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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)