A conversation with WTVP-TV’s board chair... and its new CEO

If Peoria's public TV station was a runaway horse in the last year, John Wieland says he’s ready to turn over the reins. The 64-year-old chairman of the station’s board of directors is confident that newly named CEO Jenn Gordon will corral the steed and convince the community that WTVP really isn’t a wild nag but a thoroughbred.

Smiling, Wieland relaxes in a casual meeting room in the back of MH Equipment off Allen Road and reflects on relinquishing the attention.

“My 15 minutes in the sun is quickly coming to an end,” says Wieland, who explains some of the mostly private actions that have taken place since September, when WTVP President Lesley Matuszak and finance director Lin McLaughlin resigned, and Matuszak committed suicide. Weeks later, previous board chair Andrew Rand said there had been “questionable, improper and unauthorized” spending, and the board cut the budget 30%, laid off nine employees and shut down its Peoria magazine (which was a big factor in an $870,000 shortfall, according to an internal audit released later).

By February — while investigations continued by the Peoria Police Dept., the Illinois Attorney General’s office, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — most of the board resigned and new board members were seated.

Learning experience

“When I came on the scene I was at the lowest level of incompetence,” he says. “I didn’t know what I didn’t know.”

Wieland says he got involved after he and a group of friends that meets every month to share thoughts and challenge each other to be better, discussed the station’s woes.

“It came up — this disaster — that CPB was going to withhold funds and the rumor to shut it down. I wasn’t a frequent user of WTVP before, [and] I didn’t know Leslie. I did not know Andrew. I did know Helen [Barrick], who I’d worked with 40 years ago at Peat Marwick, and her husband Bill was on my board at MH Equipment.

“Anyway, my friends and I talked about if we could create something to provide a financial runway and give the community a fresh board.”

Wieland shared the thought with Dr. Andy Chiou, and he “made the introductions around Thanksgiving, I think,” Wieland recalls. “I met with Andrew and their executive committee and threw out this idea. They talked with their board [and] they thought it sounded like a decent plan. I didn’t pick the people who would stay or leave. We did have to come up with new board members.

“Throughout the whole deal, I sent out emails to the 7,000 or so people on the [station’s] list. We had a ‘litmus test’ — ‘Are you fully committed to fulfilling the mission of WTVP, which is to provide educational, scientific, entertainment and cultural content?’ ”

New life

Asked about criticism that former board members were insiders and the new board is, too, Wieland disagrees.

“I didn’t know who six of the new board members were. A lot of people on the board didn’t know each other,” he says. “I guess we’re insiders from this standpoint: We’re committed to the mission of WTVP.”

Wieland says the search for board members went beyond a handful of local power brokers.

“After the litmus test, we wanted to get people of different ethnicities, from outside Peoria, from Galesburg, Bloomington, and we’re still looking.”

Wieland says he’s read several books about Lincoln, including Doris Kearns Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals,” and he appreciates a variety of voices. Especially for public broadcasting, that’s fitting. After all, as the public media marketing consultants Market Enginuity says, “If one were to combine the average statistics for PBS viewers on a national level, they would likely find a married, homeowning woman who is in her 30s or 40s and has at least one child under the age of 11.”

Weiland says, “Could another board have gotten on top of it sooner? Sure. Could another board get on it later? Sure.”

Right people

Asked whether the diversity of the board could improve since at least 13 of its 19 members have exclusively voted in Republican primaries, according to election records, Wieland says, “I didn’t know who’s in what party.

“It’s a good question; maybe it’s worth balancing it that way. Optics don’t have to be true to be people’s reality.

“To be honest, I don’t care if someone’s Republican, Independent or Democrat, whether they’re Christian or from the Jewish community or wherever. We would not let someone use this station for some kind of political, religious or social platform. Are such things OK? Sure. But that’s not the mission of WTVP.

“I’m so apolitical,” he adds. “Politics isn’t the answer; it’s a change of the human heart. Politics doesn’t do that.”

WTVP has been and will be even-handed, he says.

“WTVP has not strayed too far Left or Right, [and] we’re not going to the Left or the Right. We want our kids to learn their 1-2-3s and their A-B-C’s, and see good programs like Ken Burns does. [So] I’m not going to say we need a Democrat.”

Private runway

Back to the financial “runway” to return WTVP to fiscal stability, a key factor is a foundation’s pledge of $1.2 million, up to $3 million, to supplement area contributions and CPB funding (on the condition there is CPB funding). But the name of the foundation wasn’t disclosed. Wieland has a foundation, His First Foundation, which has donated to institutions such as Dream Center of Peoria, Peoria Christian School, and Unlimited Grace Media, at Grace Presbyterian Church.

Wieland says keeping the pledge private is a matter of putting the focus on WTVP, not a donor. “It’s not about a foundation,” he says, “It’s about WTVP. I want the focus not to be on the foundation. I want it to be about WTVP.

“I’ve been on TV a lot [but] it’s not about me, the board, the foundation or Jenn Gordon,” he continues. “I bought MH Equipment when it had about 50 employees; now it’s about 1,100. But, again, it’s not about me; it’s about the enterprise.

“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out where most of this came from,” he adds. “In a couple of years, people will be able to look at the 990 (federal tax form for charities, which are public).”

As far as getting a new CEO, Wieland says the board’s search was methodical, but the process wasn’t open and the public wasn’t told. More than 70 people applied, the governance committee (Wieland and Vice Chair Andy Chiou) was joined by others including board members Barrick and Heather Acerra to conduct due diligence on 11 applicants, talk to 5 and interview 3 again.

“Could it have been done better? Of course,” Wieland says. “I did not know [Jenn] except we served on a common board at Grace Presbyterian Church. At the end of the day, we were lucky.”

Meanwhile, Wieling says he feels fortunate to be able to step back some.

“I’m comfortable being in the public; I’m comfortable not being in the public,” he says. “This probably is my last interview.”

Even if he’s out of the limelight, he says, he’ll follow how WTVP is doing.

“I do care if they’re committed to making this a family-friendly station for generations to come, committed to fulfilling the mission of WTVP.”

 

And a Q&A with the station’s new CEO-

WTVP-TV 47 said it received dozens of applications to its announcement that it sought a new CEO, formed a search committee, crafted criteria for assessing people’s qualifications, and narrowed the field to three finalists.

By unanimous vote by the search committee and the full board, 42-year-old Peoria native Jenn Gordon was named CEO of the region’s public television station on March 21.

Probably best known to readers as the executive director of ArtsPartners of Central Illinois from 2015 to 2022, Gordon was executive administrator at Peoria’s Grace Presbyterian Church until starting at WTVP on April 22.
Recently, she took time to answer a few questions before a scheduled phone call with Paula Kerger, president of the nation’s Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).

Q: At this point, do you anticipate your approach to the public to be reassuring the community or challenging them?

A: Maybe some of both. The first piece will be to restore confidence, I guess. Anyone who donates money to any type of nonprofit organization, if there’s a breach of trust [or] mismanagement of funds, you do need reassurance moving forward that things are going to be different. I want members who’ve been supporting the station and gotten us through this critical time [to know] their donations will be going toward exactly what we say they’re going toward.

The second piece is going to be a challenging component, to challenge the community to re-engage and rediscover what we have … the critical resources offered. From Day 1 with public broadcasting, this vision of commercial-free, quality content [shows] we’re not just building consumers of media; we’re building learners from media.

Q: Do you have a sense of what WTVP and the public should expect from the investigation and audit by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?

A: I’m hoping — everyone is hoping — that it will be totally transparent, just to be able to structure a clean slate to move forward and still be eligible for (CPB) funding. There’s still a criminal investigation going on. It’s in the best interest of WTVP to have (outside observers).

Q: In March, WTVP sought feedback online and the board felt there were positives as far as general satisfaction. But wasn’t it rather unscientific, sort of reaching out to viewers Channel 47 already has instead of the public throughout the 20 or so counties the station serves — those who may not watch or donate?

A: That survey was a first step. We have to get a better pulse of viewers and supporters, and then we need to go way beyond that because (the station) is designed to be a community resource. I want to get a snapshot of what our engagement is like with (the public). Where are there gaps?

Q: As CEO, will you have to deal with some perceptions that the former board was made up of insiders who’ve been replaced by a different group of insiders?

A: First, a CEO has very limited influence on that; you inherit it. Nothing about this last year for WTVP has been normal. But before I ever thought about this opportunity, I was relieved to see the emergence of a new board; it was a fresh start.

I was glad to see a diverse group — women and different neighborhoods and facets [on the board]. You want to aim to be a board representative of the community you serve. Hopefully we can all move forward with a lot of positivity.

Peoria landfill: trash talking

This winter, a year-long delay seemed to be over in building a required landfill to accommodate Peoria waste after the current landfill is at capacity, but plans have not resumed.

The Peoria City/County Landfill Committee plans to construct Landfill #3, made necessary because the current Landfill #2, which opened in 1998, is expected to reach capacity in the next several months.

The process started 15 years ago, and during those years, Peoria Disposal Company (PDC) found no evidence of underground mines that could affect the proposed site, which is adjacent to existing landfill space, and state agencies agreed.

Building landfills above mines risks tons of trash collapsing into space below and possibly damaging landfills’ liners, which protect groundwater from contamination.

Landfill #3 construction bids had gone out, but in April of 2023, a reference to an abandoned underground mine (Black Jewel No. 2, which operated in the 1930s and ’40s) was noted in records of the Illinois Geological Survey – which neither PDC, the Committee nor the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) realized.

Required to notify the state EPA, the Committee stopped work and arranged for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and engineers and consultants to investigate. From November through January, 10 exploratory borings were done, which confirmed Black Jewel’s presence but added that it was in a different coal seam than previously assumed and seemed to have been stripped out.

Now, Committee members believe that there’s no extraordinary risk from Black Jewel, and Landfill #3 construction could proceed.

“The news we received from IDNR was welcome and appreciated,” said Peoria County Administrator Scott Sorrel. “We now are waiting on IEPA to remove the hold on the construction permit issued to GFL [Green For Life Environmental] on behalf of the City-County Solid Waste Management Committee.

“This delay, caused by the extra analysis required by IDNR and IEPA, has put the opening of Landfill #3 in question,” he continued. “We are currently exploring all options and contingencies. At this time, it is too early in this exploration to have a definitive solution.”

GFL, which in 2021 acquired PDC and its holdings – including the contract to build Landfill #3 – hasn’t seemed eager to fulfill that obligation. In 2022, GFL asked to postpone Landfill #3, but the Committee rejected the idea and considered legal action to enforce the contract, and GFL dropped its request.

Also asked about how a Landfill #3 might now proceed, Landfill Committee chair Stephen Morris, who’s City Treasurer, said, “In short, I do not know. The City, County, and [the] Landfill Committee are exploring all options to ensure affordable and reliable waste disposal.

“The timelines for closure of Landfill 2 and opening of Landfill 3 remain unclear,” he added, “so we really have no choice but to prepare contingencies for various outcomes.”

Completing Landfill #3 will take a while, and it’s unlikely it will be ready when Landfill #2 is full. Contingencies include using a “transfer station” to collect and then transport garbage to some existing landfill, such as GFL’s Indian Creek Landfill in Tazewell County.

Peoria primary vote showed increasing opposition to Netanyahu strategy

There’s little question that April 1’s three Israeli Defense Forces’ airstrikes killing an American and six other aid workers in Gaza could be the last straw. Shall the U.S. continue to tolerate how Israel’s Right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu conducts his military response to October’s terrible terror attacks killing 1,200 people and taking hundreds hostage?

And shall President Biden still defer to him?

A previous “straw” seems relevant, as a sizable percentage of primary voters are protesting.

Beyond metro Peoria’s demonstrations, City Council debates and several stories in this newspaper, another breaking point was in last month’s primary election.

Although Illinois has no line for “none of the above,” “uncommitted,” etc., and election authorities don’t routinely report blank or write-in ballots, election tallies include total ballots cast, “undervotes” showing who didn’t vote when they could have, and votes for all candidates. There were significant gaps between Democratic ballots and Biden votes.

Out of 7,569 Democratic voters for the party’s presidential nominee, 366 didn’t vote (4.6%). That dwarfs the undervote in both 2020 (1.2%) and 2016 (1%).

Further, adding votes for candidates such as Dean Phillips, “other” and undervotes together totaled 775 (10.2%).

(That said, the Republican side showed 26.2% voting for another GOP candidate or no one.)

Biden still won 94.6% of Peoria County Democratic votes cast (compared to Donald Trump receiving just 75.6% of Republican voters). But Peoria Democratic voters sent a message of disappointment, if not anger, to Biden and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Central Illinois activist Sonny Garcia worked on the campaign organized by group such as the Muslim Civic Coalition-Activate, Listen to Michigan, and other civic organizations, and he sees the message voiced elsewhere.

“In Illinois there were over 100,000 ballots cast as protest votes against the Biden administration,” he told the Community Word. “Since this campaign started, voters from all across the country have cast a protest vote during the primaries.”

Indeed, uncommitted vote were in Colorado (9%), Connecticut (11%), Hawaii (29.1%), Michigan (13%), Minnesota (19%), North Carolina (12%), Rhode Island (16%), and Wisconsin (8%).

Thirteen days after Peoria voters weighed in, the IDF attacked three World Central Kitchen vehicles engaged in humanitarian assistance to people on the verge of starvation due to IDF assaults and a virtual lockdown of borders, both hurting far more civilians than Hamas fighters, leaving 33,000 dead.

Was killing the aid workers “a bridge too far”?

Biden said he was “outraged” by IDF’s attacks. However, on the same day, he approved the sale of thousands of bombs to Israel and worked on language for Congress to consider an $18 billion sale of up to 50 F-15 fighter jets to Israel.

The rage and regret at Biden’s virtually unqualified support for Netanyahu’s war has been building for months. Muslim Americans, progressives, young voters, Democrats and more than a few Jews (in the United States and the world) have objected, demonstrated and organized to pressure Biden.

Support for Israel has dropped, according to Gallup. In November, 50% of Americans across party lines, race, gender, geography, etc. approved of Netanyahu’s siege; now it’s 36%. By March, disapproval across the board was 55%, a jump from November’s 45%. In November, 36% of Democrats backed Israel’s war and 63% opposed it. In March, 18% of Dems still supported Israel and 75% opposed it.

The World Central Kitchen tragedy could the final insult.

“The Biden administration is feeling the heat and have started altering their talking points and calling for ceasefire in Gaza, yet they are still sending funds to the Israeli military to continue,” Garcia continued. “This national movement will continue to work with other states that are having primaries between now and June to make sure that the DNC and the Biden administration are aware that our votes will not be taken for granted and that we will not support the administration that is funding genocide.”

Something must happen in the White House and the Biden campaign – and, for God’s sake, the 590,000 people in Gaza.

Two questions: Is it really the end of the line for unquestioning support for Netanyahu?

And what will critics of Biden’s position do at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August? Or in November?

A reminder of how Trump’s hurt everyday Americans -- especially working people – for decades

The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research says 43% of union households voted for Donald Trump in 2016; 40% of us cast ballots for him in 2020. That may mean it’s time for a refresher for the damage Trump’s done in business and politics his whole life.

 

United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain said, “Trump has been a player in the class war against the working class for decades, whether screwing workers and small businesses in his dealings, exploiting workers at his Mar a Lago estate and properties, blaming workers for the Great Recession, or giving tax breaks to the rich.

 

“He is a con man who has been directly part of the problem we have seen over the past 40 years,” he added.

 

Indeed, in 2014, President Obama instituted a rule to record federal contractors who violated the Davis-Bacon Act that provides Prevailing Wages, plus other worker protections – all to discourage lawbreakers and encourage compliance. Trump repealed the rule.

 

The Communications Workers of America analyzed the Trump administration (2017-20) when the Republican packed the U.S. Supreme Court with “anti-labor judges,” cut the budget and number of inspectors at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and “lowered standards meant to protect workers from getting sick at work and given employers a free pass if they fail to follow even those minimal requirements,” appointed the union-busting corporate attorney Eugene Scalia as U.S. Secretary of Labor, and engineered an anti-worker National Labor Relations Board that made it easier to avoid paying overtime and to retaliate against employees exercising labor rights ranging from protected “concerted activity” or unionizing.

 

The Economic Policy Institute compiled a reminder of some of the anti-union actions the Trump administration took. His NLRB: 

 

* overturned the agency’s own precedent in more than a dozen cases, “weakening workers’ rights,”

* made “it far more difficult for employees and union organizers to talk with employees at the workplace,”

* manipulated its own standard “for what constitutes an ‘appropriate’ bargaining unit, giving employers even greater ability to thwart workers who wish to form a union,”

* upended a 70-year-old policy that prohibited employers “from making unilateral changes to wages, hours or working conditions, giving them greater leeway to make unilateral changes,”

* created a new rule making employers legally permitted to withdraw [union] recognition at the conclusion of the collective bargaining agreement if they have evidence that the union does not have majority support. If the union wants to get its status back, it must file a petition for a new election and prevail in that election,”

* overruled one of its own Administrative Law Judge’s decision about misclassifying employment status, saying that improperly calling an actual employee a “assistant manager” or “independent contractor” would not violate the National Labor Relations Act, plus other harmful actions.

 

“The Trump NLRB systematically rolled back workers’ rights under the NLRA,” the EPI showed. “The Trump Board and General Counsel [favorably] acted on 10 out of 10 of the Chamber of Commerce’s wish-list items and have gone even further to narrow the NLRA’s protections for working people while granting employers new powers under the Act.”

 

It’s all part of a long pattern.

 

Before Trump ran for the White House, the businessman mostly hired non-union labor, according to a study by the IBEW, which said, “According to analysis of lawsuits filed against him and his companies, when union contractors were hired, Trump developed a reputation for stiffing some, delaying payment to others, and shorting workers on overtime and even minimum wage.”

 

Also, the union tracked more than 60 lawsuits for Trump not paying his bills on time, dozens of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and when building Trump Tower in New York City, hiring Polish immigrants, who he exploited.

 

In a lawsuit against Trump that lasted almost 20 years, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that Trump “knew the Polish workers were working 'off the books,' that they were doing demolition work, that they were non-union, that they were paid substandard wages with no overtime pay and that they were paid irregularly if at all.”

 

Union households may harbor resentments – which Trump exploits – but supporting him rather than President Biden lets corporations and the 1% escape responsibility. 

 

Brandeis University professor and author Robert Kuttner concisely explains the party differences that affect everyday Americans: “Democrats try to use the government to help working people,” Kuttner writes. “Republican legislators, judges and presidents work to help corporate America evade or overturn those laws, at the expense of workers.”

News analysis: 32-hour workweek addresses worker safety

There’s an old saying that touches on workers’ real need for activities beyond occupations: “Work is more than a job; life is more than work.”

This month, we mark Workers’ Memorial Day, which is more than reverently reflecting on those killed, injured or sickened on the job. The somber occasion also remembers that employers must be held accountable, and that society must prevent unsafe and unhealthy workplaces.

Last month, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced a bill addressing one aspect: achieving a work-life balance by setting a 32-hour workweek with no loss of pay.

Each day, the U.S. economy sees 340 workers die on the job, and 6,000 other made ill due to preventable working conditions, says the AFL-CIO, and many more suffer stress. Workplace stress is real, and damaging, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which notes that workplace stress reportedly causes 120,000 deaths in the U.S. each year; about 65% of U.S. workers surveyed characterized work as being a very significant or somewhat significant source of stress in each year from 2019-2021; 83% of U.S. workers suffer from work-related stress; 54% of workers report that work stress affects their home life; almost one in five U.S. adults live with a mental illness – and or every $1 spent on ordinary mental-health concerns, employers see a $4 return in productivity gains.

“Stress can be harmful to our health,” OSHA says. “While there are many things in life that induce stress, work can be one of those factors.”

Introducing his proposal, Sanders said, “we find workers working longer hours. We find workers working deep into their 60s, 70s, even 80s. We find the associated deaths of despair from addiction and suicide, of people who don’t feel a life of endless, hopeless work is a life worth living.

“It is time to reduce the stress level in our country and allow Americans to enjoy a better quality of life,” he added. “It is time for a 32-hour workweek with no loss in pay.”

The “Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act” is “not radical,” Sanders said.

And it’s not new.

Cutting hours has been debated since the 1800s, when the struggle was to cut weekly hours to 40 and workers’ cry was, “Eight hours for work, eight hours for rest, eight hours for what you will.”

Conservative industrialist Henry Ford in 1926 on his own shortened his company’s workweeks to five eight-hour days, and in 1933 a 30-hour workweek passed the U.S. Senate, but corporate America defeated it in the House. However, progressive President Franklin D. Roosevelt took up the fight in the 1930s, and in 1938 got the ground-breaking Fair Labor Standards Act passed, setting the basic workweek at 44 hours, after which overtime pay kicked in. (Likewise, Sanders’ measure wouldn’t exactly limit workweeks to 32 hours; it would just mandate time-and-a-half pay for hours above 32.)

The last time federal law reduced the workweek was in 1940 when the FLSA was amended to drop the threshold of hours after which workers qualify for overtime pay from 44 to 40. Then: nothing.

A four-day workweek was proposed in 1956 – by Richard Nixon, the Republican then-Vice President.

“These are not dreams or idle boasts. They are simple projections of the gains we have made in the last four years,” said Nixon (who’d drop the idea before running for the White House in 1960).

Iin recent years, there have been pilot programs and studies worldwide – in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and elsewhere – showing that four-day workweeks can boost workers’ productivity and happiness.

:Our research suggests that the four-day, 32-hour week is not only feasible; it's better for workers and employers,” according to Boston College sociology professor Juliet Schor, who has led a team studying four-day workweek trials across the globe, quoted in Common Dreams.

"Of more than 100 companies with thousands of workers around the world, nearly 70% experienced reduced rates of burnout,” she said. “Stress fell. Reported physical and mental health improved. People felt less anxious and fatigued, exercised more, and slept better. Their life satisfaction rose, and conflicts among work, family, and life plummeted.”

Sarah Jaffe in In These Times magazine wrote, “The COVID crisis put the issue of working time back on the table. Many ‘essential’ workers -- including a wide swath of manufacturing employees – worked forced overtime and risked their lives and health. Across the country and the world, they decided enough was enough.”

That got labor leaders such as UAW President Shawn Fain thinking about a long-term strategy for reviving the issue.

“It really made people reflect on what’s important in life,” said Fain – who unsuccessfully tried to negotiate a 32-hour workweek with the auto industry’s Big 3.

“I really felt it was imperative to get the dialogue going again,” he said, “to try to fight for a shorter workweek and get the public thinking along those lines.”

Testifying before the Senate Labor Committee, Fain said a lack of appreciation for how much workers toil exposes a class difference.

“There is an epidemic in this country of people who don’t want to work,” he told the committee, “ – people who can’t be bothered to get up every day and contribute to our society, but instead want to freeload off the labor of others. 

“But those aren’t the blue-collar people,” he continued. “Those aren’t the working-class people. It’s a group of people who are never talked about for how little they actually work, and how little they actually contribute to humanity. The people I’m talking about are the Wall Street freeloaders, the masters of passive income.”

Through their productivity alone, American workers have earned the right to a 32-hour workweek.

In the last 40 years, productivity has increased significantly, yet little has improved in terms of hours – much less wages.

“Today, American workers are more than 400% more productive than they were in the 1940s,” according to Sanders and Fain, co-writing a Washington Post commentary. “Despite this fact, millions of our people are working longer hours for lower wages. In fact, 28.5 million Americans now work over 60 hours a week, and more than half of full-time employees work more than 40 hours a week.

“Think about all the incredible advancements in technology — computers, robotics, artificial intelligence — and the huge increase in worker productivity that has been achieved,” they continued. “What have been the results of these changes for working people? Almost all the economic gains have gone straight to the top, while wages for workers are stagnant or worse.”

An obstacle to relevant reform has been Big Business and its handmaidens in the GOP weakening organized labor, which has less influence in Congress than past decades.

“The rise of globalization and other factors ended up leading to the reduction in the size of the labor movement and its power,” said University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, a labor historian.

Fain challenges organized labor, Congress and the American public to take up the cause again.

“With technology, we can do more with less,” Frain said. “It is the mantra we hear from management every day, and yet it never benefits the worker. So, who is going to act to fix this epidemic of lives dominated by work? Will the employers act? Will Congress act? How can working class people take back their lives, and take back their time?”