Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Use Labor Day to promote the cause of workers and unions

On this Labor Day, we should exuberantly celebrate the significance of this holiday. Somehow, in recent decades, labor unions have fallen to unfavorable public perception. A large segment of the population buys into the negative myths: Unions make goods and services more costly. Slackers are protected. Or so the condemnations go. Politicians often sniff that their opponents are endorsed by a particular union, implying a sinister liaison.

Proud union members and organized labor supporters must promote the cause of labor unions. And what better time to do so than Labor Day?

Throughout my career as a classroom teacher, I have been appalled by the number of students who had no idea what Labor Day commemorates. A social studies curriculum should certainly include the study of the exploitation of textile workers, coal miners and children, as well as the consequential establishment of labor organizations and enactment of labor laws. A study of American history is incomplete without acknowledging Samuel Gompers, George Meany, and Mary Harris "Mother" Jones, to name just a few of scores of personages from our rich labor heritage.

This is not to suggest that organized labor is a solely historical subject, an archaic cultural entity. The need for the protection that labor unions provide is quite evident. The fatality of 16-year-old Jose Alvarez Jeronimo who was struck by lightning Aug. 17 while working on a roof north of Tampa is just one example. Florida labor laws regard roofing as a hazardous occupation and prohibit anyone under 18 years of age to do such work. Unfortunately, Florida is also a Right to Work state, a euphemism for limited workplace oversight.

There seems to be a greeting card for nearly every occasion these days. How about Labor Day cards? 'Tis the season to celebrate and commemorate our labor heritage and recognize its continued relevance.

Gail A. Reynolds, Dade City

Better fuel efficiency is the way to go

With gas prices still high this Labor Day and considering all the problems BP is having in Alaska, everyone has good reason to be concerned about our addiction to oil. Yet we continue to ignore the most obvious solution: raising fuel economy standards. Taking this step would save 4-million barrels of oil a day - more than 10 times what we get from Prudhoe Bay each day.

Raising fuel economy standards is a win-win situation: Making our cars go farther on a gallon of gas will save us all money at the pump, fight global warming and help end our dangerous oil dependence. This is the kind of smart energy policy that America deserves.

Darden Rice, Florida organizer, Alaska Wilderness League, St. Petersburg

It must be the president's doing

As gas prices fall back a bit, the blame must surely be placed on President Bush.

Kenn Sidorewich, Oldsmar

Conflicting fuel forces

Re: Gov. Bush puts clout behind use of biofuel, Aug. 25.

While ethanol additives and biofuel are excellent alternatives to foreign oil, there are too many large companies that make obscene amounts of money from our dependence on foreign oil. You will not be seeing biodiesel at our gas pumps any time soon.

There is great opposition to Gov. Jeb Bush wanting to lift tariffs on South American ethanol on both sides. Venezuela supplies us with 11 to 13 percent of our petroleum, so there is no way that country would want to endanger the demand for its oil by having competition with ethanol from other parts of South America. There is also great opposition on the home front. American grain farmers who also supply ethanol are protected by these tariffs from having to compete with South American ethanol.

It would definitely be a great step forward for alternative fuel sources if we were to import ethanol and use that along with our own home-grown ethanol, but the fact is the business interests behind this energy source in both the United States and abroad are in too great a competition to get along.

Ryan Burgess, Valrico

There are doubts about biofuels

Re: Gov. Bush puts clout behind use of biofuel.

I think Gov. Jeb Bush might be jumping onto the wrong side of the biofuels bandwagon. According to what I have read, biofuels use more energy to produce than they yield.

For example, in a Cornell, UC-Berkeley study, written by Pimentel et al., the authors state on page 1:

"Two panel studies by the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) concerned with ethanol production using corn and liquid fuels from biomass energy report a negative energy return (ERAB, 1980, 1981). These reports were reviewed by 26 expert U.S. scientists independent of the USDOE, the findings indicated that the conversion of corn into ethanol energy was negative and these findings were unanimously approved. Numerous other investigations have confirmed these findings over the past two decades."

I suspect that all biofuels, even those from sugar cane, produce a negative energy yield when factoring in all energy inputs. If this is the case then our country, and indeed the world, is making a massive mistake in spending money and using land that should go to better alternatives such as wind, solar, food production and natural environments. For the Cornell/Berkeley study and more information go to www.energyjustice.net.

Richard Sommerville, Hudson

Will new fuels be available?

Good marks go to Gov. Jeb Bush and Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson for promoting bio-fuel production. Now all we need is for the oil companies to make it available. E10 (10 percent ethanol) can be used right now, in any gasoline-fueled vehicle, without further technical development, but I have yet to see a single service station in this area supplying E10.

All the biofuel production in the world is of no use if the gasoline distribution companies refuse to make it available to the consuming public. Is there not enough markup on E10 for them to maintain their record profits?

Tom Ziebold, St. Petersburg

U.S. automakers still on wrong track

Re: With Aveo, GM embraces small but still thinks big, Aug. 29.

This column by Doron Levin, who apparently is "tuned in" to Ford and General Motors' marketing philosophy, sadly points out the need to change the job description of the executives they hire. It should read: "The applicant must read English, and be able to read and interpret financial statements, customer preference reports, oil and gas trends," etc.

The philosophy of Ford's "Big vehicles, big profits. Little vehicles, little profits" has led our once-massive auto industry elsewhere. There's only one conclusion - our executives in the auto industry can't read English, or do not subscribe to newspapers.

Owen Beem, St. Petersburg

The sun offers an energy solution

I have been reading a lot about global warming. Here is a simple solution to part of the energy we use each day. I put in a solar hot-water heater on Jan. 4 to see how well it worked. I turned off the electric part of it. I have only had to turn on the electricity one time for part of a day since then - 8½ months!

How many trainloads of air-polluting coal would we save in a day if every house built in the last 10 years had been forced by our government to install a solar water heater?

How about a solar generator on every house and building built in the last 10 years?

I worry that our government and other countries in the world do nothing as simple as this before it is too late. I hope for our grandkids that it is not already too late.

Dale Hellemn, Hudson

[Last modified September 4, 2006, 05:44:24]