After the ride yesterday, Brian and I attended the YMCA Book Fair in the City. There were books everywhere, but unfortunately, many were strewn rather than stacked. Lots of paperbacks - a section I don't even need to visit. Compared to the last two book fairs I've attended, this was a bit of a disappointment, though Brian fared pretty well.

If you're a bibliophile, here's the web site to use to find book fairs:

Booksalefinder.com

Not pretty, but it does the trick. If you're local, notice that today is the last day of the Jewish Community Center's sale (and that one was a good one - may pop back in there while out doing other errands today). Lifting books counts as upper body resistance training, right?

hln

Posted by: hln at 08:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

I finished reading Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser about two weeks ago. It's a quick read, but I wanted to think on it a while before writing.

I picked the book up at the San Francisco airport thinking it would rail on obesity and American eating habits. That's not exactly what I got, and for that I am pleased. Schlosser discusses a lot of things - from the early days of fast food (owning a restaurant...living the American dream) to shifting practices of mass producing french fries and cattle to an ugly portrait of the meatpacking industry and a foray into food-borne illness.

As I got past the first three chapters of the book, I was well aware that I was going to disagree with some to possibly many of Schlosser's premises and assertions - his choice of facts to present. He irritated me constantly by ascribing "liberal Democrat" to all things good and "conservative Republican" to all things bad.

But that's about ALL he did wrong from a sense of style. He saves his judgment until the final chapters (two...there's an additional chapter in the paperback, an afterword called the meaning of Mad Cow...wherein he actually calls himself on his behavior of stratifying things on a partisan level. I actually laughed).

My favorite part of the book had to do with Schlosser's visit to a flavoring lab. This snippet alone is worth reading the whole book, which you'll want to do anyway. One, it's cheap (note the Half.com link). Two, it's a good read by a good writer, regardless of your viewpoints. The things I gig Barbara Ehrenreich for are not present in this book. You can tell the way Schlosser leans because of his tone, but you're not slapped in the face - you're spared the preaching until the end - where it belongs.

I don't want to get too deeply into the guts of this book because I want you to read it. The things it's brought to the forefront in my mind are: "What should OSHA's role be in the workplace?" The importance of balance of power in dangerous industries - such as meatpacking. Schlosser asserts that the line speeds in slaughterhouses are such that danger of injury - often serious and possibly including death - are driven by demand for cheap burgers. I had an eye scrunched while I read this section, preferring to chew on the thought for a while...two weeks. I won't spoil this for you, but Schlosser's conclusion - his particular call to action - pleased me.

The other troubling thing is the author's stress of the importance of unions and the pressure (he paints) from corporations to keep the unions out. If there are industries where unions are highly important, I would have to say it would be those that offer the most dangerous jobs. While I'm not a union fan (look up my grocery store strike post), I remember having read Power and Powerlessness in grad school, and, when the unions were not corrupt, they were a force for good for a group of people who desperately needed such a force (highly uneducated, highly exploited). Problem is, as will surface with any group of people in which there is any sort of ill intent or greed: corruption.

That's another theme of Schlosser's book. He doesn't often mention union corruption (which, of course, is documented to be rampant), but he splatters the pages full of corporate misdeeds - often cited as legally punished. That certainly gets my eye - hard facts, poor immoral decisions, and punishment.

One last thing before I leave this - the NRO reviewed the book, and I, being me, was interested in what the reviewer had to say. I read the review twice and was actually offended. Did we read the same book, Mr. Kern? I found quite a bit of it, with my five years of fast food restaurant experience, to be fairly accurate. You call it McGarbage. While I agree that arguing by authority shouldn't really buy me any credibility in your eyes, it certainly validates my own opinion. I also didn't get the same tone from the book that Kern did - the "shock," but then again this book is on the heels of Barbara's, and so perhaps it's there but muted in my point of reference. Part of the Kern's review worth quoting, though, as I tend to agree:

Schlosser as Upton Sinclair: Fast Food Nation describes the meat industry in terms that make The Jungle read like a puff piece from the National Beef Council. He's probably right. Schlosser depicts a powerful industry benefiting from unfair laws and the shocking exploitation of desperate illegal immigrants. My solution: End corporate welfare and crack down on illegal immigrants. Schlossel's solution: Throw money at OSHA. It makes sense that OSHA should heal the beef industry, given its demonstrated skill at comforting cows.

Posted by: hln at 10:03 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 873 words, total size 5 kb.

I have just discovered All Consuming because I received a vistor from it.

Oooh! Aah! I think I'll enjoy this very much. My next two books to review are Ultimate Fitness by Gina Kolata and Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser. I'm about 2/3 of the way through the Schlosser book and will likely review it first. I picked it up as a whim at the airport in San Francisco for my return trip, and I've been riveted ever since. I should complete it during the week.

Go check out All Consuming - very cool.

hln

Posted by: hln at 06:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

I finished Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed On (Not) Getting By in America today. And, to shake things up a bit, I'm going to post my analysis first and the supporting information in the extended entry.

The second half of the book is the story of Barbara's move to the Minneapolis area. This section is immediately followed by Barbara's general analysis of her experience.

In Minneapolis, Barbara has trouble finding housing. She meets almost immediate success in finding jobs - two, actually, and ultimately she decides to work for Wal-Mart. This is not without a bit of drama, for, you see, Barbara is concerned that she cannot pass the drug test, which, very quickly, you can tell she ideologically disagrees with. Nonetheless, drug tests are very prevalent in gaining employment, and I find Ms. Ehrenreich very irresponsible for "transgressing" with drugs during her science experiment, as she calls it. Yes, I realize this is dripping with distaste, but I actually threw the book after reading a few pages of Barbara's experience with this, so forgive me. (It didn't dent until I threw it a second time, at which time it made a loud SPLAT against the wall and frightened three cats).

At any rate - Barbara works at Wal-Mart. She makes about what one would expect to make at Wal-Mart. She brings to light the overwhelming prevalence of Theory X in management (my words), and I've seen this, too. It's disturbing, and I have to agree with her when she says it drags the workers down. Basically, Theory X states that people don't want to work, they'll not want to help or do anything you don't specifically MAKE them do, and that they're unwilling or unable to effect positive outcomes without intense supervision. Theory X means you have to ask management to use the restroom.

The Wal-Mart job goes about like I expect it would. It's got a bunch of corporate hoo-hah that Barbara correctly identifies, and throughout much of this section I agree with her assessment of the job as a whole.

The problem here is housing. Barbara can't find something to suit her needs at a decent price. This happens for her everywhere, though, and I'm not sure if it's just that I've only lived in Missouri as an adult, but I can ALWAYS find affordable housing. The only place I've paid anywhere NEAR $500 was when I moved to St. Louis and had a job that paid me well enough to accommodate that. On Page 170, she mentions something close to what I stated in the review of the first part of this book. Housing costs should not make up more than 30% of your income. Period.

Barbara wasn't ever able to live by that. I can't be a good judge of why without talking with her, and I may shoot her an e-mail. It's possible she picked cities without knowing enough about where to find good, cheap housing in a decent neighborhood. It's possible she was too rushed. Who really knows? This does seem to be the biggest thorn in her side in each experience, though.

The last section of the book is Barbara's analysis. Overall, I'm impressed with this. It's much less personal than the rest of the book and contains well-written analysis with cites from others regarding the points she wishes to make. One thing I must pick at. Again Barbara rails on the drug test, but she uses it as a singling-out of "indignities imposed on low-wage workers." Barbara, I hate to tell you this, but the drug tests are pretty ubiquitous across pay scales and companies. Sorry, that point fails.

All in all, a good read. It could have been done better, though, but, of course, this would have made for a more scholarly, less interesting book. Ideally, Barbara would not have moved. Ever. She would have found steady, accommodating housing, and then tried this experiment in that manner. I believe the book would have been more plausable and would more have mirrored the life of someone who is working in jobs such as these. Basically, I think I could've taken a decent stab at something like this. Of course, my focus would've been completely different - how to make the most of an experience like this (my low-wage jobs were accommodating of daytime graduate school and still full time).

Thanks for reading - individual points below.

more...

Posted by: hln at 10:00 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1290 words, total size 8 kb.

1 As you're probably aware, Theory X has been viewed with disdain by the I/O psych community for decades. Far be it from the management of a socially responsible entity such as Wal-Mart to be swayed by pesky empirical evidence and reasoned analysis.

Posted by: hans at October 20, 2003 08:37 AM (CWwGn)

2 Regarding this point "Page 204: 'Employers will offer almost anything - free meals, subsidized transportation, store discounts - rather than raise wages.' I agree." This is very true. The practice of "fringe benefits" is well-documented. The reason businesses do this is because they can get the benefit for cheaper than you can and giving you the benefit brings greater value to the firm than paying you the monetary equivalent. Basically, as you might expect, it's cheaper. But fringe benefits should not be derided. Notice that it's cheaper for you as well to receive these items, such as store discounts, than it would be for you to acquire them on your own. These represent payment allbeit non-monetary. Further, surveys of employees indicate that fringe benefits are an essential part of job satisfaction. If employers did away with fringe benefits and just gave you the money they pay to get it, you'd probably be shocked 1) at how little they pay for such benefits and 2) how much more important it is to you to just have the benefit and not the money.

Posted by: Trey Givens at October 20, 2003 10:15 AM (yaMs/)

3 Regarding this point "Page 204: 'Employers will offer almost anything - free meals, subsidized transportation, store discounts - rather than raise wages.' I agree." This is very true. The practice of "fringe benefits" is well-documented. The reason businesses do this is because they can get the benefit for cheaper than you can and giving you the benefit brings greater value to the firm than paying you the monetary equivalent. Basically, as you might expect, it's cheaper. But fringe benefits should not be derided. Notice that it's cheaper for you as well to receive these items, such as store discounts, than it would be for you to acquire them on your own. These represent payment allbeit non-monetary. Further, surveys of employees indicate that fringe benefits are an essential part of job satisfaction. If employers did away with fringe benefits and just gave you the money they pay to get it, you'd probably be shocked 1) at how little they pay for such benefits and 2) how much more important it is to you to just have the benefit and not the money.

Posted by: Trey Givens at October 20, 2003 10:15 AM (yaMs/)

4 Regarding this point "Page 204: 'Employers will offer almost anything - free meals, subsidized transportation, store discounts - rather than raise wages.' I agree." This is very true. The practice of "fringe benefits" is well-documented. The reason businesses do this is because they can get the benefit for cheaper than you can and giving you the benefit brings greater value to the firm than paying you the monetary equivalent. Basically, as you might expect, it's cheaper. But fringe benefits should not be derided. Notice that it's cheaper for you as well to receive these items, such as store discounts, than it would be for you to acquire them on your own. These represent payment allbeit non-monetary. Further, surveys of employees indicate that fringe benefits are an essential part of job satisfaction. If employers did away with fringe benefits and just gave you the money they pay to get it, you'd probably be shocked 1) at how little they pay for such benefits and 2) how much more important it is to you to just have the benefit and not the money.

Posted by: Trey Givens at October 20, 2003 10:15 AM (yaMs/)

5 uh. Ok. My computer freaked out. I totally did not intend to post the same thing three times.

Posted by: Trey Givens at October 20, 2003 10:19 AM (yaMs/)

6 Third time's the charm, Trey hln

Posted by: hln at October 20, 2003 01:19 PM (CWwGn)

7 That, and people aren't motivated by money or you would get a hell of a lot more telemarketing calls. Or strip clubs and prostitutes. Ooh - that's a good point.

Posted by: TheYeti at October 20, 2003 01:45 PM (+yDzP)

8 For the record, I coined Wal-martian independently about 2 weeks ago here: http://radio.weblogs.com/0126975/categories/filthyLies/2003/10/08.html#a554 And I've really enjoyed your review posts. Excellent work.

Posted by: Harvey at October 21, 2003 01:19 PM (tJfh1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

As you all know if you've been visiting this site, I've tasked myself with reading and critiquing Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America.

This will be a long post. I plan to offer the book's premise, talk a little bit about how Barbara defines science, illustrate what I find to be unrealistic, offer places where I identify with the author, and then conclude the analysis of what I've read. I'm 119 pages into the book, which is a natural stopping point because of the book's structure.

The Premise

The author tasks herself with working low-wage jobs and then writing about how she fares. She works (so far) as a waitress, a housekeeper, a maid, and a kitchen worker in a nursing home. (There are other jobs, but I've not read that far) and then chronicles her experience for you, for me, and for anyone else who is interested.

Science

Barbara, as I will refer to her from here on out, calls this a science experiment. Unfortunately, there's nothing scientific about it, as the setting is not real. In the illustration section, I'll point to snippets from the book that seem like vagaries to me, since I'm someone who's had to subsist on a pretty small budget for a lengthy period of time. But, I'll jump right in, in the interest of keeping the post short (HA!)

more...

Posted by: hln at 10:03 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 2650 words, total size 16 kb.

I've now read 106 pages of the book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. I have another 10 or so to go before I've completed the third section - the second section that's actually about Barbara's work experiences.

Expect a long, long, long post tonight. I probably won't finish it until after the gym, though, so it may not be up until 9:30 p.m. CST or thereabouts.

Oh, and I commented on Andrew's blog about this again. Please, everyone, be the courteous and wonderful people I know you to be (and thanks for the support). Andrew is my former boss, and I believe some of this is tongue in cheek - for purposes of discussion. Anne is his wife and has done some wonderful things with educating children in other countries.

I agree that there is injustice in this world and that, as one of you said, "life isn't fair." I also believe in charitable work and charity organizations and the wonderful things they do. I just don't believe they should be run by the government and mandated thus (yours an my tax dollars).

hln

Posted by: hln at 11:41 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

I have to go read Nickel and Dimed On (Not) Getting By in America. Here's why. I don't think/feel I can make an effective argument until I have, and, believe me, I want to be effective.

Just grabbed it offa Brian's bookshelf.

He ranted about it for quite some time, so I suspect I'll enjoy in that macabre sort of way. And I'll head off the argument that I'm "not making up my own mind" by stating that da spouse and I don't often disagree about matters such as these, having both worked blue/pink collar while being classically educated. And made far less than $14.00 per hour.

hln

Posted by: hln at 05:53 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

I finished Eating in the Dark and quickly picked up Pandora's Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods, which I like a lot better. The author has managed to crack me up twice in 12 pages. Not a bad start.

I'm pointing you to page 6 of the book because of the top paragraph. I'll quote.

Recent surveys show many people simply don't have the basic understanding of genetics required to engage in informed debate. For example, only 40% of respondents in the UK correctly recognize that ordinary, non-GM tomatoes contain genes.

Posted by: hln at 11:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm about 80 pages from finishing the book Eating in the Dark, which I posted about earlier.

It wanders a bit more than I'd like. Also, it's so obviously slanted left that if you placed it on a bookshelf, it'd fall over.

I had only one spot where I wanted to throw it, (in the Brian J. method) though. It's a library book, and it's a hardback, so I refrained.

On page 179, in a chapter called "Global Food Fight," I read this nugget about the crowd gathered on November 30, 1999 at the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle. The author has just mentioned the "phalanx of police garbed in black riot gear, helmets, and face shields."

At around three o'clock, near the intersection of Pike Street and Fourth Avenue, the highly charged mood of the crowd abruptly turned ominous. A crush of demonstrators ran down the street screaming. Simultaneously, a loud percussive boom rocked the air, coursing through my body like an electric shock. A blacket of thick white fog unfurled along the pavement as police fired canisters of tear gas into the crowd.

Pandemonium erupted, and I joined the throngs of people streaming downhill, away from the melee. A tall, slender college-age boy ran up beside me shouting, "I've been shot. Our government is shooting at us!" Grimacing, he pulled up his pant leg and rubbed his calf. Another young man, apparently one of his companions, stopped up short behind us. "Rubber bullets!" he shouted breathlessly. "The police are shooting rubber bullets!" A third member of their group appeared, cradling a marble-size plastic pellet in his cupped hand. The police were apparently firing plastic bullets into the crowd.

"I can't believe the government is shooting at us!" the stunned youth mumbled in disbelief. Then he rolled down his jeans and turned to rejoin his friends, who were already scrambling back up the hill into the combat zone."

One of the largest protests in Seattle's history turned confrontational today as police fired paintball guns and pepper spray to disperse groups of unruly demonstrators who broke windows, sprayed graffiti on buildings and tried to block delegates to the World Trade Organization conference.

Property destruction downtown was extensive. One group of about 200 demonstrators, dressed mostly in black and wearing hoods and masks, pulled out hammers and other small implements and began smashing windows, first at Nordstrom, then at other nearby stores. Other demonstrators yelled at them to stop.

Most protesters, though, remained peaceful as up to 20,000 people from labor unions, environmental groups and local colleges rallied around the city, with the largest rally at Seattle Center. Most then marched downtown.

The worst of the confrontations began around 10 a.m. When police fired pepper spray at protesters, they in turn threw sticks at the officers, prompting police to move an armored truck into the intersection of Sixth Avenue and Union Street and physically throw protesters out of the way.

Posted by: hln at 03:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 656 words, total size 5 kb.