WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 3384 [post_author] => 2 [post_date] => 2021-10-28 17:01:39 [post_date_gmt] => 2021-10-28 17:01:39 [post_content] => For long-suffering low-and-minimum wage workers, the pandemic was the last straw. Workers across the United States are finally saying they’ve had enough. Nineteen months into the pandemic, 24,000 of them are exercising the strongest tool they have: the power to withhold their labor. With the country already facing severe supply chain disruptions, these strikes have put added pressure on employers to improve wages and working conditions. At the John Deere factories in Iowa, Kansas, and Illinois, 10,000 employees represented by the United Auto Workers (UAW) went on strike after rejecting a proposed contract that included wage increases below inflation levels and the elimination of pensions for new employees. Other strikes include 2,000 healthcare workers at Buffalo’s Mercy Hospital; 1,800 telecom workers at California’s Frontier Communications; and 1,400 production workers at several Kellogg’s cereal plants. Thousands of additional workers have authorized strike votes. Earlier this month, an overwhelming majority of workers in the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), which represents over 60,000 people in the film and TV industry, voted in favor of a strike. A few days later, 24,000 Kaiser Permanente healthcare workers in California and Oregon followed suit. Harvard’s graduate student union, with roughly 2,000 members, also authorized a strike with a 92 percent vote. “Workers are fed up working through the pandemic under the conditions they've been working in,” says Joe Burns, a former union president and author of “Strike Back: Using the Militant Tactics of Labor’s Past to Reignite Public Sector Unionism Today.” The strike wave “also reflects that there's a tight labor market.” “We’ve noticed a considerable uptick in the month of October,” says Johnnie Kallas, a PhD student at Cornell’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations (ILR) and Project Director for the ILR Labor Action Tracker. The ILR has tracked 189 strikes this year. Of those, 42 are ongoing in October while 26 were initiated this month Kallas and his team have been collecting data on strikes and labor protests since late 2020; they officially launched the Labor Action Tracker on May Day of this year. “There’s a lack of adequate strike data across the United States, says Kallas. “We thought this was a really important gap to fill.” The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), he explains, only keeps track of work stoppages involving 1,000 employees or more, and which last an entire shift. “As you can imagine, this leaves out the vast majority of labor activity,” Kallas says. Workers are demanding higher wages, adequate benefits like healthcare and pensions, improved safety and working conditions, especially concerning COVID-19, and reasonable working hours. The ILR Tracker has also been keeping tabs on “labor protests” —i.e., “collective action by a group of people as workers but without withdrawing their labor” —which aren’t recorded by BLS at all. The federal minimum wage has been stagnant at $7.25 an hour since 2009, even as inflation has increased by 28 percent since then. Meanwhile, over the past year consumers have seen a sharp increase in the cost of everyday goods such as bacon, gasoline, eggs, and toilet paper due to the pandemic. This means workers’ wages aren’t going nearly as far as they used to. For months, the media has been reporting on a “labor shortage” that has purportedly left employers unable to fill jobs. Fast food restaurants have posted signs that read: “We are short-staffed. Please be patient with the staff that did show up. No one wants to work anymore.” Small business owners and corporate CEOs alike have gone on cable news to complain about the hundreds of thousands of people who prefer to live on government assistance rather than find a job. But the truth, said Kallas, is that there’s no shortage of labor. Rather, employers can’t find people to work for the wages they’re offering. Saturation coverage of the labor shortage has come at the expense of amplifying the human cost of the government’s having cut unemployment benefits for 7.5 million workers on Labor Day, while an additional three million lost their weekly $300 pandemic unemployment assistance. Time magazine called it the “largest cutoff of unemployment benefits in history.” Just two weeks earlier, a flurry of newly published studies showed that states that chose to withdraw earlier from federal benefits did not succeed in pushing people back to work. Instead, they hurt their own economies as households cut their spending to compensate for the lost benefits. In Wisconsin, instead of increasing benefits or raising the minimum wage, state legislators have decided to address the labor shortage by putting children to work. Last week, the state senate approved a bill that would allow 15 and 16-year-olds to work as late as 9 p.m. on school nights and 11 p.m. on days that aren’t followed by a school day. The only state legislator to speak out against the bill was Senator Bob Wirch, who said that “kids should be doing their homework, being in school, instead of working more hours.” Despite these setbacks, the tight labor market has given workers considerable leverage. “Workers are more confident that they can strike and not be replaced,” says Burns. In places where non-union labor, or “scabs,” have been brought in to replace striking workers, there have been several incidents that underscore the importance of a union in creating a safe work environment. Jonah Furman, a labor activist who has been covering the John Deere strike closely, reported that poorly trained replacement workers brought in to a company facility were involved in a serious tractor accident on the morning of their first day. A higher profile and more deadly incident occurred last week when the actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins with a prop gun that was supposed to contain only blank rounds. According to several reports on the incident, the union camera crew quit their jobs and walked off the set earlier that day to protest abysmal safety standards—and were immediately replaced with inexperienced, non-union labor. “Corners were being cut — and they brought in nonunion people so they could continue shooting,” one crew member told the LA Times. Kallas says the incident “clearly demonstrates the importance of workplace safety and the significance of capturing both strikes and labor protests” when collecting data. “What's becoming increasingly common are these walkouts and mass resignations,” he says. He mentioned a Burger King in Nebraska where the entire staff walked out to protest poor working conditions that included a broken air conditioner in 90° F temperatures and staff shortages. They left a note on the door that said, “We all quit. Sorry for the inconvenience.”In another non-strike labor action, dozens of non-union school bus drivers in Charles County, Maryland called in sick to protest their low wages and lack of benefits. Over 160 bus routes were affected by the action. Meanwhile, adjacent school districts that are critically short of bus drivers find themselves unable to attract new candidates because of the perceived risk associated with driving a bus crowded with children during the pandemic. In an Opinion piece for The Guardian US, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich suggested that the United States was in the grips of an unofficial general strike, with workers quitting their jobs “at the highest rate on record.” Why? Because they were “burned out,” fed up with “back-breaking or mind-numbing low-wage shit jobs.” The pandemic, asserted Reich, was “the last straw.” In July, an anonymous group called for a general strike on October 15, but the day came and went without much fanfare. “Traditionally, general strikes happen because workers actually want to go on strike, and not because someone declares it on Facebook or Twitter,” says Burns. Rosa Luxemburg, the German socialist and philosopher who rose to prominence at the beginning of the last century, believed general strikes were the tool to usher in social revolution after developing class consciousness through the patient building of worker organizations, such as unions. “That’s not happening today,” says Burns. The 24,000 striking workers today pale in comparison to the mass strikes of the early to mid-twentieth century, when workers shut down production by the hundreds of thousands. Some 4.6 million workers went on strike in 1946, accounting for 10 percent of the workforce. Today things aren’t as simple. In August 1981, President Ronald Reagan fired over 11,000 air traffic controllers who went on strike after negotiations between the Federal Aviation Administration broke down. These workers were prohibited from ever working for the federal government again, creating a chilling effect among unions. Reagan’s action set the tone for labor relations for the next four decades, while his administration ushered in a new era of corporate dominance, known as neoliberalism. Today, corporations such as Amazon regularly use threats, intimidation tactics, and surveillance against employees to prevent them from unionizing. “When workers engage in a true strike wave, politicians want to step in and regulate it and establish some procedures,” says Burns. The Taft-Hartley Act was passed one year after the general strikes of 1946, making wildcat strikes, secondary boycotts, and union donations to federal political campaigns illegal. The act also allowed states to pass right-to-work laws, severely limiting effective union organizing, and required union officers to sign affidavits pledging they were not communists. The Red Scare, initially sparked by the Russian Revolution of 1917, resulted in sustained attacks against organized labor, particularly the leftist Industrial Workers of the World, or “Wobblies.” By the end of the Second World War, with labor militancy intensifying and the power of the Soviet Union growing, the Red Scare had morphed into a reign of terror against an “internal enemy.” Reagan later used language from the Taft-Hartley Act that prohibited workers from striking against the government to declare the air traffic controllers’ strike illegal. [caption id="attachment_3393" align="aligncenter" width="640"] Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) demonstration in New York City, 1914.[/caption] Today, workers face serious legal barriers to organizing under a system of labor law that favors the employer. Over the years, these laws have restricted the scale with which strikes can be organized and the total number of workers who belong to unions. At the peak of organized labor in 1954, 34.8 percent of American wage and salary workers belonged to a union; by 2020, that number was down to 10.8 percent, a trend that has been closely linked to decreased wages over the last few decades. Against these grim numbers, legislation like the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act could make a huge difference to labor organizing. The PRO Act would allow workers to engage in secondary boycotts, restrict right-to-work laws, ban anti-union captive audience meetings and exact financial penalties against companies found to be in violation of the law. The bill is something President Joe Biden campaigned on during the 2020 presidential election and has pushed to include in his Build Back Better agenda. “I'm skeptical based on actual history that we're gonna see a legislative fix to this problem,” says Burns. “When workers are militant and engaged in activity, legislation will follow. Not the other way around.” The strike wave we’re witnessing today speaks to a growing militancy against several decades of sustained corporate combat. It’s an uphill battle that no one union can win in isolation. With organized labor depleted and battle weary, the only path forward is to enlist other workers to fight by organizing new unions and activating those that already exist. Only by growing its numbers will labor enact the systemic change necessary to put working people on better footing. As labor activists have long proclaimed, “there’s no such thing as an illegal strike, only an unsuccessful one.” [post_title] => Striketober: America's workers are rising up [post_excerpt] => Workers are demanding higher wages, adequate benefits like healthcare and pensions, improved safety and working conditions, especially concerning COVID-19, and reasonable working hours. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => striketober-americas-workers-are-rising-up [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:08:26 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:08:26 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=3384 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
Bosses
WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 56 [post_author] => 3 [post_date] => 2020-09-03 16:41:12 [post_date_gmt] => 2020-09-03 16:41:12 [post_content] => Published on December 15, 2016, this analysis of the Trump presidency is remarkably prescient.As a writer and journalist, I’ve been lucky enough to have a long, varied and exciting (and sometimes too exciting) career. A few years ago, I worked with a genuine, bona fide narcissist. The kind of man who once bragged about his diagnosis while dismissing the “asshole shrink” who made it.
Without going into too much detail, here are a few things you can expect from a narcissist in a position of power:
He won’t take responsibility for mistakes.
At most, he will force himself to pretend to take responsibility, while scheming to shirk it in the end anyway. He will, however, hog credit for successes, whether they are his or not. This is why you absolutely have to stop being shocked when Trump says a nasty lie about the CIA and then doesn’t care about the consequences. He will never care. Consequences are for losers.
Everything is always someone else’s fault, and he’ll mess with your head to keep it that way. Here’s a classic exchange between me and my old colleague:
Him: … And let’s focus on that topic tomorrow. Me: OK. ***day goes by*** Me: …So I was writing about this topic and I think… Him: [Screaming, interrupting] WHY AREN’T YOU FOCUSED ON THIS OTHER TOPIC INSTEAD? THIS IS A NIGHTMARE. YOU’RE A NIGHTMARE. WHAT’S WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT KIND OF A JOURNALIST ARE YOU? Me: But you said… Him: [More screaming, more interrupting] I NEVER SAID THAT.Basically, you couldn’t have a normal conversation with my colleague, because every conversation was a battle he had to win. If he found himself in a corner, he just lied.
You can’t appeal to a narcissist’s morals and ethics.
For them, morals are a weakness and you’ll lose their respect for trying. You’ll never persuade them with ethical arguments, but don’t let that corrupt your own moral compass in the process. When I was being verbally abused by my narcissist colleague, I worked hard to keep the moral high ground. When he insisted that the world was upside-down, it was necessary to keep right and wrong clear in my own head. Why should someone sick like that set the standard for my behavior, let alone explain my reality?
Don’t waste your time expecting a narcissist to change.
Before Trump won, there was all this talk about how he’ll become more “presidential” should he win, because he will realize the gravity of his responsibility. Hahaha — what a joke!
Now people are telling you that it’s OK, Trump will be “presidential” when he’s sworn in. Those people are wrong. You know, sometimes it’s necessary to admit that things are exactly as bad as they seem. I did it. You can too. This doesn’t mean you get to sink into a deep, apathetic depression about the state of things, it just means facing what is happening to our country and society head on. The emperor is naked, but you won’t go blind looking at him.
Disengagement is always the best policy, but when you can’t disengage, remember to not let the narcissist play you off other people.
Narcissists can’t form healthy bonds with others, and therefore do their best to destroy others’ healthy bonds through divide and conquer tactics.
My narcissist colleague would badmouth others around me, trying to make me feel like his special confidante. I realized he was badmouthing me to others simultaneously. I wasn’t important to him, I was just being isolated and used. Look at how Trump humiliated Mitt Romney. Trump didn’t do it because he’s some brilliant tactician, he did it because he pathologically dominates others.
Speaking of “brilliant tacticians” — don’t buy in to the image of grandiosity these people like to project.
Narcissists fake it ‘till they make it. They bluster, and people give in to the bluster. This doesn’t mean that they are smarter than you, it just means that they’re better at the game of “chicken.”
I noticed that my colleague liked to surround himself with people who were conscientious and, in many ways, vulnerable to him precisely because they were conscientious. He enjoyed making people feel guilty and insecure. This kind of abuse is so rampant because it’s everyone’s best kept secret — those of us who have been abused elsewhere are perfect targets for further abuse.
A narcissistic leader won’t inspire genuine loyalty in his inner circle, which is why he forces compliance.
People have mercenary approaches to narcissists in power: “Oh, I just need the money,” or “Oh, let’s see what he can do for me,” that kind of stuff. Sadly, those who stick around too long get “Stockholm syndrome-ed” to the point of no return. Just look at Trump’s marriage. Melania acts like his well-coached prisoner, not his wife.
Meanwhile, does someone like Kellyanne Conway look like a true believer to you? Please. This lack of loyalty is precisely why narcissists are always working with incomplete information. It is their primary weakness and must be exploited.
These people have big plans they often can’t deliver on.
They’re too bored, enraged or hysterical, which are not particularly efficient emotions. Or it’s because hard work is rarely glamorous and seemingly unrewarding at first. Or maybe it’s because they spend all their time hiring and firing their latest favorites.
You’re going to argue, “But Trump made billions.” Says Trump. We can’t check that fact because he’s shady and avoids all accountability. He won’t even make his tax returns public.
We do know he had his father’s support, and a narcissist’s knack for abusing others’ vulnerability. It’s why he’s such an effective sexist and racist, though maybe not such a brilliant businessman. In short, Trump succeeded because money makes more money, not due to his great ideas. Don’t let the lifestyle and the babes surrounding him fool you.
I remember how my colleague would say literally anything just to maintain the appearance of power and control. People who didn’t know him took him at his word. But observing him closely, I became disillusioned. Seeing his lies for what they were helped protect my sense of self from his verbal assaults.
Narcissistic leaders need adulation and refuse to listen to things they don’t want to hear (i.e., the truth).
Besides vulnerable folks, my old colleague had to surround himself with incompetent people who made him the center of their universe (sometimes the vulnerability and the incompetence overlapped). He mistook empty praise for loyalty.
This is why members of the press should be wary about falling into Trump’s trap. He will seek to punish anyone who in any way deviates from him, because the truth is a betrayal of his worldview. And his worldview is the only one that matters.
If you’re a journalist who depends on access — you’re going to have an especially hard time. Use your access for good. Stockpile what you know. Stay organized.
Narcissists in power do everything they can to drain you of your energy.
They are relentless. They argue, cajole, whip up hysteria, insult, demand that you please them, etc. It’s important to keep quiet about what you value, because they will go nuclear just to take it from you and force you into submission.
The bottom line with a narcissist is that they demand that all attention be focused on them, at all times. If you can’t disengage, don’t try and reason with them. You must learn to conserve your energy, pick your battles, and just. remember. to. breathe.
. . .
In summation, I’d like to be completely honest : You are not going to win with powerful narcissists when you play their games. The minute you’ve started playing, you’ve already lost.
But being realistic about the person you’re dealing with will save your mental health. Don’t let them into your head to prey on your insecurities.
These people do real psychological damage. This is why The Conversationalist places so much emphasis on the roots of and consequences of authoritarianism.
[post_title] => I used to work with a narcissist. Here is my advice on dealing with Donald Trump [post_excerpt] => You’ll never persuade them with ethical arguments, but don’t let that corrupt your own moral compass in the process. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => i-used-to-work-with-a-narcissist-here-is-my-advice-on-dealing-with-donald-trump [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:08:26 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:08:26 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=56 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
I used to work with a narcissist. Here is my advice on dealing with Donald Trump
by Natalia Antonova
WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1710 [post_author] => 2 [post_date] => 2020-04-24 02:31:36 [post_date_gmt] => 2020-04-24 02:31:36 [post_content] => Working from home under lockdown has highlighted some unanticipated gender and class issues. I have a vivid memory of a 1990s television commercial for a then-state-of-the-art cordless phone. It portrayed an industrious young businesswoman working her way through the weekend from home. Her three young daughters appear and beg her to drive them to the beach. The woman is torn; she loves her kids, but she’s also a dedicated Career Woman, and, weekend or no, she has work to do. The last shot of the ad shows the woman taking her daughters to the beach—and joining a conference call from her new cordless phone as they frolic in the waves. Technology, the ad suggested, would set a new generation of women free by allowing them to work from anywhere: with the right phone, you could spend time with your kids without sacrificing that promotion! Fast forward to 2020 and a world reeling from a global pandemic. The ad now seems both dated and antithetical to modern concepts of gender roles and work-life balance (why can’t the children’s other parent take them to the beach? why is the person struggling to balance work and family always a woman? why should anyone have to join a conference call on a Saturday?). Now facing a grim choice between economic pain and physical risk are the huge number of people whose jobs cannot be performed from home—grocery store clerks, warehouse workers, transit workers, and health care providers, to name a few—as well as those whose employers are refusing to let them work from home, even in cases where their jobs can be done remotely. Those who can work from home are the lucky minority. According to a survey conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 29 percent of wage and salary workers had the option of working from home in 2017-18, and 25 percent did so at least some of the time. Most of them are high-earning white collar workers. Of civilian workers, a category comprised of both private industry and state and local government workers, only 7 percent have access to “flexible” work, or telework. The COVID-19 crisis has transformed a white-collar job perk into a necessary means of protecting the health of workers, businesses, and the overall economy. This is why, in the span of a few weeks, so many companies have gone from resisting to mandating it. Organizations seeking to advance women in the workplace have been pushing for companies to allow flexible and/or at-home work since the 1970s. Women would benefit the most from these arrangements, the theory went, because they were expected to perform a greater share of domestic labor. Why should an ambitious, hardworking woman be held back in her career simply because she had to pick up the kids at 3pm or get dinner on the table by 7? Today, women still do more child care and housework than men, but many fathers are playing a greater role in their children’s lives than did men of previous generations. Male and female, single and married, parents and child-free, many workers value the flexibility and freedom of working from home at least some of the time—being able to let in the plumber, sign for a package, go to the gym, walk the dog, or prepare a home-cooked meal reduces stress across the board. Before the pandemic—and even now, in the midst of it—many organizations were and are reluctant to allow staff to work from home. Although more companies have been allowing at-home work in the last 20 years, the last decade saw a small backlash, led most notably by Marissa Mayer, who banned remote work when she took over Yahoo in 2013. Some employers worried that workers didn’t have the training or equipment necessary to work productively from home, or that being at home would be too distracting. Some managers feared a loss of control and didn’t trust employees to get work done. Mayer, Steve Jobs, and others believed that collaboration, connectedness, and innovation suffer when employees aren’t interacting with each other in person. Now that working from home has, in some cases, gone from a reward reserved for upper management to a requirement of the job, more people are discovering its downsides. As a young entrepreneur named Adam Simmons told CBC News in 2019, "I think [working at home] is really damaging for your mental health…It definitely was for mine. I felt very, very lonely.” When Simmons worked from home, he was alone. But due to pandemic-induced school and day care closures, many of today’s office workers are trying to meet the demands of full-time jobs while caring for children. An acquaintance recently described a meltdown her toddler son had while she was working from home. “He asked for a snack WHILE eating a snack,” she wrote in a Facebook post. “I said, ‘You’re already eating an apple,’ and he threw himself on the ground, moaning, ‘No, I need a snaaaaaaack!’” Never has the professor whose children famously interrupted a live BBC News interview in 2017 been more relatable. Newer technologies like instant chat and video conferencing have made it easier than ever to work from home, if not necessarily more pleasant. Jeremy Bailenson, a professor of communication at Stanford and founding director of the university’s Virtual Human Interaction Lab, wrote about why so many people find Zoom meetings more exhausting than in-person ones in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. Bailenson’s research suggests that employees now attending hours of Zoom meetings per week are experiencing “nonverbal overload.” The grid format of ten-person Zoom meetings, in which each participant stares at you from the screen for the entire time in an eerie echo of “The Brady Bunch,” can be “draining,” he wrote. In real-life meetings, we can “control our personal space,” whereas “for every minute we are in Zoom, we have staring faces inches from our own.” Employers resist allowing people to work from home in part because they fear a dip in productivity. But research and workers’ experiences during the pandemic indicate that allowing (or requiring) work from home is in fact a boon to management. As Bailenson wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “people are forced to pay attention” on Zoom to a greater degree than in person. Even Kevin Roose, author of a recent New York Times op-ed entitled, “Sorry, but Working From Home is Overrated,” acknowledged that studies show remote workers are more efficient and productive and “tend to take shorter breaks and fewer sick days” than their on-site peers. Advocates have emphasized for years that allowing employees to work from home at least some of the time can save companies money—e.g., by reducing office size or eliminating the need to rent one and slashing the cost of utilities, janitorial services, supplies, equipment, and furniture. According to a 2014 NBC News story, a typical business would save, on average, $11,000 per year by allowing employees to work from home just half of the time. As Roose pointed out, having trouble separating work life from home life is a downside for workers, but not for bosses looking to “squeeze extra efficiency out of [their] employees.” Indeed, employees who now have to work from home because of the pandemic are encountering what one described in a recent career advice column as, “expectations that because we’re at home all the time anyway, we should be online and available at almost all times” and “being asked to do extra work during the evenings…because everyone knows we’re all here anyway.” Without “the normal excuse of having plans,” the advice seeker wrote, “I'm finding it hard to say no.” Overwhelmed and/or abusive managers are already taking advantage of this situation; more than one person has noticed that they are working more hours now than they were before the pandemic, often because they’re replacing their daily commute with another hour or three of work. Extra hours aside, working from home is not for everyone. Some—extroverts, parents of young children, people who value a clear separation between work and home—will be delighted to return to their offices as soon as it is safe to do so. Others, having discovered that they can work just as well (or better) from home, will not easily give up their newfound freedom. For many companies, allowing people to work remotely at least some of the time makes sense for employers and employees alike, with or without a global pandemic. And it will be difficult for management to continue insisting it’s not feasible when workers have been doing it for months. Forcing adults to spend eight or more hours a day on-site is as outdated and ludicrous as running an ad that equates weekend work with women’s liberation. [post_title] => What the pandemic is teaching us about working from home [post_excerpt] => Now that working from home has, in some cases, gone from a privilege reserved for upper management to a requirement of the job, more people are discovering its downsides. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => what-the-pandemic-is-teaching-us-about-working-from-home [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:08:26 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:08:26 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://conversationalist.org/?p=1710 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )