|
-/- 1/24/2004
The New York Times recently reported that an internal audit at Wal-Mart warned its top executives three years ago that employee records at 128 stores pointed to extensive labor-law violations.
The audit looked at the timecard records of 25,000
employees. It found: 1,371 instances in which minors
worked too late at night, worked during school hours or
worked too many hours in a day; 60,767 instances in
which workers did not take rest breaks, and 15,705
instances suggesting that employees had worked through
their mealtimes.
Wal-Mart says this data is meaningless, because the
most likely explanation is that the employees in
question just forgot to punch out when they took their
breaks.
As someone who has worked in a sales associate position
at a large corporate store (though not Wal-Mart), I can
speak to the absurdity of this defense.
I did on occasion forget to punch out when I took my
lunch break or punch back in when I came back. I'm sure
this does happen at Wal-Mart.
However, I'm sure what does not happen is that this
mistake goes undetected. Every time I made the error,
my supervisor asked me about it, either the next day or
at some point before the end of the pay
period. Supervisors are generally given a sort of
budget of hours to work with. When they go to balance
this budget and see that the time clock computer is
reporting more hours than what they were expecting to
spend, they investigate. This is if they don't find the
mistake in the daily review they do of people's time
cards to make sure that they were in on time and worked
the number of hours that they were supposed to work
that day.
I'm even more certain that this wouldn't go undetected
at Wal-Mart, a store with a reputation for being
extremely vigilant with regard to its costs. The idea
that Wal-Mart would be paying its employees for time
when they are not working (like when they forget to
punch out for their lunch break) is patently
ridiculous.
Then there is the fact that the audit is not the only
evidence of these violations. There have actually been
complaints from employees who say they are forced to
work through what should be their mealtimes. In the
context of complaints, you certainly have to take the
numbers more seriously.
This is yet more evidence that there is no free
lunch. Consumers are bargain hungry; but more and more
I am beginning to think that bargain-hunting is a cruel
practice. If a product is cheap, it is almost always
because someone, somewhere along the line, is getting
screwed. This sets up some difficult decisions for the
poor.
I live on a very modest income. Others live on much
less. It is difficult to preach to people that they
should not stretch their hard-earned dollars to the max
by shopping at places like Wal-Mart. But we have to
realize that the people being screwed in order to make
those prices plummet are the very same lower-income
people trying to stretch their buck.
This is not a question of the wealthy,
Whole-Foods-shopping elite demanding that the poor pay
more for life's necessities. This is a question of the
proletariat looking out for ourselves. Don't shop at
Wal-Mart. How many more reasons do you need?
Here in Boston, the MBTA has decided to crack down on, of
all things, musicians who play inside the subway stations.
They have banned all amplification and electrified
instruments. Musicians who fall outside of these categories
will still be able to play, provided they pay $25 for a
permit (that lasts 3 months), adhere to a dress code, wear a
photo ID and stop performing by 11 p.m.
The change came out of the blue. There was no front-page
controversy that sparked the change, nor did they consult
with any artists' organizations or community groups before
declaring the rules.
The MBTA does have reasons for the change. But these reasons
make better punch lines than they do arguments.
First, the MBTA says that it is an issue of safety, because
people need to be able to hear announcements over the
intercom. Anyone who actually rides the T on a regular basis
will realize the absurdity of this. The intercom system is a
fantastic joke. Think the teacher in the Charlie Brown
cartoons. Wah, wah, wah. Even when the volume of the
intercom is high enough to be heard over the sound of the
trains and crowds, which it usually is not, the static
accompanying the voice often makes it incomprehensible.
And is the MBTA going to ban people from wearing headphones?
Lots of people do on the subway. I bet they can't hear the
announcements. Perhaps there will be a general regulation on
how loudly you can speak as well.
The idea that in the event of an emergency, the musician
will obstruct communication, is laughable. Don't you think
the musician would STOP PLAYING if there were, for example,
a fire in the station?
Second, the MBTA says that they have gotten complaints. I'm
sure they have. I'm sure they get lots of complaints. The
question is, do these complaints amount to anything more
than, "I don't like that music"? If public opinion were
really the reason, the MBTA would have had an open comment
period before the regulation was passed, so that all the
people who actually like the presence of the musicians would
have had a chance to speak up. People wait in the station
generally for a maximum of 15 minutes, usually only about
5-10, anyway. Deal.
There are several reasons that this regulation is
unnecessary and hurtful. Here's a couple:
First, music is just not that common in the subway stations,
and loud music is even less common. Why the MBTA is choosing
this issue to waste enforcement dollars on---while they are
simultaneously planning a fare hike---is beyond me. How
about doing something about people getting shot in the
subway stations (not by musicians!), which is something that
_has_ happened in the last year.
Second, the regulation is classist and amounts to a
regressive tax. It is a way to chase people without money,
who tend to scare people who do have money, out of the
subway. Why, exactly, do musicians have to wear photo IDs?
Why does the musician pose any more threat to my safety than
the person reading the newspaper next to me on the bench?
Why don't we all have to wear photo IDs? And a DRESS CODE?
You've got to be kidding. It's not as if the musicians are
performing in the nude. Why don't we all have to meet a
dress code? Obviously these regulations target a certain
group based on stereotypes about that group, and as such,
they are inappropriate policies.
The MBTA has not released any statistics linking musicians
to crime or harassment in the subway. I would think they
would have some evidence to support the need to keep closer
tabs on musicians, evidence other than the stereotype that,
hey, these people look like they might be homeless.
The new MBTA rules are just another example of an effort to
drive the "unsightly" underclass out of the public eye. Out
of sight, out of mind. You can't ban people. If they are not
in the subway station, they will be on the sidewalk.
Whether or not you live in Boston, it would be helpful to
let the MBTA know about your views on this matter. I have
forwarded a copy of this posting to them, to let them know
mine.
The MBTA can be reached at:
http://www.mbta.com/contact_us/index.asp
-/-
It is quite amazing that my little blog here seems to be
exceeding its monthly traffic allotment. Particularly since
it seems that my primary audience is a bunch of
searchbots. However, as of yet, there seems to be no
consequence for exceeding one's traffic limits other than a
message that recommends an upgrade.
-/-
Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to see Doctor
Zhivago in a theater. Despite my curiosity about Russian and
Soviet history, I had never seen it before. Actually, I did
not even know that it was about Russia. My strongest
association with the film was with Christian Slater's
character's use of it as a metaphor for a cocaine deal in
True Romance.
A couple of things struck me while I was watching the movie
in a near-empty theater, sitting just in front of an older
couple who had moved to the back of the theater because it
was too loud in the front.
First, I retain almost nothing that I read. I had a course
in Russian history as an undergraduate (which wasn't that
long ago). I have an interest in Marxist philosophy
(somewhere someone has just created a black file folder with
my name on it) so I have read some additional Russian
history while exploring that interest. Yet I remember
nothing. There was the White Guard, the Red Guard, the
Bolsheviks, etc. But I couldn't tell you anything about any
of them.
Second, there seems to be an instinctive human urge to
destroy other people's art. This urge was manifested in the
Cultural Revolution in China, the various revolutions in
Russia, the takeover by the Taliban in Afghanistan, etc. It
is manifested in the United States whenever some talking
head in the government goes after the National Endowment for
the Arts for funding some controversial project.
Yet, critics often say that art has little potential to
motivate political change. I wonder how this can be the case
when it seems that one of the first priorities for any new
dictatorship is to crack down on oppositional art and
regulate expression in general. Such crackdowns could be
motivated by a desire to demonstrate power for its own sake,
but I think that the number of historical cases demonstrate
that there is something deeper going on.
The life stories of Russian writers like Boris Pasternak (he
wrote the novel on which the film Doctor Zhivago was based)
are darkly fascinating. They faced persecution but still
insisted on writing. I often wonder whether I am as
committed to my own writing, or whether it is just a
hobby. The life stories of writers like Pasternak make me
realize that it is in fact possible for writers to feel
driven in such a way that they risk their lives in order to
write. It is something to strive for, or at least to keep in
mind.
For some contemporary writing that is pushing some political
boundaries, check out: http://www.muse-apprentice-guild.com.
http://www.muse-apprentice-guild.com/
It looks like my favorite television show, Boomtown, is
going to be canceled by NBC. Since I only watch 2-3 shows a
week, this is annoying. To my surprise, when I tuned in
tonight to watch Boomtown, I was instead confronted with a
rerun of Law & Order SVU, a show I can't stand (despite
being a fan of the other Law and Order shows).
Below is a slightly edited copy of the e-mail I shot off to
NBC. If you like the show as well, try visiting this link:
http://www.saveboomtown.com/
There is a petition to sign. They recommend doing numerous
other things at that site to express your opinion that I
find a little obsessive, but different strokes for different
folks. It is, after all, just a television show. But dammit,
it's actually a good one.
To: boomtown@nbc.com
Subject: Cancelation is a big mistake
Reply-To: johnsu01@yahoo.com
Gcc: nnfolder+archive:posted_messages
--text follows this line--
Just finished not watching a rerun of SVU.
I watch very little television. Three hours or less a
week. Boomtown has occupied one of those hours every time it
has been on for the last year. True, I grew somewhat
disappointed as I noticed the toning-down of the
multiple-perspective approach in the first two episodes of
this season. Even in its more linear form, though, I still
enjoyed the show -- the acting was fantastic and the story
lines strong.
I hope you decide to bring it back. Also, I would expect
more professionalism from NBC no matter what the final
decision about the show is. To play clips from the upcoming
episode and then decide less than a week before to cancel it
is bush league and demonstrates a lack of both confidence
and competence. To replace the show with a rerun of a
mediocre spin-off is almost insulting. Some of us do not
just come home and drop on the couch and watch whatever is
on, but instead plan for particular shows.
Keeping quality programming like Boomtown around might just
encourage those who have tuned out television to tune back
in -- and to tune back in to NBC. I always bring up Boomtown
in conversations about television, and I find that most of
the people I talk to just don't know about it. If you allow
it to be unique, and put some effort into advertising and
promoting it, I think it will succeed, perhaps even in the
miserable time slot you have assigned it.
Some drive-by news from the recent past relevant to this
blog:
* My car is still safely in its parking space, unmolested by
tow truck or green sticker. If only the pigeons would be so
kind.
* Rumsfeld said explicitly that there was never any evidence
that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the September
11th attacks. A poll, however, showed that 75% of Americans
believe that Hussein was involved. But is this disavowal by
Rumsfeld a trick? Because Bush later explained that while
there was no direct connection to September 11th, there was
a connect to Al-Qaeda--the evidence for this, however, is
just as nonexistent. It had something to do with one
individual AQ member being in an Iraqi hospital once, a long
time ago, with Colonel Mustard and a lead pipe. Is this a
case of conceding one ridiculous position to make a second
ridiculous position just a bit more credible?
* There is discussion about extending the hour to which bars
in Boston can stay open, in order to accommodate the
late-running events of the National Democrat
Convention. Well, being a Boston resident and an avid bar
patron, I hope they do stay open later. But I'm at a loss
for a) how this came up in connection with the Convention
and b) how this became important enough to put on the
news. Perhaps that two minutes should have been spent
talking about one of the 200 Democrat presidential
candidates instead.
* MoveOn has begun a campaign to get Rumsfeld out. Sounds
good to me. Use this link to send a supportive letter:
http://www.moveon.org/firerumsfeld/
A few comments on President Bush's speech tonight.
The Bush administration continues to use the
blunt instrument of repetition to attempt to convince the
American public that the fighting in Iraq falls under the
rubric of the War on Terror.
The evidence that Iraq ever had anything to do with any
terrorist attacks anywhere has been laughable. Can you
remember any of it? It is easier to remember the fact that
Osama bin Laden called Saddam Hussein an infidel. It is
easier to remember that Hussein's political party was
secular.
Not that Iraq has never been involved in interstate
violence. They have certainly fought wars. If you believe
the Bush administration, they were planning to use
devastating weapons against the United States.
This would have been an act of war by another state, not an
act of terrorism. The snafu pulled by the administration is
to convince us that this is all part of a broader cause --
the war against an amorphous evil known as terrorism.
Things going on in Iraq now could be called terrorism, like
the recent bombing of a mosque. However, these terrorists
did not exist until we made them. We have defeated the
organized forces of resistance, the army and regime, so now
it has become disorganized and like a terrorist group. What
did you expect? But this was an after-the-fact consequence,
not a part of the justification for the original military
action. The fighting in Iraq has nothing to do with the War
on Terrorism.
This is more than a quibble about words and
definitions. These particular words and definitions have
political impact. If we consider something terrorism, it is
automatically evil. Terrorism can never be good, by
definition. It is therefore very difficult to mount a
rational and effective opposition to anything that is
successfully portrayed as a way to fight terrorism.
It also makes the threat feel very personal and direct,
since terrorism, also by definition, targets civilians. If
President Bush can offer a plan to protect us from this
fear, it makes him very appealing.
More importantly, the War on Terrorism can never be
won. More importantly, we will never be allowed to think
that it has been won. The targets of this war live in the
murky cloak-and-dagger world of our intelligence
services. We have to trust the government to tell us when
and where a threat exists. We can never be right about the
existence or nonexistence of a threat because we do not have
access to their special information.
Such blind trust enables the government to pursue any agenda
at will, as long as they can cloak it in the War on
Terrorism. If we don't question whether an action is really
part of the War on Terrorism, we will continually be led
into conflicts around the globe that actually may be
motivated by far different interests.
Don't you remember saying President Bush saying something
about Weapons of Mass Destruction a few months ago? There
was virtually no mention of them in the speech tonight. The
only mention of them was a statement that Iraq had possessed
and used such weapons in the past. This is true. They used
them in their war with Iran. Perhaps, in fact, they used
them all up. Where are they now? Still no answer.
We can't just pull out of Iraq, given the state we have put
it in. I do hope that the international community gets more
involved. The important thing for me is to believe that we
really are there for humanitarian reasons, to prevent
suffering and loss of life. The more countries involved, the
less any of them can pursue any other particular
agenda. However, we should treat this military action as its
own case, not as part of a larger war. Otherwise, we will
end up supporting not only this single humanitarian action,
but countless more actions in the future.
I live in Massachusetts, in Boston. Boston is not a nice place to own a car. Everyone knows this, right? I thought I knew it, but I brought my car with me when I moved from Colorado anyway.
I didn't drive it much, so I wasn't worried about the traffic or the standard-yet-hazardous driving practices of your typical Bostonian. I knew the insurance would be expensive, particularly in my zip code, where stealing cars is a relatively common pastime.
I love public transportation. Having grown up under the hood of the Motor City, it's still a novelty to me. I actually enjoy riding the train to and from work every day. I even sort of like buses. I consider myself to be an environmentally conscious person, meaning that I try to keep my "footprint" small. Of course, in the United States, what seems small is still Bigfootesque--but I try. Using public transportation is a part of this effort. Fixing and maintaining possessions rather than throwing them out and replacing them is another.
So I have had my car for ten years. We've been in some accidents. It's a little dinged up, but not anywhere near laughter-inducing. People stil ride with me in it, quite willingly. It's still under 100k on the odometer.
As disagreeable as I am about our indidualized approach to transportation, having a car provides some feeling of security. I only regularly drive once a week to the grocery store--but if I needed to get away fast at any other time, I could. The car has sentimental value, since I've had it since my 16th birthday (thanks Grandma!) and have driven it all over the country. And for moving things around, like furniture and luggage, it's pretty unbeatable.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, however, is not car-friendly:
* Getting my driver's license cost me $90. I already had a Colorado license--that was just to transfer it.
* Excise tax. What is it? I don't know. But I paid it.
* Insurance more than doubled from Colorado rates.
* Safety and emissions inspections. Every year, one has to have one's vehicle inspected for various safety issues. Like whether there are any sharp corners on your car (like around a dent) that could injure a passing pedestrian. No, I'm not kidding.
* If a neighbor calls City Hall and identifies your car as an abandoned vehicle, the city will come and put a green sticker on your windshield that says ABANDONED. Then they will come back and tow your car. Sometimes they just dispense with that whole sticker part.
Just this morning, I had to negotiate with a tow truck driver, and convince him that my car is not an abandoned vehicle. Someone in my neighborhood hates my car. Is it abandoned because I only drive it once a week, and I park on the street (this is where we park in Boston)? Apparently yes, according to Boston rules.
In a way, I support all of these crazy regulations. We shouldn't be owning or driving cars like we do. And I confess that I haven't read the actual codes and statutes--these are just impressions from a rat in the maze.
Maybe I'm just a loser with an old car. But it's no rustbucket. And this policy of acting on any old "abandonment tip" is outrageous. Next time you need a little revenge on someone, I've got this number you can call--Boston City Hall.
This is why we need to be vigilant with regard to "short-term" extensions of militarized state power. These extensions seem to make so much sense at the time, after something really scary just happened and we are worried that something really scary might happen again and we have to do something about it yesterday.
Remember when the government started temporarily holding
people who were suspected of connection to terrorist
networks at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. military base? Remember
that they were holding them without charges until the
government could figure out the appropriate plan of action?
It seems they have decided on a decidedly inappropriate
appropriate plan of action. The temporary arrangement is
beginning to look very permanent.
Frank Griffiths repored for the Associated Press on August
25, 2003 that the military is building another camp at
Guantanamo Bay. The facilities have transitioned from
temporary chain-link holding cells to walled rooms with
flushing toilets and your typical permanent prison features.
Typical permanent prison features, that is, except for
access to a lawyer, a right to appeal, and knowledge of what
the charges are.
Perhaps the system should not work the same way the rest of
our justice system works, because these people are being
held in connection with what is being called a war.
In that case, perhaps they should be considered, logically,
prisoners of war. But they're not. They are being subjected
to marathon interrogations, denied the ability to
communicate with the outside world, and treated in numerous
other ways that violate the relevant international
conventions.
One big one: the tribunals in question have the power to
impose the death penalty. Are we really going to start
summary execution of enemy combatants? If we go down that
road, we will almost certainly be witness to atrocities
inflicted on U.S. American prisoners of war.
Whatever you think of international agreements and treaties,
the ones that prevent people from beating information out of
our volunteer soldiers are probably good ones to keep
around.
Keep an eye on this situation. Contemplate the fact that
people are being held indefinitely, without explanation,
without access to anyone who can help explain their
situation, without access to any way to communicate their
situation to people outside, with the threat of the death
penalty hanging over their heads.
It is easy to think of these people as convicted criminals
or future airplane-crashers. It is nice to think that we
have caught the bad guys and are keeping them under
control.
But there are reasons we have legal protections -- to
prevent ideologically motivated abuse of the system of
legitimate violence, and to admit that sometimes our
suspicions and accusations are wrong. Think about what the
future might look like if we allow this to go on.
At least they have flushing toilets. This is a new thing?!
I am no expert on the Irish Potato Famine. I couldn't tell
you when it happened. I did minor in history, but not Irish
history. I am sure that somewhere, given the current
literary hipster trend toward hyper-specific histories of
things usually taken for granted like salt, tobacco and
swords; and the fact that the Irish Potato Famine was
calamitous, not trivial, there is a degree program in Irish
Potato Famine Studies I could enroll in. But I'm just not
that interested, usually.
Today I'm interested because of your friend and mine,
SOBIG_F. This worm and its predecessors were able to spread
so quickly largely because everyone uses the same operating
system. I mean everyone in the sense you meant it in high
school when describing who was going to be at some party.
A worm just doesn't have to be that smart to exploit the
same security problem over and over. When the response of
its prey is entirely predictable, its job is quite easy.
Most of what I don't know about the Irish Potato Famine came
from the reading I have done about the importance of
biodiversity. All the potatoes got wiped out because they
were all the same kind of potato vulnerable to the same kind
of disease. Even the Family Potatohead can understand the
parallel here.
Fortunately, a solution is readily available: Use a
different operating system. I use GNU/Linux and am entirely
happy with it, for what that's worth. I will explain its
many advantages and admit some disadvantages some other time
-- the point here is that we appear to have yet another case
in our society when diversity is a good, even necessary
thing.
SOBIG_F only directly affected MS Windows machines. Because
there are so many MS Windows machines on the Internet, it
was able to do serious economic damage and cause massive
Carrot-Top-like annoyance to even those of us who do not use
MS Windows. If we had had greater operating system
diversity, we could have avoided the e-mail "famine."
I still haven't seen this "wicked screensaver" either.
As L. Paul Bremser, the latest viceroy for our new colony,
remarked, "We dominate the scene and we will continue to
impose our will on this country."
Although Mr. Bremser's name came up in an informal poll that
asked Iraqi citizens if they knew who their president was
(some also said President Bush), Ibrahim al-Jaafari is the
person holding the official title at the moment. The
presidency will rotate among the appointed members of the
council.
If you are savvy enough to have located this blog, you have
surely already seen this Onion article from a few months ago, but if you haven't, it is required reading.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3915/new_fox_reality_show.html
Also note that this story was published as truth in a
Spanish newspaper. (Second time this has happened with the
Onion; the other time was with a Chinese newspaper.) Even
funnier, the story did not even make the front page.
Apparently it is what people expect from the United States
and U.S. Americans.
Mr. al-Jaafari has not lived in Iraq since 1980. This does
not necessarily mean that he should not be president; the
reason he left Iraq was persecution of his party, al-Dawa,
by Saddam Hussein. However, wouldn't someone who had
actually been there for the suffering caused by both the
regime of Saddam Hussein and the sanctions regime of the
United Nations' be a better choice? In the end, though, who
would be a better choice is not a question we should be
answering at all, if our aim was really to establish a
democracy in Iraq. There should have been a vote.
Al-Jaafari doesn't actually have any power. Everything he
does is subject to a veto by the U.S. American occupiers.
No foreign government has yet recognized the new council as
a legitimate government.
Symbolic of all this, the area code of his cell phone is 914
- Westchester County in New York, an area of wealthy
suburbs.
Still working on learning more about his background. As
always, more later.
|
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting
|