S.: Get invited to the White House several times, obviously not under the Bush administration, but under the Clinton administration. I remember the time that there was a Kennedy Center Honors and Bob Dylan was getting an honor and Clinton had a reception for the people getting inducted. Bruce Springsteen was inducting Bob Dylan and I got a private tour of the White House. The three of us got a private tour from Bill Clinton; that was kinda cool. Earth Day 2000, Leonardo DiCaprio was the chair, and it was a big environmental event that he did. He’s done many, including the documentary he just did. We went to Washington, and the Clintons were away. They weren’t there, but I think I talked directly to Hillary then, and she said, “Please come with Leo and your guests. Come over to the White House and we’ll have some staff people show you the Oval Office.” I remember saying, “I’m a little embarrassed. I’ve been there.” And she knew I was bringing my son, who was very young then, and she said, “He’ll be there, it’ll be kinda cool.” So I’m outside the Oval Office and talking to the Secret Service agents or staff people that I knew, and a Secret Service agent’s kinda pulling at me. I look in the Oval Office and my very precocious eight-year-old was in Bill Clinton’s chair with his feet up on the desk, acting like he’s president of the United States. I have a picture of it, which is kind of a classic. [Laughs] That was kind of cool. Me and Leonardo DiCaprio were taking pictures with each other, acting like the president of the United States. What can I say?

Sun: As a publicist with such a wide range of high-profile clients, do you personally prefer those who are quieter and stay out of the limelight, or those who wind up on the covers of magazines regularly?

K.S.: We’re very picky who we work with. I only have a 22, 23 person operation, and we’re a tiny boutique agency in New York, so we turn down clients all the time. You can’t be a boutique agency if you just represent anybody. We’re very careful who we work with. I think I’ve got the greatest client base I could have, and I won’t tell you, but you can only imagine who we’ve turned down over the years. Part of it is we just want to be able to do our thing and there are some wonderfully talented people out there who aren’t going to want to do it the way we do it, and there’s a trust factor and a credibility factor that is paramount. That’s the short answer to a much more complicated position, but we pick and choose who we work with. We have that advantage.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri), October 23, 2007 Tuesday

Copyright 2007 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.

All Rights Reserved

St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)

October 23, 2007 Tuesday

THIRD EDITION

SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. C1

HEADLINE: A rejection of national UAW contract not expected to lead to strike

BYLINE: By Christopher Boyce St. Louis Post-Dispatch

BODY:

A proposed labor contract between Chrysler LLC and the United Auto Workers union may be headed toward national rejection after facing strong opposition recently at UAW local unions here and across the country. If the contract is rejected, experts say the defeat is unlikely to result in a strike or a better contract offer from the automaker.

As of Monday afternoon, UAW locals that rejected the contract represented about 11,160 workers, according to a tally by Bloomberg News; those approving number about 9,210. It had no figure on how many of workers actually voted at these locals.

Chrysler has about 48,000 UAW members. To ratify the contract, it must receive a majority of that national vote.

In their hope to turn the tide, UAW national officials are scrambling to drum up support for the contract, pushing members to approve the deal, according to media reports. Voting is expected to conclude later this week.

"It's going to be close. They're going to work very hard here at the end to pull this together," David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, told The Associated Press Monday.

The catalyst for the tide of 'no' votes may have started Thursday with vote by workers from Chrysler's Dodge Ram plant in Fenton, according to Arthur Wheaton, a labor relations expert at Cornell University's Industrial and Labor Relations School.

About 80 percent of voters from UAW Local 136, which represents about 2,000 workers at the North Assembly plant, rejected the contract.

"Once the first plant voted no, I think everyone said, 'I guess it's OK to say no,'" Wheaton said.

Two days later, UAW Local 110, which represents more than 3,000 workers at the adjacent minivan plant in Fenton, rejected the contract. About 66 percent of skilled trades workers voted against the proposed contract, and 79 percent of production and other workers opposed it.

Wheaton said these rejections may be as much about workers' displeasure with past changes in the company, including its sale to a foreign owner in 1998, as it is about the contract. More recently, workers were concerned when Chrysler came into the hands of private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management.

"They're all mad, but they've had no place to express that," he said "They have expressed their frustration through the vote."

Workers bucked several items in the proposed contract, including a lack of promises about future products at individual plants and a two-tier wage structure for new workers in "core" and "non-core" positions. Many members fear the two-tier system would disrupt the union's unity by dividing workers into two economic classes.

If the contract is rejected, UAW's national negotiators will return to the bargaining table having lost much of their credibility with Chrysler, Wheaton said.

UAW negotiators likely will have to return to the membership with a deal that will be unchanged for the most part, he said.

"I don't think there's a person on the planet who thinks it's a good deal, but I think the UAW got all they were going to get out of that agreement," Wheaton said."

As for any potential strike, Wheaton said he would be surprised if the UAW tests Cerberus' patience with that tactic. If the Cerberus began losing money on Chrysler, Wheaton believes the company would work fast to cut its losses.

"This is really not a time they want to be out on strike," he said, referring to Chrysler's weak financial state. "I could see (Cerberus) saying 'let's take the property and sell it off.' That has been the tradition of a lot of private equity. If the pieces are worth more than the company, you just sell it off."

The longer negotiations take, the further Chrysler gets from profitability, said Erich Merkle, vice president of forecasting for IRN Inc.

Merkle said Chrysler is unable to make the product promises that General Motors did in its contract because Chrysler's new executives are busy trying to decide which products it will cut instead of new vehicles to invest in.

Beyond launching its redesigned minivans this year and a new Dodge Ram in 2008, the company needs a labor contract soon to court new investors who can provide the cash to accelerate new product development, Merkle said. In August, the automaker launched redesigned Chrysler Town & Country and Dodge Grand Caravan minivans, both produced in Fenton.

Without that, he sees a void of new products after 2009 that could push the company in a different direction, perhaps even to a sale of Chrysler.

In the near term, UAW Local 110 President Joe Shields sounded confident UAW's negotiators can wrap up a new deal.

LOAD-DATE: October 23, 2007

Business Wire, October 23, 2007 Tuesday 12:00 PM GMT

Copyright 2007 Business Wire, Inc.

Business Wire

October 23, 2007 Tuesday 12:00 PM GMT

DISTRIBUTION: Business Editors; Human Resources Writers

HEADLINE: ITG Appoints Peter Goldstein Managing Director and Global Head of Human Resources

DATELINE: NEW YORK

BODY:

Investment Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE: ITG), a leading provider of technology-based trading services and transaction research, announced today that Peter Goldstein has joined the company as Managing Director and Global Head of Human Resources. In this role, Mr. Goldstein will be responsible for ITG's global human resources operations.

Mr. Goldstein joins ITG from Deutsche Bank, where he was the Global Head of Human Resources for RREEF, the Alternative Investments Division of Deutsche Bank. Before joining Deutsche Bank, he spent nine years in human resources at JPMorgan, working in the US and in Europe. Mr. Goldstein holds a masters degree in industrial labor relations from Cornell University.

"ITG is focused on providing trading solutions for a global marketplace, so Peter's depth of experience in human resources in the US and abroad make him an excellent fit for this position," said Bob Gasser, ITG's CEO and President. "ITG's most valuable asset is our intellectual capital, and Peter will be a key factor in helping the company maintain our reputation as a pioneer in electronic trading."

"The goal of human resources is to help companies attract, develop and retain the staff they need to achieve their business goals," said Mr. Goldstein. "ITG's position in the industry as both a technology provider and agency brokerage firm create an excellent opportunity to recruit and retain top talent globally."

About ITG

Investment Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE:ITG), is a specialized agency brokerage and technology firm that partners with clients globally to provide innovative solutions spanning the entire investment process. A pioneer in electronic trading, ITG has a unique approach that combines pre-trade analysis, order management, trade execution, and post-trade evaluation to provide clients with continuous improvements in trading and cost efficiency. The firm is headquartered in New York with offices in North America, Europe and the Asia Pacific regions. For more information on ITG, please visitwww.itg.com.

In addition to historical information, this press release may contain "forward-looking" statements, as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, that reflect management's expectations for the future. A variety of important factors could cause results to differ materially from such statements. These factors include the company's ability to achieve expected future levels of sales; the actions of both current and potential new competitors; rapid changes in technology; financial market volatility; general economic conditions in the United States and elsewhere; evolving industry regulation; cash flows into or redemption from equity funds; effects of inflation; customer trading patterns; and new products and services. These and other risks are described in greater detail in the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, and other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and available on the company's web site.

CONTACT: Investment Technology Group, Inc.

Investor and Media Relations:

Alicia Curran, 212-444-6130

URL: http://www.businesswire.com

LOAD-DATE: October 24, 2007

NPR.com (National Public Radio), October 23, 2007, Tuesday

NPR.org (National Public Radio), October 23, 2007, Tuesday

NPR.org

Arthur Wheaton was interviewed by Frank Langford on the NPR Morning Edition discussing the Chrysler ratification vote.

Inside Higher Ed, October 23, 2007, Tuesday

Inside Higher Ed, October 23, 2007, Tuesday

insidehighered.com

Talkin ’bout Their Generation

By Jefferson Cowie

Everyone knows that rock and roll is all about kicking out the jams: ditching uptight squares, taking long rides in the dark of night, and being a street fightin’ man — or woman. As The Who put it, it’s about hoping to die before you get old.

But what does rock mean to a new generation of uptight (if updated and wired) squares, afraid of the open road, who have little fight in them? What does rock mean for a generation that has never been allowed to be young — let alone hope to die before they get old?

For my students, the answer is simple. Rock and roll is about family happiness.

I discovered this disturbing undercurrent of rock-as-the-soundtrack-of-familial-bliss when I began teaching a college writing class this semester. The undergraduates’ first assignment was to assess the personal meaning of any song of any genre. I was willing to wade bravely through the melancholy emo, the raging gangsta rap, the whiny indie rock, or even contemporary pop schlock in order to achieve my real agenda: a glimpse into the soul of my students, the inner world of their desire locked in their shiny iPods.

What I read in those papers was as unsettling and unfamiliar as the day Elvis shook it on the Ed Sullivan show — but hardly as exciting. For my students, rock and roll is not the aural fuel of rebellion but soundtrack of familial love and safety. The essays were not about chillin’ with the crew but hangin’ with mom and dad; and they were not about cruising into the mystery of the night, but heading off to Cape Cod in the mini van. Rock is no longer about alienation but connection; not about escape but home; not about rebellion but reconciliation. Even bands like Led Zeppelin and The Stones emerged from my students papers in an un-purple haze of family nostalgia.

Turns out that for my elite students — en route to becoming sharp suits and clever corporate cogs — rock and roll is simply one more element in the finishing process of becoming just like the folks. Roll over Bob Dylan and tell Norman Rockwell the news. Jack Black’s character in School of Rock had to teach his anxious and repressed grade schoolers what he knew viscerally: that the purpose of rock and roll is “Sticking it to The Man.” Given that most of my students want to become “the man” (in whatever gender the icon of power might come in today), it’s certainly not about sticking it to ‘em.

Truth be told, many of these essays pulled at my fatherly heart strings, but I am mostly disturbed by them. I am haunted by the fact that perhaps their parents are so scarred by their own years of boomer alienation that they now feel compelled to crush any sense of rebellion with the weight of a generation’s love, coddling friendship, and smothering safety. I could be wrong, but it seems that there ought to be at least an edge of disdain for the SUV-driving, suburban-dwelling, vanilla affluence of their parents, but instead, students remain hopelessly connected to them, not just by their ubiquitous cell phones but also by their parents’ record collections.

The collateral damage here has little to do with contemporary debates about politics in the classroom and everything to do with students’ ability to live life freely and creatively. There are glimmers of hope, but they’re only glimmers. One particularly sharp student trailed me back to the office after an intense discussion about the “authentic” in Bob Dylan’s work. “Why,” he asked longingly, “don’t we learn more about this in college?” Honoring the sincerity of his quest, I resisted the retort, “Because you’re supposed to be talking about this with your buddies in the dorm.”

Ah, you say, but this is the hip hop generation, so why should I worry about rock and roll? Despite explicitly opening the assignment up to any genre, few of my students chose to write about rap, which I found astonishing. Their commitment to most hip hop (except for the lonely black student from Detroit) was very thin and interwoven with ambivalence. Rap simply seems to be what’s out there. They know the genre’s prime has passed, that the heart has been taken out of it by the record industry.

At the same time, white indie rock has been devoid of soul and blues influences — drained of the alchemical lifeblood created in the synthesis of white and black musical traditions. Indie is left with a whiny, trebly, irresolute sound that seems to fit the dull green glow of a computer screen in darkened suburban bedrooms. Music today is just another part of the price of America’s re-segregation.

My own kids’ strange connection to Dylan and the Clash at the tender ages of 7 and 10 suggest that I may be well on my way toward being part of the problem. Am I screwing them up by not adequately screwing them up, softly indoctrinating them into the glory days of rock and roll over family brunch on Sunday? Will they learn about the backbeat of power and rebellion at the displays of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame instead of the more illicit places they ought to be receiving such education?

Of course, the most famous momma’s boy of them all was the king of rock n roll himself, Elvis Presley, and in that fact there is home for the youth of America. But that was before cool had become one of the official anchors of consumer capitalism, before the commercialization of dissent had extended into every crevice of American culture. If the reason “Why Johnny Can’t Dissent,” as Tom Frank put it, is the commodification of resistance, maybe it’s also why Johnny doesn’t know his rock from his rebellion.

Jefferson Cowie is an associate professor at Cornell University.

Bloomberg.com, October 23, 2007, Wednesday

Bloomberg.com, October 23, 2007, Wednesday

Bloomberg.com

Chrysler Workers at 3 Indiana Plants Reject Contract (Update2)

By Mike Ramsey

Oct. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Chrysler LLC employees at three plants represented by the United Auto Workers in Kokomo, Indiana, soundly rejected a four-year contract, increasing chances that the agreement will fail nationally.

UAW Local 685, representing about 4,500 employees at three transmission plants, rejected the contract by 72 percent, said President Guy Barger. Results were not immediately available for nearby Local 1166, a transmission casing plant also in Kokomo that voted today.

The rejection comes as momentum appeared to be building for approval as victories at smaller parts and engine plants were overcoming defeats at large assembly plants.

``The outcome is still certainly in doubt,'' David Lipsky, a labor conflict professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, said before the Kokomo vote.

The result makes the outcome of voting at four plants in suburban Michigan, with about 9,200 workers, all the more important. The contract must be ratified by a majority of votes by Auburn Hills, Michigan-based Chrysler's 45,000 represented workers.

Balloting through yesterday appeared to favor yes voters. Local 1248, representing 900 parts distribution workers at four different centers in suburban Detroit, approved the contract by 86 percent on Oct. 21, President Harvey Hawkins Jr. said. And yesterday, Detroit Local 51 with 1,200 workers voted about 3-to- 1 in favor.

Fighting Opposition

As it stood before Kokomo, locals rejecting the contract so far represented about 11,160 workers, according to a Bloomberg tally; those approving have about 11,360. And those approving it have done so in larger percentages than those rejecting it.

Actual voting tallies haven't been available, so it is impossible to determine where the vote on the four-year contract stands.

Union officials have begun a campaign to counter ongoing anti-contract campaigning on Web pages and in materials being distributed at some locals.

Bill Parker, chairman of the union's nine-member national negotiating committee, has campaigned against the contract. He has said it doesn't provide the same guarantees for future work at U.S. plants as the contract the UAW ratified with Detroit- based General Motors Corp. earlier this month.

At Local 51, workers were greeted yesterday by local officers and a national representative handing out two different letters from members of the nine-member national negotiating committee.

`The Bare Truth'

One letter, titled The Bare Truth, refutes efforts by some union leaders to protest the tentative contract and makes a case for positives in the contract given the difficult situation Chrysler is in. It lost $680 million in 2006.

The letter does not name Parker, but every other member of the negotiating committee's name is listed at the bottom of the two-page letter.

``During this ratification process much misinformation has been spread throughout the system initiated by certain dissidents that enjoy the self-glorification and media attention,'' the letter reads.

Workers at Local 1700, representing a car assembly plant in Sterling Heights, Michigan, vote tomorrow. It is Parker's home plant. Union leaders were scheduled to hold informational meetings today at the plant.

That assembly plant, along with two stamping plants and a Dodge Ram pickup plant in Warren, may determine the outcome of the vote.

Final Vote

The final vote will be Oct. 26 in Belvidere, Illinois, at a plant that makes the Dodge Caliber, Jeep Compass and Jeep Patriot vehicles. It has about 3,400 UAW-represented workers.

So far, four of the five assembly plants to vote have rejected the contract. The only one to approve it is a small plant in Detroit that makes the Dodge Viper sports car.

If the vote fails, Chrysler and the UAW could strike or return to the bargaining table, where the union could ask for more guarantees of future work, Lipsky said.

The union could also immediately call for a revote or even postpone voting and move on to Ford Motor Co. and begin negotiations before attempting another recount.

The GM and Chrysler agreements create a union fund for retiree health care, instead of imposing this responsibility solely on management. The accords also will pay new workers about half as much as the current workforce.

The GM agreement followed a two-day strike and was ratified by two-thirds of workers.

Up Next

The UAW patterned its Chrysler agreement after GM's and hopes to use the same basic approach at Ford Motor Co. GM is the biggest U.S.-based automaker, followed by Ford and Chrysler.

Chrysler plans new investments totaling $15 billion for 55 of its 59 UAW-represented facilities during the next four years, spokesman Mike Aberlich said. At GM, some UAW factories were promised they'd start building newly designed models starting in 2013.

The ratification vote is the first for Chrysler as a closely held company. Cerberus Capital Management LP, a New York private-equity firm, bought Chrysler from the former DaimlerChrysler AG, now Daimler AG, in August.

To contact the reporter on this story: Mike Ramsey in Southfield, Michigan, at mramsey6@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: October 23, 2007 22:31 EDT

Detroit Free Press, October 22, 2007, Monday

Detroit Free Press, October 22, 2007, Monday

freep.com

Deal in jeopardy as locals vote no

Strike, a return to talks among options
October 22, 2007

BY TIM HIGGINS

FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER

If UAW members turn down the national labor deal with Chrysler LLC, Bill Parker, the union's bargaining committee chairman, says he expects UAW President Ron Gettelfinger will go back to the automaker for something better.

"I am hoping that Ron is there to represent us and that if the membership says clearly that we can't accept this, that he will do the right thing and go back into negotiations to improve it," Parker, president of Local 1700 in Sterling Heights, told the Free Press.

Advertisement


The outcome is still up in the air, but rejection is a possibility. Several large locals have voted against the deal, including bellwether Local 7 at the Jefferson North Assembly Plant in Detroit on Sunday.

Parker and other opponents of the tentative agreement hope for more future product guarantees.

But several collective-bargaining experts caution that extracting a better agreement is neither simple nor guaranteed. They say a range of outcomes could result if the Chrysler agreement fails, including a revote, a return to negotiations, another strike or the company locking out workers and even hiring replacement ones.

"If the contract is not ratified they have to go back to the bargaining table and negotiate, but what that usually means -- or can typically mean, not always -- is that they will not get a better deal, they will get a worse deal" from the union's perspective, said Arthur Wheaton, a labor expert from Cornell University. "Because the UAW leadership, Gettelfinger in this case, would lose face and lose credibility."

Several big locals still to vote

Six locals representing around 11,000 of the UAW's 45,000 Chrysler workers have so far rejected the proposed contract. The previous contract was to expire Sept. 14, but was extended during talks that led to the new deal Oct. 10.

On Sunday, Local 7, which represents about 2,200 workers at Jefferson North, went about 60% against the deal, a person familiar with the results told the Free Press. That plant was in line for a new generation of crossover vehicles and had been lobbied by UAW leaders.

Since voting started Thursday, at least seven locals representing around 9,000 workers have voted to accept the contract, including locals at two engine plants, which have been promised future products.

The UAW leadership gained a notable victory Saturday with contract approval at Locals 412 and 889, which represent an estimated 2,700 workers at a variety of Chrysler locations, according to a person familiar with the voting results.

Local 212, which has about 1,400 members at Detroit-area locations, approved the deal over the weekend as did Local 624, which represents about 2,000 workers at the New Process Gear transmission facility near Syracuse, N.Y. The New York local accepted the contract Sunday with 88% of voters approving it.

Several large locals plan votes Wednesday night, including Parker's local at the Sterling Heights Assembly Plant.

Meanwhile UAW spokesman Roger Kerson disputed a person's characterization in the Sunday Free Press that Chrysler had worked recently to "sweeten the pot" to make the contract more appealing to temporary workers at the Belvidere Assembly Plant in Illinois.

"It is not accurate that the company has tried to 'sweeten the pot' at Belvidere during the past week by promising a $3,000 signing bonus for temporary workers there," Kerson told the Free Press on Sunday. "In fact, those workers were entitled to the bonus by the terms of the tentative agreement, which was reached by the parties on Oct. 10."

Lockout deemed unlikely

Canadian Auto Workers President Buzz Hargrove, a seasoned bargainer who is not part of these talks, said a failed ratification vote could mean the UAW will return to the bargaining table "and try to deal with the issues that caused the rejection and try to soften those issues." He also said the UAW could "wait a bit" and have another vote among its members.

He doubted the company would lock out workers and hire replacements because of the state of the industry.

"I don't think Chrysler can afford to lock anybody out," Hargrove said. "That's an option. The UAW could set a strike deadline."

Wheaton, the Cornell labor expert, said another strike could result in Chrysler hiring permanent replacement workers.

"They would be legally entitled to just lock them out and permanently replace everybody," he said. Wheaton added that the option doesn't mean it will happen.

"Many times the lack of a ratification is (the result of) a poor education or poor communication between the international and locals," he said.

The proposed 4-year Chrysler agreement shifts retiree health care costs from the company to a trust and creates a two-tier wage system in which new hires to non-core jobs will be paid about half the rate of current workers.

Chrysler says it has made commitments at all but four of its UAW-represented facilities, and the UAW tells its members that the automaker has identified more than $15 billion in potential investments.

Unlike the General Motors Corp. labor agreement, which was ratified by 66% of workers Oct. 10, the Chrysler agreement does not give many specific future product guarantees.

Deal's opponents talk tough

A skilled-trades committeeman, Shawn Fain at Local 1166 in Kokomo, Ind., recommended voting against the deal in a letter on the union's Web site, saying he told UAW leadership that in approving the deal "you might as well get a gun and shoot yourself in the head."

Marsha Christie, whose husband has worked at the Chrysler Trenton Engine Plant for nearly 40 years, said they believe it was the best deal possible with Chrysler under the new ownership of Cerberus Capital Management.

"We feel the new ownership is not going to give much more," she said. "And personally what is the problem with new hires starting at $14? No one said they would never get raises. My husband started at something like $3.25 a hour, when there weren't any robots."

Contact TIM HIGGINS at thiggins@freepress.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Detroit Free Press (Michigan), October 22, 2007 Monday

Copyright 2007 Detroit Free Press

Detroit Free Press (Michigan)

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News

October 22, 2007 Monday

SECTION: BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL NEWS

HEADLINE: Deal in jeopardy as locals vote no

BYLINE: Tim Higgins, Detroit Free Press

BODY:

Oct. 22--If UAW members turn down the national labor deal with Chrysler LLC, Bill Parker, the union's bargaining committee chairman, says he expects UAW President Ron Gettelfinger will go back to the automaker for something better.

"I am hoping that Ron is there to represent us and that if the membership says clearly that we can't accept this, that he will do the right thing and go back into negotiations to improve it," Parker, president of Local 1700 in Sterling Heights, told the Free Press.

The outcome is still up in the air, but rejection is a possibility. Several large locals have voted against the deal, including bellwether Local 7 at the Jefferson North Assembly Plant in Detroit on Sunday.

Parker and other opponents of the tentative agreement hope for more future product guarantees.

But several collective-bargaining experts caution that extracting a better agreement is neither simple nor guaranteed. They say a range of outcomes could result if the Chrysler agreement fails, including a revote, a return to negotiations, another strike or the company locking out workers and even hiring replacement ones.

"If the contract is not ratified they have to go back to the bargaining table and negotiate, but what that usually means -- or can typically mean, not always -- is that they will not get a better deal, they will get a worse deal" from the union's perspective, said Arthur Wheaton, a labor expert from Cornell University. "Because the UAW leadership, Gettelfinger in this case, would lose face and lose credibility."

Six locals representing around 11,000 of the UAW's 45,000 Chrysler workers have so far rejected the proposed contract. The previous contract was to expire Sept. 14, but was extended during talks that led to the new deal Oct. 10.

On Sunday, Local 7, which represents about 2,200 workers at Jefferson North, went about 60 percent against the deal, a person familiar with the results told the Free Press. That plant was in line for a new generation of crossover vehicles and had been lobbied by UAW leaders.

Since voting started Thursday, at least seven locals representing around 9,000 workers have voted to accept the contract, including locals at two engine plants, which have been promised future products.

The UAW leadership gained a notable victory Saturday with contract approval at Locals 412 and 889, which represent an estimated 2,700 workers at a variety of Chrysler locations, according to a person familiar with the voting results.

Local 212, which has about 1,400 members at Detroit-area locations, approved the deal over the weekend as did Local 624, which represents about 2,000 workers at the New Process Gear transmission facility near Syracuse, N.Y. The New York local accepted the contract Sunday with 88 percent of voters approving it.

Several large locals plan votes Wednesday night, including Parker's local at the Sterling Heights Assembly Plant.

Meanwhile UAW spokesman Roger Kerson disputed a person's characterization in the Sunday Free Press that Chrysler had worked recently to "sweeten the pot" to make the contract more appealing to temporary workers at the Belvidere Assembly Plant in Illinois.

"It is not accurate that the company has tried to 'sweeten the pot' at Belvidere during the past week by promising a $3,000 signing bonus for temporary workers there," Kerson told the Free Press on Sunday. "In fact, those workers were entitled to the bonus by the terms of the tentative agreement, which was reached by the parties on Oct. 10."

Canadian Auto Workers President Buzz Hargrove, a seasoned bargainer who is not part of these talks, said a failed ratification vote could mean the UAW will return to the bargaining table "and try to deal with the issues that caused the rejection and try to soften those issues." He also said the UAW could "wait a bit" and have another vote among its members.

He doubted the company would lock out workers and hire replacements because of the state of the industry.

"I don't think Chrysler can afford to lock anybody out," Hargrove said. "That's an option. The UAW could set a strike deadline."

Wheaton, the Cornell labor expert, said another strike could result in Chrysler hiring permanent replacement workers.

"They would be legally entitled to just lock them out and permanently replace everybody," he said. Wheaton added that the option doesn't mean it will happen.

"Many times the lack of a ratification is (the result of) a poor education or poor communication between the international and locals," he said.

The proposed 4-year Chrysler agreement shifts retiree health care costs from the company to a trust and creates a two-tier wage system in which new hires to non-core jobs will be paid about half the rate of current workers.

Chrysler says it has made commitments at all but four of its UAW-represented facilities, and the UAW tells its members that the automaker has identified more than $15 billion in potential investments.

Unlike the General Motors Corp. labor agreement, which was ratified by 66 percent of workers Oct. 10, the Chrysler agreement does not give many specific future product guarantees.

A skilled-trades committeeman, Shawn Fain at Local 1166 in Kokomo, Ind., recommended voting against the deal in a letter on the union's Web site, saying he told UAW leadership that in approving the deal "you might as well get a gun and shoot yourself in the head."

Marsha Christie, whose husband has worked at the Chrysler Trenton Engine Plant for nearly 40 years, said they believe it was the best deal possible with Chrysler under the new ownership of Cerberus Capital Management.

"We feel the new ownership is not going to give much more," she said. "And personally what is the problem with new hires starting at $14? No one said they would never get raises. My husband started at something like $3.25 a hour, when there weren't any robots."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

To see more of the Detroit Free Press, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.freep.com. Copyright (c) 2007, Detroit Free Press Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

LOAD-DATE: October 22, 2007

Philadelphia Inquirer (Pennsylvania), October 21, 2007, Sunday

Copyright 2007 Philadelphia Inquirer

Philadelphia Inquirer (Pennsylvania)

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News

October 21, 2007, Sunday

SECTION: STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS

HEADLINE: Penn launches its biggest fund drive

BYLINE: Susan Snyder, The Philadelphia Inquirer

BODY:

Oct. 21--The University of Pennsylvania yesterday announced a $3.5 billion fund-raising campaign -- its largest ever -- joining several other Ivy League institutions already well into the multibillion-dollar arena.

It's not as large as Stanford University's record $4.3 billion campaign, announced last year, but is much larger than Penn's previous formal campaign, which ended in 1994 and brought in $1.5 billion.

Thousands of students, alumni, faculty and staff crowded the West Philadelphia campus last night for the ceremonial announcement -- which coincided with homecoming weekend -- of the five-year campaign.

"We are seizing this moment, Penn's moment, the kind of seminal moment that comes along only once in a century," Penn president Amy Gutmann told the crowd from the stage, flanked by blue "Making History" banners.

The money will go toward increased financial aid, 18 new "integrated" professorships that bridge disciplines within the university, and new buildings and green space, continuing the university's expansion from University City toward Center City.

Gutmann said the university already had raised 43 percent of the goal in the two years of the "quiet phase" of the campaign, better than the norm for such lucrative efforts, national experts say.

It signals yet another positive economic development for Penn, which last month announced that its endowment for fiscal 2007 had grown more than 20 percent, to $6.6 billion. The endowment had increased 21.2 percent the previous year.

Gutmann expects the campaign to raise Penn's annual giving to a level that will continue after the fund-raising effort ends in 2012, she said.

"I don't think we'll ever want to ramp back," she said in an interview. "The pride that Penn alumni now take in Penn is a pride that is a consequence of increased momentum, and we're just going to have to continue it."

Staff members are applauding the efforts. Gutmann has promoted an "excellence to eminence" platform, said Larry Gladney, a physics and astronomy professor and chair of the faculty senate.

"When you get to eminence, you certainly wouldn't want to regress after the effort has been spent to get that far," he said.

Some students at the event, which offered free burgers, salad, drinks and other refreshments, were unsure what it all meant.

Alex Moy, 26, a graduate student from New York, heard there was "a big party on campus" and checked it out.

"It's a great cause, but at the same time, it felt a little overblown in some ways," said Maria Davydenko, 18, a freshman from Alaska.

Others favored the effort.

"If it accomplishes its goals, it's an exciting thing for the institution," said Gideon Spitzer, 19, a freshman from Los Angeles.

Gutmann soon will begin promoting the campaign on a worldwide tour of cities where large numbers of alumni are based, such as London, Hong Kong, New York, Los Angeles, Miami and Chicago. Alumni account for about 38 percent of the money Penn raises; the national average is 30 percent.

While universities forever are raising money, a campaign renews interest in giving and almost certainly raises the level of annual donations.

"A campaign is really just trying to rachet up giving to a somewhat higher level," said Ronald G. Ehrenberg, director of the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute at Cornell University.

While Penn officials expect an increase in annual giving, they declined to speculate on how much. In fiscal 2006, the university received $409.4 million in total support, fourth-highest among higher-education institutions in the country, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education.

In the Philadelphia region, other major universities also have launched fund-raising campaigns recently. Temple University announced the first comprehensive campaign in its history, seeking $350 million -- $253 million of which already has been collected. And St. Joseph's University said it aimed to raise $150 million, with $90 million already taken in.

In the Ivy League, Columbia and Cornell announced $4 billion efforts last year, Yale launched a $3 billion one around the same time, and the buzz, according to the Chronicle, is that Harvard may be preparing to announce a $5 billion drive, taking the record from Stanford.

"For all of these institutions, what they've come to realize is the costs within higher education are going up far more quickly than the cost of living, and philanthropy is one of the main sources of support to improve their academic programs," said Bruce McClintock, chair of Marts & Lundy Inc., a fund-raising consulting company in New Jersey.

Penn didn't try to steal Stanford's crown.

"This is less about a big number and is really about the [university's) priorities," said John Zeller, vice president for development and alumni relations.

Half the money will go toward the university's endowment, which will help with new faculty and research and expanded financial aid to undergraduate, graduate and professional students. About 38 percent of students receive financial aid from Penn based on need.

Five of the 18 new professors, who bridge two disciplines, already have been hired, including former IBM standout Christopher B. Murray, known for bringing many patents to market. Murray has a joint appointment to the School of Arts and Sciences and the School of Engineering and Applied Science. A cultural anthropologist and documentary filmmaker, a biomedical ethicist, a psychologist and neuroscientist, and a medical anthropologist are the others with joint appointments.

"It's terrific for the kind of university that we want to increasingly be, which is one that shows how you put knowledge into practice," Gutmann said. "All of these scholars work by integrating disciplines."

The university has increased the number of students from low-income families in the last two years. The number of admitted freshman receiving full financial aid has risen from 86 to 155. The university gives grants rather than loans to students from families with income below $60,000 to help cover the $46,124 cost of tuition, fees, and room and board. This school year, the university is spending $93.5 million on undergraduate financial aid.

Some of the money will fund new buildings and recreational space under the university's 30-year master plan. A new dormitory, a proton-therapy center, a nanoscience and technology building, a neural and behavioral science building, and the Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine will be aided by the campaign. The music building also will get renovations.

The last quarter of the money raised will be for immediate use in improving general operations.

Contact staff writer Susan Snyder at 215-854-4693 or ssnyder@phillynews.com

To see more of The Philadelphia Inquirer, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.philly.com. Copyright (c) 2007, The Philadelphia Inquirer Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

LOAD-DATE: October 21, 2007

Men's Fitness, October 19, 2007

Copyright 2007 Gale Group, Inc.

All Rights Reserved

Copyright 2007 Weider Publications

Men's Fitness

October 19, 2007

SECTION: Pg. 13(1) Vol. 23 No. 9 ISSN: 0893-4460

HEADLINE: Rosa Mathai and Jared Kraminitz;

MFERS;

Brief article

BODY:

While their classmates hung out at the pool or worked some dead-end job, MF's summer interns, Rosa Mathai (from Tulane University in New Orleans) and Jared Kraminitz (from Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations), got their feet wet in publishing. "Myfavorite part of working at MF has to be the interviews I got to do," says Louisiana native Mathai. "It was great getting to speak to big-name actors and athletes." As for Kraminitz, it was the diversity ofthe job he round most appealing. "Every day was an adventure," he says. "I never knew what I was going to get. One day I'd be writing about exercises like Pilates, and the next, I was taste-testing sugar-free candy or looking for cool events for the monthly Fit List."

LOAD-DATE: October 19, 2007

Gannett News Service, October 19, 2007

Gannett News Service, October 19, 2007

Star-Gazette.com

New gifts push Cornell above $1 billion mark in fund campaign

ITHACA — With a recent bonanza of $71.5 million in major gifts, including its largest ever donation to the arts and humanities, Cornell University is a quarter of the way to its $4 billion capital campaign, the university announced Thursday.

The gifts move the university past the $1 billion mark on the Ithaca main campus and put the overall total so far at $1.8 billion when funds for Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City are added.

“This year has been one of unprecedented partnership between the university and its alumni, parents and friends, as we worked together to advance the campaign,” said Cornell President David J. Skorton. “In particular, the new gifts in support of the humanities, social sciences, sustainability and the arts will energize our efforts in fundamental ways, enabling our faculty to offer new approaches to learning that inspire our students to discover and create. I am profoundly grateful to all who have contributed.”

The campaign was formally launched in October 2006, with a target date of the end of 2011, four years before the university’s 150th anniversary. It is Cornell’s largest fundraising campaign ever and is among the largest in American higher education. The money is to be used for a variety of purposes, but Skorton has emphasized the need to attract the best and most deserving students, attract talented faculty in part to replace a large number retiring in the next 10 years, and to better link Cornell’s disparate research and outreach fields.

Skorton is to give the state of the university address to trustees and the University Council today on the Ithaca campus.

The humanities gift is $15 million donated by a third-generation Cornell alumnus or alumna the university did not name. In addition, a couple anonymously donated $10 million, half of it to endow the chair of the English Department.

“English is by far the largest humanities department in the Arts College, and it is a lynchpin for the humanities,” said Peter Lepage, the Harold Tanner Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. “The Arts College does almost half the teaching of the university, even though it comprises only a third of the faculty. That’s why these gifts are great for the whole university. We provide the liberal arts component for every Cornell undergraduate program.”

The College of Arts and Sciences is also receiving $6.5 million from the estate of the late Beatrice Mayhew Moore Stump, a 1937 alumna, split evenly between the college’s unrestricted endowment and for scholarships for undergraduate students. It’s also the beneficiary of $4 million from alumnus Stanford Taylor to endow the chair of the Sage School of Philosophy within the arts and sciences college. And the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation issued a $2.5 million challenge grant to the arts and sciences college to create new faculty positions.

Three separate gifts will benefit the university’s Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art with major additions and purchases: $1 million from Bob and Helen Appel, $1 million from trustee Ira Drukier and his wife, Gale, and $1.5 million fro Susan Eckert Lynch, in memory of her late husband Ronald Lynch, a 1958 alumnus who was vice chairman of the Cornell trustees.

Beyond the humanities, the social sciences are benefiting from $5 million from trustee Donald Opatrny to name the chair of the economics department, while a $5 million gift from an anonymous donor will endow the chair of the government department. The Drukiers are giving $5 million to support named deanships in the College of Architecture, Art and Planning, while Kenneth Kahn is doing the same in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

Outside the humanities and social sciences, trustee David Croll is giving $5 million for a professorship and program funds within the College of Engineering, and University Council member David Atkinson $1 million in seed money to help launch the Center for a Sustainable Future.

Sarasota Herald-Tribune (Florida), October 18, 2007, Thursday

Copyright 2007 Sarasota Herald-Tribune Co.

All Rights Reserved

Sarasota Herald-Tribune (Florida)


October 18, 2007, Thursday

ALL EDITION

SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. D2

HEADLINE: Book offers human resources tips

YLINE: STAFF REPORT

DATELINE: LAKEWOOD RANCH

BODY:

Gevity, the region's largest professional employer organization, has rolled out a new guide for addressing human resources issues faced by small and midsize businesses.

The "Gevity Answer Book" is free and aimed at the very clientele that makes up the lion's share of Gevity's customers.

Gevity handles payroll, workers' compensation insurance and other human resources administration for thousands of client companies and their workers.

The "Gevity Answer Book" taps business leaders and human resources experts, including Christopher Collins of Cornell University's Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies.

Topics include growing a business and maximizing people and performance, building an effective work force, keeping employees, creating a positive business culture and hiring future leaders.

Gevity-sponsored research suggests that implementing effective HR practices can lead to 22 percent higher sales growth, 23 percent higher profit growth and a 67 percent reduction in employee turnover.

"We help small and midsize business owners look at HR strategically," said Dan Shirra, Gevity's vice president of marketing.

The book can be ordered for free on Gevity's Web site, www.gevity.com.

LOAD-DATE: October 19, 2007

The International Herald Tribune, October 16, 2007, Tuesday

Copyright 2007 International Herald Tribune

The International Herald Tribune

October 16, 2007, Tuesday


SECTION: FINANCE; Pg. 22

HEADLINE: Watching GM's retirees AROUND THE MARKETS MARKETPLACE by Bloomberg

BYLINE: Jeff Green and John Lippert - Bloomberg News

DATELINE: SOUTHFIELD, Michigan

BODY:

AT&T, the biggest U.S. phone company, and No. 2 Verizon Communications may follow General Motors in trying to shift retiree health care liabilities to a union-run fund, a move that has helped lift GM's shares 39 percent this year.

GM, the largest U.S. automaker, reached a landmark agreement with the United Automobile Workers last month to transfer $47 billion in such obligations to a voluntary employee beneficiary association, or VEBA. The telecommunications companies, which will both negotiate new contracts with their unions in the next two years, reported a combined $71 billion in retiree liabilities last year.

''We'll be watching'' how the GM union-run fund develops, said Alberto Canal, a spokesman for Verizon, which is based in New York. He declined to give additional details. Verizon spends $3.5 billion a year for health care coverage for 900,000 active workers, retirees and dependents, he said.

Verizon and AT&T both have a union in common with GM that may set a precedent for VEBAs in separate talks with the automaker that started last week. The industrial unit of the union, the Communications Workers of America, is considering a union-run fund for a GM plant it represents in Ohio. Michael Coe, a spokesman for AT&T, based in San Antonio, Texas, declined to comment.

''Telecommunications are the next big group that will be looking at VEBAs,'' said Howard Silverblatt, an analyst at the ratings service Standard & Poor's. S&P estimates that companies in the S&P 500-stock index had $387 billion in retiree health care and insurance commitments at the end of last year.

The GM agreement sets the stage for companies like AT&T, Verizon and the aircraft maker Boeing to also restructure billions of dollars in retiree benefits, clearing out balance sheets and capping health care costs that rose by an average of 8.4 percent last year in the United States.

Like GM, AT&T and Verizon might also get a share-price lift from union-run funds, said George Foley, a fund manager at Glenmede Trust. While the gains may be smaller, ''the opportunity to move long-term legacy liabilities off the balance sheet is dramatic,'' he said.

AT&T shares have risen 18 percent, and Verizon has gained 22 percent so far this year through the end of last week.

Several companies are already looking into union-run funds, according to Andy Kramer, a partner and labor lawyer for Jones Day in Washington, who has helped GM, Goodyear Tire & Rubber and the auto-parts maker Dana establish such funds in the past two years.

Interest in retiree health care trusts has been rising since 2005, when GM set up a $3 billion fund that it controlled with the auto workers' union as part of a plan to require union retirees to pay health care premiums for the first time, said Lance Wallach, who runs VEBA Plan, a consulting company.

He said that about a third of his business is talking to private equity investors and venture capitalists about the risks of retiree health care liabilities and the potential for unlocking their value from companies' balance sheets.

New accounting rules this year require companies to add retiree health care costs as a liability on their balance sheets, a shift that turned GM and Ford Motor shareholder value negative, Kramer said. Shifting the funds to the union will reverse the shortfalls.

The telecommunications industry is similar to the automotive business in that it has large union retiree-health obligations plus ''readily available assets that you could contribute without killing your cash flow,'' Silverblatt at S&P said.

Harry Katz, dean of the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University, said that even a union at a healthy company is more likely to consider a VEBA now that GM has one. ''Unions don't have the bargaining power they once had, and this is one way to defend existing benefits and avoid less agreeable concessions,'' he said. ''The relative power of labor is lowered in both healthy and unhealthy industries.''

LOAD-DATE: October 19, 2007