How remarkably consistent

The Washington Post had an article lately that has gotten some into an uproar. With good cause, of course.

New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves -- and to be treated by the health care system -- as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon.

Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control.

-cite

What this amounts to is the federal government telling women to assume they're pregnant and just don't know it yet at all times. This does not take in to consideration the willingness of the woman in question to actually bear a child to term. This does not take into consideration the willingness of the woman in question to raise any child thus conceived. This does not take into consideration the sexual activities of the woman in question.

Schrodinger's women. You're both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time. Unless you run a test, and only then you're one or the other. But the next day you're back to the same pregnant/not-pregnant state. Since motherly health is critical in the first trimester of pregnancy, and you can't get tested for pregnancy every day, therefore treat yourself as if you were pregnant. QED.

Ahem.

Sad to say, this is a logical extension of federal and medical policy. As any woman of child-bearing age (and even most who aren't anymore) knows, any time you get medical attention beyond the poking/prodding of a check-up you get asked the question, "Are you pregnant, or is there the possibility you can be pregnant". The reason for this is very, very clear. This policy is a way to take that sort of medical care into the home.

That question is one that is the butt of jokes on college campuses world-wide. It goes like this:

Female Student: I hab a cold. I wad cough syrub.
Health Center person: Are you pregnant?
FS: I'b a lesbian. Boys are iggy. No.
HSp: Lets run the test anyway while you're here. Just a moment.
FS: But... I don't DO boys.
HSp: Won't take a minute.

Etc.

The fact of the matter is that testing to see if a medication is usable on pregnant women is mind bogglingly expensive and exceedingly hard to do. Therefore, most drugs don't get tested against pregnant women. Therefore, most drugs aren't approved for use on pregnant women. If you are a pregnant woman, your treatment options are severely limited.

While logical from a medical point of view, the above policy is abhorrent from a reproductive choice point of view. Not every woman desires to get pregnant. Not every woman would keep a pregnancy if one accidentally occurred. The CDC would do more to promote reproductive choice, but in this Administration such a stance is impossible.

If taken to silly extremes, a policy in bars to ban alcohol sales to women of childbearing age could come into being. Alcohol is a big harmer of zygotes, and if all women are potentially pregnant then you shouldn't serve alcohol to women. Bah.

Just another bad policy decision from this administration.

Unions in the IT world

Slashdot had an article on this one:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/11/1829222

The idea of unions in the tech marketplace has been around ever since the .COM boom started. And every time it comes up, several sentiments arise:

• IT people are too mobile to be in a union.
• One of my major beefs with unions (and one of the biggest reasons that I would never join one) is that they provide the ability for... dead weight.
• IT-work is a meritocracy. Unions pride seniority over ability. Not for me!

The Union as we've all been brought up to see it is the kind of thing that under-age garment makers in Asia wish they had. Unions provide a way for disenfranchised people to strike back at an abusive management. Unions make sure that investment in the company, in the form of years served, is rewarded by a reduced risk of lay-off.

Which isn't 100% true. Some of the criticisms of Unions in the technological work-place are very apt. Unions work best when the job could be described as 'disposable worker'; the kinds of jobs that require not a lot of training to participate. That isn't to say that such environments are the only environments they work, but that environment is merely best suited for unions. Airplane Mechanics require extensive training and are unionized. ASPX programmers are trained, perhaps less than the Airplane Mechanics, and tend to be rabidly anti-union.

Tech-work is still an area where a highly trained individual with a verifiable track record of results has his pick of employers. This is a situation where the employee has power. This is not a situation that is well suited for traditional unions. I don't like how I'm being treated? I go elsewhere. Maybe if I'm lucky, I'll get the two companies in a bidding war. Go me. You can't say the same thing for a poultry-packer in Kansas.

One area that was ripe for a unionization drive has instead been 'offshored'. First Line Tech Support is now the domain of foreign nations, not US citizens. Drives are being made to unionize those Indian tech-workers, but that is not here. Once unions get a hold in India, the call-centers of the US will be moved somewhere else. This is Union Busting in the tech-age.

Unions survive because the workers come together and present a united front to Management. Skilled tech-workers are, in general, too mercenary for that; the job market has been too good for too long. A skilled tech-worker doesn't always see himself as having the exact same job as 40 of his co-workers, even though they may share a job-title. A skilled tech-worker is used to an environment that rewards innovation and productivity of the individual, something Unions historically have avoided at all costs. Skilled tech-workers have been trained from the begining to think of themselves first, and others second if at all.

Unions historically have avoided 'merit' systems because they are so devilishly hard to police. If the on-site manager is the soul authority handing out merit raises/bonuses, that throws the union compensation package out the window. How do you document or prove abuses and favoritism? The favored tactic is to use elaborate evaluation systems, and independant testing where possible. This leads to a vast increase in red tape for what in a non-union shop could be handled with a simple conversation with the Boss.

And it is also very much the case that worker-protections also prevent management from dumping non-productive, but rule-savvy, workers. Think 'Wally' from Dilbert. Tech-workers have a universal disdain for such people. When combined with the 'all for me, none for you,' mentality of the previous paragraph you can understand why tech-workers see 'workplace protections' as a negative thing.

It is my opinion that you can't unionize an IT shop along traditional lines. Can't be done. Past practices assume too much uniformitiy in both job function and training, and solidarity for it to make it very far. The only place you find unionized IT workers is Government.

Any Union looking to Organize IT workers needs to set up an organization that allows FAR more flexibility than historical unions:

• Employees must have the ability to negotiate salary independant of the Union, or perhaps within a VERY light Union-contract framework. With most IT workers, the power of salary negotiation still exists. Do NOT take this away.
  
• The contract has to permit a meritocracy, complete with the ability to fire underperforming workers for minimal cause. Otherwise, you'll never get IT workers to sign on. One thing tech workers hate more than anything is seeing 'workplace protections' keep a clear free-loader on-staff, and at a high salary.
  

Two things that have been central to Unions in the past end up being in the Employee's and Management's hands. That's going to take some work to organize. Unions have always been strong about the idea that when you bargan in strength, you get better deals and IT workers break that mold. Unions have long been about senority and other easy measures of knowledge over more nebulous methods like manager discression, which is an environment IT workers have a real problem with.

No, traditional unions do not fit the IT workplace. But all it'll take is some innovative Organizing to come up with a framework that WILL work. It CAN happen, but I don't know of any examples yet.