The weather has been slow to improve but I have at least built up a bit from the freezing January. The last two winter series at Hillingdon took care of the top end and I managed the Hemel Hempstead and High Wycombe 100k reliability rides, the latter in grim conditions when I was beset by two punctures. The commuting has again been limited due to a lot of freezing weather and I have abandoned any plans to go out today due to the heavy rain. The six recent days on my club's training trip to Spain has saved the month though and given me some climbing, including a couple of time trials up the Coll de Rates.
So I have managed 815 miles in 52:52 (average 15.5 mph) with 15,115m of climbing.
The Administrative Option - Deja Vu All Over Again and The MSM Catches Up
Steve Greenhouse, who has the labor beat (assuming that is still a proper term) for the NYT has an article today about the Obama's administration plans to utilize government contracting to increase wages and benefits for employees, Obama Aims to Use Federal Contracts as a Way to Lift Wages. The article focuses on the potential economic benefit to workers, but notes the concerns of the business and employer community.
If this seems like deja vu, it is. See Clinton to modify contractor 'blacklisting' rule, from the March 13, 2000 Buffalo Business First newspaper. By December 20, 2000, that story had evolved into a final rule that was published in the federal register. The regulations were suspended by the Bush Administration.
According to Greenhouse's article, the Obama administration proposal, still in the writing phase, would go further.
Much of the concern in the Clinton regulations by the business and employer community focused on this aspect. Each potential government contractor would have to provide the following information which would be taken into account in determining the acceptable bidder:
From the employment law side, this raised the concern of just what impact adverse determinations, perhaps even agency finding by the EEOC, the NLRB or similar agencies would have on their ability to obtain government contracts.
No doubt that battle is about to resume in the very near future.
The "MSM Catches Up" in the title is just a little brag (as recognized by Greenhouse in his article) that an online publication, Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller was first out with the story on February 4th, White House considers pro-labor policy for government contractors, which I picked up in my post on February 9th. Gautham Nagesh, who used to cover government contracting at the Government Executive magazine, has followed up with additional stories:
All snarkiness aside, this is is going to be a major story and there will be plenty to cover for both the MSM and those of us in whatever we are.
Last time around, the story didn't play out because of the election of 2000. This time, it's a long time until 2012.
If this seems like deja vu, it is. See Clinton to modify contractor 'blacklisting' rule, from the March 13, 2000 Buffalo Business First newspaper. By December 20, 2000, that story had evolved into a final rule that was published in the federal register. The regulations were suspended by the Bush Administration.
According to Greenhouse's article, the Obama administration proposal, still in the writing phase, would go further.
Much of the concern in the Clinton regulations by the business and employer community focused on this aspect. Each potential government contractor would have to provide the following information which would be taken into account in determining the acceptable bidder:
within the past three years, been convicted of any felonies (or has any felony indictment currently pending against them) arising from any Federal tax, labor and employment, environmental, antitrust, or consumer protection laws, had any adverse court judgments in civil cases against them arising from any Federal tax, labor and employment, environmental, antitrust, or consumer protection laws in which the United States brought the action, or been found by a Federal Administrative Law Judge, agency, board or commission to have violated any Federal tax, labor and employment, environmental, antitrust, or consumer protection law. If the respondent has answered ``has'' to the above question, please explain the nature of the violation and whether any fines, penalties, or damages were assessed.
No doubt that battle is about to resume in the very near future.
The "MSM Catches Up" in the title is just a little brag (as recognized by Greenhouse in his article) that an online publication, Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller was first out with the story on February 4th, White House considers pro-labor policy for government contractors, which I picked up in my post on February 9th. Gautham Nagesh, who used to cover government contracting at the Government Executive magazine, has followed up with additional stories:
Backdoor card check: GOP slams pro-union contracting policy, February 11; and
Documents confirm White House pushing pro-union contracting policies, February 23and of course, because it's the way the blogosphere works, hat tip to my friends at Workplace Prof blog, Federal Contractors and Wages and Benefits, which alerted me to Steve Greenhouse's article.
All snarkiness aside, this is is going to be a major story and there will be plenty to cover for both the MSM and those of us in whatever we are.
Last time around, the story didn't play out because of the election of 2000. This time, it's a long time until 2012.
Foreign Labor Unrest and the Future Here at Home
The M.P. Catherwood Library of the Cornell School of Industrial & Labor Relations has a service, Workplace Issues Today, that I receive daily. It's a good way to keep up with developments.
I was struck by the three entry's in today's email:
Over the almost 35 years that I have been working in the field, the U.S. labor movement in terms of percentage of the private sector that is unionized, has been on a long downhill slide, reaching its lowest point ever this year. Although I am by no means suggesting one way or another a correlation, over the same period it seems to me that, with occasional almost abberational actions, labor's primary thrust has been political, not ground level organizing.
Anyone who thinks that they know what the future of politics in America is going to be this time next year, much less over the longer haul, is certainly more confident of their abilities than I would be. Still, you would have to think that among those in organized labor there is a re-thinking of their approach, since this time last year, it would seem that they had finally achieved a political breakthrough. A Democratic White House and Congress and one vote away from a filibuster proof Congress, and even that vote appeared shortly, when Senator Specter of Pennsylvania switched parties.
Now the filibuster proof Congress has gone with the loss of Ted Kennedy's seat and from a legislative standpoint, none of the goals have been achieved. It is the second time in my career that unions were narrowly turned away from a significant change in labor policy that would have provided substantial aid in organizing.
The third time may be the charm, although many will wonder if that takes another 30 plus years, whether organized labor will make it that long.
There of course is still a lot that can be accomplished both by the White House and by administrative action, particularly the NLRB, although even there, labor has been at least temporarily frustrated in getting appointments they have sought through the confirmation process.
If reports from the ground are any indication, labor organizing is picking up as political hopes have waned. That would seem to be a logical response. Combined with an uneasiness about the future, which obviously is not contained to the U.S., and looking at what appears to be a stone wall on the the legislative front, I would expect to see traditional labor law reflect more organizing, although perhaps a modernized version to deal with a changed workforce. It would be hard to argue that this might not be a fertile time.
Some of my colleagues who spend most of their time on traditional labor law are of the same mind and will be discussing the changing perspectives in a seminar next month in DC, It's Not Your Father's Union Campaign III .
I was struck by the three entry's in today's email:
- FRENCH OIL WORKERS PROTEST SHUTDOWN, a dispute with Total SA;
- SPANISH WORKERS PROTEST RAISING RETIREMENT AGE, a protest against a proposed raise in the retirement age and a proposal to reform labor laws; and
- UNITE WORKERS VOTE TO STRIKE, reporting that over 80% of the members of the union which represents cabin crews at British Airways have voted to strike, although negotiations continue.
Over the almost 35 years that I have been working in the field, the U.S. labor movement in terms of percentage of the private sector that is unionized, has been on a long downhill slide, reaching its lowest point ever this year. Although I am by no means suggesting one way or another a correlation, over the same period it seems to me that, with occasional almost abberational actions, labor's primary thrust has been political, not ground level organizing.
Anyone who thinks that they know what the future of politics in America is going to be this time next year, much less over the longer haul, is certainly more confident of their abilities than I would be. Still, you would have to think that among those in organized labor there is a re-thinking of their approach, since this time last year, it would seem that they had finally achieved a political breakthrough. A Democratic White House and Congress and one vote away from a filibuster proof Congress, and even that vote appeared shortly, when Senator Specter of Pennsylvania switched parties.
Now the filibuster proof Congress has gone with the loss of Ted Kennedy's seat and from a legislative standpoint, none of the goals have been achieved. It is the second time in my career that unions were narrowly turned away from a significant change in labor policy that would have provided substantial aid in organizing.
The third time may be the charm, although many will wonder if that takes another 30 plus years, whether organized labor will make it that long.
There of course is still a lot that can be accomplished both by the White House and by administrative action, particularly the NLRB, although even there, labor has been at least temporarily frustrated in getting appointments they have sought through the confirmation process.
If reports from the ground are any indication, labor organizing is picking up as political hopes have waned. That would seem to be a logical response. Combined with an uneasiness about the future, which obviously is not contained to the U.S., and looking at what appears to be a stone wall on the the legislative front, I would expect to see traditional labor law reflect more organizing, although perhaps a modernized version to deal with a changed workforce. It would be hard to argue that this might not be a fertile time.
Some of my colleagues who spend most of their time on traditional labor law are of the same mind and will be discussing the changing perspectives in a seminar next month in DC, It's Not Your Father's Union Campaign III .
What Does the Free Market Have to do With Compliance With Company Policies?
Kris Dunn, otherwise know as the hr capitalist, has a great blog of the same name.
You need to read this post, with its examples in its entirety: Employees Leaving Their Laptops Unsecure? Try These Public Humiliation Templates From Their PC...
Check it (and Kris's excellent blog) out.
You need to read this post, with its examples in its entirety: Employees Leaving Their Laptops Unsecure? Try These Public Humiliation Templates From Their PC...
Check it (and Kris's excellent blog) out.
Imperial Winter Series Race 12 Saturday 13th February
Temperatures above zero but felt bitterly cold in the north wind as a good (ie medium) number of riders lined up for the start in light snow. Alex Murray made a brave early attempt at a break. By the time I figured out it might be an idea to join him the bunch had woken up. A two man break from the 3rd cat race came past and those at the front didn't want to let them go, leading to a higher pace than usual until the 3rd cat bunch went by and we eased to let them past and then to create a gap. We zoomed down the back straight and bunched together on the finishing straight but as I found when I hit the front into the wind there was no option but to slow. My Garmin shows 30.6 mph on the back straight on the final lap but that was not sufficient to do anything other than hang on at the back. No crashes this week in our race so I rolled in at the back of the bunch.
Average Speed 23.6 mph.
That's the last one for this winter and I have done all 11 (one was cancelled when deep snow lay on the circuit). So why do I do it, given that I don't have a ghost of a chance of winning points? Here are some thoughts in case they assist those who contemplate doing this next winter.
1. The races are very well organised, cheerfully and efficiently by the Collins family who turn up every Saturday all winter to stand around in the cold (it's much colder if you're standing around than if you're racing) and chip ice or sweep mud off the circuit. Register in advance and it takes moments to scribble your name and go. They take the trouble to place all the finishers, not just the first 10 or first few, and to place those results with pictures within a couple of days on the net. They deserve support.
2. I love cycling and it doesn't come better than whizzing around in a bunch racing. It hones skills such as bike control and spatial awareness that are readily transferable to doing much better in sportives and to surviving in traffic. Plus it's a bonus to mingle with other keen cyclists whether teammates or rivals.
3. The circuit itself is safe; bicycle traffic means no potholes, no ruts, no risk of a collision with anything fast and heavy. OK, there is the risk of a crash and if you are very unfortunate you could break a collar bone. However nobody (so far as I am aware) has ever died or suffered catastrophic injury riding circuit races (if only the same were true of commuting, time trialling or even clubruns). So the risk/reward balance to my mind clearly favours racing over not racing, though I am the first to back off if I sense danger, and risk can be reduced further by always making your movements predictable to those around you.
4. I am the type that needs the external motivation to make an effort. I can sustain a heart rate at around 160 bpm for an hour in a race. On my own, the power of my will is such that I might average 120. Must be good for me and I don't do gyms or turbos.
5. It's not therefore the winning but the taking part. I reserve performing at the highest level to my profession. My cycling, like my piano playing, may be mediocre to poor; but much better to do it poorly than not at all.
So I may never get a point but it is nonetheless rewarding and I recommed it.
Average Speed 23.6 mph.
That's the last one for this winter and I have done all 11 (one was cancelled when deep snow lay on the circuit). So why do I do it, given that I don't have a ghost of a chance of winning points? Here are some thoughts in case they assist those who contemplate doing this next winter.
1. The races are very well organised, cheerfully and efficiently by the Collins family who turn up every Saturday all winter to stand around in the cold (it's much colder if you're standing around than if you're racing) and chip ice or sweep mud off the circuit. Register in advance and it takes moments to scribble your name and go. They take the trouble to place all the finishers, not just the first 10 or first few, and to place those results with pictures within a couple of days on the net. They deserve support.
2. I love cycling and it doesn't come better than whizzing around in a bunch racing. It hones skills such as bike control and spatial awareness that are readily transferable to doing much better in sportives and to surviving in traffic. Plus it's a bonus to mingle with other keen cyclists whether teammates or rivals.
3. The circuit itself is safe; bicycle traffic means no potholes, no ruts, no risk of a collision with anything fast and heavy. OK, there is the risk of a crash and if you are very unfortunate you could break a collar bone. However nobody (so far as I am aware) has ever died or suffered catastrophic injury riding circuit races (if only the same were true of commuting, time trialling or even clubruns). So the risk/reward balance to my mind clearly favours racing over not racing, though I am the first to back off if I sense danger, and risk can be reduced further by always making your movements predictable to those around you.
4. I am the type that needs the external motivation to make an effort. I can sustain a heart rate at around 160 bpm for an hour in a race. On my own, the power of my will is such that I might average 120. Must be good for me and I don't do gyms or turbos.
5. It's not therefore the winning but the taking part. I reserve performing at the highest level to my profession. My cycling, like my piano playing, may be mediocre to poor; but much better to do it poorly than not at all.
So I may never get a point but it is nonetheless rewarding and I recommed it.
Blood Antiques - Watch online
Over the years, more books and documentary films have appeared to describe a once unreported problem--the looting of cultural heritage. Journeyman Pictures produced the documentary Blood Antiques, which is now airing online on Link TV. Using hidden cameras inside the antiquities market in Belgium and Afghanistan, the filmmakers uncover raw evidence of the underground illegal antiquities trade and advance the important argument of its connection with terror funding.
No Becker Recess Appointment, At Least Not This Recess
Or at least that would seem to be the most likely course of action based on a statement released by President Obama after the Senate confirmed 27 appointments by voice vote before leaving for the week long's President's Day Holiday. Senate Confirms 27 Obama Nominees . From the White House:
Although I could have easily missed someone, it appears that the only labor and employment related appointment in the group confirmed was Cynthia L. Attwood, of Virginia, as a member of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
While this is a good first step, there are still dozens of nominees on hold who deserve a similar vote, and I will be looking for action from the Senate when it returns from recess. If they do not act, I reserve the right to use my recess appointment authority in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)