April 03, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

THE BREAKING POINT

The Vietnam war severely weakened the U. S. military for years. The war in Iraq is doing the same thing. Bush and company don't want to touch the idea of a military draft because it would be politically explosive. Instead, the administration uses tactics like "stop loss" and redeployment to keep troops in Iraq. We've learned that some troops are now being redeployed without getting their year's break between deployments. This war has been a bonanza for military contractors, but not for anyone else. This story by Gordon Lubold is at www.csmonitor.com:

When some 4,500 soldiers heard over the weekend that they'd be deploying to Iraq earlier than expected, many saw it as yet another inconvenience that military personnel must endure. But to some in Washington, the announcement is a glaring sign that the Army really is straining and that its well of rested, trained, and equipped soldiers is running dry.

The Pentagon's announcement Monday that it is sending two units back to Iraq early means it will renege on its objective to give soldiers at least 12 months at home between deployments. While the Defense Department has extended the deployment of troops in combat, this is only the second time it has had to deprive soldiers from a major unit of a year-long rest.

The fact that the Pentagon felt compelled to make the call-up seems to validate what many retired generals and former Pentagon officials have warned: that repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan are wearing out military personnel and equipment to a worrisome point.

"We're running out of Army units for the mission," says Robert Scales, a retired Army two-star general.

WORK HARD, GET RAISES, GET FIRED

Circuit City recently announced it's firing over 3,000 of its employees because the employees are making too much money, according to the company. It reminds me of a company I worked for. The commuter airline I worked for was purchased by Mesa Airlines. Mesa's CEO, Larry Risley, thought he was a real hotshot businessman. Immediately upon acquiring the airline where I worked, Risley started sending out bullying and threatening letters to the employees. He didn't like the term "associate," for instance. He much preferred the word "employee." The word "associate" implies too much equality. Later on, Risley gave himself a handsome bonus, but froze the salaries of people making $8.00 or $9.00 an hour because they were just too expensive. Circuit City seems to be following the Risley model. This article is from www.usatoday.com:

Like many companies, Circuit City has a set of company values, which it conveniently lists on its website. First among them: "Our associates are our greatest assets."

Last week some 3,400 of them learned what that means. Their jobs were eliminated solely because the company decided they were getting paid too much.

Clearly, the company doesn't value them as "great assets." If it did, it would realize that firing employees because they've performed well enough to earn raises demoralizes everyone else. What kind of inducement is it for employees to work hard and excel if their reward might be a pink slip? And why would people want to shop at a store where the low premium on service is so loudly trumpeted?

Regrettably, this race-to-the-bottom approach is hardly limited to Circuit City. Retailers in a wide variety of specialties have looked at the leveling effects of the Internet and concluded that sales associates are not really that valuable. If they were, prices for goods bought with the assistance of salespeople would be higher than for goods bought with a few clicks of the mouse.