GlobalEnviroBlog

Statistics have shown time and again that telework has the effect of increasing productivity, lowering production costs, eliminating commuting costs and drastically reducing absenteeism. Why, then, are employers so resistant to the concept?

The simple truth is employers think employees won’t do their work if they work from home. And employees feel that their job will be exported to Mumbai, India, if they work from home. It is this mutual distrust that has slowed progress on earning our freedom from foreign oil.

There is a simple solution to this stalemate. If work is based on units of production completed instead of hourly wages, people working from home will be more productive than those working on the time clock. Working from home actually reduces the costs of production while increasing the disposable income of Americans. Companies will realize greater production and lower costs. Employees will gain by saving commuting time and eliminating the ever-rising commuting costs.

As to the other half of the equation, employers need to get away from short-sighted cost accounting and move toward strengthening markets. Many companies have fallen into the cost-accounting trap. Management sees the export of American jobs to overseas locations as a quick way to improve the bottom line. Unfortunately, the companies don’t raise the standard of living in the countries to which they export jobs. The long-term result is a lowering of the buying power of the American workforce, their main market.

Really, companies that export American jobs to countries because they can pay $2.50 per hour instead of $12.00 per hour or more are doing immeasurable harm to the United States of America. The American Dream is being ruthlessly denied to most Americans in order to show a temporary and artificial profit. Even the stockholders of these companies face reduced returns on investment. The CEOs and other top executives of these companies reward themselves with astronomical bonuses and walk away from the problems they create. The problems become somebody else’s problems.

It may take federal and state legislation to restore the American Dream to everyone. I believe American jobs must be protected. We must break the addiction to foreign oil, NOW!

Richard Moolick

Global-EnviroBlog

Call 4 Action

We’ve seen the ads on television and heard the ads on radio recommending the use of CFLs (Coiled Fluorescent Lights) instead of incandescent bulbs. While it is true that CFLs use less power and usually last longer than incandescent bulbs, it is not as green as it sounds.

A 60W incandescent bulb puts out about 800 lumens and uses about 216kWh for each hour it is on and lasts an average of 1,000 hours. A comparable 15W CFL puts out about 800 lumens and uses about 54kWh for each hour it is on and lasts an average of 5,000 to 10,000 hours. Switching to CFLs, therefore, would appear to save 162kWh for each hour of use. So why then am I not convinced that CFLs are the best energy-saving replacements for incandescent bulbs?

The light emitting diode is another alternative. Light bulb-sized LED arrays producing about 800 lumens use about 12W or around 43kWh for each hour of operation and lasts an average of 60,000 hours. This amounts to a savings of 173kWh over incandescent or 11kWh per hour over CFLs. So why should we spend the extra money up front (LEDs cost about 10 time as much as CFLs.) for LEDs when we get almost the same economy with CFLs?

The reason is in how they work. An incandescent light works by running current through a filament in a sealed argon bulb. The resistance of the filament to the flow of electricity causes the filament to heat up and glow. A fluorescent light works by ionizing a small amount of mercury vapor so that it emits ultraviolet light. A phosphor coating on the inside of the tube glows in response to the UV light. An LED electrically stimulates molecules in the solid state chip to high energy levels. As the molecules drop back to their normal state, light is emitted.

LEDs make more sense to use than CFLs due to the fact that a “burned out” CFL is hazardous waste and must be disposed of as hazardous waste. Throwing CFLs in the trash can ultimately lead to contaminating ground water with mercury, a potentially deadly toxic metal. LEDs don’t contain such toxic residues.

Richard T. Moolick