 |
HOME |  |
SCHEDULE | |
PROGRAMS | |
KIDS & FAMILY | |
LOCAL | |
SUPPORT KCET | |
ABOUT US | |
SHOP KCET |  |
| About Us | Contact Us | |
 |
|
 |
          |
|
|
 |
 |
||
|
|
Life & Times Transcript
06/29/06 Val Zavala>> Tonight on Life and Times -- Bored by the plight of the homeless? One California mayor says that attitude has to change. Gavin Newsom>> It's a moral shame. It's an assault on everyone to try to go about your day-to-day life where you're stepping over someone on the sidewalk or you're seeing someone passed out on the street corner. Val Zavala>> And then, the man of steel takes on the devil in Prada, and where does Leonard Cohen fit in? It's all straight ahead on tonight's Life and Times. Announcer>> Life and Times is made possible through the generous support of the L.K. Whittier Foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life by supporting innovative endeavors in the fields of medicine, health, science and education. And by a generous grant from Jim and Anne Rothenberg. Val Zavala>> If you were a homeless person getting only a few hundred dollars a month in welfare, would you be willing to turn it over to a shelter? Well, that's the idea being put to the test with homeless people in San Francisco. It's called Care, Not Cash. Do we here in southern California have something to learn from the City by the Bay? Saul Gonzalez headed north to see if it's working. Saul Gonzalez>> The Golden Gate Bridge, graceful hilltop neighborhoods and, of course, the cable cars. These are the picture postcard sights that make San Franciscans proud of their city. But what often casts a shadow over their pride are other sights, the more than five thousand homeless people who try to survive on this city's streets. One of them is Kathleen Reeves who panhandles with a friend near Union Square. Kathleen Reeves>> "Will you please help us?" Saul Gonzalez>> She says she has no choice, if she's going to eat. Kathleen Reeves>> Why do you think I'm out here begging for money? I don't like begging. I don't, but I have to. Saul Gonzalez>> For years, San Francisco's city government developed strategy after strategy to deal with homelessness from the opening of temporary shelters to restrictions on panhandling, but nothing seemed to reduce the number of the city's street people. Then in 2003, San Franciscans elected Gavin Newsom mayor. He pledged to introduce new initiatives to end chronic homelessness in the city within ten years. Gavin Newsom>> It's a moral shame. It's an assault on everyone. That old adage that you can't live a good life in an unjust society, to see visual terms, our failure as a society, to try to go about your day-to-day life where you're stepping over someone on the sidewalk or you're seeing someone passed out on the street corner. Now we've got to do something more and do better. Let's try a new model and let's try to do it in a way where we can see real results. Ben>> "You just hanging out?" >> "Yeah." Ben>> "Yeah. My name's Ben. I'm with a homeless outreach." Saul Gonzalez>> Newsom expanded the city's existing homeless outreach teams. They try to encourage the indigent, many with drug and mental problems, to take advantage of available city services. The mayor also launched an initiative called Project Homeless Connect. Held every six weeks, it's a kind of fair for street people. [Film Clip] Saul Gonzalez>> Where city departments, local companies and hundreds of private volunteers offer a range of free services to the homeless. Vision testing and eyeglasses, clothing and food, wheelchair repairs, even the cleaning of dirty and infected feet. Gavin Newsom>> What Project Homeless Connect now represents is a sense of pride and spirit, a sense of community and purposefulness. So when people say, "Hey, what are you doing, Mayor, about solving the homeless problem?", now I have something to say. "Hey, wait a second. What are you going to do to help the city?" Saul Gonzalez>> However, the centerpiece of Mayor Newsom's efforts to fight homelessness is a two-year old program called Care, Not Cash. It's a carrot and stick approach to getting people off the streets. In exchange for a guarantee of long-term housing in newly renovated residential hotels, homeless people who receive county welfare checks agree to have their monthly payments cut from as much as four hundred ten dollars to as little as fifty-nine dollars. The money cut from peoples' welfare checks helps to pay for their monthly rent. Once they move in to housing, usually small single rooms, the formerly homeless receive food stamps and assistance from onsite case managers. >> "Do you have any life insurance?" Saul Gonzalez>> The case managers help residents find jobs, psychiatric counseling and drug addiction treatment. This extra support is supposed to ensure that, once people receive homes, they'll stay there. Gavin Newsom>> That is a much more difficult issue than giving someone a key, a lock and the dignity of a housing unit. You've got to have the wrap-around support of services to deal with the underlying reasons at the same time. That's our housing first model, housing and supportive services. Saul Gonzalez>> Could you show me around your room? I mean, I know it's not huge. Leo Patterson>> It's not a big room, but this is home, you know. Saul Gonzalez>> Leo Patterson was homeless for over three years until he became one of the more than thirteen hundred people placed in a housing unit through the Care, Not Cash program. Patterson says he couldn't be happier. Leo Patterson>> I'm very settled and I'm not on the streets anymore and I don't have to worry about food or nothing and I got a roof over my head and it feels great. Saul Gonzalez>> Jim Tribble, who now just gets sixty-four dollars a month in welfare, says he's fine having his payment slashed in exchange for long-term housing. Jim Tribble>> That's the price you pay, but if you think about it, the rent around here is astronomical, so I made that trade. I thought it was a great trade-off. Take the check. I'd rather have the residence and the supportive staff, etc., all the stuff that goes with the package. Saul Gonzalez>> However, not everyone in San Francisco embraces the city's strategy to fight homelessness. Some housing advocates criticize the tough love approach of Care, Not Cash and argue that the city still isn't doing nearly enough to get its poorest citizens off the streets and into homes. Jennifer Friedenbach>> Since specifically Care, Not Cash, there's been an increase in hunger, increased wait in food lines and in increase in panhandling. Saul Gonzalez>> Jennifer Friedenbach is the Director of San Francisco's Coalition on Homelessness. She criticizes Care, Not Cash for creating hardship by cutting peoples' welfare payments. She also argues that the program is too narrowly focused on chronically homeless welfare recipients, a group that accounts for less than half of the city's total homeless population. Jennifer Friedenbach>> In this city, they're picking welfare recipients primarily and trying to see if they can address homelessness in that particular population. So they're leaving out families with kids, working people, veterans, disabled people. They all get left out of that equation. Saul Gonzalez>> However, Mayor Newsom says, in the long run, it's best for everyone in his city to help the chronically homeless first. Gavin Newsom>> So we are focused on the person that's a high-end user of the emergency rooms, the person that's out on the sidewalk day in and day out, that has no hope or expectation. When you can get that person housed, you're saving a huge amount of taxpayers' money and ultimately you are able to then turn your attention to others in need in a more effective way. Saul Gonzalez>> Even with its narrow focus, Mayor Newsom claims Care, Not Cash and other homeless initiatives such as a program to reunite San Francisco's street people with their families have led to a more than forty percent decline in the number of people living on the city's streets. That decline, though, is hard to see in a place like St. Boniface Church in the heart of San Francisco's gritty Tenderloin neighborhood. During the day, the church turns itself into a shelter for the homeless, allowing people to use the pews as makeshift cots. Franciscan friar, Louis Vitale, a long-time homeless activist, says City Hall should not be too quick to claim success in its fight against homelessness. Louis Vitale>> There's a lot of people still on the streets. We have just as many people sleeping here during the day because they've been wandering around all night. Saul Gonzalez>> Just as many as you did two years ago. Louis Vitale>> Yes, pretty much so, pretty much so. You can look right now and see. The benches are pretty full and it's not a particularly cold day out. It's summer. Saul Gonzalez>> Mayor Newsom, seen here visiting the Operation Homeless Connect event, says he understands that, when it comes to finding homes for all the homeless, there are not simple answers, but he insists that goal in his city and others isn't a pipe dream. Gavin Newsom>> I think on the history of homelessness, success is not a place or a definition. It's a direction. But I can guarantee this. I am absolutely convinced -- I don't think this. I know it -- you can end homelessness in this country. It's a question of resolve. You can end it. You can end it. There is no reason to have a homeless problem in this country. It is absolutely about will. It's about commitment. It's about focus. Saul Gonzalez>> More than two hundred American cities have pledged to end chronic homelessness within ten years with many of them using San Francisco's strategies as a model. For Life and Times, I'm Saul Gonzalez. Announcer>> Kcet.org is the place to look for the very latest on Life and Times. You'll find previews of upcoming stories, plus transcripts and audio of past episodes and links to some of our most interesting features. Just go to kcet.org, scroll down the page and click on "Life and Times". Val Zavala>> Are you happier in your job than you were, say, ten or twenty years ago? Do you think your children will have decent wages and a secure retirement? Does Wal-Mart really have to pay those low wages? Those are a few of the questions answered in a major new report. The study, "The New American Workplace", is a follow-up to the ground-breaking 1972 bestseller, "Work in America", which exposed poor conditions in offices and factories and led to major reform. Well, now USC researchers, Jim O'Toole and Ed Lawler, have authored a follow-up report that looks at dramatic changes in the workplace over the past three decades, some good and some bad. James O'Toole>> Well, let's start with the good news. Val Zavala>> Okay. James O'Toole>> The good news is that job satisfaction has increased in the United States. That's probably because a lot of bad jobs have either been exported or they have been automated, particularly jobs in manufacturing. The other really good news is that, compared to 1972, the status of women in the workplace has greatly improved. The gap in terms of salaries, the nature of jobs that women have, their upward mobility, has improved markedly. As a result, the job satisfaction of women in the workplace has gotten almost to the same level as that of men. Val Zavala>> Job satisfaction is better overall, especially among women. Could that be because a lot of those jobs that went overseas were really boring, repetitive jobs? James O'Toole>> Actually, the major cause of job dissatisfaction in the 1970s was working on the assembly line. Hardly anybody in America works on an assembly line today. The bad jobs today are in places like Wal-Mart, in mall stores. What we've done is created -- and we are continuing to create -- quite a few low-level jobs and those jobs have relatively short career paths. People don't have the opportunity for training, most of them don't get benefits, the salaries are usually at the minimum wage or just a little bit higher. That's really the biggest problem that we're facing in the workplace. The vast majority of the jobs that we're creating are not really great jobs. Val Zavala>> Now, of course, the first company that comes to mind when you're talking about low wage, not good benefits, is Wal-Mart. They've been the target of a lot of criticism. Is it justified? James O'Toole>> I think it is. Almost all employers do have alternatives. If we compare Costco, for example, to Wal-Mart or Sam's Club, we find that the employees at Costco are far better paid, they have better benefits, they have career paths, they have the opportunity to move up in the organization because they have good training. Val Zavala>> More productive? James O'Toole>> Far more productive. So much more productive that actually workers at Costco earn their own benefits. They earn what they produce. Val Zavala>> Oh, really? By being more productive, in other words. James O'Toole>> By being more productive, which means that it takes fewer Costco employees to produce the same number of sales as it takes a Wal-Mart employee. So the bottom line for Costco is that Costco is more profitable. The overall labor productivity at Costco is far higher than at Wal-Mart. We also find the same thing when you compare Southwest Airlines to United Airlines, when you compare -- Val Zavala>> -- Southwest being, by the way, the one that offers very good benefits. James O'Toole>> Which we call high-involvement companies with good benefits, good salaries, job security, career paths, training. When you compare General Motors to Harley Davidson, Harley Davidson being another one of these high-involvement companies, when you compare UPS to FedEx, UPS being the high-involvement company. In almost all of those instances and what we find the same in almost every industry in America, the workers who have the best jobs are the ones in which they participate in decision-making, they participate in profits, they're getting trained. As a result, those workers tend to be more productive and the companies for which they work tend to be more profitable. Val Zavala>> Another piece of good news is that the workplace has gotten safer. James O'Toole>> Yes, and healthier. Val Zavala>> And healthier. James O'Toole>> Yeah. We always talk about government programs that don't work. OSHA, that was introduced in the late 1960s and early 1970s, has really revolutionized American workplaces. Very few Americans today have to worry about getting some terrible kind of disease from the chemicals that they're working with or worrying about getting killed on the job, which was very, very frequently the case in the 1960s and 1970s. Val Zavala>> With the exception of coalmining, of course. James O'Toole>> There are one or two very, very small exceptions. But there is also another side to this too, that job-related stress has greatly increased and job-related diseases that are as a result of stress. Things like heart attack and strokes that come from leading a stressful life has really, really taken off in the United States. Part of that is because all of us feel that we're much more at risk at work today than we were before. We worry about our job security. We worry about our benefits. We worry about do we have a career? We worry about are we making enough money to be able to support our family? Val Zavala>> Another big change is the way that companies handle retirement programs. It's shifted a huge amount of responsibility to the worker. Good or bad? James O'Toole>> Well, I think that the day of a guaranteed pension, even the guarantee that someday you'll be able to retire, is really passed in this country. Val Zavala>> That's scary. James O'Toole>> That is really an enormous change. If I'm going to retire, it's really my responsibility now. I'm going to have to save for it. I'm going to have to plan for it. And the same happens with almost all other kinds of benefits that people have. Where the real crunch is is with health care. The corporations have been putting more and more of the burden of health care onto their employees. Val Zavala>> So, overall, are we baby boomers lucky? Did we hit a good patch in the workplace history or are young people, for example, in a better position than we are? James O'Toole>> I think we were very lucky actually. We hit a time in which the economy was growing, in which we had really great job opportunities. Today, I think there is a hell of a lot more risk for kids. They don't have the options that we all had when we graduated from college and I don't think they're likely to be getting that same kind of richness in terms of a sense of security and the options that we had. Particularly what they don't get is a sense of community in their workplaces. Val Zavala>> Jim O'Toole, thank you so much for all your hard work and your insights. James O'Toole>> Well, I thank you on behalf of my co-author, Ed Lawler. Val Zavala>> That's right. He's part of it too. James O'Toole>> Thanks. Bye. Val Zavala>> You can read about these and other major workplace trends in the book, "The New American Workplace". Announcer>> To send a comment or a question to our program, you can reach us by mail at this address: Life and Times 4401 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90027 You can also call our viewer comment line (323) 953-5555) or contact us the fast way by e-mail at kcet.org. Larry Mantle>> Welcome to FilmWeek on Life and Times. I'm Larry Mantle of 89.3 KPCC. Our first film this week is "Superman Returns", directed by Bryan Singer who did the first two "X-Men" series. It stars Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth and Kevin Spacey. [Film Clip] Larry Mantle>> I'm joined this week by critics Jean Oppenheimer of New Times and Peter Rainer of the Christian Science Monitor. Peter, what did you think of the latest incarnation of "Superman"? Peter Rainer>> Well, it's really been a long time coming. Every major movie star has been rumored to be in this film and finally we have this newcomer, Brandon Routh, who unfortunately is kind of the weak link in this otherwise fairly enjoyable picture. He's kind of a stiff and he doesn't really have the acting shot that Christopher Reeve had, to sort of comment on that straight-lacedness of his. So that part of it doesn't work and Kate Bosworth, who plays Lois Lane, is also kind of -- she seems more like an executive type for, you know, an insurance company than a prize-winning reporter, so the casting is off in this film. Kevin Spacey is wonderful as Lex Luthor, as you might imagine, and Parker Posey who plays his sort of gun moll girlfriend is very funny. I guess we can't call her the Queen of the Indies anymore since she's appearing in this hundred eighty million dollar picture. But overall, I thought it was fairly entertaining. Larry Mantle>> Jean, what did you think? Jean Oppenheimer>> Well, I felt it got off to a slow start and then stalled repeatedly throughout. I agree with Peter to some extent about the casting, but I think it's less Brandon Routh's fault than perhaps the script's fault. He was given a little bit more personality as Clark Kent, but as the man of steel, he just wasn't at all. He was very bland. And Kate Bosworth, I thought, was very energetic and sort of officious the way maybe a young reporter might be, but was very shallow and I didn't believe anything about the love story or the chemistry between them. I think that the action sequences, you know, will appeal to a lot of the people in the crowd who are going for that, although I have to say that a lot of the disasters that happen reminded me much too much of real life events that have happened, you know, over the past and that made me uncomfortable. What really bothered me the most was that I thought it was so heavy-handed, the religious symbolism. I mean, I felt that they -- well, I don't want to offend anybody, but they did everything but nail him to the cross. Larry Mantle>> Our second film this week is based on the best-selling novel, "The Devil Wears Prada". It stars Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway. [Film Clip] Larry Mantle>> Jean, what did you think of "The Devil Wears Prada"? Jean Oppenheimer>> Well, there's a certain symmetry here. We go from this Messianic figure in "Superman" to basically Satan here, the boss from hell. I found the film enjoyable. I can't say I'm wildly enthusiastic because it's the type of film I forgot about even as it was running. But Meryl Streep is wonderful and Anne Hathaway, I thought, was really good. Stanley Tucci was good. So I think there's a lot particularly for a studio film, mainstream film, but I felt was just very sort of enjoyable. It's a very predictable story line. There's nothing you wouldn't expect. It's this sort of fish out of water, you know, Cinderella-like transformation, but you go in knowing that and I think you'll enjoy it. Larry Mantle>> Peter? Peter Rainer>> Well, I think it's okay fluff. The big problem for me with the movie is that Anne Hathaway plays this kind of, you know, frumpy journalism major from college who ends up in this job as an assistant to this Gorgon at the fashion magazine and the makeover that she undergoes is pretty much all external. She suddenly becomes very fashionable in order to keep her job and goes to Paris to the runway shows and so forth and you're supposed to feel that somehow she's being tempted by this life, that she's being brought away from, you know, her common sense boyfriend and she has to somehow work her way back to who she was. So it's a kind of fairy tale with a virtuous ending. I didn't see enough of the temptations there. Anne Hathaway just didn't seem really tempted very much. There was no malice or glint of ambition really in her, no hunger for this world, so that whole thing didn't really work. But Meryl Streep is just wonderful. You know, what she does, she doesn't shout or talk loud like you would do if you were a bad actress trying to play a monster. She says everything very quiet, like a little purr or a little murmur, but there's steel in that voice and it's really much scarier that way. I mean, is there anything that this actress can't do? Larry Mantle>> Next up, we have a pair of documentaries. The first one, "Who Killed the Electric Car", a kind of mystery documentary which looks at the demise of the EV1 and Toyota's Rav4 electric vehicle. [Film Clip] Larry Mantle>> Peter, what did you think of the documentary, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Peter Rainer>> Well, it made me feel pretty bad that I'm driving this car that actually has, you know, exhaust in it (laughter). Larry Mantle>> It has an engine (laughter). Peter Rainer>> Yeah, but until they perfect the technology -- it's a terrific movie. A lot of documentaries now are very one-sided one way or the other. They're prop pictures. This movie, although it certainly has a point of view, is indicting everybody from the oil companies, the auto companies, the consumers, you know, all sorts of suspects in "Who Killed the Electric Car" crime thriller, most of whom are indicted very well. They're nailed to the wall. It's this very factual, very straight-ahead picture that really lays it out very cleanly and carefully so that, where you disagree with the film, you can still see why and where and argue with it in ways that are intelligent. You know, you don't feel bullied in the way that you so often do with documentaries now, and it happens to make a very good case for the tragedy behind really the demise of the electric car. Larry Mantle>> And finally this week, the music documentary, "Leonard Cohen: I'm Your Man", which features extensive interviews with the singer-songwriter as well as other performers covering his work. [Film Clip] Larry Mantle>> Well, Jean, I know you're a fan of Leonard Cohen's music. What did you think of this profile of him as a songwriter and his life? Jean Oppenheimer>> And a kind of culture icon? Well, the documentary is both a concert film, not him singing. It was a tribute to him that was held at the Sydney, Australia Opera House about a year and a half. So half of it is that and the rest is interviews with Cohen. I didn't really think I got a real feel for Cohen. I mean, you're learning some facts about him and, to be honest, I love his music, but I don't know that much about him. I didn't really feel that I got inside of him. However, the music makes up for it. Although not all the performers were really good, you just can't beat the music. There's this haunting quality to it and the words, you know, are very lyrical. A lot of them are great and enigmatic. It's something who's really searching spiritually, so I related to the music a lot. I think that it's certainly well worth seeing. Larry Mantle>> Thanks for joining us for another FilmWeek on Life and Times. I'm Larry Mantle of 89.3 KPCC in southern California, joined by critics Peter Rainer of the Christian Science Monitor and Jean Oppenheimer of New Times. We invite you to join us again in two weeks for our next FilmWeek on Life and Times. Val Zavala>> KPCC broadcasts a full hour of FilmWeek Friday mornings at eleven. And that's our program. I'm Val Zavala. For everyone at Life and Times, thanks for watching. We'll see you next time. Announcer>> Life and Times was made possible through the generous support of the L.K. Whittier Foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life by supporting innovative endeavors in the fields of medicine, health, science and education. And by a generous grant from Jim and Anne Rothenberg. Sponsored in part by:  | |
|
Home | Features | Arts | Health/Science | OC Edition | L&T Blog | Archives | About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use |