Ramblings

Today's been a long day at work (for once) so here's a few quick things.

1)There was a Wall Street Journal article today about how Walmart is having meeting with its employees about the negative implications for the company if the Employee Free Choice Act passes Congress. The human resources supervisors who lead the meetings emphasize that the act, which will facilitate unionization, will be likely to pass if the Democrats win the White House and a majority in Congress. They are not out and out telling their workers to vote Republican, but atre toeing a very delicate line on the legality of political influence by employers and employees (evidently employers are allowed to give political suggestions to salaried workers, but not to hourly workers.)

Even though this seems like a broken-record story of inappropriate corporate interference on first telling, I am of mixed feelings about this. Yes, in an ideal world, workers would be able to unionize without either political or economic ramifications, but this is not the world in which we live. Especially in times of economic downturn like the present, companies are forced (or choose) to deal with lower income and rising costs by downsizing. Unionization, if successful, will bring workers more pay and better benefits, which also increases costs for the company. The company may then respond by downsizing because it cannot afford to pay the higher costs. So as much as I don't like corporations meddling in their employees political affairs, don't employees also have a right to know how their government's decisions will affect their job security and future pay? Yet at the same time, isn't what Walmart doing akin to saying, if the Democrats win in the fall, there will be downsizing, and thereby implying that for their own financial security their workers will be forced to vote Republican. I am sort of thinking out loud here, and I'm not exactly sure what the right answer is, except that it's always important to remember that in our flawed society there's almost never one correct black and white answer, cven as the news media and campaigns do their best to eradicate all gray area from our public life.

2) David Brooks wrote a great op-ed today about the paralysis in making global decisions that defines our world today. He contrasts it to the world after WWII, when all power was cemented in the hands of the "Atlantic Alliance" and even within these countries was held by a "bipartisan governing elite." Contrast that to today, when there are 15 or 20 countries ranging from China to Brazil who have power to prevent important global consensuses on topics like global warming and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Even in our own country, power is so splintered that it's hard to create a national imperative to accomplish anything. Brooks argues that we need some sort of global governing mechanism to enforce obedience (or at least acquiesce) to the majority's decision. I agree that some sort of organization like this would be an incredible step forward, but I am pessimistic on it being accomplished within the next 25-30 years. The goals and priorities of the established superpowers (US, Japan, Germany, UK) and the emerging superpowers (China, India, Brazil, even Turkey) differ significantly, are often at odds, and will not be reconciled easily.

3)Haruki Murakami just came out with a new book on distance running, entitled What I Talk About When I Talk About Running. Murakami is one of my favorite fiction authors and I've run competitively (well, sort of) for the last 8 years, so I'm eagerly anticipating getting this book. Though ironically I haven't yet had time to buy it, because I run every day after work.

4)Finally the weekend. I needed this break pretty badly.