SOCIAL CHANGES IN TEXTING

- is one of the socio-cultural changes that take place in our society.

- is the act of composing and sending brief, electronic messages between two or more mobile phones, or
fixed or portable devices over a phone network

SOCIAL CHANGES in
transitional families
- contemporary transnational family arrangements are present the world over, with one or more family
members located in different countries.

-Such arrangements are the result of stringent migration policies in many migrant receiving countries.

SOCIAL CHANGES in Local

Public Services
- a form of service provided by local government agencies, private companies or by the barangay people
for community development.

- government and private sectors have social responsibilities to undertake as part of their core values.

SOCIAL CHANGES in Youth

Volunteerism
- a new trend in socio-cultural change in our present society. It is when young people have the chance to
serve their communities.

Benefits :

1. increases young people’s feelings of connectedness and reduce engagements in risky behavior

2. contributes to higher reported levels of academic success, graduation rates, positive civic
behavior and self esteem.

3. volunteering in one’s youth leads to a lifetime of service and philantropy.

 texting

Talking on the phone is so old school. Most teens today prefer texting. About 75 percent of 12- to 17-year-
olds in the United States own cellphones, and 75 percent of these teens send text messages, according to
the Pew Research Center's Pew 2010 Internet and American Life Project. More than half of these teens
text daily. With texting outpacing other forms of communication, you have to wonder how this technology
shift alters the social lives and behavior of today's teens.

Teen Texting Patterns

Two-thirds of the teens surveyed in the Pew research study reported that they are more apt to text with
their cellphones than use them for spoken conversation. Their thumbs are flying, since half of the teens
who responded send 50 or more text messages per day and one in three sends more than 100. In general,
girls text more garrulously than boys, sending and receiving 80 messages a day to the male teen's 30
messages.


Social Impact

Texting means teens are never alone. Feeling constantly connected to friends can be a social boon, but the
24/7 access and the perception of being always available does have its minuses, especially with
miscommunication. For example, a teen may get angry at a friend for not responding immediately and
constantly to messages, not taking into consideration that the absent texter may be asleep or driving.
Incessant contact with friends and getting multiple opinions on every topic may impact teens' decision-
making skills, since they may feel insecure or incapable of thinking things through on their own and trusting
their judgment.

More Social Effects

With more teens preferring text to talk, concerns rise over whether this phenomenon stunts emotional
growth. A dearth of face-to-face conversations may keep teens from learning how to read facial
expressions, body language or nuances in speech and develop empathy -- a skill learned from observing
behavior in other people. Self-confidence also may be eroded by constant contact through texting, making
teens overly dependent on friends and not fostering a sense of independence.

Texting and Risky Behavior

A study released in 2010 by the American Public Health Association reported that hyper-texting, texting
more than 120 times a day, can lead to an increased risk of smoking, drinking and drug use, physical
violence and sexual activity. Of the teens surveyed, the hyper-texters were twice as likely to have
experimented with alcohol and three times more likely to have had sex than teens who messaged less
often.

Youth Volunteerism
There is no doubt that volunteerism is invaluable to our society. Nonprofits have a finite period of time
before we’ll need to pass the torch of giving back to tomorrow’s leaders—our kids.
While the thought of asking parents to squeeze volunteering between soccer games and ballet practice
may sound daunting for today’s full-scheduled families, the benefits of volunteerism are seemingly limitless
for nonprofits, communities and our youth. Nonprofits that engage youth in service benefit through
expansion of their mission and reach, fresh energy and ideas, increased public support, and cultivation of
new volunteers and supporters [1].

In addition to long-term community improvement, youth volunteers realize lifelong impact through [2]:

 Promotion of a healthy lifestyle, empathy and good choices

 Enhanced psychological and intellectual development

 Increased self-esteem and responsibility

 Interest in learning and applying new material

 New social skills

 Improved physical and mental health; lower rates of depression,

 And greater life satisfaction.

Children in today’s culture are rarely given an opportunity to contribute ideas, talents or time to finding
causes they are passionate about. In fact, children are typically seen as beneficiaries of good will, rather
than potential volunteers or organizers.

Youth who do volunteer are less likely to become involved in at-risk behaviors such as drinking alcohol and
skipping school compared with those who do not [3]. Volunteerism also positively impacts other youth
social and behavioral issues like teen pregnancy, dropout, substance abuse and violence. It can make a
dramatic difference in the lives of young participants by instilling a sense of purpose and reason to achieve.

Back in 2005 at Rise Against Hunger, we immediately recognized the significance of involving youth to
plant the seed of passion for ending hunger. In alignment with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, one
of our Pathways to End Hunger by 2030 focuses on building a worldwide volunteer movement. Our goal is
to show young people today they can change tomorrow and identify hunger as one of the world’s most
significant crises, but also one that we have the real capability to solve.

Rise Against Hunger engages thousands of children and youth annually in meal packaging events with
their places of worship, civic clubs and schools—often customizing events solely with a dynamic youth
experience in mind. One example of this is the recent meal packaging on World Food Day, October 16,
where 800 students in Greater New York City gathered to package more than 100,000 meals for those
impacted by hurricanes in the Dominican Republic. Students of multiple ages and grade levels at Leman
Preparatory, Eisenhower Intermediate and Rutgers Preparatory Schools participated.

The youth division for Points of Light, generationOn inspires, equips and mobilizes young people to take
action that is changing the world. Its goLEAD and Ready, Set, Go! programs focus on training and
equipping schools and organizations to more effectively support youth and families in service, service-
learning and youth leadership.

Youth Volunteer Corps

YVC is a network of affiliates across the US and Canada that engages youth in team-based, service-
learning opportunities to inspire a lifetime commitment to service. Affiliates include United Way, YMCA,
Boys & Girls Club, volunteer centers and park and rec departments.
Family Development and Transition Points

In the same way that individuals have their own developmental pathway over time, families also
grow and change. "Family Life Span" or "Family Life Cycle" are common terms used to described
this developmental course. A family life span or cycle includes common transition points that
families experiences, as a way of pinpointing times of change and/or potential stress on the family
unit.

This help sheet examines how a family's life cycle may intersect or interact with a young person's
developmental trajectory, and the implications of this for your work.
Typical Transition Points

Typical family transition points may include:

 a couple relationship becoming more committed (eg move in together or marry);

 birth of a child (and subsequent children);
 child starting primary school and then secondary school;
 child becoming an adolescent;
 work/study changes;
 child getting a driver's licence;
 child leaving home (first and last child leaving home in particular);
 parent/s retiring from work;
 birth of grandchildren;
 death of parent/s.

Adolescence as a transition point

The stage of adolescent development involves immense physical, cognitive and emotional changes for
young people. This is the stage between being a child and an adult, and young people may swing between
the two as they strive for autonomy and individuation. They may seek to spend more time with peers and
confide in them, and become more private and appear to be disinterested in family.

De-idealisation of parents often occurs, an important stage in the process of individuation. Parents no
longer fill the role of idealised adults, and other individuals start to fill this role, such as celebrities, peers or
intimate partners ¹.

Some cultures have rituals or initiation ceremonies, which mark the transition from childhood to adulthood.
"Aussie" ceremonies are often less formal, and may include:

 a Debutante Ball;
 having a beer with Dad;
 getting a driver's licence, and/or first car;
 leaving school;
 leaving home;
 getting a job;
 starting a new, intimate relationship.

The process of separation between a child and caregiver/s at the time of adolescence can be both difficult
and empowering for the child and the parent. Both parties are called upon to cope with the changes and
dilemmas involved in this 'separation'.

Teenagers asserting their independence can be a really unexpected change for some families. Parents are
often under prepared for the changes in long-held roles with the young person, and this stage involves
significant shifts in the relationship with the child and in parenting approaches.

Parents may be dealing with an adolescent for the first time. Parenting is often done 'on the hop' and the
stresses associated with this, combined with the changes occurring for the young person, can result in
conflict, blame, anger and at times, rejection. This stage can also involve immense grief and loss, as well
as confusion, helplessness and fear, for some caregivers.

These parenting challenges may also occur when parent/s are juggling a range of responsibilities, eg. other
children, work, household duties, pressures from partners and extended families, society's judgments upon
them and their commitment and ability.

Although it is often referred to as a process of separation, it is useful to think of it as a process of moving

from dependence to inter-dependence or a more reciprocal, more adult-to-adult relationship. This approach
recognises that strong and healthy relationships are important for ongoing development.

Youth workers can help parents and other family members at this stage by sharing their understanding of
adolescent development. Families can be greatly assisted by the provision of general information regarding
the developmental change associated with this transition. Young people and families may also be helped to
identify and think about how they have managed to negotiate earlier transition points.
Leaving home as a transition point

A child leaving home is another highly significant transition point for caregivers. It involves changes to long-
held roles, and a need to refocus attention on other people or activities.

This transition point often involves changes in the relationship between parents, also. It may give parents
the opportunity to re-examine their commitment to and feelings for each other. The "hard truths" about the
relationship may surface, and unresolved relationship issues may need to be worked through.

Some parents may put more effort into their relationship to help it to become more satisfying for the years
to come. It is not uncommon, however, for parents to separate around this time. Young people who have
left home, or moved on, are still affected by these family changes, and may need support and help to deal
with these changes and the effect on their role in the family.
Unique transition points

As well as the typical transition points in families, there will be other unexpected events which will serve as
transition points, producing big shifts in the functioning of a family. These may include:

 parental separation;
 parents establishing new relationships;
 illness;
 unexpected death;
 unemployment;
 financial difficulties;
 onset of mental illness;
 violence;
 events related to drug addiction.

A parent's new partner entering the family system is another common stressful transition for children
and young people. They may need additional support and understanding from parents and others at
these times.
 Each family will have its own unique and complex set of issues that they are dealing with at any one
time. The effect of these factors on a young person needs to be considered in any intervention.
It is useful to talk about transition points in a young person's life, and in the life of their family. What
events or incidents may have happened, or are happening, to the family that may be impacting on a
young person's current health and wellbeing?
What about the young person who is disconnected from family?
Some young people have long histories of disconnection from their family due to protective and
other issues. Other people may be playing a caring role in their lives, or they may present to you
with few or no connections.
All young people have been part of a family life span, whatever 'family' may mean to them, and are
still part of their family's developmental pathway, even if they are not currently in contact. Young
people can often appear indifferent when discussing family relationships. It is critically important to
not underestimate the significance of past and present family relationships, whether or not they
appear to play a role in the young person's current lifestyle.

Young people who appear to be the least well connected to family, and the least bothered by it, are
often the ones most in need of the support that strong family or other adult relationships can offer.
Some questions to consider

 Does the young person have other adults in their lives that can take on some of the emotional and
psychological support needed at this time of their development (if family is absent or ineffective)?
Professional support cannot replace a healthy relationship with a family member or a significant
adult in their community.

 You on may take a significant support role in your work with young people. How can you play such a
role whilst respecting and facilitating the role of the parent/s, family or carers in the young person's
development?
 How can you encourage and facilitate attachment to a range of other adults, and hopefully family, for
a young person, considering the brevity and function of your role?
 What new skills or information might a family or young person need to deal with a breakdown in
family relationships? How can you help them?
 As a youth worker, you have a wealth of knowledge about adolescent development that can be a
great source of support for a struggling parent - can you help parents to increase their knowledge
base? How can you facilitate effective communication with parents or other family members?
 How can you increase the young person's understanding of the challenges that parents face at this
stage, whilst acknowledging and respecting their own struggles?
 How can you increase the young person's understanding of a family's "unique events", or their
developmental and situational transition points, that may be affecting their current situation?
public service

Legend has it that elected officials, government administrators, and public service employees generally got
along prior to the 1960s. Legend, however, ignores the likes of postal workers, teachers, firefighters, and
police officers who began organizing themselves in the late 1800s. The number of public employees who
joined unions doubled during the Progressive Era which effectively came to an end with the crushing of the
Boston Police Strike in 1919. Forty years later, the anti-union after-effects of that piece of history remained.
While some government employees were organized into associations or federations, they did not have a
right to bargain collectively, much less a right to strike. Nation-wide membership in these groups was about
500,000.

By the early 1970s, postal service, public safety, sanitation, social work, and education had all been hit by
work stoppages of various kinds and a growing number of public sector organizations had adopted the
term union to identify themselves. Membership in public employee unions approached five million by the
mid-1970s, a tenfold increase in less than a decade. Heightened militancy resulted in recognition of the
right of collective bargaining for government employees, although their right to strike was generally
prohibited.1
Today, about 60% of government employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements (CBA).
Union membership among these workers numbers around seven million, roughly 33% of all government
personnel. In contrast, approximately 12% of all private sector employees are covered by a CBA. And while
the number of private sector union members is also around seven million, union membership in the much
larger private sector workforce has fallen to less than 7%. Given this situation, union busters have turned
their attention to the public sector. Bankrolled by corporations and wealthy individuals such as the Koch
brothers, anti-union crusaders aim to wipe out the union label once and for all. Their current attacks will
most certainly drive down the pay and benefits of public employees, increase income inequality, and
reduce the size of the middle class.

Wisconsin was the first state to recognize public employee unions, doing so in 1959. Then, in 1962,
President John Kennedy issued an executive order (EO 10988) granting federal employees the right to
bargain collectively. Government employee unionization took off in the 1970s and, at present, a majority of
states and the federal government permit collective bargaining. Statutory as well as case law governing
state and municipal workers makes for a hodge-podge of legal frameworks. Regarding federal employees,
Congress has limited the issues over which they can bargain.

As California governor (1967-1975), Ronald Reagan oversaw the expansion of public sector unions in that
state. As president, Reagan fired the air traffic controllers for engaging in a strike prohibited by federal law.
His action was not an attack on government employee unions per se; in fact, he actively sought and won
PATCO’s (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) endorsement during his 1980 presidential
campaign. Many conservatives since Reagan, however, have viewed his undoing of the air traffic
controllers union in 1981 as a signal to destroy public sector collective bargaining.
These days anti-union politicians try to hide behind appeals to fiscal responsibility and budget problem
solutions. Republican governors such as Chris Christie (NJ), John Kasich (OH), Rick Scott (FL), Mitch
Snyder (MI) and Scott Walker (WI) were swept into office due to the Great Recession of 2007-09. They
asserted that state financial difficulties could be resolved by limiting or eliminating public employee unions
and collective bargaining. Their successes have been uneven. New Jersey’s Christie entered office
declaring war on public employee health and pension benefits and continues to do so as his second term
comes to an end. Ohio’s Kasich saw his effort to outlaw public sector strikes rebuked by popular
referendum. But these governors set the stage for an anti-labor agenda that stormed through sixteen
states, all of them politically controlled by the GOP.2 Walker’s victory in Wisconsin was especially
demoralizing to organized labor given that the state had been the first to recognize the right of government
employees to unionize.
The peak years of anti-public union legislation were 2011 and 2012, but the initial attack was Indiana
Governor Mitch Daniels’ (R) 2005 executive order eliminating collective bargaining for state workers.
Moreover, union busting emerged in 2015 in Illinois when newly elected governor Bruce Rauner (R)
attempted to unilaterally enact local “union free” zones, abolish agency fees and impose his own contract
terms in the case of impasse. Most recently, Iowa’s 2017 legislative session eliminated forty years of
collective bargaining for public employees in a process that took ten days from the bill’s introduction to
Governor Terry Branstad’s (R) signature.3 Iowa’s law has been compared to Wisconsin’s, but the former
outdoes the latter by requiring public employee unions to recertify prior to the expiration of each contract
and the reopening of negotiations.
The state of affairs in Florida is a curious one. The first statewide teachers strike in U.S. history occurred
there in 1968. That same year, a revision of Florida’s constitution guaranteed both private and public sector
workers the right to collective bargaining. Public employees were denied the right to strike and the state’s
so-called “right to work” clause was preserved.4 Jumping ahead some four decades, Rick Scott entered the
governor’s office in 2011 claiming that he thought collective bargaining was okay so long as people “know
what they are doing” and “know what they’re voting for”—whatever that meant—but he quickly changed his
tune, saying that public sector bargaining should not be the constitutionally protected right that it is in the
state.
During Scott’s first year as governor, he signed legislation requiring public employees to relinquish a portion
of their paychecks to contribute to retirement pensions. Scott has since expressed his desire to convert
public institutions into business operations; among his recommendations was an idea to get rid of civil
service and tenure so that state government and higher education faculty jobs could be eliminated. On this
score, he has had the complete support of the GOP super-majority in the House of Representatives but not
in the Senate where a few moderate Republicans have prevented additional anti-union legislation from
being adopted. In one instance, payroll deduction of union dues was in jeopardy but it remains on the
books. State House member Scott Plakon submitted a bill this year to decertify collective bargaining units
with less than 50% membership. The proposal passed overwhelmingly in the lower chamber but it failed to
be reported out of committee in the upper house. Plakon first introduced this legislation in 2011, and he can
be expected to do so again next year.
Conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and right-wing policy shops like the American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have been pushing back against public sector collective bargaining
for several decades. Only with the sharp decline of the economy in 2007-09, however, did those opposed
to government employee unions gain traction. Having developed conservative legislative proposals and
established conservative political networks, ideologically driven anti-union forces were ready to fight. Upon
becoming Wisconsin’s governor, for example, Scott Walker hurriedly introduced an ALEC inspired anti-
labor scheme intended to limit collective bargaining to wages only, eliminate payroll deductions for union
dues, and increase the amount that state government workers contribute to their health care and pension
plans. Since passage, membership in the statewide teacher’ union has fallen by 50%. Things are even
worse at the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) where
membership has plummeted by two-thirds.

As the battle in Wisconsin was ramping up in 2011, conservative pundit Jonah Goldberg published a
column in the Los Angeles Times entitled “Public Unions Must Go.”5 Hugely popular in the right-wing
blogosphere, Goldberg’s piece tapped into growing resentment of public employees and their unions. He
even invokes liberal icon Franklin Roosevelt and labor leader George Meany to buttress his argument.
Goldberg has Roosevelt pronouncing that “the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood [my
italics], cannot be transplanted into the public service.” Meanwhile, he has Meany opining that it “is
impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
Conservative appeals to the likes of FDR and Meany are disingenuous. For one thing, the Roosevelt quote
cited above is from a 1937 letter that FDR wrote to the National Federation of Federal Employees
congratulating the union on the twentieth anniversary of its founding. Secondly, his comment reflected the
convention of the day in which it was assumed that the collective bargaining process included potential
labor strikes. An actual reading of FDR’s letter shows him encouraging public employee unions while
conveying opposition to their right to strike. Finally, right-wingers conveniently ignore the fact that Roosevelt
accepted unions at the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Government Printing Office.6
As for Meany, the quote mentioned above is from a 1955 New York Times Magazinearticle. Somewhere
along the line, however, he changed his mind. In 1960, the AFL-CIO formally approved public sector
collective bargaining. Meany then called Kennedy’s 1962 executive order recognizing federal unions a
“Wagner Act for public employees.” Lastly, Meany proclaimed in 1976 that he foresaw a future in which
public sector collective bargaining would be the norm in federal, state, and local settings. Thus,
conservatives who use Meany’s view of government employee unions in 1955 fail to take into account his
shifting position on the matter.7

Despite the baying of conservatives and reactionaries, no consistent relationship exists between budget
shortfalls and public sector unions. As the nation’s economy was slowly recovering from the Great
Recession, Texas, which bans public sector collective bargaining had a larger deficit as a percentage of its
budget than California, a strong public sector union state. New York, where 70% of government employees
are unionized, and South Carolina, which forbids public sector collective bargaining, had the same deficit to
budget levels. And North Carolina, a third state that bars government employee unions, had a higher deficit
to budget ratio than Pennsylvania, another strong public sector union state. Rather than blame public
employees for fiscal crises, one might look at housing foreclosure rates and regressive tax structures to
explain such economic calamities.

Free market pundits mimic one another in alleging that government workers are overpaid relative to those
in the private sector. However, simply putting employees in each sector side by side and then pointing out
that some government workers make more money is spurious. For one thing, it fails to take into account
that public sector employees are, on the whole, better educated and older in age, two factors that generally
translate into higher wages. While cohort assessments (measuring comparable skills and work) can be
difficult, an Economic Policy Institute (EPI) analysis discloses that public sector workers are generally paid
less than those in the private sector.

A further right-wing canard about public sector unions is that their pension programs are bankrupting state
governments. This argument is a ruse of the highest order. Most government employee pensions are
determined by law, not by bargaining. And the vast majority of these pensions are modest, either below or
on par with those in the private sector. Making matters worse, many state governments raided public
pension funds for years to pay for tax cuts and general operating expenses. Governors and state legislators
then tried relying on risky Wall Street investments to cover their fiscal irresponsibility. Now these same
politicians hypocritically blame public employees for abuses of the system.

In addition to the executive and legislative branches, anti-public sector campaigners have also turned to the
judiciary in their offensive. Here they aim to prevent unions from collecting agency fees—also known as fair
share fees—from members of a bargaining unit who are not members of the union. More than twenty states
permit this practice which is a way to absorb free riders who benefit from collective bargaining but do not
pay dues. In addition to covering the cost of contract negotiations, grievance procedures, and the like, dues
in these states can be used to engage in political activities such as lobbying and electoral activity. In
contrast, agency fees can only be used for union business.

In 2016, the Supreme Court’s consideration of Friedrichs v California Teachers Association placed such
fees in danger. The High Court’s 4-4 decision protects such fees for the time being, but the matter will likely
come before the justices again, probably sooner rather than later. The right-wing Center for Individual
Rights (CIR), which was behind Friedrichs, has filed a new lawsuit, Yohn v CTA. President Trump’s
appointment of Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy left by Antonin Scalia’s death restores the court’s 5-4
conservative majority. Given this circumstance, the Supreme Court ruling in any future case would likely
mean the end of agency fees. And that would, without a doubt, diminish public employee unions.
Ultimately, political attacks on government workers are part of a comprehensive assault by those hostile to
the public sector. In the process of destroying unions, they intend to underfund public programs in pursuit of
their goal of privatizing as much of the commonwealth as possible. No matter that several decades of
government contracting out public services to corporations reveals few benefits. Never mind the evidence
that shows privatization results in higher costs, poorer delivery of services, and less accountability. Almost
50% of union members in the United States today work in the public sector. By necessity, they will have to
play a major role in the rebuilding of organized labor. But like private sector unions before them,
government employee unions face circumstances threatening their very existence.

creative writing
ms. justine d monilla
tweetums esteban
12 humss-f
tweetums esteban
12 humss -f
ms.zephie labotorio

SOCIAL CHANGES