Incorrect e-mail address
List Administrator/Futurework: We've been receiving e-mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED] since our company has gone live with an Internet gateway. I suspect Ken H's CCMD.ORG is a Canadian-based organization and may need a "CA" extension on it. But whatever the solution, his e-mail is coming to us and needs to be adjusted. I'd appreciate you're looking into this. Much thanks, Steve Conrad, Data Processing, City Center of Music and Drama, Inc. (New York City) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
> Eva asked, > > >Shouldn't we try whatever we can? > > Eva, > > Have you ever laid down on the tracks to stop a moving train? If you had, > you wouldn't be telling people it's so easy. Sure, if everyone laid on the > tracks together, the train would have to stop. But those who lie down first > are alone -- totally alone and totally vulnerable. The pronoun "we" is a > plagiarism of courage. > > Who said it was easy? Eva > Regards, > > Tom Walker > ^^^ > #408 1035 Pacific St. > Vancouver, B.C. > V6E 4G7 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (604) 669-3286 > ^^^ > The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sustainablity Plan B
Tom, May I post excerpts of this wonderful post to the NEA site for the NYTimes? I will list your name or not. It's up to you. Or I will not post it if you wish. But I would find it very useful in channeling that discussion away from the nonsense posed by the radical conservatives. They call themselves Libertarians down here and they are grabbing 50% of the media commentary on the "blow job" even though their platform is 100% in support of total privacy which speaks tons for their integrity. As a party they have dropped behind the greens but they control some of the biggest names in the news media. Their platform is at http://www.lp.org/lp-docs.html and I would highly recommend that the list read it. That platform has more than a little to do with the future of work in the American world anyway. As Ronald Reagan pointed out, he who controls the media, will ultimately control the population. Clothed in the cliches of their platform are some very un-democratic notions. Also there has been little said about the educational/cultural/religious background of the prosecutor Ken Starr. What I do not understand is how members of other religious groups whose sexual practices do not conform to the hyper-fundamentalist views of the Special Prosecutor's camp do not realize how dangerous that mentality is for the survival of their groups.The President, VP, Senate Majority Leader, and the Speaker of the House are all fundamentalists. If they will treat their own in the fashion they are treating the President, as a result of an alleged indiscretion, how will look upon the sexual proclivities of people that the U.S. is sending a billion dollars in foriegn aid to? And once it is looked at in that light. What are the possibilities of schism in the U.S. itself. It scares me to death. regards REH Tom Walker wrote: > Jay Hanson wrote, > > >Robert L. Hickerson wrote an interesting piece about M. King Hubbert. > > Thanks to Jay for bringing up Robert Hickerson's essay on King Hubbert. In > connection with my own cause celebre, the reduction of work time, I would be > remiss if I failed to point out Hickerson's penultimate paragraph, before > his personal conclusions and recommendations: > > "Hubbert goes on to state that following a transition, the work required of > each individual, need be no longer than about 4 hours per day, 164 days per > year, from the ages of 25 to 45. Income will continue until death. > 'Insecurity of old age is abolished and both saving and insurance become > unnecessary and impossible.'" > > It's also worth noting that Hubbert's analysis comes from his 1936 article > "Man Hours -- A Declining Quantity". For those who are familiar with > Hubbert's prescient estimates of oil extraction peaks -- obviously a major > influence on Jay -- it's interesting to find a very similar analysis applied > in the 1936 article on hours as work. > > In 1948, Hubbert made his first public prediction that U.S. domestic oil > production would peak in the late 1960s/early 1970s. But, as quoted by > Robert Clark in 1983 interview, "I first worked this out in the middle 1930s > but the first time I really wrote it down was for the AAAS convention in 1948." > > That "middle 1930s" sounds remarkably close to the 1936 publication date of > the Man Hours article. I suspect that what Hubbert did was apply the same > concept to two facets of the economy -- hours of work and energy supply. I > don't want to take anything away from Hubbert's scientific achievements, but > it is my contention that Hubbert essentially confirmed ancient traditional > wisdom about the perniciousness of compound interest. > > Hubbert's arc of petroleum depletion is, after all, constructed to > illustrate the interaction of two principles: the boundless exponential > growth of compound interest and the finite quantity of extractable resources. > > But, as Hickerson notes in one of his personal conclusions: "Increasingly > desperate means will be used by those who think we can continue to have > business as usual." > > An odd thought occurred to me about the 1970 peak of U.S. domestic > production. The oil crisis didn't register on the political map and prices > of oil didn't go up relatively until the OPEC embargo in October 1973, a > full three years after the peak. Meanwhile what emerged as a major political > scandal was a "third rate burglary" at the Watergate. Once again, as we > approach an even more auspicious global peak, the energy crisis is not on > the political map. This time, the headline issue is a blow job. Talk about > Nero fiddling while Rome burned. > > I hear they just named the CIA headquarters after George Bush. > > Regards, > > Tom Walker > ^^^ > #408 1035 Pacific St. > Vancouver, B.C. > V6E 4G7 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (604) 669-3286 > ^^^ > The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
FW Some interesting ideas from a Labour-L post (fwd)
Date:Wed, 5 Aug 1998 17:43:04 -0400 From:Paul Riesz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: EMPLOYERS vs. UNIONS: are their interests irreconcilable? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In a recent discussion via Internet a partisan of laissez faire economics has asserted, that unions have outlived their usefulness; that employment should only depend on the market and that neither the unions, nor the government should interfere in the relations between capital and labor. His conclusions are unacceptable, since workers should not be considered as just another industrial input, but as human beings, who depend on their jobs for their very existence. As to unions, they are necessary as a countervailing force, which defends the interests of workers against the superior economic and negotiating power of employers. Nevertheless, some of his observations about union activities seem to be quite justified. E.g. He refers to the need to rationalize some industrial activities in order to remain competitive in the world market and points out, that otherwise companies would be forced to relocate in some other country; an alternative that would be even more harmful to workers than some proposed measures of rationalization. Even if friends of labor hate to hear such remarks, they are logical in a globalizing economy. On the other hand it is the main mission of unions to protect their members' jobs and since most plans of rationalization imply loss of jobs, they are almost always fighting such programs. It seems to be necessary to find a way out of this situation, which is harmful for BOTH SIDES; here are some ideas for possible solutions: Employers who need to rationalize their operations, should be made to feel responsible for what happens to their displaced workers, mainly through finding them other occupations. This could be done through training them for available other jobs within existing operations (e.g. in communications, computing or other services) or through starting new activities, where such workers could be employed. After all, it is the advantage of market-based economies to find and satisfy demands that have not yet been met. Unions on the other hand should recognize the following: 1. that employers have to be competitive, if they want to stay in business and need to show profits for their shareholders. 2. That only a profitable company can pay good wages. Therefore they should not oppose measures destined to make a company more profitable, but should demand that the company accepts the responsibility of maintaining the livelihood of their workers. Under such conditions, unions would become more vital for the interests of workers and almost certainly increase the numbers of their members. Here are is one concrete example: In the posting mentioned above, it was criticized that unions demand maintaining the job of oilers in railways, where their services are no longer needed. This seems logical to most people and the wrong way of defending workers rights. What ought to be done is to convince the railway, to promote some industrial activities, where such oilers would find a SAFE & PRODUCTIVE employment. To facilitate such programs, railways might use their extensive holdings in real estate as their share in such joint ventures. As to the workers accumulated social benefits and/or seniority rights, adequate compensation could be negotiated between the parties. Finally governments might also intervene in such programs, mainly through granting tax exemptions for any new investments necessary. This would be entirely justifiable, since otherwise displaced workers would have access to social safety nets, with possibly much greater costs to the public treasury. Unions should help to gather votes for approving any pertinent legislation. Santiago, August 5th, 1998P. Riesz
FW Labour news website
Get Updated Labour News >From Alberta: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5202/alberta.html Leave a message about Labour issues in your area on our message board And Across Canada: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5202/canada.html Leave a message about Labour issues in your area on our message board A Labour Start / LabourNet Linked site
FW Strike watch website (fwd)
Find out about the latest strikes in Alberta And Across Canada at: The Alberta Strike Solidarity Page: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5202/cargill.html
FW The situation at Maple Leaf (fwd)
Wednesday 5 August 1998 1 in 4 Maple Leaf workers took money and ran Craig Sumi The Spectator Hamilton/Burlington Roughly one in four employees at Maple Leaf Foods has left the company since the 15-week strike last winter. Maple Leaf executive vice-president Pat Jones said more than 100 of the 900 employees took the $10,000 signing bonus after the strike was settled in March and did not return to work. Since then, another 100 or so have left the hog-processing plant, presumably for other jobs. "We said all along that they could take their buyout and not stay and many people decided to do that," Jones said in an interview. He added, however, that despite the bitter strike, plant morale has been good. During negotiations, the company had threatened to close the plant down if the unionized workers did not agree to wage concessions of up to 40 per cent. Just over half the members agreed to the pact, most doing so because they felt a wage-reduced job was better than no job at all. "One should expect a certain amount of residual feelings around this, but overall, morale has been OK," Jones said. "I think the issues in the plant now deal more with getting new people trained and up to speed." With the high rate of turnover, the company has been in an aggressive hiring mode. The plant has been adding 20 to 40 new workers every week this summer and Jones said the company is looking to hire another 60 people immediately. Even more jobs are on the horizon, as Maple Leaf moves forward with plans to expand the plant and add a second shift, as promised during negotiations. Jones said 600 new jobs will be created once the plant is expanded and new hog chilling and storage units are installed. Engineers contracted by the company are currently studying how to expand and upgrade the Burlington plant without closing down the production line. Officials hope to have the project plans finalized this fall with construction starting some time next year. It's expected construction will take up to nine months. "When it happens is still to be determined, but we remain committed," Jones added. While Maple Leaf lost some of its business during the strike, Jones said the company has worked hard to recapture its market share. He said consumers have never turned off the Maple Leaf product, but during the strike, some of the vendors were concerned that the company could not guarantee supply. "We are back now to pre-dispute service levels and regaining our market share," he said.
Hubbert's Plan B
From: Tom Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Hubbert goes on to state that following a transition, the work required of each individual, need be no longer than about 4 hours per day, 164 days per year, from the ages of 25 to 45. Income will continue until death. 'Insecurity of old age is abolished and both saving and insurance become unnecessary and impossible.'" Hubbert was a genus. His proposal for a new society seems to solve most of the problems -- including the "work", "redistribution", "social security", and "sustainability" problems. Hubbert's blueprint should be discussed among every group looking for a sustainable, just future. It's the only realistic proposal I have seen. Jay
Re: Sustainablity Plan B (and -- perhaps -- meta-plan C)
>Always finding ways to do more with less. If I have >one gallon of gasoline and I figure out a way to >double the gas mileage of my car, all other things equal, >I have doubled my energy reserves. This is true, but "all other things" are never equal -- people are consuming all they can, and more-than-reproducing themselves. Nevertheless, you still haven't solved the fundamental problem. Even though you have "doubled" you energy reserves, you are still going to run out.* The net effect of evading responsibility is to dump the responsibility onto the children -- and make the ultimate body count that much higher. This is a really excellent example of innate deception and self-deception at work. If we stopped lying to ourselves, we could no longer live as we do -- neither one of us. Jay --- * Brad's argument was used by Julian Simon and is known as Zeno's Paradox.
