WomanOnWheels.ca

What's That Again?

In the news today: Ontario has announced it is now issuing its license plates in both English and French, in keeping with the fact that some 550,000 Francophones live in the province. The provincial slogan, Yours to Discover, can now also be ordered as Tant a Decouvrir.

So here's what the Francophone Affairs Minister had to say about it: All Ontarians now have the opportunity to show, on our roads and wherever else their travels take them, that Ontario is proud of its French culture and language.

"Wherever else their travels take them?"

Take note: if the guy beside you on the airplane is sitting in his car with the new license plates bolted to the bumper, it's just because he's really proud. Honest.

 

Today's translation: GM Corporate-Speak

In the news: some 19,000 GM hourly workers in the U.S. have accepted the company's attrition program, and they'll be out the door and home by July 1 at the latest.

First crack at their jobs will go to current employees "whenever possible", according to a release from GM. But if new workers have to be brought in, they'll come in at entry-level wages and benefits.

According to GM North America president Troy Clarke, "This attrition program gives us an opportunity to restructure our U.S. workforce through the entry-level wage and benefit structure for new hourly employees."

Translation: We're going to save a bundle by getting the old guy out of the slot, and putting in a new guy at a lower wage.

Now yes, I do understand that the domestic auto companies are still bloated from a quarter-century ago, and that trimming down doesn't happen without some tough decisions.

But before you jump on the bandwagon and say "about time", keep a few things in mind, including the fact that good-paying jobs generate higher taxes and more disposable income than low-paying jobs. Those taxes help pay for your social programs, your schools, your neighborhood, your police and fire protection, your parks and your libraries. Do you want your neighborhood funded by an autoworker making $25+ an hour, or by someone whose job description includes "Do you want fries with that?"

Henry Ford, back when he was still turning out the Model T, raised the salaries of most of his workers to $5.00 a day, which was twice the going rate. His theory was that a decently-paid worker could afford to buy the product he built, thereby increasing demand for the product and turning it into a cycle. How many minimum-wage workers do you know who are buying new cars?

And don't kid yourself; if the auto plants could get workers to screw together the vehicles for a buck an hour, I doubt the price would go down. Profits would go up and the shareholders would be happy, but don't think Flint would be fired back up to make $2,500 Tata cars. One of Chevrolet's best-selling models is made in Korea, but its price doesn't seem to reflect the wages those workers make over there.

Now, don't get me wrong -- the automakers need to do something to stay afloat in these troubled times, and they're probably doing the best they can.

Just don't make the mistake of thinking that what's good for General Motors is necessarily good for America.

Saving Gas: Common Sense

 In the news today: the European Commission has launched a campaign to promote more energy-efficient driving. Over 45,000 fuel stations in 29 countries will take part in the campaign, distributing leaflets that explain fuel efficiency and "responsible driving behavior" to motorists.

"To reach our ambitious targets of CO2 reduction and energy savings, we have to make a big effort in all sectors," said Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs. "In certain cases this will require high-tech solutions, but in others we just need to apply some common sense. This campaign provides a set of simple tips to reduce CO2 emissions and save money, simply by driving more intelligently. Learning a few tricks will help (European Union) citizens to keep more fuel in their tanks, more money in their pockets and more CO2 out of the atmosphere."

Common sense. That's a phrase I hear bandied about a lot in North America, but it's usually mated to "technologies" or "plans"; I very seldom hear it in the same breath as citizens.

Last weekend I participated in a fuel efficiency driving challenge, which had me driving 250 km or so in a four-cylinder Honda. I won the fuel contest, averaging 6.8 L/100 km against the vehicle's published rate of 8.3 L/100 km. I sweated over every light, every hill, every unnecessary rpm, but I saved the equivalent of $2.03 per 100 km by the day's gas prices -- which is quite a savings when you add it up over the 20,000 km or so that the average vehicle travels in a year. No special technology, no fancy propulsion system, just a light foot and some common-sense driving. (And the realization that I would have saved even more fuel by not making an unnecessary trip.)

This is the part of the equation that's so often left out, and I applaud the European Commission for having the guts to target it. It's partly the car you buy, but more importantly, it's the way you drive it. North America doesn't want to hear that; North America wants the easy solution. North America wants to eat low-fat potato chips when it should be reaching for apples, or even deciding if it's hungry. Common sense: possibly the most uncommon element on the planet these days.

Now that proper word use and spelling are no longer necessary ...

I carved this out of a press release I read today. I wish I could say it was the first time I'd ever received something like this, but it's becoming all too common. It's obvious that Spell-Check has its limits, and someone really should dip into the dictionary to learn the meaning of "unique":

The lineage of Zukor's Packard is rather unique: it's first two owners have stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

Webster wept ...

Rolls-Royce: Just Because You Can ...

I spotted this at a golf resort the other day. It's a Rolls-Royce Phantom Drophead Coupe, an extremely rare and extremely expensive variant of an already extremely rare and extremely expensive brand. According to the enthusiastic desk clerk (it belongs to his boss), this is one of two examples currently in Canada.

That's two too many, say I.

I'm sure it rides like a dream, bathes its occupants in opulence I can't possibly imagine, and eats up asphalt like a jet fighter at takeoff (and probably so quietly, you wouldn't even know the engine was running). But good heavens, who designed this thing?

The nose looks like one of those front ends that the basketball players put on the Chrysler 300s. The wrinkly top looks like it's off our 1966 Dodge Dart. And that windshield frame -- it looks like something off a plastic model kit, where it has to be oversized because it can't be made to scale.

Several people were all over it, praising it to the hilt, but I think it's just a case of money talking. So I'll be the first to say it: yes, it's expensive, but man, this thing is fugly!

What you say ... and what you don't ...

  In the news today: the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) crash-tested the Dodge Grand Caravan.

Here's what was on the IIHS' website: Front and side crash test ratings are GOOD but rear protection is MARGINAL.

Here's what was in the press release that Chrysler (U.S.) made available to the media: The all-new 2008 Chrysler Town & Country and Dodge Grand Caravan earned "good" ratings, the highest ratings available from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), in both frontal offset and side crashworthiness tests.

And save for an enthusiastic quote from the minivan department's vice-president, and an assurance that Chrysler's concerned about safety, that's it.

Rear protection crash tests determine whether seat and head restraints have been properly designed to minimize the risk of neck injury in a crash. It still isn't high on a lot of automakers' lists: the Grand Caravan finished mid-pack, behind the top "Good"-rated Hyundai Entourage, Kia Sedona and Honda Odyssey, but ahead of the "Poor"-rated Toyota Sienna, Nissan Quest and Chevrolet Uplander.

But while the rating itself is important, the real story here is what Chrysler said ... or rather, what it didn't say. "Error of omission", I call it, and I think it's just as newsworthy.

Auto Journalism: Where are the ethics?

On his blog, Joe Clark of Toronto tackles the thorny issue of ethics in auto journalism, and specifically he takes on The Toronto Star, where I'm published. It wasn't easy to read his entry from my chair, but overall, when it comes to the industry in general, he's right. You can read it by clicking here.

The problem of objective reporting turning into an advertorial crops up any time a product or service is reviewed, but automobiles and travel are the most likely to come under fire, and usually with good reason. That's quite the photo I've posted here. That's the resort where I stayed when I was on the launch of a family vehicle -- one that starts at $20,000. The people who buy the vehicle will probably never set foot in a place like that in all their lives.

I like to think that I do write objectively about the vehicles, no matter what the automaker does, but the public doesn't see it that way, and they shouldn't. I also know a few writers who never met a car they didn't like, because they never met a press trip they didn't like. Some of the old boys quiver with righteous indignation if people like Clark suggest that they have a price, but the fact is, some do. Many of the automakers have eliminated gifts on press trips, which didn't go over too well with some of them. (Mark Richardson, the editor mentioned in the story -- my boss -- tried to pass a ruling a couple of years ago with the Automobile Journalists Association of Canada that no member would accept gifts from automakers. It was voted down.)

I am the first to admit that I benefit from the perks of my job, and that I'm also guilty of non-ethical behavior. I've travelled to places I normally would never have a chance to visit (and Clark failed to note that the journalist, not the car company, keeps the frequent flier miles). I have kept many of the gifts. I have stayed in hotels and resorts I could never afford, eaten in restaurants I could never visit otherwise. That's the way this game is set up. It's not right. But short of quitting my job, I honestly don't know how to fix the system. I really don't. I wish I knew the answer.

Letters? Oh, yes, I get letters ...

As a freelancer, I work at home, rather than in an office; there are times I feel like I'm working in a bubble. That's why it's nice to get feedback from readers, whether it's through the printed newspaper or my online work. But every now and again, well ... let me share some examples from the mailbag.

The conspiracy theorist: A reader wanted me to investigate and expose GM for false advertising, claiming that it was advertising a car at a higher mile-per-gallon average than he figured its L/100 km rating was when converted. I investigated ... and reported that if he'd converted into Canadian gallons, instead of the smaller American ones, the math would work ...

Now there's an incentive: The inventor of a new auto-related product asked me to feature the product in a story -- in effect, a free ad. In return, he said, "I promise to read all your stories twice each time if you do."

I must have been asleep that day: A reader chided me for writing about new cars, and giving up my newspaper column on used cars. I told him I'd never written a column on used cars. He said I had, called me a fraud, and said he'd check the previous issues to prove it. Needless to say, I didn't hear from him again...

Feeling gassy: A reader was told by the dealer that her brand-new vehicle had been filled at an Esso station, but she wanted to patronize the Petro-Canada station closer to her house, and asked me what damage she might do to the engine by changing brands.

I think I saw that already: A reader mailed me a copy of a magazine article on old trucks, thinking I'd be interested in it. He apparently didn't notice that I'd written it.

Yes, that's a good reason: Someone complained when I found fault with a Pontiac; I needed to "stick to the positive," he said, "because GM employs the most people per car."

Ooookay: I mentioned that two mechanically-identical models had "unique sheet metal" to describe the styling. Someone wrote and told me I was wrong; he'd called the company, who confirmed they used the same type of sheet metal in both.

I'll get right on that: "Would you mind ranking, in order, the safest minivan to the least. Also, please confirm my assumption that American cars use soft metal that quickly loses its compression, thereby increasing fuel consumption after only five years."

Beverly Rae Kimes: In memorium

Beverly Rae Kimes has passed away. If my calculations are correct, she was 67. To say that the automotive world has lost a giant in the field is an understatement.

A writer and editor since 1963, Kimes had the helm of Automobile Quarterly for many years, and was a contributor for decades. She was the author or editor of more than twenty books, including the definitive history of such makes as Packard and Mercedes-Benz. She was also a rarity, a female writer and historian in a male-dominated field.

I had the opportunity to interview her by telephone in 2002 for Old Autos newspaper, and the first thing I mentioned was that when I first became aware of her writing, I assumed from her ambiguous name that she was a man. She said that just about everyone made that mistake, but in the early days, it was to her advantage: her meticulous work earned her a place on the page, and "By the time they found out I was a woman, (at a time) when women weren't regarded as favorably as they are today with regard to the workplace, I had already established myself," she told me. "I had been writing for several years, so they couldn't really take that out on me at that point."

Although she would gain a reputation as one of the top historians in her field, she told me that she'd known nothing about cars when she started. Fresh out of college, she first got a job with a theater magazine that folded shortly thereafter. Sent on a lead by her agent, the job turned out to be the fledgling Automobile Quarterly. Although she admitted her ignorance of automobiles, the editor hired her anyway, on the basis of the research she did for her Master's thesis. Her first story, on the Curved Dash Olds, sparked an interest in finding out the story behind the vehicles.

My story on her contained a minor error, which most readers would never have caught, but Kimes was mortified, especially when I showed her the transcript of our interview and she found the error was hers. I didn't realize it at the time, but she was recovering from a serious illness, which left her a little fuzzy at times. She requested (and received) a correction; her attention to detail would have allowed nothing less.

Kimes entered the field during the infancy of writing about automotive history, and along with a small handful of peers, she set the standard both for research, and for the stories that resulted. Every auto writer who's ever turned a key owes a debt to her, especially women writers, for whom Kimes put a foot in the door. I know I certainly do; all I can say is, thank you.

Electric vehicles: More than just the car

I just read a news report, a follow-up to Nissan's earlier announcement that it will sell a completely electric vehicle in the U.S. and Japan in 2010. The company has embarked on a full-scale study in Kanagawa Prefecture to set up a charging network and incentives program that can possibly be repeated nationally and even globally.

That's a huge report, and it's one that I hope to see with many more automakers.

Up front: I'm a fan of electric vehicles, and I think they're going to have an important place in the overall goal of sustainable transportation. But I also think that many of the people who champion them are not looking at the big picture overall.

I've spoken to many supporters, who tell me that people will simply plug the cars in at home, or plug them in at work, and that's the extent of their vision of infrastructure. The problem is that many of these supporters live in single-family homes, and work at small companies where running a few extension cords from the building isn't an issue.

But many more people live in apartment buildings, or in older city areas where they have to park on the street. Many work at large complexes or factories, where a few thousand cars might occupy the parking lot. Suddenly, the situation isn't so simple as these devotees like to think it is.

Any new technology is going to be chicken-and-egg; early motorists had to buy their gasoline from hardware stores, because gas stations had yet to be developed. By working on the hen as well as the egg, automakers and governments can help to make this happen. Maybe, in future, parking meters will charge the cars parked beside them. Maybe apartment parking lots will include stand-alone charging systems. Maybe, if they do, the electric car will be more than just a conveyance for a lucky few, and instead, become a feasible option for many.

Those were the days ...

That's me, age 13, on my mother's new car, a 1972 Plymouth Scamp. (She just about had a bird when the photos came back from the drugstore.) I learned to drive on that car when I was 17, and not long afterwards, it became the first car I owned. Less than a year after I learned to drive, believe it or not, the city of Toronto gave me a taxi driver's license.

I was thinking about that Plymouth the other day, and the cabs I drove in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when I was assessing a brand-new car and marking against it because it had very few storage cubbies.

How times have changed. My Plymouth had a glovebox and an ashtray, and that was it. With the cabs, we'd sometimes buy plastic consoles that sat on the transmission hump. They could be a pain if someone wanted to sit in the middle, though, because most cars had front bench seats.

Cars didn't have cupholders back then, save for the inside of my glovebox's metal lid, which had a couple of indentations to hold a mug if you stopped at A&W for a root beer. I don't remember people drinking anything when they actually drove. We did in the taxis, because there wasn't time to stop. Coffee shops used styrofoam cups, not paper, and we'd wedge them between the dash and the windshield. Some guys bought cupholders that hung off the windowframe, but they were more trouble than they were worth. We'd put a lid on the cup and then tear out a hole so we could drink on the go, and sometimes passengers would marvel at such a great idea. Now the lids come with the holes already scored.

Cars didn't have door pockets. They didn't have a mirror on the passenger door, but they did have vinyl roofs that were definitely not the stylist's finer moment. If you ordered a rear defogger, it was a fan in the parcel shelf that blew warm air on the window, very noisily. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven the day I got a taxi that had air conditioning, power windows and power locks. It was like driving a Cadillac. And those were back in the days when the only thing better than a Cadillac was a Rolls Royce. Good heavens, I feel old.

Premium fuel: yes or no?

This was the sight that greeted me at the gas pump today when I filled up a vehicle. Fortunately, my ride called for 87 octane, which was "only" $1.25 per litre. The premium stuff represented a jump of 12 cents a litre. That would have added about eight bucks to my total.

The Internet's awash in articles on whether most cars really need premium. Few will come out and actually say you can run the lower-grade stuff, liability being what it is, but the general consensus seems to be that if it isn't turbo- or supercharged, the lower grade should see you through.

Things were different way back when, before cars had computerized fuel management systems and knock sensors, and using a lower grade could damage a higher-performance engine. Today's cars can make up the difference by dialing back a little, which shouldn't be too much of an issue to the average driver. I don't know about you, but I doubt I'd be able to tell if my car was producing 300 horsepower instead of 302.

I have another unproven pet theory, and it has to do with prestige and image. Many of the premium-brand manufacturers call for high-test across their entire product lines, regardless of engine size or horsepower. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but I wonder if the thinking is that premium fuel = premium car ... and a car that takes "regular" fuel is, well, just a regular vehicle. In other words, it ain't the car that needs the expensive fuel, but the owner's ego.

Gas pump advertising: make it stop!

As if it isn't bad enough that I'm paying $1.25 a litre for 87-octane fuel, I now also have to listen to a television commercial while I pump my gas.

If you haven't seen one of these things yet, count your blessings, but trust me: it'll be coming to a station near you. It's a screen atop the pump that comes to life as soon as the pump turns on and gets ready to dispense fuel. While $62.83 quickly drained from my gasoline card to fill a Volvo tester, I got to listen to extremely annoying ads shilling pizza, bottled water, and something to do with the Olympic team.

Enough already. I can turn off my radio or television if I don't want to listen to an ad. The same courtesy should be extended when I'm at the pump. If I want to know about the price of pizza or whatever the Olympic team is doing, I'll make an effort to find out. In the meantime, I'd like the gas companies to shove these infernal advertising devices up their pipelines. Hard. Oh, and considering that these advertisers have paid Esso good money for the privilege of annoying me ... why isn't the gas any cheaper?

No dogs allowed ... for safety's sake

In the news: there's a bill pending in California that would make it illegal to drive with a dog on your lap.

I don't have a dog -- I live in a house owned by a cat -- but while I think it's sad that we have to legislate common sense, I hope this one passes swiftly, and then spreads rapidly to other jurisdictions.

I've seen plenty of dogs, both small and larger than expected, wedged in behind the wheel in the driver's lap, and I have to wonder what people are thinking. Collision avoidance can require rapid wheel movements that these drivers simply can't make because Rover is in the way.

Beyond that, an unrestrained dog is unsafe for both pet and people. If the airbag deploys and a dog is in the front seat -- whether on the driver's or the passenger's lap -- the airbag will undoubtedly kill the dog. In the back seat, the dog will be thrown violently about, either injuring itself or becoming a projectile that injures human passengers. In short, the safest place for a pet is in an approved car harness that locks into the seatbelt, or in a pet carrier.

Many people complain that their dogs don't like being confined that way in an automobile. So what? I'm sure there are plenty of children who'd love to stand up on the seat unrestrained. Would you let him have his way just because he doesn't like the seatbelt? Or do common sense and safety trump the wishes of someone incapable of comprehending the danger? Do everyone a favor -- when you buckle up, buckle up your dog as well.

Writing about cars: it's all about the audience

Every now and again, I do a Google search on my name, just to see what's there. (C'mon, admit it, you do it too.) It seems I'm frequently a topic of discussion: I have a fairly sizeable fan club which, as the saying goes, wouldn't walk across the street to spit on me if I were on fire.

They're enthusiasts, and their basic complaint is that I don't write what they want to read. It's one of the major quandries of the profession: what audience are you trying to reach?

When it comes to automotive work, I find there are generally two types of readers. The first are people who aren't all that familiar with automobiles, and they're using reviews as a tool to help them make a buying decision. The second group consists of very knowledgeable drivers, who usually aren't buyers, and who read the reviews mostly for entertainment. My anti-fan club comes from this latter group; their main complaints are that I'm not technical enough, and that I talk too much about aspects of the car that don't interest them, such as wasting word count on cargo space and interior appointments.

Long ago, I decided that I wanted to focus on the first type of reader. I like helping people; I like explaining things to readers. I think the tone of my writing is suited to those who want to be walked through a car from bumper to bumper. The bulk of these readers will never take a car on a track, or feel the way it handles when tossed around a switchback. I respect the enthusiasts who do, but I'm not writing for them.

When I first started reviewing, the newspaper put me strictly on economy cars. I took a ribbing from some of my colleagues, who asked when I was going to start writing about "real vehicles". It bothered me, until one very wise writer said to me, "Someone who's spending $75,000 on a sports car doesn't give a damn what you think. But someone who's only got $16,000 to spend does, because she's depending on you for guidance."

That advice is as fresh today as when I first heard it. Decide who your audience will be, and then write for it. There's a large market for the entertainment articles, and I very seriously admire the brilliant work in publications like Auto Week and Car and Driver. But there's an equally large demand for bread-and-butter stories, and that's the direction I chose. First and foremost, it pays the bills, and secondly, it gives me satisfaction to know that my articles can be helpful to people. And third, it gives my anti-fan club something to talk about each week.

Drivers: we're all getting older

I spent the morning at a symposium on aging drivers, and it certainly opened my eyes. I'll be putting together a full article on it, but even before I get into that, it's given me a lot to ponder.

I watched my grandfather lose his license, and my father-in-law, and it was not an easy experience for either of them. The symposium touched on a lot of issues, such as restricted licensing rather than simply taking the license away; how to realize when you're no longer able to drive, and the need to self-regulate; issues surrounding alternatives, such as lack of public transit, especially in a rural area such as where I live; and whether elderly drivers are overrepresented in crash statistics.

Time catches up to you before you even realize it's there. Yesterday, I was 25, or so it seems; the reality is that I'll be 50 next winter. I like to think I'm as sharp as I ever was, especially since I've had the opportunity to take numerous driving and racing instructions thanks to my job. But when I stop and look at it with an objective eye, I do notice that I don't drive as fast as I used to, and I tend to wait a couple of seconds longer to be sure that traffic has cleared before I make my turns. I also find that I make more "final checks" than I used to do -- and I know it's because I'm making sure I haven't misgauged the speed of oncoming cars.

So given that, will I know when the time comes? Will I be smart enough to say that I'm not fit to do this, or will I be the senior citizen who needs intervention before I'll give up a license I no longer deserve to hold?

It's a tough thing, this getting older, especially since we all feel that we're the first people to ever go through it. When my grandfather was 95, he was interviewed by a magazine, and he said that he didn't recognize the old, wrinkled man he saw in the mirror. I was 33 at the time and didn't understand what he meant. It was a bit of a shock the day I looked in the mirror and did.

Why I don't like car auctions

Last year, at a cruise night, someone came up and looked at my 1947 Cadillac. "That's worth about $80,000, right?" he asked.

That's about four times its value, but rather than give him a deal at $65,000, I asked what made him guess so high. Well, he said, one went at Barrett-Jackson the other night for that.

I don't like car auctions. They're too big, too noisy, and after a half-dozen go over the block, far too monotonous. But what I really don't like is that I think they're detrimental to the old-car hobby. Just as celebrity chefs have sent trendy fish to near-extinction, car auctions have sent otherwise ordinary vehicles into the stratosphere, from which they seldom return. Instead of people driving their cars to shows and cruise nights, piling in the family to go for an ice-cream run, and having fun with the old-car hobby, buyers have become speculators. They treat these machines like mutual funds, storing them away until the next sucker pays $150,000 for a 1958 Chevrolet and they bring them out in the hopes of getting rich.

Look around you: old-car owners are old. When I ask what it'll take to keep this hobby going into the next decade, the answer's always the same: "We need younger people to get involved." But if you're determined that your hot-rodded '32 Ford won't change hands for less than $75,000 -- because that's what they're all asking in the National Street Rod Association's classifieds -- what younger person do you think is going to buy it? And if they do invest that much into it, where do you think they're going to drive it?

I saw it in the money-soaked 1980s, when cars ran on cash instead of gasoline; it wasn't uncommon for speculators to buy and flip them without even seeing them. In 1982 I turned down a 1959 Cadillac at $5,000 because it was overpriced; five years later, they were trading at $60,000. Not every car that crosses the auction block is ridiculously priced, but these are soft-porn TV shows, and they're going for the money shot. If you can get someone to pay you eight times what your car is worth, well, good for you. But then don't complain when you go to a "classic" car show, and a Chrysler K-Car is the oldest thing there.

Why I don't have children, Part II

This so-called adult is my husband, who had a half-built go-kart frame, a 5.5-horse motor, a couple of old Radio Flyer wagons, a welder, and far too much time on his hands.

">

Long-term oil solutions: why bother?

In the news today: U.S. Senator Peter Domenici of New Mexico has introduced legislation that he says will dramatically increase domestic production of oil and natural gas, "in order to lower prices and make America less dependent on foreign sources of oil."

The bill will allow oil exploration and extraction in such places as Alaska, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans at the edge of the Outer Continental Shelf, and development of oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.

According to a press release, "By expanding production offshore and in Alaska, the legislation will produce up to 24 billion barrels of oil -- enough to keep American running for five years with no foreign imports."

In case that number got by you, I'll repeat it. Five years.

"The bill I'm introducing today will produce up to 24 billion barrels of oil through common sense measures to open up areas offshore and in Alaska for exploration," Domenici said.

Yes, you read that right. He actually said common sense measures. Apparently, in Domenici's world, it makes perfect sense to drill oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and irreparably change it for the sake of five years' worth of fuel.

Back to the press release: Domenici pointed out that had President Clinton not vetoed exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 1995, when oil was $19 a barrel, America would currently be receiving over one million barrels a day from Alaska.

Damn that Clinton. If only he'd given more consideration to people and less to those stupid wolves and caribou, we'd be able to drive our SUVs anywhere and anytime we please. What, didn't Bill even stop and question why Ford calls it an Explorer?

Why I don't have children ...

I don't need 'em. Not when I have a spouse who thinks that the only good Radio Flyer wagon contains a 5.5-horsepower motor, and he's got the car-building skills to back it up.

I can hear him running around in the back forty with it right now. I suspect by this time next week, I'll probably be a widow ...

Ford and the CAW: the start of something new?

In the news today: Ford and the Canadian Auto Workers Union (CAW) have come to an agreement on a new three-year contract. It's still subject to ratification by the members, of course, but the big news is that this all happened more than four months before the contract is set to expire.

I don't pretend to know the full story on either side, but I hope that's a sign that perhaps everyone might start to work together for a common goal that will benefit every community that depends on the auto industry to make its living.

I've never worked for a union, but I certainly know people who do, and I know enough to have some opinions. I think unions have lost the primary importance they held in their earliest days, back when companies (and not just automakers) treated workers as something to be chewed up and spat out. I also think unions can get too greedy for their own good, and that some people can take advantage of that. So a little toning down on both sides, a little standing firm here and there -- it's a good thing.

I think the public, by and large, paints a picture of autoworkers that isn't entirely fair, and I think that further, it's a kneejerk reaction that needs to be examined. Yes, autoworkers make good money, for jobs that generally don't require a great deal of education or skill. Having done just a little bit of repetitive labour, I can say that you're not paying them for the skill, but for the fact that they stand there day after day, putting the same bolts into the same holes. There's a very high rate of repetitive injury on the job, and beyond that, it's just an unpleasant way to make a living. Yes, there are much worse jobs out there. That doesn't make these jobs any better, any more than my broken leg stops hurting just because I meet someone who broke both legs and one arm.

But to go beyond that, we're a society, and society needs to remember the greater good. If you think autoworkers are overpaid, consider how much someone making $30 an hour pays in taxes. Those taxes go into infrastructure, police, schools, fire protection, parks, social programs, health care, and all the other local and national benefits that we take for granted. Now -- do you want your neighborhood financed by people making $30 an hour, or by someone whose job consists of "would you like fries with that"?

As for the autoworkers -- backing off a little in some areas might help keep these golden geese laying their eggs a bit longer. At $30 an hour, you can afford to pay more than 35 cents co-pay for each drug prescription, for example.

I don't know the specifics of the Ford agreement, which will be kept confidential until it's ratified. It should be interesting, though, to see what was hammered out four months in advance, as opposed to four hours before the strike deadline. Times are tough, and it's going to be a long time before things get better in the domestic auto industry. Maybe, though, this is the beginning.