I’m agnostic on the various issues of privacy. Some of the speakers insisted that the microwaves are giving them headaches, but I don’t know where the science is on that. There are of course the privacy issues.
Most amusing was Supervisor John Pinches asking, without response, what they county will do if PG&E tries to hold the county hostage. But eventually he voted with the rest.
According to the Willits News report three other counties have already imposed the bans – SF, Santa Cruz, and Marin.
63 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 1, 2011 at 9:04 am
Random Guy
please PLEASE local powers that be…I know they are reading…BAN SMARTMETERS IN HUMBOLDT! Too much broadcast activity already! Every local council person, supervisor, member of any board needs to be pressed to follow mendo’s footsteps. This isn’t about privacy to me, nor does it have anything to do with “growers”, but the very real and very dangerous cumuilative effects of broadcast pollution as well as having small microwave ovens in permament operation forced onto the sides of everybody’s homes. By PG&E’s own admission, the analog meters work perfectly, and customers experience NO savings via the meters alone.
February 1, 2011 at 9:17 am
Anonymous
DITTO that
February 1, 2011 at 9:17 am
Mitch
I’ve heard very different things about the amount of time these things are transmitting with any power, from 4.5 seconds an hour to “at all times.”
If these things really just wake up for five seconds once an hour, I wish PG&E would say so.
February 1, 2011 at 10:52 am
Not A Native
What privacy issue? I guess you mean the self asserted HumCo “right” of reasonable expection to violate laws with impunity. Pot growers believe smart meters would make it easier and less costly for law enforcement to obtain probable cause for a search warrant. Illicit growers in their 4X4 monster trucks posted warning notices that the ‘bad days’ are coming back.
Sheesh, its a criminal mentality that tries to normalize clandestine lifestyles, secrecy, lying, and suspicion of everyone else and anything with a potential to effect open communication. Exactly the kind of culture that prevents creating strong communities of involved and active citizens.
February 1, 2011 at 11:08 am
Ernie's Place
I welcome the Smart Meters. We have a very friendly, happy go lucky dog that just loves everybody… but the meter reader. It would be very nice for our dog if she could get out of protecting us from the meter-reader-man.
February 1, 2011 at 11:22 am
Eric Kirk
Frankly, I’m for keeping jobs in place right now. Golden Gate Bridge is phasing out toll takers for machines too. It’d be nice of increased productivity allowed workers to keep their jobs and do less work for the same amount of pay (as the per hour value of their labor has increased), but I’m an “economic reactionary” so don’t mind me. Just be ready to pay taxes for more social welfare, unless you want more tent cities, food riots, and maybe even revolution in the long run.
February 1, 2011 at 11:57 am
Anonymous
You know what I like about the analog meters? It’s easier for the cops to bust grow houses. On the same train of thought I guess it’s easier for pot pirates to target a grow house.
If SF and Santa Cruz are against them, I’m for them
February 1, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Not A Native
Eric, its not consistent and frivolous of you to favor increased productivity while insisting on ‘keeping jobs in place’
By definition, ‘increased productivity’ means a lower cost to create a particular good or service. Since labor is a large component of the cost of most goods and services sold in the US, ‘increased productivity’ almost always involves lower labor costs. Lower labor costs are realized by lowering the compensation of existing individuals or having fewer individuals with equal(or greater) compensation creating the good.
Another way to increase productivity is to increase the efficiency of labor either by their “working harder/faster”, reorganizing the work so they ‘work smarter”, changing the work(usually with automation) so they produce more value with the same effort and speed.
The last way to increase productivity is to use capital more efficiently, so less of it is required. Thats achieved typically by using more efficient technology(faster computers) or higher utilization(operating 24/7) of capital. Of course better utilizing capital is limited by the ability to sell all the product/service that is produced while accomodating fluctuations and growth or decline.
February 1, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Eric Kirk
NAN – reread my post, and think about it.
February 1, 2011 at 12:41 pm
anon
if my meter wasn’t right outside my bedroom window i wouldn’t object…
February 1, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Mitch
Eric,
Paying people to do obsolete jobs is not a solution. I can understand why you’d kind of like the idea, given that in our current environment there’s no political support for safety nets. But there’s no political support for make-work, either, especially if it’s going to go only to government employees or the employees of large public utilities like PG&E.
I’m still waiting for some political leader to call the bluffs of the “leaders” of organizations like the UC — cut the wages on the top in half, and wish them a bon voyage when they quit.
February 1, 2011 at 2:12 pm
pathetic actually
anon Are you objecting to the radiation from new smart meters, or PGE workers reading the old analog meter right outside your bedroom window?
February 1, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Eric Kirk
Mitch – I don’t think that human toll collectors are obsolete actually. They may be more expensive. but there is something to a human greeting on a morning commute. Quality of life should factor into the matter as well. Plus, unless the machines are better than the BART machines, I’m concerned about traffic getting backed up because someone’s dollar bill is too wrinkled for the machine to accept.
And I think the jobs should at least be a factor of consideration. I would almost advocate a policy that a company cannot shed jobs unless there is some other company willing to take them on. Kind of like cap and trade. They can buy and sell lay-off rights.
February 1, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Arcatawitch
The guy who installed the Smart Meter at my workplace said that the meters will be installed in Marin, SF, etc., regardless of community input. He said that basically PG&E is more powerful than the state and can do just what they want. yikes!
February 1, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, there are two ways to handle that. One is to file suit for an injunction. The other is to have the police come to some of the properties, remove the meters, and deliver them to the PG&E office, and issue fines if the ordinances allow for them.
February 1, 2011 at 2:56 pm
tra
“I would almost advocate a policy that a company cannot shed jobs unless there is some other company willing to take them on.”
Well, I’m glad to see the word “almost.” Clearly this would not work — companies do go through periods of decline and need to cut positions until market conditions improve, or until they are able to find new ways to decrease their expense and increase their revenus.
In an economic downturn numerous companies are all experiencing unfavorable conditions at the same time, so your proposal would break down.
I mean, what would it mean to say “you can’t lay anyone off” when a company truly does not have the revenue to meet current payroll? If the company simply goes bankrupt, and everyone loses their job, how would that improve matters for anyone?
February 1, 2011 at 4:48 pm
skippy
“I don’t think that human toll collectors are obsolete actually. They may be more expensive. but there is something to a human greeting on a morning commute. Quality of life should factor into the matter as well.
I agree, Mr. Kirk. In fact, touring the inside of the Toll Plaza Building, several workers were playing poker. On the table was the largest mound of nickels I’ve ever seen– about 3 feet across and nearly a foot high. I think they were our nickels. For every bet, they’d grab a gobful or two of nickels to ante up. They loved it. True, it might be a tedious job, but the quality of life was apparent for breaks. At least, I guess it was a break.
I’m not sure if the nickels won were taken home. At least they were only nickels. Our nickels.
February 1, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Eric Kirk
Are you sure you aren’t suzy?
February 1, 2011 at 5:34 pm
anon
yeah, i wouldn’t like the radiation outside my bedroom window/ meter readers don’t bother me…
re toll takers:that has got to be about the most hazardous job for those poor souls–once i passed through the booth in tears imagining them having to suck exhaust all day–the things people have to do to survive, put food on the table…
February 1, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Ben Schill
PG&E says only the Public Utilities Commission can regulate Smart Meters. Therefore they are proceeding with the Mendo. County installations. Sheriff Allman invited complaints but says he is too understaffed to respond.
February 1, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Ben Schill
I have a Blue Star Gas transponder on my propane tank which transmits information once a day (according to Blue Star) through a receiver connected to my phone. Some of my friends suspected the device was tapping their phones but objections seem long forgotten.
February 1, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Les Junk
Just more high tech crap to break down. You can’t tell me replacing everyones meter with some electronic-magnetic radiation gizmo isn’t costing ‘em money. Or maybe they got bailout money to do it, or a grant!
Lets keep people working instead of swallowing more toxic tech junk so that dictator corporados make more obscene profits.
“Objections seem forgotten”…a few months after exposure to more and more microwaves?
February 1, 2011 at 11:50 pm
Anonymous
Are you crazy Eric? Or just trying to be a clown?
Have the police come out and remove some of the meters and issue fines???!!!!! OMG, is this thread for real?
Unbelievable, is that your “legal opnion”.
Gas meters tapping phones! I guess that just goes to prove smoking pot makes you paranoid.
February 2, 2011 at 8:24 am
Eric Kirk
Have the police come out and remove some of the meters and issue fines???!!!!! OMG, is this thread for real?
What would happen to anyone else who flagrantly broke the law?
February 2, 2011 at 9:11 am
Anonymous
Well Eric, which of the meters would the police remove? Everyone one? Every 5th one. Whatever ones they feel like taking? And who would they “issue fines” to? The property owner? PG&E? Under what authority would the police seize these meters? What Penal Code section permits this?
With limited resources, even if your fantasy became reality don’t you think the cops have better things to do than seize PG&E electric meters?
I can’t believe that you don’t know that the police don’t “issue fines” even if there were such an absurd ordinance in effect.
Your suggestions make no sense period. PG&E (Big Bad Corporation) provides a service. Who (what law) says they, PG&E, can’t just say this is it. Take the service with the new meters or don’t.
Having the “police” go to houses, seize property, return the property to PG&E, and then issue PG&E a fine? Do you mean issue them a citation ?
February 2, 2011 at 9:37 am
Eric Kirk
PG&E would be fined. Randomly select a few and PG&E will probably follow the law.
There are three such “absurd ordinances” in effect, and someone posted earlier that PG&E intends to ignore those laws.
But your argument that PG&E should be exempt from laws because they are a corporation which provides a service is unique, I’ll give you that. There are some who think that way, but they rarely express it.
Of course, the removal of the meters and the fines should be just the first warning. The placement of any meters on property owners who have stated their objections should be prosecuted as criminal trespass.
February 2, 2011 at 9:57 am
Mitch
Mr. Junk,
As is often the case, there are both technological benefits and potential drawbacks to this “new” technology. The benefits include more potential efficiency in the electrical distribution system. If “peaker” plants are the most polluting, reducing the need for peakers could be a real gain to the environment.
The “radiation” issue may or may not be a valid concern. Calling a radio signal “radiation,” though, sounds like a bit of spin to me. Sure it’s radiation. So is visible light, but we don’t usually refer to our night lights as 24 hour emitters of low level radiation.
I’d be interested in hearing what power levels are involved and for what periods of time. It would be helpful to have that in context, also. I gather PG&E has tried to do that, comparing their power levels with those of cell phones and (in an example of incredibly stupid marketing) microwave ovens.
It would be great if some consumer-oriented group could come out with their own information. I’m still not sure if we are talking about five seconds of transmit power per hour, or 3,600 seconds of transmit power per hour.
And I’ve heard reports of EMF sufferers suffering badly, even before the particular EMF sources they are concerned about have been connected to power. I feel sorry for them.
February 2, 2011 at 10:13 am
tra
Of course, removing an electric meter is not something that a police officer is equipped or trained to do safely. PG&E would have to turn off the power at the pole, and they would probably be the best people to do the actual removal (though I suppose a non-PG&E electrician could do the job so long as the power is turned offf at the street). So this would still come down to getting PG&E to cooperate in the uninstall, and presumably to re-install the old-style meter (assuming the resident doesn’t want to be left without power).
I’m not saying that it shouldn’t or couldn’t be done, but there are some technical complications. Seems more likely to me that the County would just issue a fine to PG&E, which might or might not choose to ignore the fines (depending on how many fines and how much money was involved).
February 2, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Not A Native
Eric reread your own 11:22 post and find you’ve erred with a typo that makes the meaning imply you believe retaining toll takers would increase productivity.
As far as the toll taker ‘human touch’, I’ve regularly found toll takers to be rude, condescending and uncooperative and always bored and brusque and impersonal. Never are they warm and personal. Approaching a toolbooth, I expect an unwanted encounter, and it regularly turns out that way.
FWIW, I believe utility meters are the property of the utility, not the owner of the property they meter, like cable TV set top boxes. And I think city ordinances require a habitable dwelling to have electric service(i’m not certain about that), hence a meter. Anyway, PG&E is regulated by the CPUC, not cities or counties and as a regulated utility it has the right to obtain easements through eminent domain, if necessary under the approval of the CPUC. Technically, the meter is an easement. No matter how you slice it, the police have no authority to tamper with meters(or technical knowledge of how to do so safely). Tampering with a meter is a violation of State law. And if a meter is taken out, electrical service is terminated, thereby creating a violation of the health and safety code. Eric’s ‘legal opinion’ is about as stupid as advising the police arrest military recruiters when the Arcata/Eureka ordinances was passed.
February 2, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Not A Native
FYI RA replacing a meter doesn’t require shutting off the power to the service entrance cable. Meters unplug from a socket, similar to a fuse. The ‘old trick’ of power theives was to remove a meter and reinstall it upside down, whereby it would run backwards while still making a connection. Before the days of illegal indoor pots grows you’re so fond of, dishonest home welders would do that. Some got caught because they let the meter run backwards for so long, the next reading was negative.
February 2, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Eric Kirk
As far as the toll taker ‘human touch’, I’ve regularly found toll takers to be rude, condescending and uncooperative and always bored and brusque and impersonal. Never are they warm and personal. Approaching a toolbooth, I expect an unwanted encounter, and it regularly turns out that way.
Funny. In my experience, some are indifferent. Most are polite. And some are warm and personal. I have never encountered one who was rude, condescending, or uncooperative, and I lived in Marin while working in SF for a year – although I used the ferry whenever I could.
Our perceptions are I guess conditioned by our experiences, but I wonder if our experiences aren’t also sometimes conditioned by our perceptions.
To clarify, my point was that productivity, the natural result of technological evolution, should benefit everyone involved, and not just the shareholder. It should mean that workers earn the same amount of money since the output is the same. If wages were based on actual output, that’s what would happen. But the whole dynamic of layoffs with increased productivity kind of vindicates the Marxian theory of surplus value.
The problem is that you lose workers and you lose consumption. Ford, nutty as he was, understood that workers had to have the money to purchase the goods or the goods didn’t get sold, so he advocated full employment policies.
tra – I wasn’t talking in absolutes, but I believe Japan is one example of a country in which termination of employment requires just cause, and it’s functioned well until the 1990s, and I don’t believe the full employment policy was the cause of their problems. The economic downturns are primarily caused by unemployment, and further unemployment aggravates the downturn. So, yes, I do advocate the elimination of at-will employment – which is another one of those anachronistic policies unique to the US in the industrialized world.
February 2, 2011 at 1:57 pm
tra
“Before the days of illegal indoor pots grows you’re so fond of…”
I’m not fond of them at all, and I’m especiallly not fond of indoor grows in residential neighborhoods (neighbor problems, potential for home invasions, driving up the cost of rent for actual residents), nor am I fond of diesel-powered indoor grows (diesel spills, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.). I’d much prefer if most growing took place outdoors in the sun or in greenhouses, with organic soil amendments and without pesticides.
But thanks for the info on meters. I had always heard that to install a new meter, PG&E needed to turn off the power at the pole. But it sounds like that’s not necessarily the case. At any rate, I agree with you that sending the cops to remove Smart Meters doesn’t sound like a workable approach.
February 2, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Mitch
To clarify, my point was that productivity, the natural result of technological evolution, should benefit everyone involved, and not just the shareholder. It should mean that workers earn the same amount of money since the output is the same. If wages were based on actual output, that’s what would happen. But the whole dynamic of layoffs with increased productivity kind of vindicates the Marxian theory of surplus value.
Eric,
I guess the theory is that, because our economy is filled with cut-throat competitors desperate to make a dime by out-selling their competition, all that additional productivity lowers prices and ultimately gets distributed to the consumer.
Of course, if that were true, productivity would not increase profits, which would be held in check by that Adam Smithian / Ayn Randian / Tea Baggian competition.
That’s why investing in the stock market never does anyone any good — profits can’t rise, because we have such effective competition throughout our economy. It also explains why you never see overpaid executives — it’s a theoretical impossibility.
February 2, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Mitch
And by “consumer” I mean those who won’t be laid off until next year. Of course.
February 2, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Anonymous
“what would happen to anyone else who flagrantly broke the law” !!!!
That is laughable coming from a SoHum resident/lawyer !! For years and years and years laws have “flagrantly” been broken, growing/cultivating and selling marijuana. What would you say if someone, a lawyer, suggested the cops go onto private property, seize property (weed), and “issue fines” ( I am assuming you meant issuing citations to appear in court for due process ………. you did mean that right?)
What would happen to anyone else that flagrantly broke the law?????
Substitute “marijuana” for ” PG&E meter” and explain your logic Eric.
February 2, 2011 at 2:42 pm
tra
“I believe Japan is one example of a country in which termination of employment requires just cause, and it’s functioned well until the 1990s…”
In other words, it functioned well until it was actually needed (when the economy took a turn for the worse) and then it ceased to function well.
So, it works when you don’t need it, and then collapses just when it’s needed most? I rest my case.
February 2, 2011 at 2:51 pm
tra
Eric,
The basic problem lies in the question I posed, which has thus far gone unanswered: How do you order a business to continue to employ people, continue to pay them, when it does not have enough revenue to meet payroll?
If they literally can’t pay people without the checks starting to bounce, then it seems to me that the only options are either (a) declare bankruptcy and close the business entirely (costing everyone their jobs), or (b) bailout by the government to cover that portion of the payroll that the troubled company cannot pay.
If (a) that seems like an even worse situation for everyone, if (b) then it’s essentially a government make-work program — which I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to in dire economic times, but there may be much more efficient ways to do so directly, without propping up companies that are failing to compete in the real market due to higher-than-needed numbers of employees.
February 2, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Eric Kirk
You purchase lay-off rights from other companies, or you apply to the Dept. of Labor for an exemption.
February 2, 2011 at 3:13 pm
tra
If the lay-off rights are a Cap & Trade approach, then the company you purchase the rights from has to be able to hire workers. In a serious recession, that’s not going to work out, because there are far fewer jobs being created than the number of layoffs needed.
If this is basis for the Dept. of Labor to grant an exemption, well that’s fine, but in a serious recession they’re just going to be forced to grant exemptions left and right.
This still looks to me like an approach that will only “work well” when it is needed least, and will fail to help exactly when it’s needed most.
But maybe there’s some element that I’m missing here?
Anyway, I enjoy the discussion…it’s an interesting idea. I’m just not sure it’s a practical one.
February 2, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Erasmus
“The elimination of at-will employment”? — You’ll see even higher levels of unemployment, as employers face the prospect of dishwashers demanding their “rights “and of even more paperwork and bureaucratic meddling in employment matters. At-will works both ways, of course: a dishwasher who quits without notice (not a rare occurrence) would be liable … for what? if she broke the letter of the contract. — Like proposals to raise the minimum wage, this idea of requiring a legally-binding contract ignores the consequences when it is implemented at the lower end of the job-ladder. It’s a “feel-good” notion that imagines every job as a “career”. As matters stand now, even “at-will” employees have rights — so many,in fact, that employers are careful to refrain from specifying reasons for dismissal. I could supply an abundance of anecdotal evidence, but I don’t wish to embroil any businesses in this argument.
February 2, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Eric Kirk
tra – Well, again, it wouldn’t be an absolute, simply a policy which ensures that labor is not the first thing to be cut during a recession. Yes, they’d be given firing rights left and right during a recession, but they might be conditioned upon a moratorium on dividends for that period (yes, that might discourage investment, but then nobody should be investing in a company in so much trouble that it’s laying off workers, right?), and proportionate cuts in the pay of the upper income positions within the company. If painful measures are necessary, then why not spread it around to ensure that the management is really certain of the necessity of the act?
There are a million other considerations, and it wouldn’t be a fool-proof policy to be sure, and there would probably be many other unintended consequences until the policy evolves into something workable. I’m also for more preferred stocks held by workers in a company, or even a wage which fluctuates according to the company’s fortunes (along with the CEO’s), with a base wage negotiated through collective bargaining. If the worker’s fortunes are tied to the company’s, and everyone takes the pill, they are less likely to balk at hour/pay cuts (perhaps in lieu of lay-offs) if they know that their pay will go up again when the company recovers. I know there’s been some experimentation with this in Europe, and I believe with the airlines here, but I don’t know whether it’s worked.
February 2, 2011 at 3:28 pm
tra
“…it wouldn’t be a fool-proof policy to be sure, and there would probably be many other unintended consequences until the policy evolves into something workable.”
…or until it evolves into a complete disaster.
February 2, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Eric Kirk
Erasmus – maybe it’s something you acquire with seniority.
But I always here about how pro-labor policies will lead to more unemployment, and yet it turns out from studies by think tanks that the minimum wage increases actually led to more jobs locally rather than fewer because businesses can’t cut back on those jobs as easily and there’s more money in the hands of consumers since minimum wage earners spend everything they get.
February 2, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Eric Kirk
…or until it evolves into a complete disaster.
It’s always a possibility. But it’s pretty harsh as it is.
February 2, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Not A Native
Eric don’t know shit about economics, just blows smoke out his ass. tra has some good points that merit consideration, Eric can’t get even close to addressing them. He’s trying to imagine what would Harry Bridges do? (Not much different, psychologically speaking, from asking What would Jesus do? Hey, there must be some rock n’ roll lyrics out there that totally substantiate Eric’s pronouncements. Eric just hasn’t found them yet. wait.. wait… wait…
February 2, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Eric Kirk
Harry Bridges would to a lot more than impose labor policy regulations NAN.
February 2, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Mitch
Eric,
I agree with the chorus — I think it is unworkable to have government prevent private business from laying off workers.
It would be another thing entirely to require large businesses to provide 90 day notice to their employees and to the state if substantial layoffs are going to take place — that seems fair and reasonable, at least to me.
February 2, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Plain Jane
In Germany reduction in working hours, rather than lay offs, not only prevented an unemployment crisis but enabled the companies to increase production on demand immediately due to their retained work force. If instead of laying people they reduced hours, at least the burden would be shared. The bosses could just take an equivalent cut in pay.
February 2, 2011 at 5:54 pm
tra
Just to be clear, I’m not some kind of laissez-faire zealot. I agree with Mitch on the idea of some kind of advanced-notice requirement for layoffs by large employers. And if it were up to me, we’d provide much more substantial unemployment insurance and retraining to layed-off workers, and in a severe downturn I would support actual WPA-style government jobs programs.
February 2, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Mitch
And here I thought tra was a laissez-faire zealot. Live and learn.
And Jane, the German approach does sound incredibly sensible.
February 2, 2011 at 6:19 pm
tra
I’m down with that.
February 2, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Mitch
Well, it’s settled then. Who will tell the people?
February 2, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Plain Jane
Maybe if we had Germany’s social support structure to ease the pain workers would go along with it. It’s one thing to cut your hours by 8 hours a week and yet another to lose your insurance because you aren’t full time and can’t afford the COBRA.
February 2, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Anonymous
Why is Not A Native always angry?
February 2, 2011 at 7:11 pm
tra
Good point, Jane.
February 2, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Les Junk
“The basic problem lies in the question I posed, which has thus far gone unanswered: How do you order a business to continue to employ people, continue to pay them, when it does not have enough revenue to meet payroll?”
Not have enough revenue to meet payroll because the CEO pay is astronomical? Because corporate profits are in the zillions? Golden Parachutes everywhere? Percs for the big guys?
How ’bout a MAXIMUM wage? Nobody at corporate could make more than, say for example, 12 times the lowest subcontractor? It could be about work, not all about obscene profits. A living wage for the employees AND the honchos. Even things out a bit.
February 2, 2011 at 9:43 pm
tra
All good points, Les.
February 2, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Not A Native
Here’s a good news article that describes some of the real issues associated with matching people to jobs to productivity. Somehow its deficient, cause it doesn’t mention Harry Bridges, rock n’ roll lyrics, or poseur small town lawyers with political ambitions. Oh well..
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/business/907650-192/new-dilemma-lots-of-jobs-but-few.html
February 3, 2011 at 12:21 am
Anonymous
Oh Eric. I never said anything about PG&E being exempt from laws because they are a big corporation. I am saying that PG&E provides a service, makes that service available, but if you don’t want to go by their rules (the new meter system) then you can get you electricity somewhere else ……… and off course that’s close to impossible.
Criminal Trespass for PG&E employees go on your property to maintain, repair, or replace equipment !!!!!! Do you realize how completely stupid that is?
I was going to say something very rude but changed my mind. If you don’t like the new meters get some solar panels, a windmill, or do without.
February 3, 2011 at 7:20 am
Plain Jane
ARGGH! My post didn’t.
Remember back when companies had apprenticeship programs to train people for their more technical jobs, Nan? Of course that was back in the days of more union membership and CEO to average worker pay ratio was 35:1 rather than 300-500:1 like it is today. Steeply progressive tax rates encourage lower executive salaries, while not explicitly forcing them, and at least those who would rather pay much higher taxes than make less help to fund the social structures their greed makes so necessary.
As to the article linked, imagine people not wanting those $15 jobs that require college or technical school degrees! This sounded like they were making the case for more special visas. Maybe if we had socialized education through college more Americans could afford to work for low wages since they wouldn’t have student loans to pay off.
February 3, 2011 at 9:53 am
pathetic actually
Harry Bridges would to a lot more than impose labor policy regulations NAN.
Brother Harry passed twenty years ago, RIP.
February 3, 2011 at 9:55 am
Eric Kirk
I am saying that PG&E provides a service, makes that service available, but if you don’t want to go by their rules (the new meter system) then you can get you electricity somewhere else ……… and off course that’s close to impossible.
Or we can pass laws which regulate monopoly activity, which is what several counties have done.
Criminal Trespass for PG&E employees go on your property to maintain, repair, or replace equipment !!!!!! Do you realize how completely stupid that is?
If they are on private property conducting activities against the will of the owners, and they did so despite being asked not to, that is criminal trespass, no matter who you are.
PA – NAN was making a reference to what he perceives as my economic radicalism because I suggest that workers should have inherent legal rights against arbitrary lay-offs. It is a indication as to how conservative our country is that even progressives here are afraid of government intervention which is taken for granted in Europe and elsewhere.
But we are the only industrialized country with pure at-will employment. My suggested policy may seem extreme, and perhaps there would have to be so many exceptions as to render it practically meaningless. But if companies had to even just go through motions before laying someone off and make some evidentiary presentation that it’s necessary, I think they would be more likely to consider other options. You don’t really see the mass layoffs in other countries, even during recessions. Here, it’s the first reaction, and CEO’s are so removed as to the social impact that they even brag about their massive layoffs when they’re running for office and become shocked when voters aren’t impressed.
March 10, 2011 at 7:11 am
chriswarren44
Just another example of real people being put out of work. Toll collectors are now being let go in south Florida. Now they just take a picture of your tag and mail you the bill. Meter readers are being transferred to a different position. There is no reason to hire new one. These jobs are gone. Forever. For what they would pay a human to work for 10 or 20 years, they can have a machine do for free. Or just pay someone less fortunate in a foreign country a dollar a day to build Smartmeters. But now, who is going to have money to buy that new truck. That new car. Build a house. Pay the electric bill. Buy groceries from the store. On the up side, Corporate now needs minimum wage paid slaves to serve them hamburgers from the drive thru.