A 2013 study by 24/7 Wall Street on the status of women in America ranked Utah #1 as the worst state in the nation for women. 24/7 Wall Street is not alone in its findings. A 2013 study of women’s economic security, career opportunities and health by the Center for American Progress graded Utah an “F.” By 2016, Utah “improved” in the rankings moving from the worst state for women to the 4th worst state. The typical male worker in Utah is paid $50,741, while his female counterpart earns $36,060, or nearly $15,000 less.

On average, Utah women earn just 70 percent of their male counterparts for comparable work. On the 2013 list of top 10 worst cities for pay equity for women, Utah has two cities that rank #1 and #2.

It would be nice if these and other similar studies were simply collections of ivory tower arcana to be read, filed away and then forgotten. But they’re not. They spotlight an inequity that is a drag with far-reaching consequences on our state’s economic future. The “little woman” as stay at home wife, mother and homemaker epitomized by family sitcoms of the 1950s and 1960s was an idealized image even then. Today, in the 21st century, it’s as relevant as the buggy whip.

Pay inequity for women hits families where it hurts most: the pocketbook. A lower income means less money for food, clothing, and shelter for the family, and turns other necessities like health care into luxuries. A single mom leads 7.3% of households in Utah.

The top ranking of pay inequity for working women in Utah has corrosive long-term affects on businesses in the state. It means businesses have a harder time attracting and retaining female middle and upper management professionals. Though women make up 44 percent of the workforce, women only hold 8.4 percent of board positions in Utah’s top 45 public companies, and 25 of those companies have no women directors and 17 have just one.

The women of Utah have the power to change things, the power to help move Utah from first to last and get an “A” for the state. Fundamentally, it’s the power of the informed vote. By voting, we women of Utah have the power to bring change that improve the lives of everyone, men and women, young and old, who live and work in Utah.

The post Guest editorial appeared first on Park Record.

With gender-neutral occupational standards established, the best-qualified service members operating in the right positions will not only maximize their individual potential, but also optimize the total fighting force of our Nation.

Following Sec. Carter’s historic decision, the Joint Chiefs of Staff voiced support for including women in the Select Service. Yet, lawmakers, the ones who took the very same oath as our military members "to support and defend the Constitution" are now dodging the issue.

Many in Congress continue to deny women the opportunity to share equal responsibility for National Defense. Some say more study is needed. Are lawmakers trying to avoid a vote on providing for the common defense?

The Selective Service was established in 1917 to provide conscripted manpower to quickly increase the U.S. military during World War I. The system was used for both World War II and the Korean War. It remained in place through the Vietnam War. Widespread distain for conscription, led to its end and the beginning of an all-volunteer force. In turn, an effort to recruit women into military service.

Today, women comprise 15.3 percent of active-duty personnel in the military.

In 1980, President Carter reinstated the requirement for all men between the ages of 18-26 who reside in the U.S. to register with the Selective Service in case the draft need be reinstated. The Selective Service is a register; it is not the draft. Congress would have to pass a law reinstating the draft before it could be implemented.

The present Selective Service Act says that men (to include undocumented immigrants, legal permanent resident, refugees; incarcerated men up on release and transgender women born as men) have a civil obligation to serve the Nation. However, it specifically excludes women from that same civil obligation and opportunity. Women are not even permitted to voluntarily enroll.

In 1981, in Rostker v. Goldberg, the Supreme Court ruled that there was not sufficient need for women to register because they were excluded from combat military occupational specialties and positions. With the rescinding of the ground combat exclusion rule in 2013, more than 90,000 combat military positions became available to women. The Dec. 2015 decision opened 250,000 more. The rationale of the case now no longer applies.

This is an issue of national security and military readiness. Today, there are 35 million men in the US required to register with the Selective Service. Yet only 23 percent are qualified to serve in the military. 40% do not have the basic education credentials required. 27 percent are morally or physically unqualified; incarceration has increased and obesity has become a much greater problem during the last decade. 10 percent are disqualified for a myriad of issues including tattoos and body piercings.

Given the current downward glide path, in six years we will reach 17 percent and will no longer be able to sustain a volunteer force. Which makes the opening of all jobs in the military to any who qualify an imperative. Our Armed Forces now have the ability to draw talent from the widest applicant pool available.

dodging the debate, discussion and vote, Congress is shirking its constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense.

Continuing to bar women from Selective Service registration would weaken our military in a time of war or national emergency by disregarding 51 percent of the nation’s talent pool and skill set. There is more to our Nation’s current fight than simply physical strength, and the winner will be the side that does not exclude half their population.

Donna McAleer is an Army Veteran, "Author of Porcelain on Steel: Women of West Point’s Long Gray Line" and serves on the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS).

The post Lawmakers dodge the draft and their oath appeared first on Park Record.

SkiLink has been proposed as a transportation alternative reducing vehicle traffic in both Parley’s and Big Cottonwood canyons while improving air quality. Canyons Managing Director Mike Goar confidently stated the economic impact would be broad, creating more jobs in the industry, creating approximately 500 new jobs.

SkiLink’s proponents stressed it would be an enhancement to the skier experience by increasing the amount of terrain available. The proponents also stated that Utah needs SkiLink as a differentiator to remain competitive in the industry.

To all of the above, I — and most of the people at the event — said, "We disagree."

A recent New York Times article on the subject of air pollution in the Wasatch Front noted that Salt Lake City County experienced "22 days this winter in which pollution levels exceeded federal air quality standards, compared with just one last year." How much car traffic and emissions can this ski gondola realistically mitigate during its four months of operation?

As for jobs, one gentleman observed that after the gondola’s short-term construction boom, long-term employment would be seasonal, constituting roughly a dozen or so lift operators (whose pay scale isn’t exactly something that provides a dramatic economic uptick). As for the anticipated additional service jobs: again a seasonal bump and one primarily benefiting resorts in Big Cottonwood Canyon.

As an avid skier and ski instructor, the idea of a slow gondola ride for more than two miles, looking at spectacular vistas and watching skiers below enjoy those same vistas, is more something out of Walt Disney World — and even at that resort they have sense enough to keep the trip short.

To the proponents of SkiLink, I suggest that if you want to truly enhance the skier experience, make the snow sports more accessible by making them more affordable. With resort lift-ticket prices increasing steadily each year, family ski outings are becoming more economically difficult, and overall we are beginning to lose an entire generation of skiers and riders.

I do want people, particularly children, to learn to ski and snowboard, to love these sports and love being outside, and to be able to keep on doing so. With the direction the industry continues to move — specifically the real-estate/resort business model — skiing and snowboarding are becoming too expensive and exclusive. And their manicured landscapes have become too manufactured, a jarring contrast to the surrounding pristine alpine beauty.

Building SkiLink sets a dangerous precedent, opening the door to other development initiatives in recreational wilderness and areas with fragile environments — not just in Utah, but also throughout the nation. This proposed use of federal and state lands puts money in the hands of very few people — namely the developer, a Canadian company.

If area resorts want to enhance the skier experience and encourage more people to get involved, perhaps a $10 million investment in accessibility that encourages and financially assists families and young people (school clubs?) to get out and play would provide a stronger return on investment. Such a move certainly would have more local support, and would turn a contentious construction proposal with questionable benefits into a laudable example of stewardship of some of the most pristine and popular public recreational land in the Wasatch Mountains.

The post SkiLink: everything it is not and the one thing it is appeared first on Park Record.

Although Theodore Geisel wrote "The Lorax" to chronicle of the plight of the environment, the timeless and immortal words of the Once-ler are equally appropriate to the state of health care in our country and the plight of the uninsured: "Unless someone like you care a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not."

There were a whole lot of "someones" in our community that cared a whole awful lot about ensuring all residents of Summit and Wasatch counties had access to affordable health care. The PHC is a model that is scalable on a national level. It is a demonstration of the Once-ler’s prophecy and the potential of grassroots leadership, passion, and commitment.

While the perpetual debate about national and systematic reform continues in Washington, D.C., many residents of the Park City area took action to provide care for our community’s uninsured. The selfless contributions of so many volunteer medical providers, concerned and caring residents, generous contributors, committed board members and employees of the People’s Health Clinic continue to make the outreach and delivery of basic medical care available to our uninsured and underinsured neighbors.

Since the PHC opened in 2000 in an RV, more than 25,000 patient visits have been conducted, and the savings to the health-care system is at least a hundred-fold. PHC helps to reduce health care costs in our community by offering high-quality care for disease prevention, and early treatment and diagnosis of illness, thus reducing the demand on emergency rooms for preventable, non-emergent care.

Access to affordable, quality healthcare is not a sexy issue, but it is a vital issue. A health community affects every facet of our lives; our schools, our places of work and worship, and our economy.

Here in Park City, health care is intertwined with that of our local economy. 60% of the tax revenue in this city is derived from tourism. The vast majority of tourism related businesses depend on service workers. Within our resort community, we have both year-round residents and seasonal workers who are unable to afford the costs of health care. Small business owners, self-employed individuals, resort workers, restaurant workers, housekeepers, etc. make up the population of the uninsured here in beautiful Summit and Wasatch counties. 90% of those who are uninsured our two counties are from working families.

The vision of a few, the passion of more, and the support of many in this community make this day a celebration. However, the work is not complete. Continued support is needed. It seems that our elected representatives have forgotten that access to affordable health care is a moral issue not a political one.

PHC is a shining beacon of public, private, community and municipal cooperation. Perhaps Washington, D.C., will see that light above the mountains to the west.

Congratulations PHC!

The post Guest Editorial, November 18-20, 2009 appeared first on Park Record.