I am on my annual pilgrimage to ski country this week. I’ve noticed that the tilt towards the green side has become more pronounced over the last few years. It started with the invitation to reuse your towels, so that housekeeping didn’t have to expend so much fresh water on laundry. Now it has expanded to include the use of compact fluorescent bulbs throughout the condo unit we are staying in this week.
The management has posted a little notice in the room, stressing how energy conserving they are, doing their part to fight global warming. It put me in mind of an article I read in a skiing magazine a couple of months ago. The article profiled an activist in the ski town of Crested Butte. This woman was committed to fighting global warming, specifically to preserve heavy snowfalls in the Rockies. More snow, better skiing.
After thinking about this for a while, it gave me an idea of how we could really fight global warming to preserve snow: ban skiing.
Well, not really. My idea is not to ban skiing. Just to ban the sport as currently practiced. The modern ski vacation has got to be one of the most carbon intensive activities on the face of the planet.
To get to the resorts, we fly in from all over the country, if not the world (how much carbon do you emit to get to Colorado from Australia, I wonder). Once we’re here, we stay in luxury condos, housing that stands empty for eight months out of the year. That can’t be environmentally benign. In the last ten years, I have yet to stay in a unit that doesn’t have a gas fireplace. They’re not efficient heating units, but the flames are pretty, as we watch irreplaceable natural gas get converted into carbon dioxide and water vapor.
Then there is the sport of skiing itself. First off, to create the ski runs, they mow down swathes of National Forest. Last I checked, trees were carbon absorbers, but hey, we’re out to have some fun. Then, they install big diesel powered ski lifts. They haul us up the hill, solely so that we can slide down, back to where we started from. A less practical activity can scarcely be imagined.
Trying to offset all of these carbon emissions with compact fluorescents is like trying to bail out the Titanic. With a teaspoon.
No, if we were really serious about slowing down greenhouse gas emissions to preserve snow, we would close down the ski areas. Of course, that wouldn’t leave many people to care about whether there was fresh powder snow on the mountains or not.
I guess it would be a case of having to destroy the village in order to save it.
Showing posts with label a modest proposal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label a modest proposal. Show all posts
Monday, January 18, 2010
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Waterboarding and other unpleasantness
Some thirty years ago, I was a cadet attending ROTC summer training camp in Ft. Benning, Georgia. One day of the training was dedicated to adventure training. Rappeling, zip lines, biting the heads off chickens. That sort of thing.
At one point during the day, a group of cadets sat down with one of the training sergeants, a grizzled old Viet Nam vet. Somehow the discussion turned to the subject of questioning prisoners of war. The sergeant said that during the war, they would take two blindfolded VC up in a helicopter and start questioning them. Then they would tie a rope around one of them and throw him out of the chopper. The other would hear the screams as the man was pushed out, which was enough to get him to start answering questions.
Then the veteran said “If you really want information, you take the 9 volt battery out of the walkie-talkie handset, and press both terminals against the man’s temple. Bzzt! When he gets finished singing God Bless America, he’ll tell you anything you want to know.”
At this point he stopped and looked at the group of college students surrounding him, and saw the absolutely shocked faces. It was silent for a moment. Then, with dead sincerity, the sergeant said “That’s not torture. That’s interrogation.”
With the current media pyrotechnics about the Bush administrations “advanced interrogation” policies, it is worth noting this is not the first time we, as a society, have attempted to define the issue of what constitutes torture, and what is merely tough questioning. I think the question does not lend itself to bright and shining boundaries.
Pulling someone’s fingernails off with pliers? Yes, that’s torture. Sleep deprivation? Maybe. Now we’re in the grey area. Making a suspect wear women’s underwear, or having a woman lead him around with a dog leash? Please, you pay extra for that in Vegas.
But in struggling with these issues as policy is set, I have a suggestion. A modest proposal. Call it a version of sauce for the gander.
Have your attorneys draft memos outlining the limits of what is acceptable. This is just what the Bush administration did. Then take those same attorneys and subject them to the same interrogation techniques they proposed. If they say waterboarding is legal, waterboard ‘em. If they say exposure to cold is legal, stick ‘em in a meat locker. At the end of the process, is they still sign off on the memos, you have your policy.
Think of it as a new version of the Golden Rule. Not, “Do unto others as you would have done to yourself.” Not, “Do unto others as they would do unto you, but do it first.” No, not even the classic, “Whoever has the gold makes the rules.”
This version of the Golden Rule is “Don’t do anything unto others that you wouldn’t be willing to have done to yourself.”
At one point during the day, a group of cadets sat down with one of the training sergeants, a grizzled old Viet Nam vet. Somehow the discussion turned to the subject of questioning prisoners of war. The sergeant said that during the war, they would take two blindfolded VC up in a helicopter and start questioning them. Then they would tie a rope around one of them and throw him out of the chopper. The other would hear the screams as the man was pushed out, which was enough to get him to start answering questions.
Then the veteran said “If you really want information, you take the 9 volt battery out of the walkie-talkie handset, and press both terminals against the man’s temple. Bzzt! When he gets finished singing God Bless America, he’ll tell you anything you want to know.”
At this point he stopped and looked at the group of college students surrounding him, and saw the absolutely shocked faces. It was silent for a moment. Then, with dead sincerity, the sergeant said “That’s not torture. That’s interrogation.”
With the current media pyrotechnics about the Bush administrations “advanced interrogation” policies, it is worth noting this is not the first time we, as a society, have attempted to define the issue of what constitutes torture, and what is merely tough questioning. I think the question does not lend itself to bright and shining boundaries.
Pulling someone’s fingernails off with pliers? Yes, that’s torture. Sleep deprivation? Maybe. Now we’re in the grey area. Making a suspect wear women’s underwear, or having a woman lead him around with a dog leash? Please, you pay extra for that in Vegas.
But in struggling with these issues as policy is set, I have a suggestion. A modest proposal. Call it a version of sauce for the gander.
Have your attorneys draft memos outlining the limits of what is acceptable. This is just what the Bush administration did. Then take those same attorneys and subject them to the same interrogation techniques they proposed. If they say waterboarding is legal, waterboard ‘em. If they say exposure to cold is legal, stick ‘em in a meat locker. At the end of the process, is they still sign off on the memos, you have your policy.
Think of it as a new version of the Golden Rule. Not, “Do unto others as you would have done to yourself.” Not, “Do unto others as they would do unto you, but do it first.” No, not even the classic, “Whoever has the gold makes the rules.”
This version of the Golden Rule is “Don’t do anything unto others that you wouldn’t be willing to have done to yourself.”
Monday, December 29, 2008
The Joy of Christmas Past
You don’t have to be much of a curmudgeon to appreciate the pleasures that come with the end of the Christmas season on December 26. The palpable slowing down of pace after the last minute frenzy of gift buying, wrapping, and delivering. The slackening of traffic on the roads, combined with the ability to get a parking spot at the mall. The chance to rest up after the round of Christmas festivities, and gather strength for the onslaught of New Year’s Eve. But for me, this year, there is one special blessing, post holiday.
They’ve stopped playing “Christmas Shoes” on the radio.
You know the song. It’s the one about the guy who’s in the store when he sees a little kid who needs money to buy a pair of shoes for his dying mother. The poor sap rediscovers the true meaning of Christmas when he forks over the dough for the kid to get the shoes. Just in case you forgot, here are the lyrics to the refrain.
“Sir I wanna buy these shoes for my Momma please
It's Christmas Eve and these shoes are just her size
Could you hurry Sir?
Daddy says there's not much time
You see, she's been sick for quite a while
And I know these shoes will make her smile
And I want her to look beautiful
If Momma meets Jesus, tonight.”
What a batch of hooey! What a load of hogwash! The pathetic absurdities of this song beggar the imagination. Consider the baloney you’re being asked to accept when you listen to this load of rubbish.
First, the kid knows his mother’s shoe size. What? I don’t know my mother’s shoe size, and I’ll bet you don’t either. Hellfire, I was well into my twenties before I could have reliably stated that my mom had feet. It just never entered my consciousness.
Second, what kind of shoes are these? Jimmy Choo’s? Manolo Blahnik’s? I mean, seriously, what kind of little kid pays attention to shoe fashion? The only reason I know those names is from watching “Sex and the City” reruns on cable, and I had to Google the names to get the spelling right.
Third, the song posits that what a dying woman wants most before she passes away is a new pair of shoes. Now, you usually can’t go wrong betting on the shallowness and materialism of the American consumer, but the woman is going to die, for cripe’s sake! If I was dying, that sure wouldn’t be the top of my Christmas list. A miracle cure, that’s what I want Santa to drop down my chimney. Or maybe just more morphine to keep the pain pump fully stocked up. But shoes?
What kind of store is this, anyway? Probably a department store, because the narrator isn’t there to buy shoes, he is just there to “pick up a few things.” That raises another question. The kid is described as “dirty from head to toe.” In most upscale stores, the staff wouldn’t let a dirty street urchin wander around, pawing through the merchandise and panhandling from the customers to pay for shoes. The staff would call security, assuming they didn’t just give the kid the bum’s rush on their own. I can picture the response when the kid first walked into the store: “Hey, kid, keep your grubby hands off. That’s cashmere!”
Here’s my theory: the kid and the salesclerk are running a scam. The store overstocked on cheap Chinese knockoffs of designer shoes. The kid spots a mark, turns on the waterworks, and the sucker pays for them. The suddenly overjoyed scamster goes out the front door, and comes around and in through the back door, ready to resell the same pair of shoes with the next mark to walk in. Meanwhile, the clerk cleans up on commissions. Hellfire, the clerk is probably the kid’s real mother! They probably share a good horse laugh over the suckers they rooked when they get home.
Cheating sentimental saps, all in the service of pure commercialism. There’s a Christmas anthem for you. At least we’re all done with that now. That song is off the playlists.
At least until next year.
They’ve stopped playing “Christmas Shoes” on the radio.
You know the song. It’s the one about the guy who’s in the store when he sees a little kid who needs money to buy a pair of shoes for his dying mother. The poor sap rediscovers the true meaning of Christmas when he forks over the dough for the kid to get the shoes. Just in case you forgot, here are the lyrics to the refrain.
“Sir I wanna buy these shoes for my Momma please
It's Christmas Eve and these shoes are just her size
Could you hurry Sir?
Daddy says there's not much time
You see, she's been sick for quite a while
And I know these shoes will make her smile
And I want her to look beautiful
If Momma meets Jesus, tonight.”
What a batch of hooey! What a load of hogwash! The pathetic absurdities of this song beggar the imagination. Consider the baloney you’re being asked to accept when you listen to this load of rubbish.
First, the kid knows his mother’s shoe size. What? I don’t know my mother’s shoe size, and I’ll bet you don’t either. Hellfire, I was well into my twenties before I could have reliably stated that my mom had feet. It just never entered my consciousness.
Second, what kind of shoes are these? Jimmy Choo’s? Manolo Blahnik’s? I mean, seriously, what kind of little kid pays attention to shoe fashion? The only reason I know those names is from watching “Sex and the City” reruns on cable, and I had to Google the names to get the spelling right.
Third, the song posits that what a dying woman wants most before she passes away is a new pair of shoes. Now, you usually can’t go wrong betting on the shallowness and materialism of the American consumer, but the woman is going to die, for cripe’s sake! If I was dying, that sure wouldn’t be the top of my Christmas list. A miracle cure, that’s what I want Santa to drop down my chimney. Or maybe just more morphine to keep the pain pump fully stocked up. But shoes?
What kind of store is this, anyway? Probably a department store, because the narrator isn’t there to buy shoes, he is just there to “pick up a few things.” That raises another question. The kid is described as “dirty from head to toe.” In most upscale stores, the staff wouldn’t let a dirty street urchin wander around, pawing through the merchandise and panhandling from the customers to pay for shoes. The staff would call security, assuming they didn’t just give the kid the bum’s rush on their own. I can picture the response when the kid first walked into the store: “Hey, kid, keep your grubby hands off. That’s cashmere!”
Here’s my theory: the kid and the salesclerk are running a scam. The store overstocked on cheap Chinese knockoffs of designer shoes. The kid spots a mark, turns on the waterworks, and the sucker pays for them. The suddenly overjoyed scamster goes out the front door, and comes around and in through the back door, ready to resell the same pair of shoes with the next mark to walk in. Meanwhile, the clerk cleans up on commissions. Hellfire, the clerk is probably the kid’s real mother! They probably share a good horse laugh over the suckers they rooked when they get home.
Cheating sentimental saps, all in the service of pure commercialism. There’s a Christmas anthem for you. At least we’re all done with that now. That song is off the playlists.
At least until next year.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
The 5% Solution
As part of the news coverage concerning the Federal bailout of the Big 3 domestic automakers, I have seen stories about how the president of the United Auto Workers, Ron Gettelfinger, has been meeting with other leaders of the union to discuss how labor is going to have to put some cost saving ideas on the table to help the Big 3 avoid bankruptcy. Obviously, it is the union's interest to avoid a Chapter 11 filing, because a bankruptcy trustee could unilaterally make changes to union contracts to preserve the value of the business for the creditors. It's better to volunteer givebacks before they are imposed upon you.
First and foremost should be the Jobs Bank. That is the part of the contract that says laid off UAW workers get to receive 95% of their hourly pay and full benefits while waiting for another job position to open up. Since the domestic manufacturers have been cutting headcount for years, the new job positions never do open up. The UAW members merely collect full wages and benefits, while doing no work for the company. The Jobs Bank has been bleeding the car companies for years now. The union says that the Jobs Bank is not that much of a problem, since there are only about 3500 employees currently in the program.
Only 3500! Wages and benefits for the average Big 3 autoworker are $75 per hour (compared to $45 per hour for Japanese transplants like Toyota and Honda). Simple math tells us that $75/hour times 1800 hours/year time 3500 equals $472 million dollars a year in potential savings. Now I've gotten kind of numb from listening to all the big numbers thrown from all of the different Federal bailouts so far this year, but $472 million sounds like a lot of money to me.
But I've got another idea for changing the UAW contract with the domestic automakers. This won't help stave off bankruptcy in the short term, but in the long run could help them regain some of their lost competitiveness. I call it the 5% solution.
The concept is simple, change the contract to allow management to fire up to 5% of the UAW workers every year, no questions asked. That means no seniority, no grievances filed, no arbitration. Management would have to follow Federal law, which prevents firing people based on their membership in a protected class (race, gender, age, etc.). Other than that, pull whoever you want and give them the boot. Management would not be required to exercise this right, they would merely have the option.
In Right to Work states, employment law features a doctrine known as employment at will. Employment at will assumes that the work relationship is mutually agreed upon, and that either party has reciprical rights to terminate that relationship at any time. Simply put, you can tell the boss to take this job and shove it. The boss can give you the boot. All I'm proposing is to apply this doctrine to the UAW contracts, subject to a limit of 5%.
Consider the effect this change would have. As things stand now, to terminate a union worker requires cause, and proving cause requires evidence that will stand up in a legal proceeding. Being lazy and inefficient doesn't qualify as just cause. But if you could fire 5% without having to show cause, think about the impact that would have on the organization.
You could let the maintenance worker go who has a lot of seniority but can't fix equipment, and keep the newer guy who can actually keep the machines running. Or how about the stock handler who has spent his years finding the best places to hide, and always shows up five minutes after he has been paged. Or the assembler who sends parts with a quality problem down the line instead of raising the flag about the issue. "Not my problem" the assembler says. Think about what it would do to efficiency to get rid of the shirkers and malingerers who drag down the whole team.
Management would not even have to use the option for it to have a salutary effect on the organization. Whe they know they can be fired, almost everyone will hustle harder to impress hte boss. The worst will pick up the pace significantly, and even the best will put out a little extra effort. When they see the bar being raised, employees will be more focused throughout the organization.
Some will complain that my idea will mean the end of job security, and will shift the balance of power away from labor and deciviely towards management. Well, right now the industrial workers with the most contractual rights on job security are the UAW workers. That's what the Jobs Bank was all about. But you have to ask yourself: How much job security do you have if your employer is on the brink of bankruptcy?
The only real job security is when the company is winning in the marketplace. It's time for a change in how the unions do business.
First and foremost should be the Jobs Bank. That is the part of the contract that says laid off UAW workers get to receive 95% of their hourly pay and full benefits while waiting for another job position to open up. Since the domestic manufacturers have been cutting headcount for years, the new job positions never do open up. The UAW members merely collect full wages and benefits, while doing no work for the company. The Jobs Bank has been bleeding the car companies for years now. The union says that the Jobs Bank is not that much of a problem, since there are only about 3500 employees currently in the program.
Only 3500! Wages and benefits for the average Big 3 autoworker are $75 per hour (compared to $45 per hour for Japanese transplants like Toyota and Honda). Simple math tells us that $75/hour times 1800 hours/year time 3500 equals $472 million dollars a year in potential savings. Now I've gotten kind of numb from listening to all the big numbers thrown from all of the different Federal bailouts so far this year, but $472 million sounds like a lot of money to me.
But I've got another idea for changing the UAW contract with the domestic automakers. This won't help stave off bankruptcy in the short term, but in the long run could help them regain some of their lost competitiveness. I call it the 5% solution.
The concept is simple, change the contract to allow management to fire up to 5% of the UAW workers every year, no questions asked. That means no seniority, no grievances filed, no arbitration. Management would have to follow Federal law, which prevents firing people based on their membership in a protected class (race, gender, age, etc.). Other than that, pull whoever you want and give them the boot. Management would not be required to exercise this right, they would merely have the option.
In Right to Work states, employment law features a doctrine known as employment at will. Employment at will assumes that the work relationship is mutually agreed upon, and that either party has reciprical rights to terminate that relationship at any time. Simply put, you can tell the boss to take this job and shove it. The boss can give you the boot. All I'm proposing is to apply this doctrine to the UAW contracts, subject to a limit of 5%.
Consider the effect this change would have. As things stand now, to terminate a union worker requires cause, and proving cause requires evidence that will stand up in a legal proceeding. Being lazy and inefficient doesn't qualify as just cause. But if you could fire 5% without having to show cause, think about the impact that would have on the organization.
You could let the maintenance worker go who has a lot of seniority but can't fix equipment, and keep the newer guy who can actually keep the machines running. Or how about the stock handler who has spent his years finding the best places to hide, and always shows up five minutes after he has been paged. Or the assembler who sends parts with a quality problem down the line instead of raising the flag about the issue. "Not my problem" the assembler says. Think about what it would do to efficiency to get rid of the shirkers and malingerers who drag down the whole team.
Management would not even have to use the option for it to have a salutary effect on the organization. Whe they know they can be fired, almost everyone will hustle harder to impress hte boss. The worst will pick up the pace significantly, and even the best will put out a little extra effort. When they see the bar being raised, employees will be more focused throughout the organization.
Some will complain that my idea will mean the end of job security, and will shift the balance of power away from labor and deciviely towards management. Well, right now the industrial workers with the most contractual rights on job security are the UAW workers. That's what the Jobs Bank was all about. But you have to ask yourself: How much job security do you have if your employer is on the brink of bankruptcy?
The only real job security is when the company is winning in the marketplace. It's time for a change in how the unions do business.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
A Modest Proposal
My company drug tests all applicants for employment. That includes contract employees that we hire through a labor staffing service (that’s a fancy way of saying we use a lot of temps). If you fail the drug test, you don’t start work.
We also require periodic random drug screens. For the temps, you only get one bite of the apple. You fail a random test, you do not pass GO; you do not collect $200 dollars. Your assignment ends and the temp service fires you.
For our regular full-time employees, the policy is more lenient. If you fail one drug test, you get the option of being suspended while you go through drug rehab counseling. By the way, the employee has to pay for the cost of rehab. If the employee does not pay for rehab, or gets a second positive drug test, we fire them.
If someone is terminated for failing a drug test, they are not eligible for unemployment benefits. It’s treated the same way as if you had quit your job. One other place employees are drug tested is right after any workplace accident. A positive drug test there leads to a denial of worker’s compensation benefits. “Stitch yourself up there, buddy. Bet you wish you hadn’t done those lines of coke this weekend, huh?”
The laws allow the stoppage of benefits to drug users. The laws allow it because as a democratic society, we have collectively decided that the use of illegal narcotics is harmful to society as a whole. So we allow significant negative consequences to befall people caught using while they are employed. And drug testing in the first place is allowed because of free association. Nobody holds a gun to your head and tells you to go to work for a company that drug tests. The individual’s freedom of choice is preserved.
My question is this: If drug use disqualifies you from unemployment and worker’s comp benefits, why shouldn’t it disqualify from other types of benefits? Welfare benefits or disability benefits, for example. If random drug screening was a condition of receiving benefits, that would have to make a dent in the demand for illegal drugs, wouldn’t it?
I would like to hear what the arguments are against such a proposal. If we tried to put a policy like this into place, somebody would scream that it wasn’t fair. But I don’t see it as unfair.
If you are going to take taxpayer money, surely the taxpayers have an interest in making sure you are following the rules that society sets up. After all, nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you sign up for welfare.
It’s your choice.
We also require periodic random drug screens. For the temps, you only get one bite of the apple. You fail a random test, you do not pass GO; you do not collect $200 dollars. Your assignment ends and the temp service fires you.
For our regular full-time employees, the policy is more lenient. If you fail one drug test, you get the option of being suspended while you go through drug rehab counseling. By the way, the employee has to pay for the cost of rehab. If the employee does not pay for rehab, or gets a second positive drug test, we fire them.
If someone is terminated for failing a drug test, they are not eligible for unemployment benefits. It’s treated the same way as if you had quit your job. One other place employees are drug tested is right after any workplace accident. A positive drug test there leads to a denial of worker’s compensation benefits. “Stitch yourself up there, buddy. Bet you wish you hadn’t done those lines of coke this weekend, huh?”
The laws allow the stoppage of benefits to drug users. The laws allow it because as a democratic society, we have collectively decided that the use of illegal narcotics is harmful to society as a whole. So we allow significant negative consequences to befall people caught using while they are employed. And drug testing in the first place is allowed because of free association. Nobody holds a gun to your head and tells you to go to work for a company that drug tests. The individual’s freedom of choice is preserved.
My question is this: If drug use disqualifies you from unemployment and worker’s comp benefits, why shouldn’t it disqualify from other types of benefits? Welfare benefits or disability benefits, for example. If random drug screening was a condition of receiving benefits, that would have to make a dent in the demand for illegal drugs, wouldn’t it?
I would like to hear what the arguments are against such a proposal. If we tried to put a policy like this into place, somebody would scream that it wasn’t fair. But I don’t see it as unfair.
If you are going to take taxpayer money, surely the taxpayers have an interest in making sure you are following the rules that society sets up. After all, nobody holds a gun to your head and makes you sign up for welfare.
It’s your choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)