text:
The Abolitionary
Dedicated to the Abolition of the Power of the Class of Employers and Towards the Freedom of Workers and the Community
The Money Circuit of Capital
Worker Resistance Against Management, Part One
Some among the social-reformist left here in Toronto have accused me of being academic. They paint their activism as real as opposed to my own activities.
I thought it appropriate, then, to provide a story first about my own resistance as a worker. I will do so in order to be able to point to such resistance when I am accused of being an armchair activist (as I was by a community organization here in Toronto, JFAAP, or Jane and Finch Action Against Poverty when I criticized the limitations of their efforts).
I will probably eventually post a separate section on my resistance as a Marxist father.
I am copying (with a few modifications) something that I wrote when I was a member of the Toronto Labour Committee (TLC), headed by Sam Gindin (I withdrew from the Committee because it is an organization that fails to distance itself adequately from the union movement and therefore lacks critical capacity for questioning the class nature of the society in which we live). It was used as part of a course that Herman Rosenfeld (member of the TLC and a former educator for CAW for around a decade and a half) and Jordan House (member of the TLC and also a member of the International Workers' of the World (IWW)) and I developed and gave for airport workers at Pearson Airport in Toronto.
In the brewery where I worked (at first it was Carling O'Keefe Brewery and then Molson's Brewery, in Calgary, Alberta, Canada), the pasteurizer (the machine that pasteurized the beer) made the bottling shop very, very hot in the summer and even early fall. The workers had traditionally worn either their own clothes or company-provided coveralls.
Occasionally, there were tours of the bottling shop since there was a catwalk where visitors could see the workers below. One day, the foremen started handing out T-shirts and pants. Workers were given the choice to wear either their own clothes, the T-shirt or the coveralls. On the T-shirt was inscribed "Let's Just Say OV" (OV stood for Old Vienna beer, one of the kinds of beer producer there).
A few nights later, the two night shift foremen started handing out coveralls to those who were wearing their own clothes, saying that they had to either wear coveralls or the T-shirt and pants from that point on. A few accepted this, but I, who was working in my own clothing, refused to so. The foremen waited until 6:00 a.m.., when the bottling manager started working. At that time (an hour before the end of the shift), I was told to leave the premises–I was being sent home and disciplined for insubordination.
After consulting with the local union president, Bill Flookes, I showed up for my regular shift that night, wearing my own clothes. An hour into the shift, I was called in the office again. A foreman and the Union steward were waiting when I got there. In the discussion, I was that wearing the coveralls were too hot to work in. I willingly agreed to wear the company-supplied pants, but not the shirt that advertised the product. When asked why, I responded that I had nothing but contempt for capitalists and their representatives. The foreman sent me home once again.
After I was sent home, unknown to me at the time, another worker was ordered to replace me. That worker also had his own clothes on and refused to change into the T-shirt and pants or the coveralls after being ordered to do so. He too, was sent home. This occurred with another worker. The same thing happened; he too was sent home. A third worker was also sent home. Eventually, the foremen did not bother to send anyone further home; otherwise, they might not have had enough workers to operate the machines.
The issue was dropped, and the workers could wear their own clothes if they chose–or coveralls. The company withdrew the demand around the T-shirt and pants. A few workers resented what I had started, since they no longer received free T-shirts or pants, but in general there was support for the refusal: As one worker remarked, "The issue was a question of principle."
There were three questions attached to this scenario (among other scenarios) for the course:
What were some of the plans and decisions that made this action successful?
What were some of the limits of this action–and things that might hold the union local back from moving forward after this action? How might these limits be addressed?
What lessons can be learned from this experience for your own workplace, union and efforts to build the power of workers there?
When this scenario was presented to mainly union representatives at the course for airport workers, interestingly enough, most of the representatives, in their conversations, found that I should have filed a grievance and followed orders.
This experience taught me both the personal difficulty of resistance–my heart was pounding–and the importance of solidarity. It also taught me the limitations of solidarity and militancy at the micro level; despite the support from others workers, none of the workers questioned the legitimacy of the power of the employer to direct our working lives. The workers were in general militant (we organized the sabotaging of machines when a particular foreman tried to intensify our work, for example), but their attitude was general acceptance of the employer-employee relation.
For the course, we did not include the discussion that transpired between the bottling manager and the local union president, Bill Flookes, the morning of the second day that I was sent home. The bottling manager asked Bill if he knew what "that Marxist son-of-a-bitch had said?" Perhaps it should have been included in the course. Any opinions?
The abolitionist	Worker Resistance	 December 28, 2018 December 28, 2018 4 Minutes
Management Rights and the Crisis in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada: Limitations of the Reformist Left, Part Two
In an earlier post, I questioned the Socialist Project's characterization of the problem that workers in Oshawa face (Management Rights and the Crisis in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada: Limitations of the Reformist Left, Part One). I also, implicitly, questioned their proposed solutions. In this post, I will question their proposed solutions explicitly.
The Committee then proposes some things to be done to resolve the problem:
What's needed are efforts to provide challenging education programs about the potential for workers to demand that the facilities in which they work produce environmentally responsible products, publicly owned, and not dependent on the whims of the fickle and brutally competitive consumer private vehicle market. Without a leadership that points the way forward and questions the hyper-competitive private marketplace workers remain dependent on corporate employers and look to them to provide for their future.
The demand for educational programs ought to shift workers' consciousness to production that: 1. changes what is produced (environmentally unfriendly private vehicles vs. environmentally friendly vehicles); 2. and for what purpose (competitive and, implicitly, for profit rather than for need).
This demand is unlikely to have much immediate impact at Oshawa. To have an impact it would have been necessary to develop educational programs that call into question various aspects of the capitalist economy, both at the micro level of the plant and at the macro level of the structure of production and exchange. Has such an educational program been developed? Judging from my own experience in an educational program developed by Herman Rosenfeld, Jordan House and me and presented mainly to airport workers at Toronto Pearson airport, such an educational program has had severe limitations placed on it.
Firstly, we did not have many opportunities to provide educational course for such workers. In fact, after we presented three times, we did not present again for around two years.
Secondly, of those three times, only once did we present a critical macro approach, with three sections on the capitalist class, the working class and the capitalist state. The other two times, these sections were eliminated. Herman and Jordan did present to the airport afterwards–probably without the critical macro aspect.
Thus, to have an impact, there would have had to exist many educational opportunities for the workers, and the content of the courses would have had to include a critical approach at both the micro and macro level. Since there has not been such opportunities, a call for such a modified educational program at this stage is wishful thinking. It is highly unlikely to occur.
This leads into the last part of the article. The Committee demands the following:
Political Struggle, Community Control
The Socialist Project supports serious efforts by the union and the membership to organize collective actions that challenge GM's decision and calls for new products to be allocated to Oshawa.
We also call for the union to build a movement inside Local 222, the surrounding community and across the union movement and the Canadian working class, to:
Pressure governments to ensure the survival of the productive facilities in Oshawa by taking ownership, after a community seizure of the plant. Productive facilities, like what remains of GM Oshawa were paid for by the community need to be owned and further developed by the community. The federal government didn't hesitate to take ownership of the Trans Mountain pipeline project, and there is an historical precedent for the conversion of auto production during World War II to needed war materials.
Along with the workers and their surrounding communities, come up with a plan to produce needed mass transit equipment and other environmentally and socially necessary products. It would require and could lead to new capacities for research, development, production and distribution, that could create jobs, help stem the tide of climate change and foster the growth of a challenge to neoliberal capitalism.
Investment can be provided by a publicly owned municipal, provincial or federal development bank. More could be provided by taxing the assets of banks or other private investment institutions. •
It is of course necessary to try to address the immediate decision of GM to close the plant. A call for community seizure of the plant may be immediately needed to prevent GM from carrying out its plans. However, this is mixed up with the call for the federal government to take over ownership. Why would there not be a call for ownership to be located at the community level after the seizure? Why this shift to ownership by the federal government? Would it not be more democratic if the community owned the plant and workers made decisions within a framework provided by the community? Would not a community board of directors, with representatives from various community organizations being the ultimate owner, be more democratic than ownership by the federal government? (Tony Smith, in his book Globalisation: A Systematic Marxian Account) argues for such community ownership and organization, with workers having the right of use of the facilities owned by the community.)
The federal government may be needed to prevent GM from taking away the physical assets and accounts of the plant; it may also be needed in various ways to support the community. However, since the federal government is unlikely to be democratic in structure if it owned the plant. Workers would still be treated as things since the federal government would be the employer. Undoubtedly, given the macro environment of a capitalist economy dominated by employers, community organization would also tend in that direction. However, there would be less of tendency in that direction than would be the case if the federal government owned the plant.
In relation to the second point–a plan for democratically producing environmentally-friendly output, the emphasis seems to be more on the kind of output rather than the kinds of relations between human beings at work. Admittedly, creating environmentally-friendly vehicles does express a positive relation between individuals, but this relation would be between the set of workers producing the environmentally-friendly objects and other workers and institutions who buy the vehicles.
What should have been included is a characterization of the preferred internal relations between workers–democratic–and how such a form could at least have been begun (although hardly achieved since the Oshawa plant would exist in a sea of capitalist relations of production and exchange).
The two bulleted points, with the suggested modifications, will however very unlikely be realized; GM will in all likelihood be closed down, with the Oshawa workers and community experiencing the immediate brunt of the shut down. What would have been required was persistent preparation of both the community and the workers (of course, not exclusionary since Oshawa workers can also be inhabitants of Oshawa) for a democratic takeover of the plant through a criticism of the employer-employee relation as such. Given the lack of such criticism, workers are likely unprepared ideologically and psychologically (in terms of their attitude towards what needs to be done and what goals to pursue) for a democratic break with the structure of capitalist production and exchange.
An example of the inadequate preparation of workers: I heard Chris Buckley, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, give a speech at a rally in support of striking airport workers in 2017. He used several times the term "decent job" and "decent work"–by which he meant a job subject to a collective agreement. The social-reformist and radical left did not question him anymore than they questioned Tracy McMaster, president of Greater Toronto Area Council, to which are affiliated 35 local unions of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU)), who also referred to "decent work" and "fair wages." They are afraid to alienate union reps and heads, but it is difficult to see how such alienation can be prevented given the acceptance of the power of employers as a class by such reps and heads of unions
Coming to the final point of the article is also wishful thinking. To create a developmental bank would require a fighting organization–a set of unions that are designed to engage in systematic attacks at the municipal, provincial and federal levels against the power of employers as a class and not the rhetorical flashes of engaging in struggles (see Chris Buckley's letter to Premier Doug Ford, Letter From OFL President Chris Buckley to Premier Doug Ford Regarding GM Oshawa). The recent indication by Jerry Dias, national president of Unifor, and Warren (Smokey) Thomas, president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), that they are going to fight Ford's agenda, will unlikely be sufficient to change the situation in Oshawa (OPSEU and Unifor Join Forces Against Doug Ford); both accept the premise that collective agreements express a relation of fairness or justice. Expanding alliances across the public and private sector may or may not constitute structural change within unions. If such alliances are merely extensions of the existing union structures, it is unlikely to be an effective fighting force since such structures are not designed to question the legitimacy of the power of employers as a class; they assume the legitimacy of the power of employers as a class and seek only to limit such power–a necessary part of working-class struggle, but hardly sufficient. To become fighting organizations (with purposes that go beyond the limits of the power of employers as a class) and not merely defensive organizations, they need to question the legitimacy of collective agreements while still engaging in collective bargaining as a necessary evil.
We can see this on the OPSEU website for example. The title of one article is Ford in bed with business, won't save good GM jobs ; as noted in the first part of the post (see the link to that post above), the logic of this is that before GM announced its decision to close the plant, GM jobs were "good jobs," but after the announcement, what were they? Bad jobs? The right of employers to close down may be fought on a particular basis, but generally employers as a class have the right to close businesses based on business criteria (generally, profitability in the private sector and public efficiency and political expediency in the public sector). This applies to jobs such as the jobs at GM. To call any job controlled by employers as good, therefore, is contradictory; jobs apparently are both good (when they are not eliminated) and bad (if they can be eliminated).
The article on the OPSEU website has Warren ("Smokey") Thomas specifically claiming the following: ""At least Ontario has strong unions who stand united to fight for good jobs, even if the premier won't." In addition to calling such jobs good (and, by implication bad when they can be eliminated)–in addition to this contradiction–Smokey's argument ignores how workers at Oshawa are used as means for the benefit of obtaining more and more money by GM (see the The Money Circuit of Capital, which calls into question any characterization of working for employers as good or decent since workers are necessarily things or means for ends not defined by them but by a class of employers).
We can get an idea of Jerry Dias' views on "good jobs" from the following article on the Unifor website, entitled Unifor to hold national 'Good Jobs Summit'. Mr. Dias states the following:
"We need elected officials to help chart a path towards a good jobs future," Dias wrote. "We need to start raising expectations that we can win jobs that pay fair wages, are safe and stable. And we want all workers in Canada to join in."
Working for an employer, who generally has the legal right to close a factory, a department and so forth without democratic control by those effected by the decision, is somehow still a "good job." It somehow results in fair wages (whereas wages, in the private sector, result from previous surpluses produced by workers and therefore are used to further exploit workers. See my post Basic Income: A Critique of the Social-Reformist Left's Assumptions and Analysis: Part Two , criticizing David Bush's one-sided analysis of capitalist relations of production and exchange).
The idea that jobs within a capitalist society are somehow safe also is questionable, as a number of posts have tried to make clear (Confessions of a Union Representative Concerning the Real Power of Employers, Unions and Safety on Jobs Controlled by Employers, Getting Away with Murder and Bodily Assault: Employers and the Law).
As for stable jobs: Where does Mr. Dias question management rights clauses in collective agreements, which implicitly or explicitly express the right of employers to reduce the number of positions or close factories or departments? That unions can and have limited such a right is certainly preferable to letting management have carte blanche, but limitations on that right hardly involve stability–as the Oshawa workers have experienced first hand. In any case, in a system characterized by capitalist accumulation, where a minority make decisions about what to invest, where to invest, when to invest and so forth, stability is possible for awhile but subject to constant disruption as investors seek new profits and new means to accumulation across the globe. Stability was possible after the Second World War, for instance, for some time because of the substantial destruction of means of production during the Second World War, the opening up of new areas for investment, the expansion of demand for workers and relative increases in wages. Given that a global war is hardly in the workers' best interests, it is likely that more and more workers will be subject to increasingly precarious jobs until a global slump much wider and deeper than the one in 2007-2008 reduces the value of many means of production, leading to a vast upsurge in unemployment–in either case hardly a stable future.
So, the alliance of a public-sector union and a private-sector union is unlikely to provide the basis for the realization of the third point in the Socialist Project's Steering Committee: neither the emergence of a development bank at the municipal, provincial or federal level, nor taxing the banks and other investment institutions is likely to be realized in the near future. (It is to be wondered why taxing is limited only to investment institutions and excludes taxing corporations involved in production. But that only in passing.)
The article fails to address the issue of preparing workers to develop a working-class attitude that would be conducive to engage in action that reflects an understanding of their class interests. It may or may not be too late to engage the workers at the Oshawa plant with such an approach, but such an approach should have been started long ago in order to address democratically the power of this particular employer to exert its class right to determine what to do with the means of production.
As it stands, there will probably be knee-jerk reactions to an immediate crisis–which is a typical response of an approach that fails to take into account the class nature of working for an employer but rather assumes that there are such things, within the confines of the employer-employee relation, as "good or decent jobs," "fair wages," "a fair contract," "economic justice" (given collective agreements), "fairness," "Fair Labour Laws Make Work Safe" and other such half-truths and platitudes. Perhaps the workers in Oshawa will learn the hard way this lesson, but it is more likely to do so if a critical working-class organization exists which questions such half-truths and platitudes and enables workers to understand their own experiences in a wider social context.
The abolitionist	Socialist Strategy	 December 21, 2018 January 14, 2019 10 Minutes
Management Rights and the Crisis in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada: Limitations of the Reformist Left, Part One
The Socialist Project Steering Committee wrote the following on its website (Taking on the GM Shutdown: Unifor, Oshawa and Community Control) :
General Motor's plan to end production at its Oshawa plant at the end of 2019 is a callous, cynical act by the U.S.-based multinational auto giant that needs to be challenged. After accepting $13.7-billion bailout offered by the Canadian public to the big automakers back in 2008 to keep GM and Chrysler alive (one third of which will never be recovered), the company plans will leave 2500 workers at the plant out of work, with perhaps further spinoff losses of jobs and taxes. This is a brutal blow for the home of industrial unionism in Canada and one of the long-time centres of Canadian auto production.
This view implies that GM's decision to close the plant is somehow unfair. Why else would such a decision be called callous and cynical?
Why is it unfair? There seem to be several reasons for providing such a judgement. Firstly, GM, like many other capitalist employers, were bailed out by the so-called Canadian public (actually, the Canadian government–hardly the same thing). Secondly, "one third" of the bailout "will never be recovered." So, you lend someone a hand–and they not only fail to appreciate your aid but bite the hand that helps him. These are two the moral objections to the closing of the Oshawa plant provided by the Socialist Project Steering Committee.
The negative consequences of the closure seem to be a further objection, but that would only be so if there was an argument against closing plants by employers in general. If the Canadian government had not bailed out GM and no funds had been lost, then GM could legitimately "leave 2500 workers at the plant out of work, with perhaps further spinoff losses of jobs and taxes." (Just as an aside–there is little doubt that there would be substantial spinoff losses of jobs and taxes. Why the Socialist Project Steering Committee decided to add the qualifier "perhaps" is a mystery. For one description of what happens, at an experiential level, to workers' lives when coal mines and steel plants close down, see Simon J. Charlesworth, A Phenomenology of Working-class Experience).
The article, however, does not limit itself to only two reasons for considering the decision to be unfair:
From the point of view of the workers and communities surrounding Oshawa and, indeed, the needs and concerns of the working class across the country, there is no understanding why a place so productive can be shut down. Besides directly attacking the livelihoods and economic futures of workers, the shutdown would eliminate a key component of productive capacities in Canada.
Two further reasons are thus provided: the Oshawa plant is productive, and its closing would result in a reduction in the productive capacities in Canada.
Presumably what the Committee means by productive is in terms of material production. It may also mean value added as a whole. However, as the Committee undoubtedly understands, what is productive in those terms need not transfer to productivity for capital since the issue for capital is aggregate profit, and that usually in relation to total investment (rate of profit). What is productive materially and value added need not necessarily translate into higher profits and a higher rate of profit. For example, the same value added can be distributed differently between profits and wages. And the same level of profits, if related to different aggregate costs, will result in a different rate of profit.
It seems that the Committee is using a different definition of what constitute productivity from what GM considers productivity; why else would GM decide to close the Oshawa plant? It has decided, according to its own definition of productivity, what is productive–profitability and the rate of profit.
That the Committee and GM are using different definitions of productivity becomes clearer in what follows:
There is no reason to close down the facility in Oshawa which has consistently ranked as one of the top plants in the world (and similar doubts could be raised for the four U.S. plants also slated for closure). GM could easily retool these plants, and produce both new electric and hybrid vehicles, as well as the SUVs that are dominating current markets. These plants have rested on the community and labour resources of their communities; if GM doesn't use this productive capacity, it should be seized as community property and put to other uses.
Brutal Corporate Strategy
From the point of view of GM, and the financial markets that back GM up, the closures are part of a brutal corporate strategy to: cut overall costs; to concentrate production in hot selling profit-making trucks and SUVs; and to finance later moves to offshore production of electric vehicles (quite possibly in China as the key growth market for e-vehicles).
In what way has Oshawa consistently "ranked as one of the top plants in the world?" Perhaps it has done so in terms of level of material productivity, value added, profitability and rate of profit–or perhaps it has not. Without a further explanation of what the standards are that are being used to make such a judgement, it is impossible to say what is being claimed here. However, in the above quotation, the Committee itself recognizes that its standards and those of GM are not the same. GM has decided to close certain plants "to cut overall costs." If overall costs are cut, with profit remaining the same, then the rate of profit increases. "From the point of view of GM," the productivity of capital will have increased. Furthermore, a shift from production in Oshawa and other plants to "hot-selling profit-making trucks and SUVs." Not only did GM makes its decision based on the input sides (costs), but it also made its decision on the output side (level of demand). Furthermore, there is implied an already proven profit-making market, with relatively secure profits since demand is apparently quite high for output.
Is this not what capitalist employers do? How is GM any different from other employers in this regard?
The unfairness arises from an implied critique of capitalism as such as unfair without explicitly making it so; it is couched in terms of a bailout and non-recoverable funds. However, the article confuses the two issues and does not argue against GM as such as unfair.
If the only actions that are unfair is the bailout and nonrecoverable funds, then the solution would be to seize the Oshawa plant and have GM pay back the lost funds, after which GM would be free to close down the plant.
If, on the other hand, an economy dominated by a class of employers is unfair as such, then GM's actions are unfair and seizing the plant without compensation would be only a prelude to seizing other plants since the ownership of such plants by employers would be illegitimate.
Since the Steering Committee fails to criticize explicitly the power of employers as a class to decide what to produce where and when it wants, its criticism of GM's "brutal corporate strategy" rings hollow.
Why, for example, did it not criticize the following?:
MASTER AGREEMENT
GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA COMPANY
Local No. 199 St. Catharines Local No. 222 Oshawa Local No. 636 Woodstock
(Effective: September 26, 2016)
SECTION IV
(4) The Union recognizes the right of the Company to hire, promote, transfer, demote and lay off employees and to suspend, discharge or otherwise discipline employees for just cause subject to the right of any employee to lodge a grievance in the manner and to the extent as herein provided.
The Union further recognizes the right of the Company to operate and manage its business in all respects, to maintain order and efficiency in its plants, and to determine the location of its plants, the products to be manufactured, the scheduling of its production and its methods, processes, and means of manufacturing. The
Union further acknowledges that the Company has the right to make and alter, from time to time, rules and regulations to be observed by employees, which rules and regulations shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement.
(This blog has criticized management rights on principle on a number of occasions. See (Management Rights, Part One: Private Sector Collective Agreement, British Columbia, Management Rights, Part Two: Public Sector Collective Agreement, Ontario, Management (Employer) Rights, Part Three: Public Sector Collective Agreement, Manitoba, Management Rights, Part Four: Private Sector Collective Agreement, Ontario).
The limitation of the social-reformist left are further exposed in the following:
Workers in Canada, the USA or Mexico for that matter, have no democratic control over what is being produced in our countries, or the fate of the productive facilities that produce them. Current governments of all stripes accept the free movement of capital and the domination of large investors in making key economic decisions. Trudeau, Ford and NDP governments are so committed to free trade and the wisdom of the private marketplace, that it is breathtaking to see how they fall over themselves to accept the right of GM to close down Oshawa, and limit themselves to providing Employment Insurance (EI), retraining and such.
This call for democratic control comes from out of the blue. Such a call is pure rhetoric and is not at all linked with the critique of concrete social structures that workers and community members experience on a daily basis. It is "breathtaking to see how they fall over themselves" in failing to criticize the various social structures that support the power of employers in general. Seizing the plant and managing it on democratic principles hardly need to coincide. Seizing the plant may be just an immediate reaction to the perceived threat to jobs–jobs that are hardly decent since they involve treating human beings as things (see The Money Circuit of Capital) but, nonetheless, are needed by workers if they are going to live in a society dominated by a class of employers.
A call for democratic control requires preparation. Why is there no definite critique of management rights? Why is there no definite critique of the right of employers to use workers as things legally? Why is there no definite critique of the economic dependence which characterizes so much of the lives of the working class? A critique of these structures is a necessary prelude to real democratic control by workers over the economic conditions of their own lives.
Actually, what they probably mean by "democratic control" is the regulations of employers and not the actual democratic control by workers over their own lives. Why else do they use the term "no democratic control." They seem to object, not to the power of employers to dictate to workers in general, but to a particular form of that dictatorship–neoliberalism, where the welfare state is reduced in scope for the benefit of the class of employers.
The Committee then proceeds to criticize the weakness of Unifor's response in the face of the announced closure of the Oshawa plant. The criticism is accurate as far as it goes, but the Committee does not bother to look at the weakness of the left and its role in feeding into that response. As already mentioned, the left does not generally criticize management rights as such. Quite to the contrary. It uses rhetoric and euphemisms, such as "decent work," "fair wages," (Tracy McMaster), "a fair contract" (Wayne Dealy). It fails to criticize the pairing of the Fight for $15 with the concept of "fairness," implying that fairness can be achieved within the employer-employee relation. It fails to criticize the rhetoric of "Fair Labour Laws Save Lives." It fails to criticize the rhetoric of "economic justice" (John Cartwright).
Were the jobs at the Oshawa plant before the announcement "decent jobs?" Was the collective agreement a "fair contract" and the wages a "fair wage?" But then magically, after the announcement, they are no longer "decent jobs?" There is no longer a "fair contract?" There is no longer a "fair wage?"
Were the labour laws fair before the announcement of the closure of the Oshawa plant fair? If so, how did they remain fair afterwards? Or did they magically become unfair?
So many questions, but the article by the Steering Committee fails to provide any answers.
A later post will look in more detail at the proposed solutions by the Steering Committee.
The abolitionist	Socialist Strategy	 December 14, 2018 December 15, 2018 8 Minutes
The Meaning of Being Hired, Fired and Laid Off
The following is a debate on Facebook I had with a pro-employer right-winger. The context was the closing down of the Oshawa GM auto factory (among others) in Ontario, Canada, the loss of around 3,000 direct jobs there and the possible loss of around 15,000 additional workers due to the spin-off losses of the suppliers of the factory.
I initially indicated that the 15,000 workers would be fired, not laid off. A right-winger named Jim Edgeworth argued that they were laid off rather than fired and referred to Brampton (Ontario, Canada) workers at Chrysler allegedly eight years ago as proof that the 15,000 workers would be laid off, not fired.
The issue is interesting in terms of what hiring, firing and laying off mean—something lost in most discussions about "jobs."
I do not report the verbatim arguments of Jim Edgeworth; he deleted his arguments from Facebook.
Let us assume for the moment that that is true. Then all the more reason to eliminate a class of employers that must fire "over 15,000" since they cannot exploit them adequately (to say "laid off" assumes that that is temporary).
Of course, this person is not really concerned about the 15,000 fired. Rather, he is concerned about defending the interests of employers at any cost.
I then respond to Edgeworth's reference to the Brampton workers at Chrysler:
Who defines what constitutes "laid off." Are the Brampton workers still waiting around, expecting to be rehired? Or have they moved on to other employers? The person needs to provide facts to substantiate the view that workers have somehow being "laid off"–despite not working for the same worker for "eight years ago."
I ignored Edgeworth's attempt to insult me, and wrote:
This right-winger, evidently, is more concerned with his own egotistical nature than with addressing the problems and sufferings of real human beings–a characteristic of employers, who use human beings as means for their own end of obtaining more and more money.
Rather than indulging in the same kind of trite behavior, let us look at this so-called fact of being laid off or being fired. To be laid off or fired, it is first necessary to be hired. What does it mean to be hired by Chrysler at Brampton?
To be hired requires that the workers themselves lack economic independence–the means by which they can realize their act of working belong to others–to a minority called employers. At a brewery, for example, the soaker, filler and labeler are owned by the brewery employer and not by the workers who use the soaker, filler or labeler (and not by those workers who produced the soaker, filler and labeler).
If workers were economically independent, they would be able to sell the commodities that they produced than their own capacity or ability to work.
Workers in a society characterized by production mainly for exchange need money in order to obtain the means necessary for them to live (means of consumption). They then sell their capacity to work as a commodity (a thing to be exchanged and used by another) for money, and then they buy other commodities necessary to live.
To obtain the money necessary to live, they must sell their capacity to labour to the owners of the means of production (call such means MP). We can then show the process of hiring, from the point of view of the employer, as M-C (=L), where M represents the money of the employer, – or a dash represents an exchange, C represents a commodity and L represents the specific commodity sold by the worker, labour power or the capacity to work or use the means of production (MP).
Of course, L (labour power or the capacity to work by using the means of production) is bought only in order to oblige the workers to use the means of production (MP) owned by employers, and the means of production (MP) is generally must be purchased before labour power (L) since the employer only has temporary power to use of labour power (L) and cannot own L outright (unlike the means of production, MP).
The initial exchange of the employer is then divided into two parts: M-C(L) and M-C (MP), or M-C(=L+MP).
We now have sufficient information to understand what being fired and what being laid off mean. One of the major functions of money in a capitalist society is to unite workers (L) and means of production (MP)–because capitalist property relations ensure that workers and the conditions of their living are separated into two opposed classes.
When workers are laid off, they are temporarily separated from the means of production (MP), with the real possibility of being united with them again with the same employer (of course, the nature of the means of production may change due to technological change). Being laid off is a temporary severance of the relationship between the workers and the means of production, on the one hand, and the particular employer on the other.
It should be noted that it is the employer who makes a decision to lay off and not the workers.
Workers who are fired have the relationship between them and the means of production, on the one hand, and a particular employer on the other, permanently broken or severed.
In a capitalist society, workers do not have to legally work for a particular employer; they are not full-time slaves. As a class, of course, they do have to work for the class of employers as long a capitalism persists–otherwise, capitalism could not continue to exist.
Now, this right-winger claims that workers who have not worked for eight years for Chrysler in Brampton are laid off because they have the right of recall (according to a collective agreement, undoubtedly, since workers do not have the right to recall otherwise).
Practically, these workers have had to look for other employment (or received income from government assistance–or starved). How else would they continue to live? The right of recall hardly takes precedence over the need to live. The right of recall after eight years of time, practically, results in being fired (severed permanently from using the means of production and having a real relation to the employer by being exploited by the employer).
But since the right-winger does not specify where he obtains his information concerning the right of recall, let us take a look at the collective agreement between Oakley subassembly Windsor ULC Brampton plant and Unifor Local 1825 (October 4, 2013-October 3, 2016). On page 16, clause 12.03, it says the following:
"Seniority will be lost and an employee will be terminated if an employee: …
"(c) is laid off and not recalled for a period of eighteen (18) months or for a period of time equal to the employee's accumulated seniority at date of layoff, whichever is greater, with a maximum of thirty six (36) months"
The right-winger, of course, does not really care whether the workers eight years ago were fired or laid off–nor with understanding the difference between them nor with understanding the kind of society in which we live. He is a superficial mouthpiece of employers and, like employers, he has used the workers at Brampton to serve his own egotistical ends.
By the way, the left share similar beliefs to this right-winger–despite their opposition toward each other. Both he and the left believe in the necessity of employers. He considers anything employers as a class do as good whereas the left believe in the humanization of the employer-employee relation. Why else would the left talk about "decent work," "fair wages," (expressed by, for example, Tracy McMaster, president of Greater Toronto Area Council, to which are affiliated 35 local unions of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU)), "economic justice," (expressed by John Cartwright, president, Toronto & York Region Labour Council), "fairness" (as in the expression "Fight for $15 and Fairness," a grassroots and union movement in Ontario), and Fair Labour Laws (as posted on the JFAAP website but copied from a union (Jane and Finch Action Against Poverty, a grassroots organization in one of poorer and racialized areas of Toronto)? All in the context of a society characterized by the use of human beings as means for the private sector employers to obtain more and more money (and public sector employers to use workers as means for purposes not defined by them but by senior management).
Such is the nature of the right and the social-reformist left.
Should we workers not understand better what it means to be hired, fired and laid off in order to grasp better the nature of our lives? Does the social-reformist left provide us with the tools necessary to understand our own experiences? Do they themselves bother in providing us with an understanding of our own experiences in this world? If not, why not? And if not, does that not demonstrate both a lack of democracy among the social-reformist left?
Does not the social-reformist left not have contempt for the regular worker when they remain silent about the meaning of the social structures which workers experience on a regular basis as a class?
The abolitionist	Employer-employee relationship	 December 7, 2018 December 6, 2018 6 Minutes
Publications and Writings
A Deweyan Review of the the Chicago Teachers' Union Publication The Schools Chicago Students Deserve: Research-Based Proposals to Strengthen Elementary and Secondary Education in the Chicago Public Schools (2012)
Dewey's Materialist Philosophy of Education: A Resource for Critical Pedagogues?
Dewey's Concepts of Stability and Precariousness in His Philosophy of Education
The Grammar of the Human Life Process: John Dewey's New Theory of Language
The abolitionist on A Worker's Resistance to…
Cass Murray on A Worker's Resistance to…
2 Questions Every Ca… on Basic Income: A Critique of th…
Human Capital or Pse… on Basic Income: A Critique of th…
biswadipdasgupta on Socialism, Part Two: What It M…


text:
namespace Halide {
namespace PythonBindings {

void define_type();

std::string halide_type_to_string(const Type &type);

}  // namespace PythonBindings
}  // namespace Halide

#endif  // HALIDE_PYTHON_BINDINGS_PYTYPE_H

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Favre un-re-retires: The Divisionaries Are Born
WTF.
Brett. Seriously? Go play for the Birmingham Barons.
So, the Football blog I'll be writing on is called The Divisionaries. We've already got some bitching going on about Favre-gate3.0. We'll be able to make fun of the Lions… lots.
And if a weekly post is not enough to get your fix, we're also on twitter here: http://twitter.com/Divisionaries
And yes. Gridiron Girl will be making appearances in the as well.
1 Comment	| American Football, Call To Action, football, Shamless Name-Dropping, Sports	| Tagged: Brett Favre, Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, Green Bay Packers, Minnnesota Vikings	| Permalink
Brett Favre to Re-Unretire
Just when you think he's teared up at a press conference for the last time, yet ANOTHER rumor pops up that Brett "Journeyman" Favre now wants to play for the Vikings. Hmmm. Is it because he's got "something left in the tank", maybe, or maybe the economy is such that it's too soon to open a car dealership.
Had to post this. Original is Law Blog RLHB.
Either way, he wants in, and Mike & Mike on EPSN seemed to hint that it's purely to get revenge on his old team — the Green Bay Packers. That should work out for everyone, as we all know through centuries of theater, books and movies — aging gladiators called into battle for revenge's sake and fueled by blind ambition usually succeed without much difficulty, agnorisis, etc.
What's sad is that Wisconsin has gone mute on the subject (not that is has a say anyway). Scanning the most recent headlines on google The Frozen Tundra is frozen still. There's a national frenzy but Milwaukee is mum… there is NO mention of Favre on the Journal-Sentinel front page and BARELY even a mention of this anywhere on the sports page. Hmmm. This from the paper that would run a picture of Favre above the fold instead of Afghan war coverage.
Maybe it's a McCarthy-era strategy — don't publish stories about him and maybe he'll just go away. Meanwhile, Chicago Sun Times and Tribune both had stuff to say about it.
A few other thoughts:
Brett should look for a new shoe endorsement.
Green Bay is not quarantined with swine flu — they just don't have the will to get out of bed this week.
Internet-friend Ryan thought: "If [this] … happens the NFC North will be land of the QBs with Cutler here, Stafford at Detroit, Farve at Minnesota and Rodgers in Green Bay, could be interesting." It's true. Would the NFC North not be the butt of jokes for once? Maybe they could shake that guaranteed noon start time pattern.
Internet-friend Kenny thought: "….if Brett Favre goes to Minnesota, his legacy will be somewhat tarnished. This is the guy that replaced Bart Starr as the face of the franchise historically, and he is going to go wear purple and play in a dome? Just stick to playing football with a posse of country folk at a field in the middle of nowhere while wearing Wranglers.
Five Stars Kenny. Real. Comfortable. Blog.
2 Comments	| Uncategorized	| Tagged: Birmingham Barons, Brett Favre, Chicago Bears, Green Bay Packers, Michael JOrdan, milwaukee, Minnesota Vikings, New York Jets, NFC North, NFL, swine flu, Washington Wizards	| Permalink
Jay Cutler, the Chicago Bears, and Scratch-Off Tickets
The completely unexpected happened a few weeks ago. Because I've been slacking, I haven't posted anything, but, after all my bear-bashing, I'm about to eat my words and enjoy it.
Photo from Blog Down Chicago Bears
The oft-criticized Chicago Bear front office pulled off what amounts to the most important personnel move in my personal history with the team, and perhaps the biggest move in Bears history.
Though other franchises make blockbuster moves and offer ridiculous contracts nearly every off-season (Hi Jets! Cowboys! Redskins!), the Bears are traditionally a stoic, staunch, and slow-moving franchise. Instead of grabbing hot free agents every year, the Bears opt to reward their core players with generous contract re-signings… regrettably, as the cornerstones of the defense proved last year, sometimes that's not the best idea (see: #21).
All that was blown out of the water earlier this week.
Bears fans have had nearly enough of GM Jerry Angelo's big talk with no follow-through, while Lovie Smith's unnerving poker face press responses further aggravated fans. Meanwhile in Colorado, Jay Cutler, former Midwest-born Bears fan and 25 yearr-old Pro Bowl quarterback, was refusing to answer the phonecalls of his team, the Denver Broncos. Cutler was rightfully peeved — the Broncos' new sherrif in town, Josh McDaniels, had made no secret of the fact he was not interested in having Cutler under center during the 2009 season. McDaniels had an inexplicable man-crush on a Patriots backup QB.
Photo from Football Nation
This was the highest-profile trade in recent memory and the Bears, somehow, fended off a HUGE amount of competition to lock up what could wind up solidifying the always-iffy Bears QB position. A gutsy move that could feasibly solve the perennial Chicago QB problem for the next decade-plus. Imagine not worrying about this issue again until after we host the Olympics! Ha.
But there are always naysayers… here are the biggest complaints which I will swiftly refute:
Naysayer #1: "Jay Cutler is a good QB but he doesn't have anyone to throw to"
Aside from the fact that the Bears have two solid tigh ends and one the best pass-catching backs in the league, I get the point — the Bears wide receiving corp(se) is the worst in the league. But, as my pal Jimmy pointed out, good quarterbacks create better receivers. Good receivers don't make great QBs.
Note how unimpressive past Packer wideouts become after they leave a team that had Brett Favre throwing to them. Note how well Randy Moss fared in Oakland without a decent signal caller under center. Note how well the pass-happy Eagles threw this year without any real stars at the position. Note how Wes Welker played on the Dolphins compared to how well he's played in New England.
Also worth mentioning: the Bears are sure to make some moves post-draft. Aside from the draft itself, there are plenty of veteran wide receivers to pick up… Torry Holt, Marvin Harrison, The Foot-Shooter to name a few. Granted two of those three athletes are past their prime, but they're still serviceable, savvy, smart, possession players.
Naysayer #2: "The Bears gave up too much to get Cutler"
To lock-up Cutler, the Bears gave up two first-round picks, an additional pick, and their starting QB, Kyle Orton. On paper, this looks like a pretty steep cost. But for anyone that's followed the history of Chicago drafts, this is a great move. Long-story short, the Bears DO NOT draft offensive players well… or develop them well. Trading away what might be for what already is makes perfect sense.
Think about it like this: Some guy (probably in a trenchcoat) approaches you on the street… let's call him… ummm, Josh McDaniels. He has five-hundred dollars neatly stacked in a pile and wants to trade you for your two "Win a Million" scratch-off lottery tickets. Mr McDaniels (who is obviously clinically insane) would rather have your two scratch-offs than his cold, hard cash. He'll trade you his liquid assets for two of your unscratched lottery tickets. Sure, your tickets might be worth lots too, but your name is McCaskey and your family has never had much luck in the lottery. WHY DO YOU NOT AGREE TO THIS TRADE?
Appendix: Here are the Bears' 1st round offensive skill position picks since 1988: Greg Olsen, Cedric Benson, Rex Grossman, David Terrell, Cade McNown, Curtis Enis, Rashaan Salaam, Curtis Conway, Brad Muster, and Wendell Davis. It's pretty evident you've been squandering them anyway, why not give them away for something tangible? Tangible and fucking awesome btw.
Naysayer #3: "Kyle Orton is the future"
K.O., god love him, is a solid QB, and may still wind up being a fantastic player. But look at the facts: He is not a Pro Bowler, Cutler is. He isn't 13-1 when the defense allows less than 22 points, which Cutler was last year (fyi — Bears avg points allowed last year: 21.9). Lastly, Orton's lack of arm strength nullified the speed that "#1" receiver Devin Hester possesses; while the words "Cutler", "canon", and "lazer" often appear in the same sentence.
It's Science:
Note how "canon" spikes when Jay Cutler news spikes.
I'm thrilled to see what happens this season. And if Cutler is a bust — so be it. I don't think Chicago would have ever forgiven the franchise for not pursing an all-star QB that was within their grasp, so I commend the Bears for making a huge, and long-awaited move. I've never anticipated a season more than I have this off-season. I wish it started tomorrow.
Leave a Comment »	| football, In The News, Sports	| Tagged: Brad Muster, Brett Favre, Cade McNown, Cedric Benson, Chicago Bears, Curtis Conway, Curtis Enis, David Terrell, denver broncos, devini hester, Donovan McNabb, eg Olsen, first round draft picks, Green Bay Packers, jay cutler, jerry angelo, Josh McDaniels, Kyle Orton, lottery, Miami Dolphins, New England Patriots, NFL, NFL draft, Philadelphia Eagles, Randy Moss, Rashaan Salaam, Rex Grossman, Wendell Davis, Wes Welker	| Permalink
Vikings and Bears NFC North Run-off
I'm not going to waste time talking about the Bears and Vikes games last week, but I AM going to focus on what happens now — with three games left apiece.
So far, all we know is that the Bears D is not good when playing other good teams. They only appear to be good when playing games they're expected to win. It's no coincidence their recent wins have been against the lousiest of the league — Jacksonville, Detroit, St. Louis — they remind me of a pouty Rec League group that plays in the lower levels just to feel good about themselves.
Lance Briggs said earlier this year that when the Bears defense wanted to play well they would play well. Hmmm. Well, sidestepping the most obvious question, ("As a professional athlete player, when do you NOT want to play well?") question #2 is, "Do you find it odd that in games the defense SHOULD have been amped up, you actually played worse?" Failures such as:
A chance to beat an undefeated Titans team.
A chance to claim first place in the NFC North by beating the division rival Packers at Lambeau.
A change to reclaim first place in the NFC by beating the Vikings in prime time
Were they not pumped up about these games?
THESE are the games you have to win, THESE are the games you win if you deserve to be the Division Champs — Tough games, DIVISION games. It's because the Bears can't win to save their own hides that having to root against the Vikings is just maddening.
If the Bears won games they were supposed to, we shouldn't have to watch the scoreboard to see if Detroit is going to beat them (Or Arizona, or Atlanta, or New York) in the next few weeks. Larry Mayer's ChicagoBears.com Chalk Talk made it painfully clear what needs to happen for the Bears to make the playoffs:
There are two ways for the Bears to win the NFC North: They go 2-1 and the Vikings go 0-3, or the Bears go 3-0 and the Vikings lose at least two of their final three games. Minnesota can win the division with two victories regardless of what the Bears do.
So, if I must, here's who they both play in weeks 15, 16 & 17.
Vikes (8-5): Arizona* (8-5), Atlanta** (8-5), New York* (11-2)
— combined record (27-12) .692
Bears (7-6): New Orleans** (7-6), Green Bay (5-8), Houston (6-7)
(*Clinched Playoff Birth, **Wild Card Race)
So, at first blush, The Vikings have a more difficult schedule. But you have to consider both Arizona and especially New York have nothing left to play for, so their only real difficult game is Atlanta. Based on Mayer's comments, I find it very unlikely that Minnesota — with the playoffs on the line, will manage to lose to the Cards and Giants; both disinterested teams.
Chicago, though their win% looks favorable, has to first play a New Orleans team with a matching record, healthy Reggie Bush, and a serious bone to pick with two losses in the last two years against the Bears — one a NFC Divisional Playoff upset. Next up, Green Bay — historic rivals who, no doubt, would love to spoil a Bear playoff run. Finally, you have a Houston team which the Bears should not even THINK about until they have beat both Green Bay and New Orleans and the Vikings have lost to Atlanta.
So… speculate all you want, they don't deserve to win the division. Why? Because they've had TWO chances to do so within a month, and they've failed. WHY DO WE WANT TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS ANYWAY?
To get blasted by whomever we play? To give the Bears Franchise an excuse not to make any major shake-ups in the off season? To get a higher draft pick? Seriously, why?
2 Comments	| American Football, football, Sports	| Tagged: American Football, Arizona Cardinals, Atlanta Falcons, Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, football, Green Bay Packers, Houston Texans, Jacksonville Jaguars, Lance Briggs, Larry Mayer, Minnesota Vikings, New Orleans Saints, New York Giants, NFC North, NFL, Reggie Bush, St. Louis Rams, Tennesse Titans, Wild Card	| Permalink
NFL Power Rankings and No Love for Team X
Leave it to Bristol Connecticut-based ESPN to release a Week 5 Power Ranking that puts the entire NFC East Division in the top ten: New York Giants (1), Dallas Cowboys (3), Washington Redskins (6), and the Philadelphia Eagles (9), while their troubled .500 Patriots still get to linger near the NFL elite.
Obviously, the Giants look hella-good right now but prime-time darlings, the Cowboys, are over-rated as usual. The Redskins did well in Week 4 by beating Dallas but in my opinion, that should devalue "Americas Favorite Team" more than improve Washington's standing. Keeping Philly in the top 10 after their loss to the Bears is also strange — granted they were sans Brian Westbrook, but that injury situation won't be resolved before the next kickoff. What's more, shouldn't the Eagles loss to an out-of-conference 1-2 team sink the East's much-vaunted elite status? Guess not.
Let's do some abstract math. Let's call a team, "Team X". Mind you, this is all hypothetical…
Here is how Team X had fared so far:
Week 1: Beats #17 Ranked team (away)
Week 2: Loses to #7 Ranked team by 3 (away)
Week 3: Loses to #10 Ranked team by 3 in OT (home)
Week 4: Beats #9 Ranked team (home)
By these stats alone, where would you rank Team X? A team that has beaten the #9 and #17 teams, and has narrowly lost to the #7 and #10 teams. Well, certainly not at #18th (ranked BELOW the two teams they have defeated), right? RIGHT?!?!?!
Purely coincidentally, Team X is exactly where the Chicago Bears find themselves in these rankings. As a local fan, this is very off-putting. The Bears are a 2-2 team, ranked 18th, which seems about right until you compare who sits above and below them… They remain in the lower tier of .500 teams, just above the Jets (19), and Cardinals ( 20), with the 49ers (22) and Falcons (24) bringing up the rear. What's MORE questionable in the rankings is the SEVEN two-win teams ahead of them, and even a sub-.500 club, the 1-2 Colts (17), still ahead of them.
What's going on? You lose two games by the margin of a field goal to two top-10 teams (Bucs, Panthers) then you beat the Eagles and you wind up below ALL FOUR of them in the rankings?! It makes very little sense outside the NFL Buzz Bubble.
Meanwhile NFC North Rivals, the Favre-less (and now Rodgers-less) Green Bay Packers sit at #15 in the power rankings. The Pack went 2-0 early after two divisional games, beating the sputtering Vikings and lowly Lions. Then they lose to the Cowboys (who narrowly beat the Eagles), and then lost decisively to the Buccaneers, winding up at 2-2.
Would you not think that (*ahem*) Team X should be ranked above them? Considering Team X's wins came at the hands of lesser opponents and their losses were to teams that are on-par with those Team X has played. No? Well then, you must live around Bristol.
For instance, the dude over at BeatPaths has a different way of visually-representing NFL Power Rankings which is easy to read, and even, dare I say, borders on functional art. I'm really enjoying this site:
BeatPaths' Post Week 4 Visual Ranking:
The site ranks team SOLELY on record, eliminating and subjectivity, and ranking teams directly based on two criteria: Number of wins & number of losses. It goes futher by color-coding the teams by divison, so if you'll note, the NFC East is strong (but not ESPN strong), and the AFC North is being dragged down by the horrible play of both Ohio teams. Meanwhile, the mediocre NFC North is just that — at about 5th/6th Tier with both 2-2 teams sitting alongside most other 2-2 teams.
These rankings are based on "beat paths" (strings of teams which successivly beat one another), and "beat loops" (groups of teams which have both won or lost to eachother).
The divisional aspect comes into play because only teams in the save division play eachother twice in the regular season, "beat loops" in which teams split their divisional help give us insight on how competetive each individual division is. Click here for more details.
Also, the peeps over at BeatPath were inspired to do there thing because they have the same issues I have with subjectivity:
Seems like all the other major power ranking lists out there are in this category. A sportswriter or a committee applies their subjective judgment to all the teams and ranks them however the hell they want. You'll see huge changes in the lineup every week because of the upsets. The main flaw with these lists is that they aren't scientific, have huge variance in week-to-week performance, and aren't really reflective of the overall quality of a team.
Rah-rah, BeatPath. Please meet my "Add To Favorites" button.
1 Comment	| football, Lists, Sports	| Tagged: Aaron Rodgers, Arizona Cardinals, Atlanta Falcons, Beat Path, Beatpath, Brett Favre, Brian Westbrook, Bristol Connecticut, Carolina Panthers, Chicago Bears, Dallas Cowboys, Detroit Lions, Division Rivals, ESPN, Green Bay Packers, Indianapolis Colts, New England Patriots, New York Giants, New York Jets, NFC East, NFC North, NFL, Philadelphia Eagles, Power Rankings, Rivals, San Francisco 49ers, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Team X, The Pack Minnesota Vikings, Washington Redskins	| Permalink
Take Heart Brett…
you could've wound up in Minnesota.
Leave a Comment »	| entertainment, football, In The News, Uncategorized	| Tagged: Belle & Sebastian, Brett Favre, film, Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings, movies, new jersey, New York Jets, news, NFL, Sports, storytelling, todd solondz	| Permalink
Favre and The Bears, Cont'd.
The rumor mill is still working overtime about Favre in a Bears any uniform but a Packer one. And hey, with the Go Sox just picking up Ken Griffey Jr. today, maybe it'll be a new trend to pick up all stars five years past their prime.
ChicagoSports.Com just got in on the action with a column "Is This Shirt a Good Fit?," by David Haugh. Haugh makes some good points, though the article is mainly speculation illuminated by fluff.
I love the mention that "a Packers source close to the situation replied, 'Not a chance,' when asked if a scenario existed where Favre could be wearing the hated blue and orange this season." Ha ha ha. Why not? As Haugh point out, a half-year ago would anyone believe the Packers would be actively trying to marginalize Favre — keeping the face of the organization, the heart of Green Bay, and the sole reason for a successful Packer decade on the sideline in favor of an unproven QB with a questionable haircut?
Haugh also makes a good point that the Packers last year (sans-Favre) were a more dismal looking team than the Bears were last year, or will be this year:
A year ago at this time, the Packers' offensive line looked as shaky as the Bears' does now, with at least two positions considered question marks. Their wide receivers included Donald Driver, but the rest were as green as their home jerseys, similar to the Bears' group that will report to Bourbonnais on Tuesday. And please don't even mention the running backs the Packers started last season with before Ryan Grant emerged—nobody would recognize their names if you did… Somehow, Favre unified the group of misfits into an offense eventually respected and feared. His quick release made the offensive linemen better pass protectors. His ability to read coverages made his young receivers more open. His implied deep threat opened things for the running game.
Brett. C'mon south. Enjoy the city. Maybe you and Griffey will hit it off.
Leave a Comment »	| Call To Action, Help Wanted, Sports	| Tagged: Bears, Brett Favre, Chicago Bears, Chicago White Sox, Favre, football, Green Bay Packers, Ken Griffey Jr., NFL, Packers	| Permalink

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
P16 - Paul Scherrer Institute - PSI - Switzerland
The Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) is a multi-disciplinary research centre for natural sciences and technology. In national and international collaboration with universities, other research institutes and industry, PSI is active in solid state physics, material science, particles physics, life sciences, nuclear and non-nuclear energy research, and energy related ecology.
The institute's priorities comprise various areas of both basic and applied research, particular in fields which are relevant for sustainable development as well as for teaching and training, which are beyond the scope of a single university department. PSI develops and operates complex research installations, which call for especially high standards of know-how and experience, and is one of the world's leading user facilities for the national and international scientific community.
PSI operates a 590 MeV CW proton cyclotron with a beam current > 2 mA and the spallation neutron source SINQ receiving this beam. In 2006, the prototype liquid metal spallation target
MEGAPIE using liquid lead-bismuth eutectic as target material replaced the standard solid lead SINQ-target, being the first MW-class liquid metal spallation target that was operated for a substantial period of time. Through the development, licensing, operation and dismantling of this target, PSI acquired world-wide unique knowledge in various areas related to the application of liquid metals in nuclear technology.
Key persons
Jörg Neuhausen
Robert Eichler
Dorothea Schumann
www.psi.ch


text:
RailUK Forums
Home Forums > Fares, Ticketing & Routeing > Fares Advice & Policy >
East Coast rewards after February 2015?
Discussion in 'Fares Advice & Policy' started by andrewkeith5, 21 Sep 2014.
21 Sep 2014 #1
andrewkeith5 Member
asharpe said: ↑
Thanks for confirmation that evouchers don't expire, I'll certainly start using them.
This might be a new thread. But what is going to happen when the franchise is passed on?
Registered users do not see these banners - join or log in today!
Rail Forums
yorkie Forum Staff Staff Member Administrator
probably no more reward points, a deadline by when all points have to be redeemed.
However I'd still expect & hope to have 6 months to actually book a ticket, but that might be wishful thinking.
westv Established Member
yorkie said: ↑
It'll be sad day when the points go.
Not just with the reward points (it will be really quite sad if they go, they're surprisingly good at keeping my custom at least!) but also 'gift vouchers' - if the EC booking engine is closed I presume any outstanding balances will be lost unless they are refunded automatically.
Hadders Established Member
Isn't East Coast being privatised in a different way, through a share sale rather than via the normal franchising method.
If this is the case than there is a possibility that things may remain as they are, at least in the short term.
Deerfold Established Member
Hadders said: ↑
Not that I've heard. Do you have a source for this?
This thread suggests a normal franchising process: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=95376
Last edited: 22 Sep 2014
It's in the invitation to tender, section 8.1
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intercity-east-coast-icec-franchise-2013-prospectus
East Coast passenger services are currently run under a services agreement between ECML, DOR and the Secretary of State for Transport.
This agreement was put in place to fulfil the Secretary of State's obligation under section 30 of the Railways Act 1993 to ensure the provision of passenger services where a Franchise Agreement has been terminated and no new Franchise Agreement has been entered into.
Ordinarily when a franchise is awarded, the winning bidder will have formed a company which will operate the franchise and franchise assets (i.e. certain assets needed to run the passenger services) will be transferred to this new franchisee from the existing franchisee.
Such a transfer takes place in accordance with section 12 of the Railways Act 2005 which gives the Secretary of State the power to make a scheme for the transfer of franchise assets from a franchisee to a successor franchisee or to a company owned by the Secretary of State or to specified other persons. This transfer scheme provision is reflected in standard Franchise Agreement provisions which set out the scope of the transfer scheme and oblige the franchisee to transfer certain property to a successor operator at the end of the franchise. This provision provides a power to override certain third party rights to transfer property, rights and liabilities from an existing franchisee to ensure that franchise assets are available to a new operator.
Section 12 is only available where a franchise is in place. The services agreement currently in place is not a Franchise Agreement and so cannot use this mechanism. We will therefore use a share sale as the mechanism to ensure that the assets held by ECML remain available to be used for the provision of East Coast passenger services once a new franchise has been awarded. The share sale will ensure that all assets and liabilities are transferred to the new private sector owner. ECML will continue to run the services and will be a party to a new Franchise Agreement with the Secretary of State.
The share sale has a number of advantages over the usual transfer scheme. It removes the need for protracted mobilisation activities such as the transfer of employees and provides a straightforward mechanism for valuing the assets which will be acquired. It provides continuity and enables the existing operator to continue to run the passenger services rather than having a new operator at the beginning of the franchise.
Thanks. I don't think it'll make much difference. I doubt the Rewards scheme will disappear the day the new franchise starts but I'll be (pleasantly) surprised if it remains in its current form.
OLJR Member
East Coast will lose their franchise in February 2015. When the operations are handed over to another TOC how likely do members think that:
i) Rewards points will be maintained by the new TOC and may be redeemed as they are at present
ii) Rewards points will be maintained by the new TOC but with different T&C
iii) Rewards points will not be maintained by the new TOC but up until the East Coast franchise expires we will be able to redeem for services operated by the new TOC and the new TOC will honour these tickets
iv) Rewards points will not be maintained by the new TOC and redemptions for March 2015 and onwards will not be honoured
v) Something else will happen.
25 Sep 2014 #10
Essexman Member
I have about 5000 to redeem and it will indeed be a shame if the excellent scheme is scrapped. I would expect that a new operator will want to put their own mark on the scheme or scrap it all together but I'd hope they allowed a reasonable time (a year?) to use up the points.
YorkshireRider Member
I wonder how many more tickets for travel on other TOCS have been purchased via the EC website since the rewards scheme started? Given EC get 9% of this (I think this is correct), the answer will go a long way to the incoming TOC deciding whether to keep the scheme or not.
YorkshireRider said: ↑
I've certainly bought a lot. Any ticket over £22 which I have no chance of wanting a refund for (which is a high proportion of them) I buy through EC, any under £22 I buy from FGW for nectar points and if there's a chance I might need a refund I buy from Southern.
I go where I'm rewarded
I fear the new TOC will assume that all the customers will stay loyal to them and will take their custom for granted, abolish the Rewards scheme and then be surprised (I won't be) when people abandon them and instead book with Southern for the Money Back Guarantee (a policy which EC apparently stubbornly refuse to even consider, according to EC Web Support).
There would be no point in booking anything other than EC advances with EC if the Rewards scheme didn't exist, because of the potentially huge costs of rectifying mistakes (or implementing a change of travel plans) by having the dreaded £10 admin fee applied each time. It's a risk people are prepared to take for the current Rewards.
I know that EC management will be reading this, so hopefully they can provide suitable feedback to the bosses in charge at whatever awful owning group wins the franchise by providing the cheapest worst quality bid (in line with anti-passenger DfT policies).
Tetchytyke Established Member
It'll be interesting. The Rewards scheme in it's current form was created by DOR, but the scheme has existed in one form or another since GNER days.
I would be surprised if it remains in its current form, but most TOCs seem to understand the need to promote their websites with incentives. Most seem to use Nectar points, which are better than a kick in the face but only just.
27 Nov 2014 #15
telstarbox Established Member
Wennington Crossovers
I've got a reply on Twitter:
Me: @eastcoastuk Is there a deadline for using up East Coast Rewards points before the franchise transfer?
EC: @_charlie123 Hi Gerry. The Rewards Scheme is expected to transfer to the new owner. More details to come at a later point.
There's also the (remote I admit) possibility that the Rewards scheme could be extended to Virgin West Coast and/or East Midlands Trains/South West Trains.
bb21 Forum Staff Staff Member Global Moderator
I have split the more general discussion on the Nectar scheme into a separate thread.
Kite159 Veteran Member
West of Andover
I would put 10p on the reward scheme continuing with a couple minor changes, the reward of free tickets will be axed, so Stagecoach/Virgin can say they have kept the popular rewards scheme going.
So buy tickets for the chance to exchange your points for a range of rewards, such as magazine subscriptions, maybe keeping the 1st class lounge access passes
Starmill Events Co-ordinator
Deerfold said: ↑
As a frequent traveller on EC I'm interested to see how Virgin do. I'm not impressed by the scapping of the rewards scheme. It won't drive me off EC, but I may well look at what other ticket sellers offer.
I won't bother with EC's website if all it offers is nectar points. The value of a nectar point is very, very low given how you can redeem them.
For any walk-up ticket, booking on Southern is the way to go, as it offers a full refund if you don't use the tickets (i.e. no admin fee). For an Advance, a special deal is often offered, e.g. 50% off with a 16-25 Railcard on TPE, £1 off on EMT, NUS Extra discount on XC and so on. If none of these apply, any site that happens to be listed for cashback - e.g. EMT are currently offering 2.1% on all journeys, rising to 3.67% if you are making a journey with them.
ModernRailways Established Member
I do this already for any journeys where I wouldn't earn reward points, and so abolishing it will just mean moving to the Southern (or maybe South Eastern) site to purchase my tickets.
East Coast have really done huge advertising for buying tickets from them on the basis of reward points, and all that, as you say, can be easily undone if there is no benefit any more.
greatkingrat Established Member
The question is how much money are they actually making from just selling tickets? It is all very well getting lots of customers to use your site, but if the cost of the Rewards cancels out the commission earned, then it is not worth the bother from their point of view.
shinkansen1966 Member
telstarbox said: ↑
That's encouraging news.
#keepeastcoastrewards
greatkingrat said: ↑
It depends what value you put on the free tickets. Each "free" first class ticket requires a spend of about £450, and I'd imagine most people have spent all £450 of that on East Coast train services. I doubt the cost to East Coast of that "free" ticket is £45.
Arctic Troll said: ↑
It depends what value you put on the free tickets. Each "free" first class ticket requires a spend of about £450, and I'd imagine most people have spent all £450 of that on East Coast train services.
You collect points when you buy East Coast specific trains tickets (for instance Leeds to London or Peterborough to Newcastle). You also get points when you spend £22 or more on any other tickets. All you have to do is make sure your spend is £22 or over in one visit to the East Coast web site. Where possible, it pays to use the East Coast web site, when you are going to spend £22 or more on several sets of tickets for other operators. Just buy them all in one go.
. I doubt the cost to East Coast of that "free" ticket is £45.
The marginal cost to East Coast is some drink and food. Willing to guess that's less £10 per first class rewards passenger. And you can only redeem your points on services of East Coast's choosing.
Compare that to the Nectar scheme currently offered by First. East Coast Rewards is better.
mad_rich Member
Hmm. I hope that's true.
I'm not sure I'd pay any heed to East Coast on this. It's not them that decides, surely, it's Stagecoach. (Even if it ends up being the same person manning the Twitter account in 6 months time!)
Either way, I will look to use, rather than earn points over the next few months.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
shinkansen1966 said: ↑
Yep, the scheme is much like the frequent flyer schemes of old. There is very little cost to EC when you redeem, since they're in charge of the redemption. They can be pretty damn sure they're only giving away seats that would be unsold.
Nectar is a strictly revenue based scheme, and as such not much in the way of 'gaming' you can do to increase your value.
ainsworth74 Forum Staff Staff Member Global Moderator
The way I took it was that it will transfer but only in that it won't close down at the stroke of midnight when the franchise starts up. I didn't take it to mean that VTEC will keep it for the long haul.
ainsworth74 said: ↑
That was how I read it - they'll presumably give some notice before withdrawing the scheme - that's what NXEC did with GNER's scheme.
Alternatively, 'transfer' might mean them turning your EC points into Nectar points. Horror of horrors!
TRAINLINCS Member
The conundrum for most of us now with Rewards free tickets to use is whether to travel before 1st March or hang on as I had planned for the spring or summer months. Will there be an overlap to enable the use of free tickets after 1st March? Will there be an overlap of the East Coast 1st class complimentary food offer or will the new company provide their offer, if any, from 1st March.
55z Member
Virgin East Coast are also to have a rewards scheme but it is early days to say what it is and whether the existing scheme will be honoured or you will have to redeem it
We wait and see. Best thing is if have 2000 points is to redeem some if not all before 28th February 2015
RailUK Forums v2


Forgive Steve Case for his euphoria on the day he announced the unexpected and stunning acquisition of Time Warner by his still-upstart America Online, which is one-fifth Time Warner's size. "I don't think it's too much to say that this really is a historic moment, a time when we transform the landscape of media and communications," the AOL chairman said.
Indeed, with 100 million subscribers for its publications and interactive services combined, it's almost a given that AOL Time Warner will make history. The $156 billion merger will create the world's fourth most valuable company and forever change the way offline and online media interact.
But soon it will be time for Case to come down to earth. He is faced with the task of successfully forging the world's largest mating of any two corporations of any type. And after the high-fives are over, he must bring these two companies face-to-face with unparalleled risks. AOL Time Warner's success in divining, defining and creating a world where all kinds of media are available at all times ultimately may be judged on factors that are outside the control of even the new Goliath of convergence.
> Will a fickle Wall Street continue to value the combined company at the lofty multiples long enjoyed by the fast-growing AOL?
> Does the deal unleash competitive forces at Microsoft and Yahoo! that will someday allow those rivals to surpass AOL Time Warner in scope and influence within the media industry?
> Has AOL underestimated the task of absorbing and transforming the slow-of-foot, majestic Time Warner empire?
> Will AOL's engine of growth — subscriber revenue — dry up and bring the entire AOL Time Warner empire into distress if new rivals offering free Net access take root?
> Can the combined company truly deliver on the promise of broadband — or will it stultify broadband's development by trying to con- trol it?
Such questions about AOL Time Warner's prospects cannot be overshadowed by the audacity and entrepreneurial brilliance of bringing about a merger that will give AOL a 55 percent stake in — and control of — a company that operates everything from the best-known weekly newsmagazine in North America to the outfit that first allowed home viewers to see uninterrupted movies in their living rooms.
Nor can the potential pitfalls be skirted by the fact that a takeover by AOL is Time Warner's lifeline to the future and a neat, sudden escape for a company that has repeatedly botched attempts to capitalize on the delivery of electronic media, from its rudimentary teletext venture at the onset of the '80s to interactive television and Internet services in the '90s.
AOL is Time Warner's missing link. It bridges the gap between Time Warner's heritage in consumer media — with revered franchises ranging from Time magazine to Looney Tunes cartoons — and its sizable stake in cable systems capable of carrying a new breed of digital content to 20 million homes nationwide.
"We in the new media business were always convinced that this kind of convergence was going to come someday," said Mark Stevens, vice president of business development at Excite@Home. "What is surprising is how quickly this all has happened."
But ratifying that convergence — completing the deal — may be the easy part.
AOL: The little engine that could?
Even Wall Street was thrown for a loop initially by the audacity of Case's move. Despite a track record for frowning on mergers that linked new media companies with slower-growing traditional media firms, investors at first pushed AOL (www.aol.com) stock higher in the hours immediately after the Time Warner (www.pathfinder.com/corp) merger was announced.
Through the course of the week, however, the reality of the proposed transaction began to set in with Wall Street. While AOL shares dropped only slightly on the first day after the announcement, the stock tumbled more than 10 percent on the second day, and by Jan. 13 had closed at 11.5 percent lower than its $72.68 price when the deal was unveiled. As was the case last year when Wall Street perceptions helped scotch the proposed merger of Barry Diller's USA Networks' interactive unit with the Lycos navigation hub, investors showed they were leery of hitching the fast-paced growth of an Internet firm to an established real-world company and its slower growth rate — and pace of operation.
The basic truth behind this merger is that AOL will have to work much harder to achieve the kind of growth to which it has become accustomed.
The interactive company accounts for only 20 percent of the total cash flow of the combined AOL Time Warner. That means the online side of AOL Time Warner would have to more than double its 54 percent revenue growth rate of fiscal 1999 to avoid being flattened by the weight of Time Warner's large and relatively stable lines of business.
Many analysts say it can't be done. Investment firm BancBoston Robertson Stephens (www.rsco. com) projects a growth rate of 15 percent to 20 percent for the combined company, compared with the 30 percent growth it had expected in coming years from an independent AOL.
The challenge facing executives at both AOL and Time Warner is to convince Wall Street that the combined company has prospects for greater overall growth than would be possible if the companies stayed separate.
Gerald Levin, Time Warner's chief executive who will be CEO of the merged company, is pitching Wall Street analysts on the proposition that both companies have invested in establishing long-term relationships with subscribers. Combined, they will be able to develop consumer-branded digital services that can be sold to their customer bases.
"It's a statement by me that the value creation in the Internet space is very real," Levin said of his decision to pursue the merger. "Accelerated cash flow streams are meaningful, are real, can be calculated and can be realized — particularly by this company."
As a merged entity, AOL Time Warner can generate $40 billion in sales annually, with $10 billion in earnings before taxes, depreci ation and amortization, Levin projected. By joining forces, the company is betting it can layer on an additional $1 billion in pretax earnings through new revenue opportunities and cost savings.
But skeptics aren't convinced AOL Time Warner — subscribers or not — can achieve the lofty objectives it sets out. "There are no examples of large, traditional media companies that have taken their content and ported it to the Web profitably," said J.B. Haller, an analyst at research firm Current Analysis (www.currentanalysis.com). "And I'm not so sure AOL and Time Warner can do it either."
A lot is riding on AOL Time Warner's ability to keep its growth engine chugging and its stock price high. That's because, simply by completing this deal, AOL may let the Microsoft genie out of the bottle. Even as the U.S. Justice Department readies plans to request the software giant's breakup, Microsoft, in the wake of the merger, can argue more forcefully than before that real competition exists, that it should remain intact and that it should even have the freedom to pursue major mergers of its own to keep pace with the market.
Microsoft (www.microsoft.com) has already shown an eagerness to invest billions in cable companies such as AT&T and Comcast. Outright acquisitions of telephone companies and media conglomerates are not out of the question.
As was the case when AOL announced plans in 1998 to acquire Netscape Communications, Microsoft cited the latest AOL deal as an example of how quickly competitive forces can reshape market power in the technology sector.
"The AOL-Time Warner deal is the latest and best example of how competitive the marketplace really is and how competition comes from a wide number of areas within the high-tech industry," Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan said.
While the government's case against Microsoft centers mostly on market abuses related to its PC operating system monopoly, Microsoft will contend that the digital market now spans an array of devices beyond the PC, and Microsoft is only one of a string of competitors. And with a projected market cap of $350 billion, AOL Time Warner would represent significant competition, Microsoft will argue.
"[This deal] has to do with their AOL Everywhere strategy, which competes with the PC on many fronts," Cullinan said. "The reality is that AOL's business model is focused on making Microsoft and the operating system obsolete and irrelevant."
It's still too early to judge what reaction court officials will have to the AOL-Time Warner deal, but no one can deny the landscape has changed significantly in the past week, said Gary Arlen, president of consulting firm Arlen Communications (www. arlencommunications.com). "Microsoft hasn't made a move in the media space primarily because they've had the judge looking over their shoulder," he said. "Now, it might have the option to go and buy something there."
While Microsoft sits at the top of the heap and waits to unleash its $17 billion cash horde, navigation hub Yahoo! looms ominously in AOL's rearview mirror. With a market cap near $100 billion, speculation last week immediately turned to Yahoo! and the kinds of traditional media acquisitions it could engineer.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a comparable old-media merger from Yahoo! (www.yahoo.com), though. Tim Koogle, the seemingly unflappable CEO of the high-profile navigation hub, is keeping his company on the Web trail.
Rather than pursue media mergers, Yahoo! is focusing on building infrastructure for delivering Web content, communications and commerce services. Most interesting to the company, Yahoo! executives said, are acquisitions of firms building "transaction-oriented relationships" with consumers.


We've all had the experience…trying to avoid an unintentional "swim" while walking down the dock. Kayaks, canoes, life jackets, the like… laying on the dock surface or casually placed where last used.
Dock Sides Accessories offer convenient and effortless dock side storage. By placing accessories off the side of your dock, clutter is eliminated! Your dock becomes safe again and you've prevented the "accidental swim".
Dock Sides Accessories offers many storage solutions for your dock. Check out our full product line for the latest at the dock storage.


Choosing a Carpet Cleaner isn't easy. Why? Because you're bombarded with misleading advertising,confusing claims and simply bad information.
From super-low prices and high-pressure sales to unqualified technicians and near worthless methods, how do you ever find a qualified, competent,professional carpet cleaner?
"5 Costly Misconceptions about Carpet Cleaning"
" 7 Question your should ask a carpet cleaner before you invite him/her into your home"
" What is the best method for having your carpets cleaned?"
"What is actually removed from your carpets?"
Copyright 2014 Brite N Clean Carpet Cleaning. All rights reserved.


text:
Q: Multi-master Kubernetes nodes I have a Kubernetes cluster on IBM Cloud Platform (not important, the question is related to Kubernetes itself).
If I wanted to replicate across different data centers in different regions then, should I use multiple and different master nodes for different regions? What's the best approach in this case and what would you suggest?
Thanks in advance,

A: I'll answer from an IBM Cloud perspective, since you are referring to data centers.
If you want to "replicate across different data centers in different regions", then you will need to create separate clusters in each of those data centers. Once you have done that, by definition you will have multiple masters (one for each of your clusters). So the short answer is yes, you will have multiple clusters (and masters).
See this doc for more info. In this case you're talking about scenario 3: https://console.bluemix.net/docs/containers/cs_clusters.html#planning_clusters
Note that you will need to provision a global load balancer to load balance between regions, as well as ensure your app can handle any data replication between regions that is needed.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Dental schools look for bright, articulate students in a variety of majors who have a well-rounded education and can relate to a range of personalities. Dental schools require at least three years of college, but most now require that applicants have their baccalaureate degree before they enter dental school.
Because the requirements of each dental school vary considerably, it is difficult to provide a complete listing of the necessary coursework that would satisfy every institution. Instead, the SDSU pre-dental program challenges the pre-dental student with a heavy emphasis on science courses (two years of chemistry, one year of physics, and at least three years of biology) in order to prepare the student for the Dental Admission Test (DAT). These courses do not restrict a student's ability to shift into other programs at SDSU and provide excellent career alternatives for those students who are not immediately accepted into a dental school. The Pre-professionals advisors can assist students to develop plans of study for the dental program(s) of interest.
Admission to dental schools is extremely selective, and students who are serious about being accepted into a dental school should strive to substantially exceed the minimum requirements. Acceptance into dental school is based primarily on four criteria: 1) absolute minimum of a 3.5 GPA on the 4.0 scale, 2) Dental Admission Test (DAT) scores, 3) recommendation letters from faculty and employers, and 4) a personal statement describing the students' motivation for this career choice.


Our PinkCoin converter gives you the price of PINK in USD Dollars. Convert PinkCoin to USD or choose from over 1600 other Cryptocurrency conversion comparisons. Prices and rates are updated live to give you the most accurate PinkCoin (PINK) to USD value.


Baby Furniture Donation - Upscale Bedroom Furniture.
(donate) give to a charity or good cause; "I donated blood to the Red Cross for the victims of the earthquake"; "donate money to the orphanage"; "She donates to her favorite charity every month"
TheRLPL FOL bought a Kuerig coffee maker so you could enjoy a cup of coffee, tea or cocoa for only $1 as you relax and read.
Proceeds go to various programs and services the FOL sponsor---it's like getting a free cup of coffee for helping to sponsor a program or service! THANK-YOU!


text:
Vendor Update
Trotec Adds Heavy-duty Laminates to Materials Product Line
Trotec Laser, Inc. is pleased to announce the addition of TroLase Textures to its quickly growing portfolio of materials products. Designed for applications in demanding environments, the new heavy-duty laminates come with a durable, textured surface, making them ideal for indoor and outdoor signage, control plates, and other industrial applications.
Like the company's other TroLase laminate products, TroLase Textures are designed with an acrylic base and a surface layer. This design enables detailed engraving at high production speeds, and minimizes residue and stickiness that can occur after processing. Available in a range of colors and thicknesses, TroLase Textures feature a textured, matte surface which is non-reflective, durable and easy to clean, so the materials are ideal for applications where extra durability and scratch resistance are required. The new laminate products are also UV and weather-resistant, making them suitable for indoor and outdoor use.
Since its launch in Feb. of 2017, the company's materials business unit has expanded to include new product lines such as wood panels and cast acrylic sheets, and additional products within the laminates product line – allowing the company to offer nearly 500 different materials for cutting, marking and engraving in addition to its world-class laser systems.
The addition of TroLase Textures is one more step the company is taking toward becoming its current and future customers' first and most important laser resource, says Warren Knipple, President of Trotec Laser, Inc.
www.engraving-supplies.com
Jun 1, 2008 Missy Donovan
The Mosaica Group Designated as Exclusive Midwest Regional Distributor of Xanita BoardPiedmont Plastics Relaunches the Piedmont Sign Grade (PSG) Product Line
2020 © Rockport Custom Publishing, LLC