you know who you are. The world is a mighty strange place, as Will observes astutely.
The Bishop of Hereford writes in.
==
From the "Industrial Timestudy Institute" :
Indirect labor is defined as work or tasks performed by personnel that do not produce products. Indirect labor costs are costs that cannot be specifically linked to the physical construction of specific products, but are necessary for producing those products.
Some examples of indirect labor are janitors or housekeeping personnel, utility workers, tool crib attendants, inspectors, material handling personnel, shipping/receiving personnel, clerical workers, fork lift drivers and maintenance workers. Indirect labor can also apply to the salary workforce in the office, whether clerical or executive.
There exists a pervasive belief that you cannot measure indirect labor or jobs. The usual explanation is that these types of jobs are non-repetitive and are therefore impossible to measure. Other rationales are that indirect operations may involve groups of people, the unit of output appears difficult to define, the job may entail numerous sub operations, the work cycle is long, and the operation constantly changes geographic locations.
The term timestudy brings to mind F. W. Taylor, Scientific Management and all that goodness liberals and miscellaneous farshtopterkops so love to hate. Their political and philosophical opinions and inclinations notwithstanding, they cannot easily conclude that they can impose these opinions on others.
It may be illegal for corporations to use indirect labor outputs for their own profit. In particular, it may be illegal for them to use information gleaned from HTTP headers, IMAP Mail Headers, et cetera, for their own personal profit. All persons involved in the chain of helping such a corporation may be considered abetting criminal act.
The Bishop of Hereford writes in.
==
Chris Bertram's post on Liverpool got me thinking Scouse. Over the weekend, I met a guy from Liverpool. We fell to talking. There is a giant mechanical spider than haunts Liverpool. Shelob hath no fears for me, but a giant mechanical spider that may "lay a hundred eggs"? Give up all hope ye who enter Livepool.
The Bishop of Hereford writes in.
==
How much of one's personal information can an organization that one works for use? How much ownership rests with the individual? This ties in with a more general question : If there was commercial use that a corporation could make of an individual's personal information, is it always okay for it to do so?
If maximizing shareholder value is the sole responsibility of a firm, then the personal information of employees is fair game. Berle and Means' "The Modern Corporation and Private Property" comes to mind. I have been increasingly concerned with privacy and disclosure issues related to organizations. In the last few weeks, I have been surprised to see more than a couple of surprising leaks of personal information. I know it sounds strange, but couldn't there be situations where a company exploits an individual's personal information for its own personal profit, but such is not okay? I am not questioning whether a corporation can use the direct outputs of an individual's labor for its own personal profit. The question is - can it use the indirect outputs of an individual's labor for its own personal profit particularly when it may pertain to that individual's personal life? It is certainly a question worth thinking about.
In the meantime, do step over to Crooked Timber where Henry Farrell has a post that looks at another issue not far from those considered by Berle and Means.
The Bishop of Hereford writes in.
==
Crooked Timber links to "42 writers for liberty".
Welcome to the 42 Writers for Liberty website, part of Liberty’s Charge or Release campaign opposing the Government’s proposal to extend pre-charge detention in terrorism cases from 28 to 42 days. After an overwhelming defeat in the House of Lords on 12 October 2008, the
Government has now abandoned this dangerous and unnecessary measure.
The site is constructed as a calendar to illustrate graphically the sheer length of time it was proposed that a person could be held without being charged with any offence. Simply click on a day to open up a text from one of the 42 writers who have contributed to the project. You may find a story, an essay, a poem, a statement or even an interview – all a response to the simple question ‘What do you think of the proposed extension to 42 Days?’
It is a measure of the unpopularity of the proposed legislation that not a single writer declined to contribute on the grounds that they in fact supported it. Whereas 42 of the best novelists, essayists, memoirists, poets and journalists around sent us the uniquely powerful contributions you will read on this site.
Reason says :
Stanley Fischer, a former IMF official, rightly calls the situation "scandalous." Nicholas Stern, the World Bank's chief economist, says, "It is hypocrisy to encourage poor countries to open their markets while imposing protectionist measures that cater to powerful special interests."
The protesters who march under the banner of the Anti-Capitalist Convergence may not be inclined to hear this message when it comes from representatives of organizations they see as irredeemably evil. But perhaps they'll listen to Oxfam International, a group with impeccable "progressive" credentials that is "dedicated to fighting poverty and related injustice around the world."
Much has been written about Obama's victory and how his victory is representation for the third world finally getting something. "Representation" is fine, but it doesn't put food on the table. If the third world would do the math, it would ask for a different representation.
Obama says the North American Free Trade agreement is a bad one, and must be renegotiated. He has opposed the US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement on the bogus ground that Colombia is not protecting its trade union leaders from the drug mafia. In fact, such assassinations have fallen steadily from 205 in 2001 to just 25 last year. Obama is cynically twisting facts to woo the most protectionist US trade unions. This cannot but worry India, which may also be subjected to bogus slander and trade disadvantages.
Obama favours extensive subsidies for US farmers, hitting Third World exporters like India. This has been one of the issues on which the Doha Round of WTO is gridlocked. McCain could open the gridlock, Obama will strengthen it.
Obama also favours subsidies for converting maize to ethanol. The massive diversion of maize from food to ethanol has sent global food and fertiliser prices skyrocketing, hitting countries like India.
Obama should not raise subsidies for U.S. farmers. Obama should stop promoting this idea and he should promoting this now. Obama should clarify this before the G-20 summit in Washington. Time for some reason.
Update (last update 11/15/2008): updated text, date, link.
