Worth

This article is not our usual cup of tea. Instead it is part of a new series of articles by our union local for freelancers that will examine the various issues faced by workers who’s sector is, by its very nature, unpredictable and subject to change from day-to-day. And, more importantly, what we can do about these issues.

 

Does the film critic matter anymore? I’ve seen rumblings to this effect more and more lately, but as with all things, this too shall pass. It’s a transient take; I’m barely in my 30s and cinema has died and been saved about a dozen times while I’ve been alive. Critics are thinkers; they contextualize the art of the world. But I’m not here to debate the role of the critic. What I am here to do is break down the labour that goes into a fairly standard film review. Because, naturally, criticism is work.

Little is taken more for granted than the written word as published online. There’s been a steady devaluing of internet culture writing as a paid service for over a decade now. Legends in the field can’t hold down a contract. Editors are in a race to the bottom to see how much content they can squeeze out of their stable with a next-to-nonexistent bankroll. Everything you see online has been written by someone and a shocking amount of it is done for peanuts.

So how much is a film review worth? Let’s break it down.

Now before I go any further, I’d like to point out this is 100% guesswork. The rates I’m going to be using are based on some solid hunches and a little fifth-grade math. What I’m trying to get at here is a ballpark figure that’s higher than, well, zero.

Now, before you even set pen to paper to write that vicious pan or that gushing notice, you actually have to watch the damn movie. So it stands to reason this is part of the job, and thus you should be paid for it. Consider it like a form of training; this is the part of the job where you learn what you are dealing with. Without it, you can’t do the job. Critics should absolutely have the time they spend watching movies remunerated. Now, I know that critics are often invited to screenings or get links or are otherwise provided with a copy of the film. But you’re not watching this for funsies, bud! If we are going to exist in a capitalist system, and if someone is going to extract value from your work (in this case, a piece of film criticism), a fair wage should be expected. That time when your butt is parked in the theatre seat is part of that value extraction because it’s an inextricable part of the work you are doing. No movie, no review, simple as that.

“So wait,” someone in the wings will undoubtedly say, “does that mean a video game critic should be paid for the hours and hours they sink into a game in order to write about it?” Absolutely. 100%. “But Breath of the Wild is like a 45-hour game?!” You want me to play the whole thing and write about it? Pay up, son.

So if we assume an hourly wage of $15 an hour (and really, why wouldn’t I) and an average movie length of two hours, that’s $30 that should be in your pocket right up front. We haven’t even started putting words together. Again, using some shaky math assuming a 1:1 running time-to-writing time ratio, a $15 an hour wage, and a 700-word text, we end up with a rate of about four cents a word (which is on the low end of what freelancers charge). So the minimum rate for that 700-word text would be $60. A short 200-word capsule adds up to $38. A 1,000-word longread would be worth $70. This rate of four cents a word plus a living wage for the runtime of the film is the absolute floor of what your labour is worth.

Now this is all for a single movie. These numbers absolutely do not scale for a whole week; those keeping score at home will notice that our average 700-word piece has cost four hours of labour: two to watch, and two to write. There is no way in Hell someone is going to watch ten movies in a week and write about all of them. That is a surefire way to annihilate your work-life balance. Plus, the high end number of new wide releases in a given week is four, with the average being closer to three. But let’s assume a publication’s movie section has one person on the new release beat, and let’s say there’s a big four-movie weekend coming up. Let’s take April 6-8, 2018 as an example. This weekend saw the wide release of:

  • A Quiet Place
  • Blockers
  • The Miracle Season
  • Chappaquiddick

All four of these were covered in the New York Times So using the numbers established above with the length of their respective review in the Times as a baseline, let’s break these movies down as far as the labour cost goes (i.e. 15$ an hour of runtime, four cents a word):

  • A Quiet Place: (651 words*$0.04) + (91’*($15/60’)) = $48.79
  • Blockers: (674 words*$0.04) + (91’*($15/60’)) = $52.46
  • The Miracle Season: (252 words*$0.04) + (99’*($15/60’)) = $34.83
  • Chappaquiddick: (881 words*$0.04) + (101’*$15/60’)) = $60.49

So if one person covers the whole weekend’s slate, that adds up to a payout of $196,57. Now these movies are a bit on the short side and one of those review is basically a capsule; if we maintain our two-hour, 700-word example, a four-movie weekend would add up to a $232 payout, which is still not what I would call a living wage. But there is precedent for being able to live off the new release grind. Let me take you to the far-away, pre-recession land of 2008, and the working rate of Mike D’Angelo, currently one of many film-crit lifers working as a hired gun. As per this tweet, he was paid $400 per review while working at the Las Vegas Weekly. That’s four zero zero. That’s a rate he negotiated up from $200 a review because, according to him, he didn’t “need the gig.” Mr. D'Angelo, and presumably other full-time critics around the same time, was pulling enough dosh writing to earn a living wage writing two or three reviews, or about 2100 words, per week, and held enough saw to negotiate twice the rate he was initially offered. It boggles the mind.

Let’s get depressing: let’s take the rate D’Angelo was pulling in 2008 according to his tweet (i.e. $400 per review, 600-800 words per review) and break it down. Let’s keep the same hourly rate of $15 for the time spent watching movies and assume an average weekend release of three movies, at two hours a movie. Six hours, $90. This would leave $310 for the actual act of writing, and if we assume an average review length of 700 words, that gives us a per-word rate of just north of 44 cents.

This was a roundabout way of saying something you already knew. Capitalism collapsed whatever safety net writers had a decade go and has hastened a race to cut the most corners since. But you should be compensated fairly for your work, no exceptions, and by banding together, fair rates can become a reality instead of a rarity.

Solidarity,

Yancy Richardson.

In French

Law 25 on welfare : a war on the poor!

On April 1 came into force the law 25 – "An Act to provide a better match between training and employment and to promote employment integration" – which was integrated with the current law on social assistance. We believe it is the early termination of welfare because the founding principles behind it, the right to live decently and access to income regardless of the cause of need, no longer considered. Its implementation will jeopardize people's lives by imposing attempt to survive them with crumbs, and taking in the great objective employment project, whose purpose is to provide a cheap labor business.

 

With the law 25, anyone who came to welfare after April 1 2018 must now must enter the Target employment program. This is also the case for those already on welfare before that date but which are part of a family where one member of the couple is now first-time applicant or first-time applicant *.

 

The law 25 implies that, when you find yourself in these categories, if one misses a meeting with our officer or social welfare officer, she or he can retain completely our check. Furthermore, in case of breach of any of our obligations without cause "valid" (according to the plan set by the welfare officer-e corresponding to our situation : making employment initiatives, to training or to "develop social skills"), Agent-e will have the right to cut our check in the following month or the following month.

  1. 56 $ for the first breach ;
  2. 112 $ for the 2nd violation ;
  3. 224 $ for the 3rd failure.

Basically, if we refuse to comply with employment integration program, we are forced to live with a check 409$ per month. It is therefore clear that the objective of the law 25 is to require persons found no compulsion to work to find one, according to the priorities of private enterprise and according to labor market needs (and conditions established by the welfare officer-e). But we know that the work is not the only way to achieve in life ! And we claim the right to live decently no matter how it is done. In the facts, this law reinforces the notion of "good and bad poor" and prejudice against people who do not have jobs. The government amplifies voluntarily. It is to his advantage to do so, breaking the solidarity among the population, sparking discontent against welfare recipients who have "easy", that are "hard fat, parasites, fraudsters, profiteers "who deserve to live in misery.

 

The irony is that even the Employers Council has expressed reservations about the punitive measures Objective employment program. By parliamentary committee, M. Yves-Thomas Dorval, CEO of the Quebec Employers Council, said : « […] That said, I'll be honest with you, M. The Minister : The amount of social assistance, was, it's not much either, […]. That's why I was very happy to see that enhances Russia welfare for those who want to participate. And with that I can assure you of our full support in that direction. Now, it is difficult for a government to make measurements without consideration. And that, I do not know if this is the best, we are not experts in it, but I can just tell you : For sure this is already not high, was, the level of social assistance.» (27 January 2016).

 

The government's goal is clear : He wishes discipline the poor world to make it a slave labor and captive, no alternative but to actively participate in programs imposed by the Ministry not to starve. What is announced, this is not a fight against poverty, it is a war to the poor! Keeping us in abject conditions, stirring a core in the form of possible adjustments on their check and a stick in the form of large denomination check or file closure, the Liberal party is a cheap labor, Gift for the company, and long-term, the end of welfare.

 

Au SITT-IWW, we will continue to oppose any project that creates a class of workers and precarious-e-s workers and that is why we are in solidarity with the struggle against Lens employment project!

Member 360341

* A first-time applicant or a primary applicant is a person who makes an application for social assistance for the first time.

,

The tragedy of Lac-Mégantic is not over

At the time of this writing, an oil-filled wagon train can still be parked up the coast in Nantes, the coast where the train is gone, slope considered particularly steep in the railway environment. The regulations permit. As it allowed the company to run the train with one employee.

Furthermore, we still don't have a bypass, although the federal government has committed to building one before his election. The trial of MMA employees brought the matter to the fore and the government finally relaunched its project, after a long silence. Let's say it was time!

As you understand, trains still run right through the city center. A desert city center with just a few new modern buildings, far from the sometimes centenary architecture of the old city center, which was still standing after the derailment. Only the ugliest building remains, that of the communication company, a company that has a lot of money. The old inn with a splendid architecture which had just enlarged the year before the derailment and which had hosted my first evenings in a bar with my friends is no longer. He had survived the disaster and was even further away than the communications company building. It was nevertheless demolished, like the rest of the city center. This city center should not have been demolished after the derailment, not at this point. We don't know exactly what happened with the city. We did not know what would happen with the land of our family home burned for more than a year because of the confusion with the city.

That’s how we ended up with a new city center right next to ground zero, a mini dix30 as it is not affectionately called at all in the region. We don't really know where it comes from as a shitty idea. Hello citizen discussion eh! Speaking of citizens, the latter did not wait for any authorization to organize. We will think of the Coalition of citizens and organizations committed to railway safety in Lac-Mégantic which, since its creation, has demanded a bypass and a commission of inquiry. We will think of this engineer, Mr. Bellefleur who went himself to inspect the railroad tracks in the vicinity of the city and was tapped on the fingers by the order of engineers for wanting to learn more and to expose his discoveries on rail safety more that failing in her own community.

The Lac-Mégantic tragedy is therefore not over. It continued long after the derailment, during the destruction of our city center, left in the hands of contractors rather than those of the general public. She continued with the suicide of this young firefighter from 25 years old who had discovered the body of his girlfriend in the rubble. It continues with the train derailment in Hochelaga in the fall 2015 and the one in downtown Sherbrooke in the spring 2017. At least, these trains did not explode.

It is the tragedy of a society and its economic model that puts quantity before quality. An economic model serving the whims of the big bosses of finance and fossil fuels to the detriment of the population. We are not fools, we know that the real leaders are at the top of the companies and in government too soft with these. Things would be different if employees had a say in safety rules. But when are employees listened to by their employer?

Indeed, what would be the first reflex of a business managed directly by members of the community? By the people who work in it, know how to build, know their machinery, invest their workplaces and above all, are most likely to know how to give meaning to this work done? I frankly doubt that it would be to think of how to hide the profit of their company in tax havens in order to avoid the taxes, that it must be said, fund our schools, our hospitals, our public services and the social safety net. I doubt it would be to make the cheapest viaducts that fall on us. I doubt that it is to maintain our dependence on fossil fuels that endanger our lifestyles and places.

Non, maybe i'm naive, but I think the first reflexes would be to think how to be the most useful to society by meeting its needs. It would be to create efficient infrastructure, thought to be used by one's own community and oneself therefore goodbye the cheap. It would be like thinking how not to pass trains filled with dangerous products in the middle of residential areas.

Who is afraid to democratize their workplace and their neighborhood? And especially, who is afraid that we will take over the wage-earning world as workers?

 

Solidarity,

X385020

Photo credit: photo of the author

The absurdity of the world: Borders

The borders and their stories

Today we speak of borders and I go already being beautiful cursed after the deportation of comrade Eleazar Canada, hein, the beautiful people of the country plusses. More, he lived in the wonderful city "sanctuary" of Denis Coderre, should perhaps tell his dogs SPVM Montreal is supposedly a city sanctuary, because they continue to deliver undocumented Canadian government. In the good old liberal bullshit.

The problem is that, one time, at the end of the Middle Ages, kingdoms have grown and started to turn into States. Worse capitalism arrived and truly flourish, he needed a strong state. Pis a State, bin it has to manage a territory, we started to create artificial boundaries to define what is called nation states (a nation state.) Although it is known from the beginning that the concept of nation state is pure bullshit, it never prevented the system in place we sell as a natural truth. Countries like France, the Italy, Spain is formed by all kinds of small tribes with dozens of different languages ​​annexed by military force. And what about Canada ? It makes sense to believe that Francophones, Anglophones and dozens of different indigenous nations, forming a beautiful large nation-state ?

Short, the nation state, it is first and foremost, a policy, an army, a customs and other repressive forces that control a given territory in the name of capitalism. It obviously creates border wars with areas contested by different countries. Just look at what is happening in Ukraine to convince with a current situation. And who says territorial dispute, War also often said. And who says war general said thousands of people from the working class who are going to fight against other thousands of people from the working class to the bourgeois and national interests that they are completely unrelated. Ha is beautiful nation !

The boundaries and Intolerance

It also creates all kinds of phenomena, like nationalism. Tse, that sense of pride in our nation state or a nation state that could create new with an independence movement. As is often said to PQ, We will have our country ! Once again, we mobilize people from the working class by making them believe that they have more common interest with their Quebec employers with workers who do not speak the same language. Because as they say the PQ, operations, IN FRENCH PLEASE ! Not for nothing, moreover, that this party ends with the boss of one of the biggest business in Quebec, coupled with one of the hole-in-chief ass like bosses.

Another phenomenon that rhymes with nationalism, is the concept of xenophobia, which becomes a hostility which his nation abroad, and it also is familiar with that the PQ with its charter of values, and as we have seen this week, his opposition to a Commission on Systemic Racism in Quebec. Everywhere in the West, we see a rise in xenophobia with an irrational fear of being invaded by refugees who are wicked bombing or starving in their country. Worse leu funny in there, it is meant Quebec rednecks tell us that we will be invaded because of immigration. Hey ! As if the French had not landed here by invading first nations, and as if Canada had always been populated by white people of European origin. Louis Riel should reversals in his grave.

The borders and capitalism

If it still continues the march of history border we arrive at years 1980 or begins to emerge the idea of ​​free trade treaties on a large scale, Therefore, the removal of borders in terms of the movement of goods. These free trade program we were also praised by none other than Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry, Premiers of Quebec and leader of the Parti Québécois ... ! What we must remember, it is to have free trade with countries where the minimum wage is less than 2$ time and thus move production in these countries because it is cheaper to patrons, this is a good thing. But no question that humans, them, can move freely in these zones. Oh you do not ! The merchandise, Yes, humans, they eat shit.

Decades after the implementation of these trade policies, we are well aware that our wages and working conditions simply not evolved as margins of corporate profits, they, soared like never before. Short, the only ones who enjoy this kind of politics, they are the bosses, shareholders and bankers.

Trade unionism is not restricted by borders

What to remember any of it, is that as workers, we must have an internationalist vision of our struggle. The systems that oppress us, which capitalism, are international and do not care much for religion or hair color of the oppressed person. We would have a much better balance of power if we are united-e-s, as the working class, internationally than wallowing in xenophobia and nationalism as Rambo Gauthier, for example. When you think, for example, a multinational homegrown, as Bombardier, who has no qualms about stealing public money here, outsource its jobs to Mexico and eventually increase the leadership bonuses. Do we would not stand to gain ally ourselves with the employee-s Mexican plants Bombardier to increase this company to face balance of power ? Everyone would gain, employees by, Employees of Mexico and taxpayers in general.

Short, xenophobic and other nationalist seeks only to make us adhere to a system where we have common interests with Québec employers. We have nothing in common with any boss, regardless of nationality. On the other hand, we have a lot in common with workers from all over the world. Let us not be fooled, union solidarity must not know boundaries, because our enemies are not aware. Retaliate blow for blow to multinational. Remember that our strikes would be much faster if won when a factory goes on strike in a company, dozens others follow in solidarity around the world.

 

Eric Sedition, for Live action.

Photo credit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/

ASSÉ and syndicalism

Il y a environ deux semaines, j’étais au congrès hivernal de ASSE pour la fin de semaine du 24 and 25 February. J’étais bien content d’y croiser d’autres Wobblies, dans les délégations comme à la table du présidium, et c’est ce qui m’a poussé à écrire ce texte pour vous aujourd’hui. Ma réflexion tourne autour de la question: qu’est-ce que le milieu syndical a à voir avec la politique étudiante et plus spécifiquement l’ASSÉ? La réponse que je souhaite proposer: solidarity.

 

La politique étudiante et l’ASSÉ

Mes quelques mois d’implication dans mon association locale universitaire m’ont permis de constater plusieurs choses à propos de la politique étudiante: peu de personnes impliquées, peu de résultats concrets pour les actions entreprises, les buts sont toujours politiques et à grande échelle… Bref, ce n’est pas du pareil au même avec des syndicats comme le SITT-IWW. However, il ne serait pas juste de mettre toutes les associations étudiantes dans le même panier. Tandis que certaines d’entre elles sont contentes de n’exister que pour la vie sociale de leurs membres, il y en d’autres d’une différente espèce, qui elles se dotent de revendications politiques à l’envers du statu quo. It is, pour la majeure partie, ce genre d’association étudiante qui s’est présenté au congrès de l’ASSÉ.

 

ASSÉ: Association pour une Solidarité Syndicale Étudiante. Peu importe ce que devient l’organisation en tant que telle, le principe d’un syndicalisme étudiant demeurera toujours important. Un syndicat étudiant n’a pas pour objectif de faire pression sur un employeur, mais il n’en reste pas moins que les étudiants et étudiantes du Québec ont un rôle politique des plus pertinents à jouer. C’est à leurs associations de lutter pour les droits à l’éducation de tous et toutes, en raison de leur perspective privilégiée sur ce sujet. Ce sont les étudiants et étudiantes des cégeps et des universités qui connaissent mieux leurs réalités et ce sont elles et eux qui souffriront de coupes en éducations et hausses des frais de scolarité. Ce sont donc à elles et eux que le gouvernement devra avoir à faire lorsqu’il voudra encore porter atteinte à ce droit à l’éducation.

 

Ce serait donc une erreur d’ignorer la politique étudiante sous prétexte qu’elle ne sert que « ses propres intérêts ». Une société qui adopterait les principes d’aide mutuelle et d’autogestion doit se préoccuper de l’éducation de tous et toutes. Les attaques envers l’éducation perpétrée par le projet néolibéral ne cesseront pas de sitôt, Unfortunately. So, il est important d’avoir les moyens de se défendre et de se mobiliser. Le projet d’une éducation publique et accessible en vaut la peine! Le seul moyen efficace d’accomplir ces tâches est, selon moi et mon humble opinion, le syndicalisme étudiant. Le modèle syndical a fait ses preuves dans le monde économique, par ses moyens de pression efficaces pour faire plier les patrons. Il sera toujours bénéfique à la politique étudiante de continuer de se calquer sur ce modèle pour mener à bien ses luttes.

 

Of course, il faut rendre bien clair le fait que les syndicats de travail ne sont pas des syndicats étudiants. Il ne s’agit pas de fusionner les deux, car ils ont leurs propres objectifs, qu’il ne faudrait pas confondre: les droits des travailleurs et travailleuses pour l’un et les droits à l’éducation pour l’autre.

 

Les problèmes de l’ASSÉ

C’est ainsi que je me lance dans une analyse de ce qui ne va pas à l’ASSÉ. J’identifie trois problèmes majeurs, à régler dans les plus brefs délais si elle veut survivre. Un mot pour débuter: démobilisation. Ce premier problème, je le constate dans les associations locales comme nationales. La base étudiante n’est pas impliquée comme elle l’était en 2012 ou même en 2015. On parle souvent d’un « creux de mobilisation ». Les burnouts de militants et militantes ne sont pas rares et, à ce qu’on m’a rapporté, ce sont bel et bien les militantes qui pâtissent le plus de la pression qui vient avec l’implication à l’ASSÉ. Ce quelques jours après le 8 mars, j’estime nécessaire de souligner que les hommes impliqués n’en font pas assez (ou trop dans le mauvais sens selon le cas) pour favoriser un milieu militant qui n’est pas hostile aux femmes. En cela consiste donc le deuxième problème de l’ASSÉ: une association qui n’a pas la confiance des femmes n’est pas une association qui devrait s’attendre à survivre longtemps. Nous étions loin d’avoir une proportion paritaire d’hommes et femmes au congrès. Il y a aussi la question de l’implication amoindrie des personnes de la communauté LGBT+ qui doit être considérée, en plus des questions de genre. Ce rapport de confiance doit absolument être rétabli et pour cela un travail de fond est à faire. Troisièmement et enfin viennent les problèmes financiers. On parle de déficits atteignant plusieurs dizaines de milliers de dollars, majoritairement imputables aux associations locales qui ne paient pas leurs cotisations. Un problème de grande taille, c’est le moins qu’on puisse dire.

 

S’il fallait que je résume ces trois problèmes en un seul plus général, alors je dirais que l’ASSÉ souffre d’un manque de solidarité. C’est l’aliment principal de tout syndicat, sans quoi il ne peut pas vraiment vivre. L’ASSÉ doit donc: travailler à ce que sa base reprenne le goût de s’impliquer pour des enjeux qui touchent toutes les étudiantes et tous les étudiants, construire une véritable solidarité féministe dans ses rangs et finalement rétablir la confiance de ses associations locales pour qu’elles redeviennent solidaires entre elles et emploient l’argent de leurs cotisations à bon escient. Of course, lorsque je dis « l’ASSÉ doit », je veux dire « tous les membres et toutes les membres de l’ASSÉ doivent »! Car une association syndicale n’est rien sauf l’ensemble de ses membres qui sont prêts et prêtes à lutter, uni-es. Les problèmes de l’ASSÉ ne lui sont pas nécessairement uniques, ce sont des dangers qui guettent tout syndicat. La solidarité est à la fois un moyen de lutte et un objectif à atteindre, qui ne doit jamais être perdue de vue.

 

La solidarité syndicale étudiante

So that's what the labor movement has to do with student politics. Their objectives and methods may vary, but the student associations have everything to gain from adopting the union model, and everything to lose by neglecting to. ASSÉ was once the most popular vehicle of this student political solidarity, but it is perhaps no longer the case today. I am not attached, I was too young to really participate in the strike 2012, but I'm not as adamantly opposed others may be. What matters to me, and for which I argue, This is a student association that lives true solidarity and that is truly able to put into action the union pressure tactics to enforce its claims. I saw him at the congress of ASSE, local organizations want to work together, they want to fight together, even those in favor of the dissolution. Coalitions of individuals could well mobilize students, but only a union approach can maintain a ratio of sizable force to bend the government. The ASSE and its members face the difficult choice of letting die a formerly powerful mobilizing tool, or bet on resuscitation of what remains of this gear. It is simply to ensure that the solidarity, she, remains alive. Who knows, ASSE and other student associations would perhaps do well to emulate what the Wobblies are in Montreal? Après tout c’est un modèle syndical tel que celui du SITT-IWW qui prône la solidarité dans toutes ses luttes!

 

Solidarity forever,

 

X385004

 

Photo credit: https://commons.wikimedia.org

The absurdity of the world: the media

Today, with a theme such as communication tools that has the labor movement, I decided to tell you about what happens on the other side of the barricade. That is-say communication tools that has the ruling class and I named the mass media. You know, these great médias who wrap themselves in the virtue professional journalism and its pseudo-neutrality. wrongly is repeat and through the media do a good job, they are neutral, they serve to inform the public etc..

Let's start with the crux. The vast majority of the mass media have two main sources of funding : lState and advertising. L’It istat, in addition to financing its own media such as Radio-Canada and Télé-Québec, offer several grants to creators of cultural and media content. so far, one can understand the logic. DMoreover we can consider that currently the state media are among the most goals in our society. But still, it does not prevent the various governments who succeedednt playing with financing these media according to their interests. One could easily see the Stephen Harper who consistently cut funding for CBC, considered too independent power. From there to consider that these media are impartial, it would be like believing that the state is and it only works for the welfare of these citizens. Short, would be to put a finger in’eye. Does anyone really think that these companies are completely independent of government finance, appoints their boards, appoints executive etc. ? And of course, non.

The other source of funding for these media, it's advertising revenues. In the private, these are the majority of revenues. So logically we can say that private media should be able to sell the pub to be profitable. Therefore, we can already ask whether the mission of the media to inform the public does not come into contradiction with its obligation to sell the pub to survive. Once again, it's obvious. Starting from time, How can we distinguish a traditional advertising agency Media ? Well I do not believe that this distinction exists. These private medias, and so, profit, therent that enrich their investors, like any private company. Ponsequently, the real purpose of the media is to sell advertising, because that's what pays. How can we believe that the media can be neutral if they are subject to market fluctuations ? What media will investigate the shenanigans of a company that is also a big sponsor ? To ask the question is a bit respond.

This summer, I went for a walk on the picket line of Bérubé Chevrolet employees in Rivière-Du-Loup. A little less than a dozen mechanics are there locked out since July 2016 and it continues. The workers explained that they had no exposure mediateic in the local media ; it's like if they existed not. Can we believe it's a coincidence that Chevrolet Bérubé is also a big buyer of pubs in the local media ? Well no, there is no chance at this level. What media would spit out thousands of dollars in revenue for ten locked-out workers ? What about the public information ? All questions that we will never have the answers, but one can doubt here that there is a conflict of interest fairly marked.

Other zany story. I EarphonesIt is issuing Chiefs recently on Tou.tv. So a state media related to CBC. For those who knownt not, it is a reality of different species in which apprentice chefs cooks are competing to win different prizes. Short, a televised cooking competitions species. Eh good, As if that was not enough number of advertisings between the different segments of the transmission (at this level, let me tell you that this has evolved since opening Tou.tv. Maintenant, is made that the ad takes at least as much space on television). Besides these Ads, the show presents régulièrement its various sponsors : whether with the investment products like "You need to add a Nespresso coffee to your dish" or "The Quebec Maple Syrup Producers offer a scholarship 1000$ the challenge of winning, Besides mister judge, it is true that one can consume the sap ? Absolutely, c’est very refreshing, it's perfect for sports and blah blah blah ". You know what I mean. And that, is on public television, Now imagine the private. Sometimes, it is appropriate to ask whether what looks takes advantage of infopub or media content. In all of that, What about the public's right to neutral and objective information ?

Another thing to watch, it has the famous media. When one looks more near, we realize, the vast majority of the large private media belongs to the bosses of multinationals and other large conglomerates. Why do you think that these people want to own media ? For the simple profitability of these or because control information that the public receives, it makes a lot more powerful ? Once again, ask the question, it's a bit respond. These conglomerates and their leaders have interests to defend, it's obvious. Therefore, can you think, for example, on the subject of trade unionism, the media will have a neutral look in a labor dispute with a their subsidiary companys ? Quebecor, does that remind you of something ? Also, and more broadly, when you think that a man like Paul Desmarais, which owns La Presse in addition to hundreds of other business, will for example allow its journalists to cover a movement that goes against sbusiness interests are neutral and objective manner ? Can we think that when Pier-Karl Péladeau, aka "In French", stood for election, TVA and the Journal de Montreal treated himint like any politician ? The public's right to information they said…

With the same ideas, there is also the convergence, that is the idea of ​​grouping under one company different media entities, cultural, advertisers working in the same way. A particularly well-applied process in Quebecor, which owns newspapers, magazines, TV channels, a cable, publishers, production houses, stores books and music, distributors and lark. In a setting like this, pensez you seriously believe that the person criticism of the last book Éeditions of’Hhelpful (by the way what crap name) for review 7 days will tell us that the book was the shit ? Do you think the TV columnist of the Journal de Montreal will tell us that the programming of VAT is the shit ? Do you think the VAT emissions will give us the same way a film produced by Quebecor a film produced by a competitor ? We could go on like this for long. At least, we now know that the right to public information is what counts in Quebecor Media, especially not the enrichment of shareholders, tse.

Despite all that, there is no denying that some journalists do their job with a lot of integrity and sincerely trying to inform the public. It is a fact. On the other hand, can we really claim to neutrality and objectivity in a society like ours ? I do not believe. It is why I often prefer a person who will tell us in advance where she played a person claiming to be completely objective. Because we can not say that a journalist will not be influenced in its coverage by its Political Views, her values, his education, his class affiliation, its social network. for example, if a journalist deals with the record of a strike in a company and he will see that the employer sends a dedicated spokesperson in the communications public and working full time in the middle vs. the union sent hime a striking worker who ConnaîDoes nothing to journalistic interviews, eh Well it's obvious that he will find the most credible PR professional. In the same way, private media operate like any other business : we want to make theement. Is a journalist, put as Philip Tesceira-Lessard from La Presse, will have time to make a good research and contact all parties in action on one of sare subjects, put as the rise of the extreme violence left, and produce an article that does not turn corners, or is it obligedIt is to get out 3-4 articles per day to meet his boss who wants productivity ? One can ask whether our Philip will not only take the police gives information as to the cash and do a little internet research to lay a text 2000 words on the issue without much complicate the task ? Finally, not he will simply make an arm tactics to bring the repression table come the dawn G7 Charlevoix, while producing a sensational article that will please his boss ? The public's right to information they said…

Finishing, tell yourself that despite the bestes intentions on the part of a journalist, before its text was published, he must go through a review, will be read by a newspaper under team, will be placed in said magazine at a place that executives will decide according to the importance they want to agreeis the new, will potentially placed prBachelor a pub that will be complementary, the parties will be modified and probably also the title. In these conditions, that the media are neutral and yours goalst shameless advantage of the lie that the truth. The answer lies in the creation of independent media and removing the media market risks. Short, we have a right to quality public information on the day we déciderons out of capitalism. And that, it's called a revolution.

Source: Live action
Photo credit: http://outnewsglobal.com
,

The absurdity of the world: The use of technology

In the context of this chronicle of’Live Action I decided to talk to you about technological progress. It’s a bit related to everything we hear about the benefits of the famous participatory economy. In any case, benefits for employers and the elite who governs us. I decided to go there with a philosophical question today and ask you the following question : "Is our society progressing ? Is humanity progressing ? ». At first glance, we all want to answer "Well yes, we are now able to go to the moon, to cure cancer, we have hybrid vehicles ”. But if you scratch a little and decide to go a little further, is technological progress necessarily progress for humanity as a whole ? Because we born will not lie, who, in our society, has the technology ? Before it hits Wal-Mart shelves as a consumer product, who benefits from this technology ? The answer is very simple, she belongs to the wealthy class, the one who sends us memos at our workplaces to say that there will be less services for employees, the one who prefers to have a machine to replace cashiers in your grocery store or at McDonalds around the corner. Obviously for them, technological progress is useful : Ways to Cut Production Costs Are Found. Short, technology will always benefit first and foremost the wealthy and thex bourgeois of our society. You could call it class progress.

Offer a useful service or get rich?

If we start from the base, according to you, what is the purpose of a good capitalist ? Offer a quality service or product useful to humanity ? Offer quality jobs to its employees ? Non… The first goal of a capitalist is to get rich, to get rich, to fill your pockets. Based on this principle, obviously, his primary goal will be to cut his business expenses. By a strange coincidence, one of the main expenses of any business is workforce or if you prefer Newspeak : Human resources. If we can cut employees and replace them with robots, cheaper computers or other machines, what do you think the capitalist is going to want to do ? Ask the question, it's a bit respond… So, who benefits from technology in our wonderful system ? To the boss who saves production costs or to the employee who will be put in unemployment, because replaced by a robot ? It's the same principle as when a boss pays you for a cell phone, especially don't think he does it for your well-being : he knows very well that like that, you will be reachable 24 hours a day 24 and that, it suits him a lot more. It's the same with the so-called participatory economy like Uber and AirBnB. If we can get around the laws in force and save money by saying it's participatory, any capitalist will jump at the chance. Who will benefit ? To the drivers of taxi who pay their licence to do the same job as an Uber ? To the neighbors of AirBnB who will see their rent increase because its block has almost become a hotel ? Sure, non, only to the people who are going to get rich with these new technologies. Sure, if all these technologies belonged to the working class, you could say that humanity is progressing, that it’s progress for everyone to replace an ultra repetitive task with robots and thus, everyone has less work to do. But unfortunately, this is not how our society works.

Consumption and environment

A good capitalist, to get even richer, must always produce more and expand its market. How good, elite-funded studies and research are constantly trying to try to produce more and at a lower cost. This is where we come the phenomenon of overproduction. Since I am young, we are taught virtuously that we must not overconsume for the good of the planet. But what is the cause of this overconsumption ? Sure, it is the overproduction of the capitalists. They produce all kinds of kids who are worthless and who have no use in order to always get rich. Do you think the ownerstole of Dollarama has in mind the well-being of the planet when it fill his cheap junk shelves which he knows very well that the lifespan does not exceed 6 month ? Of course not, he only thinks ofx juicy profits that he will be able to put in the pockets and those of the other shareholders and that's it. Meanwhile, we blame the consumer, but we never don't blame the producer, the capitalist behind useless objects like fidget spinners. It’s always the buyer (so generally the working class) the problem and not the one who sells and markets shit products. Technology allows us to produce more at the expense of resources, produce more poor quality products, for one purpose : the one to enrich the employers. So I ask the question again, who benefits from technology ?

A question of Marketing

To sell all these useless kids, the capitalist invented a new science : Marketing. Today, universities are overflowing with research chairs whose aim is to deepen this pseudoscience that we could define by this expression : "The art of creating an artificial need in the mind of the consumer in order to make him buy something". Therefore, it makes our company overflowing with advertising everywhere to sell us something : on TV, in the newspapers, on the radio, in the streets, in the toilet, on our phones, on the Internet, at school, the job, etc. We create images of Mark to say that such a company is ethical because it gives money to the cause of sick children or to that of mental health. Bell cause for cause, what does that tell you ? The company that crunched at the door full of operators in Montreal to relocate its services at a lower cost. What a beautiful ethical company. All thanks to marketing. All that energy spent trying to sell junk like a vulgar peddler. Imagine if this research was more about creating better behavior in humans. We could in particular align research on issues like eliminating the culture of rape or racism. But no, we prefer to sell you auto insurance or an RRSP, it pays more for the capitalist. That brings me to a question : Who Benefits from Advances in Marketing ?

Sure, overproducing and inventing false needs, it is not yet enough to sufficiently enrich our good capitalist leaders. So they used technology to invent another concept : the one planned obsolescence. Does that remind you of something ? Planned obsolescence, is when a capitalist designs a consumer product to make sure it breaks after a certain time. Like that, well, no choice to buy another. If not, how is it explained that my parents have a fridge that dates from 40 years and that I never could in keep a nine over five ? This must be technological progress, right ? Seriously, technology has never been so advanced and we are led to believe that our fridges, our cars, our bulbs and most of the products we have now last less ? Yet this is what the capitalists do. Let's put ourselves in the shoes of the owner of the company Frigidaire and think for a moment. Yeah, I know, it’s not the most enjoyable is it… So, you are shareholders of the company Frigidaire, what is best for you : 1- Produce good quality refrigerators that will last a minimum 20 years or 2- Producing a lower quality refrigerator, which will therefore cost you less to produce, and that this one has a lifespan of 8 years ? You think, which will bring you more money ? The first one you will sell only once in 20 years or the one that you will be able to sell once and that after eight years, you will be able to resell a second ? Is it a conspiracy theory to think that the capitalists can see things as the number choice 2 ? This brings me to ask the question again : Whose profite technological progress ?

Big Brother and safe drift

Which brings me to safety technologies. Because by creating social inequalities like the capitalists do, it forces them to develop all kinds of technologies to monitor their employees or the plebs in general or even control the movements of revolt of those they crush. This is why we are witnessing a technological boom in the security technology world.. Surveillance cameras to avoid being robbed, or better yet, to be able to monitor its employees remotely. Anti-theft systems in stores. Alarm systems everywhere. Nuclear weapons to protect its privileges against the interests of other countries. Paramilitary police to intimidate any movement of revolt. Technology computer science in order to track people's consumption habits. Fleas that can be embedded under the skin of employees. The list is extremely long, but the conclusion remains the same. Who benefits from all these technological developments, if it’s only capitalists, to the rich and the bourgeois of our society. Our society will progress the day when these technologies will belong to the people and will serve the interests of all and not only the interests of a privileged few. Technology Will Be Useful Once In The Hands Of The Working Class, but for now, she only to contribute to increase the balance of power of the dominant class at the bottom of the pyramid.

Eric Sedition

 

Photo credit: http://scifiaddicts.com
,

Return on Capital and Labor: class collaboration in the labor movement

Salaries, for workers of a society dominated by the liberal or neoliberal economics, have represented and never will represent nothing more than a fraction of the value of our work once the capital has taken its share of social production(1). The capital reserves this before hand to redistribute the rest to employees as compensation which will vary according to the criteria of the "labor market" that seeks to impose a market value to jobs and self-employment (and thereby to employees and self-employed worker) as if it were a commodity. Although safe capitalism, that works only if it is constantly growing, use this share to grow and enhance the capacity to appropriate an ever greater share of this social production, making it a wealth concentration system that leads to the results that we know : a ridiculous number of individuals sharing a huge chunk of wealth, private means of production and therefore decide the directions that take this production (power). the haves, in this economic doctrine, So get the share of labor not obtained by workers. Since a long time, unionism is presented as a means to remedy this situation. Today, for example in Quebec and Canada, the unions have acquired the means and a number of members that go far beyond what would have wished the workers' organizations of the past. However, it seems more than ever an unlikely transformation of the social organization of scale (revolution) from these entities. Why is that? here , I leave you with a part of a text that offers an answer to this question and come back with my views on the issue.

…………………
Capital and labor : class collaboration in the labor movement
by : Victor Levant (doctoral candidate in political science at McGill University), publishing spark, 1977

chapter V11 : the class character of the union "in good faith»
work organization was illegal in its infancy but was finally obliged to grant a "right
association "because of the revolt of the working class. The concept underlying the definition
legal union activity, however, was derived from the vision of the capitalist world and reflect the interests of
the capital class. This "right" was granted reluctantly, conditional and only after
watered down the essence of the labor movement : a political movement to fight for the emancipation of
Working in an economic movement to fight for higher wages and better conditions
working. This "right" was finally granted once the content of this legal activity (the goal,
the principles, the strategy and tactics of syndicalism) reduced to harmless state. It manages to blow
brute force, judicial repression, corruption and ideological mystification.
Our analysis will show that the "right" of association is the right to organize some
way, in the interests of capital, i.e. in order to ensure continuity of the current mode of production,
Consequently, the exploitation of labor.

The legal definition of the activities of bona fide union proved to be nothing more than
class collaboration in the form of "respect for the law and authority". This meant that the work
recognized the legitimacy of the state apparatus. It maintained its domination - domination
in the Criminal Code of Canada, the Civil Code of the Province of Quebec and the labor code
of Quebec, dominance also ensured by the class nature of governments, of bureaucracy, of the
courts, Police and army, alternately, legislate, run, consider and enforce
lois. The essence of this device, is the dominance, political domination of capital over labor.
The Criminal Code of Canada and the Civil Code of Québec ensure the exploitation of labor by
legalization of private appropriation of social production, maintain the current mode of production
by legitimizing the work contract and defend the existing social structure in prescribing any
transformation of the state apparatus that protects this structure.

The Quebec Labor Code ensures the domination of capital over labor by prohibiting the fight
militant mass, en régularisant, "Routinisant" and individualizing the class conflict; he rocks
partial integration of the union in the state apparatus in making the legally responsible
the application of the collective agreement, finally, it ensures the dissemination of liberal mythology
implicit in the capitalist code : equality of the employer and the employee ("Equal rights"), society
classless ("the public") and state above classes ("Equality before the law").
…………….

That said, observing the current situation, it is obvious that this description of unionism corresponds to that of the major unions in Quebec that fall into this category and watered toothless version of what we can not even call a labor movement. The filing of a single special act of the Liberal government enough to return to work thousands of workers in the construction voting es for the strike and, in the virtual absence of protest. Current Unions have become so integrated into the state apparatus, that the state no longer needs to call its repressive forces to enforce the rules that the government invents progressively to the detriment of the working class. The union elites have enough power on their members to enforce laws, the more harmful they may, for workers.

Revolutionary syndicalism must resume its place in the landscape trade because trade unionism "in good faith" (in good faith) current is not suited to fight neoliberalism has accepted or been forced to be regulated to acquire legal status as suggested by the author of capital and labor. It was also developed in a political context in which it was popular to want to build, all together and coughs, together, "Social democracy" that will benefit all and all without having to question the social structure and the state apparatus that protects (ideological mystification?). This revolutionary unionism must exert pressure that will intensify son years by issuing a credible critique of the current unionism by texts, actions and mobilization of employees in job areas forgotten by the current unionism (restoration, retail, troubleshooter, self-employed, Community etc.). It must also as with e Mapei and Canada Post employees support the union members of victims union practices in line of class collaboration. Short, he must push the unions to regain its essence : produce movement leading to the emancipation of labor to eliminate the dominance of holders of capital and means of production and also eliminate the domination of the state that defends the legal structures that allow the private appropriation of social production. This, rather than lead a strictly economic struggle to ensure that these proprietors are willing to accept to be more "generous" in the redistribution of social production over wages. That's why I consider syndicalism is more relevant than ever and that his positions, its principles and its actions, can make tracks for the reappropriation of work solution (power) by the world's workers.

 

X377208

(1) I mean social production, all work performed by a company considering that each economic sector, functions and activities
are interdependent including e.g. : student work(sharing, acquisition and improvement of knowledge), student internships, Household work, education of children, autonomous work, citizen participation etc..

,

A union to reframe the conflict

I'm sitting in the dust at the door of the warehouse loading dock in which I work, feet dangling outside, steep sick of my week, watching backyard full of cigarette butts and plastic pieces flying in the wind and that will end up in water, somewhere, to reduce our life expectancy to support a self-destructive system. I took me a while only break this afternoon. To be honest, I did not often takes; I prefer to take an hour rather than half an hour for dinner or go 10 minutes before the end of the story day to arrive early at home, but I'm in there ... tabarnaque, and there I had a little breakdown.

What happened ? What pisses me off ? Hmm ... it would be complicated to simply explain, but if I wanted to try to summarize the, I would say that I can see over the lack of culture of solidarity and democracy of our society is that my job (and almost all other, even those that are unionized by "traditional" unions), it's a pain in the ass constant ! It is an endless series of problems that never manages to settle for the simple reason that we can not think outside the box ! I look forward to the one returned in the head once and for all, everyone together : it absolutely useless to try to improve our working conditions if not take control of the company to complete, and that, almost nobody, even traditional unions, seems to understand !

However, for someone who, like me, constantly working in direct democracy outside his job and who knows how that changes the whole way to settle (or rather avoid) all conflicts that cause hierarchy, it is a simple fact : As long we're going to struggle to increase our power against the boss (or in the form, but let's focus on the boss today) rather than to abolish, we will continually trying to divide us !

What I mean by that ? I give you two reasons why I went outside ventilate, you've probably seen you so your job, and you will understand everything :

 

The conflict overtime


In my work that works very seasonally, my boss used until recently the operation of the labor code called "the spread of hours" of paying all their employees 40 hours per week, they have worked 15 or 50, in order to, they said, "They ensure a steady income", then, to accumulate their extra time and pay them single hourly rate (rather than rate 1.5) six months or paid vacation. Without wishing to dwell on the details, this maneuver I found unlawful because the company I work for meet any of the criteria necessary to do, meant that, on the 100 at 200 hours of overtime they accumulated individually by six months, we had the equivalent of flying 50 at 100 working hours, either 750 at 2500 $ each !

When I started this fight alone, not having had the time to organize my colleagues because of a time constraint, their lack of awareness of the need to take control of the company is that they have quickly leveled in two positions that clash and there are still : The first, adopted primarily by young people - and strongly influenced by the intervention of Boss while on holiday - is that if we go ahead with the idea of ​​forcing the company to meet labor standards, it will hire additional staff to avoid having to pay us extra time to rate 1.5 and short, we can do more overtime, some need to get to the end. It is better, according to these colleagues-there anyway, work overtime single rate than not do at all (What a wage increase could very well do the job too but ... one thing at a time).

The other position, adopted mainly by fathers better paid and busier than they, is applauding the idea that despite the loss of potential earnings that decreased our hours may incur, we will finally be able to live a little and take care of our families, and that's exactly what everyone is almost needed.

But there, is shit ! Everyone is divided ! And while the two side clash and, if not think outside the context in which "was boss" and where "employees do not control the company from A to Z", absolutely right, I know very well (and I try to make them understand) that if we, the workers, all decisions were taken together, sans boss, we would not even have this debate here insolvent !

Think about it : Already, we would have much more income to the base because we would have no astronomical salaries bosses pay, Moreover, one could also ourselves reach an agreement that ensures that those who want to work more could do so and those who want to work less could do it too. It is even us who would control how many employees we engage or not ! It would fully, control on overtime, and fathers can see their children and spouse-es while young could work like crazy and buy a house, pay for their education or making the rounds of all the festivals in Quebec if it enchants. It sounds like you are not a solution for everyone that ?!?

But no ... as not take power, neither option is currently good for everyone, and during that time, everyone pisses, divides itself, and my boss continue to roll with the chariots 100 000 $ we pay them.

The "Yes-mans» against the "Slackers»


Because there is only one person (myself) in the warehouse of a company in which he could easily have three, the company's warehouse for which I work is continuously the position neck, that is to say one in which he clearly lacks staff, forcing everyone to regularly interrupt his work to come give me a hand even if they themselves are also kept busy. Is repeated every day, nonstop, and for months : you have to hire one more person in the warehouse because I always have to run and cut corners to reach the end of the day and it generates lots of errors and problems that make life miserable for everyone, except my boss, of course.

Here again, only because we are trying to solve the problem other than taking control of the company from A to Z, two opposing views, divide us, and make the unbearable work environment : The first is that, while actively asking our employers to hire an additional person until they find (but they do not because they have a salary of more pay), one must "work as a team and help each other", and so, when a position is overwhelmed, we must not abandon our or our colleague(s) only(s) and leave our work at the end of the day without giving him a hand. Let's, it's a great mentality, solidarity ! But as part of a job in a workplace where there is no 100 % power, it is rather a mentality yes-man or larbin. This is nothing more than to kiss his slavery to want to be exploited more for the same salary in exchange for "pride in being hard-working guy", and it is a hosts of shit mentality in that context !

In the reverse, the second (very individualistic, many corporatist unions adopt, and that costs a fortune grievances) is that we should not play the game bosses by helping each other or by working harder if the problem is, originally, that lack of staff, because no matter how much work we will do, we will earn the same salary, and short, the more we will work, the more you will actually use, So we stick to our job and it ends there. I would call this mentality then that of slacker. But the problem with it, This is what must be realistic and realize that, as it is still capitalism that I know, the job must be done a day or another if we want the company continues to roll and generate income, and that if we simply make the minimum all the time, all the money, beautiful condition, holiday weeks, etc, we could go looking through our unionism, where he lost the !

Put another way, while being slackers, we diminish our hourly output, so, even if we fight fiercely for our excellent wages by unions, we will need to work more hours to get to finally consecrate our camp with us at the end of the day, or more years before they can finally take our retraire, and more, allowed our single-es overworked colleagues while you listen to YouTube videos rather than going to help or go home, because we want to do our 40h, but by doing as little as possible.

It, when it is YOU poor overloaded moron for six months, I can tell ... it makes you want to freak as I am trying to do then dret ! Short, in a hierarchical framework, this shit is as much a mindset as that of yes-mans, at the end.

So if we look at it from afar, without considering the option to take full control of the company and dismiss boss, we realize that on the one hand, work hard is not good, and secondly, do not work hard either, this is not good, and short, no matter what we do, c'est-à-dire qu'on soit of a extreme to the other, or even in the center, was ALWAYS a mentality of shit. This is ridiculous eh ?

Well that's why he must stop fooling around and divide between yes-mans and the slackers, and only take total control of the site to appropriate 100% revenues (or rather 100% the power to appropriate the). It should blow up in our faces it seems : The day the money that wins or loses our workplace will be ours, nobody will be exploited, but especially, nobody will have the incentives to do as little as possible and will put his colleagues in trouble by doing. And if you look even further, the day when all the whole economy will be finally controlled by workers, and collectivized, we will not even have to give trouble to compete and to self-operate to prevent competitors make us close.

 

Conclusion


As my two examples show, how we see the problems at work (and society, as well), it is often in "framing" things within a necessarily hierarchical world, and it limits our ability to see the problem itself well ... it is often PRECISELY hierarchy. It is important to take it back there! You really think that a horizontal dynamic, direct democracy, would be, and what would change in our close relations, our block, our neighborhood, our workplace, our region, and the relationship between all the different parts of the world, if not, we always turn around in circles, repeating endlessly the same mistakes and trying the same loop "solutions".

We need to get into the habit, the reflex, think about it every day, in every conflict, in each issue that involves somewhere people experiencing hierarchy, and I swear that we will soon collectively understand this analogy a bit simplistic here, I use all the time, but that sums up the stuff anyway, which is that "while the reformists are wondering whether to use a large low-flow pipe or a small broadband pipe to fill the pool leaking, the anticapitalist, we, proposed to plug the leak !»

it plugs, this leak out !

 

X377131

 

*The absence of constant feminine endings is not an error or failure; rather it reflects the sad reality that there is no woman in my workplace now, and it is not a coincidence, but it will be the subject of another text.

 

Photo credit: led-lighting-product