Duane Gran’s log of thoughts

Its hard to see the big picture when you are working on implementation details and it is no wonder that programmers are often viewed as being out of touch with the organization as a whole. When the developer is deliberating depth-first versus breadth-first for an algorithm they are bound to appear disconnected from the conversation at hand.

Implementation matters. Make no doubt about it. A colleague of mine recently explained his distress at collaborating with a manager who describes software systems in term of food preparation. When the metaphors fail to describe the practical limits of software the manager thinks the programmer is inept. I’ve been there and it is supremely frustrating but I think it is a two way street and both parties need to find common area.

It doesn’t work for the programmer to live in “implementation land” all day long and it doesn’t work for managers to waive off that “implementation stuff” as unimportant jargon. Another missive that hits this point for programmers comes by way of Neil Mcallister’s article. Here are some practical suggestions for programmers to break the mode a bit:

1. Set a reminder in the morning and afternoon to stop and put your head up. By this I mean to make sure that you create a pause in your work to contemplate what may be going on around you. Rather than waiting for someone to shadow your doorstep maybe you notice a colleague has a pressing deadline (not code related) where you can lend expertise. Get into the rhythm of the workplace.
2. In meetings with colleagues and managers begin by making a clear statement of the issue and solution. Don’t start discussions centered on implementation. This is an opportunity to affirm that everyone agrees on what is being done.
3. Ask a trusted colleague for feedback about your “presence” in the organization. Are you viewed as engaged or reactive? Ask for constructive ideas to improve your communication of technical concepts. You may be surprised what comes of it.

Other suggestions and ideas here are most welcome in the comments.

Have you ever seen those “x days since an accident” signs in a workplace? They are placed there because the very act of measuring something has an effect on improving it.

Every organization is measuring something but not every organization takes the time to make sure they select the right things. Are you measuring whether people are at their desk at 8am? It might be vital if there is a shift change or you have set expectations with customers to be reachable at that time.

Measurement always has a cost, either in time spent tabulating or opportunity cost for other focus, so make sure it actually matters. There are few blanket statements, but some good ones are:

• customer satisfaction
• support response time
• new clients in the past quarter
• repeat projects from existing clients this year

There is a trend here. Figure out what matters to your customers and find a way to internally measure your progress satisfying their needs.

A Catholic Culture article summarizes the long history of the Church on matters of labor and human dignity. Of particular note to me:

Starting with Leo XIII and Rerum Novarum, often referred to simply as his “labor encyclical,” the Church would indeed have much to say! In fact that Pope placed the Church in between the opposing parties: the capitalists and the socialists. He did so by rejecting both the hare-brained Marxian initiative to do away with private ownership of the material means of production, and the capitalist treatment of human labor as mere merchandise which had made the socialist mad-hatter venture seem credible to so many in the first place.

Every few years I find myself re-reading Rerum Novarum and each time it tempers my persuasion and realigns my sense of the eternal in us all. For all the criticism heaped on the Church, there are few institutions capable of charting a third way between Marx and Smith.

I necessarily attribute such wisdom to the Holy Spirit, but fortunately the fruits of such wisdom is available to all regardless of faith.

On this Good Friday I’m necessarily brought to a place of reverence for a carpenter and Savior who washed the feet of others. If the transition seems not too abrupt, I want to draw attention to one of the most thought provoking articles about labor that I’ve read in years. I could quote volumes from it, but I’ll share the most stirring passage for me:

Knowing the production narrative, or at least being able to plausibly imagine it, renders the social narrative of the advertisement less potent.

My effort in writing here is to raise awareness (my own and others) about the dignity of human enterprise. Anything that promotes material desire, such as advertising, necessarily is a threat to our innate desire to commune with and serve God.

In a surprising move, 200 employees walked out on Walmart this week when faced with absurd wage and hour cuts. What is particularly impressive is where the leadership of the movement arose:

The protest wasn’t led by any union group. Rather, it was instigated by two department managers, Guillermo Vasquez and Rosie Larosa. The department managers were not affected directly by the changes, but they felt that the company had gone too far with certain new policies. Among them were moves to cut the hours of full-time employees from 40 hours a week to 32 hours, along with a corresponding cut in wages, and to compel workers to be available for shifts around the clock.

When managers lead their employees in the struggle for fair conditions it sends a strong message of solidarity to the owners. I can only hope this is a template for thousands of other stores which will face similar choices as walmart migrates from 20% part-time employees to 40%. If this bold move were replicated in just 10% of retail stores it could become a ground swell for unionization. Whose store will be next?

An article in The New Atlantis beautifully expresses my thoughts on the value of craft over consumerism:

Because craftsmanship refers to objective standards that do not issue from the self and its desires, it poses a challenge to the ethic of consumerism, as the sociologist Richard Sennett has recently argued. The craftsman is proud of what he has made, and cherishes it, while the consumer discards things that are perfectly serviceable in his restless pursuit of the new. … Knowing the production narrative, or at least being able to plausibly imagine it, renders the social narrative of the advertisement less potent.

I’ve heaped praise on the innate worth of labor and I’ve vilified the habits and aims of advertisers, but I never saw the connection between the two until now.

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.” — FDR

In 1978, US Sociologist Christopher Lasch argued that a ‘culture of narcissism’ was infecting family, work, sport and education. Lasch described people’s uncertainty about the boundaries between the self and the world - which results in delusions of empowerment as well as paralysis. Today we are even more confused about where the boundaries of responsibility lie. At issue is if we labor for service or to be served.

There are several theories that point to the beginning of the end for social responsibility. I personally believe it started with Reagan’s famous quip, in response to the Carter administration, when he asked the American people if “you are better off than you were four years ago.” Others believe it happened when people quoted the Gordan Gecko character in the film Wall Street without a hint of irony, declaring “greed is good.” Wherever the point may lie, social critics can agree that “I” has eclipsed “we.”

One of the last great pleas for the common good came from Barbara Jordan’s keynote to the 1976 Democratic Convention when she said the following.

But this is the great danger America faces — that we will cease to be one nation and become instead a collection of interest groups: city against suburb, region against region, individual against individual; each seeking to satisfy private wants. If that happens, who then will speak for America? Who then will speak for the common good?

At some point in the late 70s between the time that the Representative Jordan urged us to keep lit the candle of social justice and greed became good, the battle line shifted. No longer would writers need to extoll the virtue of selfishness, it’s “virtue” became self evident. Instead, in modern times writers conjure memories of Solidarity, asking us to revive our social consciousness:

As the American right offers that redundant canard “moral values” as its lodestar, the left should offer solidarity. Not retrograde brotherhood, or faith-specific fellowship, but something more robust and difficult and rewarding. The uplift of collective enterprise.

Another plea comes by way of Jared Bernstein’s promising new book, All Together Now, which implores us to think differently about our national priorities and the dead end of hyper individualism. Bernstein describes his vision as “creating an economic architecture that reconnects our strong, flexible economy to the living standards of all, not just to the residents of the penthouse.” How refreshing!

What remains to be seen is whether the muscle of social justice has lied dormant too long. Can it be called to service after three decades of neglect, and more importantly will people respond to the call for action? I hold out optimism and believe we should start by asking if we are better off than we were two decades ago.

After two years of membership in the Charlottesville Rotary Club I’m compelled to reflect on the personal and social importance of civic organizations. The theme of Rotary is “service above self” and emphasizes philanthropy, ethics and cultural understanding within a framework of business relationships. In an age of Enron scandals we need the values of Rotary instilled in the minds of corporate executives.

I’m not a captain of industry, and at my young age I don’t expect to have many opportunities to influence the culture, but I do believe that a person successfully follows an ethic by forming it well before challenges mount. Fellowship among a group of civic-minded persons is one avenue to building up one’s moral reserve in advance of life’s tests. We all must sometimes choose between mammon and virtue, but the noble path seeks balance and opportunity for service within the framework of industry. I’m reminded of an excellent essay, All Work is Worship, which states:

(from page 9) In short, in a competitive market, there is no way to distinguish the service motive from the profit motive. In practice, no market is perfectly competitive, leaving room for the service motive sometimes to trump the profit motive and vice versa, but generally in too subtle a manner for general economic research to detect the difference. For this reason, Adam Smith’s claim remains convincing: to assume generalized selfish behavior does explain people’s behavior in the market economy satisfactorily. On the other hand, if the economy does include many altruists, we wouldn’t know it to look at them.

The ethic of Rotary never asks me to neglect industry, however it sets an expectation that profit won’t trump all else. Civics — that notion where community matters and individuals are proud to contribute to the common good — is a value worth preserving and, in our present condition, reviving. Without making too overt a pitch, I would be glad to talk with other civic-minded professionals about Rotary membership. Feel free to get in touch with me about it.

Essays: ‘Hammer & tickle’ by Ben Lewis | Prospect Magazine May 2006 issue 122

You can’t imagine Stalin or Khrushchev telling a joke about his own unpopularity, but Gorbachev did. In 1996 he appeared on the Clive Anderson show in Britain and told this one, whose lineage can be traced back through the 20th century: A man is queuing for food in Moscow. Finally he’s had enough. He turns round to his friend and says “That’s it. I’m going to kill that Gorbachev,” and marches off. Two hours later he comes back. “Well,” says the friend, “did you do it?” “No,” replies the other, “there was an even longer queue over there.”

The full article is a great for anyone interested in cultural issues surrounding Communism. If you want to poke fun today, consider a good-natured contest to remix The Internationale — probably the most widely translated and known song in the world, promoting worker solidarity.

Today is May Day, a day of remembrance for the Chicago haymarket riot in 1886 and for solidarity in the international worker’s movement. However, you won’t hear many chants about the proletariat and the bourgeois on this day. The phrase du jour is si se puede — a rallying call for immigrant workers who assert their claim for a dignified occupation, irrespective of political land boundaries.

An excellent article in The Guardian puts in stark relief the subculture most overlooked in America:

A shocking 37 million Americans live in poverty. That is 12.7 per cent of the population - the highest percentage in the developed world. They are found from the hills of Kentucky to Detroit’s streets, from the Deep South of Louisiana to the heartland of Oklahoma. Each year since 2001 their number has grown.

I wish I had a solution so compelling by sheer fact that we would rally together to solve this problem, but as the article points out, the problem is systemic — the American zeal for individualism declares victory for the strong and failure for the weak.

In related news, it is with sadness that John Galbraith has passed away. His legacy will remembered, and if possible, rekindled.

He remained optimistic about the ability of government to improve the lot of the less fortunate. “Let there be a coalition of the concerned,” he urged. “The affluent would still be affluent, the comfortable still comfortable, but the poor would be part of the political system.”

Much fuss has been made on the AM radio band as well as in congress about immigration. The objection is predicated on a belief that we have too many illegal immigrants. An article by Thomas Sowell, a Conservative economist, captures the essence of the anti-immigration viewpoint:

Citizen-of-the-world types are resistant to the idea of tightening our borders, and especially resistant to the idea of making a distinction between people from different countries. But the real problem is not their self-righteous fetishes but the fact that they have intimidated so many other people into silence.

He goes on to cite examples of troublesome groups, such as Russians and Nigerians, as worthy of special exclusion from entering the United States. It almost has the ring of truth and sense until you consider that any group-based discrimination denies the rights of individuals. I find the wording of the Manifesto for the Abolition of International Apartheid, authored in 1997, to be helpful in identifying the crux of the issue:

Since the end of interracial apartheid in South Africa, no longer any state in the world openly practices discrimination between humans based on the arbitrary criterion of skin colour. Today, however, another equally arbitrary criterion is still accepted and applied by virtually every state in the world. For a human individual to have been born in some a particular place, from parents of some particular nationality, and thus to possess emself some particular nationality, is a matter of chance, and cannot be taken as a non-arbitrary criterion of discrimination.

Ultimately the raging debate may be a lot of fury over nothing, as Arnold Kling, an economist, deflates the hype in pointing out that “illegal immigrants bring relatively little economic benefit and cause relatively little economic harm.” Advocates for tighter border control aren’t xenophobes and proponents for the status quo aren’t laying a welcome mat for n’er do goods. That doesn’t sound worth fighting over, but I can’t blame 500,000 people for protesting legislation that would criminalize providing services to illegals.

It’s un-Christian and I don’t think Senator Hillary Clinton was far off the mark when she said that House Resolution 4437 would criminalize the Good Samaritan. We should foster, not criminalize, our compassion and it should transcend borders.

A clever essay puts to words several thoughts I’ve had about the mindset of Libertarians:

For those who don’t know, corporations are totally a form of socialism, allowing folks to group together their resources so they can do things that they couldn’t do by themselves. And that’s what socialism is all about. Grouping resources together to do things that you can’t do as individuals. And that’s what unions are all about. And so why is it that libertarians totally defend the concept of corporations, while totally attacking the concept of unions? One is based upon economic strength, and the other is based upon labor strength; but essentially, they’re the same idea.

Most Libertarians I’ve met are either stuck on theory or only appreciate the viewpoint for its ability to validate their innate selfishness.

An essay from Rick Sincere raises some interesting counter points to the oft-repeated concern about the commercialism of Christmas. He persuades shoppers to feel morally comforted with the following refrain:

Simply remember that every time you buy a Christmas gift — a toy, a CD- player, a spice rack, a hunting rifle — you are helping to pay someone’s wages. Millions of such purchases, made every day in the Christmas-shopping season, keep factories open, keep workers employed, keep families fed.

I suppose one might also break windows and burn down buildings to keep people employed, but this in itself doesn’t constitute a moral foundation for doing so. By all means, people should feel happy and content to give gifts, as I’m personally doing, but in all things it should be done with moderation. There is a tipping point at which consumption becomes conspicuous and we have given leave of our better senses to serve others.

I believe, as many others do also, that we have eclipsed that point where Christmas is rarely about faith and more about consumption. That Mr. Sincere feels the need to quiet the discontent in some people’s hearts speaks volumes to me about the moral tremor that lies beneath. While I don’t wish to sound preachy, there is a moral component to how we conduct our commercial affairs, but correct execution goes much deeper than simply benefiting the already employed. We are judged in how we use our talents, not whether we expend them.

Jury awards millions to Wal-Mart workers

The world’s largest retailer was ordered to pay $57 million in general damages and $115 million in punitive damages to about 116,000 current and former California employees for violating a 2001 state law that requires employers to give 30-minute, unpaid lunch breaks to employees who work at least six hours.

Good news indeed. This, among other labor violations, is why employees of walmart should unionize.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition has put together its 2005 survey results. The study helps put some numbers on what is meant by affordable dwelling. In particular, it addresses the affordability of renting, which is often overshadowed by concerns about affordable housing. The results for Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville, where I live in Virginia, are interesting. The survey offers the following summary concerning Virginia:

In Virginia, the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment is $852. In order to afford this level of rent and utilities, without paying more than 30% of income on housing, a household must earn $2,842 monthly or $34,099 annually. Assuming a 40-hour work week, 52 weeks per year, this level of income translates into a Housing Wage of $16.39.

The rate for Charlottesville is $14.63. While not insurmountable, it is a wage that isn’t often found at employers such as walmart. What then of those who earn the minimum wage? The survey continues:

In Virginia, a minimum wage worker earns an hourly wage of $5.15. In order to afford the FMR for a two-bedroom apartment, a minimum wage earner must work 127 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. Or, a household must include 3.2 minimum wage earner(s) working 40 hours per week year-round in order to make the two bedroom FMR affordable.

This is sobering, and not just as a matter of social justice, but also in terms of the rental business. It is hard to offer affordable rent rates given current home prices. Of larger concern is the tendency of rents to increase along with interest rates. Solutions to the problem evade me, but my gut instinct says that reliable public transportation evens the playing field for property values, and consequently rents.

I recently finished reading Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed. The book is a needed portal into the lives of the working poor, who have nearly vanished from our media and social consciousness. I felt somewhat helpless after reading it, but the author’s point is to inform more than to advise, so I can set aside that issue. However, I do have a serious critique to share.

My sympathy for her struggles took a decided turn when one of her potential employers required a drug screening, which posed problems for her because she had recently smoked marijuana. She proceeded to pay an exorbitant amount, relative to her wages, for an herbal cleanser and drank copious amounts of water to beat the test. She was entirely unreflective on the harms of drug use or legitimate reasons for employers to screen drug users from the applicant pool, but she had plenty of criticism for the employment process. Her indignation reaffirmed the Conservative bootstrappers’ view of the poor — they blame the system in lieu of accepting consequences for bad judgment.

I’m not a prude about social drug use, but it is odd when someone over the age of 25 hasn’t gotten over that phase. More than anything I felt disappointed that she made things harder on herself, but this is a small issue in an otherwise thought-provoking book. One passage in her concluding remarks stood out to me:

So if low-wage workers do not always behave in an economically rational way, that is, as free agents within a capitalist democracy, it is because they dwell in a place that is neither free nor in any way democratic. When you enter the low-wage workplace — and many of of the medium-wage workplaces as well — you check your civil liberties at the door, leave America and all it supposedly stands for behind, and learn to zip your lips for the duration of the shift. The consequences of this routine surrender go beyond the issues of wages and poverty. We can hardly pride ourselves on being the world’s preeminent democracy, after all, if large numbers of citizens spend half their waking hours in what amounts, in plain terms, to a dictatorship.

On one hand I side with the protestant work ethic, but that should never be an excuse to ignore the indignities that the working poor endure. The alternative to dictatorship is workplace democracy — where everyone has a voice in the distribution of profit and the leadership of the organization reflects the will of those who make it sustainable. Examples are uncommon, but it is desirable social order.

In related news, the author is writing a new book, Bait and Switch, which looks into the trials of employment for the middle class in America. A Washington Post article gives a nice summary of her investigation.

Update (10 Sept 2005): NPR has an audio interview with Ehrenreich.

Labor Day is an important holiday for people of all walks of life to reflect on each other’s contributions and appreciate leisure time. Unfortunately, the modern celebration betrays its roots. This coming Monday it is clear that we have two Americas — one of leisure and another of service. The evidence abounds as retail establishments hold large sales on Labor Day to entice one segment of society, which observes Labor Day, to shop and be served by those who are not afforded the same option for leisure.

While some voluntarily work this coming Monday and others in medical and essential positions have non-standard work schedules, compulsory work on a holiday meant to honor laborers is beyond the pale. My suggestion is simple: Don’t shop on Labor Day. Purchase your groceries and tend your needs in advance so that you personally won’t endorse this inequity. However, if for some reason you must shop or dine on Monday, please thank those who serve you.

The Man Who Made Kathie Lee Cry

For more than a decade, Kernaghan’s National Labor Committee — four staffers, including himself — has launched a steady stream of highly publicized campaigns, taking on the labor practices at factories producing clothes for Liz Claiborne, Fruit of the Loom, the Gap, Disney, JCPenney, Kmart, Kohl’s, Nike, Target, Levi Strauss and Sean Jean.

And who could forget Kathie Lee? Kernaghan will perhaps forever be known as the activist who made Kathie Lee Gifford cry when he revealed during congressional testimony in 1996 that child laborers in Honduras were making the Gifford clothing line sold at Wal-Mart.

Pressure from activists like Kergaghan serves a useful purpose to raise consciousness about the living conditions of workers who produce textiles and other products. However, a Independent Institute Working Paper (pdf) has raised a serious and credible counter point worth considering. I quote:

In 9 of 11 countries, the reported sweatshop wages equal or exceed average income, doubling it in Cambodia, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Honduras (at 70 hours). However, these figures do not include non-monetary compensation. Nike’s employees in Indonesia, for example, receive free health care and meals in addition to their wages (Jones 1996). Since 7 of 8 Indonesian examples alleged Nike factories to be sweatshops, not including non-monetary compensation causes our Indonesian sweatshop wage estimates to appear far lower than they should. If firms in other countries also provide additional benefits, their wages may be similarly understated. Overall, even with our data limitations, Figure 3 demonstrates that most of the jobs that some anti-sweatshop advocates protest raise their workers’ standard of living above their nation’s average.

On one hand it is clear that industrialization represents an improvement in abject poverty, as defined by the UN as earning less than one US dollar per day, but on the other it is clear that more progress is needed. Economics is the dismal science, but the bar seems rather low to praise this as meaningful progress, as some have done. Its puzzling how an athletic shoe is made for less than ten dollars overseas yet it still commands a price tag well over $100. The retail price of shoes has been steady — some brands increased — while the cost to the manufacturer has decreased substantially through the use of sweat shops. The standard answer I expect from an Economist is twofold:

• It is normal and right to charge all the market will bear
• Given time, wages will keep increasing through competition and various byproducts of industrialization

I disagree emphatically with the first point and the second is becoming tiresome. We’ve been hearing this since manufacturing jobs left the country in the 70s. Libertarian advocates reason that things will be alright once everyone is paid as little as they can tolerate, yet these cost savings seem to accumulate at the top instead of trickling down to the product shelf, in the case of sweat shop textiles.

While I’m glad to see that sweatshops improve the living conditions of workers, there are still valid reasons to continue applying pressure on the companies and governments in which they operate:

1. Activists want higher wages and better working conditions abroad, not simply marginal improvements.
2. There is a political element to raising people out of poverty that isn’t addressed by globalizing markets. I quote from Joshual Michael Marshal:
   

   To put it more concretely, one part of a real market in labor is the ability for people to protest conditions, either actively (through organizing) or passively (through quitting or refusing to work). But if people who try to form labor unions are murdered then that whole theory falls apart.

How one airline flew back into the black

From the maintenance floor to the cockpit, American Airlines is daily scouring operations to increase efficiency and find even the smallest cost savings. It’s paid off: Last week, the company announced its first profit in almost five years.

Just a few years ago American Airlines workers threatened a strike upon learning that upper management had protected its pensions from creditors while exposing the majority of employees. The new management at the airline is opening up lines of communication and thinking creatively together about ways to operate efficiently that don’t necessarily imply cutting wages and benefits for the majority of employees. The results thus far are impressive. While downsizing and the like may be necessary, it is nice to see a company working together, rather than against, its employees to address its budget concerns.