Category Archives: Business

Water is Basic Aims for Self-Sufficiency

Posted on by

Water is Basic, an IBC-backed African organization, drills wells in South Sudan to provide clean water to thirsty people. In three years, Water is Basic has drilled over 350 wells, providing clean water to hundreds of thousands of people. One of the things I love about WIB is its focus on local leadership and labor rather than outsiders. People from our church currently provide much of the funding and some consulting and guidance, but it’s really a South Sudanese group.

Recently I was thrilled to read the latest update from WIB. WIB has developed a plan to achieve self-sufficiency through various types of internal/local funding within two years. In other words, it won’t need Western money anymore, although I doubt the leaders would turn it down. Through a combination of local investment, a small contribution from each community for well maintenance, and generating revenue by drilling some wells for commerical purposes for a fee to subsidize those built for residential purposes, WIB hopes to be in the black before too long.

Bravo to Water is Basic for providing an outstanding example of how successful an African non-governmental organization can be.

Occupy Everywhere

Posted on by

Our government is barely functional. The economy sucks. Nearly 10 percent of working-age adults are out of work, and about 10 percent more are underemployed, working part-time instead of full or waiting tables with a master’s degree. Health care costs are skyrocketing. The people in charge don’t seem to have the answers. Their primary focus seems to be staying in power, which requires catering to their most significant contributors. The wealthiest Americans control a bigger share of our nation’s wealth every year. The middle class is shrinking. Many of those who have jobs are still struggling to survive. People are angry, and they don’t feel like our leaders are paying attention.

It’s a recipe for some protestin’.

Inspired by recent anti-government movements in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe and the American protests of the 1960s, the Occupy movement gives struggling, disenfranchised people a way to express their frustration. After beginning with a small group of protesters in New York called Occupy Wall Street, the movement is spreading throughout the country and now to other countries as well. Occupy Dallas, for example, is camped out near City Hall.

With no centralized structure and coordinated largely through social media like Facebook and Twitter, the movement seems disorganized. Critics claim the protesters don’t even know what they want, have no solutions, and simply have nothing better to do than complain about corporate greed and political incompetence. Many Baby Boomers have trouble understanding the protesters’ complaints because they came of age in a different time with a much healthier economy. And yes, the protesters do look funny using their iPhones to protest the record profits of huge corporations like Apple. And some of the groups are making ridiculous demands, such as government-provided port-a-potties for them to use while they protest. But I still think there’s something to the movement.

I’m certainly not a sociologist, but this movement seems like a long-simmering pot that is finally reaching a boil. The protesters have some legitimate gripes. Although the economy hasn’t affected my job or changed our lifestyle in any way, people I know have been significantly hurt by the downturn, and I’m just as frustrated with our government’s failure to lead and get things done as you probably are. The statistics on income inequality, although not completely surprising, made me realize how big the gap is between the elite (the 1 percent – the wealthy, the political leaders, celebrities, etc.) and the rest of us (the 99 percent, which includes any poor schmucks who make less than about $290k/year according to recent census data).

If you listen to the protesters and read their signs, some of them sound like they resent the elite. As a result, the elite (and many regular people who sympathize) find it easy to blow off their criticism as jealousy and sour grapes. I don’t personally resent the elite. Many of them, probably most of them, got where they are through a combination of God-given talent, luck, and lots of hard work. But it doesn’t seem right to me that so many others work just as hard, maybe even with similar amounts of ability, but can’t stay above water. No one has full control over all aspects of his life. It’s ignorant to claim that anyone who can’t find work or can’t climb out of a financial hole is simply unwilling to work hard enough. Yes, some of those people are lazy and unmotivated, but others are just as dedicated and hardworking as you or me, if not more so. Effort is not the only variable in the equation. I don’t know the best way to narrow the gap. I’m not an economist, either. But I do think it’s a worthwhile goal.

Enough of that soapbox. No one knows what concrete impact this chaotic movement will produce. But it’s fun to watch. If nothing else, it’s getting people talking and giving frustrated people a voice. If the protesters can organize themselves and their gripes and produce some viable solutions, perhaps they might actually get something done. Go get ’em, 99.

Smokers Need Not Apply at Baylor

Posted on by

Dallas-area Baylor Health Care System is preparing to implement a new hiring policy: a pre-employment nicotine test. Those who fail are ineligible for hire, just like an illegal drug user would be ineligible at many other businesses.

To my limited knowledge, Baylor is the first employer to openly exclude smokers from consideration. Naturally, many smokers are crying discrimination, and they’re absolutely right. But I agree with the policy 100 percent. As stated in the article,

The FDA estimates smoking costs American employers some $200 billion a year in lost productivity and increased medical costs.

Why should a business knowingly hire someone who consistently makes poor health choices that will significantly drive up its healthcare costs?

Discrimination in hiring for certain characteristics such as race, gender, age, and national origin is rightfully illegal. A person doesn’t generally choose his or her status on those characteristics. However, smokers chose to start smoking and choose to continue smoking. Yes, once you’re addicted, it’s a very, very hard habit to break. But people quit every day. Every anti-smoking move that governments and businesses make, such as banning smoking in restaurants and other public buildings or refusing to hire smokers, gives nicotine addicts additional reasons to quit.

I have no visibility to the impact of smoking on healthcare costs at my own company, but I do see some of the operational results within my department. In my office, we work an eight-hour shift with no scheduled breaks. We may leave the desk temporarily to attend to “personal physiological needs”. Some of my colleagues smoke, which means that a few times during each shift, they disappear for a while for a smoke break. When they are gone, the people around them must cover their phones and crew messages. Covering for other people can put us in an awkward legal position, plus it’s just annoying when a smoker expects us to do their job plus our own due to their own poor choices.

To me, refusing to hire smokers is a no-brainer. The more interesting question, as mentioned briefly in the article, is whether an employer can legally refuse to hire people who are overweight. Such a ban would affect a much larger percentage of the population, at least in America, and could be considered illegal discrimination in some cases. After all, obesity can result from multiple factors, including genetics, other health disorders, and lifestyle choices. Some people are overweight despite eating well and exercising.

On a related note, the City of Chicago is starting a wellness program for city employees that includes health screenings, accountability, counseling, and support toward goals such as weight loss. Those who choose not to participate will pay $50/month more for their health insurance.

Banning applicants who smoke and charging overweight people more for health insurance does present a slippery-slope problem. How far do we want to go in rewarding and punishing certain types of behavior? What other risky behaviors can a business or government single out for correction? Use of alcohol? Motorcycle riding? Skydiving? Use of tanning booths? Football? Cycling? Eating at McDonald’s? Unprotected sex? Not getting enough sleep at night? What might seem like a simple issue (to skinny nonsmokers, at least) could get really complicated if you try to take it further.

What are your thoughts? Should employers exclude certain candidates because of their lifestyle choices? If so, which choices form an acceptable basis for discrimination in hiring? If not, what can employers do to mitigate the increased healthcare costs that these employees cause and encourage them to make better choices?

I’m Quite Stimulating

Posted on by

As the sole provider and money manager for our family, I tend to think about money more than I should – are we spending too much, are we spending on the right things, are we saving enough, etc. I can’t manage our money like the government manages its money, nor would I ever want to. But our nation’s economic struggles have gotten me thinking about my own tiny role in our economy and my ability to stimulate it.

Finance and economics are a bit of a paradox to me. What’s good for me and my family financially – things like reducing/eliminating debt, saving for future purchases to pay cash rather than using credit, investing toward the boys’ college and our retirement, not buying stuff we don’t need – is generally bad for the economy as a whole, which depends heavily on consumer spending and debt to thrive. Similarly, when we save thousands of dollars each spring by taking advantage of the many tax credits and deductions that the IRS allows, we deprive the government of tax revenue that it could use in countless ways.

Money is the lifeblood of the economy and must flow from person to person, person to business, and business to business to keep the economy alive. When I give the local donut shop $5 for some donuts, that money might go to the local Sam’s Club where the owner buys her sugar and flour, and then to TXU Energy to keep the lights on at Sam’s, and then to the TXU billing support rep who answers questions about your bill, and then to Southwest Airlines when that rep needs to fly to Houston for a wedding, and then back to me.

The whole process fascinates me.

At times I’ve felt guilty about spending money on stuff for myself or my family, wondering whether we should have saved or given away that money instead. But I’ve come to realize something – spending money is another way to help people. I might not have Buffett-level cash that can jolt stock prices or bail out ailing companies, but the little money I do have to spend can still help to people working and put food on their tables.

I like the sound of that.

Could I Be Outsourced?

Posted on by

Periodically, the FAA goes through the long, laborious process of changing some of the rules that airlines must follow. After lengthy internal analysis and debate, the officials publish proposed changes to the rules for a long period of public comment. The current list of proposed changes includes a few new requirements and roles that seem reasonable, such as requiring licensed aircraft dispatchers for charter operators. However, one change has some people in my office a bit concerned: allowing scheduled airlines like Southwest to contract out their dispatch services to a third party, much like an electronics company might outsource its tech support.

Some companies like Jeppesen already offer a contract dispatch service to business customers and foreign airlines. If the FAA makes this change, Southwest could hire Jeppesen to dispatch our flights instead of us.

From one Airliners.net discussion forum I read, Jeppesen is pushing hard for such a change for obvious reasons. The customers would likely be small airlines who might not have the money, space, and/or experience to provide the same level of quality that a company like Jeppeson would provide. However, the change would allow any airline to outsource its dispatchers, not just the little guys. Since a contract dispatch service could be cheaper than in-house dispatchers, especially at a well-established airline with a unionized, senior dispatch office, outsourcing might also appeal to managers of larger airlines as a cost-saving measure.

Since the primary goal of any union is protecting its members’ interest, our union is strongly opposed to the idea, arguing that outsourced dispatching would not provide the same level of safety. However, although I certainly want to keep my job, I can’t agree with such a sweeping generalization. The levels of safety on each side would depend on the individuals and organizations involved and the standards they meet.

My gut reaction says that yes, in-house dispatch MUST be safer. Running an unsafe dispatch office, among other problems, puts the entire company at risk and the dispatchers’ jobs along with it. Passengers don’t want to fly on an airline they consider unsafe. The FAA can shut down an airline that it considers unsafe. In-house dispatchers have a big incentive to do the right thing. However, job security would also be important at a contract dispatch office. A poor safety record would lead the airlines to switch to a competitor for their dispatch needs. I can’t help but wonder whether a contract dispatcher would care as much about the airline’s operation, though. He or she is unlikely to have the same tenure with, or loyalty to, the contract company as the average dispatcher at a major airline. I’ve been in my office over 6 1/2 years, and I’m still firmly in the bottom half of the seniority list.

Key to the answer is whether the employees’ goals (safety, legality, on-time performance, customer service) are aligned with their incentives (job security, pay, bonuses, pride, advancement opportunity). Each situation could be different.

The most pressing question for me: would Southwest outsource us? I highly doubt it. Our management seems to value our services, our current contract negotiations notwithstanding. We have a long history with the company and an overall excellent safety record. Nearly all of us own stock in Southwest, plan to stay here for a long time, and care about the company’s success. We have great incentive to do great work. On a more practical note, we’re also a huge operation (3400+ daily flights plus the AirTran flights) that would be very difficult for a contract office to handle. But if the FAA approves contract dispatching, and Southwest eventually decides that outsourcing us would just as safe and a better value, I suppose it’s remotely possible. That would be a sad day for many, many people.

SWA/AirTran Wedding Day

Posted on by

DISCLAIMER: Although I am a Southwest employee, I am just a lowly dispatcher and was not involved with this transaction in any way. The opinions expressed on AndyBox.com are solely my own and do not reflect the position of Southwest Airlines, its Board of Directors, its Leadership, or anyone else who has any authority whatsoever over anything.

Today, at 10am, Southwest will officially close our acquisition of AirTran. This is a huge day for our two companies, and I am thrilled to welcome the AirTran Crew Members to our family. Other than the systemwide celebrations and large amounts of money moving around, not much else changes in our day-to-day operations. Until today, we’ve had to continue operating as competitors. From now on, we can work together as partners, sharing sensitive information, coordinating flight schedules and fares, and hammering out a plan to merge the two airlines into one. My work on the new dispatch procedures manual will be a small piece of that puzzle.

Over the next couple of years, we’ll be repainting and reconfiguring the AirTran aircraft to Southwest style, standardizing our procedures, combining the seniority lists, getting to know our new coworkers, and providing a bigger and better Southwest for our customers. I am very excited about the future and very grateful to work here.