Some weeks ago I castigated Democrats for sponsoring a pending bill which would prohibit secret ballot elections for workers to unionize. The bill said, roughly, that a majority of workers submitting signed ballots, over an extended period, would be sufficient for the union to be recognized. I felt it was a ploy to intimidate workers to sign up, and the employer had no chance to oppose it.
But now, the bill doesn't seem so bad. What made me re-think this is a story in the NY Times (8/30/09) about the Regis Corporation, a nationwide chain of hair salons, which asked workers at a branch in Montana to sign a document which would nullify any pro-union card they may sign in the future. The head of the company defended it, saying it was "totally voluntary" and was only meant to preserve the choice of secret elections.
Oh, really! And how exactly was it supposed to do this? Wait, I'll answer that. With a collection of these cards, an employer could know who wouldn't sign as well as those who did. The employer could then focus (read target) messages to the former group which would hint, ever so subtly, that their company loyalty was, ahem, less than desired. But just as important, the company would know the identity of workers who signed both the company card and a pro-union card later on. These workers might then be startled to find themselves named by the company in a federal lawsuit to void the union election!
That's a handy little list for any company.
I still prefer the secret ballot, but it's obvious that Regis, and probably many other companies, have no concern for workers' privacy. Otherwise it wouldn't have been so willing to adopt the same coercive measures it was attributing to the unions.
If the secret ballot is lost, so be it. There's nothing that makes me switch sides faster than seeing the side I was supporting come up with an idea that is both devious and stupid!
Monday, August 31, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Riding Dodo
Isn't it time for a reconsideration of taxi fare cruising in the city? We've made so much progress in urban transportation, why is it we're satisfied with such a wasteful, dirty and inefficient practice? The swarms of yellow roaches clog the streets, especially in Manhattan, but no longer serve the modern lifestyle. We have one of the most cost effective and comprehensive public transportation systems in the world. We are continually adapting the system to the latest innovations, such as computerized subway and bus fare collection and disability access. Yet the taxicab plague never changes.
Defenders, of course, will say that the cabs are adapting too, and point to greater fuel efficiency and safety features. But that only evades the issue. The real waste is in having the beasts roam about the city in packs, belching their fumes without letup, with no passenger inside! It's the equivalent of selling encyclopedias door-to-door. Does anyone remember that?
We need to devise a system to order, reserve and deliver pick-up service that uses the internet and mobile technology. A cab subscription service, for instance, can have a registered user dial a number from a smartphone and enter the destination points for the ride. The car can then be driven to the user's location, drive to the destination and then park until the next call. Or else, if one of the cars is already parked close by, the service can simply tell the user where it is. There should only be very brief periods of non-use in busy commercial areas.
The cars should look like normal vehicles and not be identified as belonging to the service until they are parked, when the driver posts a flag, or something like that, so that the subscriber can find it. Otherwise, when the car is between calls, the driver will be tempted to cruise the car like a regular taxi for a little off-the-books income.
I think that such a subscription service can be profitable. A simple study of the most frequent trips and times of use can reveal the right number of cars and the most accessible stations for them. This, in turn, will determine the monthly charges for the subscribers. And I bet that the city will be glad to set aside many parking spots for the cars because the system will reduce congestion so much.
The zipcar is a laudable attempt to provide an alternative to taxis, but non-drivers can't use it. My system provides full taxi service, but without the negatives. It's time for some enterprising entrepreneur to make the move. The urban taxi is on the way out -- it is a dodo -- and I'd like to hurry that along.
Defenders, of course, will say that the cabs are adapting too, and point to greater fuel efficiency and safety features. But that only evades the issue. The real waste is in having the beasts roam about the city in packs, belching their fumes without letup, with no passenger inside! It's the equivalent of selling encyclopedias door-to-door. Does anyone remember that?
We need to devise a system to order, reserve and deliver pick-up service that uses the internet and mobile technology. A cab subscription service, for instance, can have a registered user dial a number from a smartphone and enter the destination points for the ride. The car can then be driven to the user's location, drive to the destination and then park until the next call. Or else, if one of the cars is already parked close by, the service can simply tell the user where it is. There should only be very brief periods of non-use in busy commercial areas.
The cars should look like normal vehicles and not be identified as belonging to the service until they are parked, when the driver posts a flag, or something like that, so that the subscriber can find it. Otherwise, when the car is between calls, the driver will be tempted to cruise the car like a regular taxi for a little off-the-books income.
I think that such a subscription service can be profitable. A simple study of the most frequent trips and times of use can reveal the right number of cars and the most accessible stations for them. This, in turn, will determine the monthly charges for the subscribers. And I bet that the city will be glad to set aside many parking spots for the cars because the system will reduce congestion so much.
The zipcar is a laudable attempt to provide an alternative to taxis, but non-drivers can't use it. My system provides full taxi service, but without the negatives. It's time for some enterprising entrepreneur to make the move. The urban taxi is on the way out -- it is a dodo -- and I'd like to hurry that along.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Violence in Film: An Adult View
I don't do film reviews any more, but sometimes I will write about films as a springboard for views on another subject. I recently saw one of last year's major films, The Dark Knight, and I was impressed. It was a brilliant entertainment, by far the best superhero movie I've seen. While its most exciting achievement was the amazing performance of Heath Ledger as the Joker (tragically, his last), the film worked on other levels as well: as a clever sendup of superhero films in general -- here the criminals punish the citizens of Gotham because Batman is their protector, not in spite of him -- and as a meditation on the deep, tribal need of society for the hero to protect us from our own appetite for evil, which we can never give up, but will never admit.
Director Christopher Nolan did an unusually skillful job. In execution, the film was solid and imaginative; there were no weak elements. Conceptually, however, there was a major one: the character of Batman himself. There is no way I can accept any person who chooses to behave in such a preposterous manner as a mature adult. Dressing up in Halloween costume to shoot it out with one dimensional (if even that) bad guys is a kid's fantasy. But it was never my fantasy, even as a kid. The real bad guys of this world, such as suicidal terrorsts, see themselves as heroes, and the list of grievances they have against society are often -- when seen from their perspective -- a legitimate reason to act. Only not in the ways they have chosen.
For me, a more satisfying film, one that has a genuinely adult perspective on violence, is Steven Spielberg's Munich. We see how an undeniably barbaric act -- the slaughter of the Israeli athletes at the Olympics -- can be the impetus for a secret, extravagantly organized campaign to kill the terrorists responsible for it, and for this to be undertaken as a political necessity. Unlike Batman, the Israeli team seeks out their chosen victims in moments of peaceful relaxation, often with their families, who are innocent, but will be killed anyway.
Also unlike Batman, the leader of the Israeli team experiences a transformation in his attitude towards violence. Sure, Batman suffers emotionally as well, but never from the act of killing. After all, these are bad guys, and they must be stopped. Conveniently, he is always around to kill them just when they are doing their bad guy things again. But the hero of the Spielberg film has poor timing. He is unable to move out of the way of his own humanity, which is, of course, always within him. The revulsion against the act of killing, even of our enemies, is almost a character in the film. By the end, we are meant to see his rejection of violence as a way of life, even when justified, as a kind of heroic act. But maybe not super-heroic.
Director Christopher Nolan did an unusually skillful job. In execution, the film was solid and imaginative; there were no weak elements. Conceptually, however, there was a major one: the character of Batman himself. There is no way I can accept any person who chooses to behave in such a preposterous manner as a mature adult. Dressing up in Halloween costume to shoot it out with one dimensional (if even that) bad guys is a kid's fantasy. But it was never my fantasy, even as a kid. The real bad guys of this world, such as suicidal terrorsts, see themselves as heroes, and the list of grievances they have against society are often -- when seen from their perspective -- a legitimate reason to act. Only not in the ways they have chosen.
For me, a more satisfying film, one that has a genuinely adult perspective on violence, is Steven Spielberg's Munich. We see how an undeniably barbaric act -- the slaughter of the Israeli athletes at the Olympics -- can be the impetus for a secret, extravagantly organized campaign to kill the terrorists responsible for it, and for this to be undertaken as a political necessity. Unlike Batman, the Israeli team seeks out their chosen victims in moments of peaceful relaxation, often with their families, who are innocent, but will be killed anyway.
Also unlike Batman, the leader of the Israeli team experiences a transformation in his attitude towards violence. Sure, Batman suffers emotionally as well, but never from the act of killing. After all, these are bad guys, and they must be stopped. Conveniently, he is always around to kill them just when they are doing their bad guy things again. But the hero of the Spielberg film has poor timing. He is unable to move out of the way of his own humanity, which is, of course, always within him. The revulsion against the act of killing, even of our enemies, is almost a character in the film. By the end, we are meant to see his rejection of violence as a way of life, even when justified, as a kind of heroic act. But maybe not super-heroic.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Crowley Lost Control of the Situation
Since everybody else is weighing in on this, let me put in mine. Even with facts in dispute, such as when and how many times Crowley was asked his name and badge number, we can agree that this mess could have been avoided. And, without saying that Professor Gates is beyond reproach, it was up to the person who was most in control to do that. The person in control was Sergeant Crowley. Once Crowley was finished doing his job, he should have gotten the hell out of there.
But I don't want to make assumptions about the facts either. The arrest would have been proper if Gates had in any way interfered with Crowley's departure, such as blocking his way. If, for instance, he stood in front of the door until he got an apology. Or else, if he laid his hands on him, or threatened him physically. But the news reports don't even hint that this happened.
It would also have been improper for Gates to interfere with an ongoing police investigation. I give Crowley the benefit of the doubt on this. If he still had questions in his own mind about the alleged break-in, it would be proper for him to stay until they were answered. But again, the news reports seem to say that Crowley had concluded there was no break-in, and that Gates had every right to be there, in his own home.
Should Crowley have then apologized, and then left? The apology question is irrelevant to me, although Gates certainly has a case for one. No, Crowley was wrong because he had passed the point where he had a legitimate professional reason to remain. Whether Gates was overreacting by calling the officer a racist did not give Crowley any reason to engage in an angry debate. Gates was probably getting angrier, and louder, every time Crowley answered him. At that point, it didn't matter who had the best talking (or yelling) points, the situation could only get worse.
And it did. But the arrest -- while improper in itself -- only resulted from Crowley's first mistake of not leaving when he had finished doing his job.
But I don't want to make assumptions about the facts either. The arrest would have been proper if Gates had in any way interfered with Crowley's departure, such as blocking his way. If, for instance, he stood in front of the door until he got an apology. Or else, if he laid his hands on him, or threatened him physically. But the news reports don't even hint that this happened.
It would also have been improper for Gates to interfere with an ongoing police investigation. I give Crowley the benefit of the doubt on this. If he still had questions in his own mind about the alleged break-in, it would be proper for him to stay until they were answered. But again, the news reports seem to say that Crowley had concluded there was no break-in, and that Gates had every right to be there, in his own home.
Should Crowley have then apologized, and then left? The apology question is irrelevant to me, although Gates certainly has a case for one. No, Crowley was wrong because he had passed the point where he had a legitimate professional reason to remain. Whether Gates was overreacting by calling the officer a racist did not give Crowley any reason to engage in an angry debate. Gates was probably getting angrier, and louder, every time Crowley answered him. At that point, it didn't matter who had the best talking (or yelling) points, the situation could only get worse.
And it did. But the arrest -- while improper in itself -- only resulted from Crowley's first mistake of not leaving when he had finished doing his job.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Every Firefighter Is A Supervisor
I think that any firefighter with a record of competence should get to be a supervisor. Why not? They've already shown the qualities needed for the job.
But wait. You say that taxpayers won't pay for everyone to be promoted? That you only need a certain number to give the orders, but that too many bosses would actually decrease public safety?
That's so obvious that it hurts to even say it. And yet, after the Supreme Court decision which restored promotions earned by white firefighters (and one Hispanic) after New Haven junked the exam because no blacks made the cut, it seems that the decision's critics want just such a system.
They may deny it, but what it will come down to is a system where no verifiable standard of merit will ever be used again. In that case, why not make everyone a supervisor? What could be more diverse than that?
At least, that's what seems to be the position of Lani Guinier and Susan Sturm in their NYTimes Op-Ed piece (7/11/09). They mention the undeniable flaws in the exam, which placed too much importance on national firefighting textbooks and study guides, and not enough on the skills that are actually needed in saving lives and property.
Of course, not being experienced firefighters themselves, they don't specify what these skills are, much less how to test for them. But the thrust of their argument exposes their real intention. They simply do not trust any system where merit can be tested and quantified as a measure of future performance. Read the article, and see if you find a substitute for using written exams in getting the promotional list. I wish they had given a single example.
I'm not defending written and multiple choice exams. You'll find a few outright groaners in any exam you look at. But the implications of their argument is clear: that no test of merit - i.e., a test where performance can be quantified and given a score without consideration of the identity of the testee - can be considered reliable. No written, oral, multiple-choice, physical task or combination thereof. And what do they cite as proof? The simple fact that no member of a particular race reached the promotional level.
But think about it when critics complain that it is the job of the government to expose the hidden bias that prevents us from achieving diversity. Will they accept any objective standard at all? Politicians certainly won't, which was why the New Haven civil service would not certify the exam before they could see the results. Think about that. The public is supposed to trust that their government consists of professionals who have the competence to lead them. Part of that competence is to select those who can provide the best service, and to make sure that those people get to provide it. I don't know what other standard for public service to use.
But wait. You say that taxpayers won't pay for everyone to be promoted? That you only need a certain number to give the orders, but that too many bosses would actually decrease public safety?
That's so obvious that it hurts to even say it. And yet, after the Supreme Court decision which restored promotions earned by white firefighters (and one Hispanic) after New Haven junked the exam because no blacks made the cut, it seems that the decision's critics want just such a system.
They may deny it, but what it will come down to is a system where no verifiable standard of merit will ever be used again. In that case, why not make everyone a supervisor? What could be more diverse than that?
At least, that's what seems to be the position of Lani Guinier and Susan Sturm in their NYTimes Op-Ed piece (7/11/09). They mention the undeniable flaws in the exam, which placed too much importance on national firefighting textbooks and study guides, and not enough on the skills that are actually needed in saving lives and property.
Of course, not being experienced firefighters themselves, they don't specify what these skills are, much less how to test for them. But the thrust of their argument exposes their real intention. They simply do not trust any system where merit can be tested and quantified as a measure of future performance. Read the article, and see if you find a substitute for using written exams in getting the promotional list. I wish they had given a single example.
I'm not defending written and multiple choice exams. You'll find a few outright groaners in any exam you look at. But the implications of their argument is clear: that no test of merit - i.e., a test where performance can be quantified and given a score without consideration of the identity of the testee - can be considered reliable. No written, oral, multiple-choice, physical task or combination thereof. And what do they cite as proof? The simple fact that no member of a particular race reached the promotional level.
But think about it when critics complain that it is the job of the government to expose the hidden bias that prevents us from achieving diversity. Will they accept any objective standard at all? Politicians certainly won't, which was why the New Haven civil service would not certify the exam before they could see the results. Think about that. The public is supposed to trust that their government consists of professionals who have the competence to lead them. Part of that competence is to select those who can provide the best service, and to make sure that those people get to provide it. I don't know what other standard for public service to use.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Scraps
The "New Car" Scam
I write this a day before GM is expected to file for bankruptcy. This is not a good thing. Our economy will suffer, and unemployment will rise. Lots of finger-pointing and moaning in the media. One likely result being talked about is whether Americans will buy new cars as often as they have. Will the "new economy" support that habit, or kill it.
I say, if it dies, good riddance. It was built on a lie anyway. Somehow, it became a necessary part of "the American Dream" for people to trade in the car they bought just two or three years ago in order to have the thrill of having a fresh one, right off the line. And of course, the used model would be sold to those "second tier" consumers who couldn't afford a new car.
What was really driving this practice? The first owner was probably getting good service out of his car. Why shell out so many bucks for a new one? How much better was it going to be?
Somehow, one of the triumphs of Madison Avenue was that it could get so many "first tier" consumers to believe that continuing to drive their two or three year old car was a diminution of their lifestyle, but get multitudes of other people to think those same cars were a big improvement on theirs.
Username
What's the deal with usernames? I can understand why it's used in social websites like Facebook, but why require it for security purposes? I'm sure we've all had to request the password when going back to a website you haven't been to for a while, but I've also been asked to give my username. That means two annoying functions when only one should be necessary. If a site knows my email address, it should just request the password.
First Couple's Big Night
Oh, what a big story! Our president and his wife came to New York for a Broadway show and dinner out. Media saturation! Look how he keeps his campaign promise to Michelle. A sweet, sweet story.
Today is Sunday. So far, I haven't heard a peep out of the other side. How long do you think that's going to last? You wanna bet tomorrow, the latest, we get a computation - to the penny! - of how much it cost the taxpayers.
You can count on it.
I write this a day before GM is expected to file for bankruptcy. This is not a good thing. Our economy will suffer, and unemployment will rise. Lots of finger-pointing and moaning in the media. One likely result being talked about is whether Americans will buy new cars as often as they have. Will the "new economy" support that habit, or kill it.
I say, if it dies, good riddance. It was built on a lie anyway. Somehow, it became a necessary part of "the American Dream" for people to trade in the car they bought just two or three years ago in order to have the thrill of having a fresh one, right off the line. And of course, the used model would be sold to those "second tier" consumers who couldn't afford a new car.
What was really driving this practice? The first owner was probably getting good service out of his car. Why shell out so many bucks for a new one? How much better was it going to be?
Somehow, one of the triumphs of Madison Avenue was that it could get so many "first tier" consumers to believe that continuing to drive their two or three year old car was a diminution of their lifestyle, but get multitudes of other people to think those same cars were a big improvement on theirs.
Username
What's the deal with usernames? I can understand why it's used in social websites like Facebook, but why require it for security purposes? I'm sure we've all had to request the password when going back to a website you haven't been to for a while, but I've also been asked to give my username. That means two annoying functions when only one should be necessary. If a site knows my email address, it should just request the password.
First Couple's Big Night
Oh, what a big story! Our president and his wife came to New York for a Broadway show and dinner out. Media saturation! Look how he keeps his campaign promise to Michelle. A sweet, sweet story.
Today is Sunday. So far, I haven't heard a peep out of the other side. How long do you think that's going to last? You wanna bet tomorrow, the latest, we get a computation - to the penny! - of how much it cost the taxpayers.
You can count on it.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Deadbeat Surcharge
Surcharge? Of what, you ask. I'll explain later, but first I want to introduce my friend, Mike Sucker. He told me this story and asked what I thought. I've asked him to tell it to you too.
"Hi, my name is Mike Sucker, but my friends call me Suck. About once a month, I like to treat myself to a nice, dry martini. I like a well-appointed bar for this, kinda place with no TV, relaxing music and sleek women to look at. My favorite has a friendly bartender named Stanton."
"So I get my usual the other day and, ahhh, it satisfies. Stanton knows, and he smiles in appreciation. Everything's hunky until I get the bill, and I see an extra two dollars for my libation. I ask Stanton if it's a mistake."
'No, Suck. It's just we've got a surcharge now.'
'Surcharge?'
'You see that guy over at the end of the bar?'
'Him?' I point to a man in a dark suit.
'No, behind him. Guy with the earring.'
'Yeah. What about him?'
'He can't pay today. Means we've got to surcharge the regulars.'
'Me? But I'm always good up front. I never leave with an open tab.
'Exactly. Who better to bleed?'
I register dismay. Stanton shrugs.
'Hey, c'mon, Suck. Our relationship should be worth something, right?'
So I pay up, we fist bump and I leave."
I hope you found Suck's tale as edifying as I did. We've known each other a long time, and he unburdened his dilemma to me. Did I think what Stanton did was right? It didn't seem fair somehow. But he really likes going to that bar. He wanted to know how to express his doubts about the new policy without offending Stanton.
I gave Suck my answer slowly, in measured cadence but in language I need not repeat here. In effect, I told him that I would never go back to that bar again.
What a coincidence, then, that the very next day, I read an article in the N.Y. Times (5/19/09) about how credit card companies intend to deal with the new regulatory environment in the industry. In fact, the new rules became law later this week. An industry spokesman quoted in the article said that it will be a different business in that those who manage their credit well will subsidize those with credit problems. Another commentator, a publisher this time, is quoted as saying that the dependable payment customers - and we know who we are - have been enjoying a "free ride" because we don't pay annual fees and we collect points for new purchases. He said that I - and the others like me - make out "like a bandit."
The article went on to explain that the "deadbeats" in the industry are not the ones whose debts keep piling up every month but, instead, are you and I, and the other 50 million creditworthy cardholders, who don't generate fee revenues because we - for shame! - pay on time.
It seems that "deadbeats" like us will now be surcharged for this. This might take the form of higher base interest rates, shorter grace periods and other "hidden" fees.
They'd better hide them well. I intend from now on to scrutinize my credit bills like they're Nancy Pelosi's subcommittee notes. And if I find a surcharge that is meant to offset the loss of revenue resulting from new government protection for the credit "unworthy" - yes, those whom we used to call "deadbeats" - then I'll find a company without those fees, and if I can't, then I'll pay in cash. I did that last week in a restaurant for the first time in years, and I survived.
And then, I'll take Mike Sucker out for a martini at a nice tavern I know, where they only charge you for your own drinks but still know how to make a decent profit in America.
"Hi, my name is Mike Sucker, but my friends call me Suck. About once a month, I like to treat myself to a nice, dry martini. I like a well-appointed bar for this, kinda place with no TV, relaxing music and sleek women to look at. My favorite has a friendly bartender named Stanton."
"So I get my usual the other day and, ahhh, it satisfies. Stanton knows, and he smiles in appreciation. Everything's hunky until I get the bill, and I see an extra two dollars for my libation. I ask Stanton if it's a mistake."
'No, Suck. It's just we've got a surcharge now.'
'Surcharge?'
'You see that guy over at the end of the bar?'
'Him?' I point to a man in a dark suit.
'No, behind him. Guy with the earring.'
'Yeah. What about him?'
'He can't pay today. Means we've got to surcharge the regulars.'
'Me? But I'm always good up front. I never leave with an open tab.
'Exactly. Who better to bleed?'
I register dismay. Stanton shrugs.
'Hey, c'mon, Suck. Our relationship should be worth something, right?'
So I pay up, we fist bump and I leave."
I hope you found Suck's tale as edifying as I did. We've known each other a long time, and he unburdened his dilemma to me. Did I think what Stanton did was right? It didn't seem fair somehow. But he really likes going to that bar. He wanted to know how to express his doubts about the new policy without offending Stanton.
I gave Suck my answer slowly, in measured cadence but in language I need not repeat here. In effect, I told him that I would never go back to that bar again.
What a coincidence, then, that the very next day, I read an article in the N.Y. Times (5/19/09) about how credit card companies intend to deal with the new regulatory environment in the industry. In fact, the new rules became law later this week. An industry spokesman quoted in the article said that it will be a different business in that those who manage their credit well will subsidize those with credit problems. Another commentator, a publisher this time, is quoted as saying that the dependable payment customers - and we know who we are - have been enjoying a "free ride" because we don't pay annual fees and we collect points for new purchases. He said that I - and the others like me - make out "like a bandit."
The article went on to explain that the "deadbeats" in the industry are not the ones whose debts keep piling up every month but, instead, are you and I, and the other 50 million creditworthy cardholders, who don't generate fee revenues because we - for shame! - pay on time.
It seems that "deadbeats" like us will now be surcharged for this. This might take the form of higher base interest rates, shorter grace periods and other "hidden" fees.
They'd better hide them well. I intend from now on to scrutinize my credit bills like they're Nancy Pelosi's subcommittee notes. And if I find a surcharge that is meant to offset the loss of revenue resulting from new government protection for the credit "unworthy" - yes, those whom we used to call "deadbeats" - then I'll find a company without those fees, and if I can't, then I'll pay in cash. I did that last week in a restaurant for the first time in years, and I survived.
And then, I'll take Mike Sucker out for a martini at a nice tavern I know, where they only charge you for your own drinks but still know how to make a decent profit in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)